Posted on 05/04/2007 1:20:15 PM PDT by Shermy
Referance PING
Something to do with her battle to break the coalminers' strike.
Its all up in the air right now.
There may be a whiff of truth to it
But just a whiff
Just proves how screwed up things get when “suits” make technical decissions.
Then if the evidence had happened to show CO2 rise and fall proceeded or was concurrent with the temperature rise and fall this would have "weakened" the theory?!?
Its like "heads-I-win/tails-you-lose". No matter what the evidence, it *strengthens* the theory.
Perhaps the initial non-GHG warming could only account for so much, leaving the rest for GHG.
Oh Please! There are tons of things that interact to create the climate system that are not fully accounted for. Some of them actually have some empirical evidence supporting the claim that they actually have initiated climate change. For a while it looked like CO2 level had such evidence...and then we discovered the lag...so now, upon closer examination of the ice cores, it doesn't.
btt
A wonderful article for perusal by anyone hoping to debate the alarmists.
brrr.... I mean bttt. :)
Good points. Thanks!
Monmiot’s reply...
“Let me begin this response with an admission of incompetence. I am not qualified to comment on the scientific claims made in Alexander Cockburn’s article.”
This is virtually the only statement he makes that I believe.
“But nor is Cockburn qualified to make them.”
One often sees one writer attempting to discredit another by alleging that the other is a crackpot whose opinions run contrary to all mainstream scientific fact and opinion. This is merely a longer and more sophisticated version of that.
However, it is Monmiot who appears to be ignorant of the large nmber of qualified scientists who concur with Cockburn’s position. Cockburn might not be qualified to be the originator of these comments, but he is certainly qualified to report them.
“If global warming were from the beginning a cause of conservatives, I wonder what the left would be doing right now?”
It would not be a conservative cause unless it were true, and if it were true, liberals would be opposing it.
Remember, all leftism is of and from Satan, who is the father of lies.
“Thatcher, the former chemist, became publicly concerned with environmental issues in the late 1980s. In 1988, she made a major speech [20] accepting the problems of global warming, ozone depletion and acid rain. In 1990, she opened the Hadley Centre for climate prediction and research. [21]. In her book Statecraft (2002), she described her later regret in supporting the concept of human-induced global warming, outlining the negative effects she perceived it had upon the policy-making process.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher
Did she propose or impose a carbon tax? I can’t find it. Anyway, more MT:
“’First, she stresses that she was initially skeptical of the arguments about global warming, although she thought they deserved to be treated seriously. She points out that there was “rather little scientific advice available to political leaders from those experts who were doubtful of the global warming thesis” (451). However, by 1990, she had begun to recognize that the issue was being used as a Trojan horse by anti-capitalist forces. That is why she took pains in her Royal Society speech in 1990 to state: “Whatever international action we agree upon to deal with environmental problems, we must enable our economies to grow and develop, because without growth you cannot generate the wealth required to pay for the protection of the environment” (452). “
http://www.perc.org/perc.php?id=506
“Specifically, Ian Wishart alleges that “Global Warming” as such got its kick in the pants from Ken Lay of Enron, who was looking for a trading scheme to eclipse GHWB 41’s pollution credit trading scheme birthed in Bush Sr’s revisions to the Clean Air Act 1990. Enron was sitting on a huge natural gas infrastructure, but made far more profits as a trader than as a natural gas distribution company and electrical utility operator. Wishart’s article alleges that Enron spread research $$$ to “prove” CO2 caused global warming so that a carbon credit trading scheme could be created and make Enron fantastically rich. Enron would also benefit as utilities were forced to retire coal-fired power stations and commission natural gas ones instead (recall that by the late 1980’s, nuclear power plants were dinosaurs in the US, thanks to the DOE).”
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/03/brit_doc_thatch.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.