Wednesday, July 23, 2008

[gore's spin] doesn't alter the phenomenon though

Tom Paine has posted this:

Al Gore is the 21st Century's Karl Marx. His influential presentation of pseudo-scientific gobbledegook and its adoption as gospel truth by the gullible masses (of intellectuals) will kill millions of the real masses and ensure that hundreds of millions more live their whole lives in unnecessary poverty because of arrested economic development.

His ideas justify ruthless centralisation of state power on "humanitarian" grounds and are therefore irresistibly attractive to politicians of a certain ilk, who will live high on the hog behind closed doors while their subject peoples suffer and die. Stupid mug punters will fall for the spiel because it's "for a better future." It will all collapse in chaos, with only Guardian journalists and British academics still believing in it when the scales have fallen from everyone else's eyes. The parallel is exact.
Yes Tom, no argument there. The climate change issue is being used to centralize power on humanitarian grounds. Unfortunately it doesn't alter the basic phenomenon itself, which I've posted on many times. There is firm evidence at least to counter head in the sand sceptics but the best evidence is to visit Russia or other northern area and see it for yourself. Moscow is too "city" to be taken as evidence.

The point is that it does exist but has been hijacked by the Gores for political purposes, one of those purposes, I feel being to discredit the whole phenomenon, which I see has happened in most of the sphere already.

It's more complex than categorical statements would have us believe.


Longrider said...

I'm not aware of anyone denying the existence of change; merely its nature and cause. Given that change has been a component of the eco-system since the planet first solidified (where I now sit was once a shallow, tropical sea), our efforts would be better spent adapting to change rather than tilting at windmills or engaging in rampant scaremongering.

So, broadly, I concur with Tom.

TBRRob said...

The point is the extremists have fogged up this whole subject. So we no long know what is real and what is nonsense.

Thus we can't really define the problem and can't act accordingly.

Longrider said...

Yup - a similar point was made by a commenter over at the Kitchen a few days back. Bullshit from both camps helps no one - or words to that effect.

Aileni said...

There has been no warming since 1998 - fact. There has been cooling in recent years, 2002 on.There was thirty years of warming associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
Solar Cycle 23 is very slowly becoming 24 but so slowly and with so few sunspots that many workers, especially in Russia, fear we may be facing another Maunder Minimum. You may know the latter as The Little Ice Age.
Sceptics do not have their heads in the sand but the alarmist do have their heads up their backsides.

Devika said...

Yeahm Climate change and the Kyoto Protocol could well be a politco-economic ploy as The Montreal Protocol of 1987..

Its yet another bubble waiting to burst!

Lord James Bigglesworth said...

Longrider ' great to see you here and as long as you broadly agree...

Rob - precisely.

Aileni - it's definitely happening in Russia. Winters have become progressively warmer since 1996. No local disputes climate change.

Devika, welcome - it is a political football.

CherryPie said...

The point is that it does exist but has been hijacked by the Gores for political purposes, one of those purposes, I feel being to discredit the whole phenomenon, which I see has happened in most of the sphere already.

Yes climate change exists naturally. The question is whether man is accelerating the change? Logic tells me that man messing with nature cause changes but scientists are divided on the issue. So in my view it always best to err on the side of caution.

What I don't agree with is the government using it as an excuse to raise taxes!!

jmb said...

Tom certainly did not mince words in his statement.
Obviously climate change is a fact. The question really is to what extent we are responsible and in what way we can mitigate any harmful effects due to our actions. Have we become so convinced of our superiority that we think we control nature's own cycles?

Just go to Alaska and you will realize that the glaciers were already receding over two hundred years ago, long before we were capable of influencing the atmosphere with our modern day technology.

Tom Paine said...

"No local disputes climate change" - you mean apart from the Russian Academy of Science? I stood on a street in Moscow at a temperature of minus 42 celsius just 3 or 4 years ago. It was the coldest since the 1930's. That's anecdotal evidence and proves nothing. Neither does your anecdotal evidence. My categorical statements prove no more than yours. So, given that the Western scientific community has been corrupted by the money on offer from governmental and intergovernmental organisations for research which "proves" anthropogenic climate change, where do we go from here? Apart from to tyranny, that is.

Lord James Bigglesworth said...

In the Moscow Kazan area, the lowest temperature since 2003 was minus 32 degrees, for one day only. Other than that, the temperature minimum in all winters did not drop below 29 degrees where we are and Moscow is always warmer than us.

In 2001 there was minus 37 where we were on one day and two other lower than 30 temperatures that winter.

Since that time the winters have been progressively warmer.

Anecdotal evidence is often better than published studies from thousands of kilometres away, when the conclusions of scientists ahve been brought into question as never before.

I'd trust a babushka before one of the climate scientists. She has no agenda.