Why We Can All Stop Worrying about ‘Global Warming’ for a Bit

Three months to go until the UN climate summit in Copenhagen. Three months in which we will be repeatedly assured by climate fear promoters such as Al Gore, George Monbiot, Ed Miliband and the risible Ban Ki-moon that this really is absolutely, definitely, totally and irrevocably the very last chance the world’s leaders will have to save the planet from ManBearPig.

(Just like they said at Rio and Poznan and all the other “let’s see who can rack up the biggest carbon footprint” global shindigs that eco-campaigners insist on staging, the better to stoke up their self-flagellatory eco-guilt).

But, for the global warming deniers among us at least, the panic’s off. Nothing scary or dangerous is going to happen as a result of the Copenhagen summit. It will be a talking shop, abundant with airy platitudes and earnest pieties, but signifying less than ****er all as far as economy-damaging Kyoto-style legislation goes. There will be a political statement of intent. But no binding “agreement”.

Here are few reasons why:

1. A bit like one of those mutant pandas I mentioned yesterday, the science has turned viciously against the warmists. Not that it wasn’t against them before.  But they have their work seriously cut out if they’re ever going to recover from the  speech given at the UN world climate conference in Geneva last week by Professor Mojib Latif of Germany’s Leibniz institute.

National Post columnist Lorne Gunter explains:

“Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC’s last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.”

Yet in Geneva, Latif was forced to admit that all those An-Inconvenient-Truth-style fantasy projections showing global temperatures rising inexorably with C02 levels were wrong. The world is getting cooler, not warming. It will continue to cool, Latif reckons, till 2020 or possibly 2030. By how much he doesn’t know: “The jury is still out.”

Which begs the rather obvious question: if the IPCC’s doomsday computer models didn’t predict this cooling phase, how can we be sufficiently confident in their other assertions to start basing major economic and social policy decisions on them?

2. The Chinese. Spin it how they will, President Hu Jintao’s two-minute speech to the UN yesterday was a massive blow to the Warmists. In classic “Tell the foolish gwailo what they want to hear, then carry on doing exactly what we want” Chinese diplomatic style, Hu Jintao promised “determined action”, while refusing to commit his country to any binding targets.

The Chinese are not stupid. Their priority number one (and two, and three) is economic growth, not assuaging green lobbyists.

3. People just don’t care about “climate change” that much. Environmental purity is a rich person’s luxury and with the recession most people have other priorities. In the latest Bloomberg poll in the US, for example, just 2 per cent of respondents considered “climate change” the most important issue facing the country.

4. Almost everyone knows deep down that the green lobby’s CO2 targets are pie in the sky. Says Stephen Hayward of the American Competitive Institute in WSJ Online

“Carbon dioxide is the result of complete fuel combustion. Apart from still-unproven technologies, there’s no way to remove it from the process. The only way to reduce emissions is to burn less fuel, which means less energy output.

“So, to meet the target the climate campaigners have set, the U.S., Europe and Japan will have to replace virtually their entire fossil-fuel energy infrastructure. For the U.S., the 80% target means reducing fossil-fuel greenhouse-gas emissions to a level the nation last experienced in 1910. On a per-capita basis, we’d have to go back to the level of about 1875.”

5. If anyone’s going to push these crazy measures through it’s President Obama. But, as Terence Corcoran sensibly points out, after the rough ride he’s had with his healthcare proposals, Obama is unlikely to want to outrage the US taxpayer still further.

“Mr. Obama, already fighting charges his medicare reform will boost taxes on the average American family by $3,000, isn’t likely to simultaneously mount an aggressive push for carbon control legislation that will add another $4,000 a year in taxes.”

6. Right, consider this my serious climate change piece for the week. Now, I can go back to trading childish insults. Phew!

Related posts:

  1. ‘Global warming’: time to get angry
  2. Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!
  3. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion
  4. Whoops! CO2 has almost nothing to do with global warming, discovers top US meteorologist

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Is George ‘Jello’ Monbiot Too Chicken to Debate ‘Global Warming’ with an Expert?

Is George ‘Jello’ Monbiot too chicken to debate ‘Global Warming’ with an expert?

A couple of weeks ago, you may have seen, I wrote a piece in the Spectator which drove the  global warming alarmists almost insane with frothing indignation. It was an interview with the Aussie geology professor Ian Plimer whose bestselling book – Heaven and Earth – is being hailed as the great turning point in the debate on anthropogenic global warming.

Methodically, rigorously and above all scientifically, it carefully demonstrates to the lay reader truths that to large swathes of the scientific community are  already quite obvious: viz that “climate change” has been happening for 4,567 million years, regardless of man’s presence on earth; and that “climate” will go on changing regardless of what idiotic, ineffectively and mind-boggling expensive ploys man adopts to try to stop what is in fact a perfectly natural process.

Enough detail: read the piece; then read the book; then make up your own mind.

The climate change alarmists, though, do not even want you to do that. What they’d much rather you did was go onto the internet, find a page of nit-picking quibbles put up by a parti-pris computer modeller from the “man is doomed,  it’s all our fault and we must spend gazillions on windmills now” brigade, write Professor Plimer off as a complete crank.

It’s what they do to Christopher Booker; its what they do to Professor Pat Michaels at the University of Virginia; its what they do to Marc Morano at the marvellous Climate Depot website; it’s what they do to Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick who exposed the “Hockey-Stick curve”; it’s what they to do anyone who produces inconvenient truths which undermine their cause and threaten their claim that there is any kind of scientific “consensus” on climate change.

It’s a classic ploy of eco-fascists and libtards alike: if the facts are against them – as they usually are – they’ll always try to shut down the debate by taking the argument ad hominem instead.

The response of the Guardian’s resident eco-moonbat George Monbiot was a case in point. He sputtered that I knew about as much about the environment as he knew about F1 racing; and wrote a huffy piece effectively saying that Plimer too far beyond the scientific pale to be taken seriously.

Plimer’s response? To offer to fly from his native Australia at his own expense and publicly debate with Monbiot at the time of his choosing. The event would be conducted under the auspices of the Spectator and would, I’m sure, be informative, exciting and sublimely entertaining.

I say “would” because I don’t think it’s ever going to happen. Here is George Monbiot’s response to the challenge:

“Sir, Ian Plimer challenges me to debate his claims about climate change. I accept.

In fact I accepted a fortnight ago, when I began this debate by taking him to task. Along with other critics, I have laid out a list of specific errors of fact and misrepresentations, which he uses to support his argument.

The ball is now in his court. To participate in this debate, he should answer the points I listed, as well as the other issues raised by Tim Lambert, Ian Enting and David Karoly. Then we can reply.

But Plimer, as far as I can discover, has yet to produce any specific response to the very serious allegations made by his critics, preferring to heap insults on them instead.

These are all scientific matters, some of which are complex. To engage in this debate, we need to establish the facts and provide references. This is why it is better to debate these issues in writing; ideally, as Plimer’s critics have done, in electronic format, so that people can follow the links. Attempting to resolve these issues in person is likely either to become extremely boring or to degenerate into a slanging match. The Guardian’s website is open to him, and we look forward to his responses. Is he up to this, or will he keep ducking our challenge?

The floor is his.

George Monbiot”

Now does that read to you like the letter of a man who is happy to venture his reputation in the cut and thrust of open debate?

Or does it read like the squirmy, weaselly get-out of a no-good, snivelling, yellow-bellied, milquetoast loser quite terrified of having the massive holes in his puny argument mercilessly exposed in public by a proper scientist who actually knows his subject inside out?

Plimer, meanwhile, has imposed no conditions on the debate. All he asks is that it be conducted in public and that Monbiot turns up.

The ball’s in your court Monbiot and let’s have no more of that legalistic wriggling. Are you up for this debate?

Or are you – as I strongly suspect – going to bottle it?

Related posts:

  1. On Plimer, climate change and the ineffable barkingness of George Moonbat
  2. George Monbiot: the new Christopher Hitchens?
  3. I have faith in George Monbiot’s sincerity, whoever’s paying him
  4. Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Miliband’s Brilliant Plan to Combat Climate Change: ‘We’ll Export Unicorns to China’

Negative jobs, negative energy

Ed Miliband can't sort out his accent, so what does he have against "climate change"?

Ed Miliband can’t even sort out his accent, so what hope does he have against ‘climate change’? (Photo: PA)

My all-time favourite story from the spot-on news satire website The Daily Mash was the one sending up Alistair Darling’s pitiful attempts to rescue the British economy. Among his brilliant schemes was a plan to breed unicorns and sell them to Chinese millionaires.

“The chancellor would invest public money in up to a dozen unicorn farms across the country churning out thousands of magical horses which would then be vacuum packed and shipped to the Far East.”

“Mr Darling believes that at £250,000 a unicorn the government could have paid back its £120bn of borrowing by the time Star Trek becomes reality.”

So it was with a tremendous sense of deja vu that I heard Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband talking on this morning’s Today programme about his radical and costly new measures to tackle “global warming”.

There are, of course, many things to loathe about Ed Miliband: his wonky, slightly sinister face like a giant egg with a hedgehog on top; the way he says “sure” all the time; his Estuarial inability to pronounce his final consonants; the fact that there’s not just him but his ruddy brother too; the annoying missing “l” in his surname; but definitely the worst is the drivel this grinning eco loon is allowed to spout, largely unchallenged, on “climate change.”

This morning he claimed that by 2015 the miseries of his strict new energy policy will be partly offset by the creation of 400,000 “green jobs”. Oh really? These would presumably be green jobs not unlike the ones in President Obama’s much-cited windpowered economic miracle Spain, would they? The ones that actually destroy 2.2 other jobs for every green job that is created?

Yes, this was the truly depressing conclusion of a study published earlier this year by Dr Gabriel Calzada, a Spanish economics professor at Madrid’s Juan Carlos University.

“The study calculated that, since 2000, Spain spent $774,000 to create each “green job”, including subsidies of more than $1.3 million per wind industry job. It found that creating those jobs resulted in the destruction of nearly 113,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every “green job” created. Principally, jobs were lost in the fields of metallurgy, non-metallic mining and food processing, beverage and tobacco.”

Needless to say his BBC interviewer – the normally sound, but clearly not in this case Ed Stourton – did not call Miliband on this empty claim. Nor did Stourton raise any objection when Miliband produced the still-more-outrageous whopper that the English landscape is in greater danger from climate change than it is from windfarms. (Do read the great Christopher Booker on this subject today)

No it isn’t, Ed. Why do you think, all over the British countryside, there are dozens of campaign groups desperately trying to stop these monstrosities being erected on our beautiful landscape? Why do you think Miliband is now changing the planning laws so that local objections can be more easily overruled? Because no one, except a few politicians and eco-nutters and slippery eco-investors actually wants windfarms ruining Britain. Together with bio-fuels they’re arguably the greatest man-made eco-disaster of the last twenty years.

What a relief it would be to think that when New Labour are finally booted out, and Ed Miliband gets his new job as a mannikin in the shop window of Debenhams, that we’ll finally get a regime talking some sense on climate change.

Sadly, this is not to be. Cameron’s Conservatives are every bit as determined to impose ruinous carbon emissions targets on our groaning economy as Brown’s Socialists. Consider Tory energy spokesman Greg Clark’s pathetic response yesterday to Miliband’s “UK Low Carbon Transition Plan”.

Did Clark talk about the nonsense of green jobs? Did he protest about the 30 per cent rise in our energy prices? Did he point out the economic unfeasibility of trying to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050? Did he talk about the imminent threat of brown-outs because of the energy gap caused by successive governments’ failure to duck the issue of nuclear power?

Er, no. He just said – like the joke Irishman giving directions who says “If you want to get there I wouldn’t start from here” – that “households would end up paying because of the Government’s failure to act soon enough.”

Related posts:

  1. Green jobs? Wot green jobs? (pt 242)
  2. Government’s £6 million ‘Bedtime Story’ climate change ad: most pernicious waste of taxpayers’ money ever?
  3. My moment of rock-star glory at a climate change sceptics’ conference in America
  4. ‘Green jobs’ and feed-in tariffs: rent-seeking parasites get their just desserts

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations