It’s time our politicians came clean on climate change. We need to know exactly where they stand. Are they for
a) junk science, cooked books, rigged data, old people dying in fuel poverty, landscapes trashed and wildlife slaughtered by bat-chomping bird-slicing eco-crucifixes, enriched crony capitalists, higher taxes, green ideologues making the rules, economic stagnation, wealth redistribution, brainwashed kids, academic corruption, the decline of the West?
b) economic growth, the scientific method, cheap energy, rising standards of living, deregulation, freedom, liberty, abundance, conservation, nature, prosperity, limited government?
You can be one or the other but you can’t be both any more than you can be half pregnant.
And it’s time we stopped indulging those politicians, especially on the conservative side of the argument, who pretend you can.
This is why I praised Nigel Farage for his sensible response at the weekend to a climate change question by a BBC interviewer.
A bunch of scrawny green activists – naked save for their reeky faux-leather thongs and patina of sweat, patchouli oil and essence of tofu – has invaded the House of Commons to demand that something be done about climate change.
This is so wrong.
If any one at all has the right to protest against Britain’s environmental policies, it’s not that tiny minority of green activists whose warped and ignorant opinion is forever being sought by our sad, desperate and craven political class. Rather, it’s the vast majority of us who are sick to the craw of being over-taxed, over-regulated and over-propagandised in the name of a non-existent problem.
Yesterday I gave you one reason to hate the BBC: its outrageous treatment of Tommy Robinson. Here’s another: its relentless lies about climate change – such as its recent bullshit claim that:
“…since 2005 the number of floods across the world has increased by 15 times, extreme temperature events by 20 times, and wildfires seven-fold.”
If this claim were true – and the BBC certainly acted as if it was, splashing the story across its environment pages, bigging it up on its flagship Today programme – then it would be a very big deal.
Those figures, no question, would represent a significant jump in the kind of “extreme weather events” that climate alarmists warn us we should expect in this alleged era of catastrophic man-made global warming. Only a fool could ignore such clear evidence of imminent catastrophe.
But of course, the claim isn’t remotely true. As Paul Homewood discovered it came via an organisation called GMO – of which more in a moment – from a database called EM-DAT (The International Disaster Database), which logs reported natural disaster events over time.
This was in response to a challenge by Scott Adams, who is unsure what position to take on this issue and needs persuasion.
On one of his Periscopes, Adams — creator of the Dilbert cartoons, now with a flourishing side-career as an internet seeker-after-truth — said that if Heller could produce five unassailable arguments then he would become a climate sceptic; but that if Heller failed, then he (Adams) would “come down hard on the opinion that there’s something big to worry about.”
So how has Heller fared?
I think he has done a great job. The five arguments, which I’ll rephrase slightly, are as follows:
President Trump is set to launch his long-awaited climate change assessment panel and the greenies are furious. Most especially they’re angry and fearful that the proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Security will be led by one of the world’s most distinguished skeptics, physicist William Happer.
Trump’s new climate change panel is a total embarrassment. It’s being run by William Happer, who has no formal training as a climate scientist. He thinks we need MORE carbon pollution — a complete denial of scientific consensus and common sense. https://t.co/o85P5kt55N
Happer is a brilliant scientist, a Princeton professor and former Director of the Office of Energy Research at the U.S. Department of Energy, with a track record which includes working on the U.S. government’s top secret weapons programs. But much to the climate establishment’s fury he is also very skeptical of man-made global warming and even more skeptical of the policy measures being introduced to ‘combat’ it.
If you believe the Guardian and the BBC, the world is on the brink of Insectapocalypse: A mass extinction of creepy crawlies that threatens the “collapse of nature.”
But if I were you, I’d take these claims with a big pinch of salt, especially if they include the words “climate change.” That is because the most dramatic, oft-quoted study that links insect loss with climate change turns out to be flawed to the point of uselessness. It is so bad that the Global Warming Policy Foundation has sent a formal complaint to its publishers calling for its withdrawal.
The study by Brad Lister and Andres Garcia was published last year by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). Titled Climate-driven declines in arthropod abundance restructure a rainforest food web, it appeared to tell a very worrying story about a precipitous decline in the number of insects in Puerto Rico’s Luquillo rainforest.
According to the study’s abstract, climate change is to blame:
The planet is cooling. Clearly this isn’t something the alarmists want you to hear, especially when they’ve got a shiny, expensive, new bridge to sell you with Green New Deal stamped on the side.
So to help out, the Climate Industrial Complex has played its usual trick of ramping up the climate scaremongering.
Here’s NASA (your tax dollar at work, funding greenie propaganda):
Global temperatures in 2018 were 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.83 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. Globally, 2018’s temperatures rank behind those of 2016, 2017 and 2015. The past five years are, collectively, the warmest years in the modern record.
“2018 is yet again an extremely warm year on top of a long-term global warming trend,” said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt.
Since the 1880s, the average global surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius). This warming has been driven in large part by increased emissions into the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases caused by human activities, according to Schmidt.
It’s so furious, in fact, that it has had to invent a whole new insult to capture the magnitude of its rage against the people it used to call “deniers.”
People claim Trump said not one word about climate change but that's false. He celebrated the US being the world's "No. 1" oil and gas producer. And the house cheered – they cheered for the knowing destabilization of the planet. Don't call them deniers, they are arsonists.
Heavy snow has brought parts of Europe to a standstill. At least 21 people have died as a result of the extreme conditions, and many more have been injured, including the victims of an avalanche which hit a hotel in Switzerland. Parts of Germany and Austria remain on high alert after extreme snow in Alpine regions.
But don’t worry. None of this is real. We know this because of a prophetic climate change article published by the Guardian in 2013.
Its standfirst read:
“Under Mont Blanc’s glittering peak, mountain guides and scientists tell the same story: the Alps are warming, the evidence of climate change is clear and the golden years of ski tourism will soon be past.”
The UN’s latest climate summit in Katowice, Poland has ended in failure as usual. Also as usual the 60,000 plus delegates are putting a brave face on it, claiming that a last minute deal has been reached after tough negotiations and that important progress has been made.
“This is a good agreement,” the European commissioner Miguel Cañete told the Guardian. “We have more to do but we can move forward now.”
Nicholas Stern, author of the seminal review of the economics of climate change, said: “This has been another summit of tough negotiations, but it has ultimately succeeded in its crucial primary task of agreeing the so-called rulebook for the Paris agreement.”
But a rather more honest take can be found in this annually updated report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Every UN Climate Summit, it notes, follows exactly the same formula.