The Truth Files

earthonfire

The scientific reality is that virtually every claim from A to Z  made by the promoters of man-made climate fears is falling short or going in the opposite direction from reality.

Read CFACT’s Climate Truth File: 2014

Obama speaks at Energy

What energy and environmental policies should Americans support?

Read CFACT’s Energy and Environment Truth File: 2014

Categories

About the Author: CFACT Ed

  • Brin Jenkins

    Its good to have resources on line, many thanks.

    Brin, Cornwall UK.

  • tony

    The president thinks by simply saying something, no matter how outrageous such as claiming “climate change is our greatest threat”, it will become reality. And for his first term ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN were able to convince enough low information voters it was so.

  • RoscoeBonifitucci

    Global Warming my big, hairy behind. Obola Lies about Global “Climate Change” in order to have a mass re-distribution of wealth in order to Kill America and her People.

    • zn

      *Obama

  • Busdriver Bill

    That medieval “global warming” period produced no catastrophe, rather the increase in healthy plant growth allowed folks to have more time to think, spawning the renaissance, and the enlightenment of the intellect. Aren’t we about due for another such enlightenment? Seems as if we could use one.

    • Tom

      Renaissance was proceeded by the death of a third of Europe from the black plaque. We haven’t seen that reduction in population that makes jobs plentiful and increases the number of people making a comfortable living.

  • Busdriver Bill

    This whole climate change game is a “FALSE-FLAG” event. We are being led down the garden path into a more managed society – one where all the major decisions will be laid out for us, no choice – check out UN Agenda 21, and Tom deWeese’s commentary on it.

    • Randy G.

      It has already been proven that global warming is FALSE. It has actually been cooler over the last 18 years. And that comes from the experts. They are using global warming as a way of fooling people into thinking there is something that is going to hurt or even kill them…so they are afraid and think he is helping when really, he is fooling everyone…Obama needs to be removed from the white house before we all see America go down the tubes….

      • Busdriver Bill

        Absolutely correct, but the problem is deeper than just the Soetoro phony presidency. It lies at the feet of an insurgency into our whole governing process. It wouldn’t matter even if Gore, McCain, or Romney were elected in the past three elections. Both parties take their orders from a secret government which never changes from election to election. Should anybody begin to show individuality, he’s snuffed, or marginalized through intimidation. It’s going to take a grand awakening of the populace – a general uprising, naming names, acts, and demanding retribution. Then we have to survive the martial law which will surely follow.
        We must expunge all the dual citizens from all levels of government, as they work for a little country about the size of Delaware, and don’t give a shit about the future of the US. DHS is filled with them.

        • zn

          What I’ve noticed about climate change skeptics is how little you actually talk about the environment. Mostly you guys are caught up in slandering liberals and talking about ‘taking back America’ from whichever mythical enemy you think has infiltrated her borders.

          That’s the thing. You guys don’t really even know why you’re against green energy and environmental protection. All you want to do is throw rocks at the other side, and the environment is just another rock. What I read on this site is clearly promulgating a certain political viewpoint, which is further reflected in the nature of the comments here.

          If you want to talk politics, go to the Washington Post. If you have some opinions or dare I say, solutions, for the environment, then let’s hear them. Otherwise you’re just another cog in the big political machine.

          • Busdriver Bill

            “Green Energy” he says. He doesn’t know anything about the so-called “environmental movement.” The money behind it is all political, being from folks who wish to weaken our constitutional republic and hand it over to an oligarchy. And the Washington Post, the New York Times, as well as most of the others are complicit in the agenda. Do your homework, my friend, before allowing your tongue to wag. Then of course, you could be a Troll, couldn’t you?

            • Brin Jenkins

              Spot on Bill, it is happening in all Western Countries at the same time. Co-incidence?

            • zn

              Haha, it’s all good dude. A few solar panels on peoples’ roofs isn’t going to be the downfall of the United States.

              And no, I’m not a troll. This is called debate. Weird to find debate on the internet, I know, but that’s why I’m here. If you have something to say about the validity of renewable energy sources or the protection of natural environments, then let’s hear it. But if you simply want to espouse theories on new world orders or Obama’s birth heritage or the sanctity of marriage, then I suggest you find other avenues to express your views.

              Give me some original ideas instead of the boring propaganda I keep hearing…

              • Brin Jenkins

                I can only talk about solar panels on UK roofs. The green bonus paid comes from levies charged by all electricity companies on Government decree. The free electricity and payments are all at the expense of other consumers. By the time 10% of generation was deemed to be green, the cost per unit had been doubled. When 20% is reached a similar increase will have happened again and the cost per unit is already £0.2, which is I understand 3 times more than in the USA.

                It gets worse, the highest solar output is in July with output falling to 12% in Feb when we need it the most. National grid transmission losses in the UK are 28%. The effort in balancing load and generation is horrific at 10% green, quick start up emergency costly to keep ticking over for when they are needed and further increasing unit charges to consumers.

                This can be verified on Gridwatch, industry figs updated every few mins.

                http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

                No industry requiring energy can function in such an environment, jobs are exported.

                • zn

                  Ok, this is a good start. I agree, solar power probably isn’t the best solution for the UK’s energy needs in the near term. That being said, the North Sea is a prime location for wind power, which seems to be growing quite steadily as efficiencies increase and costs drop.

                  • Brin Jenkins

                    The wind is steadier at sea, I have done good deal of offshore sailing. When the wind blows you travel, when it stops, so do you!

                    With generation when the wind stops, we require load balancing backup to cover the whole of the green input.

                    This is covered by this site,

                    http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

                    Do look at it the information, its from an electrical engineer using industry information for the UK and France.

                    Currently we see 6 Gw from wind turbines, yesterday it was less than 2 Gw. The load is only 32Gw currently, it peaks at 60Gw in Winter.

                    This is Wikipedia info:-
                    January 2014, wind power in the United Kingdom consisted of 5,276 wind turbines with a total installed capacity of over 10 gigawatts:

                    We have never seen a full capacity output, 18% of load is the highest I’ve ever seen and this is a low demand time. I fully expect blackouts in winter on cold wind less days of high demand. For this we have completed our industrial destruction. Aluminium can no longer be produced in the UK. Energy is very expensive here, (3*the USA) and all based on the Carbon Theory.

                    Are there any doubts as to why we hate this green energy?

                    • zn

                      I actually did look at Gridwatch when you included the link, and it’s a fascinating site. I was actually surprised that wind power was as high as 18 per cent. That’s a LOT of coal not being burned!

                      However, I totally agree that this isn’t enough for base-load power. In saying that though, the crux of my argument is that, more than anything, renewables present a technology issue, and there’s plenty of smart people working on making them more efficient and more capable.

                      Instead of simply saying they can never work, all I’m suggesting is that they have potential, and with the right support mechanisms, might actually be an improvement on current technology, which is what, like, 200 years old!?

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      I like old technologies, there is much development left in Hydraulics as an energy store and hydraulic motors are virtually loss free, compressing air is a very poor alternative through thermal losses. Super capacitors showed promise at covering startup loads but the discharge curve seems too steep for a general battery alternative, and the limits are finite.

                      With any new technologies development engineering is the key, and not full scale investments before proper evaluation. This is what happened with both Wind and Photovoltaic generation through vested political pressures. As a primary power plant they are not cost effective.

                      Question, why have we promoted DAB radios when the energy consumption and cost is so much higher then non processor radios?

              • alpha2actual

                Premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” Founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)– Maurice Strong,

                “Whoever desires to promote the transformation of the global economy, must first overhaul the UN Commission,” say Nils Simon, Marianne Beisheim and Steffen Bauer. “Rio 2012 is the only chance for this and the state leaders must not pass it up…a fundamental institutional reshuffling of the United Nations in the area of environment and sustainable development. A strengthened mandate paired with strong political leadership as cover, more effective negotiating processes and implementation instruments as well as comprehensive and secured financial means are essential elements of such a reform.”

                It certainly cannot be denied that the warmunists and the rest of their brethren on the political left entirely disapprove of virtually our entire American social order — from the distribution of wealth to race relations to the war against radical Islam to how we make and use energy and more.

                “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

                Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III

                “I describe the climate change movement as a combination of an extreme political ideology and a religious cult all rolled into one. It’s a very, very dangerous social phenomenon. It causes them to think they have the right to dictate what we do.”

                “By the time I left in ‘86, Greenpeace had drifted into a position of characterizing humans as the enemies of the Earth, a cancer on the planet. One of my main contentions is that to see humans as separate from nature and the ecology and the environment is defying the most important first law of ecology, which is that we are all part of nature.”

                The collapse of World Communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall led to the environmental movement being hijacked by the political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti capitalism and anti globalization than with science or ecology.

                Patrick Moore, Former Greenpeace honcho

            • Scottar

              ZN is just another rabid, foaming at the mouth liberal, he just can’t handle the facts. Ask him about the validity of renewables and he will give you a green wash statement that it’s just “green common sense”.

              And notice how he puts things in your mouth you never uttered, typical liberalism. He’s full of green slime propaganda.

              I tangled with him on another website and he blew it off as a Koch Brothers conspiracy. So keep on reading Cfact and keep up the good fight.

          • Brin Jenkins

            Perhaps the Greenies have made it a political matter, Climate Change as a political tool became inevitable! Its a Social changing agenda we see, don’t you?

            • zn

              Climate change is naturally a political issue because money is involved. Money = politics. My point is that a lot of what I read on climate denial forums has nothing to do with the environment. There is a lot, and I mean a lot, of unrelated political propaganda involved, which I feel is largely a result of the environment being used as a wedge issue to promote certain political views.

              To me, renewable energy is no different to a computer or an iPhone – it’s a technology which benefits humanity and one that can be improved using scientific and engineering principles.

              Yet the mere mention of renewable energy seems to get certain people super riled, like it’s an affront to the entire constitutional democracy of Western civilization. This seems unreasonable, and that’s what I have expressed in the comments above.

          • alpha2actual

            Louis Proyect of Columbia University, “The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now.”

            Havel Wolf member of the Seattle Audubon Society says: “The Communist Party USA’s environmental program “presents a viable plan to carry out on the long march to socialism.”

            According to A Layman’s Guide to Anthropogenic (Man-Made) Global Warming

            “Fear of AGW provides a way to engage everyone in the movement. Socialists of all stripes no longer have to spew Marxist notions that turn most people off; now, they can talk the science of global warming and hurricanes and massive floods and such, and, using fear, trample the average guy into their socialist goals of stifling capitalism, growth, and having the government take over the economy through this environmental back-door.”

            Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S Undersecretary of State for global issues, addressing the Rio Climate Summit audience. “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the UN Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

            Opening remarks offered by Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”

            Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

            “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace.

            • zn

              Wow, digging up the old CFACT debates. I bailed out on you guys months ago because the conversations were boring and incoherent and I see not much has changed.

              What’s your point with all these quotes? I literally don’t know what I’m meant to get out of these. If you’re trying to make a point just say it, in your own words.

      • Brin Jenkins

        In the UK we the the same problems, just like the whole of the EU, Australia and all Western civlisations and cultures.

        The Frankfurt School in 1926 Germany was set up to invigorate the spread of the Socialist revolution across the globe. They had certain recommendations which are now bearing fruit. Its well worth googling especially an expose by the Catholic Herald. The destruction of marriage by spreading sexual perversion, all faiths, private wealth, recourse to lawful justice. Immigration to destroy Nationhood.

        Common purpose, fit for purpose, and other buzz words identify the sources of the cultural revolution we are seeing. Be vigilant, say no and throw spanners in the machinery. All local and central Government has been infiltrated by useful idiots do the lever pulling.

  • peterfalexander

    GENERAL NON FICTON PULITZER WORTHY

  • omegaman

    Also worthy of the best FICTION award.

    • Brin Jenkins

      Tell us where and how?

  • omegaman

    When Obama speaks, I am reminded of the quote: “Tis better to have people think you’re dumb, than to open your mouth and remove all doub.

    • omegaman

      “doubt”

      • Brin Jenkins

        I believe Soros befriended him at a young age because of his anti white leanings. Obama may not be very bright but women liked him for his good looks, and he does as his puppet masters tell him.
        A true son of Satan.

      • zn

        LOL.

    • Busdriver Bill

      Mark Twain, I believe. We could use one like him about now.

  • zn

    Just to clarify for any curious readers, the 97 per cent consensus that is commonly mentioned in the media more accurately refers to a 2013 study of 12,000 scientific papers written between 1991 and 2011, which found that 97.1 per cent of papers that took a position on AGW affirmed its existence. This correlates with a 2004 study of papers published between 1993 and 2003 which found no active disagreement in consensus.

    http://theconversation.com/its-true-97-of-research-papers-say-climate-change-is-happening-14051

    • Brin Jenkins

      Who wrote these papers, and to what end? Was there a point for so many?

      Perhaps they were collected from the Tony Blair initiative in funding UK university studies, only the pro warming papers had any further funding for their thesis.

      • zn

        Scientists wrote these papers, because that’s what scientists do. And you’re calculation was wrong. It would be 120 per year, not 1200, not that that matters though.

        And the part about Tony Blair…? Come on man, be reasonable.

        • Brin Jenkins

          Thanks, I was in a rush when I sent it.

          Tony Blair however is a totally evil Internationalist following an agenda. He has boasted that he changed the UK permanently with his agenda on immigration, and education substituting propaganda.

          • zn

            Brin, using absolute labels like “totally evil” doesn’t make for intelligent debate. Let’s try and stay level-headed here.

            • Brin Jenkins

              OK ZN, you need my reasons.

              1 He lied about any of his political intentions when first getting into UK power.

              2 He set about increasing immigration to an un sustainable level to change the demography of the UK. He has since boasted of achieving this.

              3 He set about destroying our ancient Common Law which has always been superior to Statute Law, this was only for Commerce and shipping purposes. He tried to repeal the Treason Laws, before committing what was treason. No body has the power or authority to give our sovereignty away. It is in the hands of our 40 Barons descendants who signed the Magna Carta.

              4 He lied about weapons of mass destruction to enable the Gulf war to change the regime of Iraq, had he been truthful this war would not have been started.

              5 He said he placed education at the heart of his plans. Setting up OFSTD ensured that only political correct information would be taught in schools. In universities he made money available to students researching Climate, those who supported the Carbon Theory had more money and job offers, those who did not were sidelined.

              6 Under his leadership control of all County Councils was effectively passed to central Government by means of taxation and financial grants. He called this the decentralisation of power.

              7 He continued the morphing of what was started as a Common Market (with no loss of sovereignty) into the European Union.

              8 He agreed for the dismantling of our ancient County boundaries into EU regions which would tie us into Portugal and Gibraltar control.

              There have been much more done in his name including the Common Purpose Charity set up to ensure future leaders would lead beyond authority (Their own motto) There never was any mention of these ambitions before he was elected.

              This man is a SAINT?

              • zn

                You’ve totally missed the point. See what I’ve said above. I don’t care about your views on immigration or the EU or the Magna Carta. These have nothing to do with the environment. If you’re going to spend your time commenting on a website devoted to climate change denial, then let’s hear your opinions on climate change. Let’s hear what you think about renewable energy, or habitat protection, or recycling.

                If you want to critique Tony Blair’s political legacy then by all means go ahead. But don’t use the environment as a prop to veil your rhetoric.

                • Brin Jenkins

                  No, you miss the point. I feel that major political players in the field have pushed hard furthering what is considered a common purpose in the play for a New World Order. Now you may like to take motivation out of this argument, but I don’t. Disregard half the factors and you have only half the story. A motivation for promoting a flawed theory for instance.

                  Tony Blair is only one recent factor in this, have you studied political history and the Marxist foundations? The Communist Manifesto and the need to destroy and rebuild civilisation? The Hegel Society in the mid 1800’s? The Frankfurt School that followed the stalled march of Communism after the Russian Revolution?

                  I might say that I don’t care what happens in the USA, its untrue of course because the whole of the Western World is involved in wealth redistribution by political means. Global Warming is a Socialist tool for doing this and destroying our culture.

                  Before you say conspiracy, I ask how many coincidences will you swallow?

                  I’m starting to wonder why you take the limiting stance you do. Is a quest for truth, or a desire to obscure it?

                  • zn

                    Ok, I think we’re done here.

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      agreed

                    • zn

                      No, I just don’t care. Your political views are of no interest to me.

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      I understand, and that is why you don’t see the whole picture.

        • Brin Jenkins

          Just reading the numbers again over a 20 year period :-
          120 papers *20 years=1140 papers not the rounded fig of 12000.

          Therefore the more accurate number of papers written is:-
          12000/20=600.

          My figs of 1200 a year was doubled due to my reading 10 years instead of 20, The kindly meant correction was 4 times more inaccurate.

          As very few papers had been written on Global Warming in the previous 20 years it might be interesting to know the motivation for this sudden activity, or in simple terms who commissioned this writing flurry?

    • alpha2actual

      The Cook nonsense. Of the 11,994 papers 67 agreed that Anthropogenic Global warming is a reality while 75 papers rejected the hypotheses. Please do a simple Google search on” Cook 97% consensus debunked”

      • zn

        Err… the information I used was taken directly from the source – http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024

        This is from the report:

        “[Of the 11 944] we find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

        And my point still stands that CFACT was misleading in its representation of the 97 per cent consensus, or perhaps they weren’t aware this report even existed…

        • alpha2actual

          Read Tol.

          • zn

            Mmm, I did a bit of reading up on Tol, and I actually think he’s a pretty reasonable dude. I don’t tend to get too caught up in stats as I’ve realised that for every Tol there is a Stern, but Tol’s general position doesn’t seem intolerable.

            I think he’s basically saying there will be consequences from the over consumption of earth’s resources, and that limiting carbon emissions can be effective in reducing future consequences. But he seems to back off from some of the more severe predictions of the IPCC and the climate ‘media’ in general. To me this is fine, because it comes from a place of reason.

            He’s not saying climate change doesn’t exist or that renewable energy isn’t a possible solution, he’s just more conservative in his appraisal.

      • Scottar

        To get a more accurate analysis of the Cook Consensus got here:

        http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15457-global-warming-consensus-cooking-the-books/15457-global-warming-consensus-cooking-the-books

        Global Warming “Consensus”: Cooking the Books
        21 May 2013

        32.6% doesn’t sound like a consensus to me.

        And the online rating process is covered there as well. There where many scientists whose reached the same conclusion as Cfact, and Cfact probably used some of these analysis as references.

        And then there is the IPCC Consensus:

        http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15465-climate-consensus-con-game-desperate-effort-before-release-of-un-report

        Climate “Consensus” Con Game: Desperate Effort Before Release of UN Report

        22 May 2013

        ZN is omitting important facts of the Cook et.el. as he does on many other rants he posts.

        He opines- Don’t politicize it when in fact he does and it is being politicized. You can show him the facts and he either fold or pull up some card like the Koch Brothers

        • zn

          Re-read my first comment. I read the report and was careful not to claim 97 per cent of all scientists believe climate change is happening. If you were to also read the report, you would be aware that of the near 12,000 peer-review scientific papers published between 1991 and 2011, only 0.7 per cent actively claim climate change wasn’t happening.

          My source is from the primary source. Your source is from a lobby group.

          • Brin Jenkins

            I will agree climate changes happen, they always have and always will whilst the system continues. The problem lies with the “well proven”. Hypothetical link with man made, and the foolish claim the science is now settled. It would never have been promoted outside of a few eco warriors if it were not politically driven. Ignore the driving force and you have horse blinkers on, seeing only the track ahead. Most of these papers were written by graduates and undergraduates to ensure employment via political funding from our own taxes.

            • zn

              Ok, that’s just silly. But I put it to you, who has more to gain from climate change being real? A bunch of undergrads who’ll maybe earn 60k a year through research grants, or numerous multinational energy corporations who stand to lose hundreds of billions of dollars from the cessation of their massively polluting business models?

              • Brin Jenkins

                Your point is who profits the most, a guy wanting a job, or multinational companies?

                For the Undergraduate I understand his motivation, many have skewed morality for less incentive. Support the Climate hypothesis and be employed, or stack shelves in a super market! Hobson’s choice.

                Your other point on International Companies I can agree on, they are not a force for Global good, and I feel they should be broken up.

                However I am not paid by grants, Governments, Companies of any size, International or not and I know no one who receives payment from them for countering the Climate arguments. I argue only from my own understanding and resources. This is where your understanding seems flawed, it is entirely political and a move towards the intended Global Government. Ignore motivation and you are misled.

                • zn

                  Nope. No politics here. I’m more of a technologist. If you’ve done your own research and come to your own conclusions then I have no problem with your views, so long as you’re aware of the inherent bias imbued in all perspectives. Like I said, I’m here for debate, not propaganda, and if we agree to disagree then that’s fine by me.

                  *Also, there is no new world order 😉

                  • Brin Jenkins

                    Just announced yesterday, the EU and African Union have signed a historic agreement on migration, there is to be free movement and border controls further dismantled. This makes a nonsense of our borders and will lead to white genocide as millions more are given the OK to move into the EU.

          • Scottar

            A 97% of about 33% of the 12,000 submitted, that’s some consensus man! But this peer reviewed analysis also disputes even that claim.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

            Cooks ‘97% Consensus’ Disproven by a New Peer Reviewed Paper Showing Major Math Errors

            September 3, 2013

            The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”. The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950.

            You alarmists are always jacking the numbers, just like the IPCC jacks up the warming factor whose basis is not peer review, but pal review for grant money. And Cook is just a stupid cartoonist clown anyway.

            • zn

              Alpha2actual says 67 papers agreed global warming is happening, now you’re saying only 41 agreed. I’m so confused! Which is it, skeptics? What is a poor rabid alarmist to believe these days!?

              • Brin Jenkins

                Well I must agree, so many lies have been promoted as the most likely cause of Global Warming, aerosol propellants, methane from cow farts, ozone, carbon dioxide. and various refrigeration gases, usually the most efficient. Next year it might change yet again, who can guess.

                No wonder we get confused, but was that not the general idea to get us bogged down in small detail so we miss the big lies? Why not look at the Sun where all of our energy comes from, this has always fluctuated modifying our climate in cycles.

                • zn

                  Ok, I get it. You don’t believe in climate change. But do you really think pumping billions of tonnes of these chemicals into the air is a good thing? Look at Beijing, or southern California, or any river in any major capital city.

                  There’s truth and lies to both sides of this coin, but I guarantee you you don’t want to live next to a coal-fired powered plant or an oil refinery. If you want to fight the government then that’s your choice, but you don’t have to forsake the environment to do so.

                  I hope you see this.

                  • Brin Jenkins

                    I do believe in climate changes though. Be rather silly not to when it always has, and always will vary.

                    No, I don’t forsake our environment either. We should recycle, but only when economically viable, and produce less Carbon particulates in our exhausts. Perhaps the MGP efficiency is more reliable and straightforward, a cleaner burn will always be more efficient and carbon is not a dreadful pollutant. In years past it was a major ingredient in gunpowder, we need it for pencils, super capacitors and toner cartridges. I just love carbon!

              • Scottar

                I can’t vouch for Alpha2actual as he didn’t provide a link. Most of the websites I went to said it was 67 but Alpha2 may have got it from here:

                http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

                However, it’s clear that the claimed 97% Consensus is just baffle them with BS. And Cook’s group mythology was contrived also:

                Keyword searches are more likely to turn up “consensus” papers. Many skeptical papers don’t use the terms “global warming” or “global climate change” like Svensmark (1998), Douglass (2007), Christy (2010), Loehle (2009), and Spencer (2011). Were they included?

                The Cook team also skewed the results of their findings by the database they chose to draw papers from, using the Web of Science (WoS) rather than SciVerse Scopus. “Choosing exclusive WoS over inclusive Scopus.

                I have been to Cook’s skeptical Science site and it’s a hoot. It has all the validity of that picture of a polar bear frolicking on a little ice berg that the enviro fraudsters claimed was drowning. But Cook is essentially being funded to spin climate science.

  • alpha2actual

    Robert Proctor coined the term ‘agnotology’ the study of how ignorance, particularly in scientific, military and technical matters, can be manufactured, manipulated by strategies and campaigns dominated by vested interests. Another, less sophisticated definition is “induced ignorance”. This perfectly describes the current state of the Anthropogenic Climate Change science debate.

    So I decided to coin a synonym ‘agendaist’, but someone beat me to the punch, Onyxhawke.com defines

    agendaist as individuals who unlike most of the rest of us can only focus on one thing and their agenda is the prism through which all things are viewed, it is the one true yardstick, and the alpha and omega of their existence. They do come in all flavors, although thanks the prodigious effort they put into focusing on their totem there is no room for any other neurological function. All their efforts are twisted to viewing the entire world into classifying everyone as either with us or against us. Example is “Denier”, a not so subtle pejorative referring to Holocaust Denial. Therefore I will posit that it is perfectly appropriate to refer to Anthropogenic Climate Change agendaists as climate change Nazis, as Dr Roy Spenser has suggested.

    This sort of obsessive, or more accurately, pathological behavior will cause an Agendaists to take a statement by a person they’ve probably never met or interacted with in anyway, and twist it to fit their agenda.

  • Brin Jenkins

    As some folks promote only the Carbon theory, we should be asking how are these Carbon taxes currently spent? Are they spent reducing our carbon output? Or financing conflict with tanks and military aircraft?

    They don’t seem to be spent encouraging development of efficient energy use, only cutting consumption back by price, so profit is maintained and infrastructure costs are reduced.

    The Tax regime is never used to reduce the taxes of carbon neutral folk growing trees for fuel, or those who come off the water grid with solar bore hole pumping.

    There is no incentive for consumers to disconnect from the Electric grid, and be self sufficient. Might it be that big business and profit is more in control of policy then we think?

    Its politically correct to promote the uplifting of Africa with foreign aid grants. This must inevitably increase CO2 emissions directly and indirectly. Africa seems to be the perfect example of a low carbon economy, why make them energy dependent now.

    Is the new DAB radio system the way to go? The old transistor radio would operate for many weeks on cheap batteries, A DAB radio depletes them is a day, this makes a nonsense of taking your TV set off standby to save the planet!

  • Dawn Miller

    Hahaha… Lol. Oh. Facts are facts when they sway the opinions toward your interests. Question: how many birds have you hit in your lifetime driving down the expressway?