|
December 26, 2009
Prostitution Services
Andrew Cockburn, who is not a conservative politically, has a few words about what is really behind the global warming scam. You will note that the piece appears on Counter Punch which is not in any way shape or form associated with American Conservative thought. Shortly before the Copenhagen summit the proponents of anthropogenic - human-caused - global warming (AGW) were embarrassed by a whistleblower who put on the web over a thousand emails either sent from or received at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia headed by Dr Phil Jones, who has since stepped down from his post - whether temporarily or permanently remains to be seen. The CRU was founded in 1971 with funding from sources including Shell and British Petroleum. At that time the supposed menace to the planet and to mankind was global cooling, a source of interest to oil companies for obvious reasons.You will also note that James Hansen, one of the cheer leaders for global warming, was at one time funded by Enron. He also has a peculiar stance on fossil fuels. Coal bad, natural gas good. I don't see why one form of CO2 (from coal) is worse than the CO2 from another source (natural gas). Mr Cockburn continues with: After some initial dismay at what has been called, somewhat unoriginally, "Climategate" the reaction amid progressive circles - 99 per cent inhabited by True Believers in anthropogenic global warming - has been to take up defensive positions around the proposition that deceitful manipulation of data, concealment or straightforward destruction of inconvenient evidence, vindictive conspiracies to silence critics, are par for the course in all scientific debate and, although embarrassing, the CRU emails in no way compromise the core pretensions of their cause.The camp followers and prostitutes are sure to be pissed if the global cooling predicted by Russian scientists in 2006 comes to pass. Khabibullo Abdusamatov expects a repeat of the period known as the Little Ice Age. During the 16th century, the Baltic Sea froze so hard that hotels were built on the ice for people crossing the sea in coaches.There are signs: Rare blizzard strikes West Texas. DALLAS -- In much of the rolling plains of West Texas, a blizzard has never been recorded.Blizzards in China. There is a lot more bad weather going around. Compare the predictions of Britain's Meteorological Office to current reality. And a look at how China is profiting from the AGW scare is instructive. So you think giving developing countries all those free "carbon credits" is going to cut greenhouse gas emissions and save the planet? Think again.And how is China doing? Pretty damn good. The level of China's involvement, as a major beneficiary of the scheme, makes a nonsense of the commentators at Copenhagen who were predicting that China might sabotage a deal. With so much money at stake, there was no way China was not going to fall into line, showing up the much-reported spat between Obama and Chinese premier Wen Jiabao for exactly what it was - pure theatre.As with all prostitutes the haggling is not about the act it is about the price. The tree-huggers have been well and truly "had" - but then so have we. It is us that are going to pay, through our electricity bills, our taxes and living expenses, in increasing amounts for this hidden bonanza which the negotiators so diligently protected last week.It is becoming more obvious every day that the prostitutes did have sex but it is the customers who got fucked. If people are paying for Global Warming and they are actually are getting Global Cooling I predict that in time even true believers will begin to howl at being duped. At least the honest ones. There is also another synonym for "Big Carbon". I like to call them The Climate Cartel. You might find this book of interest: Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed. Lubos Motl of the Reference Frame did. During my years in the U.S. Academia, I experienced a couple of events related to the global warming propaganda that I found stunning. Scientists around me (including myself) were subjects of intimidation and disciplinary proceedings - or they were instantly fired - because of their skeptical views about the climate change (or even for skeptical results of their work).Thank you Lubos. If we don't defeat these profiteers we are well and truly screwed. There is hope. Via the Examiner we see a report in the Christian Science Monitor. It tells us that a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50 percent of likely (US) voters now believe that global warming is caused primarily by long-term planetary trends.Religion? Isn't Global Warming, fraudulent though it may be, science? Not according to a British Court. With a blanket of Global Warming spreading across North America I predict a rush of believers to the Church exits. I hope no one gets trampled. But I'm not in the main sympathetic to the believers, considering how many of them have yelled "fire" on a crowded planet. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 12.26.09 at 05:22 PM
Comments
carbo, It doesn't matter who the scientists are. What matters is if they can make verifiable predictions based on their understanding. The Russians predicted cooling (in 2006) the AGW crowd did not. It appears to be cooling. 2008 cooler than 2007 and 2009 cooler than 2008. It got Pachauri so spooked he was predicting cooling until 2020 last year. But prediction doesn't work that way. You are supposed to predict BEFORE the establishment of a trend. But I'll give you that quoting Russians does have a certain hint of desperation on my part. So how about the head of the IPCC: "Someone, somewhere, is not telling the truth ... either that, or we just don't know as much about the climate as we thought," said IPCC head, Rajendra Pachauri http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/009807.html ======= BTW do you think China is going to go with all natural gas before their CO2 output doubles? Or India? And I do note that according to AGW theory water vapor is supposed to be what makes CO2 so potent. CO2 rises. It gets warmer. Warmth causes more water vapor in the atmosphere. It gets warmer yet. Do you think going to direct water vapor injection into the atmosphere is really a good idea? Or is CO2 induced water vapor privileged? Seriously. If WV is the amplifier it is claimed to be, pumping it into the atmosphere by burning CH4 has got to be the worst idea ever. Or don't you believe in AGW science? Which I'm told is settled. M. Simon · January 3, 2010 04:32 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
January 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
January 2010
December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
anonymous, unverifiable, but authoritative?
there's no way to opt out of the in-your-face cycle The University of Sydney Is Building Small Polywell Constitutional principles, practical obstacles The Two Wings Of The Party Death to "mouth peace"! It took 40 years, but it's crystal clear now Tomorrow is the first day of the rest of your doom! What Darwin Never Knew Saving Money, Lives, and Human Civilization
Links
Site Credits
|
|
You don't see why one form of CO2 (from coal) is worse than the CO2 from another source (natural gas) ?
It's not the form of CO2. It's the amount of CO2 you emitt from coal vs gas. I will not go into the numbers because I don't think you and your readers have intelectual capacity to do the math. Using Russian science to support your argument seems to be an act of desparation. So now we trust the Russian scientists?