Have you even wondered why mainstream climate science is such obvious junk?
Such as climate models predicting temperatures up to the year 2100.
Deranged junk? Of course it is. Useful idiots may go along with it, but no serious scientist believes crap like this. Although climate change is often presented as a scientific matter, many of us know it’s a political game.
Climate propaganda seems to be well rooted in left-wing energy politics – a long-term game to achieve global socialism via energy equality. I’ll call it left-wing and socialism as a matter of convention – fascist or communist would be just as appropriate. It’s a matter of taste.
The main political given says nobody should be allowed to consume more natural resources than anyone else. Next to food and water, the prime natural resource is energy and energy equality lies behind climate propaganda – not climate science.
The second political given says traditional energy sources such as fossil fuels and uranium, are finite and insufficiently abundant for long term global use. So if everyone can’t use them, nobody should be allowed to use them. It’s more nuanced of course, but essentially this is the political narrative behind climate propaganda.
Fossil fuels and uranium may be finite in an absolute sense, but that doesn’t tell us much. It depends on timescales, discoveries and technical developments which have not yet happened. Our current understanding is not deep enough to say when these fuels could become economically inaccessible. The uncertainty may well be a matter of centuries.
So the UN, as the global sponsor of climate propaganda, is promoting energy equality as a matter of global socialist policy – not as a matter for scientific debate or further negotiation.
Energy production and use is the main source of many of the threats to the Earth’s atmosphere. Despite tremendous increases in commercial energy use to date, the majority of the global population still has inadequate access to the kind of energy services enjoyed by the inhabitants of the industrialized countries. A lack of adequate energy services is one of the symptoms of poverty. The inequalities are so large that it would be virtually impossible for the majority of the world’s population to enjoy similar resource intensive energy-use patterns as those prevailing in the industrialized countries. More sustainable energy patterns throughout the world and the protection of the atmosphere are recognized as important policy objectives at both the national and international levels. International environmental agreements are being extended from the local and national to international levels.
COMMITTEE ON NEW AND RENEWABLE
SOURCES OF ENERGY AND ON
ENERGY FOR DEVELOPMENT
Second session
New York, 12 – 23 February 1996
For climate sceptics, this is the real issue. It doesn’t really matter how thoroughly the science is trashed, it will just keep on coming at us. It is already morphing into sustainable development because the climate science based on CO2 alarmism is so obviously silly.
But even the silliness doesn’t matter too much. Junk science will do – it’s merely a matter of presentation. The underlying policy is not about to change and in any event the UN is not likely to run out of journalists and scientists prepared to swap their integrity for a career.
At the moment there only seems to be one major stumbling block to all of this – shale gas.
Because you have been BRAINWASHED by large commercial interests, that’s why?
What will it take to convince you that the scientists, you know, people like the Royal Society, and the US eqivalent, and all the others in places like Germany & France are correct, and the Koch brothers and (some) oil compnies are lying for profit?
Tell it to the farmers – amost anywhere!
They probably won’t believe you.
ooh! – is that irony?
NO
IT IS FACT
GROW UP
Droughts and heatwaves (Russia, Africa, USA etc), ridiculous winter drought, followed by summer downpours (here, N France, Belgium, Netherlands) etc
ASK A FARMER
Unprecedented no doubt. Go and read a history book Greg. The heatwaves & fires in Russia weren’t in any way. None of what you cite is unprecedented It’s happened in my lifetime so doubtless in yours. Grow up.
DaveE.
How much money has been politically thrown around to support the Greens’ ideas? Too much to calculate, but more than enough for large numbers of ignorant politicians to eagerly dip their snouts.
If scientific evidence supported the Greens’ extreme views they wouldn’t need to try to convince with a ‘new science’ dependent on misleading press-releases and models. If they could present evidence they wouldn’t need Witch-Finders going “you’ve neen BRAINWASHED, you have!”
“The second political given says traditional energy sources such as fossil fuels and uranium, are finite…” and the Green-EU Watermelon piously prays ‘therefore these must be protected so that future generations can’t use them either’.
Western civilisation is dependent upon real science and working engineering, rather than sterile religious/political faiths threatened by Reason improving the quality of life for most.
Our technological advancements are built upon the ingenious explorations of previous generations, as we should similarly be the base for future generations so they can explore and learn further. We shouldn’t be undermining the future by allowing the mangling of science by weirdoes, and trying to go backwards to when Faith could always shout down and burn Reason.
The Greens are simply one more ideological group trying to forcefully impose their impoverishing opinions and take us to their Year Zero. After all, it worked so well for Cambodia, with widespread starvation and mass murder!
“We shouldn’t be undermining the future by allowing the mangling of science by weirdoes, and trying to go backwards to when Faith could always shout down and burn Reason.”
Exactly – well said.
Nothing to do with the “Greens” – very fortunately.
They wouold not “let” us use nuclear power if they had their way.
You are confusing two very separate issues.
So we are not advancing our use and knowledge of nuclear technology because???
DaveE.
Good response there by GT: “Anybody who disagrees with him has been brainwashed by the Koch Brothers. There is no room for debate.”
Now, as it happens, the Koch Brothers are nasty pieces of work and fund all sorts of anti-land value tax and pro-Value Added Tax campaigns, like the Fair Tax campaign and possibly the Tea Party.
But I doubt that they’ve ever reached into mind of the author of this post and cunningly reset the dials to “climate denier”.
PLEASE
The Kochs have funded climate denial stuff…..
And the author of this post bel;ieves this guff, becaue he wants to.
Like a good catholic, who ignores the 2000 years of lies blackmail & murder that that organoisation has produced …..
Can you cite please?
DaveE.
the Koch Brothers are nasty pieces of work
Think they’re trying to counterbalance Soros and the global left gang.
At least Soros comes out and says what he says, we know who and what he is. We merrily disagree with him and there’s no hard feelings. The Koch Brothers (large landowners, monopolists etc) use all sorts of front organisations.
Tides Foundation? Moveon.org? To name but two ‘Front organisations’. Soros is in it for himself, just as the Koch Brothers are. There is nothing to choose between them.
AH
That’s like saying, in the 1930′s, that the Nazis are good guys, because the Soviets were evil.
Whereas, BOTH are/were evil.
Now, does that help?
perhaps when the first of those academic societies consults it’s members before making these declaretions? They have all been made by management committees so far
Why is it that fascist left-wing socialist globalists always want to bring everything down to the lowest possible level rather than looking at lifting everything up to the highest level attainable?
But then, I assume, that would defeat their world view of them being the elite upper level leading all the obedient minions. This is where the fascist left-wing socialist always falls down, the idea of them being equal above everyone else with some of them being more equal than others. The only thing is, their ideal never works out or lasts in the end.
Shale gas is not the only potential stumbling block. There is some weight of opinion that oil is not a fossil fuel, and will continue to be produced ad infinitum.
“…Stalin’s team of scientists and engineers found that oil is not a ‘fossil fuel’ but is a natural product of planet earth – the high-temperature, high-pressure continuous reaction between calcium carbonate and iron oxide – two of the most abundant compounds making up the earth’s crust. This continuous reaction occurs at a depth of approximately 100 km at a pressure of approximately 50,000 atmospheres (5 GPa) and a temperature of approximately 1500°C, and will continue more or less until the ‘death’ of planet earth in millions of years’ time.”
link to canadafreepress.com
I would imagine the oil companies are keeping very quiet about that one, if true. It would create havoc with the price of crude.
Absolutely disagree with this post. Climate change (global warming) is real. There is as much serious scientific opposition to the existence of climate change, as there is serious scientific opposition to evolution as a scientific theory.
No one disputes the existence of ‘climate change’ – it’s been changing ever since it was created. The argument is MAN-MADE climate change (as I’m sure you realise and I’ve been ‘picky’ to point out).
There is STILL no empirical evidence to prove man as being a substantial contributor to global warming. None, zilch, nada….. other than computer models that we all know run on GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).
Until we get this EMPIRICAL proof any efforts to combat climate change (and the taxation raised towards that effort) is disingenuous to say the least.
OK, I agree you’re being a bit picky, but you have the advantage of being correct.
The problem with empirical evidence is that the mean global temperature is rising at about 0.2 degrees per decade. I don’t know where you live, but here at my place, temperatures ranged from about -15°C to +35°C last year, a range of 50°C. Measuring an annual change of 0.02°C is kind of hard amongst all that noise. This means that empirical evidence to *prove* global warming is going to be hard to come by; it’s only going to give us *evidence* that might (or might not) support the hypothesis of global warming.
None the less, real measurements show that the regions around the polar ice caps are warming at about twice the average global rate. Empirical observations show melting of polar ice caps. Look at temperature records to see when the 15 hottest years on record have been.
The main way in which predictions of climate change are made is through computer models. The hugely complex interactions of air, land and sea that affect the climate are modeled, and then the behavior of this model is studied against known climate changes that have happened in the past and that have been measured in (for example) ice cores and tree rings. Once the model behaves like the measured results, some confidence exists in the model.
The problem with 0.2 degrees per decade is that this rate of rise will be with us for a long time, and in a couple of hundred years, we’ll know all about it. Or our (great**n grand-children will.
Of course climate changes, but CO2 isn’t likely to be the main driver and in spite of what you may have heard, this is the scientific consensus. The sun is a far more likely driver.
To preface, I am not an expert, and have no dog in this fight, other than wanting to know if my grandkids should develop webbed feet.
I have read a few papers on the subject, including ones which account for solar forcing, and CO2 still appears to be the problem.
I also note that every anti-AGW speech and video that I have seen uses the SAME outdated and incorrect graphs to show that it isn’t happening.
There is also the issue of the anti-AGW physicist from Berkeley (Steven Fuller?), who was hired by the Koch brothers, or some similar entities, to debunk the data, and came to the conclusion that the other view was scientifically valid.
Yes
The Berekey study is VERY VERY EMBARASSING to people like Higham.
They try to pretend it doesn’t exist.
Rather like the creationists recycling, for the 50th time the same outdated, wrong sets of lies & deceptions.
I checked, the guy was Richard Fuller.
I assume you mean Richard Muller.
Where is the Oregon petition pertaining to evolution then?
Poverty is one of the symptoms of a lack of adequate energy services.
Fixed.
DaveE.