Anthropogenic GW is a right wing myth
chazwin
> is this consensus by scientists across the world on global warming and
> a supposed correlated anthropogenic [human] cause to a rise in
> atmospheric CO2.
You are conflating two issues. You are mistaken that the pro GW
debate
is populated by the left whilst the deniers of anthropogenic GW are
of
the right.
Nothing could be further from the truth.The numpties of GW are now in
both ends of the political spectrum.
The entire CO2 myth was stated by Thatcher and Reagan in the 1980s.
There were two main reasons for this. IN the UK Thatcher wanted an
environmental argument to break the power of the coal unions, whilst
in the US they need ammunition against the growing power of the
middle
east oil interests. Both countries wished to put nuclear power on a
more positive footing and so the IPCC was founded to look at ways to
discredit Fossil fuels in general. This was aided by a growing lobby
of anti-pollution greens and interests from a burgeoning nuclear
industry.
You have only to consult the history of the IPCC to find who were the
key players in its establishment and what the terms, goals and aims
were at the time of its foundation.
As many are basically ignorant of most things I point out that IPCC
is
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and that PM Thatcher
and
President Reagan were both right wing leaders of the Western World.
Also for those dingbats that have been asleep on still unborn in the
1980s here is a link for you to read if you are able.
http://www.dailyreportonline.com/Editorial/News/singleEdit.asp?indivi...
"She was a chemist, you know," says Spencer R. Weart, director of the
Center for the History of Physics at the American Institute of
Physics
in College Park, Md. "Margaret Thatcher was the first major world
leader to come out and warn that climate change, that the greenhouse
effect, was a serious matter."
And another one...
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=10...
Michael Gordge
> You are conflating two issues..........
And ewe are pretending that left and right wing politics are
fundamentally / philosophically different, when there is no difference
in fundamentals at all, only in degrees of evil.
Name just one philosophic / fundamental difference between left and
right
MG
Sean
"chazwin" <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c67d67ef-f592-4041...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>> The one valid argument leftist radicalism has had going for it lately
>> is this consensus by scientists across the world on global warming and
>> a supposed correlated anthropogenic [human] cause to a rise in
>> atmospheric CO2.
>
> You are conflating two issues. You are mistaken that the pro GW
> debate
> is populated by the left whilst the deniers of anthropogenic GW are
> of
> the right.
> Nothing could be further from the truth.The numpties of GW are now in
> both ends of the political spectrum.
> The entire CO2 myth was stated by Thatcher and Reagan in the 1980s.
I am not so sure that Reagan was such a go-getter in this issue - he appears
to have stood off, it wasn't until G Bush snr came in that America got more
politically onside and showed some leadership. Bill Clinton appears to have
been asleep at the wheel too, rather was unable to "move much substancially"
despite Al Gore's personal interest since college.
Here are TWO history pages which focuses on the USA & GW/CC
Global Warming as a Political Issue (1980s) TOP OF PAGE
By 1980, many climate scientists thought it likely that harmful global
warming was on the way, but Federal budgets for their research were not
rising. In 1981, Ronald Reagan took the presidency with an administration
that openly scorned their concerns. He brought with him a backlash that had
been building against the environmental movement.Many conservatives denied
nearly every environmental worry, global warming included. They lumped all
such concerns together as the rants of business-hating liberals, a Trojan
Horse for government regulation.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Govt.htm#s3
==================
AND
The Sunday TimesSeptember 7, 2008
Jason and the secret climate change war
A shadowy scientific elite codenamed Jason warned the US about global
warming 30 years ago but was sidelined for political convenience
Since the early 1990s there has been a furious debate about global warming.
So-called climate change "sceptics" have spent years disputing almost every
aspect of the scientific consensus on the subject. Their arguments have
successfully delayed significant political action to deal with greenhouse
gas emissions. Recent research reveals how the roots of this argument
stretch back to two hugely influential reports written almost 30 years ago.
These reports involve a secret organisation of American scientists reporting
to the US Department of Defense. At the highest levels of the American
government, officials pondered whether global warming was a significant new
threat to civilisation. They turned for advice to the elite special forces
of the scientific world - a shadowy organisation known as Jason. Even today
few people have heard of Jason. It was established in 1960 at the height of
the cold war when a group of physicists who had helped to develop the atomic
bomb proposed a new organisation that would - to quote one of its founders -
"inject new ideas into national defence".
So the Jasons (as they style themselves) were born; a self-selected group of
brilliant minds free to think the unthinkable in the knowledge that their
work was classified. Membership was by invitation only and they are indeed
the cream. Of the roughly 100 Jasons over the years, 11 have won Nobel
prizes and 43 have been elected to the US National
========
In 1979 they produced their report: coded JSR-78-07 and entitled The Long
Term Impact of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Climate. Now, with the benefit
of hind-sight, it is remarkable how prescient it was.
Right on the first page, the Jasons predicted that carbon dioxide levels in
the atmosphere would double from their preindustrial levels by about 2035.
Today it's expected this will happen by about 2050. They suggested that this
doubling of carbon dioxide would lead to an average warming across the
planet of 2-3C. Again, that's smack in the middle of today's predictions.
They warned that polar regions would warm by much more than the average,
perhaps by as much as 10C or 12C. That prediction is already coming true -
last year the Arctic sea ice melted to a new record low. This year may well
set another record.
Nor were the Jasons frightened of drawing the obvious conclusions for
civilisation: the cause for concern was clear when one noted "the fragility
of the world's crop-producing capacity, particularly in those marginal areas
where small alterations in temperature and precipitation can bring about
major changes in total productivity".
Scientific research has since added detail to the predictions but has not
changed the basic forecast. The Jason report was never officially released
but was read at the highest levels of the US government. At the White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy, Frank Press, science adviser to
President Jimmy Carter, asked the National Academy of Sciences for a second
opinion. This time from climate scientists.
The academy committee, headed by Jule Charney, a meteorologist from
Massachu-setts Institute of Technology (MIT), backed up the Jason
conclusions. The Charney report said climate change was on the way and was
likely to have big impacts. So by the late 1970s scientists were already
confident that they knew what rising carbon dioxide levels would mean for
the future. Then politics got in the way. And with it came the birth of
climate change scepticism.
In 1980 Ronald Reagan was elected president. He was pro-business and
pro-America. He knew the country was already in the environmental dog house
because of acid rain. If global warming turned into a big issue, there was
only going to be one bad guy. The US was by far the biggest producer of
greenhouse gases in the world. If the president wasn't careful, global
warming could become a stick to beat America with.
So Reagan commissioned a third report about global warming from Bill
Nierenberg, who had made his name working on the Manhattan Project
developing America's atom bomb. He went on to run the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography where he had built up the Climate Research Division. And he was
a Jason. Nierenberg's report was unusual in that individual chapters were
written by different authors. Many of these chapters recorded mainstream
scientific thinking similar to the Charney and Jason reports. But the key
chapter was Nierenberg's synthesis - which chose largely to ignore the
scientific consensus.
His basic message was "calm down, everybody". He argued that while climate
change would undoubtedly pose challenges for society, this was nothing new.
He highlighted the adaptability that had made humans so successful through
the centuries. He argued that it would be many years before climate change
became a significant problem. And he emphasised that with so much time at
our disposal, there was a good chance that technological solutions would be
found. "[The] knowledge we can gain in coming years should be more
beneficial than a lack of action will be damaging; a programme of action
without a programme for learning could be costly and ineffective. [So] our
recommendations call for 'research, monitoring, vigilance and an open
mind'."
Overall, the synopsis emphasised the positive effects of climate change over
the negative, the uncertainty surrounding predictions of future change
rather than the emerging consensus and the low end of harmful impact
estimates rather than the high end. Faced with this rather benign scenario,
adaptation was the key.
If all this sounds familiar, it should. Similar arguments have been used by
global warming sceptics ever since Nierenberg first formulated them in 1983.
Global warming was duly kicked into the political long grass - a distant
problem for another day. At a political level, Nierenberg had won.
f all this sounds familiar, it should. Similar arguments have been used by
global warming sceptics ever since Nierenberg first formulated them in 1983.
Global warming was duly kicked into the political long grass - a distant
problem for another day. At a political level, Nierenberg had won.
But this was only the beginning of his involvement in what eventually became
a movement of global warming sceptics. A year after his report came out he
became a co-founder of the George C Marshall Institute, one of the leading
think tanks that would go on to challenge almost every aspect of the
scientific consensus on climate change. Nierenberg hardened his position. He
began to argue not just that global warming wasn't a problem, but also that
it wasn't happening at all. There was no systematic warming trend, the
climate was simply going through its normal, natural fluctuations.
The creed that Nierenberg originated all those years ago still has its
dwindling band of followers. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential
candidate, recently responded to a question about global warming by saying:
"I'm not one who would attribute it to being man-made."
Professor Naomi Oreskes is a historian of science, researching the history
of climate change.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4690900.ece
cheers
THE BORG
"Michael Gordge" <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:899093d1-a4d2-4a2e...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
MG
****
Hear, hear.
Yes, politics and politicians are merely differing degrees
of evil, they are ALL bad.
No real care for the people or planet, the only concern is
vote winning strategies for election or re-election.
Does not matter if the strategies or policies are right,
only that they get the votes.
There is no truth or sincerity in politics.
Politics seems to attract weak people who are too afraid to
do anything for fear of upsetting the voters, so they dabble
their toes in the water with weak, insipid policies when
what the world wants are major changes.
The Pope and religious leaders are the same.
All weak and insipid people, who kow tow to the people and
spend their time trying not to upset the populace rather
than doing what is right, and what is right is basically
what the people really want if only any politicians or
leaders or religious leaders had the courage to do so.
THE BORG
Michael Gordge
> "Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
Very well said, but what a huge pity it is that your next post will
show you to be away with the fairies again.
MG
Michael Gordge
> That prediction is already coming true -
> last year the Arctic sea ice melted to a new record low. This year may well
> set another record.
More lies from the desperate leftist commie cunt Sean, in total
ignorance of the evidence as presented by scientists from his own
country.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html
"Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in
East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative
Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness
of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at
Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m."
MG
Tim
Learn to read dumb-ass, he's talking about the artic.
Sean
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html
MG
Mikcey, I hate to bust your bubble of superiority, but the Artic is NOT the
Antartic.
A minor point perhaps to you, but most folsk on the planet tend to get that
the Artic is an ice cvoere ocean, andnthe antartic is a Continent ... they
are not the same thing, belive it or not.
Please place your apology ONE here ----->>
Secondly, I do not know where you got the following --
On Nov 21, 11:56 pm, "Sean" <h...@home.net> wrote:
> That prediction is already coming true -
> last year the Arctic sea ice melted to a new record low. This year may
> well
> set another record.
Becasue THAT was not actually IN the post you are replying to -- which was a
COPY/Paste from history websites about Thatcher and co back in the late
1980's and early 90's
SO ... Please place your apology TWO here ----->>
Thanks awefully so much :-)
But do keep on trying, as it means you aren't verballing your neighbours of
local township.
<smile>
Michael Gordge
>
> Learn to read dumb-ass, he's talking about the artic.
He's talking about man making the globe hot ewe dumb fuck, he's
claiming the ice is melting because of man, he and other leftist brain
dead cockheads have been claiming the ice is melting at BOTH the artic
and antartic, the evidence contradicts them.
MG
Michael Gordge
> Mikcey, I hate to bust your bubble of superiority, but the Artic is NOT the
> Antartic.
Ewe fucking dishonest leftist commie git, ewe and all other fucked in
the head leftist retards are claiming man is causing the ice to melt.
MG
Giga
"chazwin" <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c67d67ef-f592-4041...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
I'm not sure that makes sense to me. Margaret Thatcher defeated the coal
unions in a more direct way, policemen on horseback. Reagan discredited the
USA's own coal and oil interests as well if this theory was right, and GW
didn't?