Swedish politicos 'don't buy climate change'

Is it any wonder we are in the mess we are right now? With imbeciles like this running communities, counties and countries? Unfortunately, their numbers are very high and they DO influence the opinions of the masses.

Ppl don't get elected on the bases of their knowledge or skill but on what sounds good to the majority. As Edward Bernays once said "people are stupid". Stupidity is such a common human universal so, I'm not surprised!

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is continuosly rising which is clearly related to the use of fossil fuels. The physics is then very clear - all things being equal the planet gets warmer.

Politicians don't want to accept what almost every climate scientist know to be true - because to accept the reality then requires that something be done by the decision makers- the politicians.

Before trashing the "moronic politicians", it is perhaps smart to know all the facts.

It has been previously shown that pro-climate scientists tend to "omit" information that is related to researches that come up with inconclusive or simply opposing results to the generally popular idea of global warming as an effect of human activity.

Moreover, it is not exactly known to everybody that the global ocean is warming up for the last 135 years, which makes human contribution even less likely.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1461.html

What disturbs me in the entire story, is that in spite of the fact that Sweden emits 0,4% of the world total emissions, the b*tching about this issue is never ending. It is not even a FACTOR for Sweden. It is as irrelevant as the amount of sun damage for the citizens of Kiruna. It perhaps happens, but irrelevant as a national issue.

Emissions reduction actions in Sweden are expensive as hell and are mostly inefficient. Water energy is effectively destroying salmon and other fish in Sweden, as they cannot migrate through the dams. Wind energy cannot even bear the private homes consumption in Sweden (forget the industry and railroads) and sun energy cannot charge an ipod.

At the same time, the funds are taken from healthcare, education, emergency services etc. The same environmentalists want to eliminate nuclear energy because of related risks without any effective alternative. It is about time Sweden stopped the spending internally and directed pressure towards countries like China, Russia and developing countries.

The Global Warming demonstrators and Occupy Wall Street demonstrators will move on to a new cause in the next few years.

Just 4 smore zombie sheep to bring into the real world. I suppose those 4 also believe in the tooth fairy and the boogie man. "Global Warming" recently became "Climate change" as record low temperatures last year proved "warming" to be nonsense. Its time to drop man made climate change and global warming for the frauds they are. Even the scientists that came up with these theories originally now admit they are false. We can fight to change man made pollution- pollution is a REAL problem. Its time to stop deluding ourselves that humans have the power to change the climate more than nature

I am confused, what mess are we in?

We aren't exactly switching back to the roaring 1800's anytime soon, all new technology is more and more friendly, what do you people want?

I still have yet to see any 100% conclusive evidence that climate change even exists.

Uncle - your ability to disregard what the people who really know, the scientists, say is amazing. Among climate scientists there is discussion and debate about details but overwhelming agreement that there is a problem and we are responsible.

Those who understand shout fire, but deniers refuse to see the smoke, then deny that smoke is related to fire and finally say that smoke is a naturally occuring phenomena and is good for you.

Deniers make is easy for the politicians to avoid making hard decisions but they deny what all the experts say is true.

This is really sad to hear. I thought that Sweden had risen above the ignorance of most in the U.S.

Can someone explain how those who choose to discount the overwhelming scientific evidence for human-caused climate change also choose to accept scientific evidence that governs the rest of their lives? The only explanation I can come up with is their ideological belief that if human-caused climate change is happening, the solution will necessitate some loss of their personal freedom to do whatever they damn well please regardless of the consequences, which will result in a gain in the power of the governments that they despise.

The Earth has gone thrue several climate changes, this is nothing new. There is yet to be evidence linking human impact on the climate changing. I`m not talking about pollution, it`s a whole different question.

Solar-, wind- and waterpower are all ineffective and takes upp huge amount of space. That means destroying nature. Nuclear is the best bet we have today, until Thorium LSR is developed.

Beavis, it's difficult to find any truth in your posting. "Weather" and "climate" are two different things. Record low temperatures last year in certain locations (weather) have little to do with the overall climate. There were also record high temperatures last year, but this means nothing other than climate change theory predicts wider swings in temperature, storm severity, etc., just as we are experiencing.

Who are these scientists who devised "these theories" yet now admit that they are false? Climate change theories were proposed and validated by thousands of climate scientists all over the world, so there is no small group of scientists who devise climate change theories and who could repudiate them.

Why do you think that 7 billion humans cannot change the climate? Nature sequestered huge amounts of carbon over millions of years thus removing CO2 from the atmosphere. This has become petroleum and coal. In the past couple hundred years, humans have mined the petroleum and coal that it took nature millions of years to sequester and have released it to the atmosphere as CO2. Nature's CO2 - O2 equilibrium can adjust somewhat by increasing the rates of vegetation growth, but humans are simultaneously destroying much of this vegetation. So it's a downward spiral in which CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere continue to increase. For anyone who understands this, human-caused climate change is impossible to deny.

@engagebrain

Can you PLEASE stick to the nickname? Just for the show. I never said that there is no "overwhelming agreement" among scientists. All I said that "underwhelming doubts" never get public. And THOSE are also scientists.

Additionally, I stated a simple fact that Sweden has no part in this problem even if it is the complete and utter truth (although EVERY cold age before us had a fast global warming period and the fact is that current global warming evidently started before our emissions).

There is a problem with global starvation around the world. Does it mean that a huge chunk of Swedish budget shall be invested into giving free food away INSIDE Sweden??? How is that related to the problem??

The municipalities in Sweden are demanded to invest these funds to improve 0,00001% out of total world emission for each, while taking away from special education (FYI - these schools are closing in Sweden at alarming rate and challenged children are forced into regular classes, which have no ability whatsoever to accommodate them) and I am not even starting on the awful healthcare system.

Invest half of these funds to sponsor new filters on developing world factories and you get an effect of 10%-15% worldwide instead. Simple math.

As Edward R. Morrow stated: "The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer."

The longer people quibble over whether or not we all share responsibility for this problem and whether or how much we should contribute to solving it, the higher the risk that we will lose the opportunity to correct the situation.

When we accept that a survivable climate is a necessity, perhaps we'll figure out a way to refine and/or create new technologies that will enable us to employ the unemployed and under-employed and, in turn, ensure both quality of life for our, and future, generations.

We will undoubtably be arguing about this issue until it is too late to change.

The trouble with the climate debate is that it is not the natural scientists that are 100% sure global warming is man made. The believers are a religious cult made up of non-scientists, journalists, politicians and scientists in research areas not related to the natural science of climate change as well as some true scientist in the correct science area that have receive fame and enormous sums of money.

Annika Carlsson-Kanyama did her understudies in the humanities. Her doctoral thesis natural research management. Many of her "research" articles have dealt with the impact of gender on the environment. And conclusion is that it is of course the male that is to blame. In feminist Sweden she was thus given an associate professorship. She has benefited from being a feminist and a banner waver in environmental causes. She is not the exception an enormous group of people have furthered their careers screaming and ranting about the environment. If anyone is really curious there are a number of good sites to read about the other sides viewpoints; try www.http://thegwpf.org and read the book

The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert

Smoking is good for you: mercury and lead in your diet is perfectly safe: asbestos is harmless: man-made climate change doesn't exist.

It really is amazing how some dimwits are so incredibly susceptible to a well-financed campaign of disinformation put about by people happy to benefit from the death and suffering of others.

No doubt some of the man-made climate change sceptics posting here had relatives who smoked vast quantities of "healthy" tobacco ", painted their children's nurseries with lead paint, took mercury as a balm, and had their houses lined with asbestos insulation. Clearly some of their descendants have inherited the defective genes damaged by all that nicotine, lead, mercury and asbestos.

'Man-made global warming' = a politically manufactured scam with an agenda.

Sheeple don't question...they just believe!

Campaigning obama said if he was elected "the seas would cease to rise and the planet would heal."

He also promised to cut the deficit in half.

@robinhood

"It really is amazing how some dimwits are so incredibly susceptible to a well-financed campaign of disinformation put about by people happy to benefit from the death and suffering of others. "

Oh, yeah, if you know how to say asbestos 3 times in one post then the global warming is SURELY not good. Lets do something FAST! I have an idea on how to save the poor little jellyfish in the ocean. Lets use Ethanol to save them! Implement NOW. Don't think!

Ooops... Did thousands in South america and Africa die from malnutrition due to the increase in food prices? Ehh... we did not think about it, when we listened about asbestos... but... the jellyfish...

OK another idea. FAST... ASBESTOS.. lets use a biofuel! BRILLIANT! Ooops., driving the garbage to the stations emits more pollution than we save by using biofuel? But we thought it will be better... but asbestos...

TRAAAINS lets all switch to traaiins! Oops. we need more nuclear power... Ehh...

I think that you got the idea. Also about who sponsors the "clean energy" projects and who is actually investing way more money than your "villains" even dreamt of.

@Uncle

Exactly how many lead painted toys did your parents let you lick? It must have been quite a lot to think your above post makes any sense to me at all. Please aqcuire at least a basic level of grammatical competence and organised thought before you post here again.

Sweden needs to just go ahead & drop it`s "neutral" label ... Yet another country so obviously owned by corporate greed.

So there are still 40 % hanging on to that climate scam, in spite of climategates and fakegates and the fact that the temperature hasen´t risen during the last 15 years in spite of increasing levels of CO2. Besides, there are clear evidence that the CO2 concentrations follow temperatutre and not vice versa. So 40 % are putting fiction ahead of facts. Looking forward to a long awaited shift of paradigm..

robinhood.

I truly apologize that I was not coherent enough in my attempt to imitate a crazed environment enthusiast such as yourself.

I will break it down for you for simplicity:

1. Your comparison of emission control and\or asbestos and cigarettes is hardly valid, since there is no viable parallel between these.

2. Reduction of emissions and "clean energy" cost so much, that being one who exposes "well-financed campaign of disinformation" by evil corporations who doubt the human contribution to global warming, is being naive and simple- minded. Further breakdown, if the above sentence was too long:

a. There are OTHER corporations who invest into global warming propaganda for the sole purpose of increasing their revenues on the account of alternative fuels.

b. These corporations also sponsor your scientists, who would say whatever in order to maintain the funds flood.

3. Fast decisions in regards to global warming are causing deaths and poverty NOW and not in 200 years. Was this short enough?

4. Calling people names does not make you right. Just unreliable as a source of any information (off the topic, but hopefully you understood this complex concept).

13:08 May 7, 2012 by Migga wrote

"The Earth has gone thrue several climate changes, this is nothing new"

True, but many species did not survive the change.

If Sweden were to cut its use of fossil fuels by 50%, shut down its nuclear and hydroelectric plants, increase its investment in solar, wind and biogas by 100% would global climate change cease regardless of whether it is man-made or not?

No.

But Sweden would destroy its economy and standard of living and make Spain look like the model for rational decisionmaking.

Until the word "believe" is removed from the debate, there will rightfully be doubt. Since is not religion. The word believe has no place in that discussion and it comes up unconsciously, far too often. Only a liberal moron, would consider the available evidence and the debate final. There is nothing wrong with driving into the future cautiously, but the alarmists who claim that the sky is falling and GDP must be sacrificed are idiots who make morons look intelligent.

whoa its like swedish politicians want to be as ignorant as american politicians even though it is obvious how retarded american politicians are and how much damage they are doing to their country and the world.

It is remarkable how the climate scientists are all wrong.

There is no doubt that the human activities are on such a large a scale that it is affecting the climate of our planet. Sadly we only have one planet and the deniers are urinating in our common swimming pool.

We are choosing to live beyond are means and are creating a bill that our children will have to pay.

It's funny how people are "morons" when they don't agree with us.

Climate change is not a fact. Only half the scientists support the theory, which was previously called Global Warming.

According to research the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases is not fossil fuel, it is methane either from animals we farm, such as cows or from algae found in the sea. If we put carbon fuels in to percentage terms (IIRC) it was 5% of all the harmful contributions.

The fact is climate change could be true, it also might not be. To force these view on us without a contrary opinion is as wrong.

During last week news cam out that scientists now think dinosaurs caused climate change because of the methane they produced. Google "dinosaurs climate change" for the list of publications the article was in.

But why let the facts get in the way of a point of view? We all know an extra £5 on air fares, called a green tax, will help the world. Right?

I am a climate change heretic and proud of it. I believe in saving energy where possible, finding cleaner forms of energy but I don't believe we are to blame.

That is my opinion, it is a free country and if you don't like it...... Too bad!

Along similar lines, I came across this today :

http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=703

The Report says the main cause of future problems is the excessively short-term predominant political and economic model. - the Club of Rome.

I fully agree with them, the alleged global warming is just another tactic by environmental tree hugger to skim money for stupid research and scare the people into it. Planet earth is in continuous evolution and did not finalised when the tree huggers appear in earth, changes in climate will happen, species will disappear, new ones will come, That is the natural process of the universe, Glad to see that there are intelligent people that objectively see and can differentiate from the propaganda. Good for you Sweden!!

"Swedish politicos 'don't buy climate change'"

Politicos? Is this site for Sweden's news in Spanish? ;)

#14

Agreed. Humans do love to quarrel and will be doing so until the day of extinction. ;)

07:05 May 8, 2012 by Céitinn wrote

'Only half the scientists support the theory, which was previously called Global Warming'

Totally wrong, a correct figure for climate scientists would be 98% - basically everyone. There is debate about details but the profession is united.

Is it just me, or engagebrain got into a total brain lock that can produce only slogans about future children and songs that start with "Kumbaya"?

Concrete proposals - engagebrain. What would you like to do to decrease Swedish 0,4% emissions? Stop all production that runs on gas and oil? What alternatives are there to increase GDP and not get into economic turmoil that will strike on the poor directly?

Force everybody drive on diesel that has lower CO2 emissions, but higher tar and other contaminating emissions?

Perhaps Ethanol that starves people? How many people you think is reasonable to starve? 1 - 2 million? 10? How many South Americans and Africans are worth your children lives improvement with 0,4%? Also it is a bit not "Kumbaya" anymore, eh?

Maybe build more dams and kill off the entire nature of Sweden? Also hardly reasonable…Use coal? Also crazy emissions. Perhaps just wood? Kill off the forests?

Maybe increase taxation on fuel? That will surely decrease emissions. Say, 30SEK for liter? 50SEK?

But then ALL the prices will go up to the levels where all your environmentalist buddies with a bachelor in Greek philosophy will start starving, effectively increasing government spenditure and getting the country into inflation that will make people/businesses go into default and speed up unemployment, which will decrease government budget, forcing Sweden to increase loans, which will get the entire Europe into further turmoil, increasing the par between the rich and the poor, causing rioting, while the interest rates will go up in order to accommodate for risks, decreasing overall security of the bank system, which will eventually (probably) crash when loans are not returned, which will get the country into hyperinflation, stop all activity and…. HERE we are with OUR beloved kids with clean air, living under a bridge in Zimbabwe style country and killing each other for getting a roadkill for food.

How thankful they will be for the wonderful reduction of 0,4%! Engage the frontal lobe!

@Uncle:

Damn! Your arguments are the best I've seen in a long time. Do you have a blog or website we can visit? If not, you really should start one!

Check back later!

@billyb362

Thank you, I appreciate it :)

I tried starting something, but I am way too lazy to maintain it. I get the drive when I build my arguments as response to people. It is just too difficult to write a monologue that others may be interested enough to read.

@Uncle: I sent you message via The Local email account. Please check and get back with me.

Thanx!

Can some of the enlightened explain Greenland?

So, Sweden has many politicians who don't believe that the sky is falling. Good for them. GW or CC mostly is bunk. Sunspots and the earth's core have the most dynamic influence upon climate.

Global warming, climate change, global weirding...whatever they're calling the climate bugaboo now, a lot more blind faith is required in the Church of Green than for other fundamentalist religions.

Then, let's be honest: among the "scientists," there is much pimping for research funds.

It's okay at least in Sweden you aren't dealing with the politicians that we in the United States have to deal with. Not only do we have to deal with these ignorant politicians on issues like climate change, but we have to deal with them on all common sense measures on the environment. Plenty of them are working towards the times before we had the Clean Air Act, emissions standards for vehicles, and bans on CFCs.

Well I'm not a politician and dont believe it that either, It is just another excuse to justify the existance of thousands of mediocre scientist living out of the gverments, There is no proof of the alleged global warming, it is a natural cycle of a planet under evolution, , Too much BS talk from the tee huggers trying to get attention.