People may agree or disagree with climate change but the debate, if you can call it that, is definitely heating up. Bring it on is what I say.
The problem though is that facts and figures are no longer being bandied about as ways of getting to the truth. No it is the mud-slinging and name calling that both sides of the argument now use.
A quick look at the comments some newspaper articles attract on the internet shows how deep this division goes.
There are four sides to this argument:
- Those who believe that climate change is happening and that man is the cause.
- Those that believe climate change is happening but that man has no, or little, impact.
- Those that require more solid proof as to whether global warming is occurring and how much man is implicated in it.
- Those that do not believe climate change is happening.
As far as the more vociferous of the first group are concerned, anyone who holds an opinion that puts them in groups two to four should be ignored and shouted down. And until recently that was what effectively happened.
I am a climate change sceptic (the same as a fully fledged denier as far as the first group are concerned). The question I have is, if the case for climate change is so solid and so well supported, why did all the clever climate change scientists have to resort to misinformation to force their message through? Surely they should not have needed to do this. Surely proper evidence would have sufficed. If there was such overwhelming evidence of man’s involvement in climate change these scientists would not have had time to worry about using unpublished student essays and half truths in telephone conversations.
This leads me and many others to begin to question the validity of the science as well as the real depth of the evidence concerned.
The Independent ran an article today alleging that climate change deniers are funded by oil companies, whilst the Express ran with the story that the BBC is overtly pro climate change while struggling to fill a £2 billion hole in its ‘green’ pension scheme.
The message both sides should take, is that the science is not settled and it never will be while big money is at stake. Money to fund research is as much an attraction to scientists as bonuses are to bankers. Maybe the big step we could take forward in science is to sort out how we fund research and anything that falls outside of that cannot be used by public bodies in formulating policy and setting tax levels.
------ Other articles of interest ------
More misleading climate change data
The Climate Change hoax
Global Warming unmistakable says Met Office
Climategate: there may be more errors in the UN glacier report
Tags: agw, climate change, News, tax
FLASH!!
This Brand New Video Blows a Huge Gaping Hole in Obama’s Cap and Tax Scheme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVm5-6H_sH4
My question is: Why did climatologists wait 3 years before they spoke up about the AR4 report? Why did Copenhagen need to be a failure for them to feel safe enough to say something? These people are professional scientists, they don’t wait even 3 weeks to shoot some bad scientific publication down. But in the climate science world they wait 3 years! This is unprecedented in my lifetime. What kind of pressure we these scientists under to remain silent for 3 full years? I guess the science wasn’t settled, it was silenced.
No one should be surprised about position of the BBC on Mann Made Global Warming.
From: www. iigcc. org/index.aspx
“The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a forum for collaboration on climate change for European investors. The group’s objective is to catalyse greater investment in a low carbon economy by bringing investors together to use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors. The group currently has over 50 members, including some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, and represents assets of around €4trillion. A full list of members is available on the membership page”
Remember that phrase: “use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors”
From: www. iigcc. org/membership.aspx
Members of the IIGCC includes:
BBC Pension Trust
To be a bit more specific as to the BBC involvement:
From: www. professionalpensions. com
/professional-pensions/news/1440290
/iigcc-calls-urgent-changes-encourage-institutional-investment
”
Professional Pensions | 19 May 2009 | 01:00
Categories: Investment
Carbon markets need urgent changes in order to encourage institutional investment and the development of a low-carbon economy, the Institutional Investor Group on Climate Change says.
The group is calling for strong price signals and caps on carbon emissions that will encourage scarcity and demand.
IIGCC chairman and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe said: “The credibility of emissions trading schemes would be greatly improved with a robust price signal as well as clear and frequent communication from the regulator on trading data and improved transparency over direct government participation in schemes.”
”
Did you catch that: “IIGCC chairman and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe…”
The BBC is the Chair of this Carbon Trading driven investment scheme.
Recall: :use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors”
So the IIGCC chairman (the BBC) are “calling for strong price signals and caps on carbon emissions that will encourage scarcity and demand”
And the BBC is using “their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors” to achieve the goals of the group.
Why whould anyone be surprised that the BBC is doing exactly what they have committed to do?
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by economicvoice: The climate change debate heats up – http://www.economicvoice.com/the-climate-change-debate-heats-up/5006508…
There is a MASSIVE conflict of interest. If you knew that your pension was being invested in enterprises that would be practically worthless if the AGW scam was exposed, do you think you would be willing to run news or articles that would expose the scam? And what if running news and articles that pumped up the value of your pension investments – would they get an airing?
The £8billion BBC Pension Trust, the Environment Agency Pension Fund and the Universities Superannuation Scheme are members of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC). Media, Government and Universities! It’s almost unbelievable.
IIGCC for its part is bankrolled and controlled by The Climate Group, a very powerful – perhaps the most powerful – lobby group for the Green agenda. The Annual report 2005/6 of The Climate Group declares in the notes to the accounts:
“IIGCC: Funding to manage and facilitate the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, a network of pension funds and asset managers seeking to be active on climate change.”
And also
“In addition to these programmes, The Climate Group is supporting…the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC), a network of 26 pension funds and asset managers focused on addressing climate risk. The membership of IIGCC voted unanimously to transfer the management of the group to The Climate Group in late 2005.”
The Climate group says of itself:
“we’ve created a coalition of governments and the world’s most influential businesses…Through this coalition, we’re helping to set the targets, create the policies, build the confidence, and generate the political willpower needed to make the changes the world requires…”
But it also extends down to the humble consumer:
“Together is The Climate Group’s consumer engagement campaign. First launched in the UK in April 2007, the campaign is the country’s leading climate change campaign.”
The Climate Group has the following principles:
“We believe…climate change is an urgent problem that requires an internationally coordinated, collaborative response directed at substantially reducing global GHG emissions…We will therefore strive…To achieve significant reductions in GHG emissions…exploring mechanisms such as emissions trading, policies and laws to facilitate this.”
There’s more here about the web that Robert Napier has spun (formerly of WWF, now head of the Met Office).
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/eco-imperialism-every-environmentalists-dream/
In this post I asked the question why there hadn’t been a fuss kicked up about what Napier and his cronies have been up to. Now perhaps we know why – because peoples’ pensions rely on the myth of AGW being sustained. This state of affairs hasn’t just come about by chance. There can be no question that governments, the UN, and advocacy groups such as WWF have conspired to bring about this dreadful state of affairs.