Earthling

Climate Change and the MP – Stunning debating skills! (Not)

Posted in "Climate Change" by Earthling on July 24, 2010

The following demonstrates, I hope, CLEARLY what we are up against when we try to even have our Government representatives even acknowledge there could be some issue in their AGW Climate Change “belief”. The reason for this cannot be logically arrived at except on one basis alone: It is a political stance and a political ploy to introduce Carbon Taxation and a plethora of other policies to both, reconstruct the economy and re-orientate society while the Banking and political elite cash in enormously.

Now, Mark Lazarowicz isn’t exactly a political “elite” BUT he has a nice little place within politics and it keeps his paycheck arriving. The same goes with this Ms Ruddock. Both heavily involved in the government climate camp.

BUT, read well. Because, while they use NOAA and NASA as their “highly respected organisations” (and who would argue with that right? After all, some twat from Edinburgh doesn’t exactly impact on the richter scale re who these people should listen to when compared with NOAA and NASA), these organisations themselves are now telling us the CO2 equation is all wrong. So the question raised to Ms Ruddock and Mr Lazarowicz is this: IF YOU LISTENED BEFORE, WHY AREN’T YOU LISTENING NOW?

Three guesses!

Meanwhile, note the response to the follow up. “I don’t agree”. They’ll give you the original response but if you follow up and tear that response apart, then you simply don’t get a further response except from a little sheepish MP who says “I don’t agree”. Can you imagine debates in the UK Parliament based upon “I don’t agree”? How would ANYTHING be agreed upon? Do they debate in there or do they just get “whipped”?

>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Earthling
> To: lazarowiczm@parliament.uk
> CC: darlinga@parliament.uk; cammy.day@edinburgh.gov.uk; allan.jackson@edinburgh.gov.uk; gillana@parliament.uk; daviesk@parliament.uk; tellnigel@hotmail.com; griffithn@parliament.uk; barrettj@parliament.uk
> Subject: Reply to you letter 21 January 2010
> Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:17:59 +0000
>
> Mark,
>
> You’ve never met me so I can’t say whether, according to you, I look like an idiot! While you seem to wish to continue to treat me like one!!
>
> I’m seriously becoming tired of your lip-service and your continuous lack of any debate on any topic I put to you. I don’t think I’m the idiot here though.
>
> 1. The response from the Energy and Climate Change Minister, Joan Ruddock MP, is a standard letter, obvious by the fact that it it refers to an un-named constituent with a space left for YOU (probably) to write in the name of your constituent which, even then, you omitted! It’s of great interest then, that there exists such a “standard” response for it clearly demonstrates that the Department feel it is necessary and suggests you/they are receiving a hell of a lot of communication from people stating the same issue – that Climate Change is COMPLETELY BOGUS!!
>
> 2. Even MORE to the point, do you think for one moment, considering the number of “scientists”, MPs (as in the case of Ms Ruddock), delusional activists etc who have a stake in this propaganda that someone like Ms Ruddock who works within something known as “THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE” is going to turn around and say or do anything to suggest that her whole raison d’etre is without justification?
>
> Do You? Seriously? And do you expect me or anyone else to accept this?
>
> Neither Ms Ruddock nor yourself know a thing about Climate Science! Ms Ruddock is as conditioned into believing the claptrap as you are AND she makes a living out of it so why question it right? I can see the headlines now:
>
> “Joan Ruddock, British Climate Change Minister, admits Climate Change is a fraud and is wholly based upon the need for the government to create further tax on the population, in part due to the enormous debt burden the government has built up by unnecessarily having UK currency supplied by a cartel of International Bankers rather than issuing it’s own true British currency. This debt, meanwhile, is proving itself unable to be serviced by a country which now has no significant industry to speak of and, therefore, who’s GDP is not only not growing but is unlikely to see any real growth at all for years to come. The Banks are bailed out to the tune of £billions, aid is sent all over the world to the tune of £billions, yet the UK government cannot (will not) invest in its own people’s education, healthcare, industry and business BECAUSE the Banks (who are NOT controlled by the government but who control the government in essence through the government’s acceptance of the terms of the IMF) will not lend to the taxpayer who bailed them out!”
>
> Now, as for the detail of this piece of absolute rubbish contained in the letter:
>
> The CRU “is just one of a large number of highly respected (my emphasis) scientific research groups…”
>
> Groups, such as your own Labour Party and “Government” (if that is what you wish to be referred to as) are comprised of people. So let us take a look at some of these people who comprise these “highly respected” groups. Then you may wish to consider who you collaborate with and treat as “friends” or “acquaintances” or as “highly respected”:
>
> Phil Jones –climategate-professor-phil-jones-could-face-ten-years-on-fraud-charges#comments
>
> So there is one major “component” of the “authoritative evidence base” which “inform(s) our policy development”.
>
> Note, the author of the above piece is actually a rather intelligent friend of mine by the name of John O’Sullivan. Like you, Mark, he’s a Lawyer but he practices his trade!
>
> Michael Mann – climategate-scientist-received-over-half-a-million-from-obama-stimulus-package.html
>
> As for your statement regarding “Peer review”; It is a well established fact that there are over 30,000 scientists whose views are suppressed by the IPCC and “Peer review” BECAUSE they disagree entirely with the idea of AGW or their research does not support the findings! As the above article shows (and is fully understood), the vast amounts of money being injected into the IPCC and it’s main protagonists to “research” AGW and come up with the “right” results is rather significant and a Mann or a Jones and their “Peers” are certainly not going to allow any research which is going to question their findings and lose them all that investment now are they? After all, they are the “God’s” of Climate Change “science”.
> So, as an example, here is a little piece on your “peer reviewed” ideas. Just one of a great many:
>
> http://jamesdelingpole.com/2010/01/28/more-integrity-from-the-robust-peer-reviewed-ipcc-not/ (since the email, this has been removed by Delingpole yet other articles remain?)
>
> And Mark, as for NASA and NOAA, you don’t have a clue do you? You don’t even ATTEMPT to keep up to date do you? And neither, it seems does Ms Ruddock!! I can only guess that her standard letter was written some time ago:

I quote:

NASA and NOAA are organizations from which many of true believers in the global warming religion have come, and they’ve played a critical role in providing the scientific-sounding justification for the worst of the alarmist predictions. But now scientists from NOAA have published research in Science that challenges the core assumptions of the global warming camp:

An increase in atmospheric water vapor is responsible for at least a third of the average temperature increase since the early 1990s, say scientists at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Susan Soloman, the respected climate scientist who lead the research, says that this finding does not undermine man-made global warming theories. “Not to my mind it doesn’t,” she said. Soloman did point out thatthe research does allude to human emissions having a much smaller role in climate change than previously thought, and serves as a warning to climate modelers who “over-interpret the results from a few years one way or another.” Despite Soloman’s personally held belief, the NOAA study is expected to give further ammunition to climate skeptics working to draw public attention to perceived flaws in man-made global warming theories.

Soloman is careful to be polite to the global warming believers, but a few months ago, this research would not had even seen the light of day. We know from the Climategate emails that climatologists had conspired to suppress research that challenged the orthodoxy. Apparently they’re not able to do that any longer.

Soloman has opened the door by saying in no uncertain terms that the fundamental assumption in global warming dogma, that carbon dioxide is the most important factor in global warming, is simply not true:

Soloman did point out that the research does allude to human emissions having a much smaller role in climate change than previously thought…

Well, isn’t that we’ve been saying all along? Isn’t that a statement that guaranteed you the label of “denier”?

> Read it Mark: steve-janke-more-unsettling-science-in-the-global-warming-camp.aspx
>
> I’m suggesting you read all of this because Mark, I’m telling you, whether by apathy or by ignorance or by an invested interest in one form or another, you, by your constant rhetoric of “I’m convinced and that’s all that matters” when presented with this information which presents you with facts which kill your arguments, are, perhaps inadvertently, colluding with a fraud.
>
> NOAA/NASA now admit they have NOT found the “same trends”!! They are clinging tenuously to “warming” even though the earth has NOT warmed in the last DECADE, while they NOW say absolutely emphatically, that CO2 is NOT the issue! The ENTIRE Climate Change fable has been based on increasing CO2. YOUR GOVERNMENT have introduced CO2 taxes based on this! But YOUR government don’t have the BALLS to admit your input was false and fraudulent!
>
> The “economic analysis” showing “investing in a low carbon society” to protect us is based on absolute GARBAGE as your own “authoritative evidence based” sources are now coming out and stating!! The “economic” and “investing” crew is what this whole SCAM is about!
>
> As for “irresponsible” – It is people like YOU and Ms Ruddock, in your ignorance and apathy who are entirely irresponsible!
>
>
> This, as so many other elements impinging upon the UK (and globally) today, is all due to the fact our government is entirely owned and controlled by the Banking cabal. The control is simple and it is total. YOU, Mark, are nothing but a cog in a wheel of a car. Ms Ruddock is but another one. The IPCC scientists are others. The entire UK political system and establishment is corrupted and you people collaborate within that corruption, generally in ignorance of it because you work within your own little box.
>
> You deal with me as a constituent. No other MP will communicate with me because I am not their constituent. This happens up and down the country. It is one form of control of information and who can communicate with who. Your responses to me have absolutely no interest in what I am saying to you because the questions and facts I put to you are too difficult and will cause YOU issues. You do not answer to me or your constituents (although you should). You simply toe your party line otherwise you don’t have a job! The same goes for Ms Ruddock! You ensure your own survival – Period!
> So that is how YOU are controlled. The control mechanisms are there all the way to the top.
>
> If there are any significant Parliamentary motions to be voted on across parties (such as the EU referendum), the government’s wish is granted due then to a party whip system AND a collusion between parties! There is NO difference between Ken Clarke and Peter Mandelson as Business Secretaries! They both bow to the same masters! Bilderberg! Even George Osbourne is being groomed by the Rothschild/Bilderberg lot. Cameron too! You’re ALL owned by the Bilderberg/Banking crew who use the IMF to dictate to the UK, as to other countries, how the government spends its money. Its money which is created by debt, the debt owned by the Banks. How difficult is this for you to comprehend? Brown and Cameron etc are puppets! It’s pathetic!
>
> The Labour/Tory game at the end of the day is a struggle to see which one can pitch the best “solution” for the bankers. Decades ago there was some semblance of a divide between the two parties but today there is none. The TV/Media portrayal is all contrived whereas the two parties (forget the Limp Dems for now but they play their part too) are so close in policy because they HAVE to be to stay within the confines the Globalists want!
>
> So, yes, you’re a cog in a wheel. The car is built up of wheels plus engine and transmission etc and the passengers are the population while the engine is the government, the NGO’s the transmission etc. But, at the end of the day, the guy in charge of the steering wheel guiding the car are the banks/International Bankers/IMF. That car is being steered directly toward the edge of a cliff but the guy in the driver’s seat will bail out just before the edge – just as the Banks got bailed out. Meanwhile, the passengers can’t bail out because of the child locks.
>
> But you’re a cog in the wheel Mark and you’re as dispensable as the rest of us. You’ll never accept that however because then you’d have to do something about it. The fear you have of not being “MARK LAZAROWICZ MP” any longer ensures you’ll never act however. It’s so much easier to ignore people like me.
>
> Now, I wonder why, thus far, 130 MPs are standing down? Any chance it’s because they recognise there is no real job left for a politician these days? Any chance they recognise that they are cogs in those wheels? Possibly they no longer wish to deal with the trash we are going to be saddled with from an unelected government in the EU which Mandelson and Clarke, as Bilderbergers (plus others such as our “esteemed” ex PM Blair and the incumbent) worked so hard to achieve while the rest of you look on scratching your heads trying to work out what’s going on then, as the penny dropped, just wished to hold on to whatever you could in your career within the corrupt “industry” you’re in.
>
>
>
> Quick question: Is Nigel Griffiths an odd job man? A jack of all trades?
>
> Potholes, street cleaning, loose paving slabs, broken streetlights, blocked drains, abandoned cars, unfinished road works which appear to have been abandoned…..
>
> If you have a major issue Tell Nigel and he will do what he can to help.
>
> Contact Nigel Today…….
>
> http://www.nigelgriffiths.co.uk/690be220-929b-0cf4-dd26-07921acbd5eb
>
>
> Just don’t bother him with anything REALLY serious right?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lastly, I STILL have no response on that pathetic, arrogant reply from Mandelson re the Privy Council Oath. He admits to the oath being law and of the utmost seriousness (of course, he’d have to) BUT, he breaks it? “no foreign state”.
>
> You people really are something else!
>
>
> I just can’t wait for the IMF/SDR reply! That will be a hoot!
>
>
> Earthling

> > —–Original Message—–
> From: Earthling
> Sent: 03 February 2010 19:13
> To: LAZAROWICZ, Mark
> Cc: DARLING, Alistair ; cammy.day@edinburgh.gov.uk ; allan.jackson@edinburgh.gov.uk ; GILLAN, Angela ; DAVIES, Kate ; tellnigel@hotmail.com ; GRIFFITH, Nia ; BARRETT, John
> Subject: FW: Reply to you letter 21 January 2010
>
> Mark,
>
> I’d appreciate an answer/reply to the previous mail copied below. One, perhaps, which is a considered response from you (or perhaps even from Alistair?) rather than a desperate pass on to some “unknown” within the machinery of government who responds with a standard letter which I have just shot holes through left, right and centre.
>
> Now, I’d appreciate your response on the two most influential “scientists” in the IPCC who have been caught red handed. I would then appreciate your response to the fact that NOAA/NASA have directly contradicted the entire CO2 idea – the absolute crux of the government’s entire argument for carbon taxing. Meanwhile, keeping in mind that, with all of this shooting your belief down in flames (which is not a belief and you know it – it’s a governmental policy supporting a Corporate/Banking scam of the highest order and,as such, is criminal) – how you intend to justify your, and Ms Ruddock’s, points that such information is “highly respected” and considered by our government as “Authoritative evidence”. By the way, if you SERIOUSLY consider such evidence from such a source as NOAA/NASA, then how do you explain that you are ignoring now the fact they are telling you that CO2 has very little to do with it?
>
> So then what? Well the next question is this: What the HELL is Gordon Brown and your other idiot colleagues sending funding from a UK which is grovelling – because it has no bloody industry left and can hardly keep itself above poverty level (except in the BANKING community that is) – to overseas places like India to “help them cut carbon emissions”???????
>
> It’s a con. Yet why would the UK and USA deplete the wealth of their own nations to shore up others especially in the state we’re in? Because that money is being dictated to our government for spending outside the UK NOT by UK nationals but by “Supercapitalist” Bankers who want us in the EU and have no interest in this country or its people. Just as they now own and control Libya through the IMF Articles in 2003 (when we’re told to believe Libya are now accepted in the fold because they dumped the idea of nuke development in 2003 – good cloak – demonise your “enemy” until they accept the IMF terms) they have owned the UK for centuries and the USA since 1913.
>
> As an aside, do you know the answer to the question: What comes first? CO2 or Water vapour?
>
> Come on Mark. You’re the guy telling me you are convinced. So you tell me what you’re convinced of when your “highly respected” input is shown as fraudulent and now contradictory. Because, if you can’t support your statement and your stance/conviction, then why should I or anyone else accept it?
>
> Or might the answer to that question just be “We are Government – so YOU listen!” Would it? Is that the reality Mark? Sounds very like it from where I’m sitting mate!
>
> Get smart Mark. Because while you’re thinking of just you and your career, you’re missing the big picture mate. You’re forgetting about the people around you and the kids you have and the kids they’ll have having to live with this crap. And what are you going to say to them Mark? Daddy helped them achieve it because it helped him or because he was ignorant?
>
>
>
> Earthling
>
> From: LAZAROWICZM@parliament.uk
> To: Earthling
> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 11:21:52 +0000
> Subject: RE: Reply to you letter 21 January 2010
>
> Thank you for your email. I have no reason to believe you are an idiot – as you point out, we have never met – and you are of course welcome to come to my regular Friday surgeries if you want to.
>
> However, I disagree with you – not just, it would appear, on climate change, but on most other issues as well.
>
> I do not believe the world is controlled by bankers or the Bilderberg group.
>
> I also support active participation by the UK in the EU.
>
> Regards
>
> Mark Lazarowicz MP
>
> Sent from my HTC Touch Pro

What a STUNNING rebuke of facts huh? 😉
>