.
A tale of two issues
Just fifteen percent of people in Britain worry about climate change and how the world responds to the problem - down from 26 percent last year. It scores less than Gordon Brown
By contrast, in a Guardian/ICM poll in May, 22 percent indicated that "Europe" was the chief concern.
In other words, despite the global hype and their best efforts to ramp up the fear, stretching back two decades, the warmists and the politicians have failed to covert us to their bullshit religion.
How interesting then it is that the politicians tell us that the EU is not an issue, because it consistently features low in the list of voters concerns. And that is with them after doing their best to keep it on the back-burner. Yet, despite the low ranking of global warming, they rush around like headless chickens, ordering us to change our life-styles, give them lots of money, fill our gardens and streets with recycling bins ... etc., etc.
This has to tell you something about politicians. And we are not alone. Worldwide, the number of people "worrying" about global warming has fallen by eight percent to just over a third in the last year. The figure in the US is only 18 percent. In Australia it is 22 percent.
For the UK though, nothing better illustrates the disconnect between the people and the politicians. Their concerns are not our concerns. Our concerns are not their concern. And that is why so many people are not concerned about them.
Soon enough, that lack of concern will express itself as something more tangible than a low turnout in elections. The political system is living on borrowed time.
With such a massive gap between the British people's concerns, and the major political parties' concerns, the reasons for the steady progress of the BNP are easily explained: the BNP DOES address the people's concerns. Why does the the liblabcon party and the media wonder about it? Are they thick or something? Join the future: join the BNP.
As I said Chris, your view on AGW is in the minority; indeed, a one in six minority, as it turns out. For all links to support the assertions in this piece, go to the original article as linked above.
The weblog is EU Referendum - something I read several times every day in order to keep up with the two topics it specialises in - The EU, and the Afghan war and other defence issues. I do recommend it as necessary reading to everyone interested in these things.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/
Morg
.
15 comments:
Hi Morg,
Facts, like truth itself, are not something that can be decided on a show of hands. The poll you refer to, which claims that: the number of people concerned about climate change has declined over the last year, shows only that the misinformation campaign to cloud the issue instituted, by those with a vested interest in keeping the status quo, has had some success. And here I must be frank: people like yourself, who admit that the world is warming but claim we can do nothing about it, are simply making the job of fogging over the truth easier for those paid to do big businesses dirty work. But that will only put off the day when we can no longer ignore the truth (and of course by delaying action make the problem much worse in the process), and the Oil Sheiks lose their multi billion dollars a year incomes.
As for the EU I agree it is a great threat to our sovereignty, but that does not mean Climate Change is not also a threat. These two ideas are not mutually exclusive by any means.
From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)
Hi again Morg,
In my last comment I didn't mean to imply that you do not have a perfect right to hold the views you do about climate change. I just wanted to point out that you also have a responsibility to check the credibility of the facts before posting them in the public domain as "FACTS".
So please don't think I was being critical of your right to hold views contrary to my-own, I wasn't. It is after all a Wigan blog and its author are showing a commitment to free speech by allowing a free debate on such issues. And I for-one respect that, and I also thing it helps to makes this blog one of the best we have.
Keep well
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)
Ah yes Chris - but what ARE the facts? No one knows because there has never been a proper scientific debate, and as people in general know nothing about science, whoever has the best propaganda tends to win.
Initially, that was the climate change proponents (who as far as I'm concerned view it cynically as a power and money grab) who got themselves a head start, but have now been overhauled and do not like it one little bit.
Haven't you noticed? - it gets warmer - global warming; it gets colder - global warming; more hurricanes this year - global warming; fewer hurricanes this year - global warming. This sounds more to me like a religion than science.
That's when they called it Global warming - as for the past seven years the expression "Climate Change" has been adopted. But there has always been climate change in the whole existence of the Earth. Always. There have been times when it's been warmer - much warmer; there have been times when it's been colder - much colder. There have been times when there has been more - multiples more - CO2, times when there has been less - multiples less - CO2. More/less, warmer/colder have not particularly co-incided.
We need SCIENTISTS and statisticians debating this issue, not politicians.
What do plants feed on? What do they give out as waste? Our entire existence depends on plant health because only plants can convert the Sun's energy into consumables. More CO2 would seem a good thing to me, as would warmer (plant health and growth also depends on temperature - up to a point which is far far higher than the climate is ever going to get before humans become extinct - which one day we inevitably will).
It is a natural process - warming/cooling. Entirely dependent upon the activity of the Sun, and the clarity of the space between the Sun and the Earth. You do realise that that too varies? As we orbit the Sun, so too does the Sun orbit the galaxy. Different regions of the galaxy contain different intensities of interstellar dust - sometimes we're in a region of less dust so more energy reaches us, sometimes more dust so less energy reaches us. Also the activity level of the Sun itself varies.
The whole thing is far more complex than a simple relationship between human CO2 production and global temperature. It is arrogant in the extreme to believe that human activity can have such severe effects on a sysyem as gigantic as the atmosphere and its climate. We can neither make it warmer or cooler - it does its own thing and we just have to adapt and roll with it.
And I don't believe in ANY religion. That includes the Global Warming religion.
We are, on the global timescale, due, indeed overdue, another ice age (look at the various ice ages in the past and the timings of them, and the timings of the interglacial periods). We've been lucky up to now that it hasn't yet arrived. It will though, sooner or later, and then this country (and I only care about this country - the rest of the world can go hang as far as I'm concerned) WILL be uninhabitable. Try living under a mile thickness of ice. We can survive - even thrive - with a fair amount of warming. I spent many years in Oman, working in summer daily temperatures of 150 degrees F. Liked it a lot better than the temperature outside today.
Warming effects on the rest of the world? their problem - let them deal with it and let's profit from it as much as we can.
Whoops!
In my last post "thing" should of course have been "think".
Sorry folks.
Now if you want to talk about excessive consumption and resource depletion, and the pollution that accompanies that and the massive increases in human population - well then we have a viable conversation ...
Hi Morg,
Can I just briefly answer some of the points you make (I'll get back with a more detailed response later this evening).
1.
You said:
"We need scientists and statisticians debating this issue, not politicians"
I say:
Yes we've already had that, and the scientific community has now been convinced (except for a few mavericks with doubtful motives) by the overwhelming evidence that shows Global Warming is a fact. And also, to a somewhat lesser certainty, that it is at least partly due to man.
2.
You say:
"It is a natural process - warming/cooling. Entirely dependent upon the activity of the Sun, and the clarity of the space between the Sun and the Earth "
I say:
You know (I'm sure) that any interstellar dust will absorb only the tiniest fraction of the suns energy during its transmission to Earth. The science shows sunspots have little if any effect on the earth's climate and occur on regular 11 and 22 year simultaneous cycles.
3.
You said:
"And I don't believe in ANY religion. That includes the Global Warming religion."
I say:
If there was even one billionth of the evidence for God's existence, as there is for Global Warming, I'd be on my knees right now asking for his/her forgiveness. Religion requires blind faith, a belief in (or more accurately the knowledge of) Global Warming requires only an understanding of science, and admittedly a trust in the scientific community. Such trust in science we happily demonstrate a thousand times a day, everything from getting on an aeroplane and taking antibiotics, right down to using a mobile phone or computer. I'm afraid to compare a justified trust in science to a religious belief is total nonsense.
As for the rest I'll get back to you later about that.
Keep well.
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)
1. No Chris, there has NOT been a proper scientific debate. And as for doubtful motives - who gets all the research grant funds.
Nearly all the people debating are NOT scientists ... err ... like you and me maybe?
Global warming is a fact? Like I've said to you before - if it's settled it isn't science; if it's science it isn't settled.
2. Chris - sorry to put it like this, but you don't know what you're talking about. About time we had a proper scientific debate.
3. And the global warming scan relies on blind faith - faith in such fraudsters as Mann, Hansen, The British Met Office etc. Simply don't believe the con artists - and it seems 5 out of 6 British people agree with me not you.
4 Trust in science is one thing - trust in fraudulent scientists and their political backers is something different.
And I think you are confusing science with technology. The SCIENCE of airctaft, computers, comms etc has changed very little in the past 70 years. The technology based on that science, however has, as a few specialist technologists have learned to apply it differently.
I think I'll dig out and put a few more films on this topic over the next few days. I think I can settle the argument my way with a few more Wigan people. Several years film of arctic ice fluctuations for instance; and antarctic. Time lapse satellite film. The film: The Great Global Warming Swindle - think I'll post all nine parts of it. Any other stuff I can dig out junking Mann, Hansen, Met. Office etc.
Hi Morg,
I've just read the Telegraph report of that climate change survey, and it doesn't say that only 1 in 6 British people believe that climate change is real. It says that 1 in 6 class it as the biggest problem we face. The report gives no figure for the percentage of British people who accept the truth of Global Warming.
One other interesting finding of the survey is:
"However, people still believe that action should be taken. On average, almost half of people say they are taking some action to reduce their carbon footprint such as switching off lights, walking rather than driving or recycling. This is a rise of seven per cent since 2007."
Please Morg if you're going to present the findings of surveys make sure you do so correctly. But as we have already both agreed: science is not decided on a show of hands, from a mostly scientifically illiterate population, it's decided on the evidence. And believe me when I say: using the phrase "scientifically illiterate" to describe many of my fellow Brits gives no pleasure at all, unfortunately for many of our people it's simply accurate.
Keep well.
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)
Chris - I'm not really bothered. As most people are not really bothered.
I know the Copenhagen conference will produce no meaningful treaty; I know the EU will soon implode; I know we will have a BNP government before too many years are passed - I may even be lucky enough to live to see it: I know that very shortly after that Islam will no longer exist in this country, and any illegal immigrants left here will be living in constant fear and as we will no longer be in any organisation called the EU, all the East Europeans will have gone home - one way or another.
Climate change? Really not bothered - I know this Winter will be colder than last, next Summer will be colder and wetter than the one just past - all in a steady progression that's been continuing for about four years now as the world gets cooler not warmer. Maybe we should build a CO2-creating machine and try to warm the world up? How would we do that? Burn coal? - Yes, of course: power failures are within my horizon of concerns because the idiot politicians who are taking advantage of the Global warming scam are shutting the power stations down and erecting quite useless wind generators.
Global warming is not even on my horizon of things to be concerned about.
And I'll present my survey findings as I like - exactly the same as you do. At least I'm presenting impartial surveys instead of the fraudulent surveys you've put up here.
Hi Morg,
Youi said:
"instead of the fraudulent surveys you've put up here."
I say:
Hold on Morg, as far as I'm aware I've never either mentioned or linked to a survey on this site, and certainly not one that wasn't brought up by someone else first. Could you please either withdraw the accusation or produce the evidence.
Keep well
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)
The film you linked to in an earlier comment? What was that based on?
Hi Morg,
You said:
"The film you linked to in an earlier comment? What was that based on?"
I say:
Good scientific evidence, that's what!
But let's not let this get personal. I do think accuracy is important when reporting stories on our blogs, but I was not suggesting that you were deliberately attempting to mislead readers just that you had made an honest mistake when presenting the findings. If my comment came over any stronger than that, I apologise.
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)
It's not personal Chris - I just don't actually know any gentler ways of saying some of these things. If it was personal I wouldn't answer at all.
"Check out Professors Peter Wadhams CV at Cambridge University here"
Then look at what he has to say about Global Warming, which includes the shocking (at least to me it's shocking) prediction that in 20 years time the Arctic will have no summer ice at all.
"Now check out Professors Peter Wadhams predictions here"
Post a Comment