Congratulations to natural climate change believers!

You can now stop trying to save us from Al Gore, environmentalists and scientists who have tried to “scare” us all into a “New World Order” of tyrannical government imposed environmental tax hell. Thanks to your tireless efforts and billions of dollars of mainstream media corporate propaganda that’s sown the seeds of doubt, fewer Americans than ever believe in Global Warming. Only 57% of them in fact – the lowest figure for three years.

The corporate world must be delighted. Congratulations. I’m off to burn this since the Earth obviously isn’t warm enough for some.

UPDATE 17/11/09: And then there’s the other smaller scale type of anti man made global warming propaganda YouTube videos like this that seem to imply that Al Gore was responsible for the collapse of the US auto industry and erm, the price of gas. Not quite so clever this kind of propaganda but for those that genuinely hate anyone who tries to suggest mankind may be responsible for unnaturally quick global warming and those that like Christmas song parodies, then I’m sure it’s very effective and hilarious.

It’s understandable why many people are falling for this propaganda. There’s quite rightly a lot of cynicism towards politicians and what they’re doing with public money and the corporate media are exploiting this terribly. But believing some of the junk highlighted above is simply running into the wide open arms of the corporate world who are lapping-up the confusion they are causing over climate change.

Advertisements

20 thoughts on “Congratulations to natural climate change believers!

  1. I think as well as a strong, fair and binding deal at Copenhagen, we all need to really start to make big behavioural shifts of our own. I am in complete agreement re mainstream media.

  2. Does anyone know what the Copenhagen Treaty will mean? Will it effect our everyday lives?

  3. Agree?! Well this will be a short debate then 🙂

    I just read this from the Global Carbon Project that says average temperatures will rise by 6 degree Celsius (although I’m not sure when exactly):

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8364926.stm

    Excerpt:

    According to lead scientist Corinne Le Quere, the new findings should add urgency to the political discussions.

    “Based on our knowledge of recent trends and the time it takes to change energy infrastructure, I think that the Copenhagen conference next month is our last chance to stabilise at 2C in a smooth and organised way,” she told BBC News

    “If the agreement is too weak or if the commitments are not respected, it’s not two and a half or three degrees that we will get, it’s five or six – that’s the path that we are on right now.”

    This report however suggest that it’s the developing world that are putting most of the carbon into the air which seems a bit rich to lay all the blame at their feet when the developing world has been doing it for over a century now. If this is true and as long as capitalism is in place, the big question is why should developing countries see any reason to slow down their industrial development for the sake of the environment?

  4. When I read the intro to your article I was about to call the emergency services assuming that George ‘There’s no point in denying it, we’re losing’ Monbiot had somehow managed to manacle you and hijack your blog. I just hoped Mandy would bark loudly enough to wake the neighbours. Then it dawned on me that the vitriolic hyperbole was your own. Sorry about that – it was an easy mistake to make; all that worrying about the growing numbers of people having second thoughts about the anthropogenic global warming theories, and reducing a complex scientific debate to a ‘we’re right you’re wrong’ squabble seemed to me like vintage George.

    But onto the article in question… when Van Rompuy talks about the welfare state he’s talking about an EU-financed and controlled welfare state. Opposing this has nothing to do with any willingness to let ‘immigrants and single mothers’ go to rot. Quite the opposite. It just means that a welfare state controlled by EU bureaucrats who implement policies decided by faceless, unaccountable and unelected ‘working groups’ riddled with vested interests cannot possibly cater for the needs of those to whom it has a responsibility to protect. The mistake is to believe that a carbon tax would go anywhere near this.

    As for Copenhagen, we have a right to worry, though not necessarily for the reasons being suggested in these posts. The draft policy document states ‘…serious consideration should be given to the creation of a new fund, as a complement to existing mechanisms, to support projects, programmes and policies, possibly with multiple windows, to support adaptation and mitigation, technology cooperation and capacity building in developing countries. It should have balanced representation and operate under the policy guidance of, and be accountable to, the Conference of the Parties, with its operation possibly entrusted to an existing international financial institution.’ An existing international financial institution. Doesn’t that sound familiar?

    The famous clause 38 states ‘The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies.’ Anyone care to hazard a guess as to who these new boards and bodies may be made up of? Caring conservationists? Hmm…

    Christopher Monckton’s party political background may not be to everyone’s taste, but are his fears about Copenhagen unfounded? The so-called swine flu pandemic has served to strengthen the power of the WHO. The G20 summit in Pittsburgh proposed the fast-tracking of the IMF towards staking its claim as the world central bank. There are elements within the Copenhagen Treaty proposal which undeniably point to a push for more irrevocably centralised power, currying public support by using global warming as bait. ‘Simply running into the wide open arms of the corporate world’ is more about ignoring the corporate coup that’s unfolding daily, which includes Copenhagen.

  5. In the film Apocalypse No Monckton destroys the credibility of the IPCC’s prediction of a 3 degree rise using their own figures and correcting their calculations. God knows where you’re getting this 6 degree rise from. Poor science no doubt.

  6. John, what would be your solution to climate change? Not sure if I got that in your post.

  7. Thanks for the comments.

    @Dave, About “reducing a complex scientific debate to a ‘we’re right you’re wrong’ squabble”. Fortunately for you, me and Monbiot, the IPCC scientists have done the “squabbling” for us. All of the IPCCs reports overwhelmingly conclude that man has contributed to unnaturally quick rates of global warming. The last IPCC report was compiled over a period of 6 years with the contributions of 2500 scientists from 130 countries. Now, unless you believe that there wasn’t at least one single climate skeptic scientist in there or that all of the scientists from all of these countries are in the pockets of the Biilderbergers and intent on putting the world under a one-world government, then I think the reality of man-made global warming is absolutely clear. If you can provide evidence of a similar report with the same equivalent scope and range and authored by scientists of the same standing, I’d be very interested to read it.

    As an aside from the science though, do you really need concrete scientific proof to realize that something odd is going on with the climate? What about the clear rise in natural disasters over the past 20 years alone? Even anecdotal evidence from your own parents should be enough to suggest the climate is changing unnaturally quickly. My parents talk of being regularly snowed-in during the winters in Yorkshire when they were kids. That’s unimaginable today and in a space of little more than 50 years.

    @”Van Rompuy talks about the welfare state he’s talking about an EU-financed and controlled welfare state. Opposing this has nothing to do with any willingness to let ‘immigrants and single mothers’ go to rot…The mistake is to believe that a carbon tax would go anywhere near this.” I agree and I did say as much in the original post i.e: “The falsehood is that any “unjust” environmental taxes introduced due to this man-made global warming “scam” will be used to fund the welfare state”. However, I’m not sure why I used this article in the first place as it has more to do with the EU than climate change. I think I got my liberal media propaganda confused so I’ve removed that part of the post now as its irrelevant to this subject.

    @Copenhagen Treaty, I don´t pretend to know much about it other than surely, even if it only takes minor steps to cutting global carbon emissions, it’s a step in the right direction. You’ve clearly looked into the actual draft policy a lot more than I have though although I don’t see anything particularly worrying about the parts of it you’ve highlighted i.e:

    “Operate under the policy guidance of, and be accountable to, the Conference of the Parties, with its operation possibly entrusted to an existing international financial institution”-

    Even if in the worst case scenario, say such an environmental fund was entrusted to something like the IMF, if it is ACCOUNTABLE to a more democratic organization – such as a “Conference of the Parties” (whatever that is), then at least it would be accountable to someone. The IMF as it usually operates is accountable to no-one and that’s far more scary. The same goes for the second point you make about clause 38. I guess it all depends on what this “Conference of Parties” will consist of that oversees it all but if it consists of a wide range of scientists from around the world, I don’t see any problem with it.

    @Christopher Monkton, He’s not a scientist so I’m not going to take any of his conclusions seriously against the 2500 scientists in the IPCC report. Reading his wikipedia entry, I also notice that he’s warned Barack Obama that if he signs anything at Copenhagen, he will “impose a communist world government on the world” which has endeared him to the far right that you seem so intent on snuggling up to. He’s also suggested that in order to tackle AIDS, “Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month … all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently.” You’re right, his political background is not to my liking and neither is his mental state by the looks of things.

    @Jon, “In the film Apocalypse No Monckton destroys the credibility of the IPCC’s prediction of a 3 degree rise using their own figures and correcting their calculations. God knows where you’re getting this 6 degree rise from. Poor science no doubt.” I hope its clear from the above what kind of credibility I would give to a film made by a someone like Monkton on this issue. Oh, and I think it’s pretty obvious where I got the 6 degree rise from – the Global Carbon Project as referenced in BBC article that I pasted into the comment.

    So you’d better ask them where their “bad science” comes from. Maybe you should forward non-scientist Monkton’s “good science” to them and see what they say.

  8. ” The last IPCC report was compiled over a period of 6 years with the contributions of 2500 scientists from 130 countries. Now, unless you believe that there wasn’t at least one single climate skeptic scientist in there or that all of the scientists from all of these countries are in the pockets of the Biilderbergers and intent on putting the world under a one-world government, then I think the reality of man-made global warming is absolutely clear. If you can provide evidence of a similar report with the same equivalent scope and range and authored by scientists of the same standing, I’d be very interested to read it.”

    Nick, have you read the last IPCC report? Have you read any IPCC report? Did you agree with all of it? Were there some places where you had your doubts about the science? What was it that convinced you? Send me the reference, I’m open to reading about it.

    As regards Ed’s question and comment: John, what would be your solution to climate change? Not sure if I got that in your post.

    I’m sorry Ed but being unconvinced as yet that Climate Change is anything other than “the weather” my solution would be to return to using the phrase “the weather” to talk about the phenomonon of it getting cold then hot and vice versa. Of course, we should probably define our terms more clearly and talk about “man-made weather” and “naturally occuring weather”.

    Turning to Nick’s argument that:
    “Even anecdotal evidence from your own parents should be enough to suggest the climate is changing unnaturally quickly. My parents talk of being regularly snowed-in during the winters in Yorkshire when they were kids. That’s unimaginable today and in a space of little more than 50 years.”

    We can all spout anecdotes Nick, both Climate Change believers and DENIERS (so called to make us sound more like Neo Nazis -yeah, thanks mate!). There is a huge amount of anecdotal evidence to support the assertion that there was a medieval warm period – that they were making wine in Scotland etc., but the IPCC concensus chose to ignore the with the notorius and apocryphal Hockey Stick Graph.

    Nick again said:

    @Copenhagen Treaty, I don´t pretend to know much about it other than surely, even if it only takes minor steps to cutting global carbon emissions, it’s a step in the right direction. You’ve clearly looked into the actual draft policy a lot more than I have though although I don’t see anything particularly worrying about the parts of it you’ve highlighted i.e:

    “I don´t pretend to know much about it” – that says it all. You want it no matter what it is.

    Nick again pushing the Monbiotesque science-is-about-concensus argument and rubbishing “Deniers” as conspiracy theorists. No offence Nick, but you really could get a job at The Guardian when Monbo retires:

    “The last IPCC report was compiled over a period of 6 years with the contributions of 2500 scientists from 130 countries. Now, unless you believe that there wasn’t at least one single climate skeptic scientist in there or that all of the scientists from all of these countries are in the pockets of the Biilderbergers and intent on putting the world under a one-world government, then I think the reality of man-made global warming is absolutely clear. If you can provide evidence of a similar report with the same equivalent scope and range and authored by scientists of the same standing, I’d be very interested to read it.”

    Just to finish off, here’s a quote from the writer Michael Crighton on the ‘merits’ of scientific consensus:

    “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

    In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.

    In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

    There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light. “

  9. John said “I’m sorry Ed but being unconvinced as yet that Climate Change is anything other than “the weather” my solution would be to return to using the phrase “the weather” to talk about the phenomonon of it getting cold then hot and vice versa. Of course, we should probably define our terms more clearly and talk about “man-made weather” and “naturally occuring weather”.

    I guess there is not much debate then. I guess as none of us are scientists it ends here. But I will say that I work with over 100 communities in Sub-Saharan Africa and climate is the one thing they all talk about when referring to their lives and the changes they have seen over a short space of time and how damaging it is in terms of drought and life. They say their elders have never seen such rapid change. But not sure the global North or you John cares too much for Sub-Saharan Africa or Bangladesh so lets just wait and see how bad it gets for them.

  10. Ok chaps settle down. I think the one thing we can all agree on is that everyone who has commented here wants what’s best for the planet and for humans. There’s just a huge differing of opinion on either side about how to do that. It’s an emotive issue, that’s understandable.

    To answer some points and I’ll try to be brief because I suspect none of us has time to go through huge long winded replies (of which I’m most guilty of!)…

    Firstly John, please leave the Monbiot comparisons out of this. I’m not much concerned with what he writes. What I’m concerned with is the scientific evidence that exists on this issue not the writings of a Guardian journalist that you think I sound like.

    @John“Nick, have you read the last IPCC report? Have you read any IPCC report? Did you agree with all of it? Were there some places where you had your doubts about the science? What was it that convinced you? Send me the reference, I’m open to reading about it.”

    I’m afraid I haven’t. But then I’m no scientist and I wouldn’t understand it anyway. I’m placing my trust in the hands of the consensus of 2500 scientists for around the globe and my own anecdotal experience.

    We can all spout anecdotes Nick, both Climate Change believers and DENIERS (so called to make us sound more like Neo Nazis -yeah, thanks mate!).

    Fair point. I’m against Orwellian abuse of language whether or not I agree with someone on an issue. I’ve changed the title of this post to “Congratulations natural climate change believers!”.

    There was a medieval warm period – that they were making wine in Scotland etc.

    I did a search on this and it seems you’re right. But it was a local phenomenon and not a global one according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who investigated it. They concluded that this medieval warming period was isolated to one part of the Northern Hemisphere and not all of those regions experienced their temperature peaks at the same time. The current global warming phenomenon is global. Read more about this here:

    http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/04/does-the-medieval-wa.html

    Nick again pushing the Monbiotesque science-is-about-consensus argument and rubbishing “Deniers” as conspiracy theorists.

    Where have I called manmade climate change deniers conspiracy theorists? I’ve never done that. There’s no conspiracy about their beliefs at all. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it a million times, their beliefs are a natural result of them seeking to protect power and profit from any kind of regulation or curtailment. They believe profit should go before both the planet and people – it’s as simple as that. Those that have picked-up on this via the internet – possibly like yourself for example – are motivated by a genuine care for the future of the planet. However, your belief in politicians is so understandably shattered by disillusion that you’ve chosen to believe their version of climate change which points the finger at greedy bureaucrats. What you fail to understand is that it’s the corporations that stand to benefit most from lack of action on manmade climate change. They are far more dangerous than politicians since they’re accountable to no-one but their shareholders but their power you don’t seem to oppose.

    “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.”

    It does. There’s consensus that the Earth is round, that gravity exists, that we breathe oxygen. This consensus has been built up over thousands of years of study. Maybe there are scientists out there that believe the Earth is flat but that doesn’t make them right because the overwhelming consensus – and no physical evidence – is that it’s round. There’s a consensus of at least 2500 scientists on man made climate change and evidence to support it. Sure, there are still scientists out there that maybe don’t believe it and if so, it’s their responsibility to get enough consensus together to challenge the man made theory.

    @EdI work with over 100 communities in Sub-Saharan Africa and climate is the one thing they all talk about when referring to their lives and the changes they have seen over a short space of time and how damaging it is in terms of drought and life. They say their elders have never seen such rapid change.”

    That’s interesting and unless we think those 100 communities are all in consensus in order to “go for our wallets” as Michael Crichton suggests, they are living proof that unnaturally quick climate change is very very real.

  11. @‘I also notice that he’s warned Barack Obama that if he signs anything at Copenhagen, he will “impose a communist world government on the world” which has endeared him to the far right that you seem so intent on snuggling up to.’

    That’s right Nick, I’m a complete fascist. You’re right, quoting anyone who makes a valid point about something as Monckton does about Copenhagen naturally aligns me with the far right.

    Let’s make one or two things clear. Re your point ‘What you fail to understand is that it’s the corporations that stand to benefit most from lack of action on manmade climate change. They are far more dangerous than politicians since they’re accountable to no-one but their shareholders but their power you don’t seem to oppose.’ That’s the whole point. The corporations run the governments. The big family conglomerates who run the corporations run both. Why do the Rockefellers, Rothschilds et al strive to centralise power? Because that allows them to further monopolise the worlds resources. Of course this is much easier if you eliminate the ‘useless eaters’ by considerably reducing the population of the planet. If you don’t believe this I suggest you read John Holdren’s ‘Ecoscience’. A Google search should unearth a few pdf versions. Holdren advocates forced abortions, compulsory sterilisation and a planetary regime to oversee human population levels. He is now Obama’s science adviser.

    This is why Copenhagen has nothing to do with saving the planet. It may well be about the next stage of this centralisation of power (I’ll avoid ‘new world order’ so as not to provoke your usual pavlovian ‘conspiracy theory’ response) which is what Monckton is referring to. He uses the word ‘communism’ (which seems to ring defensive alarm bells in those who still seek self-definition by meaningless ‘left’ and ‘right’ labels) to describe what he sees as a Soviet-style scenario of an elite-led global enslavement. If you don’t see the world heading in that direction, with ever-eroding human rights and civil liberties, then Sweden must be a great place to live. Even if they did pass a bill there last year to allow the government to intercept your emails.

    There have always been links between the green movement and eugenics. Don’t just read Holdren – look into the history of the World Wildlife Fund and its founders. By scaremongering a decent, caring public about human incidence on global warming, people will lobby for more control over the big corporations. But this is naïve – do you really think the oil companies (most of whom still have strong ties with the US State Department) care about any curb on emissions? A carbon tax wouldn’t eat into their profits because they wouldn’t have to pay it. The public would. As Paul Joseph Watson puts it, ‘the tab will be picked up by the ignorant taxpayer at the fuel pump at an inflated cost which if anything will hand the transnational oil cartels an even bigger cut.’ Why do you think Exxon Mobil chief Rex Tillerson actually pushed for the carbon tax?

    Personally I’d rather not just repeat mainstream opinions. You talk about people falling for propaganda yet you say you haven’t read the IPCC report because ‘I’m no scientist and I wouldn’t understand it anyway.’ If you’re going to write about this stuff it’s your duty to research it and try and understand it. Why don’t I believe in anthropogenic global warming? Because for years I did, until I started looking at the counter-arguments. This post is already long enough but I will gladly summarise what I consider the important ones in another post.

    @’It does. There’s consensus that the Earth is round, that gravity exists, that we breathe oxygen. This consensus has been built up over thousands of years of study.’

    No, it has to do with the collection of data, creation of hypotheses and testing the hypotheses. Throughout history consensuses have been reached but then challenged by new evidence based on new studies and new data. The same thing is happening all the time with climate change. If you’re interested in hearing what the other side hays to say, I recommend Bob Carter’s lecture to anyone who is prepared to open their mind to the fact that that there are plenty of scientists who put forward solid, alternative theories without falsifying their data as the IPCC has been proven to do on various occasions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI (first part of 4)
    I’ve also just come across this presentation by Lindzen and Choi:
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf

    Finally Nick, yes there are more hurricanes and apparently extreme weather patterns. I suggest you start to take chemtrails seriously, read up on HAARP, the heating of the ionosphere and the effects of military operations such as Operation Popeye (prolonging the monsoon season in Vietnam to stop supplies getting through to the Vietnamese soldiers). Now it’s fine to pump metal oxides into our skies. All in the name of global warming.

    Let me end now with a couple of quotes, firstly from The Club of Rome’s ‘First Global Revolution’: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.” And Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology and lead author of many IPCC reports: “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

    I’m off now to snuggle up to some right-wingers, though I can’t decide between Antonio Valencia and Cristiano Ronaldo 😉

  12. Thanks for the title change. That’s much better. Now if you’d only change the rest of your diatribe… 😉

  13. Hey Nick
    If the IPCC’s so-called consensus of 2500 scientists suddenly changed its position, would you follow them just as suddenly. And if they were to revert back to their original position, would you do so too? My point is whether you’re a scientist or not you have to take some kind of position based more on the actual scientific arguments and not on the politics of consensus.

    Also a lot of doubt has been thrown on the veracity of this consensus:

    “New study finds IPCC “consensus” an “illusion”

    An analysis released in September 2007 on the IPCC scientific review process by climate data analyst John McLean, revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.”

    The new study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”

    The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.”

    Let me repeat the key point here: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis. ”
    TAKEN FROM http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3

    Also, anecdotes are good and I’m sure your parents aren’t lying about being snowed in Yorkshire, but we really can’t base our opinions only on the memories and perceptions of two people. Surely we would need to take a wider historical view.

    Anyway, I’m going to give up posting on this thread as I think we’re unlikely to make much headway with each other. Though I was looking forward to hearing and dealing with some of the more scientific views of the Climate Change movement. Rather than the implication that if you dissent then it means you’re snuggling up to the far right…a nazi or a psychopath who doesn’t care about the Sub Saharans etc
    cheers
    John

  14. John, I may have been a little unfair as I don’t know what you do. I would be interested though. At what point would you believe ACC? I don’t think you are a pyschopath..most people care very little for Sub-Saharan Africa.

  15. Thanks for that Ed
    I worked in PR for the NHS and as a freelance journo. Now I mainly teach English, but have plans of launching a successful blog like Nick and getting a bit of extra income from the ads. Otherwise I’m a non-consumerist, bicycle-riding vegetarian who rarely travels and has never owned a car, so in the world of ACC morality points, I would have a miniscule carbon footprint.

    And I think the mantra reduce, re-use and recycle in that order is a fair one and I try to live by it, but I don’t want to pay a green tax to a government or world central bank for something that I don’t believe in. In the same way that I don’t want to pay taxes to a government that squanders it on warfare, furthering the kind of neo-colonialism that has prevented half the world from developing.

    I accept that we are facing huge enviromental challenges. I’m really concerned about air and water quality, plastic mountains floating around the pacific, genetically modified food and animals, and the eradication of a biological diversity, though I must state that I don’t share the view that humans are a kind of disease blighting the planet, as do the Gaia men like Sir James Lovelock and Jonathon Porrit.

    I guess I just don’t believe that CO2 is pollution. I think it has been chosen by Gore et al because it’s the easiest thing to make taxable. Human’s exhale it. Most transport produces it. I mean we’re talking about the carbon cycle for God’s (or Gaia’s) sake! They can even calculate how much of a carbon footprint a newborn baby will have in its lifetime and charge its parents a tax for having children. A one child policy of sorts is already being mooted in Australia.

    And to answer your question about at what point would I believe in ACC. I guess if we’re talking about CO2, I would be more inclined to believe it if the IPPC could prove that a significant amount of heat is being trapped in the troposphere due to a huge increase of CO2 caused by man’s activities. As it stands all of the IPCC’s assertions and calculations concerning this matter have been refuted and disproven by Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT:

    http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist

    Basically, it hasn’t been demonstrated, so we can deduce that heat is still passing through the atmosphere and the upper-layers into space. I’m also skeptical about Gore’s assertion that historically CO2 causes an increase in temperature and not the other way round. It has been shown that the increase in CO2 lags 800 to 1200 years behind a significant increase in temperature. I could go on, but you get the general idea.

    I much more convinced by the sunspot theory i.e. when there’s lots of sun activity it get’s hotter on earth due to the solar winds (magnetism) restricting the cloud-forming cosmic radiation that enters the atmosphere. This would explain why the south polar ice caps of Mars was receding at the same time as the ice caps of the earth.

    There you have it. And if you’re pro-Copenhagen treaty , I wouldn’t worry cos there’s no way it’s going to be derailed just because the majority of voters don’t believe in ACC, democracy is dead anyway(cue next blog)

  16. I guess we can agree to disagree. My background is similar to yours..10 yrs mainly working in comms, living in Europe and North America. Did 4 years working in PR, 2 of which working for the health minister in Wales then moved into third sector – Oxfam, Sustrans and now finally escaped the world of PR and the media. I lost all faith in journalism and got bored of talking about what other people were doing..so moved into international development/community development. So far so good. Good luck with the blog.

  17. I think Ed is right that we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this for now for time’s sake. We’re all starting to repeat the same old things over and over again so for me, this will be my last detailed reply on this topic. Firstly though I apologise from the start if the post was inflammatory to those who believe in natural climate change. When tackling these issues in future, I’ll write something less sarcastic.

    By the way Dave, I notice you posted a comment on the 20th of November and for some reason, it went straight into “moderation” instead of onto the site. You´ll now see it is “approved” and on the site now. I guarantee you this was not me censoring you for calling me a Monbiot!

    @Dave “That’s right Nick, I’m a complete fascist. You’re right, quoting anyone who makes a valid point about something as Monckton does about Copenhagen naturally aligns me with the far right.”

    I don’t think you’re a complete fascist for quoting Monckton. I just think based on Monckton’s Thatcherist past, him saying that Obama is going to condemn the world to communism by signing anything at Copenhagen and anyone with AIDS should be “permanently isolated” and perhaps most importantly, the fact that he’s not a scientist, may make whatever he says a bit unreliable.

    The corporations run the governments. The big family conglomerates who run the corporations run both. Why do the Rockefellers, Rothschilds et al strive to centralise power?

    Agree pretty much on the first sentence but not on the second. It is the boardrooms and shareholders of the world’s corporations that run things. The Rockerfellers, Rothschilds are just a few very wealthy families that are part of this system. They, along with millions of other corporations, strive to centralise power to marginalise democracy.

    John Holdren’s ‘Ecoscience’. Holdren advocates forced abortions, compulsory sterilisation and a planetary regime to oversee human population levels. He is now Obama’s science adviser.

    I’m no defender or admirer of the Obama administration. But I’ve done a search and in the 1977 book you mention, and Holdren (and his two co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich) described forced abortions and compulsory sterilisation as two ways to control population growth. They didn’t advocate it however. Rather they suggested family planning programs were the way to go quote: ““A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences—such as birth control and access to abortions.” More on this here:

    http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/07/hold-of-holdren-again/

    I couldn’t find anything on the planetary government claim so I can’t comment on that bit.

    This is why Copenhagen has nothing to do with saving the planet. It may well be about the next stage of this centralisation of power (I’ll avoid ‘new world order’ so as not to provoke your usual pavlovian ‘conspiracy theory’ response)

    Personally I think it does have to with saving the planet. We live in a global economy now and countries do have to come together to find solutions to certain problems. However, too often – as with the EU, NATO, UN etc – these organisations get perverted for the interests of power. The Copenhagen conference is simply an effort to extend something similar to the Kyoto Protocol to deal with manmade climate change. I’d be far more worried about something like the Lisbon Treaty than what is essentially an environmental agreement. Incidentally, I’ve got no problem with use of the term New World Order. It’s just I believe in this definition:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_%28politics%29

    Rather than this one:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_%28conspiracy_theory%29

    Monkton uses the word ‘communism’ (which seems to ring defensive alarm bells in those who still seek self-definition by meaningless ‘left’ and ‘right’ labels) to describe what he sees as a Soviet-style scenario of an elite-led global enslavement.

    The traditional definitions of left and right have now been so abused in political discourse that I agree they are now rendered almost meaningless. But if Monkton means an elite world government why not say that instead of “communist” which has political overtones? More importantly, why does Monkton have to fantasize about a “Soviet-style scenario” of elite-led global enslavement? We’re already in one and it’s called corporate capitalism. Corporate and government elites monopolize power here and now.

    There have always been links between the green movement and eugenics.

    I won’t even comment on this because I think suggesting the environmentalistal movement has Nazi roots is wildly inaccurate and this comment is too long already to go into that.

    If you’re interested in hearing what the other side hays to say, I recommend Bob Carter’s lecture to anyone who is prepared to open their mind to the fact that that there are plenty of scientists who put forward solid, alternative theories without falsifying their data as the IPCC has been proven to do on various occasions.

    I’m open to it. But you’re going to think I’m a Monbiot here because according to the Sydney Morning Herald, Bob Carter is on the research committee of the Institute of Public Affairs, a right-wing group that has received funding from corporate interests including oil and tobacco companies. I’d therefore be a bit skeptical about his conclusions, especially if you think the oil companies are the ones behind Copenhagen:

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/minchin-denies-climate-change-manmade/2007/03/14/1173722560417.html

    “Personally I’d rather not just repeat mainstream opinions. You talk about people falling for propaganda yet you say you haven’t read the IPCC report because ‘I’m no scientist and I wouldn’t understand it anyway. If you’re going to write about this stuff it’s your duty to research it and try and understand it.’”

    I agree that anything that comes from mainstream politicians and media should be treated with skepticism. But this is a scientific report. I am unable to go around the world conducting scientific analysis of the polar ice caps. I’m not as confident as some people (such as Monkton) to pretend that I can understand the science discussed in the hundreds of pages of the IPCC report. What I can do is my own research on the net and use my own common sense and experience to come to conclusions which is what I’ve done.

    Finally Nick, yes there are more hurricanes and apparently extreme weather patterns. I suggest you start to take chemtrails seriously.

    Glad we can at least agree on that. I’ll reserve judgment on Chemtrails until I’ve looked into it properly but I think that the dramatic increase in natural disasters over the past 20 years is mainly down to man made climate change.

    Club of Rome

    The quote doesn’t surprise me. They sound like one of many far right-wing think-tanks out there.

    Stephen Schneider

    I’ll end on the quote below to from the same man. It’s very easy to take someone’s words out of context and make them say want you want them to say. This was his response when questioned whether he felt comfortable that those who believe in natural climate change had used the quote you quote to support their argument:

    “”They have been thinking that as long as I have observed them and they have very few mainstream climate scientists who publish original research in climate refereed journals with them–a petroleum geologist’s opinion on climate science is a as good as a climate scientists opinion on oil reserves. So petitions sent to hundreds of thousands of earth scientists are frauds. If these guys think they are “winning” why don’t they try to take on face to face real climatologists at real meetings–not fake ideology shows like Heartland Institute–but with those with real knowledge–because they’d be slaughtered in public debate by Trenberth, Santer, Hansen, Oppenheimer, Allen, Mitchell, even little ol’ me. It’s easy to blog, easy to write op-eds in the Wall Street Journal””

    http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m5d24-The-global-warming-debates-Stephen-Schneider

    John @”If the IPCC’s so-called consensus of 2500 scientists suddenly changed its position, would you follow them just as suddenly. And if they were to revert back to their original position, would you do so too?”

    Since I’m no scientist, I have to trust their conclusions so basically yes although naturally I’d think it was a bit odd if they were yoyo-ing their opinion like that. But they’re not going to change their mind on this issue because the evidence they’ve gathered is so overwhelming.

    John McClean

    This is the John McClean you are quoting. He’s not a scientist. He’s a computer consultant and an amateur photographer. So I’d treat whatever he says with extreme skepticism:

    http://mclean.ch/

    The last thing I would say on this whole issue is whatever news, scandals or revelations emerge leading up to the Copenhagen Conference, double check the sources, examine if they are genuinely scientific and reliable, check who’s funding them and who’s behind it and finally, assess whether the words have been taken out of context before making any decision on whether it is to be taken seriously or not.

    Like Ed and John, this is my last contribution on this particular post. Thanks all for making it a detailed and thought provoking one!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s