London Banter - View Single Post - "Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt the two)

Bruce[_2_] · October 12th 11, 11:24 AM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london

d wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:50:20 +0100
Bruce wrote:
Your reaction to them is, however, bizarre - bordering on paranoia.

So pointing out the large number of aircraft over europe is paranoid is it?
Thats an interesting take on the word. Care to expand on your theory?

The whole agenda of the 'global warming industry' is based on
(1) generating irrational fear among the general population, then
(2) presenting an alleged solution to the alleged problem that will
cost untold trillions of dollars, pounds, euros and yen (etc...) with
absolutely no certainty as to whether it will solve a problem whose
very existence in doubt.

In doubt by who? Hysterical ostriches on usenet like you? Perhaps. But I'll
go with the almost universal scientific consensus thanks. And please, don't
counterpoint by posting the standard issue links to the one or 2 fringe
professors who arn't even climate scientists who think otherwise. I'm not
interested in the opinions of some ****ing know-nothing economists.

In the 1990s I managed a large programme of research which included
climate change impacts on the UK. Inevitably, I also had to learn
about the science that underpinned the predictions of those impacts.

The idea that there is an "almost universal scientific consensus" is a
complete fallacy. The so-called "consensus" is a political construct
by the leaders of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). Anyone who wants to carry out climate change research funded
by governments has to sign up to that so-called "consensus" before
they can even apply for funding. They also have to undertake never to
release any results that question or contradict the so-called
"consensus".

That means that researchers have to agree what their conclusions will
be before proposing research projects for funding. Any contrary views
have to be suppressed or funding is summarily withdrawn. The result
is that many researchers are working on projects whose results will
never be published for fear that they will challenge the so-called
"consensus".

The so-called "consensus" is based on global warming being caused by
man-made carbon emissions, mainly as a result of burning fossil fuels,
leading to a rise in atmospheric CO2 levels.

However, there is *not a shred* of reliable scientific evidence that
shows an increase in CO2 levels causes warming. On the contrary,
there is plenty of reliable evidence that suggests historic rises in
CO2 levels *followed* periods of warming. The historic rises in CO2
levels are therefore a *result* of warming and not the cause.

There are plenty of scientists who are trying to find a causal link
between a rise in atmospheric CO2 levels and subsequent warming but
despite all their efforts, the only link between warming and CO2 is
that historic data shows CO2 levels tend to increase as a result of
warming and not the other way around.

Note that I do not deny there has been warming, and that it continues.
We desperately need to find the cause and we should be putting massive
funding into research. But we aren't, because research that would
challenge the alleged "consensus" doesn't get any funding and anyone
proposing it is routinely and very effectively ostracised.

A major study that was funded within the IPCC cartel recently
reported. It concluded that there was a reliable explanation for at
least half of the warming that the planet has experienced in the last
~150 years. It is highly probable that the research explains more
than that, probably as much as two thirds, and possibly even more. Yet
it has nothing to do with CO2.

You aren't ever going to hear about it because the results have been
suppressed. The scientists involved are sworn to secrecy otherwise
they will lose their livelihoods, because their funding will be
withdrawn and they will be ostracised by the scientific community.

If the IPCC had its way, any scientist expressing a view contrary to
the alleged "consensus" would be prosecuted and imprisoned; the IPCC
believes that such views are equally as serious as treason. Stalin
had nothing on these people.

Their approach is to scare everyone into believing that environmental
disaster is approaching fast and that we must stop CO2 emissions or at
least reduce them so that atmospheric CO2 does not rise above a
certain concentration that spells doom. Yet there is no evidence for
a causal link between CO2 and warming, but plenty of evidence to the
contrary.

Global warming research has become a massive international industry
with research funding made available on an unprecedented scale. It's
a wonderful area to be in, because generous funding is guaranteed, as
is job security for life - just as long as you toe the IPCC line and
agree before you start your research that the results will either
support the alleged "consensus" or be suppressed.

Of course many people believe that the IPCC is right. When every
scientist involved agrees with the IPCC, and those expressing any
contrary view are dismissed as kooks, incompetent researchers or
people in the pay of oil companies, the public could be forgiven for
swallowing the idea that there is a "consensus". But when a
"consensus" only exists because of the strong-arm tactics of the IPCC,
supported by scientists who want the job security they could never
count on before and are prepared to have their results suppressed, you
have to wonder what on earth this "consensus" really means.