You know when the Globe and Mail starts running commentary saying the cause of Global Warming is lost, it's a good week for me. I've maintained, as my friends know, that the science behind the IPCC has been questionable at best. I have maintained that my position is logical and reasoned; I am not pro-pollution, but I am anti-world governance based on shaky evidence. Not to mention, out of cynicism I know it doesn't work. The Chinese certainly aren't upset about emissions. Regardless, read on to get some fun links!
Margaret Wente takes aim at Doc Pauchuri and hilarity ensues. Peggy Wente is controversial at best, but to see her getting 700-odd comments and 900-odd "recommend" clicks does the heart some good. She's not particularly deep or nuanced, which is the point. Wente writes for the affluent upper-middle class Torontonians. She's political, but not overly so, and generally pretty centrist. The important thing here is that she's one of the great draws of the Globe and Mail. She and Christie Blatchford draw huge numbers, both fans and enemies, so the Globe is generally pretty careful about what they're allowed to comment on. If Wente gets to blast the IPCC, it's pretty clear that the Globe editorial board is beginning to have second thoughts about the whole scam.
Lawrence Solomon airs a ton of carbon-dirty laundry, and once again we see activism trumps even junk science. Mr. Solomon writes for the Financial Post, so he tends to have a lot of statistics backing his work. No need to fact check him, he is pretty damn accurate. He points out that groups like GreenPeace are now in full damage control mode, repudiating the IPCC lest they be dragged down as well. Time to wake up children, the bedtime stories are over.
In an interesting piece, Terence Corcoran compares IPCC to Toyota, and injustice is made clear. No further comment necessary.
I reiterate my point on climate change: prove it first. Until you can prove with good, reliable, scandal-free science, do not attempt to vastly reorder society. Learn from Obama's mistake. You do not have a global mandate just because people like trees.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
It's the same old story. Group X believes in a cause so fervently that they lie, cheat, and steal to get people to see things their way. Lying, cheating, and stealing is exposed to general public and Group X becomes pariah. World falls victim to events predicted by Group X because they were right all along, they were just stupid enough to sink their own ship.
ReplyDeleteDo I predict a Mad Max style apocalypse? No, but 30 years from now when people speak of environmentalism like they now speak of communism, as a vague menacing spectre of the past, and natural disaster strikes as the ecosystem rebalances itself there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth and cries of "why did nobody tell us this would happen?" Few will remember that environmentalists could have helped us if they hadn't made us hate them first.
It isn't a question of environmentalism, and frankly the whole Carbon scare business is junk science to begin with (reference a single volcanic eruption putting out more carbon than the whole of human society for 50 years).
ReplyDeleteNo one objects to recycling, or even to the concept that cars should be more efficient and we should rely less on oil. People DO object to massive governmental intrusion on their lives based on questionable science, and worse ethics.
Ever notice that the carbon scare nuts want everyone to become acetic except them? Al Gore personally emits more carbon than the entire state of Kentucky. The Copenhagen summit used who knows how much jet fuel. The head of the IPCC flew his goddamn jet to India TWICE to watch his favourite cricket team.
If carbon emissions really are going to cause the oceans to rise (blah, blah, blah), the prophets of our collective doom seem remarkably unconcerned about their contribution to it.
These are the same people who believed Malthus, who still believe Erlich, and even though 30 years ago our doom was glaciers, and it's now excessively high temperatures, the point remains the same.
It isn't about the environment. It's about control.