no climate change here there joking

[chiang mai]

54 minutes ago, mesquite said:

"So what is the goal of environmental policy?

'We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,' said Edenhofer."

 

 

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

"Perhaps Naomi Klein summed up best what the warming the fuss is all about in her book "This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate."

 

When somebody writes a book on this subject that is free of charge and one they don't make a profit on I'll consider it reading it, until then it goes in this category:

 

http://www.moonlandinghoax.org/33.html

[nisakiman]

12 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

 

"The 'climate scientists' have really no more idea than you or I, whatever they may say."

 

An astonishing statement.

 

It is basically declaring that facts - demonstrable facts - are irrelevant.

 

 

It is impossible to have an intelligent discussion on any subject if that is one's belief.

 

 

 

 

 

On the contrary, I have no 'belief'; I'm completely open minded about it.

 

If there was convincing evidence of man-made climate change, I would be quite happy to abandon my scepticism. However, there is no compelling evidence to support the theory, only predictions of a computer model with incomplete data that is programmed by people with a vested interest in promoting the concept of AGW. (Let us not forget that AGW is a massively funded gravy train for those on board).

 

There has been a litany of lies and deception from within the AGW lobby, from the notorious 'J' curve to the University of East Anglia emails scandal to documented cherry-picking of data sets to suit the AGW agenda. And just recently, we have the executive secretary of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres, saying: “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”, which rather spills the beans on why AGW is being so heavily propagandised by those who are so keen to destroy nation states and establish the New World Order.

 

As I said in an earlier post, as soon as people start saying "the science is settled" and seek to shut down any debate, and excommunicate any dissenters to the PC narrative by labelling them 'deniers', then as far as I'm concerned, they have lost the debate.

 

As I also said earlier, the theory of AGW, if scientific, should welcome debate and open dialogue. The fact that debate and open dialogue are anathema to the proponents of AGW puts them into the classification of religious fanatics, ideologues.

 

The financiers of the AGW movement have no interest in climate. Their interest is in wealth redistribution and centralising power. Which is why it is the political Left and their backers who are most vociferous about crippling the industrial base of the west in the name of 'Global Warming'.

 

And no, I'm not a 'tinfoil hatter' conspiracy theorist. I've read a great deal from both sides of the debate, and I've taken note of political movements around the world and how they align (or not) with various modern global movements, not just AGW. And I'm not the only one to have noticed a pattern emerging.

 

Do you know anything about the Frankfurt School of thought? If not, look it up, read about it and then look around you at what's happening in the world today.

 

As I said, I'm quite prepared to change my mind if given compelling evidence. However, the evidence available points more to a propaganda exercise than a scientific reality.

Edited February 8, 2017 by nisakiman