Thread: A Convenient Fiction

I wonder how many posters have seen this short film

An Inconvenient Truth... or Convenient Fiction?

The presenter is Stephen Hayward and here is some more info about him

E-Team | Stephen Hayward

I'm sure it will be of interest to many

Comment by Christopher Booker about Mann and his hockey stick and the IPCC and also a report about the Arctic ice "melt" may not be so bad as reported

Climate change chicanery - Telegraph

The bit about the "activists" who were acquitted at the trail regarding criminal damage at Kingsnorth is worth thinking about - if these people have their way the will not be enough power for the UK and it's coming sooner then you think courtesy of the EU

The Telegraph also published this comment about seagull slashers (or to you wind turbines )

Wind power: Economic insanity of the Government's renewable energy strategy - Telegraph

I believe the technical phrase for the UK's position is "FUBB" translations are available

Although i rarely post in MMGW debates the science is similar to the science around the smoking debate i.e. if an independent study can be traced to have had some sponsorship from the tobacco industry the study is instantly dismissed regardless of the facts within it, ironically if a study is sponsored by WHO who have a vested interest(to receive huge grants therefore keeping themselves in well paid jobs) in proving rubbish like passive smoking kills it is almost unanimously accepted.

Originally Posted by Jeff

GH,can you edit that pst please,just so I'm understanding it correctly?Thanks.

To make it clear
1. Mann and his hockey stick have been proven to be false due to an error in his algorithm i.e. you could put lottery numbers in and the hockey stick would duly turn up) and the medieval warm period just does not exist

2. An environmental canoeist did not get as close to the North Pole as another adventurer did about 100 years ago - less ice then don't you know

3. Criminal damage is criminal damage and the Kingsnorth protesters should not have been acquitted on the available evidence

4. Wind turbines do not create the amount of power cited before their construction, they do have a rather negative effect on birds bats and human beings

Originally Posted by Clippo

I haven’t commented of this for reasons that will be glaringly obvious to g hall (& mpkd if he still watches this thread).

Because you have no sensible and rational argument - again

For years, those sceptics who cannot accept that the Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming debate is over, & has been over for at least a decade and a half, have continued posting their phoney ‘evidence’ against – saying it isn’t happening, or if it is, it’s not mankind’s fault, or anyway it might not be a bad thing etc etc. ending up with the USA Libertarian cry of it’ll devastate the US economy to ‘waste’ money on the ‘problem’.

It cannot be over even if the fat lady sang for the very simple fact that more research is producing more evidence

Over the years, I’ve got so fed up of wasting my time here on this Exxon-sponsored doubt cr*p that my first action is to check whether it originates from an American ‘Institute’ or ‘Policy Center’. If it does then it’s odds on it is cr*p & I don’t read or watch it

so the number of the beast is Exxon NOT 666

So, just after g hall posted it, I visited the link and, lo & behold, from the authors CV:-

Stephen F. Hayward is the F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, (my bold]

and your problem here is ?

AND, look at the personnel list in the right hand panel – about 75% of the remaining world idiots who deny AGW.

and finally the name calling

And this is published by the National Center for Policy Analysis – (my underline, get it, - ‘center’ & ‘policy’)

just a quote from wiki:-

NCPA was a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition, which described itself as "an alliance of some two dozen non-profit public policy groups concerned about the implications of the Kyoto Protocol for consumers," and which was generally skeptical of the anthroprogenic global warming theory [3]. NCPA has also recently (as of January, 2007) undertaken to debunk claims of Peak Oil.

It strikes me as quite obvious that people with the same outlook and interest would be in the same organisations oh sorry conspiracy again isn't it

So, Kernow, I know you haven’t posted much here over the years, and may have missed the rivetting debates we've had, but I do suggest to you that you try to separate your political leanings from scientific fact.

sage advice from the man who never takes his own

Did you watch the BBC 2nd part of Earth: the Climate Wars. Some of these crackpots where on there in their famous conference in ? May- and where Pat Michaels admitted his satellite data interpretation was wrong (posted by g hall recently here) and then ‘jumped ship’ in the conference.

You can see the program on your computer if you go to BBC i player – the exact link is in the ‘Reminder’ thread.

There’s still time for you to join the massive worldwide consensus of AGW – do it now before you become a figure of fun on this subject like other sceptics here.

The supreme irony of all of this is that the Climate Change Coalition, sponsored by huge money US big business & led by Exxon, embarked on a marketing campaign to cast doubt in the USA's public & world’s minds but where then trumped COMPLETELY by dear old Al Gore. ;lol:

The trumping Al Gore does is f@rting on every one because he's full of wind