Tuesday, April 1, 2014

An Alternate POV

I have no doubt climate change happens, how else to understand ice ages, mini ice ages, periods of drought year on year in some regions, the Sahara once being verdant Savannah and forest, the dust bowl in the US Midwest in the thirties so graphically depicted by Steinbeck in The Grapes of Wrath etcetera etcetera

I do however have a massive problem accepting that CO2, a really significant promoter of vegetation growth as a contributor to current climate change.

I can't embrace;
(1) Emissions created by humans when set against bush fires and  forest fires ignited by lightning and then adding in volcanic activity that has all been naturally occurring for millennia  that make current emissions fairly minor and of no consequence.
(2) The intensive drive by a UN creation to be alarmist and irrational as a sanctioned propaganda exercise with extreme predictions that have continually and regularly failed to materialise.
(3) The obscene riches accumulated by snake oil salesmen such as failed US presidential candidate Al Gore by creating then taking advantage of Carbon trading scams.
(4) The tactics adopted by the scammers and their fervent pseudo religious believer adherents.
(5) The concurrent adoption by the socialists as a source of the funding they so treasure and love through various taxes using climate change as the basis
(6) The well scheduled release of the accompanying propaganda assaults from the various churches of pseudo climatology. Ron L Hubbard would have been involved boots and all
(7) and the denigration of any who dare to question, challenge, refute or even just discuss the mantra all add up to a valid cynicism and therefore rejection of any obligation to support the scammers and their "settled science"

As for New Zealand being a world leader to prevent catastrophe don't make me laugh, nearly all the preacherati here have the complete destruction of our productive base and therefore our way of life that is the envy of the world as their main motivating driver

I know you wont get a message resembling mine in our media so if you have any wish to indulge yourself go to The Pickering Post where Larry and a mate  of his Viv Forbes have excellent reading.


Chris Bird said...

Hoskings had a good parting comment on 7 sharp tonight about not believing any of it.

Edward the Confessor said...

You mean that botoxed bell-end with the silly hair and the covert arrangement to promote Skycity? What are his climate science qualifications again? Having said that, Gravetodger, can you please outline for us your expertise in this area?

Anonymous said...

Then we could compare them with yours

watcher said...

Anonymous said...
"Then we could compare them with yours"

Is this an Anon post that the "one nearly in the ground" favours?

Hasn't been deleted so his policy must be flexible.

gravedodger said...

Keep up the great work Backward, we made number 13 on open parachutes blog rankings for March, just ahead of my first daily read homepaddock
and three behind keeping stock my second.

Btw where can I access more of your drivel or do you contain yourself to stalking me on a daily basis and occasional forays out into the real world at HP and KS.

There must be a better descriptive than totally pathetic, surely.

@ watcher for me flexible is not the word I would use, I use the delete as a last resort but would prefer all comments carry an ID, you call it what you like.
Specifically regarding anon @ midnight I was involved in another task of far greater importance.
Might explain my late arrival here to catch up on Backwards latest testimonial to his enormous intellect. On reflection pathetic will suffice for now.

Paranormal said...

ETC, here's someone that is eminently qualified to comment, and she questions your settled science cum religion: http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/curry-testimony-2013-il.pdf

And here's a telling quote from her report: "Given the substantial
uncertainties in climate science, the IPCC has arguably adopted a ‘speaking consensus to power’ approach that attempts to mediate
uncertainty and dissent into a consensus. The ‘speaking consensus to power’ strategy acknowledges that available knowledge is inconclusive, and uses consensus as a proxy for truth through a negotiated interpretation of the scientific evidence."

JC said...

What is it to date? 96 climate models and everyone of them have over estimated the temps of the last 30 years when compared to the actual temps established by thermometer, satellite and weather balloon.

Nor, using actual temp data are they able to hindcast, ie run the models backward over 30 years to get them to agree with said actual temps.

Nor did a single model predict a so far 17 year hiatus in the temps.

Nor, as Prof Phil Jones of Climategate fame says, are the scientists able to explain why the rise in temps 1976-2010 almost exactly parallel the rise in temps in the period 1910-1940.. a paeriod when CO2 was not rising significantly.

But one thing that does coincide with the rise and fall in temps over the last 100 odd years is the Pacific Decadel Oscillation.. a natural occuring weather pattern of varying El Ninos and La Ninas which tip the world between warm and cool about every 30 or so years.