It’s unthinkable. Big Government has spent $79 billion on the climate industry, 3000 times more than Big-oil. Leading climate scientists won’t debate in public and won’t provide their data. What do they hide? When faced with legal requests they say they’ve “lost” the original global temperature records. Thousands of scientists are rising in protest against the scare campaign. Meanwhile $126 billion turned over in carbon markets in 2008 and bankers get set to make billions.
The Sheer Effrontery and Gall will astound you
Joanne Nova
TURN THE PAGES (Links in red will become active as pages are published). You are on the page in the Red Square.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 + 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
This is page 1 of The Skeptics Handbook II, a 20 page PDF.
This is the html version of The Skeptics Handbook II. Posted here for discussion, feedback and for wider reading. With the links, sources and a few extra graphs and notes not available in the PDF.
Obviously a lot of hard work has gone into this. However, I feel that it comes over as a bit too gimicky and smacks of propaganda. I know it isn’t! I know it’s all true! But it just doesn’t seem like the right line to be taking. It’s a bit over egg’d. I’d rather see a more reserved and calm approach that covers the basic issues and captures the imagination of the AGW believers gently. Then lead them slowly into finding out for themselves how much mis-imformation they have been fed by the media. Nobody likes to suddenly find out they have been conned, they need to discover the information by themselves and slowly adapt their own mental state as they gain knowledge. I hope this is taken as purely constructive criticism.
20
This may be interesting – on the climategaet money trail
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB40001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html
I too would be inclined to prefer a slightly toned down front cover, since for a lay audience may put them off reading further. I love the Skeptics Handbook – with perhaps a byline based in scientific principles, like “scientists are skeptics” or “how to make sense of climate science, politics and media” or something…
20
Sydney, I understand. The first handbook was more reserved, but both Handbooks were really aimed at Skeptics themselves (or sympathetic souls). I want to help Skeptics argue their case better, avoid the pitfalls and cut to the chase so-to-speak.
I can also see a need for another version, aimed at the public at large. That’s quite a different genre again, and I would not write it the same way at all.
You are right, a softly softly approach works much better there. Bit by bit…
30
Hi Joanne,
I think you are right in that a different, more considered, approach is required for the general public.
Another version of the handbook would be a good move. I hope you get the chance to write one. I could certainly use something along those lines. Thank you for not taking offence as none was intended. It’s just that the “shout it out loud full colour illustrated method” doesn’t sit at all well with me,and would be counter productive in my circle of contacts.
Carry on with your good work…
and thanks for listening.
10
Alternatively, some people like a good conspiracy theory – Jesse Ventura on a power broker behind global warming:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svRUcX9Q9yU
Personally, I think it’s driven by the pro-nuclear crowd, who need some traction for mega billion dollar nuclear power plants and who cares about the toxic waste. Nuclear is the new world order after fossil fuels.
10
The effects of Global Warming is getting much stronger these days. We should concentrate more on alternative energy to reduce carbon emissions.
10
Dear Faith, The best way to understand climate change is to do your own investigating via as many different sources as possible.
Many theories are out there, most of which involve Co2 to some degree.
I, like you, believed that Co2 was fully responsible and was concerned and annoyed that the public and world leaders were not listening. In frustration, I did my own investigations and discovered a whole field of scientific papers that were worth looking into. You are correct that reducing Co2, as much as we can is good, as it means we burn less fossil fuels, which are limited earth resources. However, doing the right thing for the wrong reason is not the way we should go.
The most critical thing to determine is whether Co2 is actually bad for the environment and whether it is a cause for any condern. Co2 is a natural gas, which has many benefits, but it’s role in controlling temperature is very limited and about exhausted. Its level has been 20 times higher in the past than it is now,and this caused no problems.
Every single one of the Polar Ice Core samples shows a clear link between Co2 and temperature over thousands of years. And this was the reason for my origininal concerns and the start of my investigations.
The original Ice Cores data, did confirm this link, but what was never brought to public attention, was that as improved resolution of the core layers became possible(because of improved methods)the link was still confirmed, but showed consistantly that temperature has always increased first, followed some 500 to 800 years or more later by Co2 levels. That alone, should start alarm bells ringing in your mind! It certainly did for me.
There is an excellent web site called – “Science and Public Policy” that I would recommend you visit and an excellent book entitled “The Chilling Stars” by Henrik Svenmark and Nigel Calder which explains in plain english(but with full references to scientific paper) why the climate has varied over the past decades and millenia and why it is still changing today.
The Science of Climate Change is a fascinating subject and ultimately if we get the science correct, then the policies we put in place, or that indeed may not be needed, will be correct.
Happy exploring.
Syd
10
Dear Faith, the world has been working on alternative energy for decades. It is making inroads. But alternative energy is in the end more expensive. Not many people really want to pay for money for the same thing – electricity or fuel for their motor vehicle. Where I am, the government subsidises ethanol for cars. So now Shell charges the same for ethanol blended fuel (lower energy density) as regular and has deleted regular fuel completely so they can charge more for a higher octane version. Making money both ways. The best way for consumers to keep corporations honest is a highly competitive market. Government regulatory distortions always help those in the know make more profit without having to answer to the market (us).
10
Hi Jo,
I’m a long time admirer, very occasional poster.
I’d like to draw to your attention the fact that both links on this page: http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ link to the skeptics handbook 1.
10