MSM starting to get it shock!
As he is wont to do, the poor little Greek boy—author, by the way, of the world's finest sexblog—contacts me with an amusing line and a wink link to an article of interest.
In this case, it is the New Statesman that is questioning the orthodoxy.
Yes, I know. Aaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha!
Quite. And don't forget that we will also be stunting—both directly and indirectly—global growth and the enrichment of the world's poorest people and thus causing the needless deaths of millions (Timmy passim ad nauseam).
If the New Statesman is starting to get it, maybe there is hope for us yet. Now we simply need to convince—or kill. Whichever—our current crop of politicians and we may be in with a chance.
It seems that your heretical lunacy on AGW (© all left-wing bloggers everywhere) is now penetrating the very walls of their most cherished citadels...
In this case, it is the New Statesman that is questioning the orthodoxy.
Global warming stopped? Surely not. What heresy is this? Haven’t we been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and that all that’s left to the so-called sceptics is the odd errant glacier that refuses to melt?
Aren’t we told that if we don’t act now rising temperatures will render most of the surface of the Earth uninhabitable within our lifetimes? But as we digest these apocalyptic comments, read the recent IPCC’s Synthesis report that says climate change could become irreversible. Witness the drama at Bali as news emerges that something is not quite right in the global warming camp.
Yes, I know. Aaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha!
With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006—there has been no warming over the 12 months.
But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.
The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.
Quite. And don't forget that we will also be stunting—both directly and indirectly—global growth and the enrichment of the world's poorest people and thus causing the needless deaths of millions (Timmy passim ad nauseam).
If the New Statesman is starting to get it, maybe there is hope for us yet. Now we simply need to convince—or kill. Whichever—our current crop of politicians and we may be in with a chance.
Labels: environmentalism, general hilarity, good deeds, musings, pointless wastes of time and money
| 11 blogger comments
| links to this post
11 Blogger Comments:
Excellent indeed, but worries me still is his assumption here:
"Thus the world warms, the climate changes and we are in trouble"
Bollocks. Out of the total land mass, how much is habitable? A third? And how much is uninhabitable because it is too hot/dry or too cold, a third each, maybe?
So even if temperatures rose, a third of it would still be habitable, it's just that half would be too hot/dry and only a sixth would be too cold.
If sea levels were to rise (highly unlikely, it seems) then people can move inland, can't they? There used to be dry land between England and Holland, people lived there, it all flooded (over a surprisingly short period - a couple of decades IIRC) and they moved to one side or t'other.
And if a primitive farming/stone age people can survive that sort of upheaval, then who's to say that modern sophisticated mankind cannot?
and written by an ex-bbc man. what the hell's going on?
Hmmn, this could be one of the first nails in the lead lined coffin..... http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
You just don't get it do you? The IPCC's reports and models are perfectly correct; it's the climate that's faulty.
Once this unravels, a hypocracy watch would be fun.
I wonder how long it will take for nuts to blame it on International Capitalism.
Similarly, I stumbled across this piece of orphaned common sense that has wandered far from home.
(I should emphasise that I do not frequent that sort of website, strictly research purposes only.)
Do you think they'll turn on Al Gore? That would be a sight that would warm cockles of the heart. Enviro-Nazis turning on their leader.
I could drink to that. In fact, I think I will.
Alas.....as ever, the Nazis will disappear and everyone will have been in the resistance all along.
The BBC might struggle to sell their resistance providence.
I'd like to see them try.
If Communism is anything to go by there will be a couple of decades, at least, between repudiation and acceptance.
Multiculturalism, the dogma which replaced Communism and preceeded Environmentalism on the left was proved a catastrophe years ago, yet every day sees some new lunacy practised in its name.
It's the spending of the hundreds of billions of pounds they like, not what it is spent on. If they have your money then you don't.
This Washington Times piece is aces as well.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home