Home » Posts tagged 'Global Warming' (Page 2)
Tag Archives: Global Warming
Monday is my shopping day, and the pleasure of reading an actual Newspaper was greatly enhanced by reading the piece I quote below, in which Arthur Herman explains why it is legitimate to describe the warminists as followers of a religion rather than as acolytes of science.
IT has been a tough year for the high priests of global warming in the US. First, NASA had to correct its earlier claim that the hottest year on record in the contiguous US had been 1998, which seemed to prove that global warming was on the march. It was actually 1934. Then it turned out the world’s oceans have been growing steadily cooler, not hotter, since 2003. Meanwhile, the winter of 2007 was the coldest in the US in decades, after Al Gore warned us that we were about to see the end of winter as we know it.
In a May issue of Nature, evidence about falling global temperatures forced German climatologists to conclude that the transformation of our planet into a permanent sauna is taking a decade-long hiatus, at least. Then this month came former greenhouse gas alarmist David Evans’s article in The Australian, stating that since 1999 evidence has been accumulating that man-made carbon emissions can’t be the cause of global warming. By now that evidence, Evans said, has become pretty conclusive.
Yet believers in man-made global warming demand more and more money to combat climate change and still more drastic changes in our economic output and lifestyle.
The reason is that precisely that they are believers, not scientists. No amount of empirical evidence will overturn what has become not a scientific theory but a form of religion.
I was particularly fond of his comparison between the eugenics movement in the early twentieth century and the contemporary followers of the Warminists faith.
Cue my most fervent believer in the gospels of Al Gore; May his blessings be upon us all 😉 .
I quite like Andrew Bolt’s latest Column* and the argument he makes about the evidential shortcomings of the global warming dogma and I commend it to my readers.
*Also this is a good excuse to run what is a very cute graphic 😉
I found this comment in Andrew Bolts Blog and I liked it so much that I quote it here. It sums up the shortcomings of the man made global warming position rather well,read and consider:-
Posted by doug of Canberra on Fri 13 Oct 06 at 01:32pm
To the debate-over shouters (before you take away my right to free speech):
1) if there is no proven link between hurricanes/cyclones and GW, it does not mean that there isn’t one – it just means that you have no right to say that there definitely is.
2) If there is no proof that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating, you have no right to scream that we’re all drowning.
3) If most of Antarctica is actually cooling, don’t say it’s all melting.
4) If the Greenland ice sheet is getting thicker in the middle, don’t say it’s going to disappear in a couple of years. For that matter, if the Vikings used to have farms on Greenland, don’t claim that melting along the coast is unprecedented.
5) Until the satellite data (now adjusted for orbital decay) supports the surface record, and for that matter, supports greenhouse theory (which says the troposphere should warm more than the surface), don’t shout that the science is settled.
6) if melting glaciers in Europe reveal roman ruins, don’t say that we should panic because glaciers are melting!
7) If droughts and floods and storms have occurred all thought recorded history, don’t blame every drought and flood and storm on Global Warming.
8) If the satellite data fails to show warming in the southern hemisphere, don’t even talk about “global” warming – especially since your theory says that sulphate aerosols reduce the impact of greenhouse gases, and these aerosols are more abundant in the northern hemisphere.
9) There is a huge cost to reducing global CO2 emissions, and this cost will be borne disproportionately by the poor – especially in the third world. Please stop with the “precautionary principle”!
Of course there has been a rise in global average temperature – thanks in large part to a big hot-spot in the northern hemisphere, but please, stop the hysterical wailing and gnashing of teeth and let reason prevail!
The simple premise of Andrew’s latest post is that when we have been born here our first loyalty should be to Australia. he further uses the piece to chide those second or third generation Australians of Italian or Croatian extraction for cheering for teams other than the Socceroos in the world Cup in preference to Australia.Not that Andrew says that this should be a hanging offence, which is how my learned friend seems to read it .
From his unequivocal support for multiculturalism Mr lefty uses this piece to say it is fine to support any team even those against Australia may be playing but apart from a couple of vaguely relevant attempts at rebutting Andrew’s polemic the whole piece is just an example of my learned friend trying to look ,well, learned.
Here is some of Andrew’s actual text that he quotes
Yet even here, in Lygon St, hundreds of “Italian-Australians” celebrated Italy’s win with cries of “Viva Italia”. Police on horseback struggled to keep dozens of the more aggressive away from belligerent Socceroos fans chanting “Bulls—“. (Andrew Bolt)
To which my learned friend responds.
Ah, yes… there was a bit of shabby behaviour by Socceroos supporters. But they were “non-multicultural” Australians! So I’ll bury that at the end of a paragraph in the middle of my piece, and move on very quickly. (Because condemning overly-patriotic Australians for being thugs doesn’t fit very well with what I’m trying to do here.)
Now long time readers will not be surprised that our Mr lefty holds Anglo Irish Australians in contempt, more self loathing I gather, given that the derivation of his actual name is Irish. What my learned friend is ignoring is the fact that the match was won on rather contentious terms and it is not only the Anglo’s who believe that we were robbed by way the referee awarded that penalty. Italy earns no credit winning the way that they did. None the less we find Mr lefty taking every opportunity to support any one who is from a fashionable minority.
Then he takes us through another cavort through an ad hominem attack upon Andrew. Somebody should explain to my learned friend that although Sarcasm is a form of wit that it is one best used on occasion rather than as the first tier of his polemic, especially as he tends to labour the point jut a bit too much. I would suggest that maybe he should read some Oscar Wilde to get some hints on how to do it.
More disturbing is the way he tries to make excuses for the terrible behaviour of second generation French Muslims .
But is it also a warning? Consider: A month after the September 11 terror attacks, thousands of French Muslims booed their national anthem at a soccer match between France and Algeria. Last year thousands of the country’s five million Muslims rioted for a week, burning thousands of cars.(Andrew Bolt)
I don’t think that had anything to do with the soccer – that was to do with institutionalised racism in France which has left a large segment of their population feeling that they are treated in their day-to-day lives as second-class citizens.
Their booing the French national anthem was a result of deeply-felt grievances against their new country, not a cause.(MrLefty)
This is the standard leftist line it is never the fault of the perpetrators it is always the wicked government. Personally I come from English stock and we English have no great love of the French but we do understand that they have this expectation that if you want to live in and be part of French society they expect you to make the running and adopt their language, culture and values. They have learned the hard way that when you accept a large number of immigrants into your country that will not become part of the mainstream then you are creating a rod for your own back . The thousands of burnt out cars are testament to that.
But back to the question of loyalties Andrew does have a point but I will concede that there is nothing wrong with having a bet each way some times, as long as it is Australia that you bet to win, anyone else just has to be a bet for a place. You know it makes sense.