You are viewing l_shades

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Science to order?

cat

Watched a doco called 'The Global Warming Swindle' last night. Very, very interesting stuff there. Especially in the debate that was hosted afterwards. 

It pointed out such things like how 30 years ago most scientists were predicting a new ice age and the idea of global warming due to man-made carbon was ridiculed, that the earth goes through natural heating and cooling periods, and that during the Middle Ages it was warmer than it is right now.

It also demonstrated the influence of the sun on weather patterns, which as one of the skeptics pointed out in the debate afterwards, the effects of which have been dropped from computer models and studies and so forth after around the 1950s, so that natural climate change is no longer considered and it's all become human-driven. Another interesting fact was that Margret Thatcher started the whole politicised science-to-order on climate change when she went to the science council and put money on the table for them to go an find evidence of climate change so that she could push for nuclear power. 

And when the climate change scientists have something like 2 billion dollars thrown at them to find evidence of climate change, I'd tend to be a little suspicious of what they find. 

Another interesting thing was that a number of scientists who did work for the IPPC or whatever the UN's tame scientists are called, had their work edited out of papers because it didn't agree with their predictions of doom and gloom, and yet their names were still attached to the papers as authors who agreed with the paper. 

Something else that came out of the debate was a petition of 31,000 scientists who didn't agree with the statements issued by the IPPC on global warming. The IPPC claims 2500 people have put their name to the paper, but they don't mention that they're not all scientists. 

Now, I'm all for recycling and protecting the environment, but not when you've got a bunch of First World environmentalist 'experts' going to Third World countries and telling them, no, you can't use your coal and oil to burn and build up your industry, build powerplants and start generating electricity so that people can light their homes and cook without having to burn wood which gives off toxic substances that kill off hundreds of children and give women lung cancers that kill them off before they're thirty. These people then go on to tell the Third World nations that they need to use solar power and wind power which are extremely expensive, but they won't help them get started.

Comments

( 5 comments — Leave a comment )
redcraig
Jun. 1st, 2008 10:33 pm (UTC)
The Swindle
At last we've found out the truth about the round-earth "theory" which is actually the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the public.

A few brave scientists, disgusted at the way science has been sold to the highest bidder, have come forth to set the record straight.

It all dates back to when US President Herbert Hoover, determined to defeat the sleeping-car porters' union, bribed scientists to promote the long-discarded hypothesis that the world was round, in order to raise support for aviation. Environmentalists quickly adopted round earth as a cause, exploiting its threat as a way of forcing poor nations to use airplanes instead of taxicabs. When the Soviet Union broke up, communists took over the environmental movement and used it for their own ends: enslavement of all the world's peoples.

"Yes, it's true," says Donald Egerton, a former member of the Dexter, Maine Parks and Recreation Board. "Herbert Hoover thought he could put it over on everyone. He handed out research grants to scientists who supported the round-earth idea, and so they all did."

Georgia Ashcom was a founding member of Save the Stinking Toad of Fallows Pond, in St. Anthony, Missouri, who left that group in a highly-publicized break because of its advocacy of restricting sewage runoff into the pond. "They're all communists," she explains. "They hate all people in general, and poor people in particular."

Warren Kershaw, who lives in rural Delaware, notes that the demands of environmentalists that poor nations only use aircraft instead of taxicabs can only have the effect of holding underdeveloped countries in poverty. He led us to the local airstrip, where fifteen Boeing 747s are parked next to the dirt landing strip. "They can't take off from here," he complains. "It's outrageous that environmentalists expect us to travel in airplanes."

Paul Hilliard, a distinguished Professor Emeritus at Warm Springs, Nevada Middle School, shakes his head ruefully. "It's just not true. The evidence shows that the world has always been flat. The idea that topography could alter the shape of the world is ridiculous. The world is so big it's impossible that anthropogenic topography could ever make it round."

Frank Sparling, a nationally-recognized research philatelist, agrees. "Topography is such a puny force. All you have to do is look down and you'll see a huge force, the weight all objects possess. The importance of weight in shaping the world is simply so much greater than topography that there's no possibility topography could play a role. In fact, there is so much natural topography compared to anthropogenic topography that it's just a joke to suggest anthropogenic topography could have any effect at all."

"It's because all the money is going into round-earth research," says Kevin Middlebrook. Mr. Middlebrook co-authored an article dissecting the conflicts of interest in the scientific establishment that was featured prominently in the Crawfordsville, Indiana Shopping News. "If the government puts up so much in the way of grants to support the idea of a round earth, then naturally scientists will support it."

He smiles wryly. "Of course, it'll all come out eventually. It's just a shame that so much damage will be done before everyone realizes the truth. I'm getting death threats."
l_shades
Aug. 10th, 2008 04:23 am (UTC)
Re: The Swindle
Pardon my ignorance, but are you agreeing with me or mocking me? I can't quite understand which.
robc.myopenid.com
Aug. 10th, 2008 04:02 pm (UTC)
Re: The Swindle
Mocking? Certainly not. I'm merely inviting you to consider that people who swallow the round-earth hogwash are as gullible as those who can't see that all the evidence for climate change is invented to support a political conspiracy.
l_shades
Aug. 11th, 2008 01:09 am (UTC)
Re: The Swindle
Ah, my apologies. Sometimes you need to make things obvious for me to get it ;) I can be something of a concrete thinker
drharper
Jun. 1st, 2008 11:10 pm (UTC)
It's a sad, sad fact that current politics/religious paradigms/philosophy have a much greater impact on science than scientists would like you to believe. Even in the present (supposedly enlightened) day.
( 5 comments — Leave a comment )