'Most important paper in the world' a press release

[Flashermac]

By Gerald Warner World

 

 

When your attempt at recreating the Congress of Vienna with a third-rate cast of extras turns into a shambles, when the data with which you have tried to terrify the world is daily exposed as ever more phoney, when the blatant greed and self-interest of the participants has become obvious to all beholders, when those pesky polar bears just keep increasing and multiplying – what do you do?

 

No contest: stop issuing three rain forests of press releases every day, change the heading to James Bond-style “Do not distribute†and “leak†a single copy, in the knowledge that human nature is programmed to interest itself in anything it imagines it is not supposed to see, whereas it would bin the same document unread if it were distributed openly.

 

After that, get some unbiased, neutral observer, such as the executive director of Greenpeace, to say: “This is the single most important piece of paper in the world today.†Unfortunately, the response of all intelligent people will be to fall about laughing; but it was worth a try – everybody loves a tryer – and the climate alarmists are no longer in a position to pick and choose their tactics.

 

But boy! Was this crass, or what? The apocalyptic document revealing that even if the Western leaders hand over all the climate Danegeld demanded of them, appropriately at the venue of Copenhagen, the earth will still fry on a 3C temperature rise is the latest transparent scare tactic to extort more cash from taxpayers. The danger of this ploy, of course, is that people might say “If we are going to be chargrilled anyway, what is the point of handing over billions – better to get some serious conspicuous consumption in before the ski slopes turn into saunas.â€Â

 

This “single most important piece of paper in the world†comes, presumably, from an authoritative and totally neutral source? Yes, of course. It’s from the – er – UN Framework Committee on Climate Change that is – er – running the Danegeld Summit. Some people might be small-minded enough to suggest this paper has as much authority as a “leaked†document from Number 10 revealing that life would be hell under the Tories.

 

This week has been truly historic. It has marked the beginning of the landslide that is collapsing the whole AGW imposture. The pseudo-science of global warming is a global laughing stock and Copenhagen is a farce. In the warmist camp the Main Man is a railway engineer with huge investments in the carbon industry. That says it all. The world’s boiler being heroically damped down by the Fat Controller. Al Gore, occupant of the only private house that can be seen from space, so huge is its energy consumption, wanted to charge punters $1,200 to be photographed with him at Copenhagen. There is a man who is really worried about the planet’s future.

 

If there were not $45 trillion of Western citizens’ money at stake, this would be the funniest moment in world history. What a bunch of buffoons. Not since Neville Chamberlain tugged a Claridge’s luncheon bill from his pocket and flourished it on the steps of the aircraft that brought him back from Munich has a worthless scrap of paper been so audaciously hyped. There was one good moment at Copenhagen, though: some seriously professional truncheon work by Danish Plod on the smellies. Otherwise, this event is strictly for Hans Christian Andersen.

 

 

 

Telegraph

[Guest lazyphil]

my car has a foot of snow on it right now. they call it climate change not global warming at the moment lmao.

[kamui]

my car has a foot of snow on it right now. they call it climate change not global warming at the moment lmao.

 

Like S. Palin you are confusing weather with climate. :content:

[Guest lazyphil]

what do [color:black]YOU[/color] do to reduce co2 emissions?

[shygye]

what do [color:black]YOU[/color] do to reduce co2 emissions?

 

I used a microwave oven to heat my tea.

[Old Hippie]

That took electricity, what was used to fire the plant? coal? natural gas? Nuclear?

[shygye]

... but it takes less energy and thus reduces CO2 emissions. The microwave heats the water directly.

[Coss]

Whilst, I like the tone of the original post, I hope that the world's reaction to climate change (warmer or indeed cooler, we are overdue for an ice age) will step away from the religious fervour that it is now mired in.

 

I listened to some interesting facts the other day, from a scientist, not a journalist, not a politician. This scientist was merely stating facts from research, not offering opinion.

 

The net result to me, is that of all the information available to the public, once you exclude the jounalist's and politician's views, there is no case that Anthrogenic warming is the danger that it is made out to be.

 

If the planet warms more, it will. If it cools, it will. On balance, my view is that we can do precious little about it.

 

This it not to say that measures such as reducing pollution, deforestation, excessive population and moving to renewable energy are not good things, I think they are. They just won't affect the warming that we are told to fear.

 

The temperature of the last interglacial period 120,000 years ago was 5 degrees C warmer than today, and we had bugger all to do with that, I don't think we can to much about the warmth or coolness of this interglacial period.

 

Did you know that after the last glacial period (11,700 years ago) people were living in settlements next to the sea, with cows, hunting and fishing and eating seals etc, and that these settlements are now 10 metres below current sea levels? The point here is that people adapt to seas rising (and falling).

 

Polar bears have been hunting on land forever, if they lose the ice cap, they still will hunt and breed. The lichen on Antarctica that was supposed burn and vapourise due to the ozone hole from the '70s has adapted by growing thicker cell walls and increasing the concentration of "sun block" chemicals in the cells. The point here is that animals and plants (though lichen is not strictly a plant) will adapt , or evolve, much like what has been happening since the dawn of life.

 

I really do wish that journalist and politicians would devote real time into researching their opinions and actually using facts rather than expectations and perceptions to drive their arguments.

 

JMHO

 

Coss

[bust]

I just see it all as manipulation of the financial markets.

 

If you are going to sell this to the public do it with something everybody cares about....their health.

 

Even if the climate is changing from human activities, for the people living in large cities for example BKK, is so clear that the air we breathe is not getting any cleaner. So I think we need to change our thinking and give more chance to the kind of source of energy wich are not dangerous for our health. If we focus on that as the primary issue we will benefit in many areas. This entire climate change approach is all wrong. They need to really rethink this one.

[kamui]

what do [color:black]YOU[/color] do to reduce co2 emissions?

 

For example, I just bought a super cool bicycle and in the last four weeks I have used my car just three times. I even rode my bike to work today at -10 C/14 F in the morning and -14 C/6,8 F at night (Its not a real problem with proper clothes).

 

And what are YOU doing?

 

 

Did you know that after the last glacial period (11,700 years ago) people were living in settlements next to the sea, with cows, hunting and fishing and eating seals etc, and that these settlements are now 10 metres below current sea levels? The point here is that people adapt to seas rising (and falling).

 

Coss

That's bullshit, IMHO. How many people were living near the sea 11.000 years ago compared to today?

The rising of the sea level will affect *millions* of people. Whole nations will vanish in the oceans and huge parts of countries like Bangladesh or the Netherlands will go under. And Bangkok will be in very severe trouble. Even parts of New York will be flooded regularly.

 

Global warming will disrupt the economies, the political systems and public life of many countries or even continents (see Australia).

 

And now add this to the pollution and shortage of drinking water, the erosion of farmland all over the world, the destruction of rain forests in countries like Brazil or Malaysia.

 

We will soon have the situation that there will be wars not for oil but for water (Middle East might be first) and millions more people will be starving.

 

In regard to SE Asia, just imagine that China will need/take most of the water from the Mekong and will pollute the rest. LOS, Laos and Cambo and Vietnam will suffer severely (it has already begun).

 

Oil, coal, forests are very limited resources. Reducing the consumption these essential recourse will have a huge impact on the future of our planet. Anthropological warming or not.

 

By the way, that some companies will gain from the fight on global warming is a real weak argument against it, since many, many companies (oil, cars, e.g.) are gaining from denying it. And those companies are spending millions on manipulating science, the public and politicians. And those comapiens are much more powerful than any companies who would gain from the fight against global warming - the war chest of one major traditional energy company is probably bigger than of all eco friendly energy companies combined.