Forum Home» Martin's Blogs & Appearances & MoneySavingExpert in the News

'Apparently I’m an environmental scourge' blog discussion - Page 3

New Post Advanced Search

'Apparently I’m an environmental scourge' blog discussion

31 replies 3.7K views


  • edited 23 July 2009 at 9:41AM
    mailmannzmailmannz Forumite
    298 posts
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Combo Breaker Debt-free and Proud!
    edited 23 July 2009 at 9:41AM
    The problem is that there is so much deliberate misinformation out there about so called global warming (forgetting that temperatures have dropped in the last 10 years and that none of those so called models predicted snow in April this year) that you simply cannot trust anyone who calls themselves an environmentalist.

    The reality is environmentalists want to control what you do, while destroying the economy at the same time.

    It was rather telling when milliband or who ever the incompetent !!!!! was (hah, wonder if that guy is on this guys !!!!! list?), was asked how many people had stopped flying because of the increased tax, his reply...NONE!

    The reality is taxes on flying is an easy way of raising cash.

    Funnily enough, I see the climate destroyers in the Netherlands have removed all taxes from flights leaving Amsterdam. I guess they just dont care do they! :)

  • mmilliemmillie Forumite
    81 posts
    Sometimes it makes me want to weep to see how many people have been brainwashed in to thinking that global warming doesn't exist.

    There are indeed conflicting messages about global warming. Those messages are;

    1) Global Warming is already happening. Global Warming is when the earth's oceans and atmosphere gets hotter, and it causes different effects in different places, such as heating some up, cooling some down, and changing the pattern of wind and rain. It is caused primarily by an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 levels have been measured to be higher than any point in measurable history (many millions of years), and our activities are increasing it ever more rapidly.

    That's the message presented by the entire scientific community. Scientists who on the whole tend to be honest people trying to uncover truth. Unfortunately scientists also on the whole tend to be lousy communicators except to other scientists. Scientists who use words like "probably happening" when it's 99.8% likely (or "five sigma", because they don't like to be caught out by that 0.2% chance.

    That's the message presented by the united nations after the entire world's scientific and political advisers studied the evidence and had the worlds leaders sign their name to an agreement that acknowledged that human activity was causing irreversible climate change.

    2) Global Warming might or might not be happening. The scientific community can't be sure, and anyway wouldn't it be nicer if it were a bit warmer round here.

    That's the message presented by literally half a dozen scientists (compared with the thousands who say otherwise). Scientists who are looking for more grant money and know there are big industrial sponsors for that kind of research (think back to the MMR jab research, sponsored by a rival drug company - one researcher giving conflicting evidence to the rest of the scientific community, for money.)

    That's the message presented by newspaper journalists. Journalists who rightly or wrongly believe that it is important to present both sides of an argument equally, even when one side is the entire scientific community, and the other side is half a dozen vocal attention seekers.

    That's the message of sluggish industries who see that the green revolution will mean that they have to change (e.g. the US car market, the oil industry), and they would rather not change because they are making plenty of money right now, so why rock the boat. These industries are owned by the same people who own the newspapers and cable networks, and don't for one minute think that they are unbiased. Think I'm a conspiracy nut for thinking newspapers are biased by their owners? Just thing about how different newspapers have different political bias, and how that political bias can swing elections. How do you think they decide to have that bias? Do you imagine that it goes against the opinions of the owner? No, it doesn't. People own newspapers not to directly make money, but to influence society.

    That's the message presented by documentary makers who want to make a name for themselves. After all, there's not much mileage in another documentary which says "yes, the scientists are still saying the same thing", but there is plenty of mileage in documentaries "global warming might not be true" or "aliens might exists".

    That's the message presented by George Bush. George Bush, the Texan, funded by the oil lobby. And even George Bush reluctantly had to agree that global warming is real in his last months in office.

    So, the question is, do you believe the entire scientific community, with their facts and evidence. Or do you believe the minority of unscrupulous journalists, politicians and industrialists who have an agenda their own.

    Unfortunately, from what I have read on this thread, the brain washing is working, and the scientific facts are being ignored.

    I'd ask all of you reading this thread to ask yourselves one simple question. Is it more likely that the scientific community are all lying to you, or is it more likely that powerful industries like oil companies and car giants are using their money to create messages of uncertainly which help improve their profits.


  • Martin has injected a note of sanity into what can sometimes be a hysterical debate. Limiting the amount of flying is, however only part of the solution. A lot more journeys on short haul distances could be done by train (particularly if investment into a modern high speed rail link which would enable high speed travel to the continent were made).

    Most people live nearer to a station than they do to an airport, there aren’t long check in times, stations are usually much nearer city centres and hotels and you aren’t bombarded with a million stores trying to make you part with your money out of sheer boredom). Journey times are therefore comparable if not shorter.

    Before deciding not top travel think how you travel and what is the best option for the individual at a given time
  • melanchollymelancholly Forumite
    7.5K posts
    mmillie wrote: »
    Unfortunately, from what I have read on this thread, the brain washing is working, and the scientific facts are being ignored.
    most people seem to actually be saying that getting a flight you were going to take at a cheaper price isn't the same as promoting flying...... the global warming issue is secondary, and in my opinion, missing the point.
  • millimummillimum Forumite
    6 posts
    I have just read Martin's blog for the first time and clicked on the link re the environment and flying. It's convinced me that this is an even better website than I thought it was!

    I agreed with Martin's response to the man who added him to the "pr!!k list" and still do, although the debate in the thread has set me thinking more too and question my own attitudes, so thank you very much for that intelligent and thought provoking discussion. I like to think I am as environmentally friendly as I can be, but I know I also make some big compromises.

    Anything that changes attitudes and challenges thinking is fine by me. However, language is also important. It can reflect passion and there are circumstances where an otherwise unacceptable word might work or be understandable. But, in my view, it's never appropriate to use offensive language - especially in writing, where one has the opportunity to think before sending - about a person or people, whether it is intended offence or just for effect. It's not only rude, but can alienate people who aren't yet convinced about the legitimate arguments; so actually, it can achieve exactly the opposite of what it set out to do.

    Thanks for letting me get that off my chest. Now, what was I actually looking for - oh yes, ISAs. Ethical recommendations anyone?
  • SmonSmon Forumite
    2 posts
    I think the MSE website actually has a stronger defence still.
    We tend to overspend whether its on cash or energy because we're not thinking about what we're doing.
    I think once you start asking, say, 'Where can I get cheaper petrol?',- It's a fairly small step to say 'Do I need to make this journey at all?'.
  • Good Response from Martin to a rude message that was completely missing the point of the MSE website, and he obviously hadn't checked out the website properly or he would have found the section about carbon offsetting.

    We can't force people to stop flying, we can only give them options and allow them to make a choice.
  • I think Martins reply to his accuser is totally correct. It is unfair to use price as the only controller of air travel. Why should it only be the preserve of the rich to be able to see the world?

    The problem with these issues is that the genie is out of the bottle and it is virtually impossible to return to the old ways. The best hope is for technology to advance and move away from the use of fossil fuels by using alternatives. This will happen mainly due to price but also by encouragement by the government and by people lobbying for change.

    We are probably a little way off from having planes powered by alternative fuels but cars can already be powered by fuel cells and this could make a massive impact on carbon emission reduction. Other changes such as less business trips with more use of video conferencing can be adopted which will also help.

    We are already seeing an increase in alternative power sources such as wind and it won't be long before we have tide power in place. I am sure it is not beyond the wit of man to find an alternative fuel source for air flight. I believe that we have the ability and the will to make great changes so I am quite optimistic for the future. However, we need to keep everyone on board and this won't happen if travel becomes something only rich people can do.

    I think this site generally promotes fuel saving as well as price saving because usually the two go together. It encourages the use of insulation, low energy bulbs, using less power etc so in general following its advice is good for the environment.
  • MSE_MartinMSE_Martin MoneySaving Expert
    8.3K posts
    While its only a small change, this did make me think and if you go to the flightchecker you will see a new note in the white space at the bottom.
    Martin Lewis, Money Saving Expert.
    Please note, answers don't constitute financial advice, it is based on generalised journalistic research. Always ensure any decision is made with regards to your own individual circumstance.
    Don't miss out on urgent MoneySaving, get my weekly e-mail at
    Debt-Free Wannabee Official Nerd Club: (Honorary) Members number 000
  • MothballsWalletMothballsWallet Forumite
    15.6K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Let's have a look at the letter he sent you, Martin (puts on intelligentsia glasses and thinking cap). Okay, and we begin (apologies in advance for the long post):
    • Firstly, the use of your full name in the salutation looks like it's an automatically generated form letter/email.
    • Secondly, if someone compared me to a part of the male anatomy, I'd be on the phone to my lawyer for advice on slander charges, but that's just me, I'm a cantankerous old git :)
    • I'm no environmental scientist, but I'd love to know where he gets those figures about "300,000 deaths a year caused by global warming" - to quote Linkara: wait, what?
    • The name James Lovelock rang a bell with me, and I still haven't put my finger on why - I think it might be because I once saw a TV interview with him and his views stood out.
    • The main environmental campaigners are amongst the biggest wasters of resources - this came up in a Google search a while back, and I forgot to save the link for later use (:mad: at myself for that).
    • A paraphrased quote from the writings of J Michael Straczynski in Babylon 5 (that'll get Quasar to comment): he wrote a scene with an interview between the station commander Jeff Sinclair and a TV reporter, and she asked him "should we be out here in space?", and his reply included the line "if you ask 10 different experts on the environment, medicine, science, you'll get 10 different answers". So, even the environmental experts don't always agree on what they're wanting to convince us about.
    • If I want to fly somewhere, I will, and there's nothing these environmentalists can do to stop me (unless they want to face prosecution under international law for breaching the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
    • I have an email from Friends of the Earth in response to one that I sent them asking about their stance on the wisdom of population control - they basically said something doesn't make sense to me when I do the math in my head. I'll have to dig it out sometime and post it.
    • The current world population is 6,777,181,131 (at time of posting), so he reckons it'll take 40 years (give or take) to increase by about another 50%? Is he factoring in death rates properly (which is what Friends of the Earth mentioned in their email response to me)? I think he's mistaken, given how relatively quickly we seemed to go from 5 billion to 6 billion.
    By the way, I had to look up what "vituperative" means - a real smarty pants, aren't you? :D
    Always ask yourself one question: What would Gibbs do?

    I live in the UK City of Culture 2021
This discussion has been closed.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support