This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new
So_Cynical said:
Is it just a coincidence that the vast majority of deniers come form the right side of politics
Click to expand...

Is it just a coincidence that the vast majority of alarmists come form the left side of politics?

...and its the right side of politics in generals that struggles with change
Click to expand...

Please substantiate this statement
 
So_Cynical said:
..its the right side of politics in generals that struggles with change....
Get a grip man.
Click to expand...
Stereotype alert. GST anyone.

Get a grip - on what. It's fairly clear what most of the alarmists are gripping.
 
So_Cynical said:
Oz i wish i could find a decent picture of a man grasping for straws...would be a very appropriate response to pretty much all your denial support posts.
Click to expand...

Speaking of denial - Do you agree or disagree that the IPCC changed the 1000 yr temperature history between the AR1/AR2 and AR3 to remove the Medieval Warming period? Yes or No will suffice.

Does the AR3 "Hockey stick" show warmer temperatures today v's the AR1/2 charts? Again, a yes or no will suffice.

Just so there's no confusion - since many AGW alarmists on this thread tend to forget what their own climate change prophets, the IPCC have preached...

  • IPCC AR1 and AR2 reports have the Medieval Warming Period that show higher temperatures than today.
  • AR3 has the medieval warming period removed and the "unprecedented" warming hockey stick added to the 20th Century as described here in an attempt to prove Man is heating the earth by CO2 emissions

Hopefully these tough "denier" questions can be answered quickly by alarmists so we can obtain some basic agreement on the IPCC changing their temp histories and move one step forward.
 
wayneL said:
Please substantiate this statement
Click to expand...

Oh com on ...the American right, a decade of Howard nothingness, how can i substantiate that sugar is sweet?

OzWaveGuy said:
Hopefully these tough "denier" questions can be answered quickly by alarmists so we can obtain some basic agreement on the IPCC changing their temp histories and move one step forward.
Click to expand...

Your not a man grasping at straws...your graphing at a hockey stick.

Who cares......the charts are not a record of absolute certainty, same as the forward projections, models etc...what's certain is glacier melt, sea ice melt, deforestation, unprecedented release of long term stored carbon and development that is unsustainable using current technology's.

Medieval temperature anomaly = care factor zero.
 
So_Cynical said:
Oh com on ...the American right, a decade of Howard nothingness, how can i substantiate that sugar is sweet?
Click to expand...

Ahhhh so no real attampt as substantiation.

I guess it's like Log said - stereotype alert. Shall we start on the leftist stereotypes then?
 
wayneL said:
Is it just a coincidence that the vast majority of alarmists come form the left side of politics?
Click to expand...

Please substantiate that statement !!!!!!!!!!!

There are alarmists. There are also realists. It is realistic to believe that we are degrading the planet. It is realistic that a lot of people don't give a damn. It is realistic to believe that there are others that care. It is realistic to believe that there are some on both side of politics. If the majority are on the left side of politics maybe then it would be right to say that the right worship the dollar more than the left.
 
Aahh, but the left have a realistic motivation to believe.
Don't they want to use it as an excuse for more taxes so they can keep up interest payments on the wild spending sprees?

Maybe too simplistic...lol.:couch
 
nioka said:
Please substantiate that statement !!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
You don't do irony? Are you American?

Yes, but these are issues not necessarily related to purported AGW. DO not be so silly to confuse the two.

If the majority are on the left side of politics maybe then it would be right to say that the right worship the dollar more than the left.
Click to expand...

No.

Different style, but greed exists is on both wings.
 
wayneL said:
You don't do irony? Are you American?
Yes, but these are issues not necessarily related to purported AGW. DO not be so silly to confuse the two.
.
Click to expand...

Can boast British,Scots and German but no American. (Thought that what was good for the goose was good for the gander.)

The two subjects are intertwined to a point that to deny one then you can easily deny the other. What does it matter if the polution is fixed by assuming global warming and there was not going to be global warming. At least the polution is fixed.
 
nioka said:
The two subjects are intertwined to a point that to deny one then you can easily deny the other. What does it matter if the polution is fixed by assuming global warming and there was not going to be global warming. At least the polution is fixed.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.
 

Never a straight answer from an alarmist - Let me rephrase, do you think there is a possibility that the climate establishment (as documented) could be corrupt? I'm not after your opinions on the state of the world climate atm.
 
If you had but a shred of honesty, you'd simply say "I don't know" instead of obfuscating with this above totally meaningless non-answer.

And (although I usually refrain from correcting your woeful spelling and punctuation), you've just done it once too often with "technology's".
Why are you using an apostrophe, fergawdsake? It's completely wrong.

Try "technologies".

Can't you get some sort of spellcheck/punctuation programme to attach to your posts?
 
nioka said:
The two subjects are intertwined to a point that to deny one then you can easily deny the other. What does it matter if the polution is fixed by assuming global warming and there was not going to be global warming. At least the polution is fixed.
Click to expand...
To a very large extent the reverse is true.

One of the key advantages of oil and gas is that, apart from CO2, they are relatively benign in terms of environmental impact. Prior to the emergence of the CO2 issue, environmentalists were generally opposed to basically every form of electricity generation other than oil / gas for this very reason. Everything else either costs a fortune, isn't reliable or has a greater non-CO2 impact.

One of the things that worries me about the climate issue, is that we're going to do a hell of a lot of other environmental damage trying to cut CO2. We'd better be pretty sure that CO2 is really a problem given the consequences of getting it wrong in either direction are pretty serious environmentally.
 
Planes, Trains and Automobiles (and Carbon)

The AGW alarmists have lapped up so much climate change propaganda their vision is blurred whilst failing to ask their climate change prophets the obvious questions esp in the realm of corruption amongst a host of "others".

Just to be clear - the environment is a good thing to fight for and I doubt anyone believes it isn't, but there's a difference between driving a corrupt propaganda campaign (that we clearly know is a Banking and Taxation political campaign) versus collective agreements to identify real environmental problems whilst at the same time keeping the Banks, ineffective Taxes and corrupt Science (eg end the AGW grant gravy train) away from the solutions.

Amongst the host of "other" questions is the willingness of AGW alarmists to follow AGW “celebrities” that are clearly puppets of the AGW propaganda machine without asking the most basic questions. Such as: do they act like they preach....


Al Gore – High Priest of Global Warming
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/a/al_gore_energy.htm

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh - more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh - guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.​


With five private jets, Travolta still lectures on global warming

From a 2007 article

But although he readily admitted: "I fly jets", he failed to mention he actually owns five, along with his own private runway.

Clocking up at least 30,000 flying miles in the past 12 months means he has produced an estimated 800 tons of carbon emissions – nearly 100 times the average Briton's tally.

Travolta made his comments this week at the British premiere of his movie, Wild Hogs.

He spoke of the importance of helping the environment by using "alternative methods of fuel" – after driving down the red carpet on a Harley Davidson.
​
'Avatar' Director James Cameron to Discuss Climate Change, Environmental Policy on AFGE Radio Show
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...ental-policy-on-afge-radio-show-92438979.html

Cameron, who recently visited Capitol Hill to discuss the threat of climate change, will share his thoughts on U.S. environmental policy and his role in the climate change debate.​


But James Cameron withdraws from own climate change debate
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/296631

Cameron challenged Climate Depot’s Marc Morano, Andrew Breitbart and filmmaker Ann McElhinney. He also made several demands, which included his own team of two scientists, a 90-minute debate, live online streaming and even hoped that it would attract mainstream media coverage.

According to the Canada Free Press, the skeptics agreed and everything was organized and scheduled to take place on Aug. 22 at the conclusion of the AREDAY conference in Aspen. However, Cameron made even further demands: Cameron wanted to change his team, make it a roundtable discussion instead of a debate, ban the opposing side’s cameras but he later changed that and wanted all cameras to be banned and only allow audio recordings.

The challengers agreed. Once again, though, Cameron revised the rules and wanted all media to be banned, make the roundtable discussion only to those attending the conference, cancel the online streaming and ban any kind of recording.

The skeptics agreed but on the day of the event, Cameron withdrew from the debate completely​


James Cameron – climate alarmists hypocrite just cannot "live with less" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKZ4RolQxec

Lookup your favourite celeb to see if they have a masive carbon footprint (and private jets).
 

Attachments

  • travoltapilotREX_468x502.jpg
    82.6 KB · Views: 106
Anybody know that Al Gore has millions invested in a company called Generation Investment Management LLP that trades in carbon credits and stands to make billions out of this ?? He also claims that buying carbon credits offsets his carbon footprint. OOOOPSIES !

 
Julia said:
Can't you get some sort of spellcheck/punctuation programme to attach to your posts?
Click to expand...
So Cynical, I should not have allowed my irritation with your silly answer to spill over into criticism about your spelling/punctuation, however much it gets to me.
I apologise for this.
 

Al Gore is also Patron of the World Green Movement. Ki Moon the UN Secretary General is also a Greens sympathizer with Kevin Rudd appointed by him to be on the Climate change committee.

In the Australian today is a great article, defining ALARMIST, SCEPTICS and climate change AGNOSTICS. Worth a read.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...the-wrong-policy/story-e6frg6zo-1225942965363
 
noco said:
In the Australian today is a great article, defining ALARMIST, SCEPTICS and climate change AGNOSTICS. Worth a read.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...the-wrong-policy/story-e6frg6zo-1225942965363
Click to expand...

I had difficulty understanding the purpose of the article since Geoff Carmody assumes "there might be a man-made problem" off the bat and develops policy to support it. Nevertheless, noco it was a very interesting find...read on.

What stood out for me is the reference in the very last sentences
"What does the Productivity Commission think? Will it be asked its opinion?"​

Some of you might think "Who cares what the Productivity Commission thinks" or "who is the Productivity Commission", but let's walk through what the Commission published in 2008 and suddenly many of you will have flashbacks of the Copenhagen treaty from 2009 - it's clear the commission has a view, but perhaps not well circulated to the Australian Public...

What is the Productivity Commission?
The Productivity Commission, is the Australian Government’s independent research and advisory body on a range of economic, social and environmental issues affecting the welfare of Australians. Its role, expressed most simply, is to help governments make better policies, in the long term interest of the Australian community. The Commission’s independence is underpinned by an Act of Parliament. Its processes and outputs are open to public scrutiny and are driven by consideration for the well being of the community as a whole.​

Here's an interesting extract from a Speech in 2008...

"Governments will also have to confront the argument that new industry policies are required to address the changing nature of innovation and the ‘new world order’ brought about by globalisation and climate change".​

Ah, there's that "New World Order" term again - bubbling up in Government policy. As you can see, Gary makes a direct linkage with climate change driving the new world order agenda (along with Globalisation).

Fast forward 12 months to 2009, the Copenhagen Treaty with it's focus on wealth transfer and Global Governance briefly dicussed in this post suddenly becomes of context in the strategy for the new world order (as many have already published across the net).

The New World Order/Global Governace agenda has been the basis of the climate change strategy and is being implemented covertly.

The Department of Climate Change tries to debunk the World Government agenda as a myth. Obviously so many people complained in the run up to Copenhagen and Monckton's YouTube videos that it needed to alleviate these fears, however, what is clear is that the World Government Agenda was already in discussions within the Australian Government at least a year earlier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
20K
ducati916
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
ducati916
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
1K
divs4ever
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
12K
basilio
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...