I am sure that you all now can see how political correctness works.
you have a left wing policy to cause damage to the country and as it defies common sense, you don't want it openly discussed - unlimited immigration?
find a half sensible sounding reason (which would appeal only to the half sensible though) why people shouldn't discuss it - it would offend immigrants?
find a derogatory term to scream at those who dare to disobey- racist?
put career pressure on those professionals who refuse to toe the line - get them dismissed?
The PC Brigade have been very pleased with the success of political correctness but even they realise that it has its limits as to which areas it can be used to control the population. The half sensible reason to appeal to the half sensible is the downfall - 'it would offend' - clearly has its limits.
They needed another idea to appeal to peoples better nature and what better than 'saving the planet'? So after a decade or more of warning us we are heading for another ice age, they turned the idea on its head and came up with global warming.
Now before we go any further let's clear a few things up. I think recycling is a good thing, I think energy saving is a good thing and I agree that the earth is probably warming up (0.7 degrees C in the last 100 years). My disagreement is in the motives and methods of those who would try to use it to ruthlessly pursue an agenda that would send us back to the dark ages and only delay whatever the effects would be for a few years.
The earth has always warmed up and cooled down. We have had several ice ages with the glacier down as far as north London and yet two thousand years ago the Romans grew grapes in Scotland. Despite the best efforts of global warming advocates to tell us that scientists are 100% agreed on the causes - that just isn't true. The IPCC just ignores the questions from independent scientists who review its data and conclusions, causing one such reviewer to describe it as 'basically corupt'.
Did you see 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' on Channel 4? No? Have you heard about it? No? Well I watched it and saw scientist after scientist, meteorologist after meteorologist stand up and say the science was at best 'speculative'. It said that the 'inconvenient truth' that Al Gore forgot to mention was that with the two graphs he uses to show the correlation between temperature and CO2, the CO2 graph actually came a few hundred years AFTER the CO2 and was just a result of the increased heat causing the CO2 to be released from the oceans (Even the Royal Society agree with this point). And of course that heat came from the only energy source the earth has - the Sun.
Al Gore's film is pure propoganda, not science. In the British High Court, a judge acknowleged that there were at least NINE areas where the truth wasn't being told. Yet the British government was forcing all school children to watch it as if it were fact. The judge found that it should be classed as propoganda rather than fact and said it could only be shown in schools if the teacher pointed out these errors. Yet Gore was awarded an Oscar for the film which only reinforces my belief that the trendy, arty-farty left wing in politics are the most gullible people that ever walked on the planet.
I stupidly thought that these conclusions would be all over the BBC News the following morning but it it wasn't even mentioned. Then it struck me why. All part of the same left wing agenda. This agenda will be used as a cover to impose crazy left wing ideas on us - high on the list will be the attack on the car and motorist.
Yet if the government were serious about reducing carbon emissions, the first thing they would do would be to insist that offices in London didn't leave all their lights blazing away all night; this would be closely followed by turning all or at least some of the motorway lights and street lights in general. As always, it is always easier to spot politicians real motives by observing what they do and what they don't do, rather than by what they say!
Look at it from this point of view. We all know to our cost that scientists have great difficulty predicting the weather just two days ahead - so why should you believe they can do it 50 years ahead?
As the politics of Global Warming invades more of our personal lives and affects the economy, skeptics are growing by leaps and bounds.
In late December of 2007 a U.S. Senate report noted that over 400 prominent scientists for more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming.
Earlier, in November, 2007, the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, wrote an article attacking the global warming hype.
Coleman wrote, “It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government then steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going."
31,000 SCIENTISTS (9,000 OF THEM PhDs) reject man made global warming theory.
This issue is far more important for its political implications. A World wide campaign of lies, censorship, anti secientific attacks, intimidatuion of academics and political manipulation has been practised by "Man Made Global Warming" theorists. Now they and the politicians who have profited massively from "climate change" taxes are revealed for the charlatans they are!
In May 2008, Dr Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) announced to a packed National Press Club in Washington DC that more than 31,000 scientists have now signed the so-called Oregon Petition rejecting the IPCC line on climate change. Acutely aware that claims of a 'phoney list' would immediately be levelled at him, DrRobinson pointed out that the list had been carefully vetted to confirm that over 9,000 of those who signed held PhDs. Dr Robinson a PhD scientist himself, was appalled at the notion of being forced to play the numbers game, saying: "Science shouldn't be done by poll. The numbers shouldn't matter. But if they want warm bodies, we have them." Impressive as these numbers are, however, the UK news media, almost exclusively, chose to ignore them.
This wasn't the first crack in the 'consensus' dam. In March, more than 500 people, including leading climate scientists, economists, policymakers, engineers and other professionals, endorsed the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change. Sponsored by climate scientists of the International Coalition on Climate (ICSC), it stated: "There is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity have in the past, are now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change." The Declaration calls for governments and others to "reject the views expressed by the UN IPCC, as well as popular but misguided works such as Al Gore's “An Inconvenient Truth". ICSC chairman Professor Tim Patterson said, "Instead of wasting billions restricting emissions of CO2, a vitally important gas on which all life depends, governments must concentrate on solving known environmental problems over which we have influence."
As impressive as the signatories and numbers are, yet again, the UK news media ignored it. It is not only scientists outside the IPCC who question the 'consensus': scientists whose names were included in the IPCC's list of 2,500 'consensual' scientists have also raised objections. On December 12, 2007, the US Senate released a report from more than 400 scientists, many of whose names were attached to the IPCC report without - they claim - their permission. In the Senate report, scientists expressed a range of views from scepticism to outright rejection of the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
Professor Patrick J Michaels, researchprofessor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and a member of the original UN-IPCC panel, was so appalled by what he perceived as the misuse of the review procedure - with groups of IPCC reviewers, many who were not scientists, only reviewing one or two chapters of the IPCC reports - he demanded his name be removed from the IPCC's list of reviewers. Eventually, the UN administration complied, but only after Dr Michaels threatened legal action to force the removal of his name. All of which, yet again, went unreported in the UK news media. Yet one science consensus appears to be uncontested: there has been no warming since 1998. The latest peer-reviewed research - in the May 1 edition of Nature - even suggests a cooling cycle may take over for the next 20 years.
Whatever we may personally believe about global warming, serious science-based pressure is building on the IPCC to admit its objectives are political not scientific. Sir John Houghton, first co-chair of the IPCC, acknowledged as much when he stated: "Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen." As the trickle of 'dissident' scientists becomes a stream, however, leading anti-alarmists, like S. Fred Singer, author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years, are describing 2008 as the 'tipping point', the year when the real science argument swings their way. If they are right, the UN and much of the Western news media will, alarmingly, be shown to have colluded in closing down an important debate, often by marginalising world-renowned scientists as 'cranks' and 'mavericks'. Both the UN and the media may soon be forced to jettison entirely the myth of a climate science 'consensus'. If nothing else, the fast rising number of 'mavericks' demands it.
To see the 35 errors in Gore's film that the Science & Public Policy Institue identified click here
For more information on the Great Global Warming Swindle follow this link here.
And in the interest of balance, take a look at the Royal Society's take on the subject here.