James Delingpole has met the man who 'has exposed the great climate change con trick'. You can read his Spectator article here.
Over the past couple of years I've done my best to absorb all sides of the argument but it's been difficult in recent times to hear any voices which aren't, in some way, connected with the IPCC.
I'm off to buy the book which is only £16.43 on Amazon. Do read the reviews for yourself. It was refreshing, in a way, to note that some readers found the lack of editing irritating but once you understand this book was refused by all the major publishing companies and was finally published by a struggling couple living in the middle of the Australian bush, then the lack of editing can be forgiven.
Plimer's first book A Short Story of Planet Earth was a best seller and won a Eureka prize however the 'big boys' refused to publish his follow-up.
‘There’s a lot of fear out there. No one wants to go against the popular paradigm.’Too right there is and we have to waken up to the fact that we're being held to ransom, both psychologically and financially. I don't expect any of the climate change believers to begin to question their brainwashers - not until they realise the money in their pockets is dwindling fast, the country is covered in windmills and our utility bills consume more of their hard-earned money than their mortgage payment or rent. It won't be long before that happens.
Posts
19 comments:
Keep your eye on sundry volcanoes. They could surprise us all.
subrosa
Thought you might have something to say on this day
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/3/newsid_2538000/2538155.stm
1975: North Sea oil begins to flow
The Queen has formally begun the operation of the UK's first oil pipeline at a £500,000 ceremony
£16.43 is daylight robbery for a book which cherry picks the bits that suit his preconcieved idea whilst ignoring others.
http://tbp.mattandrews.id.au/2009/06/06/debunking-plimer-heaven-and-earth/
The work of climate change researchers is apolitical and overwhelmingly points to the planet getting hotter. There is no conspiracy or 'scam' among the researchers and they gain no benefit from finding one thing rather than another.
The 'sceptics' all seem to have one obsession in common - that they might lose a few quid. You seldom see a 'sceptic' argument that doesn't mention money.
This is useful:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Jim Baxter -
The work of climate change researchers is apolitical.......There is no conspiracy or 'scam' among the researchers".
If you really believe that I can only suggest you read Andrew Montford's "The Hockey Stick Illusion". It's all there and fully referenced.
Now Demetrius, you're the second person to mention that in the past couple of weeks. What do you know that we don't? :)
Niko, I thought about it but Ken Roy did such a super article in the Scottish Review I knew I couldn't compete.
Don't all authors do that CH?
When I started to read your link immediately I see 'deny that human activities are responsible for potentially dangerous climate change.'
That language, to me, is off-putting straight away. It's no surprise the 'establishment' are derisive. I've checked out a few of these names and they all have contacts around the big money.
The comments are interesting though aren't they? One chap hasn't even read the book yet feels he's able to review it using someone else's quotes.
I'm not with you on this one Jim. The money is being made by those who promote the carbon scam. Sceptics have nothing to gain by disagreeing.
I'll make a note to to buy that book SR. It looks interesting.
Like Jock, I also enjoyed reading Montford's 'Hockey Stick Illusion' which explains how Michael Mann fudged all the data on temperature change to make a 'hockey stick' graph 'proving' that temperatures were rising.
I'm doubtful of seeing a U turn in thinking in the UK political scene though. All the parties signed up to Ed Millibands 2008 Climate Bill which plans an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. Figures were published after a FOI request that this will cost £780Bn. Approx £20Bn a year for the next 40 years.
That's why all the re newable companies are piling into the UK. Denmark and Spain etc have thrown in the towel after 10 years and thousands of windmills being built. Their subsidy gravy train has hit the buffers and we're the next mugs to welcome the scammers aboard.
Anyone interested in the truth about windmills could study the case of Denmark. They've stopped any more projects as after building 6,000 windmills they've not closed any power stations, increased their CO2 emissions, have the highest elect charges in Europe and of course blighted their landscape beyond repair.
The claimed jobs 'bonanza' is an illusion if it's just 'job creation' like in the 70's with no tangible benefit. I saw calculations that if everyone who gained a job through renewables was just given a million pounds and told to get lost then we would actually save money.
Jim Baxter 19:39 3rd Nov -
You provided a link to the Skeptical Science website. That site is run by one John Cook. You can find more about Mr Cook on this post by Anthony Watts entitle "Skeptical Science? John Cook - embarrasing himself -
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/27/skeptical-science-john-cook-embarrassing-himself/
Some interesting reader comments as well. Anthony Watts, unlike John Cook and those in charge of RealClimate, doesn't routinely delete comments disagreeing with him. That seems to be a common factor among many of the "Pro AGW" blogs.
RM, I was sent this link today. You may find it interesting.
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/03/reversing-the-direction-of-the-positive-feedback-loop/#more-930
Of all the plans its the one I disliked least.
But, and it's a big BUT, at £23 mil for site works - piles etc, and £22 for the buildings with around 6,000 sqm of floor space they have already matched the projects budgeted figure.
Personally I think they're covering their ar---s by overpricing the site works to create the commitment and cover their profits in preparation for overruns on the building.
£400 per sq meter may seem a lot for a building but for one as unique,irregular and complex as this it can, at best be viewed as a guesstimate.
Parliaments and Edinburgh trams anyone? In the latter case £500 million for two steel strips from nowhere to nowhere?
Hopefully in this case I'll be proved wrong, but my gut rumblings is that Dundee is about to get its iconic rip off.
Damn, I've put my comment in the wrong box - should be in the Dundee V & A section.
Silly,
I've copied it over RA but of course it seems like a comment from me initially.
Your welcome to it Rosa - the transfer was too much for a technophobe like me.
RA, it was just a cut and paste. I know you can do that. :)
SR. I'll read that link ta.
You may find this article interesting. it's to do with medical research and how it's all irrelevant and best ignored..
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/
Thanks for the link RM. Seems like it could be most informative,
Post a Comment