Oct 30 2006

Global Warming Alarm Bells

Published by at 3:35 pm under All General Discussions,Global Warming

I will have more on this later, but in this panic call for higher taxes to fend off Global Warming (not sure how that is supposed to work, raise taxes and hurricanes will dissipate???) all one needs to see in the reporting is the hidden caveat:

He was speaking after it was revealed that Environment Secretary David Miliband had already drawn up sweeping green tax plans which he has put to Gordon Brown.

He wrote to the Chancellor: “As our understanding of climate change increases, it is clear more needs to be done.”

Typical families with two children could have to pay up to £1,300 more every year, according to estimates.

The move came on the eve of today’s publication of a major study on climate change — which some experts blame on harmful man-made emissions.

I am sure I am going to get another round of people questioning my scientific background, but the truth is in the reporting. “Some” and “experts” is a very telling selection of words. But it is well known the Global warming side that tries to tie the phenomena to human activity have no theories that have been able to stand up to scrutiny. They have no sceintific proof or measurement of man’s impact on the obvious Global changes which have been part of this planet’s cycles since it was created.

The idea someone would raise taxes on speculation and mythology is just stunning. As is the idea a modern, educated people would vote such paranoids into office. No where in the report can you find anyone who will gaurantee that reductions in CO2 will stop global warming. And I mean a hard gaurantee. The fact is there is no proof the human element of the warming is even 10% of the phenomena. So if it is 10%, what does a 25% reduction do? It changes is by 2.5% – which is nothing. And when it fails to do anything, these same Chicken Littles will be back saying we need to raise taxes even more! Count on it. They just want to separate you from your money.

7 responses so far

7 Responses to “Global Warming Alarm Bells”

  1. crosspatch says:

    Sadly, the issue of global warming has become a religion for many. To attempt to find truth or to point out errors in anything that backs up their belief is to blasphemy their religion.

    Interestingly, there is a growing body of evidence that we might be in exactly the opposite situation in about 20 years time. It seems that the Sun’s magnetic field may start a major decline after this next solar maximum to the lowest ever recorded. There is evidence linking solar magnetic field strength to cosmic rays reaching Earth’s atmosphere which in turn impacts cloud formation. Weaker field, more clouds, lower temperatures. Over the past 100 years we have been witnessing an increasing solar magnetic field which would produce decreased cosmic rays, decreased cloud production, and increasing temperatures … just what we have been seeing.

  2. patrick neid says:

    Lenin once said that “the way to crush the bourgeoisie [the middle class] is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”

    a casual review of the history of the environmental movement, with “silent spring” as the bible, will show its socialist pedigree from the start. in fact a cynic would say that the entire movement was founded when they realized they coudn’t get control of the means of production so they shifted their focus to the results of production. when you use this as a focusing point it is very easy to predict where the al gore’s of the world will position themselves.

    “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened” (Norman Thomas, 1936 presidential candidate on the Socialist ticket)

    sadly i no longer have the link this passage came from:

    A strong centralised state which controls society’s means of production is – as Marx emphatically taught – the central feature of socialism. Tellingly, this is also the state of affairs toward which environmentalism inexorably inclines, and which it has been remarkably successful in effecting.
    Environmentalism derives its impetus from an ominous insinuation:
    Modern civilisation is headed for extinction as a result of self-inflicted environmental damage. The chief perpetrator is none other than the business establishment which in its relentless drive for profit devours natural resources while giving off poisonous derivatives of production.
    The only effective way to safeguard our survival, then, is to bring wayward business under control by regulating its operation in order to minimise its destructive impact.
    This kind of oversight, environmentalists argue, can only be carried out by a government with the power to implement the radical measures called for by the gravity of the impending crisis. One of them is production targets for various business sectors to ensure that the levels of pollution do not exceed acceptable standards. Another is to compel businesses to conduct their commerce in environmentally ‘friendly’ ways.
    Since businesses normally resist these kinds of measures – as they make their operation more costly and difficult – government must have at its disposal extensive monitoring capabilities to ensure compliance. But most importantly, it must have the power to persecute and punish those who refuse to submit.
    All environmental efforts thus lead – in one way or another – to a government that has more and more control over the private sector until it inevitably becomes its supreme arbiter. By incessantly expanding its powers at business’s expense, environmentalism is furtively realising the essence of socialism – a strong state which oversees and controls society’s means of production.
    In short, a careful look at the policies and measures advocated by environmental activists cannot but lead us to the conclusion that the movement is being used as a cover for advancing a leftist agenda.

  3. Seixon says:

    It’s just too bad that there weren’t any horrendous Katrina-like hurricanes this year to help the AGW-advocates………

  4. crosspatch says:

    I saw a story a few days ago too that noted average global sea surface temperatures have declined slightly over the past three years, I will try to look it up tomorrow, have other plans this evening.

  5. For Enforcement says:

    Read this story, about swans arriving late in UK is a sign of Global warming.


    After reading down in the story a ways, it says this is the latest swans have arrived since 1996.
    So the swans arriving earlier than 1996 every year since, until this year, means it was getting cooler? or what?

    There was gonna be more Cat 5 hurricanes this year because of the ocean temp heating up. Well, the temp was actually down a little this year. These experts predict temps a hundred years from now and they can’t even predict tomorrow accurately.

  6. For Enforcement says:

    Oh, and I forgot to ask the question. If raising people’s taxes will reduce CO2, why not raise taxes twice as much and reduce CO2 twice as much. Seems logical to me.

  7. Retired Spook says:

    Crosspatch, World Climate Report ran this story back in August, probably as a prelude to the article you’re referring to:

    Within weeks, a paper is going to appear in the refereed journal Geophysical Research Letters, by John Lyman of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, showing that, globally, the top 2500 feet of the ocean lost a tremendous amount of heat between from 2003 through 2005—about 20% of all the heat gained in the last half-century.

    Needless to say, this has climate scientists scratching their heads. No computer model predicts such behavior. And further, the changes in surface temperatures haven’t corresponded (yet?) to the average change at depth, although they, too, have dropped some. Nor has the sea level dropped an amount requisite with the cooling (water volume varies slightly with temperature). (emphasis – mine

    Enforcement, seems logical to me too, and if twice as much is better, then 3 or 4 times as much would be better still.