Open Email to House Representatives and Senators:
Dear House Representatives and Senators,
I address this to you because you will undoubtedly be involved in financing any projects involving global warming. For example, Mayor Bloomberg has proposed a $19 billion program to fortify New York City against any negative effects of global warming. You can be sure that Mayor Bloomberg will be coming to you for taxpayer money. You need to be kept up-to-date to avoid more squandering of taxpayer funds than you have tended to do in the past.
James Delingpoile of the British newspaper Telegraph has a very informative article bringing us to date on the global warming hoax. Since it is a rather long article, I will only include excerpts here.
Delingpole reports that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) will have a new report out on Friday, but there has been leakage of information. The IPPC has given a preannouncement that “climate scientists” are now “95 per cent certain” that humans are to blame for climate change. and that “the scientific evidence of… climate change has strengthened year after year”.
Delingpole says that as an exercise in bravura spin, these claims are up there with Churchill’s attempts to reinvent the British Expeditionary Force’s humiliating retreat from Dunkirk as a victory [World War II]. In truth, though, the new report offers scant consolation to those many alarmists whose careers depend on talking up the threat. It says not that they are winning the war to persuade the world of the case for catastrophic anthropogenic climate change – but that the battle is all but lost.
Computer models which, for 25 years, have formed the basis for the IPCC’s scaremongering with predictions of runaway global warming, have been shown to be bunk. This is not surprising to a few distinguished scientists, whose voices have been suppressed by the bluster and skulduggery we saw exposed in the Climategate emails. From grant-hungry science institutions and environmentalist pressure groups to carbon traders, EU commissars, and big businesses with their snouts in the subsidies trough, many vested interests have much to lose should the global warming gravy train be derailed.
This is why the latest IPPC Report is proving such a headache to the IPCC. It’s the first in its history to admit what its critics have said for years: global warming did “pause” unexpectedly in 1998 and shows no sign of resuming. But from the IPCC, it’s dynamite: the equivalent of the Soviet politburo announcing that command economies may not after all be the most efficient way of allocating resources.
Dear House Representatives and Senators,
I address this to you because you will undoubtedly be involved in financing any projects involving global warming. For example, Mayor Bloomberg has proposed a $19 billion program to fortify New York City against any negative effects of global warming. You can be sure that Mayor Bloomberg will be coming to you for taxpayer money. You need to be kept up-to-date to avoid more squandering of taxpayer funds than you have tended to do in the past.
James Delingpoile of the British newspaper Telegraph has a very informative article bringing us to date on the global warming hoax. Since it is a rather long article, I will only include excerpts here.
Delingpole reports that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) will have a new report out on Friday, but there has been leakage of information. The IPPC has given a preannouncement that “climate scientists” are now “95 per cent certain” that humans are to blame for climate change. and that “the scientific evidence of… climate change has strengthened year after year”.
Delingpole says that as an exercise in bravura spin, these claims are up there with Churchill’s attempts to reinvent the British Expeditionary Force’s humiliating retreat from Dunkirk as a victory [World War II]. In truth, though, the new report offers scant consolation to those many alarmists whose careers depend on talking up the threat. It says not that they are winning the war to persuade the world of the case for catastrophic anthropogenic climate change – but that the battle is all but lost.
Computer models which, for 25 years, have formed the basis for the IPCC’s scaremongering with predictions of runaway global warming, have been shown to be bunk. This is not surprising to a few distinguished scientists, whose voices have been suppressed by the bluster and skulduggery we saw exposed in the Climategate emails. From grant-hungry science institutions and environmentalist pressure groups to carbon traders, EU commissars, and big businesses with their snouts in the subsidies trough, many vested interests have much to lose should the global warming gravy train be derailed.
This is why the latest IPPC Report is proving such a headache to the IPCC. It’s the first in its history to admit what its critics have said for years: global warming did “pause” unexpectedly in 1998 and shows no sign of resuming. But from the IPCC, it’s dynamite: the equivalent of the Soviet politburo announcing that command economies may not after all be the most efficient way of allocating resources.
Which leaves the IPCC in a dilemma: does
it ’fess up and effectively put itself out of business? Or does it brazen it out
for a few more years, in the hope that a compliant media and an eco-brainwashed
populace will be too stupid to notice? So far, it looks as if it prefers the
second option – a high-risk strategy. Gone are the days when all anybody read of
its Assessment Reports were the sexed-up “Summary for Policymakers”. Today,
thanks to the internet, sceptical inquirers such as Donna Laframboise (who
revealed that some 40 per cent of the IPCC’s papers came not from peer-reviewed
journals but from Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund propaganda) will be going
through every chapter with a fine toothcomb.
Al
Gore’s “consensus” is about to be holed below the water-line – and those still
aboard the SS Global Warming are adjusting their positions. Some, such as
scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the
IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”. Others, such as the EU’s Climate
Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, steam on oblivious. Interviewed last week by the
Telegraph’s Bruno Waterfield, she said: “Let’s say that science, some decades
from now, said: 'We were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any
case have been good to do many of the things you have to do in order to combat
climate change?” If she means needlessly driving up energy prices, carpeting the
countryside with wind turbines and terrifying children about a problem that
turns out to have been imaginary, then most of us would probably answer
“No”.
It will be interesting to see how Pres.
Obama handles this new information, since he has made climate change one of the
more important considerations of his administration.
No comments:
Post a Comment