The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Our climate change 'nonsense flu' > Comments

Our climate change 'nonsense flu' : Comments

By John McRobert, published 17/6/2009

There are those who believe by taxing carbon dioxide emissions they can stop 'global warming', or 'climate change' as it is now known.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
As the author says "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it"

I infer from his article that he is suggesting that the link between carbon dioxide and climate change is a lie.

In fact climate scientists give detailed grounds for their beliefs, so it is clearly wrong to call their claims a "lie".

On the other hand, this author implies that the climate science is wrong, giving no grounds for that view beyond the infantile, eg
"The gas, carbon dioxide, uses sunlight from clear skies to mate with plant life in the miracle of photosynthesis", and "carbon dioxide, a trace gas in the atmosphere (less than 400 parts per million, a veritable drop in the atmospheric ocean)", both facts which are well understood, not in dispute, and in no way challenge the science of the greenhouse effect.

The parade of writings, in OLO and elsewhere, by people who basically don't know the science (while serious scientists spend their time doing serious scientific researdh and writing serious scientific articles) clearly has the effect described by Goebbels. This applies equally whether those writers are deliberately lying, or whether they just believe that the opinions of someone who doesn't know the science are as valuable as the opinions of those who do.
Posted by jeremy, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 10:35:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Are OLO telling advertisers exactly where their ads are place? I love the fact that Greenpeace’s “stop climate change now” ad and link appears directly below this concluding sentence:

“Not one cent of donations or taxes to any human organisation or government could have stopped those climate change events, and it's about time we concentrated on removing obstacles to accessing cheap and continuously available energy to provide resources to meet the challenges which will continue to be thrown at us by nature.”

Apart from that, rather a sad and pointless article. Yes, it’s true that mass delusions and misunderstandings have plagued human history, and also that industrialisation has raised living standards. But this has little to do with whether anthropogenic global warming is real or not, and the author makes no attempt to actually engage that issue. Simply asserting that it’s not a problem adds nothing to the debate.
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 3:41:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a breath of fresh air.

The utter vanity of the anti-human global warming religion really defies belief. Even if all the climatology were conceded, we still would be numerous steps away from even beginning to justify the conclusion that *any* policy action is warranted.

The issue as to climatology is whether the globe is warming, its statistical significance, and its cause. But even if that were conceded, which it's not, that does not justify the conclusion that there would be “mass extinctions, climate wars” and the rest of the catalogue of woe happily recited by the global warming monks.

The whole point about greenhouse gases is that they make the atmosphere more like a greenhouse – you know, those places where many species live that would otherwise die of cold? So how do the committed miserable conclude that there would be “mass extinctions”? Don’t tell me, lemme guess – more reference to absent authority in comfortable government-funded groves of academe – this time ecologists. Well surprise surprise! Do these ecologists know all the criteria of abundance and distribution of every species everwhere? No. They are as self-interested, imperfect, and reflexively statist as their friends the climatologists.

But even if the ecology of misery were conceded, which it’s not, how does that balance against the advantages of global warming? Again, all we get is more self-flagellating hysteria.

The global warming cultists keep telling us that “we” need policy action to stop from “destroying the earth”. But no-one will venture to answer, who is this “we”? Do these state-lovers presume to speak for everyone on earth, even those who disagree with them, and those whom they intend to violate and kill as human sacrifices to their values? Answer: you betcha!

Well of course, if the value you stand for is not “destroying the earth”, is “saving the planet”, what could be more pious and holy than that?

When doubted, the global warming fascists seem able only to say, with Shakespeare:

“I am sir Oracle, as who should ope his mouth, let no dog bark.”!
Posted by Wing Ah Ling, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 4:39:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, 'nonsense flu' is certainly on full alert. I have heard two recent 'global warming " alarmist reports in the last 2 days. One actually stated that in America it is believed there will be more earthquakes because of global warming! New York is now going to raise the height of it's wharves due to the 'rise in sea level' and that was just this morning. They are certainly stepping up the scar-mongering.

There should be more reports from the other side of the debate aired in such a manner. Do people really believe these so called accurate reports?

I think there are a lot of red faces presently in the IPCC; the computer modelling predictions do not seem to be working out as predicted. Well, you can only compute what is fed to the computer and let's face it, those who are receiving large sums from governments to produce these facts are likely to make them come out the way they want. They don't want to lose their funding and for whatever reasons governments want this nonsence believed so we all pay more.

Cynical you bet and sceptical regarding the motivations of this scare mongering, definitely!
Posted by RaeBee, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 7:56:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I came across this book last week. Tt was a real eye opener---the eye of informed awareness.

It gives the necessary antidote to this head in the sand ignorance.

1. http://www.morethansound.net/ecological-intelligence.php

2. http://www.ecoliteracy.org/publications/daniel_goleman.html
Posted by Ho Hum, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 9:05:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes it would be great if we could just do a trade:
"hey world, we're putting enough carbon and sulphur into the atmosphere ourselves this year; we don't need any volcanoes, thank you!"
Unfortunately, volcanic eruptions are going to occur regardless of what we do, and it is difficult to see how our contributions are going to make those events any better.
"We live on a planet of plenty. Coal reserves are mind-bogglingly huge..."
Yep, we could have said the same thing about oil... about a hundred years ago.
Posted by Grim, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 10:04:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy