A Telling Statement

From the Daily Mail via Tom Nelson.  Note particularly the part in bold. 

The blueprint for the CO2 ‘scrubber’ raises
the prospect of a generation of machines which would help reduce the
billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere
by the use of fossil fuels….

The prototype, being built at a laboratory in Tucson, Arizona, by a company called Global Research Technologies, will cost about £100,000 and take about two years to construct. 

devices – each nearly the size of a shipping container – would have to
be produced in their millions to soak up human carbon emissions.

The idea is bound to be controversial, with environmentalists seeing
so-called technological solutions to global warming as undermining
attempts to promote greener lifestyles and industries.

Don’t you understand!?  We don’t care about CO2.  It is just a convenient cover for the socialist wealth reduction policies we really want.  If we found a way to produce wealth and energy without CO2, then we would have to find a new Trojan Horse issue.  That is why we oppose nuclear power, and will find something wrong with solar and wind power when they become economic.

11 thoughts on “A Telling Statement”

  1. How about a quote to this effect from some actual people, rather than a supposition published in a right-wing newspaper?

  2. But at least they are not lying or smearing someone.

    What about this quote.The one you did not comment on?

    “‘ I’d rather have a technology that allows us to use fossil fuels without destroying the planet, because people are going to use them anyway,’ he said.”

    This coming from a scientist!

    But of course no such destruction has happened.Only climate cultists will think like jehovahs witnesses.Seeing armaggedden around the corner.Always just ahead of them.


  3. Luis,

    I object to his absurd belief that using fossil fuels will destroy (by CO2 emissions) the planet.There has never been any credible evidence that it is happening.Then or now.

    I expected better from scientists who should not be making bald unsupported statements.

  4. “How about a quote to this effect from some actual people, “

    60 seconds of googling finds one anecdotal account that appears to be actual reporting of fact:

    “At a talk earlier this month by Dr Jim Watson, deputy director of the Sussex Energy Group and deputy leader of the Tyndall Centre’s climate change and energy programme, he said he believed in a technological solution to climate change. The room – predominantly made up of environmental campaigners – gasped in collective horror.”


    I know, Pseudoscientist, the reporter was biased, those weren’t really a bunch of environmentalists, they aren’t representative of all environmentalists, and the “gasp in horror” was really a big “attaboy!” for Watson.

    The point is that any “environmentalist” that opposes technological solutions on the grounds that it undermines social and economic change is putting his economic and social agenda ahead of environmental concerns. The question isn’t if some do, but how many do.

  5. Scientist as usual uses the sobriquet “right wing” to mean something he does not like. I don’t always agree with the Mail but in reality it pursues a libertarian agenda rather than a “right wing” one. But then it still publishes this AGW nonsense. I have not looked at the detail of this scheme but it looks like a perpetual motion racket.



  6. There is an existing technology that acts as a CO2 ‘scrubber’. It looks good, has low installation costs, solar powered, no big maintenance or manufacturing bills, and what’s best, it’s totally recyclable and Al Gore and his fellow travellers don’t get a penny!

    It’s called a ‘tree’.

  7. Jones,

    Interesting that the article doesn’t say what information was suppressed, only that some was. We know that Hansen withheld information, so it’s not unreasonable to suspect that the information found to be suppressed was that which was counter to the claims of warming trends and human causation.

  8. I don’t always agree with the Mail but in reality it pursues a libertarian agenda rather than a “right wing” one.

    I’m not sure why you think this. I would characterise the paper as pursuing a patrician conservative agenda. On neither economic nor social grounds can it be said to support Libertarian principles. None of its famous writers like Melanie Philips, Peter Hitchens or Richard Littlejohn can be described as straight libertarian, especially the first two.

    Not that I’m defending Scientist. A person who thinks right-wing is synonymous with untrustworthy will think Walter Duranty or Edgar Snow were objective.

Comments are closed.