Action on climate change is becoming so urgently needed that even ”¨scientists trained not to make value judgements see it as a moral”¨ issue.”¨”¨ What’s more, we may be “running out of time,” says Dr. John Stone, adjunct”¨ research professor, geography and environmental studies, at Carleton”¨ University in Ottawa.
“Climate change has now become such a threat ”¨to our society, economy and environment that some of us find it difficult,”¨ if not irresponsible, to remain within our [objective] disciplinary domains,” ”¨”¨he told a Nov. 14 workshop at The Church of St. John the ”¨Evangelist (Anglican) Church here. “We have defined the problem, now we need to put all our efforts”¨ into developing and implementing solutions.”
Rubbish.
What is a moral issue is condemning millions in Africa and Asia to continue in grinding poverty, cooking the family dinner in an unventilated hut over a fire of dung because the local woods was denuded for fuel generations ago, because their corrupt political class is obliging the UN’s corrupt political class by rejecting cheap energy from coal and other fossil fuels. How very renewable of them.
What is a moral issue is devastation of millions of acres of countryside and wildlife habitat with monstrosities the height of the Statue of Liberty with a 747 pinned to her nose, which generate no useful power but effectively blow tax breaks and subsidies into the pockets of Wall Street fat cats, like Al Gore’s pals at Goldman-Sachs. How very renewable of them.
What is a moral issue is the waste over the last two decades of more than $100 billion for research attempting to prove a hypothesis that was implausible to begin with and was conclusively demonstrated to be not merely false but preposterous ten years ago, when the same sum could have assured clean drinking water for every community on the planet, with enough left over to wipe out malaria in Africa. How very sustainable.
And still these smug pompous fools cling to their politically-correct junk science.
Sheesh! How out of step is this guy? He oughta have been spouting this rubbish a year ago.
“We have defined the problem”
Um, that would be ignorance? Or perhaps gullibility? Please research for yourself, do NOT believe the mainstream media. There is NO proof that we are causing global warming, only that warming is occurring. We should believe that humankind is responsible for global warming when there are clear identified reasons for historical warming or cooling decades, and scientifically show that today is different from those previous periods. There is no scientific proof that CO2 is causing unusual warming, and virtually all of the alarmist statements come from ‘computer models’ which are incapable of truly modeling the complex thing that is our current climate.
A load of codswallop.
I do not know what is codswallop, but it sounds like it is the stuff of this “urgent moral issue.” I will use this word again, codswallop, because it is useful. This new word is in fact far more useful than the junk science of global warming. Thank you Fradgan for my new word today. God Bless you.
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. “The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.” – Ottmar Edenhofer
May I quote Sherwood Boehlert, 24 year Republican member of the House of Representatives, from the Washington Post:
[blockquote]
Watching the raft of newly elected GOP lawmakers converge on Washington, I couldn’t help thinking about an issue I hope our party will better address. I call on my fellow Republicans to open their minds to rethinking what has largely become our party’s line: denying that climate change and global warming are occurring and that they are largely due to human activities.[…]
Why do so many Republican senators and representatives think they are right and the world’s top scientific academies and scientists are wrong? I would like to be able to chalk it up to lack of information or misinformation.
I can understand arguments over proposed policy approaches to climate change. I served in Congress for 24 years. I know these are legitimate areas for debate. What I find incomprehensible is the dogged determination by some to discredit distinguished scientists and their findings.[…]
There is a natural aversion to more government regulation. But that should be included in the debate about how to respond to climate change, not as an excuse to deny the problem’s existence. The current practice of disparaging the science and the scientists only clouds our understanding and delays a solution.
[/blockquote]
I used to be a fervent believer in global warming — all those scientists couldn’t be wrong could they?
Then came the leaks called “climategate” and I decided to read up a bit about it myself. I now do not think the scientific community has been honest with us, and I also do not believe they have proved their case. This is not the same as saying there is no global warming — just that the evidence is lacking to justify changing the world to fit around it.
What is needed is more HONEST research so we know if we really do have a problem or not – and so far the scientific community do not seem to be willing to do that.
Like, for example, the work of MIT’s Dr. Lindzen, who was publishing papers on atmospheric physics when Jim Hansen was a grad student in astronomy being frightened by Venus? Like, for example, Dr. Spencer, NASA’s senior climate scientist for decades? Give me a break.
After twenty years and $100 billion, every actual measurement, every piece of scientific evidence, from increasingly sophisticated satellites to deep-diving buoys, indicates that the CO2-driven warming theory is completely wrong. Why do you think that every scientist who actually looks at the evidence, who doesn’t depend on Global Warming for his lunch money, comes rapidly to the conclusion that the whole business is a monstrous fraud?
The thing that is actually galling about the AGW folks is that even the statistics are badly used. Micheal Mann’s famed hockey stick graft is a funtion of the technique used and gets the same outcome even with random numbers.