On 26/03/2013 3:46 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:37:25 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 26/03/13 13:47, Nightjar wrote:
On 26/03/2013 11:44, Tim Watts wrote:
On Tuesday 26 March 2013 11:31 Martin Brown wrote in uk.d-i-y:


There is a rearguard action by US coal, Exxon and it's deniers for
hire to prevent the general public hearing what scientists have to
say. They honed their disinformation skills working for big tobacco
manufacturing doubt to keep the suckers smoking. And it is a very
effective tactic.

With everyone talking ******** and running with an agenda (both ways)
how do
*I* know who to believe?

My position is to carry on as normal until the nonsense can be sorted
out.

You say a majority of meteorologists agree that greenhouse gasses are
driving climate change. Do you have a link or a book/paper that says
so? I'm
am prepared at this stage to read something thick if I have to.

The best the IPCC managed was to ask loaded questions, then use very
broad categories, rather than actual percentages of responses, to try
to imply that the answers to them showed that the majority of
scientists agreed. Reading the results carefully, I am inclined to
think that about 2 out of 3 of the contributors were willing to concede
that human activity may have had some, unquantified and not necessarily
significant, effect on the climate.

Hell even I will concede that the effect of human activities on climate
is non zero. I'll even admit there is a certainty that excess CO2 in the
atmosphere will make a small difference as well. As will the fart that
my dog has just let off.

But that's a far cry from blaming the future of the entire planet on him
fr nicking that catfood.

Enron and Gore started this going to sell GAS instead of COAL. they
freaked a bit at windmills till they realised

- windmills dont reduce the need for fossil fuel - windmills work better
with gas, anyway.

And the best way to disguise the fact that it was all dreamed up for
profit by fossil fuel companies was to claim that anyone who opposed it
was funded by fossil fuel companies for profit.

So you bunged a few million to greenpeace, FOE, renewable energy/climate
research this that an the other. To generate a steady stream of 'on
message' articles all peer reviewed by your eco chums. Its all
blindsiding. The important thing as to ensure everybody used more GAS.

So, attack coal attack nuclear and attack oil, and gouge away

The russians recognised it immediately. They have lots of GAS. Great.
They are master propagandists. It's their old CND network that is the
greenpeace and FOE of today. Yes, that's the one that told you that
reactors are atomic bombs waiting to happen, that nuclear power is just
another name for nuclear weapons, that atomic fallout would destroy all
life on the planet and there was no such thing as a safe level of
radiation. Is it a coincidence that the Guardians financial decline
started at the same time the USSR disintegrated?

I think that the effect of humans on this planet is vastly overimagined,
when you consider how long the planet has been here.

Age of planet: 4,500,000,000 years ago.
Life on earth: 3,800,000,000 years ago (apprx).
Mankinds industrial age: 300 years ago.

So you are asking me to believe that *one* species, can lay waste to a
planet in 3,800,000,000 / 300 years ? I certainly believe that one
species can lay waste to *itself* in that time, but that's not "climate
change".

The climate changes all the time. 2,000 years ago the Romans grew white
grapes in Yorkshire. Try doing that now. 300 years ago the Thames froze
over *every* winter. 10,000 years ago you could walk from Spain to
Scotland - and we know people did. Try that now.

Even the experts admit climate change is truly chaotic. Which means you
can't factor in or out anything mankind does.

Incidentally, there is NOTHING wrong with wanting to live in a more
sustainable way. It's something we should be putting all our effort into.
Not because of climate change though. Just because it's more sensible in
the long run.

One day, someone will write a book, or make a film. It will start with
the idealism and hope after the second world war. It will chart how well
meaning, sincere folk started to realise that we can't just rape the
planet and not pay. These evolved into the counterculture of the 60s,
which were derided, mocked and ridiculed by mainstream society.

Then, somewhere between the 60s, and the 90s, a sort of critical mass was
reached - maybe the 1984/5 Band-Aid/Live-Aid phenomenon ? Either way,
somehow, people in suits with wire-rimmed glasses and red braces had an
epiphany. They realised you could actually SELL being green. You could
slap the word "organic" on a food and double the price. So they did.

What was brilliant about this, was that it was the environmentalists that
were effectively paying for the marketing. Every Greenpeace ad about the
environment would see a jump in sales of "Eco" this, and "Green" that.

And our lords and masters looked upon this, and they saw it was good.

And thus it came to pass that the 1980s misbred young executives that
were heavily advertised became the advisers and policy consultants of the
90s.

And lo verily, did the notion of "Green taxes" be dreamt up. For they did
see, that whilst Joe Public might be narked about an extra penny on
income tax, the same Joe Public would queue up to "save the planet".

I'm sorry, but personally I think the worlds public have been hoodwinked
on a massive scale. "Green energy" is a good example. It's doing **** all
for the planet (in fact it's a net carbon contributor) but it's doing
wonders for the firms that build the kit, and wonders for the upper-
middle classes who actually get paid up to 40p/unit for the electricity
that they put into the grid which is charged at 10p/unit.

Everyday I see many small things that could save a shed load of energy.
Very simple things. But guess what ? There's no money in it for anyone,
so it's ignored. Which leads me to my view of life. "If it *really*
mattered ..."

If reducing emissions *really* mattered, you'd have a planning and tax
system which encouraged work from home, and staggered working hours. That
would cost very little, but - guess what ? No money in it. In fact you'll
find behind the scenes the road and rail lobby would HATE any idea like
that. So it's left alone.

When the government *acts* like it matters, then I will.

What I find particularly depressing, is people who are a victim of bad
science in one area, appear to be willing to fall for it in another.

I manage to avoid long debates on climate change now, by just saying:
"Define climate. Define change".

FWIW I have a more Gaian view of things. We live in a symbiosis with
everything on earth, including the Earth. And just like a body with an
infection, if we start to make the Earth poorly, then it's immune system
will start to kick in to eradicate us. Or, alternatively, like a cell
about to divide, we somehow manage to become 2 cells. But that requires
interplanetary travel on a scale way beyond out capabilities. Especially
if our offspring are more content to watch Celebrity Big Brother rather
than design a better mousetrap.

Here endeth the rant for today


Very well put. And, which clearly explains, it's not the Earth that
needs saving!

To all:

As for governments anywhere; they too, are in the palms of the
money-movers. The 'meek' shall inherit the Earth but, not without the
pressure needed to re-shape governments.

The fact that governments borrow money from banks that, in truth,
don't own money and, that the people have to pay interest on as tax,
disgusting!
Go ogle for Mark Cocking. He make it clearer. And, for those of you
who haven't done already, watch the Zeitgeist movie on Youtube.

Below is one such 'people power' site. Sign up and start putting your
finger on the button of persuasion.

--
One click voting to change the world.
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/
Join Now! Be a part of people power.