Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Global Warming: Religion of the First World Urban Elites

I used to be in the man made global warming camp, now I am not so sure.
It began to feel more like a way to make profits, then to address a problem.
The 'cap and trade' and 'carbon credit' schemes that are already in use have done nothing to recitify this alleged problem.

Geologist Ian Plimer takes a contrary view arguing that man-made climate change is a con trick perpetuated by environmentalists


I don't agree with that entirely. I see it as a con perpetuated by investment firms, think along the lines of large banks and investment houses cannibalizing the working classes for every pound of flesh! With well meaning and or co-opted environmental groups as the 'vehicle' of information.

Plimer is a geologist, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University, and he may well be Australia's best-known and most notorious academic.

Plimer, you see, is an unremitting critic of "anthropogenic global warming" -- man-made climate change to you and me -- and the current environmental orthodoxy that if we change our polluting ways, global warming can be reversed.

The dynamic and changing character of the Earth's climate has always been known by geologists. These changes are cyclical and random, he says. They are not caused or significantly affected by human behaviour.

Polar ice, for example, has been present on the Earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time, Plimer writes. Plus, animal extinctions are an entirely normal part of the Earth's evolution.

Plimer gets especially upset about carbon dioxide, its role in Earth's daily life and the supposed effects on climate of human manufacture of the gas. He says atmospheric carbon dioxide is now at the lowest levels it has been for 500 million years, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide is only 0.001 per cent of the total amount of the chemical held in the oceans, surface rocks, soils and various life forms. Indeed, Plimer says carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a plant food. Plants eat carbon dioxide and excrete oxygen. Human activity, he says, contributes only the tiniest fraction to even the atmospheric presence of carbon dioxide. Read the rest here

12 comments:

  1. While the financial industry has developed a fantastic scheme to profit from climate alarmism there is nothing inherent about AGW scaremongering that is required for financial scamming. They could come up with any number of less troublesome scams to take advantage of.

    The AGW theme materialized shortly after Three Mile Island. A propaganda effort was essential to overcome the public's solid opposition to building new nuclear plants. The nuclear industrial complex is an essential element of the military industrial complex. There had to be a massive paradigm shift to bring us around to the present sorry state of accepting a replacement generation of nukes. For more details read:

    (Nuclear) Energy bill moves to the Senate
    Atheo News
    July 9, 2009

    http://atheonews.blogspot.com/2009/07/nuclear-energy-bill-moves-to-senate.html

    and:

    Dr. Chu's Energy Bait and Switch

    They're short on renewables but they have a new generation of 'improved' and safer nuclear power plants and the costs can be charged

    Atheo News - June 13, 2009

    http://atheonews.blogspot.com/2009/06/dr-chus-energy-bait-and-switch.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. thanks atheo,
    "The AGW theme materialized shortly after Three Mile Island."

    I didn't realize that angle on it, hmmmm???
    Though I noticed the push for so called clean, renewable, nuclear energy.

    "They could come up with any number of less troublesome scams to take advantage of."

    yes, they could, god knows they could.

    But if the push for nuclear power stations and financial scamming sucks more money from the public, it is win win all the way.For more then one group of extractionists.
    (those that extract wealth from the masses)

    ReplyDelete
  3. atheo,

    didn't thatcher herself play a role in this? I recall something to the effect that during the miners' strikes she commissioned or sought out research which stated that coal was contributing to GW?

    Buff

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes Buff, that's correct. I believe that that followed TMI so the agenda had already been conceived and certainly people such as Thatcher would have been "in the know" through whatever channel. During this era, three decades ago, the environmental movement was co-opted with massive financial grants, professional opportunities in academia for intellectuals and corporate sponsorship. Within a few years the anti-nuclear aspect withered.

    ReplyDelete
  5. atheo

    what is TMI

    all these dam anacronyms.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry Penny, TMI is Three Mile Island.

    ReplyDelete
  7. thanks atheo :)

    any hints as to where I can look this up, you too Buff, this is all new to me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good question Penny.

    It's mighty lonely out here. Jeffrey St. Clair and Harvey Wasserman are some of the few that write regularly on anti-nuclear issues. They are published by AK Press/Counterpunch. I republish some of their articles at Atheo News.

    Also check:

    www.harveywasserman.com/

    and www.freepress.org/

    I haven't seen them take my full position on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) as being a hoax designed to create acquiescence to nuclear power though they would share my take on the current legislation being pro-nuclear.

    My Dr. Chu article linked at the top of the thread was republished at axisoflogic.com, however their editorial position is not skeptical of AGW.

    Alexander Cockburn has written about AGW as a hoax though it has been awhile and his website (counterpunch.org) and publishing house no doubt took tremendous heat over it. My site suffered a 30% drop in readership upon coming out with articles exposing AGW as not being certain (with select and impeccable arguments). By contrast Cockburn's argumentation is strident.

    The common skeptic position matches what you wrote (financial opportunism) or cites big government/taxation/global "new world order" motives ala Alex Jones at Infowars.com. I find these arguments relatively weak for the reasons that I already put forward.

    It appears that the libertarian and right wing opposition to AGW is simply unwilling to challenge nuclear power (Michael Rivero at whatreallyhappened.com won't post anything that is anti-nuclear).

    The sorry remnants of true environmentalism have yet to question the AGW scam, a sad state of affairs that is reminiscent of the left's inability to question the official 9/11 dogma.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Penny

    Plimer will be debating AGW tomorrow (or possibly today now, they're debating in Australia);

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/07/27/the-great-climate-debate-2009-brook-vs-plimer/

    It should be interesting to see how Plimer's claims stand up.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi Jim, I checked that link out, are you aware of wether or not there is a way we can listen to the debate?
    I would love to, I am sure others would too.

    I went through the thread at the link and saw someone else had asked.

    I will check later and see if anything has been added.

    Thanks Jim

    ReplyDelete
  11. oh and thanks atheo!!

    I didn't want you to think I had missed you either :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Penny;
    I haven't heard of any recordings of the debate yet. If i see anything I'll let you know

    Best,
    Jim

    ReplyDelete

TROLLS &SPAM WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT HESITATION
KEEP IT RELEVANT. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS