Global Warming Conspiracy? [Split from 'Global Warming Alert']

[Grey Mouser]

I'm a bit wary of the global warming hype going on. A significant number of scientists are unconvinced about mankind being the chief cause of global warming. Some say the major cause is a natural regular increase in sunspot activity, and that the increase in CO2 levels is a natural side effect of an increase in temperature. No doubt their voices will be drowned out in the fear-mongering media stampede.

Influential people have for many years had an interest in exploiting climate change for ulterior purposes

"The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order." - Mikhail Gorbachev, quoted in "A Special Report: The Wildlands Project Unleashes Its War On Mankind", by Marilyn Brannan, Associate Editor, Monetary & Economic Review, 1996, p. 5

[greengryphon]

"Obscured by Clouds"

Clouded by obscurity?

http://www.shout.net/~bigred/CloudBuster.html

[Tales from Tanelorn]

Check out the graphical trends and history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ttribution.png

Odds against mankind being the main cause for the recent sudden changes in CO2 and temperature rise are very low to say the least. Plus the population has now recently tripled so we will have an even greater effect...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

Also beware those who are trying to protect themselves using deliberate campaigns of disinformation. Have you seen thankyou for not smoking?

[Grey Mouser]

Yet still, at the same time, in an effort to balance the equasion...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

...and widen the field of enquiry...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...spiracy_theory

Of course, the word 'conspiracy' is rather melodramatic and somewhat overused these days. I prefer to think of it as a discrete hidden agenda, a variant of the Platonic 'Noble Lie.'

[Tales from Tanelorn]

I suspect some of these guys are paid to present the opposing case like lawyers representing both sides of an argument...
Nothing wrong with doing that when there is still some small amount of doubt left.

However, this does not mean we should do nothing when almost everything and everyone says that we are heading towards disaster.
I mean even if we were wrong we would still be making a better place to live for heavens sake!
Ban Wars due to the waste, Limit population growth, limit destruction of habitat, use renewable resource, better air, better health etc etc..

And if the unstoppable tipping point for human population and their CO2 is 12 Billion and not 6 Billlion are we still going to go on heading towards destruction like lemmings and do nothing?

Earth and Venus are very similar in almost every way except one has a complex living ecosystem and the other is hot enough to melt lead.
When we destroy the eco system there aint alot left to stop earth becoming a second Venus.

[Tales from Tanelorn]

Political pressure on scientists

U.S. officials, such as Philip Cooney, have repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists, many of whom, such as Thomas Knutson, have been ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics. Attempts to suppress scientific information on global warming and other issues have been described by Chris Mooney as constituting a Republican War on Science.

Climate scientist James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, claimed in a widely cited New York Times article in 2006 that his superiors at the agency were trying to "censor" information "going out to the public." NASA denied this, saying that it was merely requiring that scientists make a distinction between personal, and official government, views in interviews conducted as part of work done at the agency. Several scientists working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have made similar complaints; once again, government officials said they were enforcing long-standing policies requiring government scientists to clearly identify personal opinions as such when participating in public interviews and forums.
The BBC's long-running current affairs series Panorama recently investigated the issue, and was told that "scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed."


I am not prone to conspiracy theories but I have wondered if these types would try to hide a climate time bomb to prevent widespread panic.

[Grey Mouser]

Tales, I think I picked the wrong section to be raising my reservations about why global warming is suddenly being hyped. Should have done it in Reasoned Debate section. I agree that something needs to be done about pollution (including CO2 as one of the pollutants I guess), and having a concerted plan to deal with that is a good idea, but remain concerned that the ususal suspects are using it as a free ride to pursuing their age old agendas again.

Let's just say my spider sense is tingling on this issue, just as it was back post 9/11 when the Neo-Cons started pushing the Patriot Act and the war on terror.

I do feel however that the major cause of global warming is a natural cyclical increase in sunspot activity.

[Groakes]

Tales, I think I picked the wrong section to be raising my reservations about why global warming is suddenly being hyped. Should have done it in Reasoned Debate section. I agree that something needs to be done about pollution (including CO2 as one of the pollutants I guess), and having a concerted plan to deal with that is a good idea, but remain concerned that the ususal suspects are using it as a free ride to pursuing their age old agendas again.

Let's just say my spider sense is tingling on this issue, just as it was back post 9/11 when the Neo-Cons started pushing the Patriot Act and the war on terror.

I do feel however that the major cause of global warming is a natural cyclical increase in sunspot activity.

Follow the money - the research I have done on the subject has shown me that most (not all) scientists with a view that global warming is not a result of human activities have received funding from carbon emmitting industries.

We already know that human activity does impact upon ecological systems - witness the hole in the ozone layer, so it's not to great a stretch to connect human activity with other environmental degradations.

However, even if the sunspot theorey is correct, human activity does have an impact on CO2 levels which does have impacts upon such things as ocean acid levels (which could severley impact phytoplankton levels resulting in food chain interruption and fish stock depletion amongst other things). And then there are the number of aerosols in the atmosphere which are theoretically having an impact on pan evaporation rates.

So from a risk management perspective there is a NEED to mitigate the risk that climate change/global warming is down to human behaviour.

Oil will become prohibitavely expensive to rely on - probably sooner rather than later so we need to redeseign the economy anyway. So simplistically there are four action/outcome options:

• we do nothing - climate change IS NOT human related
• we do nothing - climate change IS human related
• We redesign our economy - climate change IS NOT human related
• We redesign our economy - climate change IS human related

So if we do something we will get benefits - 100%
If we do nothing there is a no improvement and at least a 50% chance that things get worse. The only people who stand in the way are the oil (and coal) industries. Like I said - follow the money. Those that got the US (and the rest of us) embroiled in Iraq are the same people trying to maintain the oil status quo.

[Tales from Tanelorn]

Hear Hear! I say the same thing myself.

And damn the evil greedy Bush Neo cons. I firmly believe that Bush and his clowns should be immediately thrown out of office and stripped of ALL their wealth to pay for all the waste and misery they have caused throughout the world. Talk about crimes against humanity, those people are a real life living nightmare.

[johneffay]

[I've split this off so that we can keep the thread in 'Activism' for notices of events and the suchlike.]

I think one of the interesting things about the debate about global warming is how the goalposts seem to be shifting: Initially, people who disagreed with pro-global warming scientists simply flatly denied that the Earth was heating up. Now, many of them seem to be saying that global warming is a fact, but that it is part of a natural cycle (sunspots or whatever). Whilst, as ever, I applaud The Mouser for being suspicious, this apparent shift in the anti-global warming rhetoric sets my spider sense tingling.

[WhiteWolf359]

I believe that global warming is a conspiracy caused by 100 years of Republicans farting in our atmosphere. All the farts turned into a huge mass of CO2 that now threatens to melt the ice caps so they can have more ice cubes for their scotch and sodas at the country club. And the Freemasons are in on it too!

[Groakes]

A quote from Tim Flannery addressing Andrew Bolt's criticisms of his book "The Weathermakers" (Full article here)

British environmenalist George Monbiot has documented the four stages of denial experienced by the climate change nay-sayers. First they said that climate change didn't exist. Then that it wasn't caused by human activity. As the proof of human involvement became overwhelming, they switched to saying that climate change would bring some benefits. Now most are saying that it's simply too late to act to avert climate change, so let's do nothing.

As John Effay says, it's right - and essential - to question orthodoxies. But to my mind, the only conspiracy that makes any sense as a conspiracy is that involved in denial of global warming. In that case the conspiracy is involved in maintaining the status quo. Those who argue that Global Warming exists, is of human origin and needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency are threatening the status quo.

[Morgan Kane]

Don' t look very far ! there is no conspitracy, there is money and lobbying involved.

Abestose is a known disease for almost a century but canadians who are big producers of Aluminium denied it to the end. French scientists of academy of sciences denied it yet in the seventies.

Each time there is a problem of this sort, he is denied to the end.

The matter is that today we are gaming with humankind survival at very short term in historical view !

[Grey Mouser]

We have several issues all being lumped under the banner of global warming:

1 Global warming itself. Few deny that the mean temperature is slowly rising, but there is argument as to which factor is affecting this most.

2 Pollution. Few deny that we are polluting the environment.

3 Resource drain. We have a mostly fossil fuel based energy supply which isn't going to last forever.

4 Globalization. The global village. Each time there is a problem in the world, globalist players in industry, finance and politics propose apects of their global agenda as the solution. A one world currency (whether based on carbon credits or anything else), world police force (whether to 'police' nations into compliance with carbon emission budgets, etc), these are aspects of a globalist agenda, and not a solution to any globalwarming problem.

[Grey Mouser]

Globalisation is not the answer to pollution or global warming. Changing the fuel we use is. There is a source of fuel which is nearly free in most parts of the world which can store energy and has no harmful emissions - it's called water:

http://www.alternative-energy-news.i...rters-project/

(you need to watch the vid to get the best of the article)

Switching to a HHO (produced by DC electrolysis of H2O) based fuel supply would be a major factor in cutting down on carbon/CO2/greenhouse gas emmissions. The sooner the better.

If mankind cuts down on it's consumption of beef, that would be another major factor.