Is it true? Or is it just the wishes of a London Telegraph columnist? I think he may be right. Let’s see why when he compares two stories from his own paper:
…on May 21, [a story] headed “Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts” , reported that the entire Alpine “winter sports industry” could soon “grind to a halt for lack of snow”. The second, on December 19, headed “The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation” , reported that this winter’s Alpine snowfalls “look set to beat all records by New Year’s Day”.
Now, you would think, that anyone with a smidgen of a frontal cortex would put those two reports together and begin to question whether the global warming scare mongers are right. Especially after you read this:
…all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.
And what about that consensus among all of those scientists that, for sure, we’re killing the “planet” with our”emissions”?
…2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a “scientific consensus” in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world’s most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that “consensus” which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.
Amen and Amen.
Can we go on to more real problems now? Somehow I think not just yet. With our new president, I think we’ll be going after those windmills for just a little while longer. Hopefully just a little.
As we celebrate the gift of Christ’s birth what could be more appropriate than an important message from our “true-believer” friends?
SCIENTISTS have warned that Christmas lights are bad for the planet due to huge electricity waste and urged people to get energy efficient festive bulbs.
Warms the heart. Doesn’t it?
Merry Christmas to you and yours.
A voice of reason in the face of over-the-top fanaticism from the Global Warming crowd has made his views public. Why has this common sense view found so few champions?
CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers had never bought into the notion that man can alter the climate and the Vegas snowstorm didn’t impact his opinion. Myers, an American Meteorological Society certified meteorologist, explained on CNN’s Dec. 18 “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that the whole idea is arrogant and mankind was in danger of dying from other natural events more so than global warming.
“You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,” Myers said. “Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure.”
Arrogant indeed! That our puny little race, in all of God’s creation, could overcome the effects of the Sun and the oceans seems unbelievable. But so many people believe it. Why? Especially since the evidence is so scant.
“But this is like, you know you said – in your career – my career has been 22 years long,” Myers said. “That’s a good career in TV, but talking about climate – it’s like having a car for three days and saying, ‘This is a great car.’ Well, yeah – it was for three days, but maybe in days five, six and seven it won’t be so good. And that’s what we’re doing here.”
“We have 100 years worth of data, not millions of years that the world’s been around,” Myers continued.
Dr. Jay Lehr, an expert on environmental policy, told “Lou Dobbs Tonight” viewers you can detect subtle patterns over recorded history, but that dates back to the 13th Century.
“If we go back really, in recorded human history, in the 13th Century, we were probably 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than we are now and it was a very prosperous time for mankind,” Lehr said. “If go back to the Revolutionary War 300 years ago, it was very, very cold. We’ve been warming out of that cold spell from the Revolutionary War period and now we’re back into a cooling cycle.”
Lehr suggested the earth is presently entering a cooling cycle – a result of nature, not man.
“The last 10 years have been quite cool,” Lehr continued. “And right now, I think we’re going into cooling rather than warming and that should be a much greater concern for humankind. But, all we can do is adapt. It is the sun that does it, not man.”
Hopefully reason will prevail before our leaders send us tilting at windmills and down the road to economic ruin in service to the “green” lobby.
The sad part is that this makes sense to them.
…Global warming is accelerating. Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it.
“The time for delay is over; the time for denial is over,” he said on Tuesday after meeting with former Vice President Al Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming.
Mother Nature, of course, is oblivious to the federal government’s machinations. Ironically, 2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line. Experts say it’s thanks to a La Nina weather variation. While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming.
Have you heard about the 650 scientists that are GW skeptics? Thought not. And yet you’ve probably heard that Al Gore met with our new president and, as a result, he now vows to “stop the denials”.
Al Gore is a politician who somehow managed to win a Nobel Peace Prize. Ivar Giaever is a Nobel Laureate in Physics. When it comes to global warming one has said, “If we allow this to happen, it would be deeply and unforgivably immoral. It would condemn coming generations to a catastrophically diminished future.” The other asserted, “I am a skeptic. … Global warming has become a new religion.”
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out who said what here, although one of these guys is much closer to being a rocket scientist while the other merely pretends to be one. More importantly, Ivar Giaever is only one of 650 dissenting scientists who are taking their case to the United Nations global warming conference in Poznan, Poland.
And Ivar is not alone. He has 649 fellow scientists saying the same thing:
The Senate Minority Report, to be released later today,
“has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.”
Some of the quotes released from the skeptic scientists in the Senate Minority Report are very telling. Former NASA official, atmospheric scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson declared,
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.”
Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires emphasized,
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.”
Lawyers think more courts are the answer. Whodda thunk!
A former chairman of the Bar Council is calling for an international court for the environment to punish states that fail to protect wildlife and prevent climate change.
Stephen Hockman QC is proposing a body similar to the International Court of Justice in The Hague to be the supreme legal authority on issues regarding the environment.
Sounds like a program to employ European lawyers to punsish sovereign state’s that don’t do what they’re told by their masters.
The first role of the new body would be to enforce international agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions set to be agreed next year.
But the court would also fine countries or companies that fail to protect endangered species or degrade the natural environment and enforce the “right to a healthy environment”.
The innovative idea is being presented to an audience of politicians, scientists and public figures for the first time at a symposium at the British Library.
Mr Hockman, a deputy High Court judge, said that the threat of climate change means it is more important than ever for the law to protect the environment.
You see. First you establish the “threat”. Then you impose your will on those that won’t follow your orders. Sounds like totalitarianism. Doesn’t it?
Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, has agreed the concept of an international court will be taken into account when considering how to make these international agreements on climate change binding. The court is also backed by a number of MPs, climate change experts and public figures including the actress Judi Dench.
Well, if Judi Dench is for it who can be against?
Mr Hockman said the court may be able to fine businesses or states but its main role will be in making “declaratory rulings” that influence and embarrass countries into upholding the law.
“Declaratory rulings” to “embarrass” countries? Whassup with that? So do the fines come before the embarrassment of after? My guess is the need to pay all of the lawyers will make sure that there are LOTS of fines.
The court would be led by retired judges, climate change experts and public figures. It would include a scientific body to consider evidence and provide access to any data on the environment.
“Retired judges, climate change experts and public figures. Translation: the senile, Judi Dench and the nutcases.
Most importantly, Mr Hockman said an international court on the environment would influence public opinion which in turn would force Governments to take the environment seriously. He said: “If there are bodies around that can give definitive legal rulings that are accepted as fair and reasonable that has its own impact on public opinion.”
Translation: We can fool all of the people some of the time. And we can “force” governments to do what we want them too.
Friends of the Earth welcomed the idea.
I’ll bet they did.
If this stuff doesn’t scare the hell out of you need to check to see if you’re too emoptionally detached.