Climate change alarmists bump up against the three irrevocables.
Someone please tell me it’s about to end. That it’s O-V-A-H in New England. That’s it’s D-U-N in Rio Linda. That it’s fini in France and finito in Italy.
I’ve experienced a build-up of evidence that undermines climate change alarmism, and I’m at the tipping point. My head has formed a canopy of truth-trapping that can only contain so much before my circuits overheat, blood pressure elevates, and my faith in broad-based common sense melts away. So please: polish it off in Poznan — wishful thinking, you might think, but signs point to the beginning of that end. Read on.
As global warming pathologists insist that increasing carbon dioxide drives planetary meltdown, scientists who actually watch the climate trends — as well as all the forces that affect it – see something different. They observe unchanging (if not declining) temperatures over the last dozen years despite increased global CO2 emissions during the same time period. They see Antarctic ice swells despite a greater media emphasis on Arctic ice (PDF) loss. They see a current warming bias across temperature monitoring stations; a cooling pattern since 1997; and a valid theory that solar cycles affect climate change more than any other phenomena.
That’s just a start to what I will finish momentarily, but the point is this: that the politicos who push for CO2 emission reductions, and grant-seeking activist researchers, should be put out to pastures where they can examine cow flatulence (and a more effective greenhouse gas — methane) up close and personal. Meanwhile let the rest of us who enjoy our variable climate move on to more important issues like malnourished children, genocide, and modern-day slavery.
Really, you alarmists: you waste our time and resources de-beefing your baloney. You lie about hockey stick graphs — repeatedly (PDF). You deceive about “points of no return.” You manipulate data and promote “tailored climate information.” You claim there is agreement among scientists that supports your alarmist beliefs when in fact there is no such consensus. You attribute weather-driven disasters (PDF) to anthropogenic global warming. You talk all benefits and no costs when you tout the wonders of “green jobs.” You’ve created a whole new industry sector for yourselves with this garbage. And now you’ve corrupted companies who want to skim off their portion.
Please, you’re killing us with this crap.
Why are so many of you are a bunch of abortion promoting, population control socialists who hate the idea that free markets, capitalism, and access to cheap energy resources do more to enhance health and prosperity than your treasured government-mandated programs? Why do so many of your multimillion-dollar foundations have programs that support environmentalism excess and species protection while at the same time they promote human extermination? I suggest you visit places like Burma and North Korea, make your pitch about the horrid pollution that their economy-suffocating practices produce, and then come back and see us when you’ve got those bad boys straightened out. Then we’ll know you’re sincere about your priorities.
That anyone takes you seriously about CO2 emitting a stronger global warming “signal” than other contributing factors is amazing, but then again, we are talking about the environoia promoters in the media who love to stir up the sheeple, aren’t we? Well, they had a good run of peril pushing for several years, but now the truth (and economic factors) appear to be turning public thought:
There is both growing public reluctance to make personal sacrifices and a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the major international efforts now underway to battle climate change, according to findings of a poll of 12,000 citizens in 11 countries….
Less than half of those surveyed, or 47 per cent, said they were prepared to make personal lifestyle changes to reduce carbon emissions, down from 58 per cent last year.
Only 37 per cent said they were willing to spend “extra time” on the effort, an eight-point drop.
And only one in five respondents — or 20 per cent — said they’d spend extra money to reduce climate change. That’s down from 28 per cent a year ago.
Speaking of “signals” there is evidence that despite heroic-looking anchormen in t-shirts who like intimacy with nature, the overall media may be losing interest. News coverage of global warming has roughly paralleled the phony hockey stick, and with recent global surface temperatures dropping, there appears to be a plunge in articles.
Sure, the alarmists can still command a media tizzy at events like this week’s conference in Poznan, Poland, which is designed to establish a foundation for the next worldwide Kyoto treaty to limit carbon emissions. We can only hope that the dome light comes on for a few more journalists as they see European nations combat over economic disarmament and over industry-specific exemptions from emissions mandates. Even the EU’s queen of green, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, has turned against the emissions targets she once championed.
So what of America’s president-to-be? Barack Obama may believe with every essence of his cabinet that greenhouse gases must be reduced, but he too must deal with the irrevocable forces of truth and economics. These two factors will drive the impact on his policies by a third factor: politics. The rasslin’ this summer over the Lieberman/Warner climate bill failed to draw support even from dependable Democrat Sens. Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and Byron Dorgan (North Dakota).
It’s not hard to imagine further stagnation on the issue through the end of 2012, by which time we may have finished off the heel of the hockey stick.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?