35 Years Ago, The Consensus Was Having Difficulty Choosing The Most Profitable Scam

ScreenHunter_539 Feb. 27 06.30

09 Jan 1979 – Conflicting theories on change in world climate

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to 35 Years Ago, The Consensus Was Having Difficulty Choosing The Most Profitable Scam

  1. ozspeaksup says:

    looks like our mob down under figured more funds following the agw mob.
    besides they have all the nice spots for conferences..pity they seem to get chilly just as they start the gabfests
    Gaias revenge? the gore effect:-)

  2. Hugh K says:

    Ahhh, the good ol’ days….when scientists were still allowed to disagree without fear of being bullied into submission. Or in short….when scientists were still allowed to practice science.

    • Brian H says:

      BS. As Steve notes, they were trying to decide whether to hype warming or cooling, neither of which has happened (once you back out the “adjustments”).

  3. John B., M.D. says:

    I thought the science on this was settled, and there was a consensus opinion that the drug was safer and/or more effective than warfarin. The experts told us so. Hmmm, where have I heard this theme before? A person or organization with a financial conflict of interest hides/manipulates scientific data to deceive the public.

  4. tom0mason says:

    But which way to go?
    As Spakespear said –

    ” Evil that men do lives after them;
    the good is oft interred with their bones.”

  5. Andy Oz says:

    They are still arguing about how much tax money they can screw out of Australians for this most profitable scam. Carbon credit spruikers keep using the standover tactics on politicians.

  6. Brian says:


    Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore told a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.”

    Moreover, the Canadian ecologist, who was a member of Greenpeace from 1971-86, admitted that Greenpeace intentionally used faulty computer models and scare tactics in promoting claims man-made gases are heating up the planet. More told the Senate committee that he decided to leave Greenpeace because it was more concerned with politics than it was with the environment.

    Moore also makes the same point that Danish writer and professor of environmental studies at the University of Copenhagen, Bjorn Lomborg, ascribes to; that even if the planet is warming up, it would not be calamitous for humanity, which Moore described as a “subtropical species.” Lomborg claims “economic models generally find that moderate global warming is a net global benefit. Worldwide and in almost all regions, many more people die from cold than heat. With increasing temperatures, avoided cold deaths will vastly outweigh extra heat deaths. By mid-century, researchers estimate 400,000 more heat deaths but 1.8 million fewer cold deaths.”

    Some global warming scientist are still trying to explain why the earth has stopped warming for the better part of the last two decades. Benjamin D. Santer, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, claims that volcanic eruptions spewing aerosols into the atmosphere has been a major reason for the halt in the earth’s warming. Others have attributed oscillations caused by trade winds in the Pacific Ocean as the cause for the global warming hiatus.

    Whoever may hold the answers to important questions regarding the earth’s climate algorithms, it’s not going to be found with environmental groups. According to Moore, environmental groups like Greenpeace are not really concerned with the truth or the sciences that govern the earth as it evolves in the cosmos. Rather, he sees Greenpeace as a political organization with a left wing agenda. He lamented, “After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective.”


  7. Andy Oz says:

    “It’s a staircase rather than a gentle trend upwards”.
    Climate “scientists” spreading more dung to fertilise the alarmists.
    I reckon there is no spoon! [spoon= CAGW]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *