Climate change PROVED to be nothing but a lie, claims top meteorologist

[claig]

"THE debate about climate change is finished - because it has been categorically proved NOT to exist, one of the world's leading meteorologists has claimed."

And the distinguished meteorologist goes on to say what many wise heads have long been saying:

"Polar Bears are increasing in number."

www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder

He sounds like he is talking sense

and claig this ability to judge comes from where exactly?

Well said Puzzledandpissedoff

'and claig this ability to judge comes from where exactly?'

From years of study and erudition of the subject matter and a knowledge of how the game is played.

Who exactly is making money out of climate change? Seems to me that most of the cash at the moment is going on the easy stuff like energy conservation, changing building regulations etc. and consumers, if anything, are saving money as a result. There's huge resistance to invest in more radical infrastructure might prepare the nation for a changing climate. If there was money to be made out of flood defences, for example, Somerset wouldn't have sunk. We get offered fracking and there's wholesale revolt. But close a pit and it's roughly the same reaction

The elite will make money out of the carbon scam. But it is not about money because the real, super rich elite are beyond caring about money, they care about one thing alone and that is control.

Agenda 21 is not about money, it is about control. Control of land, control of resources, control of population.

Money is a by-product, a spin-off of the plan, it isn't what it is all about.

"Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming sceptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world's first "carbon billionaire," profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.

Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, has claimed that Mr Gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was urging Congress to adopt."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1225191/Al-Gore-hits-critics-label-carbon-billionaire-profited-championing-climate-change.html

“I’m estimating carbon markets could be worth $2 trillion in transaction value – money changing hands – within five years of trading (starting),” says Bart Chilton, a Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) commissioner, who's also chairman of its energy and environmental markets advisory committee. “That would make it the largest physically traded commodity in the US, surpassing even oil.”

www.cnbc.com/id/32540966#.

"If carbon markets boom, who will benefit? Meet the trillion dollar club

“Carbon will be the world’s biggest commodity market, and it could become the world’s biggest market over all,” Louis Redshaw, head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital, told the New York Times in July 2007."

www.redd-monitor.org/2011/11/04/if-carbon-markets-boom-who-will-benefit-meet-the-trillion-dollar-club/

"If there was money to be made out of flood defences, for example, Somerset wouldn't have sunk."

Dutch engineers make money in dredging rivers and homeowners save money and insurance companies save money, but it requires the authorities to spend taxpayer money. It is about priorities - taxpayer subsidies to aristocrats for windfarms etc.

I make money on the back of regulation relating to legislation to address climate change.

Actually, I do think that there is an alternative agenda at work, but not the one that the sceptics think. I think there is a big push towards alternatives to fossil fuel because it is the reliance on a few countries with abundance that puts those with a relative lack and a high demand in a weaker position. Reducing energy demand (often the same effect as reducing carbon output) does benefit us all. And it has little to do with having to buy shitty hairdryers, but more to do with it being worth the R&D in building blocks with lower heat loss (for example) because of legislation. And so your houses and offices are more energy efficient in their fabric. Sadly, we are not yet in a position where consumers are actually demanding energy efficient homes in large enough numbers for it to be market driven.

This government said they would be the greenest ever. Their decision making on the back of that promise has been quite odd.

Just wait until the 2016 building regs changes and the push towards allowable solutions. Zero carbon homes by 2016 (I think) was the aim. As that comes closer, developers will probably be allowed to pay into a fund that pays for renewable energy projects instead of making their homes actually zero carbon (impossible to do on a large scale and still be affordable. I think Ashford County Council already has a scheme in place.

It's a lively area in which to be involved, even if you don't get involved in the bigger picture much.

'and claig this ability to judge comes from where exactly?'

From years of study and erudition of the subject matter and a knowledge of how the game is played.

All v v subjective, so no actual qualification, nor research initiative? Just erudition of the subject which means essentially, " I just type a lot".

Just so long as we are all clear on your base ignorances?

Agenda 21 is a bad thing?

Riiiiight. The band on your shiny hat has obviously got a bit tight on this one.

'Agenda 21 is a bad thing?'

Zombie, please do the research. It's awful.

Christopher booker and N Iglesias Lawson have been saying for years that it was all phoney. Isn't the so called world authority on the subject just a former railway engineer who is not a scientist at all?
Piece on the radio today saying that it took 35 years for a wind turbine to recoup in electricity the electricity that was used to actually manufacture the wind turbine, by which time the wind turbine itself was totally obsolete. so wind turbines produce no meaningful benefit whatsoever and are just a blight on the landscape.

I agree with that.

It's the Express, FFS. It could't be more Express unless they were somehow implying that immigrants were responsible for climate change. Which they probably will, if it will sell more papers to more racist fuckwits.

The pesky thing about wind power is it can't be stored. If the wind stops, the lights go out unless another source of energy kicks in to back it up.

Meanwhile, every day that the windmills produce 6GW of electricity, that's an awful lot if fossil fuel that isn't burned.

Saying "you still need an alternative for the days when it isn't windy" is like saying you need a tumbledrier as well as a washing line. You do, but what happens to your electricity bill on the 300 days a year you use the line?

claig, I have done the research, and it's great. A chance to leave a whole planet to my grandchildren. A chance for jam tomorrow not jam jam jam today. You were shown to be wrong right at the beginning of this thread, you admitted you were wrong. If necessary, I'll do what women through the ages have done, and lay down in front of the bulldozers when they come to frack in my part of the world, in order to save your children from the consequences.

Happy frothing

Zombie, I am against fracking too, but because of the health dangers and risks to the water table as well as the potential loss in property values tec, not because of the fossil fuel angle which I think is a con.

'I have done the research, and it's great'

Are you aware of the Club of Rome, Rockefeller, Agnelli etc etc?

PanIsNotAButterfly: "'and claig this ability to judge comes from where exactly?'
claig: From years of study and erudition of the subject matter and a knowledge of how the game is played."

claig: "Apologies, I didn't realise he was not a meteorologist because the Express article calls him "one of the world's leading meteorologists"

claig, can you at least see how contradictory your statements are? Taking an article (and an article in The Express FFS!) at face value is seriously at odds with a claim of study.

But I'm stepping away from this thread. It is clear that you have chosen climate change denial, and as such will twist everything to 'fit' your choice.

'Taking an article (and an article in The Express FFS!) at face value is seriously at odds with a claim of study. '

I agree. It was a bad slip-up in the process of study. Unusually, I fell hook line and sinker for this one. Everyone makes mistakes, but the process of study will continue.

piglet The drier analogy doesn't quite work (as I am sure you know) as the background generators cannot be completely switched off, but turn over on idle, wasting fuel.
The trouble with wind is the power is difficult to forecast and impossible to control. as discussed on this site. Pumped hydro stations which use excess night time power to pump water uphill and then generate for peaks are, i think, more efficient.

The gas and hydro stations can be turned on and off at short notice.

The oil generators and the open cycle gas are turned off most of the time and are only started during unusually cold weather because they are so expensive to run.

Coal are usually serviced during summer when they can be turned off and cooled down.

Nuclear and biomass generally run continuously, as does coal, although, at the moment, several nuclear stations are off.

So whatever electricity comes from the wind saves us importing and burning fossil fuels. Good for the economy and good for the environment.

Claig: "From years of study and erudition of the subject matter and a knowledge of how the game is played."

Do tell us more. There are thousands and thousands of scientists looking at climate change. These are people with degrees and PhDs in the relevant subjects, people who have spent years meticulously gathering and analysing the data, people who are professors at the most prestigious universities. They believe that climate change is real.

So what is it that you have that the don't? Tell me what your degree is in and where you got it. What did you study for your PhD? At what institutions did you carry out your research into climate change that led you to believe it wasn't happening? Which papers did you read? What papers did you write?

In other words, tell me why I should give more credence to your view than that of thousands of supremely well-educated and intelligent people who have spent years of their life researching this stuff.

Let me answer the most important question first

Which papers did you read?

The Daily Mail.

All of the scientists believed in Newtonian physics until Einstein came along.

I am not saying that Daily Mail articles are like Einstein, but they are damn close.

hackmum I assume many of the staff at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit were pretty well qualified too - and we all know what happened there

Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying that there are some very intelligent minds occupied with this, but it wouldn't be the first time that findings have been compromised to suit the agenda of those providing the funding ...

After the terrible years of Blair and his cronies, I thought everybody understood the art of spin. Can't you see them coming? Don't you know when they are trying to pull the wool? Can't you spot a puppet, can't you see their strings?

"Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research."

online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

"The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."

I'm very ignorant of climate change denial, so can I ask a question?

Why do you need to believe that climate change is a lie, claig? Why does that ideology suit you?

Not wishing to be inflammatory, it's a genuine - and pretty naive - question.

Did anyone watch Andrew Neil just now on the Daily Politics with Liz Truss?
Watch it on catchup, it was very good. I wouldn't be surprised if Andrew knows the game and how it is played.