Politics And AGW/GW

[Devonian]

I agree, TWS...My own perspective is that, as I don't vote then I cannot really complain at individual parties. To me, it no longer seems to matter who gets in: the banks, corporations and conglomerates run the Western world, IMO. But, that said, with sufficient regulation, things could be better for me; which would, of course, make them worse for someone else...

IMO, I have a democratic choice of whether-or-not I vote. I am not going to go to a polling station (just because some activist or another lost his or her life in 1846) and write nothing on a ballot paper. What is the point of that? :lol:

Oh, I agree that one vote makes little difference - it can't, even in just the UK it's one, what, 20 millionth or so of the total. But, it is one way individuals do have some influence (and one where that influence is hard for the opposition to it to dismiss - unlike, say, a pressure group, opinion poll, or protest march) and one only has to look how the corrupt amongst those you list try to fix elections in corrupted countries to realise how important democracy is - or should be.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Devonian

[jethro]

A quick question....

Are folk more, or less motivated to vote in local elections?

[Solar Cycles]

A quick question....

Are folk more, or less motivated to vote in local elections?

Use to be , but after years of neglect by a labour council, I lost all the will to put my X on the spot! Local politics has far to much corruption, my home town being a prime example of this, the last 5 years we have had 4 Labour councillers, all found guilty of corruption!

[noggin]

A quick question....

Are folk more, or less motivated to vote in local elections?

I always vote in all elections....even the damned Euro rubbish ones. I then feel that I am "entitled" to have a really good moan and whinge.....and I do! :lol:

[Devonian]

Use to be , but after years of neglect by a labour council, I lost all the will to put my X on the spot! Local politics has far to much corruption, my home town being a prime example of this, the last 5 years we have had 4 Labour councillers, all found guilty of corruption!

Then stand for office yourself. Corruption's best friend is apathy!

[Thundery wintry showers]

In the local Tyne & Wear elections, most people vote Labour because their families have a tradition of voting Labour, and there is a lot of reverse snobbery (Labour believes in promoting the working classes and bringing those useless snobs at Cleadon down to the lowest common denominator, and the Green Belt around Cleadon should be swallowed up to spite those snobs- that sort of attitude). As it happens I do usually vote in those local elections (usually for the Lib Dems) but there's always a sense of it being a waste of time.

I wouldn't be entirely against making voting compulsory- as long as there was a "None of the above" option or equivalent. It's also worth noting that not everybody even knows about the practice of spoiling ballot papers as being a legitimate way of abstaining.

And I cannot stand for office in Cleadon when I'm down at the Met Office in Exeter at the moment.

[Methuselah]

[...]and one only has to look how the corrupt amongst those you list try to fix elections in corrupted countries to realise how important democracy is - or should be.

I do agree there, Dev.

[Solar Cycles]

Then stand for office yourself. Corruption's best friend is apathy!

Would be a complete waste of my time and energy, I believe that nowadays local politicians are there just to line their pockets, and make a name for themselves. How different it use to be, when local politicians actually cared about the community!

[Thundery wintry showers]

I seriously doubt that politics was any better in the "old days" than it is now...

[Methuselah]

How different it use to be, when local politicians actually cared about the community!

Would you care to elaborate, please?

[pottyprof]

I think we are drifting well off topic here. I refer you all to the topic title.

General politics can be discussed elsewhere. This thread is specifically for the politics involved with AGW/GW.

Ta muchly..

[Gray-Wolf]

Sorry P.P., I understand but I'd love to have a last word on the above. It's up to you whether it stays!

Whichever way you vote you always end up with a 'politician'.

Cast your vote (use it) always but ,if you cannot choose who to vote for spoil your ballot paper. Write "none of them" (or some such) and stick it in the box. They'll get the message (eventually) :lol:

[HighPressure]

I think we are drifting well off topic here. I refer you all to the topic title.

General politics can be discussed elsewhere. This thread is specifically for the politics involved with AGW/GW.

Ta muchly..

I accept it, but not sure I entirely agree with you on this, I think our politicians integrity and that of the political system itself is actually quite relevant to the thread? For me the major issue is whether we can trust our Climate to politicians and from the responses above skepticism on that seems to bridge all points of view on AGW?

[laserguy]

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/3409/218/

"Because global warming never was about protecting the environment. It was the excuse to enforce global governance on the planet".....

[Methuselah]

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/3409/218/

"Because global warming never was about protecting the environment. It was the excuse to enforce global governance on the planet".....

Even the name: Climatechangefraud.com has an air of conspiracy theory about it.

[laserguy]

Even the name: Climatechangefraud.com has an air of conspiracy theory about it.

True! But also has a greater air of how things really are. The article stands up,regardless.

[noggin]

"Because global warming never was about protecting the environment. It was the excuse to enforce global governance on the planet".....

Even as an AGW sceptic I have to say that I have seen that claim before and I do not believe that it is a ruse to attain global governance of the planet. That claim seems rather silly to me. If global governance was required by certain quarters then there are better (for want of a better word) ways of achieving it.

I find myself agreeing with Pete T that the claim smacks of conspiracy and rather a silly conspiracy at that. I have never paid any attention to it.

[pottyprof]

I accept it, but not sure I entirely agree with you on this, I think our politicians integrity and that of the political system itself is actually quite relevant to the thread?

While I agree, there are plenty of places on the internet to discuss the whole political system and integrity of individuals. Please feel free to discuss how it applies to AGW/GW though. I don't see how election rigging etc applies to this debate.

[Roo]

"Because global warming never was about protecting the environment. It was the excuse to enforce global governance on the planet".....

I never quite understand this argument. The fact remains that the most money, influence, power and political will lies on the side of the anti-AGW argument, in the form of the oil lobby. They pour more money than anyone else into advertising, research, political lobbying, etc, etc. The only conspiracy, if there indeed is one, is coming from that side. They are the real people in charge.

AGW is still very much a minority movement, with governments talking the talk, but refusing to back that with money and concrete change. This is the real danger: not enough is being done rather than too much.

Edited February 26, 2009 by Roo

[Admiral_Bobski]

I'd like to add that, despite being a skeptic, I believe that the science is legitimate, by which I mean that it is generally done with the intention of furthering scientific knowledge. (I could add a lot of qualifiers to that last sentence - some of the science is, I am sure, distorted to further a political agenda. I am sure that people could dig up a lot of contentious or downright absurd scientific papers if they tried. I believe the foundations of AGW are, or were, legitimate studies.)

Governments and politicians may have subsequently used that science to push their own agendas and to whack taxes and levies on people and businesses, but that doesn't make it a conspiracy. If AGW theory had been created by or for the government then that might be evidence of conspiracy, but the usage of existing science as an excuse for particular policy decisions is just politics. EDIT - hence the use of the terms "hoax" or "fraud" is inappropriate, since the science is neither. It might be wrong, but that's a different matter!

CB

Edited February 26, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[Thundery wintry showers]

As someone who is heavily involved with said science, I can't find anything to argue with there- a pretty good post.

[laserguy]

"For real gibberish, try out the Climate Change Conspiracy link posted by Laserguy on the other thread".

Taken from the recently closed 'Gibberish Award' thread.

Alright,I'll try again. Let's leave out the word 'conspiracy' - just one word which skews everything in the article. Then read again. Which bit of it constitutes 'gibberish'? Whatever AGW/ACC started out as bears no resemblance to what it has become. What may have started out as something with legitimate concerns and fears was hijacked long,long ago by politicians,amongst others and has now grown into the monster it is today. The utterly crazy thing is that it is the very vocal/powerful minority of believers (I use the word very loosely)who have the upper hand in where this defunct theory and the baggage it carries is heading. You're welcome to it.

[Roo]

Which bit of it constitutes 'gibberish'?

Overcoming my temptation to just say 'all of it', my starter for ten would definitely be:

'We used to call it communism. Now we call it environmentalism.'

Where's McCarthy when you need him, eh?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Probably another example of Laserguy's position, "AGW is a myth, therefore anything that suggests that AGW is a myth must be right, no matter how nonsensical it is, and therefore AGW is a myth, because it says so. Easy, eh?"

There are environmentalists who use AGW as a means of perpetuating Communism. They are, however, as small a fringe minority as the anti-AGW people who use scepticism as a means of promoting infinite consumption of finite resources, some of whom appear to be people involved in that article.

Re. a bit at the top of the article, what happens if it turns out that the AGW hypothesis is wide of the mark and we've carried out a lot of draconian measures? Answer, that we've probably been more draconian about it than necessary or desirable, but headed towards a very useful goal- sustainability. Yes, it might be damaging to the economy in the short term, but think of the current recession in the UK. Did we benefit in the long run because we continued to accumulate unsustainable growth fuelled by debt, and kept putting off the inevitable recession that would arise when our unsustainability caught up on us? No, we didn't, if anything it's a lot worse because the recession is hitting hard and suddenly. We are sitting on the same kind of thing, but on a far larger scale, in environmental terms.

And our politicians are becoming more strongly capitalist with time- the opposite of Communism- so much for the "politicians using AGW to bring about Communism". Authoritarianism is indeed on the rise in Britain, but the association with AGW is merely a symptom, rather than a cause.

[trevw]

Alright,I'll try again. Let's leave out the word 'conspiracy' - just one word which skews everything in the article. Then read again. Which bit of it constitutes 'gibberish'?

I believe they deliberately change the context of one of their first quotes (by Dr. Joanne Simpson), they show:

Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly…as a scientist I remain skeptical,

in context with the last section of the above 'snipped' quote she said:

What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical.

The first implies disbelief, the second is a sensible position and one that I think is hard to argue with

They also attribute the quote

When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists]

to Dr. Kiminori Itoh when I think this was said by Dr. Akasofu? While they have similar views and one quotes the other it points to a lack of rigor..

then it bounds on to the warming stopped in 1999 thing, which is a little thin. Seems to be a bit of a rant really (something that both sides of the argument are guilty of at times), best to treat articles written in that tone with extreme skeptisism I feel.

Trev