tredford01

#12
(#10 Climate Truth) - Wow! It is good to hear from someone who can speak knowledgeably about these issues that have been reduced to no more than blatant propaganda by the Greens and too many career-driven supporters. Climate Truth's comment refers to the latest IPCC report allegedly supported by "2,500 scientists" and to the "Summary for Policy Makers" which has been released in advance of the report proper. If I understand correctly, this Summary was issued before the report proper was finalised. However, it was announced that the report would not be changed except to bring it into line with the Summary - completely the wrong way round! The summary should be of the findings of the Report! It is not only Tom Redford who says such untruths with a straight face - Greens as a group are lying their way through the Press. A couple of days ago we had another who stated as fact something that was just not true, not misinterpreted, not misunderstood but just not true. And these people have the gall to suggest we vote for them!

#14
Yes (12), I too dislike this propaganda that the Greens are using to present their argument. It implies that they have a very weak case so have to use the "big lie" to make their argument. Tom Redford says that Helen Martin "writes that the scientific community is divided on the matter of whether climate change is caused by human activities. This is simply not true." That statement is simply not true, as Climate Truth says with significant references to dissenting scientists. At least Steuart Campbell, whilst supporting TOm [sic] Redford's view, is honest enough to admit the reality - that pursuing the Greens' policy would wreck the economy, a significant factor in my view. I had the privilege to attend the lecture given some months ago by Bjorn Lomborg, who left Greenpeace at the same time as one of the co-founders. They took the view that the argument had been won, that people were correctly concerned about ecology and it was no longer necessary to pursue confrontation to make their case. Too many Greenpeace activists enjoyed confrontation to follow their lead, leading to that schism. Lomborg argues that whilst everyone should be concerned about the planet, Kyoto required far more investment than the improvements that it could create. It couldn't produce a realistic return on the investment, both in activity and financial cost. He even wrote a book about all the other steps that could be taken instead with far greater benefit to the planet and its inhabitants. He has been described as one of the 100 most influential people in the world. He also disagrees with the IPCC "findings".