James Lovelock - One of the founders of the Climate Change myth is writing a new book saying that he was wrong 20 years ago in his original synopsis and admits that the earth is not warming as he and many others expected despite increases in CO2.
He now says...
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.
“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.
“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,”
Hopefully this is the beginning of the end of this rather sick joke that has had governments taxing us to change the weather and putting the first world countries ion an almighty guilt trip.
There I was looking forward to the end of Essex as we know it, and some warmer summers.
the trouble is too hot, if they were to admit that the great climate change con is indeed that, where would all that extra money that they have conned out of all of us now be got from?
on the evidence given at the time i and many others did not believe a word of it. there " evidence " was based largely on unsubstantiatted scientific evidence, from sources that are now proving to be, ermmmm slightly off the truth. a bit like a weather forecast, mainly guess work and even with all the satelites and millions invested still get the weather wrong over 70% of the time.
climate change was a great excuse to frighten the public and to gather money together in the pretence that the world would end next week if the planet was not cooled. even this so called expert now admits to getting it wrong, when at the time his evidence was pretty convincing.
this guy and others like him have used there political influence to con us. does he reely believe this rubbish i wonder?
this is a classic.
...... the trouble is too hot, if they were to admit that the great climate change con is indeed that, where would all that extra money that they have conned out of all of us now be got from?
The usual sources, take your pick, three might be -
1. The WAR on Terror
2. The Cyberwarfare arms race
3. CFC reduction
Maybe they just make up a new one?
Too Hot,
mmmmmm so Jeremy Clarkson may well of been right all along with is mentions of how the ecomentalists figures weren't adding up.
Nice one Jezza
:thumbup:
Granted don't expect too many other people rushing forward to congratulate or report James Lovelock. By the way, seems to have all gone suspiciously quiet of the University Climate Labs that were hacked and internal emails around the 'eco-con' being published the other year.
it was always a con. to introduce carbon taxes worldwide and depopulation.
Dave's right.
The climate is always changing.
So why did they first call this tax one to do with global warming?
Did they get it wrong? Right now, it seems more like re-entering the ice age :grin:
But to return to Dave's point; to combat the London (and other places) smog, the population were not taxed with so called 'green' taxes in order to combat the problem. Attitudes were changed (perhaps with the help of legislation).
That is the way to deal with climate change issues; not to tax the populace until the pips squeak under some false pretence.
For those not familiar with this story and James lovelock
Example -
1. The WAR on Terror ......
When did you last buy a passport and what justified a 283% increase in the cost ?
Just to clear one point up -
'The last time I renewed my passport ..... courtesy of HM government .. not just civilians that want to go on holiday.'
This was the same arrangement by which my daughter got her 'kiddy' passport renewed for her first operational tour.
My comments, and opinions, on the 'War on Terror' are in no way directed at the Armed Forces. Having started the various 'Wars' in which we are now involved it is absolutely right that country should fully support the people who are involved, both financially and emotionally!
My negative comments are directed at the politicians (largely Mr Blair) who got us involved in the first place.
You are totally correct when you say -
'If you remove a tax you replace it with another.'
Climate change was an excuse for the government to raise taxes, assuming that the general public pick up on the 'Climate Change Myth' the politicians will be looking for new excuses to raise tax. Now then I, and I suspect you, would be pretty upset if cash was raised on the back of 'War on Terror' to then be directed into either general taxation, or indeed the pockets of the various banks........
But would like to wager that this isn't going to happen?
I also question the phrase the 'War on Terror' (admittedly I think this is more of a US concoction than UK)? Other justifications for Iraq and Afghanistan aside have these actions actually done anything to reduce the level of terrorism in the West?
The theory behind CO2 causing climate change never made sense to me. The UV rays get in, but don't get out. Why not? I vividly remember asking my secondary school science teacher this, to which he had no answer. Next year when science was split up I asked the physics and chemistry teachers the same. No answer.
