The following report alleging “climate change fraud” comes to us courtesy of the UK Daily Express just prior to the long awaited Copenhagen Global Warming Summit.
CLIMATE CHANGE ‘FRAUD’
CLIMATE CHANGE: Many experts claim man-made global warming is melting sea ice
Wednesday December 2,2009
By John Ingham
THE scientific consensus that mankind has caused climate change was rocked yesterday as a leading academic called it a “load of hot air underpinned by fraud”.
Professor Ian Plimer condemned the climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the “gravy train” going.
In a controversial talk just days before the start of a climate summit attended by world leaders in Copenhagen, Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes. He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over billions of years. If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid.
Professor Pilmer
Prof Plimer – author of Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, The Missing Science – told a London audience: “Climates always change. They always have and they always will. They are driven by a number of factors that are random and cyclical.” His comments came days after a scandal in climate-change research emerged through the leak of emails from the world-leading research unit at the University of East Anglia. They appeared to show that scientists had been massaging data to prove that global warming was taking place. The Climate Research Unit also admitted getting rid of much of its raw climate data, which means other scientists cannot check the subsequent research. Last night the head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, said he would stand down while an independent review took place.”
To read the full text of the Daily Express story simply click on the following link:
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573
Juice readers. What’s your opinion of climate change/global warming?
Fraud, of course. We also note that the liberal stooges at Liberal OC and OC Progressive haven’t had a word to say about this hoax. Their world is crumbling under the revealed (and more coming) evidence and their Messiah’s still going to Copenhagen to make a bigger ass out of himself than he already is.
Yeah, he’s also a critic of creationism.
How does that rest with you, Mr. Gilbert?
He’s also a Director of three mining companies. Gee, I don’t suppose he’d have a vested interest in the energy status quo, would he?
anon.
While he may be vested in mining companies he is not alone in challenging the validity of the cause of mankind’s contribution to any global warming.
As to the creation vs evolution controversy you are injecting a point that is off base (and off this thread). This post is about the issue of global warming.
If you disagree with professor Plimer simply say so. Thanks.
Typical Warmer ramblings. Scientists stepping down. Australia killing the global tax. People are getting rational.
Oh yeah, does ANON know that Carbon Credits were created by Ken Lay? How does that sit with YOU ANON??
I cannot see how that the increase in carbon in the air will not affect the enviroment in some fashion. Air pollution over all is not good for life in general.
Oil and coal will run out, better to replace them and reduce thier use, with the effect of reducing pollution as a by product.
Long term it will be cheaper, create jobs here and reduce our imports of oil. I do not support saving a few dollars short term by continuing to give money for oil to countries that really do not like us.
Jim. Simple question and solution.
What’s your opinion on expanding our use of nuclear energy?
“(October 2009)
France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
France is the world’s largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.
It is building its first Generation III reactor and planning a second. ”
Simple answer, I support expanding our use of nuclear energy. We must have very high safety standards that are strictly enforced.
I think that it has to be part of the solution, even if it is used as a bridge to get to completely renewal sources.
Jim. Thank you!
There is no question of our need to break away from our dependence on imported crude as we transition to alternate forms of energy. While wind and solar have some potential let’s be real here and begin with a known source that is located within 15 miles of our Mission Viejo home. Nuclear power
Data shows that we obtain 39% of our energy from petroleum, 23% from natural gas, 22% from coal and 8% nuclear with only 7 % from renewables such as hydroelectric, wind and solar.
While there is an abundance of coal, unless the industry can demonstate they can provide “clean coal” my vote is for expanded nuclear capacity.
Jim,
I’ve never agreed more with anything you’ve ever written. Like Europe, we can vastly reduce the amount of toxic waste produced by recycling spent fuel rods (which are only 10% spent). (Jimmy Carter banned this through Executive Order during his presidency, resulting in vast amounts of unnecessary nuclear waste.)