Save money now: 27 ways to lower your utility bills
In the current economic climate, its been a bit rough for those that want to go green on a budget. Not everyone can...
Read the rest of this articlePoliticians argue global warming as Copenhagen looms
It typically doesn’t take long for individuals to decide whether they’re warm or cold on the climate change debate, but governments are another story.
The political cogs are turning in neighboring Australia and New Zealand – just not in the same direction.
On Monday, New Zealand announced it would cut 10-20 percent of its greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. On the flip side, Australia’s parliament rejected a similar plan later in the week. The Aussie plan would have cut 25 percent of carbon emissions by 2020.
Meanwhile, quickly industrializing India just announced the creation of a $2.5 billion forest-protection fund. The trees put CO2 into the air, which protects the environment from the pollution that is said to be causing this whole global warming mess.
And while Obama’s administration says it’s ready to take on the problem head on, industries are continually afraid of the effect a cap-and-trade program will have on the economy. At the same time, the U.S. now says global warming is a threat to national security because of the growing possibility of storms, drought and pandemics.
Well, if the politicians don’t have it figured out before the global climate change conference set for December in Copenhagen, at least the scientists must be on the same page, right?
Wrong. “Heaven and Earth” by Ian Plimer claims to debunk the pro-global warming lobby, saying scientists are fudging numbers and skewing data to show a problem that really isn’t really there. Plimer claims the earth is now in a period of natural warming, and that warming will actually make the world more livable, not less.
Al Gore and his team of scientists are, of course, saying the exact opposite. They believe global warming is real and it’s getting exponentially worse.
At this point, it’s obvious why politicians can’t agree on answers to this global question. But one thing is sure, the air in Copenhagen is going to be full of climate-change turmoil. Even just this Friday, poor countries asked for more demanding restrictions on their industry-rich neighbors – once again delaying the drafting of the Kyoto Protocol’s much-anticipated successor.
- Login to post comments
Comments
I wouldn't put too much store in what Plimer says. He has large financial interests in mining companies that stand to lose millions if a carbon trading scheme is adopted in Australia, and that's why he wrote his book (to influence the debate). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer
I wouldn't put too much in store in what Gore says. He has large financial interests in his carbon trading company, and stands to lose millions if carbon trading doesn't go ahead.
Global Warming is not just a conspiracy, it’s a giant web of conspiracy that is growing like a cancer via a feeding frenzy of personal gain for each and every one of these scientists, politicians, bureaucrats, journalists and a gullible, fear ridden, politically-correct generation or two of climate pussies.
A as far as assuming professional honesty goes, there is a fine thread of truth that has now naturally sewn itself through the theory but you have to admit even as a believer that predictions of an impending climate crisis are not sustainable for another 23 years. That, is the future of climate change, how will this failed theory end and what will its costs be to society. If we allow ourselves to live with less and be governed willingly by politicians who promise to tax us and lower the temperature of the planet earth with those taxes, surely we will then be heading for a new dark age. I ask all of you believers to consider this and ponder abandoning the theory so we can preserve, not rescue our planet with fear from a mistake.
When “climate change” is used in place of the word weather, what chance does an opposing view have then? What chance does questioning the theory have when the term “climate variation” has now been replaced with the all-assuming promise of doomsday: “climate change” and or “global warming”? Add in some perceptions of consensus and correlation, feelings of guilt, envy, fearing the future, fearing the unknown and what we have now folks will be history’s view of this CO2 mania as being an insane exercise in modern day witch burners thinking humans can melt planets. The term “melting” may not be part of your personal and convenient definition of global warming but the United Nations only promises global warming will change “life as we know it” so waiting for crisis will be the coming issue. This irresponsible and wishful thinking for misery disguised by global warmers as concern will be viewed in history as leading us to war against the air itself, an invisible enemy and a non existent combatant of climate change.
We need a martyr to shake us out of this “emotional” science that is taking us back thousands of years as civilized humans. I suggest we arrest and convict Al Gore for high treason for leading us to war against a false enemy.
Johnno... you are so tetchy... I have shares in large companies but they help us move around and live comfortable lives in houses and communicate with each other. Better this than living in caves, riding lots of farting horses and sending smoke signals! Remember Johnno... now is your chance to buy shares in 'clean products companies' like electric/solar powered vehicles and renewable energy producers. It's called putting your money where your mouth is...
It's all so easy in science (and I know because I am a trained scientist and PhD): If you have something to substantiate your claims, you write a paper and get i published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. If your claims are non-valid, based on false premises or just a lot of BS you don't get published and you have to stick to the blogs. But this is NOT a conspiracy, it's a way to quality control what get's published. And there is NO WAY you could arrange a "global conspiracy" around climate change, scientists are far to egoistic and competitive to subscribe to such a plot. And if I could scientifically show that antropogenic or man made global warming is bogus, I would get so much funding that this in itself would uncover any "plot". So just file the "global warming conspiracy" along with the "man did not land on the moon" and "Elvis is alive" lot.... NOTE! This does not in any way mean that we know everything relevant about AGW but we know enough to act and most fundamentally, there has been no alternative or "better" theory presented that explains what is going on. Claiming that you "know" what 10,000 + scientists have misunderstood is frankly hubris.
By the way,Peter Daining, the dreaded 'C' word has crept into your fourth paragraph. Trees put O2 into the air ...not CO2, right?