Jump to content

Global warming is the greatest Fraud....


disgusted
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford?s book organizes the facts very well.) I don?t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is to be gained by governments if global warming is proved to be man made, They would have to spend billions, yes they could bring in new taxes to get some extra money, Better for them to say global warming is a myth and do nothing. They do not have to spend any more money and they wont make themselves unpopular by bringing in new taxes to pay for what ever has to be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you believe a word a politician says LtKije? After all the evidence we have been given that none of them would know the truth if it came up and bit them on the backside. The reason they are spending (wasting) these vast amounts of OUR money is simply because thats the only thing they are good at - wasting other people's money :evil::evil::evil::evil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the begining of life on Earth, it's climate and temperature has changed in cycles, hence ice ages, rises/lowering of sea levels etc. Now I've heard the causation even being blamed on the flatulance of Dinosaurs or modern cows - to which they reply "excuse me for living". :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point Obs, Yes the climate has changed in cycles over the years, I don't think anybody id disputing that. The question is, Is the climate changing in ways that are going to cause us massive problems, like lack of water, or more famine due to Man putting pollutants into the atmosphere, If the answer is yes, can we stop it.

 

Being hypothetical for a moment, If the worst case scenario plays out, there will be a lot of migration from bad areas to good areas, Can we just shut the door on the people if we are to blame for their plight. I thought you would have an interest in that Obs :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you could get the world to agree that they are creating the problem, there might be some mileage in it.

But whilst you have poorer countries emerging and progressing, like India, China etc. can they be expected to stop growing?

Iran according to the West, shouldn't have nuclear power? Are they supposed to stay in the dark ages?

It is right that we look at what we do, but let's have some common sense whilst doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the dawn of time, living beings havehad to adapt to changes in their enviroment or become extinct. To believe that, for all it's technological advances and ingenuity, a relatively puny mankind can somehow be a primary cause of or intercede in these natural events, is somekind of arrogance. Yes, we can cut out wastage, not necessarily for green reasons, but simply because wastage is an inefficient use of resources - so by all means recycle etc. However, where natural changes are and will occure, like our early forbears, we have to adapt to survive; and part of that adaption is to ensure that we don't, in terms of population demand, exceed the boundaries of the planet's resources - thus, we need to exercise population control, especially in those areas where resources are scarce and extreme weather events are becoming most frequent. The idea, that we can artificially boost food production through GM crop production or alter our production of carbon, isn't imo infinately sustainable and again arrogant. IF, CO2 levels are increasing we should be preserving and enhancing the consumers of CO2 and producers of Oxygen = Plants. As for the prospect of mass migrations, away from regions of scarce resources to those with relative abundance, I'm afraid this will merely exacerbate current and growing social discord to the point of anarchy and violence. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a relatively puny mankind can somehow be a primary cause of or intercede in these natural event

 

:shock:

 

Not saying Primary cause, :wink:

 

What happens if we add to these natural events, ie, when the next ice age comes, due to mans influence it comes down as far as Kent instead of the Lake District, Or sea levels rise instead of one metre, they rise three metres. We cannot stop them but we can reduse our influence on them :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter, I am sorry I am going to have to report you, Common sense posts destroy debate and ranting :wink::lol:

 

Perhaps if the West did say, Do what we do, not what we do, more people would listen :wink:

 

Perhaps you should read your OWN posts LtKije :roll::roll:

 

I'll believe in AGW when someone comes up with convincing evidence. So far all we've had is bluster, misinformation and downright lies from the warmists :roll::roll::roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the West took a lead, and not preached then others might follow, I see Asperity you are not revealing your sources. You do know that Bush Senior was elected on coal money in the States, He then spent Millions of dollars while in office trying to discredit the evidence of global warming, one by one his own scientists abandoned him, but your well informed you already new that, your side of the argument has its dark side Asp :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't we let the huge economies of India and China take the lead Kije? They are the biggest polluters anyway.

 

or do you subscribe to their view that they are allowed to pollute because they have a lot of catching up to do when it comes to global pollution ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest global polluter per capita is the USA - as the middle classes in China and India increase their consumption levels, they will no doubt rapidly catch up to the West in terms of waste and pollution levels - and who's to say they can't experience the benefits of "modern living"? Yet another pragmatic example of the futility of the green agenda. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LtKije if you really want me to I will compile a list of sources, but really it's only a kind of laziness on your part that you won't take off the rose tinted glasses and look for the evidence yourself. It is acommon fallacy that global warming (or climate change if you prefer) skeptics are funded by the fossil fuel industries. In fact the skeptics receive only a fraction of the billions that are thrown at the warmists.

 

Obs it is another fallacy that the US is the biggest per capita polluter. In fact the US is the only "western" country to actually reduce their emissions rather than just talk about it. :roll::roll::roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...