Climate change fraud

simplistic

So why do govenments like the concept of climate change?

Also a british high court finds Al Gores An Inconvenient truth to be a pack of lies

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth

SLUSK

Remember the time when they talked about "global warming", since the earth has not been getting warmer the last 10 years they talk about "climate change" instead.

We the little people are suppose to cut down on our comforts but the champagne drinking hollywood scumbag celebrity socialist **** will still be allowed their vulgar lifestyle that is out of reach for 99.99% of all people.

Grudaire

For all the complaining of scaremongering, they're not afraid to dish it out themselves : "Turn the Bush recession into an Obama depression"

To be honest you link to a website that links to itself in the article... What is said may possibly even have some truth, but its far far far more cloak and dagger than anything else I've read. Come on, a respectable publication please!

Grudaire

The Greatest friend to the poor is big business....


eh...



LOL!

simplistic

Cliste wrote: »

For all the complaining of scaremongering, they're not afraid to dish it out themselves : "Turn the Bush recession into an Obama depression"

To be honest you link to a website that links to itself in the article... What is said may possibly even have some truth, but its far far far more cloak and dagger than anything else I've read. Come on, a respectable publication please!

Ha come on now really a respectable publication , you got to be kidding me.

But I guess you mean this kind, the kind that the masses watch and call themselves informed members of the public.

BBC- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm

ABC News - http://abcnews.go.com/US/TenWays/story?id=3719791&page=1&page=1


Why do you think the mass media are keeping hush hush about this?

simplistic

Cliste wrote: »

The Greatest friend to the poor is big business....


eh...



LOL!

Come on now , your smarter than that.

Judgement Day

simplistic wrote: »

So why do govenments like the concept of climate change?

Also a british high court finds Al Gores An Inconvenient truth to be a pack of lies

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth

OK I give up what's your angle? Six minutes into this You Tube clip my head was spinning so much from the spin that I switched it off - the makers of this programme should be head hunted by Fianna Fail - what a pile of parrot droppings. That's right there's nothing wrong with the planet, the ice caps aren't melting, starvation and over population are not rampant, we are not running out of natural resources......You believe what you like and bury your head in the sand if that's what gets you off. :mad:

espinolman

And em chemtrails don't exist either .

Judgement Day

Not big into conspiracy theories so I had to Google chemtrails - I give up! :rolleyes:

Grudaire

Hmmm, yes, mainstream media keeping quiet, and yet you're able to find two links pretty handy! It's an interesting point, how the Green agenda is put forward, but so far it does anything but disprove Climate change (In fact the last half of your first link seems to argue against government involvement, claiming that industry can change for the better all by itself - it depends on market demands.)

Secondly you have overlooked this:

BBC Article wrote:

Mr Justice Burton said he had no complaint about Gore's central thesis that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans. However, the judge said nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus.

simplistic wrote: »

Come on now , your smarter than that.

Oh Christ it is a painful painful experience to listen to whoever that is.

You can summarise, I can't bare to have my ears torn to shreds like that.

Judgement Day

Couldn't this thread be moved to the Conspiracy Theories forum where the sane amongst us wouldn't fall over it?

djpbarry

simplistic wrote: »

So why do govenments like the concept of climate change?

I give up. Why? I only watched about 3 minutes of your video – I stopped when it was implied that polar bears are not at all threatened but are in fact thriving. I’d love to see their source for such a claim.

simplistic wrote: »

Also a british high court finds Al Gores An Inconvenient truth to be a pack of lies

Well, inaccuracies rather than lies, but I’m not sure why that should come as a surprise? As far as I’m aware, Al Gore is not a scientist.

simplistic wrote: »

BBC- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm

ABC News - http://abcnews.go.com/US/TenWays/story?id=3719791&page=1&page=1

Why do you think the mass media are keeping hush hush about this?

Do I need to point out the fact that you’ve just linked to two elements of the ‘mass media’? There is no conspiracy here – it’s common knowledge that any half-decent climatologist would tear Al’s documentary to pieces.

djpbarry

SLUSK wrote: »

Remember the time when they talked about "global warming", since the earth has not been getting warmer the last 10 years they talk about "climate change" instead.

The term ‘climate change’ has been in popular use for quite a bit longer than ten years.

SLUSK wrote: »

We the little people are suppose to cut down on our comforts but the champagne drinking hollywood scumbag celebrity socialist **** will still be allowed their vulgar lifestyle that is out of reach for 99.99% of all people.

[MOD] A little less of the abusive language please [/MOD]

djpbarry

espinolman wrote: »

And em chemtrails don't exist either .

[MOD] And this isn’t a thread about chem-trails [/MOD]

simplistic

djpbarry wrote: »

I give up. Why? I only watched about 3 minutes of your video – I stopped when it was implied that polar bears are not at all threatened but are in fact thriving. I’d love to see their source for such a claim.
Well, inaccuracies rather than lies, but I’m not sure why that should come as a surprise? As far as I’m aware, Al Gore is not a scientist.
Do I need to point out the fact that you’ve just linked to two elements of the ‘mass media’? There is no conspiracy here – it’s common knowledge that any half-decent climatologist would tear Al’s documentary to pieces.

I presume that since you havent even bothered watching the video you dont really care what I have to say and are emotionally invested in your position so you will ignore the facts. But this goes out to anybody else whould like to have a rational debate over why climate change can be powerful tool for governments. Here is my evidence:

For the governments it is a powerful tool for the following reasons :
1. It allows for climate change related taxation(justifies robberies)

2. It effectiviely causes a giant red herring that causes a lot of people who are activists to dedicte their time into campainging along side government for legislation (dealing with problems using the threat of violence). This diverts attention away from opposion to government and actually gets people onside.

3. With people on side , legislation and protocols can be passed that can be potenially destructive to society. eg energy rationing.

djpbarry

simplistic wrote: »

I presume that since you havent even bothered watching the video you dont really care what I have to say and are emotionally invested in your position so you will ignore the facts.

I have watched the first six miuntes or so – I simply don’t have time to watch the whole thing. But in that time, in addition to the claim made about a supposedly thriving polar bear population, I picked up on two more glaring inaccuracies. Firstly, McElhinney claims that the banning of DDT spraying is directly responsible for the deaths of millions of people. She is apparently ignoring the well-publicised fact that...

...exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in malaria control might cause preterm birth and early weaning, abrogating the benefit of reducing infant mortality from malaria.

It has also been shown that mosquitoes develop resistance to DDT over time.

Secondly, Charles claims that the predictions made in “The Limits to Growth” were all wrong – this is not true:

This paper focuses on a comparison of recently collated historical data for 1970–2000 with scenarios presented in the Limits to Growth. The analysis shows that 30 years of historical data compare favorably with key features of a business-as-usual scenario called the “standard run” scenario...

You may also want to examine the backgrounds of some of the characters featured in that video – virtually all are associated with some form of ‘conservative think tank’ and, as far as I can tell, none are scientists. According to heritage.org, Ben Lieberman “trained as a lawyer and accountant, is known in public policy circles as a strong advocate of free-market solutions to the challenge of rising energy prices. He opposes unnecessary government regulation and mandates for energy producers while supporting increased access to domestic energy supplies.” Todd Myers, as far as I can tell, has made a career in PR and communications. Ann McElhinney is a journalist. David Kreutzer is an economist. John Charles has an MPA, making him either an accountant or a public administrator. Also worth noting that the film is produced by the Cascade Policy Institute, an organisation fundamentally opposed to government regulation.

[MOD] I would also point out that the forum charter stipulates that the posting of videos be accompanied with a brief synopsis. [/MOD]

simplistic wrote: »

Here is my evidence:

For the governments it is a powerful tool for the following reasons :
1. It allows for climate change related taxation(justifies robberies)

2. It effectiviely causes a giant red herring that causes a lot of people who are activists to dedicte their time into campainging along side government for legislation (dealing with problems using the threat of violence). This diverts attention away from opposion to government and actually gets people onside.

3. With people on side , legislation and protocols can be passed that can be potenially destructive to society. eg energy rationing.

That’s not evidence, it’s opinion. What’s more, it’s an opinion that is borderline conspiracy theory. If you want to argue a particular position on this forum, you’re going to need evidence to support it.

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

I have watched the first six miuntes or so – I simply don’t have time to watch the whole thing.

BUT yet you have time to write big paragraphs and read all the comments about the video and draw your own conclusions... not a very good excuse that really

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

BUT yet you have time to write big paragraphs and read all the comments about the video and draw your own conclusions...

Indeed I did, based on the first six minutes of the video. I simply don't have time to analyse the remaining sixteen, but I'm guessing it's going to be full of the same sort of mis-information.

Is there a point raised in the video that you would like to draw my attention to? Based on what I know of conservative American 'think-tank's', I'm guessing that at some point during the video, a claim will be made that climate change is merely a tool that governments can use to exert more control over people's lives? A reference to commies will probably be thrown in for good measure. Oh and they'll probably selectively quote some scientific findings that support their position, while ignoring anything that doesn't. Have I missed anything?

simplistic

djpbarry wrote: »

I have watched the first six miuntes or so – I simply don’t have time to watch the whole thing. But in that time, in addition to the claim made about a supposedly thriving polar bear population, I picked up on two more glaring inaccuracies. Firstly, McElhinney claims that the banning of DDT spraying is directly responsible for the deaths of millions of people. She is apparently ignoring the well-publicised fact that...

It has also been shown that mosquitoes develop resistance to DDT over time.

Secondly, Charles claims that the predictions made in “The Limits to Growth” were all wrong – this is not true:


You may also want to examine the backgrounds of some of the characters featured in that video – virtually all are associated with some form of ‘conservative think tank’ and, as far as I can tell, none are scientists. According to heritage.org, Ben Lieberman “trained as a lawyer and accountant, is known in public policy circles as a strong advocate of free-market solutions to the challenge of rising energy prices. He opposes unnecessary government regulation and mandates for energy producers while supporting increased access to domestic energy supplies.” Todd Myers, as far as I can tell, has made a career in PR and communications. Ann McElhinney is a journalist. David Kreutzer is an economist. John Charles has an MPA, making him either an accountant or a public administrator. Also worth noting that the film is produced by the Cascade Policy Institute, an organisation fundamentally opposed to government regulation.

[MOD] I would also point out that the forum charter stipulates that the posting of videos be accompanied with a brief synopsis. [/MOD]
That’s not evidence, it’s opinion. What’s more, it’s an opinion that is borderline conspiracy theory. If you want to argue a particular position on this forum, you’re going to need evidence to support it.

I feel angry and sad.

Let me give you a scenario. Ireland is in the grips of a plague of virus spreading locusts that are causing the deaths of 100,000 Irish people per yer. Some scientists discover a chemical that eleminates the locusts and start work immediatly. Hunderds of thousands of people lives are being saved. A group of enviornmentalists with government funding make a claim that this chemical is bad for the enviornment. And with the justifcation of your above source that the locusts will develop resistance to the chemical(that the same as saying lets not treat the flu because it mutates every year) and that childern MIGHT be harmed by the chemical the government bans it use. Hunderds of thousands of Irish then continue to die.

In the case of africa we are talking into the millions 3-4 the amount killed in the holocaust.


Yeah your right its just a conspiracy that govenment use concepts to justify taxation , to manipulate public opinion , and to justify policys and that government regualation destroys prosperity and cripples the free market.

Either open a history book (why not start at the reasons for the great depression) or move this thread to the ****ing conspiracy section

aftermn

My 50+ years of experience of this country suggests to me that the climate is changing. Winters are less severe, summers appear to me to be wetter.

In coming to conclusions as to the scientific level of change and the prognosis for the future, I rely, like most, on the experts in the field. As in most fields, there is some dis-agreement on what exactly is happening and/or the causes. i.e. few deny that changes are taking place, but are they man made or natural.

Since both my own experience and that of most experts is that change is happening, that at least is not a fraud.

I often wonder at the approach of governments to problems, but that is another issue. Climate change itself is not a fraud.

SLUSK

The climate always changes. The climate was never something static.

Macha

SLUSK wrote: »

The climate always changes. The climate was never something static.

SLUSK, it isn't just the fact that the climate is changing, it is the fact that it is changing at an unprecendented rate and its cause cannot be explained by natural pheonoma.

SLUSK

We haven't experienced any real warming the last 10 years. That is what I call climate change

Macha

SLUSK wrote: »

We haven't experienced any real warming the last 10 years. That is what I call climate change

Well that's funny because as I understood it, the ten warmest years in the period of instrumental measure of the have all occured in the past 12 years and 2008 was the 9th warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements.

djpbarry

simplistic wrote: »

Let me give you a scenario. Ireland is in the grips of a plague of virus spreading locusts that are causing the deaths of 100,000 Irish people per yer. Some scientists discover a chemical that eleminates the locusts and start work immediatly. Hunderds of thousands of people lives are being saved. A group of enviornmentalists with government funding make a claim that this chemical is bad for the enviornment. And with the justifcation of your above source that the locusts will develop resistance to the chemical(that the same as saying lets not treat the flu because it mutates every year) and that childern MIGHT be harmed by the chemical the government bans it use. Hunderds of thousands of Irish then continue to die.

There is plenty of evidence that DDT is harmful to humans, hence the reason it is categorised as such by health organisations. What is not fully understood is the long-term effects on human health that result from it’s prolonged usage. Secondly, if mosquitoes in a particular area demonstrate a resistance to DDT (as is the case in Southern Asia in particular), then what is the point in spraying if there are associated costs, but in this scenario, little benefit?

But anyway, this isn’t really the place to discuss the use of DDT – I only brought it up to point out the inaccuracy of the statement made in the video.

simplistic wrote: »

Yeah your right its just a conspiracy that govenment use concepts to justify taxation , to manipulate public opinion , and to justify policys and that government regualation destroys prosperity and cripples the free market.

And then when the general election comes around, the electorate expresses their displeasure at the ballot box (if necessary).

I’m not really seeing the point of this thread so far. You post a video without making any specific reference to the content, then proceed to make vague assertions about government regulation and taxation – is there a point to all this? If so, please back it up with some (specific) evidence.

simplistic wrote: »

Either open a history book (why not start at the reasons for the great depression) or move this thread to the ****ing conspiracy section

And this little outburst has earned you an infraction – let’s try and keep the temper in check.

Latchy

I have never known a milder october than this one with people walking around today in short sleeve shirts .

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

Indeed I did, based on the first six minutes of the video. I simply don't have time to analyse the remaining sixteen, but I'm guessing it's going to be full of the same sort of mis-information.

Is there a point raised in the video that you would like to draw my attention to? Based on what I know of conservative American 'think-tank's', I'm guessing that at some point during the video, a claim will be made that climate change is merely a tool that governments can use to exert more control over people's lives? A reference to commies will probably be thrown in for good measure. Oh and they'll probably selectively quote some scientific findings that support their position, while ignoring anything that doesn't. Have I missed anything?

Actually I haven't watched the video... but I am not silly enough to then start commenting on something I haven't watched...

So by your own admission, you are dismissing this and any other information that comes from what you consider conservative America...

well thats really open mined of you!!!!!!!!!!!

20goto10

Forget what al gore says. Go out onto a busy road, take a gulp of air and tell me what you taste. I taste diesel, oil and tarmac. Now have a listen at the defening noise of the cars. I can't even walk around the footpaths of my estate because of all the cars parked up on them.

Watch one of the many documentaries about life in the rain forests and tell me it is not magnificant. Now take a look at the Ariel photos showing their rapid demise and think about that when you're walking around on your fancy wooden floors.

You don't need a scientist or a politician to tell you that a cleaner greener world is a better world.

What Al Gore is all about is commercialising the green movement. Large corporations only speak one language and that is money. Al Gore has brought it mainstream and he has given the corporations a reason to change. That is the message of his movie and that is why he won an Oscar.

Judgement Day

robtri wrote: »

Actually I haven't watched the video... but I am not silly enough to then start commenting on something I haven't watched...

So by your own admission, you are dismissing this and any other information that comes from what you consider conservative America...

well thats really open mined of you!!!!!!!!!!!

Well perhaps you should try watching the video - I know I gave up after a few minutes - life's too short to watch such a gross distortion of the truth!

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

So by your own admission, you are dismissing this and any other information that comes from what you consider conservative America...

I’ve dismissed the video based on the content that I watched (and questioned above), not based on where it came from. My point about the background of the people involved in it’s production is that, considering most are anti-regulation and none are scientists, it would be rather foolish to take anything they say on this subject at face value.

robtri

Judgement Day wrote: »

Well perhaps you should try watching the video - I know I gave up after a few minutes - life's too short to watch such a gross distortion of the truth!

If I wanted to amke comments on the video.... guess what.. I would have...

seriously.. think about how riddiculous it is to make judgements and comments on a video you haven't watched...