Finally some sense on global warming

Nolanger

Sammy Wilson, N I Environment Minister, bans global warming propaganda
Sound common sense - from a Minister for the Environment? Chance would be a fine thing. In our dreams. But no - this is for real. Sammy Wilson, Northern Ireland's Environment Minister, has blocked a government "information" initiative on climate change, denouncing it as part of an "insidious propaganda campaign". Inevitably, calls for his dismissal are already being made, as disciples of the global warming tabernacle squeal like stuck pigs.

Wilson dismissed the advertisements as "giving people the impression that by turning off the standby light on their TV they could save the world from melting glaciers and being submerged in 40ft of water". This he described as "patent nonsense". He duly wrote to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to tell officials that their campaign Act on CO2 "was not welcome" in his bailiwick of Northern Ireland. The most gratifying aspect of this ministerial intervention is that, for once, the climate loonies are themselves being censored instead of gagging everyone else.

All the usual suspects, including the Greens and Friends of the Earth, are apoplectic (beautiful sight!) and the knives are out for Sammy in a big way. He is a notorious global warming heretic who says he does not believe the advertisements' message that "man-made greenhouse gas emissions are the main cause of climate change".

Neither does any other sane and well-informed person; but it is so rare to encounter anybody to whom that description can be applied in politics, least of all at ministerial level, that one can only marvel how this maverick got through the net. The obvious action plan for right-thinking people now is: a) send a case of Bushmills' best to Mr Wilson in appreciation b) begin the process of conscripting him into the UK government (the post-election one) c) tell global warming fanatics where to put their hockey stick.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2009/02/09/sammy_wilson_n_i_environment_minister_bans_global_warming_propaganda

Húrin

I love Sammy!

Nolanger wrote: »

Sammy Wilson, N I Environment Minister, bans global warming propaganda

Wilson dismissed the advertisements as "giving people the impression that by turning off the standby light on their TV they could save the world from melting glaciers and being submerged in 40ft of water". This he described as "patent nonsense".

I agree. It is nonsense to suggest that tiny actions can be an effective solution to a problem as enormous as climate change.

derry

I saw with my own eyes the green minister in NI using the goose stepping neo religious term "denialist "that the greens bandy about in their rise to dictate to us how much air we breathe

Wison is using his loaf the greens are a bunch of wobblies that haven't looked the facts.Humans CO2 emission are not responsible for GW or Climate change or other Voodoo they claim no matter how many hockey a sticks they invent

Wilson is keen that NI save energy import less fuel pollute less but he doesn't want the new labour and green propaganda shoved down the throats of the people of NI
Lots of people want less cars less traffic jams and more public transport and cleaner environments.We don't want time and money wasted on junk science like global warming now that it obvious that the science made a big mistake and global warming from mankind's emissions is not a risk to the planet


We could do with a few Wisons down here as Minister for the enviormemnt they might stop the real problems like the savaging of CIE and make drinking water in Galway safe instead to be goose stepping SOB shouting denialist when people through this junk science CO2 emissions are causing the planet to get it goose cooked


Lots of Environmental people are rapidly changing away from the greens and the likes of m Al Gore that make junk science about Mankind making CO2 emission that pose a danger to the planet

Here a example of Al Gore lining his nest egg already $100 to impose news unneeded solutions on us so he can make even more money from his junk science

http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1217525953.pdf


And here is a very interesting high profile in your face 650 scientists in 2008 that agree with Wilson and have been involved with the USA senate minority report which debunks this global warming from mankind's CO2 emissions

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

one example from many from this report
reproduced and quoted for legitame education use

epw.senate.gov wrote:

Former IPCC author and El Niño expert Rosa Compagnucci, the author of two IPCC
reports in 2001 (Working Group II – Latin America Chapter), is a researcher with
the National Science and Technology Commission who has published peer-reviewed
papers. Compagnucci is also a professor in the Department of Atmosphere Sciences in
the University of Buenos Aires. Compagnucci refuted man-made climate claims in 2007.
"Is global warming something unusual, say, the last two thousand years?" Compagnucci
said, according to a December 2, 2007 article in the Argentine publication Perfil.com.
[Translated] The article was titled, “A Group of Argentine Scientists Skeptical of Climate
Change.” Compagnucci believes humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to
warming on Earth and that solar activity is a key driver of climate, according to the article.
"There was a global warming in medieval times, during the years between 800 and 1300.
And that made Greenland, now covered with ice, christened with a name [by the Vikings]
that refers to land green: 'Greenland.’” (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)

The tide is turning

Now if the greens want to be clever it simple drop global warming asap as its clear to even a bucket load of people worldwide that man has so little impact on the earths temperature that beating this mantra GW and CC is non runner

There are real problems out there like the savage cuts to Bus services to Dublin that the greens are seen to be rubber stamping while embedded in this FF regime

Good on ya Wison

Derry

Húrin

darry, your keyboard stamina amazes me. Where do you get your energy from?

robtri

Húrin wrote: »

darry, your keyboard stamina amazes me. Where do you get your energy from?

I was thinking the same thing................

But great news story there..... absolutely so true, those ads that say by turning of that red light on your telly is going to change the earths climate, so annoy me....

djpbarry

Nolanger wrote: »

The most gratifying aspect of this ministerial intervention is that, for once, the climate loonies are themselves being censored instead of gagging everyone else.

Maybe you could provide an example of someone who has been “gagged” by “climate loonies”? I wonder would you be so supportive of Mr. Wilson if the information that he was banning supported your own point of view?

derry wrote: »

Lots of Environmental people are rapidly changing away from the greens and the likes of m Al Gore that make junk science about Mankind making CO2 emission that pose a danger to the planet

Al Gore is a scientist now, is he?

derry wrote: »

epw.senate.gov wrote:

Compagnucci believes humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth…

Which is, by a mind-boggling coincidence (:rolleyes:), the same position held by the IPCC, depending on what one considers to be “a few”, of course.

carveone

robtri wrote: »

I was thinking the same thing................

But great news story there..... absolutely so true, those ads that say by turning of that red light on your telly is going to change the earths climate, so annoy me....

He's right. Maybe for the wrong reasons but it doesn't matter. If one looks at the percentages for energy consumption (I only has the graphs for the US), home electricity is a tiny fraction compared to industrial and personal transport.

Global warming might be a concern but I personally don't care - at most it's a side effect of all the number of other appalling crap (first world) mankind is pulling. As the economist Chris Martenson says: "Imagine all the lights on your dashboard lit up like a christmas tree". Yet here we are carefully listening for a slight rumble from the left tire. Uh. Hello? Priorities anyone?

We in the first world are burning exponentially through every resource available and when we don't find it, we steal it from other countries (anyone see Fiorsceal about the European factory fish ships off Africa taking every living thing out of the sea? Why do you think all these Africans are arriving in Spain?). We have massive species loss, oceanic depletion, aquifer depletion, topsoil loss, energy depletion, mineral depletion added to 70 million new people on the planet each year.

I think Global warming is a nice way to make our own insufferable arrogance someelses problem. It's nice and vague and spread over the entire world. And what is the US solution? Corn ethanol. The single worst performing energy source in existence. It would be only marginally worse to take barrels of oils and blow them up. Super.

Oooh. Dinner time.

bonkey

carveone wrote: »

He's right.

That depends on what you see as the aim of the ads, I guess.

Asking people to do something trivially simple, but needing to push the idea that the world is in peril and this will help fix it is a comment on a number of things. Amongst them, I would highlight two.

- How woefully uneducated the man on the street is.
- How ridiculously difficult it is to get Joe Q Public to make tiny, simple adjustments to his lifestyle, which have literally no negative effect on him.

These ads - and to an extent the controversy that Wilson is whipping up about them - are an attempt to raise awareness. I'd take any odds that the people pushing the ads don't seriously believe that turning off unnecessary lightbulbs will save the planet, but you know what...raising awareness and getting people used to the idea that changes will come...thats an absolutely unavoidable step in getting from where we are today to where these guys believe we need to go.

And for the record, Wilson deserves to lose his position. It is totally beyond the remit of any one member of government to take it upon themselves to block governmental policy on the grounds that they hold a personal disagreement for it.

I find it disgraceful that people here and elsewhere are lauding the guy for it. If the situation was reversed, and the government backed the "its all a sham" concept, but one person single-handedly prevented them from effectively communicating this stance to the public, the very same people would be on here screaming about oppression.

If you don't want the system to be abused against you, don't support the system being abused in your favour...because what you're really supporting is the idea that its ok to abuse the system.

derry

bonkey wrote: »

That depends on what you see as the aim of the ads, I guess.

Asking people to do something trivially simple, but needing to push the idea that the world is in peril and this will help fix it is a comment on a number of things. Amongst them, I would highlight two.

- How woefully uneducated the man on the street is.
- How ridiculously difficult it is to get Joe Q Public to make tiny, simple adjustments to his lifestyle, which have literally no negative effect on him.

These ads - and to an extent the controversy that Wilson is whipping up about them - are an attempt to raise awareness. I'd take any odds that the people pushing the ads don't seriously believe that turning off unnecessary lightbulbs will save the planet, but you know what...raising awareness and getting people used to the idea that changes will come...thats an absolutely unavoidable step in getting from where we are today to where these guys believe we need to go.

And for the record, Wilson deserves to lose his position. It is totally beyond the remit of any one member of government to take it upon themselves to block governmental policy on the grounds that they hold a personal disagreement for it.

I find it disgraceful that people here and elsewhere are lauding the guy for it. If the situation was reversed, and the government backed the "its all a sham" concept, but one person single-handedly prevented them from effectively communicating this stance to the public, the very same people would be on here screaming about oppression.

If you don't want the system to be abused against you, don't support the system being abused in your favour...because what you're really supporting is the idea that its ok to abuse the system.

Wilson for President for ROI or even better minister for the enviorement for ROI

At least he knows a global warming touchy feely new labour propaganda junk science when he sees it

Not all in the ROI who are envioremntist orientated agree or want so much money and resources directed to this wishy washy junk science sublect when there is real in our face polution inour faces and no resources to fix it

How many extra scientists and money did the greens or the regime FF employ to monitor ROI drinking water lakes from more polution

If it wasnt for part time unpaid scientists salt of the earth types who even pay for thier own boats and science tests we wouldnt know how much bad crap was in our lakes and how some lakes are near total dead sest pits and the regime say thier kick back scientists say the water is safe to drink

However no problem to find 7 billion to save banks who caused hakf this mess

Feck global warming even if it was true the polluted water and air with the help of the kick back regime in ROI will kill us first

AS for typing I wear out key boards on laptops and then have to buy new laptops every two years

Lucky I have a 3 g dongle so I can surf and forum reply when I am in the bus and having a coffee whatever I can rattle off a reply

I also do mostly international forum stuff


Derry

ART6

I do wonder if in these discussions we are all missing the point. When you decide to become a politician, your first purpose is to be elected, otherwise you cannot be a politician. To do that you need a policy or a mission statement or a party philosophy that defines you and your party in the same way that a smart business suit or a tracksuit and bottoms or overalls defines the person. In addition, the policy et all must be capable of grabbing media attention, otherwise no-one will ever hear of you.

If you want to be an environmental campaigner and offer a green party for election, you need a big theme nowadays. There is no future in claiming that you will seek to deal with the growing and near critical waste disposal problem in Ireland, or that you will prevent the construction of an incinerator in Ballypaddy. Only the people there care. So what seems to effect everyone? Ah! Global warming. If the planet warms by two degrees we will all die. Plague will visit the earth, and locusts will devour the food. The sea will rise and inundate most of the land we farm on, and Dublin will cease to exist (one of the few benefits).

If you have structured your strategy carefully scientists who need funding will flock to your mast because they too must find a means of furthering their careers and their research, even when at that stage, if they are true scientists, they don't know where it's going but they will publish learned papers that support their initial conclusions even if they turn out to be wrong later as a result of peer revue.

Meanwhile, the media will publish snippets that tell us, the huddled masses, very little. It's a drip feed process. It's an enough to alarm us because it sells newspapers. The ozone layer is disappearing and we will all die of skin cancer. Half the planet will dry out and we will all starve, sea levels will rise and we will all drown. Crubeens will become onobtainable...

So. What's the answer? Cynicism. Believe the politicians and you dig your own grave (as we have seen). Believe the media and you sell your soul. You the people have more common sense than any of those will ever have. Believe in yourselves, and chose where you go.

Húrin

carveone wrote: »

Global warming might be a concern but I personally don't care - at most it's a side effect of all the number of other appalling crap (first world) mankind is pulling. As the economist Chris Martenson says: "Imagine all the lights on your dashboard lit up like a christmas tree". Yet here we are carefully listening for a slight rumble from the left tire. Uh. Hello? Priorities anyone?

We in the first world are burning exponentially through every resource available and when we don't find it, we steal it from other countries (anyone see Fiorsceal about the European factory fish ships off Africa taking every living thing out of the sea? Why do you think all these Africans are arriving in Spain?). We have massive species loss, oceanic depletion, aquifer depletion, topsoil loss, energy depletion, mineral depletion added to 70 million new people on the planet each year.

You seem to be well-informed, so you might find this article interesting. Putting climate change at the top of the list of political priorities is quite proportionate to its importance. It affects all of the issues you mentioned.

ART6 wrote: »

If you want to be an environmental campaigner and offer a green party for election, you need a big theme nowadays. ... Ah! Global warming. If the planet warms by two degrees we will all die. Plague will visit the earth, and locusts will devour the food. The sea will rise and inundate most of the land we farm on, and Dublin will cease to exist (one of the few benefits).

This doesn't make any sense mate. Climate change motivates people to become environmental campaigners, not the other way round. When there are so many major issues to talk about, why would anyone make up another one?

bonkey

ART6 wrote: »

If you have structured your strategy carefully scientists who need funding will flock to your mast because they too must find a means of furthering their careers and their research, even when at that stage, if they are true scientists, they don't know where it's going but they will publish learned papers that support their initial conclusions even if they turn out to be wrong later as a result of peer revue.

This, of course, explains why the Bush Administration vehemently opposed Climate Change science. They tried to tone down or completely suppress results that supported the idea.

They controlled the purse strings and the scientists flocked to their original stance denying Climate Change, then their later stance accepting the reality of gloal warming, but denying anthropogenic influence.

Hang on...something doesn't make sense there.

Meanwhile, the media will publish snippets that tell us, the huddled masses, very little.

Which is why people should inform themselves about the science, rather than believing what some pundit wants to sell them either which way. Alternately, they should know that they don't understand the science, and therefore aren't in a position to comment.

Of course, this makes me wonder what the entire "oh, its just scientists pandering to the purse-strings" argument was introduced for. Its certainly not about the science.

So. What's the answer? Cynicism.

The answer is education.

Cynicism should lead you to ignore both sides...both those supporting and those opposing the notion of anthropogenic climate change. Of course, you can't sit on the wall. You can't decide to neither do nothing nor to do something. By default, you must end up in one group.

Selling cynicism sounds suspiciously like selling the "anti" position.

Education, on the other hand, allows people to decide for themselves.

carveone

bonkey wrote:

I'd take any odds that the people pushing the ads don't seriously believe that turning off unnecessary lightbulbs will save the planet, but you know what...raising awareness and getting people used to the idea that changes will come...thats an absolutely unavoidable step in getting from where we are today to where these guys believe we need to go.

I guess that's very true. Raising awareness of environmental problems is certainly important, if only to get more people to look at the issues and maybe come up with something useful. But if I was to be pessimistic, I'd wonder do people care enough to make any adjustments at all, never mind the radical changes that will be necessary. Here's a relatively small one - zero imports of food. Could we do that? In an extreme case, does one believe Britain will need warships to protect the North Sea oil base? Russia turned off the gas a month ago to Europe, just like that. That really can't be good.

Give it 10 years and the changes will be there anyway. I'm waiting until internal oil use starts closing on oil exports in the main oil producing economies. That should start in 2-3 years. That's the point these countries realise that there isn't enough oil stock and start curtailing their oil exports. That's going to get real interesting awfully quickly. Mexico is the one to watch here.

Hurin wrote:

Climate change motivates people to become environmental campaigners, not the other way round. When there are so many major issues to talk about, why would anyone make up another one?

(George Monbiot's articles seem to be interesting alright. I'll go read a few of them. The water situation looks like a rather unpleasant one. Desertification in China is problematic right now.)

That's the thing. First of all, when I said "he's right" I only meant in the sense that turning off a few bulbs isn't going to effect any real change. As for the rest of it, Wilson probably thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old or something; I sure as hell don't support the guy! (Had to make that point just in case!). Second, I'm not so sure climate change is a cause or an effect. Although it sure makes for a high volume of discussion!

But, as you said, there are a lot of major issues to deal with and I think global warming has become a distraction from some of them. People are still arguing whether it's happening or not, or whether it's man-made or not. That's really of no concern to me and does it really matter anyway? No politicians seem to be making any hard decisions, only ones which pass the buck (carbon credits) and allow the first world to continue as usual. Like the banking system - buy now (me!), pay later (preferably not me). That got real nasty astoundingly quickly.

I'm both unemployed and cynical so I've the time to educate myself

"Could you kindly stop your rutting while we figure out this whole food/air deal?" - Bill Hicks

djpbarry

carveone wrote: »

...if I was to be pessimistic, I'd wonder do people care enough to make any adjustments at all, never mind the radical changes that will be necessary. Here's a relatively small one - zero imports of food. Could we do that?

I think the question to ask first is, is that necessary? A greater awareness of where food comes from would certainly be no bad thing, but I don't think that necessarily means we should do without citrus fruits in this country!

carveone wrote: »

People are still arguing whether it's happening or not, or whether it's man-made or not. That's really of no concern to me and does it really matter anyway?

It sure does matter. If people do not accept that we are (at least partly) responsible for this phenomenon, then they are not going to accept that changes in their lifestyle are necessary.

carveone

djpbarry wrote: »

I think the question to ask first is, is that necessary? A greater awareness of where food comes from would certainly be no bad thing, but I don't think that necessarily means we should do without citrus fruits in this country!

Well, it would probably suck a bit. What I mean is, in an extreme situation where we could only afford to trade with our nearest neighbours, would we able to feed our own population? It's not an issue at the moment of course but we're getting there.

It sure does matter. If people do not accept that we are (at least partly) responsible for this phenomenon, then they are not going to accept that changes in their lifestyle are necessary.

Hum. Think you've got me there I guess I pessimistically believe that noone will willingly do what is necessary and you believe that they will! But it seems to me that climate change is framed in a way that allows people to opt out - "we're only, at best, partially responsible". It allows space for arguments. What is not in doubt is that parts of the world are getting badly screwed in many other ways that are directly attributable to human activity.

It's quite bizarre - one section of the paper talks about climate change and the need for mankind (actually, just the first world would do) to change and another section complains bitterly about the high cost of electricity. They aren't compatible.

(Oh yeah, I think I prefer the term climate change over global warming. The latter sounds quite nice...)

derry

carveone wrote: »

What is not in doubt is that parts of the world are getting badly screwed in many other ways that are directly attributable to human activity.

Yeah the Galway people had to buy the water from the shops because the regime ignore the scientists reports that there is water polution issue in the feeder lakes for the galway drinking water.No talk of tax rebates for having to buy water or even free handouts of free water to the haples victims in galway.how about all the hotels and pubs and toursit trade that lost a packet .No free handouts them but tax free stuff for bikes,what a load of tripe

Those are real in your face maybe even your mouth if you drink the filththy water issues that should be sorted instead of this CO2 Global warming lies we are given

carveone wrote:

(Oh yeah, I think I prefer the term climate change over global warming. The latter sounds quite nice...)

Global warming was shown to be junk science so now they change the name to climate change.I mean the planet has always had climate change.We had the very warm Viking era when Greenland was so warm Viking could grow wheat there .Then we had the extre cold times in the 17th century when Greenland was so cold nothing could grow there and London city had ice on the river Thames every year for months on end, so much so they always had the ice fair with selling stalls on top of the ice in the winter.
The sun is a million times biggger than the earth and it changes its power all the time like a dodgy light bulb and that is what makes the planet hotter or colder not bloody CO2 levels
Absolute junk science that CO2 is a danger to the planet .There are some human activity issues like cutting down forests or poluting galways drinking water but CO2 is just a trace gas which hasn't been shown in proper science to add any real major extra heat of any significance to the planet.In fact were now entering a cooling phase as the sun goes into its thirty year cooler phase which isnt so good as that often reduces crop yeilds and can cuase severe upwards price spikes for the food prices.


Derry

djpbarry

derry wrote: »

Yeah the Galway people had to buy the water from the shops because the regime ignore the scientists…

But you ignore scientists all the time, no? Or do you just ignore them when it suits your argument to do so?

derry wrote: »

We had the very warm Viking era when Greenland was so warm Viking could grow wheat there.

:rolleyes: Did they indeed.

derry wrote: »

The sun is a million times biggger than the earth and it changes its power all the time…

Not really. All solar indicators have been, on average, constant over the last 50 – 60 years:
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11650/dn11650-3_738.jpg

derry wrote: »

In fact were now entering a cooling phase as the sun goes into its thirty year cooler phase…

Thirty year cooler phase? What’s that?