Science, Innovation, Politics
Yes, it's absolutely pathetic. No wonder Britain has spawned a new AGW religion. Here are some more sinister British propaganda efforts.The Institute for Public Policy ResearchThe IPPR, a New Labour think tank has over 400 publications on global warming, giving professional advice on how to put forward the case for AGW.BBC British government social engineering
1984 in 2009. And another £6 million of taxpayers' money wasted.
I think that the UK's Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) is going to be busy with this one!
Right up there with the infamous Daisy Girl, 1964:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr-rFuxT364
Just imagine if the money spent on on these climate hangers-on was actually spent on new energy tech instead. Let me see; 15,000 delegates at Bali but what do they actually contribute beyond ill-researched reports that nobody reads anyway? It's the engineers who need the money, not the bureaucrats. There is any amount available for think tanks, green consultants or ad campaigns but when my old company, Metalectrique, tried to get a miniscule portion of this largesse for some long-life battery tech that was tested and proven by University experts, they were given the runaround for 4 years by the UK government and 3 years by the French. Endless promises by an endless array of pen-pushers but never did the promised money actually arrive. That's the situation on the ground. It's all sheer hypocrisy.
BBC eventually comes clean(ish) on the Geneva conference - it's actually worth reading.What happened to global warming - BBC This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
Click here for my take on the U.K. propaganda campaign.Totalitarian propaganda vs. science…
jgdes:If the only way out of the climate change mess is cheap low-carbon technologies, then funds should go toward their development. I agree that there are many distracting forces out- there "carbon markets", ad campaigns, meetings and a host of attempts at prediction at various spatial and temporal scales for various purposes. It seems ironic that these efforts could actually be leading away from solving the problem by sucking up funding. Perhaps I'll mention that to the organizers next time I'm invited to go to a meeting.. "I believe that these kinds of efforts are counterproductive to solving the most serious threat the planet faces, and therefore, can't in good conscience participate!" Could be interesting...
SharonF sez:“If the only way out of the climate change mess is cheap low-carbon technologies, then funds should go toward their development.”1) Yeah, those Ethanol subsidies worked really well -- right?Wake up! We will NEVER move beyond petroleum with moronic, hopelessly corrupt government bureaucrats selecting winners and losers among the many alternatives.2) What “climate change mess”?Which “mess” are you referring to?A) The flat to cooling trend from either 1998 or 2002?B) The global 10,000 year cooling trend (here and here)?C) The 30,000,000 year cooling trend?Kyoto worked really well, eh? That was some bang for the buck, eh?But, that was just the warm-up act! As we close in on $700 BILLION wasted on Kyoto, the corruption mongers are NOW eyeing a FAR bigger prize for their corrupt pals around the world.Please! WAKE UP!
Typical, that video:The problem is not people using too much energy,it's the release of CO2.Not the same thing of course.As said in the comments, low emission technologycan be applied to both cars and power stations.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.