Inconvenient Information

First, some rare sanity – or pressure, more like – has seen NHS Devon reverse its decision not to carry out routine procedures like cataract and hernia operations on smokers who don’t stop and overweight people who don’t lose weight. Now on to the post…

Sometimes it seems like no lie is too big – if they think they can get away with it – to further the spread of socialism. Take this subject on which the “science is settled.” But wait a moment; what’s this? No Proof of Man-Made Climate Change, Says Greenpeace Co-founder.

Patrick Moore (not the monocled moon-gazer) told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,

There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.

He co-founded Greenpeace in 1971, but left in 1986 after it made what he described as a “sharp turn to the political left ” and began espousing policies he could not longer support, though opposition to global warming was not then among them.

“Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now,” Moore said. But increases in the earth’s surface and atmospheric temperatures are nothing new, he reminded the senators, as he noted little correlation between increases in carbon dioxide emissions and a heating of the planet. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he noted, has declared it “extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming trend since the mid-20th century. “

“‘Extremely likely’ is not a scientific term but rather a judgment as in a court of law,” Moore said. “The IPCC defines ‘extremely likely’ as a ’95-100% probability.’ But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been ‘invented’ as a construct within the IPCC report to express ‘expert judgment’, as determined by the IPCC contributors.” Projections based on “sophisticated computer models” have led to warnings of dire consequences from anticipated increases in temperatures worldwide, Moore said. The historical record suggests otherwise, he argued.

The piece goes into long-ages-speak, but more on that later.

The point of this post is that, these days, only the information used to support a cause is made widespread, through the media, schools and universities and what politicians are told by their specially chosen “advisors” and taxpayer-funded fake charities. The inconvenient evidence which points to the opposite is swept under the carpet.

With strict legislation on environmental matters, the powers that be can modify behaviour, increase taxation, corral the population into towns and cities and intensify global governance.

We more-or-less see the same happening in many other areas, such as the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Zimbabwe has just become the 180th party to sign up to its totalitarian ideals which national governments – or what remains of them – seem duty-bound to adopt.

Smoking bans are increasing in intensity all over the world because “the science is settled” that secondhand smoke is dangerous, yet there is no proof,

A large-scale study found no clear link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer.

You don’t need proof. You just need those fake charities and cherry-picked statistics from certain “studies” and complicit media and politicians unable to think for themselves and slowly emerges the society O’Brien tells Smith about in Nineteen Eighty-Four: “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”

If the evidence doesn’t fit, it is rejected, whether scientific studies or social studies. In order for socialism to conquer all, religion has to be defeated. As Lenin said, “Our programme necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.”

Faith schoolsare dramatically overrepresented among the best performers, but this cannot possibly be down to faith, can it?

Faith schools have repeatedly claimed that they get better results because of their strong religious ethos, high levels of pastoral assistance and support from churchgoing families.

But the disclosure is likely to renew the debate over the admissions policies used by faith schools.

The British Humanist Association has warned that schools are “unrepresentative” of their local communities, with large numbers of middle-class families conveniently finding God to secure places for their children.

Richy Thompson, BHA campaigns officer, said its own research had shown that top performing faith schools were “less inclusive” than their communities, particularly Catholic and Jewish schools.

The militant atheists/humanists/secularists have a prior commitment to a one size fits all ‘Utopia’ where the only belief system allowed is their own, so they must attack all other beliefs.

In the comments, “deolenitpikka” writes:

Faith seems to work. If any other intervention were as effective as faith in improving outcomes in both education and health, it would be promoted by government policy.

I said I would mention long ages. The Theory of Evolution is another fallacy based on false logic and lack of evidence. It has been in our consciousness for so long that it is considered that the “science is settled” but there isn’t a shred of evidence to prove that non-living chemicals formed the beginnings of life and that it therefore took billions of years to evolve into all the different animals and plants and people that have ever lived.

It is part of the indoctrination that aims to “teach” that we are simply evolved pond slime. It is easier to control people when they are led to believe this. I know; some people say that religion controls its followers and that is also usually true, but faith as outlined in the Gospels leads to freedom and strength. This is one reason socialist regimes always attack religion.

When religion and the family are destroyed, that leaves the State as the highest authority and our surrogate parent.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Inconvenient Information

  1. Ian says:

    The irony is heavy in this post. You claim that one man’s assertion is somehow stronger evidence than the thousands of scientific tests, based upon millions, if not billions, of pieces of collected data, simply because he’s saying what you want to hear.

    I know you complain when I point it out, but you’re the one who’s fallen for the big lie. Try listening to the people who know what they’re talking about, not the paid mouthpieces of the carbon creation industry.

    • Stewart Cowan says:

      Ian, the “paid mouthpieces” by far the loudest are those who work for the likes of the IPCC. The media, also controlled, have to report all their doomsday scenarios.

      Which “experts” should I listen to? Al Gore, maybe? He whose film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” was found in a UK court to have nine major errors and as a result of that case, brought about by a lone parent, a caveat has to be read in every school before it is shown.

      I know it’s bound to be a con because it’s a dream for social engineers and globalists. The real purpose is to forge global governance through “saving the planet” and regulating and taxing everyone on a worldwide basis, ergo global government.

      Its other purpose is to deindustrialise the West by making our factories too uncompetitive.

      I know to you that’ll sound like a crazy conspiracy theory, but that’s why it’s being done. If I thought it was otherwise, I’d be concerned.

  2. Ian says:

    It’s interesting how you crow about the nine supposed errors in An Inconvenient Truth, but fail to mention that the judge ruled the film to be “broadly accurate”. It’s telling the truth, but pedants can pick tiny holes in a small number of the facts presented by the film.

    Have you heard of TTIP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership? If you’re truly worried about some sort of global conspiracy to regulate and tax us all without any way of controlling or countering it, then TTIP is way more scary than cleaner air and energy efficient homes.

    TTIP will do all the things you pretend combating climate change will. Our government wants to push it through without anyone noticing, whereas they pretend to care about climate change but actually do nothing about it. You’re looking in the wrong direction, turn your gaze to the polluters and bankers and you’ll find something that’s a lot more like a real conspiracy than any of the made up scandals you keep blustering about.

  3. Stewart Cowan says:

    But isn’t the fact that there has been no global warming for 18 years kind of a giveaway that the whole film can now be taken to be broadly inaccurate?

    I haven’t heard of TTIP, but I will look into it

    …they pretend to care about climate change but actually do nothing about it.

    Except that they’ve done a lot about it, the most insidious of which is possibly the Climate Change Act 2008 which binds us to reducing greenhouse gases by at least 80% by 2050. which I consider to be industrial sabotage and therefore treason. Plus, many thousands more old people will die as a result of increased prices and power cuts.

    This is a scandal and I only wish it were made up.

  4. Ian says:

    The “No warming for 18 years.” line is a lie, one of those convenient untruths spread by the climate change denial brigade.

    You keep using it, so you must believe it. If so, I think you need to show me what evidence you have seen that convinces you it’s true. If you can’t do that, I trust you’ll have the decency to stop repeating it.

    When you present your evidence, please bear in mind that the ten hottest years on record have happened in the last 18 years. In fact, all but one of them has happened since 2000. http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/10-warmest-years-globally.

    Also check that the person who told you wasn’t playing the trick detailed on this page- http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47- namely cherry-picking the start and end dates over a short period, but ignoring the long term trend.

    As for your contentions about the Climate Change Act- more old people are going to die because governments failed to do the job properly. A proper campaign to insulate the housing stock, particularly of the vulnerable, could have created thousands of jobs, stimulated the economy, cut down on CO2 production, saved millions of pounds and kept thousands of old people warm in winter. That’s just one way in which changing to a low or no carbon economy could benefit everyone. It shouldn’t be too hard to work out, but successive governments have been too thick- or too scared of losing the funding they get from energy companies- to do it.

  5. Stewart Cowan says:

    Ian, just because you disagree with something doesn’t automatically make it a “lie”!

    How many quotes would you like? I’ll start with this one,

    The Earth’s temperature has “plateaued” and there has been no global warming for at least the last 18 years, says Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama/Huntsville.

    “That’s basically a fact. There’s not much to comment on,” Christy said when CNSNews.com asked him to remark on the lack of global warming for nearly two decades as of October 1st.

    I “trust you’ll have the decency” not to believe politically-motivated “science” while bandying around words like “lie” and “denial”.

    I don’t think that governments are thick, although this is how they appear. I think they know exactly what they are doing/told to do. One of those things, through the Climate Change Act, is deindustrialiation. A side benefit (from their point of view) will be the savings made from killing off the most vulnerable.

    There have been taxpayer-funded insulation schemes operating for many years, but 20,000 old people or more die annually due to cold and despite your protestations, the ‘Act’ will increase this due to even higher bills and power cuts.

    All because of the abuse of science, but what else is new?!

  6. Ian says:

    I called it a lie because it’s a lie. It’s an untruth repeated for political reasons. If you believe it, then you’ve been taken in. You should be angry that you’ve been lied to by people you trust.

    I asked you to present evidence, not a quote. I gave you two links to relevant information, and you’ve ignored them. Please address the question and tell me why the ten hottest years on record have happened during the period when you claim there’s been no warming. If what you say is true, then that top ten should be dominated by years before 1996, because no year since then would have been able to push past the previous record breakers. Also, show me the long term trend graph that shows a definite plateau and not just another period of variability.

    British deindustrialisation began long before politicians jumped on the Green bandwagon, and for reasons that had nothing to do with it- debt after the Second World War; cheaper foreign competition; lack of investment; Thatcher’s war on the unions and, consequently, the industries they were strongest in; the UK following the US into an economy driven by gambling bankers and service industries etc. There was precious little industrial infrastructure left in 2008. You’re claiming the Climate Change Act had effects decades before it ever existed.

    A shift to a low or no carbon economy could reinvigorate the economy. Someone needs to build and maintain the windmills, and wouldn’t it be better if they did it in Britain. Nick Clegg’s one good idea was that old shipyards could be used to build wind turbines etc. because some of the skills needed already existed there. Of course, then he got into coalition and that never happened.

    Wind turbines are just one possibility. Solar installation would pump money to small and medium sized businesses around the country- money that’s more likely to find its way back into the economy. We could have created car companies specialising in electrics and hybrids. New builds could be net-zero carbon. etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>