Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Stormy]

Would someone care to comment about what I posted a few pages ago, about Corus Redcar shutting down? Whilst we are all here arguing about whether or not CO2 has any effect on our climate, one major effect on peoples lives is happening as a direct result of the church of AGW and critically carbon trading which is so revered in political circles. In case some people missed it I shall re-post the general gist of what I said. It would be nice if some warmist could attempt to justify this, Wildcat I know you already pointed to criticism of carbon trading in response but another persons criticism of a scheme is irrelevant, I could point you to hundreds of criticisms of it but it doesn't make one tiny bit of difference.

 

I hope everyone is now aware of the fact that it is the crazy "carbon trading" schemes which has resulted in the loss of the Redcar Corus Plant (along with 1700 jobs.) Tata stands to gain £1.2 Billion EU/UN carbon credits, and it will open a new plant in India resulting in no net reduction in worldwide CO2 emissions. We are effectively paying to export jobs

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6798052/What-links-the-Copenhagen-conference-with-the-steelworks-closing-in-Redcar.html

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiVXHcF2RNM

 

 

The point is that people are making a fortune out of this. One might think that a company such as Tata, who belch out CO2 on an industrial scale would be horrified by the idea of carbon trading. But they make millions, potentially billions off the back of it.

AGW is a racket, a fraud. The sooner you open your eyes to the vast sums of money which are being made off the backs of you and I, the better.

Wake up!

[JFKvsNixon]

A question you should be addressing to the Met Office. Their October prediction was for a mild winter. If the models they used for this prediction are no better than the models they use for AGW then why should we give any credence to their predictions for the climate in 2100 ?

 

That's the point though, the Met office only predicts the weather they don't promise what is going to be. The famous misquoting of the barbecue summer incident supports this. I accept that the global warming theory is only based upon predication as well, and it is not based in stone.

 

My viewpoint is based upon two premises. Firstly, if there is a chance that that there may be catastrophic consequences with global warming we need to investigate it thoroughly and not dismiss it until we know it's not a risk. Secondly, many of the changes that should be put in place to combat global warming would improve this planet considerably, especially breaking our reliance on fossil fuels.

[convert]

That's the point though, the Met office only predicts the weather they don't promise what is going to be. The famous misquoting of the barbecue summer incident supports this. I accept that the global warming theory is only based upon predication as well, and it is not based in stone.

 

My viewpoint is based upon two premises. Firstly, if there is a chance that that there may be catastrophic consequences with global warming we need to investigate it thoroughly and not dismiss it until we know it's not a risk. Secondly, many of the changes that should be put in place to combat global warming would improve this planet considerably, especially breaking our reliance on fossil fuels.

 

Tell that to the 1700 (plus many others in associated industry) people losing their jobs on Teeside. (Hat tip to Stormy)

 

Tell it to the folks who've died due to the current, poorly prepared for cold snap (or is it a cold spell?).

 

Tell that to the folks who've suffered financial loss due to councils lowering their grit stock levels due to the false predictions of global warming.

 

I agree that we have to reduce our use of fossil fuels, but ig we have to, so do China and India.

 

If the warmists really believe that Manmade(up) Global Warming is a 'planet killer' issue then shouldn't the draconian restrictions they propose be global, and not just aimed at prosperous nations?

 

I'd suggest you look up the work carried out by the Physicist, Jaser Kirkby of CERN and the work he is carrying out on CLOUD with respect to climate change.

 

(Yes folks, that's a REAL scientist, carrying out REAL science at a REAL scientific establishment)

[JFKvsNixon]

Tell that to the 1700 (plus many others in associated industry) people losing their jobs on Teeside. (Hat tip to Stormy)

 

Tell it to the folks who've died due to the current, poorly prepared for cold snap (or is it a cold spell?).

 

Tell that to the folks who've suffered financial loss due to councils lowering their grit stock levels due to the false predictions of global warming.

 

I agree that we have to reduce our use of fossil fuels, but ig we have to, so do China and India.

 

If the warmists really believe that Manmade(up) Global Warming is a 'planet killer' issue then shouldn't the draconian restrictions they propose be global, and not just aimed at prosperous nations?

 

I'd suggest you look up the work carried out by the Physicist, Jaser Kirkby of CERN and the work he is carrying out on CLOUD with respect to climate change.

 

(Yes folks, that's a REAL scientist, carrying out REAL science at a REAL scientific establishment)

 

What's with the hyperbole, and how does it relate to my post?

[convert]

What's with the hyperbole, and how does it relate to my post?

 

Quite simple, you're supporting the spending of countless billions on possible outcomes of flawed green policies. I'm showing actual problems created by adherence to those flawed polices.

 

Care to answer my questions re global vs local actions?

 

 

Care to open your eyes to the fact that CC is in fact mainly natural in it's origin, and that CO2 (although very easy to tax) might not be the planet killer that the ecomentalists preach that it is?

[JFKvsNixon]

Quite simple, you're supporting the spending of countless billions on possible outcomes of flawed green policies. I'm showing actual problems created by adherence to those flawed polices.

 

Care to answer my questions re global vs local actions?

 

 

Care to open your eyes to the fact that CC is in fact mainly natural in it's origin, and that CO2 (although very easy to tax) might not be the planet killer that the ecomentalists preach that it is?

 

Did you complain about the end of the cold war, and the downturn of spending that cost tens of thousands of people their jobs in this country?

 

I'm struggling to see how I'm supporting spending of countless billions on possible outcomes of flawed green policies. I'm struggling to see how the questions re global vs local actions relate to me.

 

I am not convinced that climate change/global warming is 100% certain, however very few people are convinced that it is 0% certain. My position is that it needs more research, however to dismiss it out of hand is just plain irresponsible on a massive level, at best.

 

What is certain is that we as a planet we cannot go on using the world resources and polluting this planet at the current rate. Anther thing that is certain is that we have to break our reliance of fossil fuels soon, global warming or not.

[convert]

Did you complain about the end of the cold war, and the downturn of spending that cost tens of thousands of people their jobs in this country?

 

I'm struggling to see how I'm supporting spending of countless billions on possible outcomes of flawed green policies. I'm struggling to see how the questions re global vs local actions relate to me.

 

I am not convinced that climate change/global warming is 100% certain, however very few people are convinced that it is 0% certain. My position is that it needs more research, however to dismiss it out of hand is just plain irresponsible on a massive level, at best.

 

What is certain is that we as a planet we cannot go on using the world resources and polluting this planet at the current rate. Anther thing that is certain is that we have to break our reliance of fossil fuels soon, global warming or not.

 

Fair enough. I seem to have mis-read the intent of your post, and for that I apologise.

 

 

Don't quite see your cold war point though.

 

My point re job losses was directly aimed at the false carbon trading policies that have already been implemented on the back of Man Made Global warming, which you admit might or might not exist, which have cost those jobs in Redcar.

 

My point re grit levels was made as Councils have reduced their stock levels, again on the back of flase predictions made by the warmists.

[Stormy]

Did you complain about the end of the cold war, and the downturn of spending that cost tens of thousands of people their jobs in this country?

 

I'm struggling to see how I'm supporting spending of countless billions on possible outcomes of flawed green policies. I'm struggling to see how the questions re global vs local actions relate to me.

 

I am not convinced that climate change/global warming is 100% certain, however very few people are convinced that it is 0% certain. My position is that it needs more research, however to dismiss it out of hand is just plain irresponsible on a massive level, at best.

 

What is certain is that we as a planet we cannot go on using the world resources and polluting this planet at the current rate. Anther thing that is certain is that we have to break our reliance of fossil fuels soon, global warming or not.

 

So do you think what has happened at Corus Redcar (see my post above) is a good thing then?

[JFKvsNixon]

Don't quite see your cold war point though.

 

Tens of thousands of people lost their jobs due to the down turn in defence spending due to the end of the cold war, was this a good thing? On the point that it was a good thing that the cold war ended, most will agree. However, most will agree that it was a bad thing that these people lost their jobs, but the job losses were seen as a price worth paying to end the cold war.

 

To clarify, I am not suggesting this is the issue with Corus Redcar. All I am saying that it is a point to consider.

 

 

So do you think what has happened at Corus Redcar (see my post above) is a good thing then?

 

No, and I have never suggested that it is a good thing.

Edited January 14, 2010 by JFKvsNixon
Spell and clarification as usual

[convert]

Tens of thousands of people lost their jobs due to the down turn in defence spending due to the end of the cold war, was this a good thing? On the point that it was a good thing that the cold war ended, most will agree. However, most will agree that it was a bad thing that these people lost their jobs, but the job losses were seen as a price worth paying to end the cold war.

 

To clarify, I am not suggesting this is the issue with Corus Redcar. All I am saying that it is a point to consider.

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed lot's of people have lost their jobs due to many reasons. However the Job losses at Corus (and many other local firms) are a DIRECT result of the parent company deciding to play fast and loose with carbon credit trading schemes. Schemes that are based on the unproven mythology that is MMuGW. Your point re the end of the cold war doesn't really stand up though. The cold war was tangible, Global Warming isn't. Once someone can prove the causal link (not a correlation) between manmade CO2 and rising temperature then I'll quite happily sell the TVR and buy a Prious.

 

 

PS did you get a chance to look at Jasper Kirkby's work @ CERN?