Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
- Status
"Climate Cover-Up documents one of the most disgusting stories ever hidden about corporate disinformation. What you'll discover in this book amounts to proof of an intergenerational crime."
DAVID SUZUKI
Question is, based upon the past what will it be warming then cooling as it happened before, or just warming till we dry out like a prune?
In about 500,000 years the Earth will pretty much look like Death Valley, El Azizia, or the Danakil as the sun grows. But long before that humans will have run out of water.
We can survive global warming I think but we cannot survive thirst as the population keeps growing and fresh water keeps dwindling. Desalinization plants will slow the rate, but it's not a solution. Eventually we will need to recognize that there simply is not enough water to sustain a dozen billion people or eventually enough will die of thirst to bring the population back into line but a lot of other species will have died off and food will have become the problem. Oceans won't be much help because they'll be acidified.
Neat, huh?
Saturday, November 28, 2009
The great green fraud
Conrad Black, National Post
Till now, I have avoided more than very limited comment on the whole global-warming-carbon emissions controversy. But now that colossal spending and regulating programs impend on these issues, I must say that the Al Gore-David Suzuki conventional-wisdom hysteria is an insane scam.
The basic relevant facts are that carbon emissions are not the principal factor in global warming, and despite dire contrary forecasts and ever-increasing carbon-emissions in the world -- especially as the economies of China and India, representing 40% of the world's population, expand by 6% to 10% each year -- the world has not grown a millidegree warmer since the start of this millennium. And its mean temperature rose by only one centigrade degree in the 25 years before that. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide emissions does have a gentle warming effect if it is not counteracted by unpredictable natural phenomena, but cannot be measured directly against the volume of such emissions.
The chief source of apparently informed hysteria on this subject, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has estimated that the mean world temperature will increase by between 1.8 degrees C and 4 degrees C in this century, although a tenth of that warming has already failed to occur in the last decade. But even this prediction does not remotely justify all the cant and hype that the end of the world is nigh.
Even the IPCC admits that the upper end of its forecast would, in fact, substantially increase world food production. There is no chance of achieving stated -- or even (by some countries) committed -- emission-reduction targets, nor any reason to believe that the attainment of these targets would accomplish anything useful. Yet the president of the United States has been promising radical progress toward an international covenant in Copenhagen next month to spend trillions of dollars in pursuit of this unattainable, undesirable target.
It would be infinitely more sensible to intensify research, and invest where necessary or advisable in mitigation, adaptation and geostrategy, such as the infusion of sulphates into the stratosphere, as happens naturally with volcanic eruptions, to reduce the intensity of the sun and provide countervailing cooling influences without thinning the ozone layer. We should keep in mind that the IPCC's worst case in its preferred (very negative) scenario is that in the next hundred years, living standards in what is now the developing or under-developed world will improve by only 750%, instead of the 850% improvement that would allegedly occur if the world's temperature remained constant, as it has in the last decade.
All responsible people want to assist the disadvantaged parts of the world and do what we reasonably can for our own descendants, but not to the point of self-impoverishment now for the sake of a marginal gain against a wildly unproved prognosis a century from now. This is the flimsiest justification imaginable for the mad slogan parroted endlessly by the eco-Zouaves, from Hollywood to the UN to Ducks Unlimited: "Save the Planet!," as they try to force-march the world into biodegradable pastoralism.
Nor is this the grim tipping point Al Gore has made scores of millions of dollars and won a Nobel Peace Prize for decrying as the imminent apocalypse. Gore's scurrilous film, An Inconvenient Truth, is based on no original research and is a teeming rain forest of false and irrelevant claims, such as that the Pacific island country of Tuvalu is losing population because the sea level around it is rising under the relentless pressures of global warming on the Polar ice caps; and the claim that, for the same reason, mosquitoes have afflicted Nairobi, Kenya, with a constant epidemic of malaria.
The inconvenience of the truth falls on Gore, not his credulous viewers, as water levels have in fact declined slightly at Tuvalu, and the country's modest population shrinkage is due to economic migrants; and malaria was much more prevalent in Nairobi a century ago, and has risen only slightly in recent years because of the ecologists' attack on the use of insecticide. The Polar ice caps aren't melting at all; the ice sheets over the oceans are, but that over land is actually thickening, so water levels are not being affected.
The much-vaunted British Stern Review is in fact, largely rubbish, devised to give the environmental baton to Tony Blair, so he could wave it like a magic wand to placate the left of the British Labour Party for whom he delivered nothing else but an indiscriminate increase in public spending. It warns of a 70% decline in world food production this century if its temperature forecast increases are met, relying exclusively on a study that predicts such a decline will occur to the harvest of Northern Indian groundnuts only, not the world's food supply. Stern purported to forecast 200, 300, or a thousand years ahead, which is nonsense, and warns of the "deaths of hundreds of millions, social upheaval, large-scale conflicts," if $25-trillion is not spent in the next 15 years to reduce carbon emissions by 70%, (and disemploy scores of millions of people).
This leads directly to the farce of the Kyoto agreement, which was supposed to be escalated at the Copenhagen discussions next month. Bill Clinton pledged to support this mad enterprise, as well as the monstrous racket of international trafficking in unused permissible emission balances. The U.S. Senate long ago repudiated any such adherence, 95-0, in one of its few unanimous acts on a serious subject since Pearl Harbor.
Barack Obama is trying to replicate this poker game domestically in the trade part of cap-and-trade, which, as passed by the House of Representatives, will neither reduce carbon emissions nor raise government revenues, but will impose a heavy burden of heating and air-conditioning cost increases on the families and employers of America. (In all of the circumstances, for the unfeasible former Canadian Liberal leader, Stephane Dion, to have named his dog "Kyoto" could be considered cruelty to animals.)
Two of Canada's greatest and most undersung recent heroes are environmental economist Ross McKitrick and statistical minerologist Steven McIntyre, who by their tireless research in the teeth of the entire ecological establishment, proved the former IPCC claim of drastically accelerated global warming was a fraud. These men have been prominently mentioned in the hacked emails that have just revealed the outrageous lengths the scientific propagators of the Great Green Fraud have gone to to suppress the facts.
The immensely respected former British chancellor of the exchequer, Nigel Lawson, had great difficulty finding a publisher for his expose of these matters, An Appeal To Reason, A Cool Look at Global Warming, such is the pressure the eco-lobby can assert. He believes Green is the new Red, the anti-capitalists taking over the relatively inoffensive tandem bicycle of naturalists, and turning it into a nihilistic juggernaut, the treads having been blown off their great Red Marxist tank that careened through the world for most of the last century. The ecoextremists allow the conservationists and butterfly collectors and Sierra Clubs to front their activities, just as the pacifist naifs were often the witless dupes and "useful idiots" (in Lenin's words), of the Communists.
As Lord Lawson wrote in his book, those worried about imminent environmental catastrophe, as compared, for examples, to nuclear terrorism or even large meteoric collisions, "need not worry about saving this planet. They are already living on another one ... We appear to have entered a new age of unreason ... It is from this, above all, that we really need to save the planet."
Ad hominem attackers, on your mark, set, go.
The great green fraud
Conrad Black, National Post
Till now, I have avoided more than very limited comment on the whole global-warming-carbon emissions controversy. But now that colossal spending and regulating programs impend on these issues, I must say that the Al Gore-David Suzuki conventional-wisdom hysteria is an insane scam.
The basic relevant facts are that carbon emissions are not the principal factor in global warming, and despite dire contrary forecasts and ever-increasing carbon-emissions in the world -- especially as the economies of China and India, representing 40% of the world's population, expand by 6% to 10% each year -- the world has not grown a millidegree warmer since the start of this millennium. And its mean temperature rose by only one centigrade degree in the 25 years before that. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide emissions does have a gentle warming effect if it is not counteracted by unpredictable natural phenomena, but cannot be measured directly against the volume of such emissions.
The chief source of apparently informed hysteria on this subject, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has estimated that the mean world temperature will increase by between 1.8 degrees C and 4 degrees C in this century, although a tenth of that warming has already failed to occur in the last decade. But even this prediction does not remotely justify all the cant and hype that the end of the world is nigh.
Even the IPCC admits that the upper end of its forecast would, in fact, substantially increase world food production. There is no chance of achieving stated -- or even (by some countries) committed -- emission-reduction targets, nor any reason to believe that the attainment of these targets would accomplish anything useful. Yet the president of the United States has been promising radical progress toward an international covenant in Copenhagen next month to spend trillions of dollars in pursuit of this unattainable, undesirable target.
It would be infinitely more sensible to intensify research, and invest where necessary or advisable in mitigation, adaptation and geostrategy, such as the infusion of sulphates into the stratosphere, as happens naturally with volcanic eruptions, to reduce the intensity of the sun and provide countervailing cooling influences without thinning the ozone layer. We should keep in mind that the IPCC's worst case in its preferred (very negative) scenario is that in the next hundred years, living standards in what is now the developing or under-developed world will improve by only 750%, instead of the 850% improvement that would allegedly occur if the world's temperature remained constant, as it has in the last decade.
All responsible people want to assist the disadvantaged parts of the world and do what we reasonably can for our own descendants, but not to the point of self-impoverishment now for the sake of a marginal gain against a wildly unproved prognosis a century from now. This is the flimsiest justification imaginable for the mad slogan parroted endlessly by the eco-Zouaves, from Hollywood to the UN to Ducks Unlimited: "Save the Planet!," as they try to force-march the world into biodegradable pastoralism.
Nor is this the grim tipping point Al Gore has made scores of millions of dollars and won a Nobel Peace Prize for decrying as the imminent apocalypse. Gore's scurrilous film, An Inconvenient Truth, is based on no original research and is a teeming rain forest of false and irrelevant claims, such as that the Pacific island country of Tuvalu is losing population because the sea level around it is rising under the relentless pressures of global warming on the Polar ice caps; and the claim that, for the same reason, mosquitoes have afflicted Nairobi, Kenya, with a constant epidemic of malaria.
The inconvenience of the truth falls on Gore, not his credulous viewers, as water levels have in fact declined slightly at Tuvalu, and the country's modest population shrinkage is due to economic migrants; and malaria was much more prevalent in Nairobi a century ago, and has risen only slightly in recent years because of the ecologists' attack on the use of insecticide. The Polar ice caps aren't melting at all; the ice sheets over the oceans are, but that over land is actually thickening, so water levels are not being affected.
The much-vaunted British Stern Review is in fact, largely rubbish, devised to give the environmental baton to Tony Blair, so he could wave it like a magic wand to placate the left of the British Labour Party for whom he delivered nothing else but an indiscriminate increase in public spending. It warns of a 70% decline in world food production this century if its temperature forecast increases are met, relying exclusively on a study that predicts such a decline will occur to the harvest of Northern Indian groundnuts only, not the world's food supply. Stern purported to forecast 200, 300, or a thousand years ahead, which is nonsense, and warns of the "deaths of hundreds of millions, social upheaval, large-scale conflicts," if $25-trillion is not spent in the next 15 years to reduce carbon emissions by 70%, (and disemploy scores of millions of people).
This leads directly to the farce of the Kyoto agreement, which was supposed to be escalated at the Copenhagen discussions next month. Bill Clinton pledged to support this mad enterprise, as well as the monstrous racket of international trafficking in unused permissible emission balances. The U.S. Senate long ago repudiated any such adherence, 95-0, in one of its few unanimous acts on a serious subject since Pearl Harbor.
Barack Obama is trying to replicate this poker game domestically in the trade part of cap-and-trade, which, as passed by the House of Representatives, will neither reduce carbon emissions nor raise government revenues, but will impose a heavy burden of heating and air-conditioning cost increases on the families and employers of America. (In all of the circumstances, for the unfeasible former Canadian Liberal leader, Stephane Dion, to have named his dog "Kyoto" could be considered cruelty to animals.)
Two of Canada's greatest and most undersung recent heroes are environmental economist Ross McKitrick and statistical minerologist Steven McIntyre, who by their tireless research in the teeth of the entire ecological establishment, proved the former IPCC claim of drastically accelerated global warming was a fraud. These men have been prominently mentioned in the hacked emails that have just revealed the outrageous lengths the scientific propagators of the Great Green Fraud have gone to to suppress the facts.
The immensely respected former British chancellor of the exchequer, Nigel Lawson, had great difficulty finding a publisher for his expose of these matters, An Appeal To Reason, A Cool Look at Global Warming, such is the pressure the eco-lobby can assert. He believes Green is the new Red, the anti-capitalists taking over the relatively inoffensive tandem bicycle of naturalists, and turning it into a nihilistic juggernaut, the treads having been blown off their great Red Marxist tank that careened through the world for most of the last century. The ecoextremists allow the conservationists and butterfly collectors and Sierra Clubs to front their activities, just as the pacifist naifs were often the witless dupes and "useful idiots" (in Lenin's words), of the Communists.
As Lord Lawson wrote in his book, those worried about imminent environmental catastrophe, as compared, for examples, to nuclear terrorism or even large meteoric collisions, "need not worry about saving this planet. They are already living on another one ... We appear to have entered a new age of unreason ... It is from this, above all, that we really need to save the planet."
Ad hominem attackers, on your mark, set, go.
[FONT=times new roman,times]There is always a deeper level to the damage caused by fraud. It strains social relationships, generates cynicism, and debases standing institutions. What has suffered the most damage from AGW is faith in the scientific method, the basic set of procedures -- it could be called an algorithm -- governing scientific investigation. These procedures embody simplicity itself: you examine a phenomenon. You gather data. You construct a hypothesis to explain that phenomenon. And then... [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Well, first, let's cover what you don't do.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Well, first, let's cover what you don't do.[/FONT]
- [FONT=times new roman,times]You don't manipulate data. (As CRU chief scientist Phil Jones stated he was doing in the now-famous "Mike's trick" e-mail, not to mention throughout the now-famous [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]source code[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times].) [/FONT]
- [FONT=times new roman,times]You don't fabricate data. (As one CRU scientist did while compiling weather-station data. Running into problems, he states, "I can make it up. So I did." He adds an evil smiley face. This e-mail has gone under radar up until now. It can be found in the [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]comments on James Delingpole's blog.[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] [/FONT]
- [FONT=times new roman,times]You don't deny data to other investigators. (As Hansen, Jones, and, it appears, everybody else in the warming community has done at one time or another.) [/FONT]
- [FONT=times new roman,times]You don't destroy evidence. (As the members of the CRU did following a Freedom of Information request.) [/FONT]
- [FONT=times new roman,times]You don't bury contradictory data. (As Jones and several colleagues did in an attempt to undercut the impact of the Medieval Warming Period.)[/FONT]
- [FONT=times new roman,times]You don't secretly manipulate the argument from behind the scenes. (As the CRU staff did with the website Realclimate.org., screening comments to allow only those that supported the warming thesis.)[/FONT]
- [FONT=times new roman,times]You don't secretly undercut your critics. (As Mann advised the CRU to do concerning the scientific journal, Climate Researh: "I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.")[/FONT]
- [FONT=times new roman,times]You don't try to get a journal editor critical of your case fired. (As the CRU staff evidently succeeded in doing with an editor for Geophysical Research Letters.) [/FONT]
I understand that this guy is not bothered by hurricanes hitting Florida; he lives in a reinforced house (i.e. jail) paid for by the state.
"Global Warming" is either a deliberate scam, in which it gives the West's leaders an excuse to tax us (and it is just the West that seems to believe in Global Warming. Countries such as China and India just don't believe in it) by introducing a "Save The Polar Bears Tax", or Western leaders and some (though not a majority) of scientists actually genuinely are gullible enough to believe in it.
People such as Al Gore and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) love showing their "hockey stick" graph which shows that mean temperature was around the same for centuries but has recently rocketed sky high in recent decades.
But what Al Gore and the IPCC fail to tell the public is that the computer which came up with the graph was programmed to show a "hockey stick" no matter what data was fed into it. Even if mean temperatures have stayed the same or even decreased in recent decade, the hockey stick graph would show otherwise.
Another thing which the Global Warming fanatics love sharing with us is the photo of the "doomed" polar bears on a tiny ice-floe which was caused by melting ice, having us believe that the polar bears on the ice-floe are about to drown. But that photo was taken in Alaska in August - summertime - when the ice always naturally melts, and the Global Warming loonies fail to mention that polar bears are incredibly good swimmers.
The inconvenient truths Mr Gore and his fanatical friends DIDN'T tell you about climate change
By Peter Hitchens
29th November 2009
Daily Mail
As it happens I was Green before the word came to mean what it does now.
From a very early age, I hated the ploughing up of this country for the motor car, and grieved at the mad closure of the railways, a view that has now become much more widespread than it was then.
I began bicycling to work before bike lanes had been invented, when Boris Johnson was still at Eton.
To this day I get a sort of red mist when I see great trees being cut down by over-cautious councils, and I gaze with limitless regret on the bleak prairies of Southern England, where hedgerows once grew.
If I can take a ship and a train rather than a plane, I will do.
Polar bears are supposedly the victims of global warming, but the ice in Alaska traditionally melts in August, which is summer
So it’s no use trying to dismiss me as some kind of petrolhead polluter who wants to cover the planet with runways and motorways, nor to allege I’m in the pay of Big Oil, when I say that I doubt the existence of man-made global warming.
I just doubt it because I am not convinced it’s true. Actually, now that Big Oil has bought into the man-made warming scare itself, I generally get even cruder abuse, being called a ‘denier’ as if I were some kind of Nazi.
And if I mention my doubts at public occasions, I can feel the swelling wrath of the unreasoning mob gathering against me.
There’s seldom time to make more than a few points before you are howled down by righteous zealots.
And that is why I, and anyone seriously interested in this subject, owes a great debt to Christopher Booker, who has set down all the arguments for doubt in a single, concise book that will no doubt be either ignored or abused.
It would be very sad if, as a result, it fails to reach a wide audience. I think anyone remotely concerned about this huge controversy should read this courageous piece of work.
I am not asking you to agree with everything in it, or assuming that you will. I am asking any reasonable person, who is influenced by facts and logic, to consider the case made here.
If you have had doubts but suppressed them for fear of being drowned in anger or contempt, buy this book to arm yourself. If you know any global-warming fanatics, buy it for them for Christmas and ask them, even beg them, to study it carefully.
At the very least, it should allow the debate on this subject to be conducted with more fairness and without such expressions as ‘denier’ being used.
What you will find out is this. That much of what passes for accepted truth is not.
Facts have been ruthlessly twisted, suppressed or invented. Scientists are greatly divided on the subject.
Many people – and bodies – presented as experts actually have little or no knowledge of the science involved. Gullible politicians and gullible media men and women have repeatedly fallen for it.
Hucksters, profiteers, world-government fanatics and, of course, the EU (always searching for an excuse to increase its power) have latched on to it.
Huge public subsidies, including the carbon-trading racket and the tragicomic building of hideous, worse-than-useless windfarms, now depend upon it.
But take, just for example, the famous picture of polar bears on a melting ice-floe, supposedly doomed victims of global warming.
The USA’s ex-Vice President, the propagandist Al Gore, got audiences going ‘Aaah!’ by saying the bears had ‘nowhere else to go’. Really? The picture was taken in August, when the Alaskan ice always melts. The polar bears were fine.
Think about it.
They can swim and they weren’t far from land. Recent studies show that most polar bear populations are rising.
The world was warmer than it is now in the early Middle Ages, long before industrial activity increased CO2 output, a fact that the warming fanatics have worked very hard to obscure.
Oh, and the most important greenhouse gas by far is not CO2 but water vapour, which is not influenced by human activity at all.
Meanwhile, an English court of law (despite buying the CO2 argument) has identified nine significant errors of fact in Gore’s Oscar-winning alarmist film An Inconvenient Truth, ludicrously being inflicted on children in British schools.
Among these: sea levels are not going to rise by 20ft any time soon; there’s no evidence that atolls in the Pacific have been evacuated because of rising waters; the Gulf Stream is not going to shut down; the drying-up of Lake Chad, the shrinking of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro and Hurricane Katrina were none of them caused by global warming; the only polar bears that have drowned were four that died in a storm.
Booker also reminds us that even if all the measures demanded by the warming zealots were put into action, according to their own calculations this would only delay the effects they fear by six years.
In my experience, people who employ alarmism, and who turn with rage on their critics, do so because they lack confidence in their case. Watch their behaviour at the coming Copenhagen climate conference, a festival of panic and exaggerated woe.
This particular frenzy, if not checked, could end by bankrupting the West and leaving us sitting in the cold and the dark whistling for a wind to power our dead computers – while China and India surge on to growth and prosperity because they have had the sense to ignore the whole stupid thing.
* The Real Global Warming Disaster, by Christopher Booker, Continuum Books, £16.99.
dailymail.co.uk
People such as Al Gore and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) love showing their "hockey stick" graph which shows that mean temperature was around the same for centuries but has recently rocketed sky high in recent decades.
But what Al Gore and the IPCC fail to tell the public is that the computer which came up with the graph was programmed to show a "hockey stick" no matter what data was fed into it. Even if mean temperatures have stayed the same or even decreased in recent decade, the hockey stick graph would show otherwise.
Another thing which the Global Warming fanatics love sharing with us is the photo of the "doomed" polar bears on a tiny ice-floe which was caused by melting ice, having us believe that the polar bears on the ice-floe are about to drown. But that photo was taken in Alaska in August - summertime - when the ice always naturally melts, and the Global Warming loonies fail to mention that polar bears are incredibly good swimmers.
The inconvenient truths Mr Gore and his fanatical friends DIDN'T tell you about climate change
By Peter Hitchens
29th November 2009
Daily Mail
As it happens I was Green before the word came to mean what it does now.
From a very early age, I hated the ploughing up of this country for the motor car, and grieved at the mad closure of the railways, a view that has now become much more widespread than it was then.
I began bicycling to work before bike lanes had been invented, when Boris Johnson was still at Eton.
To this day I get a sort of red mist when I see great trees being cut down by over-cautious councils, and I gaze with limitless regret on the bleak prairies of Southern England, where hedgerows once grew.
If I can take a ship and a train rather than a plane, I will do.
Polar bears are supposedly the victims of global warming, but the ice in Alaska traditionally melts in August, which is summer
So it’s no use trying to dismiss me as some kind of petrolhead polluter who wants to cover the planet with runways and motorways, nor to allege I’m in the pay of Big Oil, when I say that I doubt the existence of man-made global warming.
I just doubt it because I am not convinced it’s true. Actually, now that Big Oil has bought into the man-made warming scare itself, I generally get even cruder abuse, being called a ‘denier’ as if I were some kind of Nazi.
And if I mention my doubts at public occasions, I can feel the swelling wrath of the unreasoning mob gathering against me.
There’s seldom time to make more than a few points before you are howled down by righteous zealots.
And that is why I, and anyone seriously interested in this subject, owes a great debt to Christopher Booker, who has set down all the arguments for doubt in a single, concise book that will no doubt be either ignored or abused.
It would be very sad if, as a result, it fails to reach a wide audience. I think anyone remotely concerned about this huge controversy should read this courageous piece of work.
I am not asking you to agree with everything in it, or assuming that you will. I am asking any reasonable person, who is influenced by facts and logic, to consider the case made here.
If you have had doubts but suppressed them for fear of being drowned in anger or contempt, buy this book to arm yourself. If you know any global-warming fanatics, buy it for them for Christmas and ask them, even beg them, to study it carefully.
At the very least, it should allow the debate on this subject to be conducted with more fairness and without such expressions as ‘denier’ being used.
What you will find out is this. That much of what passes for accepted truth is not.
Facts have been ruthlessly twisted, suppressed or invented. Scientists are greatly divided on the subject.
Many people – and bodies – presented as experts actually have little or no knowledge of the science involved. Gullible politicians and gullible media men and women have repeatedly fallen for it.
Hucksters, profiteers, world-government fanatics and, of course, the EU (always searching for an excuse to increase its power) have latched on to it.
Huge public subsidies, including the carbon-trading racket and the tragicomic building of hideous, worse-than-useless windfarms, now depend upon it.
But take, just for example, the famous picture of polar bears on a melting ice-floe, supposedly doomed victims of global warming.
The USA’s ex-Vice President, the propagandist Al Gore, got audiences going ‘Aaah!’ by saying the bears had ‘nowhere else to go’. Really? The picture was taken in August, when the Alaskan ice always melts. The polar bears were fine.
Think about it.
They can swim and they weren’t far from land. Recent studies show that most polar bear populations are rising.
The world was warmer than it is now in the early Middle Ages, long before industrial activity increased CO2 output, a fact that the warming fanatics have worked very hard to obscure.
Oh, and the most important greenhouse gas by far is not CO2 but water vapour, which is not influenced by human activity at all.
Meanwhile, an English court of law (despite buying the CO2 argument) has identified nine significant errors of fact in Gore’s Oscar-winning alarmist film An Inconvenient Truth, ludicrously being inflicted on children in British schools.
Among these: sea levels are not going to rise by 20ft any time soon; there’s no evidence that atolls in the Pacific have been evacuated because of rising waters; the Gulf Stream is not going to shut down; the drying-up of Lake Chad, the shrinking of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro and Hurricane Katrina were none of them caused by global warming; the only polar bears that have drowned were four that died in a storm.
Booker also reminds us that even if all the measures demanded by the warming zealots were put into action, according to their own calculations this would only delay the effects they fear by six years.
In my experience, people who employ alarmism, and who turn with rage on their critics, do so because they lack confidence in their case. Watch their behaviour at the coming Copenhagen climate conference, a festival of panic and exaggerated woe.
This particular frenzy, if not checked, could end by bankrupting the West and leaving us sitting in the cold and the dark whistling for a wind to power our dead computers – while China and India surge on to growth and prosperity because they have had the sense to ignore the whole stupid thing.
* The Real Global Warming Disaster, by Christopher Booker, Continuum Books, £16.99.
dailymail.co.uk
Ok,so we have climate change,I live on pretty high ground so I don't have to worry about flooding,for the rest of my life,and I have less snow to shovel every year.
S'long as there's money to be made,nothin's gonna change.
S'long as there's money to be made,nothin's gonna change.
- Status