Is 'Climate Change' a fake?

[Eternal Optimist]

Is it not incredible that by some estimates, the government is spending €10 million promoting a theory that is far from proven?

I have only just started reading 'An appeal to reason' by Nigel Lawson and I am already hooked. I was dumbfounded to find out that such a respected commentator was shunned by european book publishers. Not that the publishers considered his work poor or that it would not be a bestseller, but they rejected it it on the basis that it was too hot a topic to start questioning its 'orthodoxy'.

Such a wording, scarily, is not dissimilar to those who question religious thruths - hence has Climate Change and by extension the green agenda become a 'new religion'? If this topic is not subject to the same scientific scrutiny as other fields of science, then we could be forgiven for thinking that people need a certain 'faith' in global warming' as a truth rather than something that is beyond question.

I am startled by some of the revelations in this short book and cannot wait till I get till the end. However I notice others are questioning the whole 'Global Warming' thesis - hence I am bringing this topic up now.

The environmental lobby would be better off pressing home the advantages of recycling and the lessening of dependence on oil on arguments based on fact, rather than using an unproven doomsday theory in order to get their point across?

Change the world indeed.

[TheBear]

<Mod>Moved to the Environment forum.</Mod>

[stewiegriffin]

Yes its totally made up . Afterall if you were to move a million people into an untouched wilderness it would have no effect whatsoever . Even if they had factories and cars their impact would be zero . Its not humans fault . Pollution would just happen anyway . Same goes for resources , they just naturally deplete at a steady rate , whether they are being used sparingly or not . Its simple mathematics .

[Eternal Optimist]

Yes its totally made up . Afterall if you were to move a million people into an untouched wilderness it would have no effect whatsoever . Even if they had factories and cars their impact would be zero . Its not humans fault . Pollution would just happen anyway . Same goes for resources , they just naturally deplete at a steady rate , whether they are being used sparingly or not . Its simple mathematics .

Stewie,

Flippant reply aside, you have not disagreed with my central point. I agree regards your points concerning the depletion of resources, and the impact of humanity on the planet. However equating the same impact as resulting in Global Warming is at issue here.

The green agenda is good per se as it will result in the more efficient use of resources and reducing dependence on unsustainable resources, however the agenda seems to require an underpinning by this Climate Change bogyman in order to scare people into submission.

[The Earl of Desmond]

Yes.

Like Y2000 etc. I'm not doubting we need to change how we live and protect the earth but if we weren't scared of something they'd have to make it up - funny how it started when the cold war ended.

[Pidge]

*sigh*

We've seen quite a few of these threads.

A few questions:

1) Have you looked for critiques of Mr. Lawson's book?
2) What is it about the climate change theory that you doubt?
3) Which do you think is more probable:
i) Nigel Lawson finds that the necessary solutions to climate change conflict with his political ideology/is inconvenient and thus denies it.
ii) Close to the entirety of scientists in the relevant field secretly conspire to construct an hypothesis which nobody can actually poke holes in, while maintaining secrecy amongst their millions.
4) What is the source for the orthodoxy quote?

[The Earl of Desmond]

The point about proving or disproving is that the agenda is being led by certain sectors to suit their aims - be it big business or whatever.

It's just as likely the earth is changing naturally as anything else. I don't mind having to change how we use the earth but the whole doom and glooom rings hollow when it turns into a big business money spinner.

[wizzard]

Yes.

Like Y2000 etc. I'm not doubting we need to change how we live and protect the earth but if we weren't scared of something they'd have to make it up - funny how it started when the cold war ended.

Yes, and not long after false flag terror attacks on US soil began i.e. Oklahoma City bombing etc.

Old Order out - New Order in !

[Pidge]

[quote=The Earl of Desmond]Yes.

Like Y2000 etc. I'm not doubting we need to change how we live and protect the earth but if we weren't scared of something they'd have to make it up -

funny how it started when the cold war ended.

[/quote:11rqczgv]
Neither the theory nor the process began then. The IPCC, for example, was set up in 1988. Climate change got half a page in the 1987 Green Party Manifesto. The theory, as far as I know, was first put out in the 1950s.

Still, feel free to answer the question about conspiracy.

[Eternal Optimist]

*sigh*

We've seen quite a few of these threads.

A few questions:

1) Have you looked for critiques of Mr. Lawson's book?
2) What is it about the climate change theory that you doubt?
3) Which do you think is more probable:
i) Nigel Lawson finds that the necessary solutions to climate change conflict with his political ideology/is inconvenient and thus denies it.
ii) Close to the entirety of scientists in the relevant field secretly conspire to construct an hypothesis which nobody can actually poke holes in, while maintaining secrecy amongst their millions.
4) What is the source for the orthodoxy quote?

1. Certainly have. And all parrot the same thing. Climate always changes. Saying this is the result of human activity may only be partially correct. Europe experienced a mini ice-age in the 17th century.
2. The changes in temperature - the startling revalation that most weather stations will naturally record increasing temperatures over time, as many of them are based in ever increasingly urbanised areas (causes a local rise in temperature).
3. My answer to that is 'fools seldom differ'. Y2k - as already quoted above, was predicted by so-called experts as causing world meltdown - those countries that did little to their computer systems prior to 31/12/1999 had no registered economic impact whatsoever.What about the hole in the ozone layer? Little is heard of that now....
4. Source of quote is in his introduction.