Green World Trust

[Lucy Skywalker]

Some people wonder how I can be "green" and be a climate skeptic.

Let me explain. It's because I care about truth. Effectively I did two U-turns regarding climate science.

First I did a U-turn from light, ignorant disbelief in global warming, to ardent believer in global warming by us, becoming an activist, on the strength of Al Gore's film that was well-received by all environmental groups, seemed like good science, and was backed by information on the web sponsored by all the major scientific bodies and bastions of good sense like the BBC and The Guardian.

The case seemed closed. It seemed, as Al Gore said, that there is consensus among scientists; that nobody but kooks or crooks believes otherwise; that the time for debate is past and we have got to ACT NOW, which, as the threats seemed to indicate, was imperative, if we were to have a future on Planet Earth.

I could not have been more dismayed to find every single item that had seemed to form such a strong, undeniable, clearcut case, being challenged and overturned, when I first started to take educated skeptics seriously. Even the dismissals of skeptics I had read about proved to be "straw men" every single one.

What I'd found was, in a way, even more alarming. It showed that the mass of "educated" "developed" humanity was buying into a complete fraud. How was this possible? Surely I had to be wrong?

My subsequent work is the fruit of facing these questions.

For how can we begin to face the real issues of non-renewable resources, Peak Oil, etc, if we have a science that is corrupt?

[Richard111]

Lucy, its far worse than you think. All this AGW rhetoric is not about climate, it is about gaining control. The problem is population and controlling population. Our dearly beloved socialist prime minister has been so monumentally successfull at moving UK plc towards the Socialist Republics of the EU that it is now a forgone conclusion.

"Climate change" is the whip that keeps the populace subservant.

[Lucy Skywalker]

I split off these posts because "deeper reasons" for my stance and for what drives AGW, deserves its own thread.

Richard, to a large extent I agree.

We have too many people chasing too few resources, and the current situation is unique in size for the planet - though not unique in kind. That I've known for years. I've also known about sinister corners of politics etc for years. However, there are also good people as well as bad, everywhere, and this world is simply the stage on which each of us can choose to do good or not, IMHO, and it has always been like this.

The realization of this pushed me towards Great Spirit - nothing else gave me the capacity to cope. Eighteen months ago Great Spirit put the Transition Towns movement in front of me, and for six months I devoted my time to this. Then I realized they were founded on one good driver and one rotten driver. I sought to get them to release the rotten driver and let go the AGW dogma, but they could not, would not. So I turned to Climate Science, but only because Great Spirit held me there.

My direction could change again. A lot of Transition Towns is great thinking, trying to get a creative handle on the situation of Peak Oil. But there is a human and political naivety there too, in assuming the science is ok, and in assuming there are no other powerful forces at work. I could tell some strange tales. But it's not generally helpful to me, to get too far into the negatives, beyond not being a denier but being a realist in knowing what we are really facing, some of which is very ugly - but Great Spirit is there to help, if and only if we ask.

[Richard111]

Lucy, I have no particular spiritual leanings but a good appreciation of how this world is put together. Take this AGW nonsense for example. The IR "window" in the atmosphere is bang in the peak of the IR energy band. The most prominent CO2 absorbtion band is just in one side of the window. Water vapour can crowd that window and physical water in the form of clouds and fog can shut the window. Lucky for us weather is transient. Makes you think, hey?

Now the sledgehammer tactics of our PM in decreeing an 80% reduction in CO2 production for the UK which is way beyond any other countries target and is unachievable without bringing the country to a complete standstill from total loss of power. This will lead to many deaths and civil unrest. Currently he is claiming if we build electric cars we can overcome this financial crisis and achieve his "green" targets. Apart from trying to compete with TATA of India how are we going to provide the electricity for these wonderfull cars? We should be building coal power generating stations. We have lots of coal. We have the technology to produce "clean coal". But the "environmentalists" don't approve! Who the hell are these "environmentalists"? How did they get this power over our elected government? Not that our prime minister is elected.

Agh! I must stop.

[Richard111]

Lucy. I am not the only paranoid around

See this link from WUWT pointing to IBD Editorials...

Copenhagen: Environmental Munich

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, March 27, 2009 4:20 PM PT

[Lucy Skywalker]

[Richard111]

Thanks for the Lindzen link. Have downloaded the paper and will read it later. The Ward Durkin page is rather long and I soon lost interest as it won't have much bearing on future events anyway. But a good pointer to AGW culture, especially the final emails.

I emailed the IBD link to Christopher Booker of the Telegraph.

You must be thinking of Richard North who runs the EU Referendum blog.

[hqmonaro]

[Lucy Skywalker]

HQ, you came here querying how I could be green and be a climate skeptic. I explained that without truth in the science, we are tilting at windmills, fighting non-issues while neglecting real issues.

I asked you to have a look at my Primer - where, among other things, I give FOUR references debunking Al Gore's film - where you can see their evidence for yourself. Just referring to a script and a "judgement" without checkable data, as you've done here, is no use. It looks as if you have not looked at my evidence. Please do so. It was some of the most important evidence I found, that woke me up and made me do a SECOND U-turn from warmist to skeptic.

I miss many of my old green friends. My new contacts are often more right-wing than I am politically comfortable with; but they've been my friends as well as my teachers, and I've learned to respect them, not least because they care passionately about truth. We cannot solve the real global issues without respect, and openness to evidence, all round. And that includes some not-very-nice evidence of human behaviour - the real subject of this thread.

[Mike Davis]

HQ:
Most of the glaicers you and Al refer to formed after 1350 or so dureing the LIA some may have started to form after the Roman warm period ended dureing the time between that and the MWP which the LIA ended. They are uncovering building sites where glaicers recently were. The glaciers started receding in about 1850 or some as late as 1900 as we are now recovering from the LIA which lasted about 500 years.
Climate change is normal. People who use trends to show a dramatic problem are picking data that supports thier view while ignoreing the real evidence that shows climate always changes.

[Richard111]

[PAWB]

I'm a scientist, I'm very 'green' and an AGW sceptic. I have my own sustainable wood for heating and maintain a couple of fields in a traditional manner. I have planted over 200 trees in an arboretum and I spend a small fortune on wildlife. I recently had my first sighting of an otter in my stretch of what has returned to being a salmon river. I have cleaned an awful lot of rubbish away that previous owners had tipped by/in the river. I grow as much food as possible, buy local food as much as possible and do little travelling; in particular I don't take overseas holidays.

There is zero correlation between being 'green' and being sceptical of AGW.
_________________
Phillip in Devon, England

[Mike Davis]

Richard:
Sites on greenland and mines in the Alps that were mined by the Romans. There was also this about driftwood on Ellesmere island:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1015
There is a report about Vikings in north east Canada dureing the MWP.
Here is another report about glaciers:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2514

[Richard111]

Thanks Mike. Those links add to my confusion. But that's normal for me.

[ian]

Here here PAWB

I'm a member of the Green Party in Oz for god sake My present worldview is generally in line with the tenets of the party (however, my worldview seems to be in constant flux ). Unfortunately their virulant CAGW stance and demonisation of skeptical viewpoints is really contrary to many tenets of their charter. The party and many NGO's rightfully condemned our then Prime Minister John Howard for using fear tactics against refugees and a tool for implementing rather draconian anti-terror legislation, amongst many other things. Yet they are blinded by their own self-righteousness and use similar tactics for promoting CAGW as a tool of social engineering. I get the impression that for many (some?) in the party, the goal of eliminating human induced carbon is seen as a grand step toward some type of utopia which will somehow be a catalyst for eliminating all the other huge challenges facing human kind.

Anyway, I agree, there is absolutely no correlation between being aware of the challenges facing the environment and holding a stance that is skeptical of CAGW.

cheers, ian