Global Warming/Climate Change 2

[MrPlum]

Absolutely, which exposes this fundamental flaw in the conspiracy theory which is based upon MSM shaping opinion in favour of climate change while supressing info that detracts. The exact opposite has occured and the msm has played a significant role.

Rubbish.

Your words...

The 'Rubbish' relates to you asserting that the 'exact opposite' has occurred. Until such time as Hollywood and the media give us 10-15 years of uncontested anti-GW propaganda then your assertion is false.

I said it was a good thing 'big oil' and others were ensuring the other side of the argument is now being heard, yet you ignore this. No need to ask why.

I haven't seen any recent analysis, so it might have changed, but last time I looked, just like the Iraq War, the pro argument was outweighing the counter argument considerably. Often dissenting views are directed down some cul-de-sac, such as an online Telegraph blog, that has only a small readership. The 'appearance' of balance can then be claimed, when in fact it's TV, Hollywood and the British Brainwashing Corporation where most people obtain their 'truth'. Years ago, in the U.S., only 3% apparently read printed newspapers. It may be even less today.

If the anti-GW voices are now in the ascendency, where's your evidence?

... the small % of scientists are also just as corruptable as the larger % of scientists.

Thank you so much for agreeing scientists are corruptible.

Again you've tried to change the subject and selected one part out of context. I was responding to your claim ... "or because they know the whole anthropogenic junk science is a crock", quoting the Chinese government themselves accepting the anthropogenic science, look I had even underlined it for you in my post LOL. This is just more of your attempts to pull the wool over posters eyes when you can't win an argument

Look. I know you are getting used to the sheer joy of picking apart my posts, without me responding but there is no need for the premature ejaculation. The 3 scenarios I mentioned were 'possible' reasons why China would resist MANDATED legislation. If they accept anthropogenic warming, then fine. Give your self a gold star. I've already acknowledged the possibility to SteveG. It's a little more nuanced than that, though, isn't it?

What you don't make clear is that China doesn't agree on the amount of warming, nor do they agree on the exact mechanism. Nor, do they agree on enforcement. For China to start framing solutions in terms of AGW makes good economic and political sense, if they perceive they will sell more products and win public approval. Political pressure exerted by the Obama administration will also play a part. So they can make grand statements and 5 year plans and present themselves as protectors of the earth. They can also rake in a few extra taxes.

Over 100 countries signed up to the Copenhagen accord because, according to this quick find.. http://www.siiaonline.org/?q=programmes ... ate-accord

'The accord states the countries' "aim" to keep the global temperature rise since industrialization to 2 degrees Celsius. It is not a formal UN document that can be used to craft a treaty, as the discussions for the accord took place at the last minute and outside formal talks.'


As for what I believe, I've stated it many times, so even full-time nit-pickers can work it out, is, whatever the merits of the 'science', which is still IMO unproven, the solutions are dubious.

Why the need for constant deception. I wonder

I don't know but I suggest you stop it.

[hhfarang]

I don't know but I suggest you stop it.

MrP, I suggest you go back into hiding... the board was more peaceful when you were quiet... just kidding! (not really )

[Super Joe]

The 'Rubbish' relates to you asserting that the 'exact opposite' has occurred.

Your words again, my comments in red where the opposite occured...

Those who denounce it are ignored (see MSM's hysteria over 'climategate'), ridiculed (see MSM's ridiculing of Al Gore), their reputations shredded (see ridicule), their funding is cut (see big oil's funding of anti-climate people/groups)

You acknowledged all this a couple of posts ago, you're still having trouble getting 'their' story straight...
The 'science' isn't helped by the fact that 'Nobel' Prize-winner Al Gore lied like a cheap hooker, Michael Mann was exposed for his 'hockey stick graph, and Climategate showed the scientists driving the fraud were manipulating data to "hide the decline". I'm glad Oil and other money has gone into countering the 'warmistas' propaganda.

The conspiracy theory utterly flopped, there was a chance recently that legislation might go through with these cap-and-trade taxes that CT's have been wetting themselves over for so many years, but when it came to the crunch there was not the public will for it (your MSM & 'climategate' played a role), and there was no political will for it (I thought both parties worked for your global elite masters?). Countries around the world introducing measures while 'your' NWO-elite bogeymen are still trying to win the debate, pmsl.

... the small % of scientists are also just as corruptable as the larger % of scientists.

Thank you so much for agreeing scientists are corruptible.[/quote]That's ok, I did say this 3 posts back, remember. You seem to get the point now about how both 'sides' can equally be corruptible now you've finally adressed the point

If they accept anthropogenic warming, then fine.

Stop with the concessions already ... don't you find it strange how thousands of Chinese scientists (currently regarded as the second leading nation in the world), could not prove the science wrong. And you bet they were looking for it, for too many reasons. In bed with the global elites conspiracy maybe

What you don't make clear is that China doesn't agree on the amount of warming, nor do they agree on the exact mechanism. Nor, do they agree on enforcement.

Yes I did, I said about U.S., China etc... 'this is just the usual jockeying for position and looking out for national interest at play'. You said 'China and India aren't interested', I posted China's own words expressing their interest in reducing emissions. Ofcourse China do not/will not accept any levels being imposed on them by the West, you don't just roll over and give up as you've suggested, you negotiate. Since when has international affairs been otherwise

SJ

[MrPlum]

... the board was more peaceful when you were quiet...

It was also more peaceful when SJ was banned for bullying. Anything else I can help you with?

Coming back to the subject matter and away from my perennial crimes, let's have a little 'disinfo' about scientific consensus..

'Climate Scam – 97% Of Climate Scientists Are In Consensus, Is A Lie'
http://toryardvaark.files.wordpress.com ... =604&h=384



The final line is a classic..

'The real consensus of scientists who agree with Climate Religion is 0.73% (75 divided by 10257).

Which does beggar the question if Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, then why do 99.27% of scientists disagree?'

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And what of shrinking ice sheets..??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14969399

"There is to our knowledge no support for this claim in the published scientific literature."

Round of applause for 'constant deception'...

[Super Joe]

Coming back to the subject matter and away from my perennial crimes, let's have a little 'disinfo' about scientific consensus..
The final line is a classic..
'The real consensus of scientists who agree with Climate Religion is 0.73% (75 divided by 10257). Which does beggar the question if Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, then why do 99.27% of scientists disagree?'

So classic is must be worth checking out hey. It's complete nonsense and disinfo MrP, you've taken this off an extremely biased climate skeptic's blog, did you expect to be able to take his stuff as read!? Surely you checked his claims out for yourself?

1) Firstly, the 97% is the truth. You're talking about 'scientists' and the chart says 'active climate scientists'. The blogger did not deny that 97% of active climate scientists agree.
.
2) '0.73% (75 divided by 10257)'... arf arf, only 3,146 scientists responded to the survey!! And 82% of them concurred that: 'human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures'. The majority of these were non-active climate scientists and not included in the 97% chart... and because of that your man somehow counts them as disagreeing with climate change. He's pulling the wool over readers eyes.
.
3) Next 88% of climate scientists agreed re: the manmade significant contribution.
.
4) Finally 97% of climate scientists who have published their peer-reviewed research papers agreed.

All of these results were laid out on one single graph by the university researchers. The best that could be argued is that the 88% number, ie: actual climate scientists, should be used. But a lot of emphasis seems to be put on these pier-reviewed papers.

==================================================================================

Some relevance...

Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus:
The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."

The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:
African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences

And I don't know if this is correct or not but... "There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one."

Round of applause for 'constant deception'

SJ

[Super Joe]

And what of shrinking ice sheets..??

"We are not saying in any way that climate change and the loss of the ice sheet is not going on"

Good to see the MSM are continuining to publish the negative climate change stories too.

SJ

[MrPlum]

So classic is must be worth checking out hey. It's complete nonsense and disinfo MrP, you've taken this off an extremely biased climate skeptic's blog, did you expect to be able to take his stuff as read!?

I couldn't have made it any clearer if I'd put it up in neon lights. I said it was 'disinfo' because it was obviously 'disinfo'. Look I've even underlined it for you..

'let's have a little 'disinfo' about scientific consensus..'

I hope your fever breaks soon.

.. you're still having trouble getting 'their' story straight...

The only trouble I have is being worn down by your tireless contrivances.

Decades of MSM propaganda in support of the carbonazis cannot be compared to a year of Fox changing its tune.

Peter Sissons (ex-BBC reporter) explains how the BBC was one of the worst offenders.. http://wemustknow.net/2011/01/the-bbc-b ... o-dissent/

'The BBC became a propaganda machine for climate change zealots, says Peter Sissons… and I was treated as a lunatic for daring to dissent'

'the BBC had held ‘a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’.'

'In reality, the ‘appropriate space’ given to minority views on climate change was practically zero.
Moreover, we were allowed to know practically nothing about that top-level seminar mentioned by the BBC Trust at which such momentous conclusions were reached. Despite a Freedom of Information request, they wouldn’t even make the guest list public.'

Until Hollywood and HBO release 'Climategate The Movie' and similar, with same frequency they keep waving GW at us, then the argument is still one-sided.

The conspiracy theory utterly flopped, there was a chance recently that legislation might go through with these cap-and-trade taxes that CT's have been wetting themselves over for so many years, but when it came to the crunch there was not the public will for it (your MSM & 'climategate' played a role), and there was no political will for it (I thought both parties worked for your global elite masters?). Countries around the world introducing measures while 'your' NWO-elite bogeymen are still trying to win the debate, pmsl.

This is a mess. Which particular conspiracy theory? There are a few. Which countries? Which parties? Which 'elite masters'? I've said before, I felt there was more than one faction. Funny how your searches keep missing these important snippets.

'No political will' for cap-and-trade and countries 'introducing measures'? This is an 'illogical argument'. Several are adopting or still plan on adopting carbon trading schemes, while Australia is forcing through carbon taxes currently. As for CT's 'wetting themselves' over taxes, I wasn't aware they were. Any objection to more taxes is not an exclusively 'CT' concern. In the current economic climate, more taxes are unpopular, full stop.

You seem to get the point now about how both 'sides' can equally be corruptible...

I got it more than 3 posts ago. Here's what you said..

A completely illogical argument... the tiny minority of dissenting scientists & doctors also have mortgages to pay. And according to CT's they would be more desperate than others as they would not be receiving their big pharma or big oil payments

According to what CT's? I have no idea what you are talking about. Nor as far as I'm aware are doctors involved with global warming. Stop making stuff up.

It isn't difficult. Thousands of scientists are offered billions in bribes from Obama, called 'research funding'. Those with integrity who refuse to accept the bung are sidelined, ridiculed and continue to drive a morris minor from their 2 bed semi in Wapping. Some of these people may have been picked up by big oil or other vested interests. But how does that make my assertion an 'illogical argument'? It makes perfect sense, if you are trying to get scientists on board the GW bandwagon, to offer inducements.

...don't you find it strange how thousands of Chinese scientists (currently regarded as the second leading nation in the world), could not prove the science wrong. And you bet they were looking for it, for too many reasons. In bed with the global elites conspiracy maybe

You are obsessed with conspiracies, aren't you? What Chinese scientists? Where's your source for this 'straw man' argument? Many of the conclusions are driven by computer models, aren't they? Haven't they refused to release the raw data, or 'lost' it? How can the Chinese or anyone else for that matter prove anything without the source data?

Countries are accepting the possibility of man-made global warming, for political or economic reasons, not because of confirmed science.

Ofcourse China do not/will not accept any levels being imposed on them by the West, you don't just roll over and give up as you've suggested, you negotiate. Since when has international affairs been otherwise

Spare me the condescension. Like the rest of us, you have as much knowledge of International Affairs as Alf Garnett.

Chindia were wise enough to refuse to be bound by any treaty that gives their sovereignty away. But we weren't really to know that until the treaty finally bit the dust because the western mass media had created a fever-pitched atmosphere that made it very difficult for environmental ministers at Copenhagen to refuse. The Indian Environmental Minister has spoken about this.

The concern of many CT's is that lefties, communists, or whatever you wish to call them were using GW as a Trojan Horse to create a system of 'global governance' that bypassed national governments. If that aspect of it has now failed. Good.

[Super Joe]

I said it was 'disinfo' because it was obviously 'disinfo'.

LOL, so you were pointing out that the claim that the 'scientific concensus' is a lie... is a lie. And therefore the 97% concensus claim is correct

Decades of MSM propaganda in support of the carbonazis cannot be compared to a year of Fox changing its tune.
Peter Sissons (ex-BBC reporter) explains how the BBC was one of the worst offenders..
Until Hollywood and HBO release 'Climategate The Movie' and similar, with same frequency they keep waving GW at us, then the argument is still one-sided.

So it's only 'one-sided' now, very different to the conspiracy theory position of dissenting opinion being ignored. It will be one-sided when you only have 3% dissenting climate scientists I hardly think a trip to your local cinema once every two years is where the high numbers of viewers are reached and opinion swayed, it's the internet & documentaries on TV. Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' had a total of around 2.5 million cinema viewings in 5 months, contrast that with documentary/films like 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' which had 2.5 million viewers when it premiered on UK's Channel 4 in one night. Granted there's then esteem attached to a Hollywood movie etc, but it's not the be all.
For example, 'Not Evil Just Wrong' the debunking of Inconvenient Truth had: "more than 400,000 Americans helped make the launch the largest simultaneous film premiere in U.S. history, airing on more than 7,000 screens in all 50 states." Others like these 'Zeitgeist' films, which include climate change conspiracies, have free internet showings on release and receive 4 million viewings on the first night, and apparently have had over 100 million global viewings.

There's dozens of these conspiracy documentary films available for free on the largest mass media source in the world, showing 24 hours a day in their own houses. You can watch & read all the disputing of climate change you want on your phone going to work, on your PC at work, in your lunch break blah blah. Google 'Global Warming Hoax' and you get 8 million returns to keep you busy for a while... no censorship, no silencing etc. The major TV news stations and printed newspapers have covered the dissenting voices and then some. Re: Hollywood not hosting 'anti-elite' productions, 'Inconvenient Truth' was the 6th highest grossing documentary film of all time... 1st highest grossing with 500% more, was 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

Which particular conspiracy theory? There are a few. Which countries? Which parties? Which 'elite masters'? I've said before, I felt there was more than one faction. Funny how your searches keep missing these important snippets. As for CT's 'wetting themselves' over taxes, I wasn't aware they were.
'No political will' for cap-and-trade and countries 'introducing measures'? This is an 'illogical argument'. Several are adopting or still plan on adopting carbon trading schemes, while Australia is forcing through carbon taxes currently.

It's only 'illogical' because you've deliberately misquoted what I said, no political will (in the U.S.), and 'countries introducing measures' were in two different sentences with a full stop between them, LOL. And this is the very point of where your theory has fallen over, while there was no political will in the U.S. to introduce cap-and-trade legislation, other countries have been introducing measures leaving the U.S. 'elite' behind.

'Which particular conspiracy theory'... I did write the introduction of carbon taxes in the U.S., which you have been repeatedly telling us since 2008 was a primary reason behind this global warming scam. That elite criminal syndicates like the banksters were behind it all, they selected the President, Rep & Dem politicians who all serve these masters, the media were going to silence dissenting voices and carbon taxes would be introduced. The Rockefeller's were steering the ship and any of us who could not see this obvious conspiracy were 'dumbed down, easily fooled sheeple'.
The outcome...
1) As we saw mainstream media did the opposite of silencing dissenting voices, with many actually championing them.
.
2) The only member of the Rockefeller family serving in Government (in position of influence as Chairman of Senate Committee on Commerce & Science), personally introduced a bill to... 'suspend any EPA action under the Clean Air Act with respect to carbon dioxide or methane'
.
3) The infamous carbon tax legislation came before the house & got soundly rejected by these hand-picked servants. It was a political decision, nothing else.
3 years mind, CT's had a good run out of this one.

Some of these people may have been picked up by big oil or other vested interests. But how does that make my assertion an 'illogical argument'? It makes perfect sense, if you are trying to get scientists on board the GW bandwagon, to offer inducements.

Because...
1) Sandman said only a tiny % of scientists were against ACC, lets' use the 3% & 97% numbers
2) You stated his %'s were meaningless as 'most' scientists have mortgages & prostitute themselves, you'd take your chances with the 3% dissenting.
3) I said that was illogical because the 3% also have mortgages and also prostitute themselves
4) Therefore most of the 97 scientists are liars & their work is invalid, likewise most of the 3 scientists are liars too, so ditto.
5) So we're left with the genuine, valid science... which has a split of 97% - 3%

So how are the % meaningless, and what logic is there behind taking the 3% position?

SJ

[charlesh]

There have been glacial recession since time immemorium. How do you explain the Mt Ranier data for 1328, 1519 and 1552. Can't be the cars that were around!
I will not dispute that human impact SEEMS to have an adverse impact on the climate and that as I have mentioned numerous times and IMO is to do with overpopulation and decimation of the eco system to feed these people. Strange that Sudan, Madagascar etc sign up - thought their expertise would lie elsewhere. Noted only 74 signatories in total!!
PS noted also the position was for "most of the global warming ---" (climate change??) which any scientist would tell you is hardly scientific but I am being pedantic.
Lots of jobs and egos at risk over this perhaps!

[MrPlum]

LOL, so you were pointing out that the claim that the 'scientific concensus' is a lie... is a lie. And therefore the 97% concensus claim is correct

Stop attributing conclusions, to me, that I don't make. I pointed out no such thing. Nor made any such conclusions.

Decades of MSM propaganda in support of the carbonazis cannot be compared to a year of Fox changing its tune. Until Hollywood and HBO release 'Climategate The Movie' and similar, with same frequency they keep waving GW at us, then the argument is still one-sided.

So it's only 'one-sided'

Yes, it's one-sided.

now, very different to the conspiracy theory position of dissenting opinion being ignored.

Why do you keep relying on the use of 'conspiracy theory' and 'CT's' to smear so many points, as if any thinking person is still impressed? Any layman knows the hysteria surrounding GW was overwhelming. That skeptical views, about Global Warming, are reaching a wider audience, is partly due to the efforts of people you keep disparaging.

I hardly think a trip to your local cinema once every two years is where the high numbers of viewers are reached and opinion swayed, it's the internet & documentaries on TV.

There you go again distorting my views. I'm well aware of where audiences can be reached but I specifically asked about balance within Hollywood. Trying to underplay its impact by ignoring millions of people who watch films at home, is 'disinfo'.

Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' had a total of around 2.5 million cinema viewings in 5 months, contrast that with documentary/films like 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' which had 2.5 million viewers when it premiered on UK's Channel 4 in one night. Granted there's then esteem attached to a Hollywood movie etc, but it's not the be all.

So when I specifically focus on Hollywood, you response is a TV documentary? No mention of 'An Inconvenient Truth' being used to brainwash millions of schoolchildren and you've 'cherry-picked' a 5 month time frame, to arrive at parity. I have to hand it to you. When it comes to 'constant deceit' you are an expert.

For example, 'Not Evil Just Wrong' the debunking of Inconvenient Truth had: "more than 400,000 Americans helped make the launch the largest simultaneous film premiere in U.S. history, airing on more than 7,000 screens in all 50 states."

If you even believe the marketing blurb from the producers, that's the estimated population of Phuket.

Others like these 'Zeitgeist' films, which include climate change conspiracies, have free internet showings on release and receive 4 million viewings on the first night, and apparently have had over 100 million global viewings.

The Zeitgeist films are a conspiracist wet dream and yet you cite them? You haven't watched them, have you? There is no mention of global warming in the first film. No mention of global warming in the 2nd film. While they present only a superficial covering of climate change in the 3rd, amongst a host of other subject matter. No-one could seriously present it as a counter to the GW frenzy.

Do you actually have anything substantial to offer?

The major TV news stations and printed newspapers have covered the dissenting voices and then some.

'And then some'? Ok. Using your own example let's take a look at one of the 'The major TV news stations'. You are a master of search. Search the online BBC News site for 'Not Evil Just Wrong'. How many hits for the Film? ZERO. Now compare that with 'An Inconvenient Truth'.

They sure have 'covered the dissenting voices'.

'and then some'.

Ok. Forget the 'British Brainwashing Corporation', how about online? Wikipedia (a prominent online source of info). 'An Inconvenient Truth' rakes in $49 million, gets shown around the world, is mandated to be taught in schools and St Al of Gore gets a Nobel. Nice. How about your example..'Not Evil Just Wrong'?...

'The film failed to find a commercial distributor''.

One-sided?

'and then some'.

Re: Hollywood not hosting 'anti-elite' productions, 'Inconvenient Truth' was the 6th highest grossing documentary film of all time... 1st highest grossing with 500% more, was 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

This is poor from you. With you living and breathing 'conspiracy theories' and 'CT's' coming out of your ears, you would know that no movie gets mass media coverage unless it is serving a purpose. To suggest these films are 'anti-elite' is just ignorance.

It's only 'illogical' because you've deliberately misquoted what I said, no political will (in the U.S.), and 'countries introducing measures' were in two different sentences with a full stop between them, LOL.

Juvenile 'LOL's or 'making stuff up' might fool 'astute'-worshippers but it won't hide the fact that I used TWO quotes, to highlight what was an apparent contradiction. Why didn't you just clarify you meant the U.S., without the silliness?

And this is the very point of where your theory has fallen over, while there was no political will in the U.S. to introduce cap-and-trade legislation, other countries have been introducing measures leaving the U.S. 'elite' behind.

Which U.S. 'elite'? I keep telling you there are different factions.

...That elite criminal syndicates like the banksters were behind it all, they selected the President, Rep & Dem politicians who all serve these masters, the media were going to silence dissenting voices and carbon taxes would be introduced. The Rockefeller's were steering the ship and any of us who could not see this obvious conspiracy were 'dumbed down, easily fooled sheeple'.

There is too much here to address, in one post. If you feel you are a 'dumbed down, easily fooled sheep' I won't argue.

The outcome...
1) As we saw mainstream media did the opposite of silencing dissenting voices, with many actually championing them.

And David Bellamy returned to our TV screens, when exactly?

2) The only member of the Rockefeller family serving in Government (in position of influence as Chairman of Senate Committee on Commerce & Science), personally introduced a bill to... 'suspend any EPA action under the Clean Air Act with respect to carbon dioxide or methane'.

He suspended it. He did not stop it. And you don't have to be in office to influence government. Read Rockefeller's memoirs.

3) The infamous carbon tax legislation came before the house & got soundly rejected by these hand-picked servants. It was a political decision, nothing else.

Political decisions are made for a reason. This comment is meaningless unless you provide the reasons. For instance.

"The Government Accountability Office (GAO) claims it's virtually impossible to verify whether carbon offsets represent real emissions reductions."

Thus opening the door for unsubstantiated claims and massive fraud.

So much for the science being 'settled'.

So how are the % meaningless, and what logic is there behind taking the 3% position?

Why aren't you understanding this? It's very simple. As long as money, whether it comes from lefties, righties or upside-downies, corrupts science, there can be no confidence in the science. Arguing over %'s is therefore MEANINGLESS.

3 years mind, CT's had a good run out of this one.

They certainly did. They helped expose 'Climategate'. They worked hard to raise awareness of criminality and vested interest, such as at the Chicago Climate Exchange, the IPCC and the activities of politicians like Gore, who's lifestyles are utter hypocrisy, and they should be saluted for doing the job the mainstream media refused to do. That you choose to constantly mock them, says more about your character than theirs. It always has.

[Super Joe]

Stop attributing conclusions, to me, that I don't make. I pointed out no such thing. Nor made any such conclusions.

So you did misinterpret your conspiracy bloggers article then as I first noted. It only takes 5-10 minutes of research usually

Decades of MSM propaganda in support of the carbonazis cannot be compared to a year of Fox changing its tune. Until Hollywood and HBO release 'Climategate The Movie' and similar, with same frequency they keep waving GW at us, then the argument is still one-sided.

My emphasis in red... thanks for acknowledging a debate is taking place, as opposed to all discenting opinion being 'silenced'

Why do you keep relying on the use of 'conspiracy theory' to smear so many points

Why do you keep relying on conspiracy theories to make so many points. Pointing out the factual inconsistencies behind so many of these theories does not equate to 'smearing'. As so often occurs at this point in the argument, CT's stop debating the point at hand and start crying 'smear'. At least your consistent

I'm well aware of where audiences can be reached but I specifically asked about balance within Hollywood. Trying to underplay its impact by ignoring millions of people who watch films at home, is 'disinfo'.

I'm not trying to downplay this as I wrote about Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'... 'Granted there's then esteem attached to a Hollywood movie etc, but it's not the be all.' It's you that has chosen to 'overlook' and 'downplay' hundreds of millions of TV and internet viewers that have watched the anti-climate change productions. You prefer only Hollywood's 2.5 million viewers. It's obvious why. The reality is hundred's of millions hardly equates to a MSM blackout now, does it.

The major TV news stations and printed newspapers have covered the dissenting voices and then some.

'And then some'? Ok. Using your own example let's take a look at one of the 'The major TV news stations'. You are a master of search. Search the online BBC News site for 'Not Evil Just Wrong'. How many hits for the Film? ZERO. Now compare that with 'An Inconvenient Truth'.
They sure have 'covered the dissenting voices'. 'and then some'.

You've deliberately omitted the part where I wrote 'Google 'Global Warming Hoax' that the 'and then some' comment referred, nice attempt to decieve readers again...

Google 'Global Warming Hoax' and you get 8 million returns to keep you busy for a while... no censorship, no silencing etc. The major TV news stations and printed newspapers have covered the dissenting voices and then some.

Which U.S. 'elite'? I keep telling you there are different factions.

the introduction of carbon taxes in the U.S., which you have been repeatedly telling us since 2008 was a primary reason behind this global warming scam. That elite criminal syndicates like the banksters were behind it all, they selected the President, Rep & Dem politicians who all serve these masters

There is too much here to address, in one post.

Ofcourse there is... now events have shown the opposite has occured to your theory. You are not even forthcoming about your own conspirac perpetrators now, as if that has much bearing on the alleged 'goal' of introducing this carbon tax legislation, the theory never contained a 'faction' that did not want to tax the people, did it.

1) As we saw mainstream media did the opposite of silencing dissenting voices, with many actually championing them.

And David Bellamy returned to our TV screens, when exactly?

So no rebutall from you about the fact that the MSM gave wide publicity to dissenting voices, bar Bellamy's I guess it's a difficult one to dispute when you yourself have linked to so many MSM negative reports, concluding you to post on here stuff like...

- The rebellion against the GW lobby is also starting in Australia... telegraph.co.uk/news/

- Moncton's intervention has brought this issue into the mainstream with the Washington Times running with it on it's front page: "Global-warming alarmists are using the myth of climate change to impose an embryonic socialist world government."

- The recent 'Climategate' revelations are causing a real ripple across the media now. This from The Daily Telegraph... 'Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?', and here...

'Climategate e-mails sweep America, may scuttle Cap and Trade laws'... telegraph.co.uk/news Are we about to witness the collapse of 'The Great Global Warming Caper'?

Your words MrP, not mine.

2) The only member of the Rockefeller family serving in Government (in position of influence as Chairman of Senate Committee on Commerce & Science), personally introduced a bill to... 'suspend any EPA action under the Clean Air Act with respect to carbon dioxide or methane'

He suspended it. He did not stop it.

Exactly my point, the only member of the Rockefeller family serving in the U.S. house of representatives suspended the families 'designs' on this climate change tax. Not what the theory said at all.

3) The infamous carbon tax legislation came before the house & got soundly rejected by these hand-picked servants. It was a political decision, nothing else.

Political decisions are made for a reason. This comment is meaningless unless you provide the reasons.

My point again, it was a political decision. Your theory told us the politicians would serve their masters and pass legislation that the criminal elite wanted passed. They did not.

Why aren't you understanding this? It's very simple. As long as money, whether it comes from lefties, righties or upside-downies, corrupts science, there can be no confidence in the science. Arguing over %'s is therefore MEANINGLESS.

You fail to address the point of the genuine science, how does a 97%-3% concensus in the genuine science not matter concensus wise?

They certainly did. They helped expose 'Climategate'. They worked hard to raise awareness of criminality and vested interest, such as at the Chicago Climate Exchange, the IPCC and the activities of politicians like Gore, who's lifestyles are utter hypocrisy, and they should be saluted for doing the job the mainstream media refused to do. That you choose to constantly mock them, says more about your character than theirs. It always has.

I have never mocked the science or scientists who believe climate change is not manmade, an example please?? You continually mock genuine scientists and science with your smearing tactics. I only mock the extremist conspiracy theorists as time and again, as is shown in this thread, they fail to research the issues properly and 'allow' themselves to be led down the garden path by people like Rense, Alex Jones and his new partner Adams

SJ

[Dannie Boy]

cant we put SJ and Mr P in a boxing ring to sort out their differences, rather than in this or any other threads!!!

[dtaai-maai]

Nah, tried it before Dannie Boy, but they both like an audience! Virtual testosterone...

[charlesh]

I would be very interested to know what constitutes a genuine scientist! I find it intriguing to read how so many people bandy the names of scientific institutes/associations without bothering to research their composition/mandates/specialities/bona fides or dare I say it their major fund providers not saying that if you accept $'s from a vested interest then it must receive an acceptable response. I reckon it is better to read the appropriate discourses/papers presented/theses and if a null hypothesis provided then conclusions and contraindications from the data.
Journalistic/sensationalized pap in the media is misleading !

[hhfarang]

I would be very interested to know what constitutes a genuine scientist!

I'm not sure there is such a thing, now that even Einsteins theories have been proven suspect. I suspect that we are not nearly as smart as we think we are about anything.