When you consider how much tax is taken from the UK (and other) population(s) in the name of climate change you suddenly realise what a vested interest the government(s) have in keeping the climate change conveyor belt going.
It now emerges that the ‘fact’ that the Himalayan glaciers are going to be completely melted away by 2035 has now been totally debunked. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had, in 2007, issued a benchmark report with a central theme that these glaciers would be gone by 2035. But this whole claim was based on a short ‘phone interview with an Indian scientist, Syed Hasnain of Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University as well as a 1999 magazine article. Syed Hasnain has since said that this claim was purely speculation. The head of the IPCC, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, is actually a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics. He is not “the World’s top climate scientist”.
So just like the recent university ‘ClimateGate’ revelation we find vested interests manipulating facts and figures to keep their own personal gravy train going.
The movement of just about all goods around the world has a ‘green’ tax slapped on it these days, either directly or indirectly. These taxes stop people travelling easily and prevent the elderly and infirm keeping their homes warm cheaply in winter. They also prevent developing nations doing just that …. developing.
All this tax taken did not result in a sudden and totally effective response to the Haiti disaster. Nor will it help in the next. The money is extracted for use by ‘those that know’ on the things they see as important. Like wars. Like ensuring that specialist drugs are not available to those in the world that cannot afford them. Also, if all these green taxes worked then why are there still so many flights and so many cars on the road? Because the tax rates are designed and set at the optimum level to milk you, not change your behaviour. They don’t work so let’s scrap them.
None of the money has been allocated to clear up the double the USA land-mass sized plastic sea in the Pacific Ocean, which in places is six metres deep! This is massacring Pacific wildlife, just Google it. If these people really believed in being green then this would be the top priority. The only ‘initiative’ here has been to tax supermarket plastic bags, which are not the root of the problem and the money would not go toward cleaning it up.
No, this plastic ocean does not cause AGW or climate change so has been forgotten as it does therefore not generate research funding. But arguably it is a far greater and more imminent threat to us. If it isn’t then nor are greenhouse gases.
What we should also be asking is how many other national government and international bodies’ decisions are based on this type of data and misinformation? What other Quangos etc could we do without and wrest back the money from them for our own use?
We are about to enter a period of taxed austerity, whichever party gets in. Let’s start asking real questions about why this tax is needed and where is the money going?
Right now a really good place to start would be all this green tax nonsense based on global warming. Let’s get rid of this right now and stop making a rod for our own backs.
Related Article:
The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference
------ Other articles of interest ------
Tags: agw, climate change, green tax, News, pacific ocean, plastic sea, tax
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Economic Voice, Dude Mohd Iqbal. Dude Mohd Iqbal said: RT @economicvoice: More misleading climate change data – http://www.economicvoice.com/more-misleading-climate-change-data/5005646 [...]
“When you consider how much tax is taken from the UK (and other) population(s) in the name of climate change you suddenly realise what a vested interest the government(s) have in keeping the climate change conveyor belt going.”
So every climate scientist including those from hostile (to the West) countries that support climate change are involved in a massive conspiracy for funds – wow, even by modern conspiracy theorists rhetoric this seems mindnumbingly weak. Perhaps the lizard people/illuminati/aliens/CIA/KGB/Mossad/Masons/Islamists/Catholics/Atheists are behind it too?
“But this whole claim was based on a short ‘phone interview with an Indian scientist, Syed Hasnain of Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University as well as a 1999 magazine article. Syed Hasnain has since said that this claim was purely speculation.”
Yes it was, yet strangely you omit the fact that it was other scientists who spotted this fact and cried foul, rather than the climate change denialists. You see, that’s what peer review is for and it worked, (albeit a bit bloody late, I’ll grant you!) strange how you only seem to believe in peer review if it agrees with your stance.
“The head of the IPCC, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, is actually a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics. He is not “the World’s top climate scientist”.”
Unlike yourself of course . . . oh wait.
You seem to be arguing in circles here, first you seem to think that scientists are acting behind closed doors with no outsiders allowed to view their work, but then complain when an outsider is actually heading the panel, which is it?
Should the data have been included? No not a chance. Does it detract form the other data? Perhaps distract would be closer to the truth. Having just one ‘fact’ be wrong does not make the rest of the data wrong. This isn’t a 2+2=4 equation, it is, like all science, a balance of probability and on the balance . . . climate change is real. Though the constant focus on worst case scenarios is as wrong as the denialists, it still remains the case that the overwhelming evidence for climate change is just that, overwhelming. Whereas every argument against it has fallen, spectacularly so, leaving op-eds, like this one, to masquerade as fact.
“None of the money has been allocated to ” So you’re for green taxes as long as you personally get to decide what they’re used for, right okay I see. Pity you can’t see that the longer you deny the science, then the more funds have to go towards making the case. Perhaps if you were to stop ignoring the vast, vast, vast amount of data that supports climate change then perhaps the funding could be used to start cleaning up the mess rather than fight endless battles against ignorance.
“No, this plastic ocean does not cause AGW or climate change so has been forgotten as it does therefore not generate research funding. But arguably it is a far greater and more imminent threat to us. If it isn’t then nor are greenhouse gases.”
WHAT!!!?? LOL How does that fact – hideous and mind-numbing though it is though it is – that a huge amount of rubbish that is not breaking down or changing the atmosphere equate to gases that are changing the atmosphere across the globe, not being a threat!
Sorry, I call spurious reasoning and indeed Shenanagins on that one!
“Right now a really good place to start would be all this green tax nonsense based on global warming. Let’s get rid of this right now and stop making a rod for our own backs.”
Ah, so now you’re against green taxes, please make up your mind. The fact of the matter is, that the cost of ignoring climate change is far greater than that of fighting it. Add in the revenues from Carbon Trading, the jobs created by developing greener fuel sources, the economic returns from exploiting near limitless ‘free’ sources such as those provided solar, wind and sea and you have a model for economic recovery that dwarfs the ‘business as usual’ approach you advocate.
Honestly, if I, with little of no science or economics background, can counter your arguments so easily, isn’t it time you actually started to research your stuff, before blogging your nonsense. The world, through the web, is watching and the majority are giggling a little bit too.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by economicvoice: More misleading climate change data – http://www.economicvoice.com/more-misleading-climate-change-data/5005646…
Thanks for your comments Bob.
What I’m saying is that there is too much money and vested interests in contnuing climate change claims.
If an oil company were to put forward an opposite claim they would automatically be shouted down without anone even glancing at any report they put forward on the basis that they have a vested interest.
I stand by my assertion that green issues are not the reason for taxing us. If it was we would deal directly with the ‘Pacific plastic soup’, which gets hardly a mention anywhere. Also if you research it you will find that this issue is beginning to concern scientists.
Bob
Calm down , you are becoming shrill. AGW deniers/sceptics are not anti- environment. We just don’t like being manipulated by self serving people. Carbon Tax credits are a joke. Look at any website flogging them. Are you 12? Haven’t you realised yet that governments NEVER put back the money into the initiative that they are taxing people for. They put it into ‘consolidated revenue’ and spend it on other crap- like paying bonuses to heads of failed banks
“I stand by my assertion that green issues are not the reason for taxing us. If it was we would deal directly with the ‘Pacific plastic soup’, which gets hardly a mention anywhere.”
Sorry Jeff, but the ‘Pacific plastic soup’ is indeed a massive problem, but trying to use it as an excuse to deny the severity of Climate Change is just a leap to far.
Does it need cleaning up? Absolutely, not just because of the danger to shipping but because of the danger to sealife but does the fact that it isn’t being cleaned up or is even being ignored have anything to do with Climate Change? No! It is absolutely a ‘green’ issue, but it is utterly unrelated to Climate Change, so saying that if one isn’t a problem then the other isn’t, is just plain wrong.
It’s like saying there were suicide bombers in Kabul yesterday, we need to add extra firewall defences to the MI5 intranet. Both are national security issues but completely unrelated to each other.
It’s a matter of scale; having an open wound is serious, but not as serious as being in a house fire while having it. Put out the fire then you can deal with the wound. Is the ‘Pacific plastic soup’ going to effect everybody? No. Is Climate Change? Yes.
As to your assertion that:
“If an oil company were to put forward an opposite claim they would automatically be shouted down without anone even glancing at any report they put forward on the basis that they have a vested interest.”
They have done, many times (as I’m sure you know) either directly or through lobbyists and each and every time the evidence that they put forward has been examined and found to be either false, as badly collected as the IPCC’s Indian glacier claims (I’, sure the first I in that acronym is for idiots) or simply just not stand-up to peer review when tested.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a flag waving, tree hugging, climate change evangelist (I find Al Gore as annoying as you probably do) and as I said the constant barrage of Worse Case Scenarios are wearisome to an extreme, but even more so are the pot-shots that the ‘anti’ lobby are using rather than providing any real evidence to back-up their claims.
I’d love to see Climate Change proven to be wrong, just so that my sons could be assured of a good healthy future (and free from looking like snowman on the beach covered in factor 500k sunblock) but if you honestly think that the Fossil Fuels Organisations can not afford to make their case, with real peer-reviewed evidence, with all of the revenue available to them . . . or worse are helpless to do so, well that makes even less sense than the worldwide scientist conspiracy claims.
Since 2000 the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has increased by an amount equal to 21% of the increase from 1800 to 2000. According to the average of the five reporting agencies (four since Climategate), the average global temperature has not changed much for several years and during the seven years from 2002 through 2008 the trend shows a DECREASE of 1.8°C/century. This measured SEPARATION between the increasing carbon dioxide level and not-increasing average global temperature is outside of the ‘limits’ of all of the predictions of the IPCC and ‘consensus’ of Climate Scientists. The separation has been increasing at an average rate of about 2% per year since 2000. It corroborates that, at the present CO2 level, atmospheric carbon dioxide increase has no significant influence on average global temperature.
Climate change is natural.
The on-going temperature decline trend was predicted.
All average global temperatures since 1895 are accurately predicted by a simple model. There was no need to consider any change to the level of CO2 or any other greenhouse gas.
The model, with an eye-opening graph, is presented in the October 16 pdf at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true. (Replace all references to PDO with ESST for Effective Sea Surface Temperature).
Bob, the error was not found by Peer Review. The article about he glaciers included in the IPCC report was not peer reviwed at all. It was a piece picked up from a second hand source, unauthenticated, from the New Scientist, which itself is not a peer reviewed magazine. It was picked up by many sceptical websites way back in December and highlighted. Check one of them below which gives a detailed explanation of the fiasco.
http://www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere.html?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=54e0b21f-aaba-475d-87ab-1df5075ce621&plckPostId=Blog%3a54e0b21f-aaba-475d-87ab-1df5075ce621Post%3aa2b394cc-5b5f-47ad-8bb5-c1aec91409ad&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
And when the Indian Environment Minister made a statement that the Himalayan Glaciers were not retreating, just at the time of the Copenhagen Hot Air Summit, the Railroad Engineer Chairman if IPCC dismissed it offhand as an arrogant statement backed by dubious science and claimed that IPCC knew the real situation and that the glaciers were indeed retreating.
All these facts are out in public. You better check your facts first.
Fear ye not. The planet will survive Global Warming or Climate Change or whatever you want to call it, if indeed you believe in it. If the burning of fossil fuels is the cause, don’t worry, they’ll all be used up soon enough. Eco-systems may suffer a bit but life will find a way – not necessarily humanity, at least, not all of it.
The amount of carbon in, on or around planet Earth doesn’t change, it just changes form.
Hi,
See my weblink for an article that explains how it is quite feasible for a small number of climate scientists in the right positions to have a massive influence on climatic research. There is a real issue with a lack of division of responsibilities & accountability in climate research that underpins how we got into this situation.
“Hide the Decline”. Climategate, 2009.
NEVER FORGET THEY LIED TO CONTINUE TO TAX US.
Bob, you will never find climate change being proven wrong, because climate has always changed!
However, if you want proof that MAN MADE climate change is a myth, then please read the ‘climategate’ emails.