Only one in four American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agrees with United Nations’ claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming, a survey published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society reports.​
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis​
"What was the greatest invention of the industrial revolution? Hans Rosling makes the case for the washing machine. With newly designed graphics from Gapminder, Rosling shows us the magic that pops up when economic growth and electricity turn a boring wash day into an intellectual day of reading."

When I lecture to environmentally concerned students they tell me, "No, everybody in the world cannot have cars and washing machines." How can we tell this woman that she ain't going to have a washing machine? And then I ask my students, I've asked them over the last two years, I've asked, "How many of you doesn't use a car". And some of them proudly raise their hand you know and say, "I don't use the car." And then I put the really tough question, "How many of you hand-wash your jeans and your bed sheets?", and no one raised their hand. Even the hardcore in the green movement use washing machine. So how come something that everyone uses and they think others will stop it?

Last edited:

I totally agree, but I am not sure revitalising this thread is a great idea. It seems to attract climate change activists like moths to a flame. I suspect some of them simply GOOGLE about looking for anything that is in any way critical of this 'science'.

The problem is not cars or washing machines per se
The problem is fossil fuel technology and our current systems of production & distribution - ie capitalism
With the proper technology and production and distribution systems everyone can have a high quality of life
Of course we are a long way yet from the vision and will to implement the relevant changes
Do we really want to restart this debate again? Anyone who thinks we should, please read the preceding 36 pages of discussion to check if their point has not already been made (perhaps by themselves).

We all have the choice about whether to read and respond this thread. You are proposing taking that choice away. Believe it or not, for some people the debate on climate science is not over.

This shutting down the conversation has happened with the Europe threads already. I for one would welcome the chance to talk about that, but am hesitant to start a new thread about it. If someone posts about something that you are not interested in then ignore it. Obviously the person who posted thought it important enough to say.

Are you a proponent of free speech only when it suits you David?

Congress: Obama Admin Fired Top Scientist to Advance Climate Change Plans

BY: Adam Kredo
December 20, 2016 3:00 pm

A new congressional investigation has determined that the Obama administration fired a top scientist and intimidated staff at the Department of Energy in order to further its climate change agenda, according to a new report that alleges the administration ordered top officials to obstruct Congress in order to forward this agenda.
The report additionally discovered efforts by the Obama administration to censor the information given to Congress, interfering with the body’s ability to perform critical oversight work.

U.S. Department of Energy Misconduct
Related to the Low Dose Radiation Research Program
December 20, 2016

Staff Report
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Chairman Lamar Smith

. Background on the Committee’s Investigation

A. Overview of the Low Dose Radiation Research Program and H.R. 5544, the Low
Dose Radiation Research Act of 2014.

B. Allegations: Office of Science management and senior DOE employees deliberately
withheld information from Congress during the legislative process and removed an
agency scientist from federal service for providing complete answers to Committee

C. Committee Investigation.

III. Findings

A. DOE management developed a scheme to withhold information from congressional

B. Dr. Metting was directed to omit information from a presentation to congressional
staff given during the briefing.

C. DOE management avoided critical information pertinent to the continuance of the

D. DOE management worked to kill the LDRRP because it did not further the
Administration’s goals to advance climate research.

E. With regard to H.R. 5544, DOE management sought to manipulate congressional
staff – both republican and democratic staff.

F. DOE management and senior employees gave intentionally misleading statements to

G. Dr. Carruthers and Dr. Weatherwax both made inconsistent statements at different
points during the Committee’s investigation.

H. Management quickly took steps to remove Dr. Metting from federal service.

I. Dr. Metting was removed for providing Congress with candid testimony without
regard to the potential chilling effect on other scientists.

J. Dr. Metting was the DOE’s sole expert on LDRR and her opinion was silenced to
further political interests.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations

A. The DOE exhibited a complete disregard for the legislative process and
Constitutional separation of powers at an institutional level.

B. The DOE must overhaul its management practices to ensure that the Department
carries out its Constitutional responsibilities to be truthful with Congress and respects
the legislative process.


Thanks for reviving this thread with this new contribution just at the time when we are able to begin to thik beyond Obama's time in office.
The deniers must be delighted with Trump's election
David, Calling people 'deniers' because of what they believe isn't really up to the standard of debate expected on this forum. You know what happens to people who come here and argue using ad-hominems such as 'woo lovers' or whatever.

Are you implying that Obama was right to hide information casting doubt on 'climate change'?

I am pleased Trump got elected - primarily for two green issues.

Above all, I think (hope) President Trump will reduce the risk of a major conflict in the world, and stop the policy of destabilising countries by covert actions . This simply has to be the greatest green issue on the planet - bar none.

However, for me, the issue of 'climate change' is also a green issue. Put yourself in my position. I think there is plenty of evidence indicating that this idea of overheating from CO2 is either completely wrong, or massively exaggerated. Seen from that perspective, I look at a swathe of 'green' initiatives from a vastly different perspective.

Huge areas of British countryside have been despoiled with windmills. These should be areas where people can walk or cycle and enjoy being away from urbanisation.

In some places in the UK we have small power plants built in areas of natural beauty to extract pitifully small amounts of power out rivers or small flows of water between reservoirs. Trees and wildlife is disrupted to build these places, cables, etc have to be laid, etc etc.

The UK imports wood pellets made from US trees - cut down for this purpose - to burn in at least one power station.

Trees in parts of the Amazon were cut down to grow bio-fuel.

The time will come when electric power supplies will become intermittent, and at that point, people will be forced to generate their own electricity using diesel generators - which will be vastly inefficient and dirty.

The awful truth is that well meaning green people can do terribly damage when they make a mistake.


Electricity bills set to rise by £30 a year and power rationed amid shortage fears, MPs warn
Kate McCann, senior political correspondent
19 DECEMBER 2016 • 12:01AM
The British Infrastructure Group, led by former Conservative minister Grant Shapps, warned lights could go out across the country next winter because there is not enough spare capacity in the system to cope with higher demand.
A failure to plan for the long term and Government demands to close coal-fired power stations to ease the impact on the environment have put the network under pressure, the MPs found.

"Some households may even face the prospect of power being rationed and returning to a three day week. Some businesses already have. This is surely a failure of any nationally- directed power strategy. "

Andrew Follett
Energy and Science Reporter
1:42 PM 08/23/2016

The operator of the British electrical grid is paying for “negative electricity” when there is not enough power to meet demand, resulting in rolling blackouts.

The U.K. grid has also struggled integrating large amounts of wind and solar energy into the electrical supply system.
“Wind and solar boosters tell us that it’s easy to balance the grid with fluctuating supplies,” Ebell said. “Reality is proving them wrong. It’s going to cost a lot more than projected to avoid blackouts.”

Last edited:
I think wind power is insane. In the US, the wind farms get a special exemption to the wildlife protection laws so they are allowed kill birds. We have to kill them so we can save them. This looks like proof that global warming is about money not about environmentalism.
I cannot say I am pleased Trump won; but I am very pleased Clinton lost
Like you, I saw Clinton as the greater threat to world peace; her belligerent foreign policy record and rhetoric led me to despise and fear the woman
I too hope that Trump will reduce the level of US foreign warmongering and regime change etc
But we dont know yet what he will either want or be able to do

I have never bought into the CO2 debate. I am not saying there is not an issue with CO2 due to human industrial civilisation - there obviously is
(but I make no claims about its levels and effects - I am not interested in that argument at all)
My concern is what I call the poisoning of the biosphere - and that involves far more that merely CO2 levels

In fact I consider the biospheric crisis the defining issue of this coming century