Danny Rich writing in Twaddle is Free suggests that believers in one pile of bunkum should convert a sceptical public into believing in another:
A recent Observer Ipsos Mori poll found that the majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans, and believes, despite the assertion by 2,500 experts on the United Nations international panel on climate control, that scientists are exaggerating the problem.
Indeed, so. This is perhaps because they are exaggerating the problem; if, indeed it is a problem. No one has denied (as the alarmist like to suggest) that climate is changing. Since the Earth solidified from molten rock, its climate has changed. During the Jurassic period, the place where I am now typing this screed was a shallow sea. Earlier still, much of the Earth was covered in arid desert. The level of CO2 at one point was so high, life was impossible. The Earth changes, life changes, climate changes. It is natural. It is only the arrant hubris of homo sapiens that supposes it can be artificially changed – or, more precisely, stopped. Why should we stop it? Better to do as all life has done before; adapt or die.
The poll concluded that many did not want to restrict their lifestyles and only a small minority thought they need to make “significant and radical changes”.
This is somewhat refreshing. People are not taken in by the myths, scaremongering, half-truths and downright lies of the global warming alarmist crowd. There is hope after all. Not, perhaps, the response the alarmist might want me to make, but, tough. I, too, have no intention of making changes to my lifestyle to fall into line with their anti-capitalist Marxist agenda – oh, sorry, “saving the planet”. Ah, yes, hubris again.
Rich goes on to mention that Liberal Judaism has presented Hillary Benn with a photograph petition making a demand:
The photograph called for two major provisions in the climate change bill: that the level of carbon emission reduction should be 80% (and not the original 60%, which is based upon dated science); and that action and its reporting by industry should be mandatory.
So, they’ve fallen for the bunkum that reducing CO2 will make a difference and want to force industry to comply with their delusions. While they are at it, why not demand that the tectonic plates be screwed together and a lasso placed around the sun?
Benn spent more than 45 minutes with the delegation, appeared to take seriously what it was saying, and observed that “even cabinet ministers need support”.
Preferably by the neck.
Religion ought to impel its adherents to act and politics is the means by which that action is implemented.
Woah! Hold your horses, Danny Boy! By all means religion may insist that its adherents be impelled – but people who are not adherents ought to be placed under no such strictures. If you believe the global warming alarmist hyperbole, then by all means worry about your mythical carbon footprint – but do not use the law to force me to comply. This is religion getting into matters of state and that is crossing the line.
If the world faces climate catastrophe then maybe it is time for the scientific and religious communities to come together, working with governments, to persuade a suspicious and cynical population that it is in their own interests — and particularly the interests of the poorest and most vulnerable of the world’s inhabitants — to act now. And if you are religious, it should not be difficult to persuade you.
Um, no, frankly. There is no evidence that there is going to be a catastrophe – indeed the catastrophe that was prophesied twenty years ago hasn’t materialised – just as the new ice age didn’t happen. What we are being presented with are the outputs of computer modelling that have been extrapolated into a worse case scenario and we are all supposed to take it as gospel. Well, I don’t. I won’t. And, refreshingly, it seems as if I am not alone. Is the emperor’s new suit finally being seen for what it is?
if you were Christian you would know that death by sea level rise and flooding is a no-no because God promised that ‘ never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth’ (Genesis 9:11) and that he reserves the right to destroy the Earth, so man will not.
Perhaps these AGW prophets should concentrate on their own religion and gods, they seem to know bugger all about Christianity.
haddocks last blog post..Bob’s views on Freedom
‘Is the emperor’s new suit finally being seen for what it is?’
I don’t think anyone ever took it in to begin with. Unfortunately, the fuckwits who lead us are listening to anyone but us, and seem hell-bent on legislating to compel us to see that which isn’t there…
“Is the emperor’s new suit finally being seen for what it is?”
If the comments are anything to go by, yes!
JuliaMs last blog post..Lost – Plot. If Found, Please Return To ACPO…
Well if global warming is caused by human activity, then any actions taken to abate the effects will not be saving the planet, but saving the human race, as the earth has survived far more devastating disasters than average temperature rise of a few degrees. But whether we’ll survive is another thing. Some of the climate change zealots don’t help their cause by demanding ‘do you *believe* in global warming? ‘ as though they were asking me whether I believed in the Trinity. But then that doesn’t mean that they may not right. I haven’t acquainted myself with the science but as far as I can see there are rather more experts saying that our actions are contributing to global warming than those who are saying that our actions are irrelevant. Even if the majority of specialists are wrong, and global warming has nothing to do with man, reducing the amount of CO2 that we belch into the atmosphere seems like a good idea anyway, as it forces us to conserve non-renewable resources. But I do hate the doom-mongering of the zealots. One wants to say, ‘if it’s that bad, we might as well get drunk and forget about it, as there’s nothing we can do!’ Less doom, and more practical suggestions, would be the ticket.
Stephen, as usual, a considered and thoughtful comment. The link I provided to Climate Skeptic is relevant because it provides data relating to the claims made twenty years ago; that were hopelessly wrong. Now, even accepting the bias of the source, the raw data remains valid and it undermines the alarmists’ claims that the planet is going into meltdown. Russian satellite data, which is more reliable than ground level measurements as it is not affected by the heat of urban areas, tells us that warming stabilised a decade ago – in other words, there hasn’t been any warming for ten years. Sure, that may change, sure, we should make reasonable efforts to reduce pollution – we could also put some effort into reversing deforestation and habitat damage. These things are rather more important, I feel, than worrying about something that we cannot change.
And, frankly, the appeal to emotion helps no one.
“I haven’t acquainted myself with the science but as far as I can see there are rather more experts saying that our actions are contributing to global warming than those who are saying that our actions are irrelevant.”
If you were to go back in time, I suspect you’d find rather more ‘experts’ diagnosing disease based on the humours than claiming they were caused by microscopic bacteria or viruses…
JuliaMs last blog post..â€Hey, We Were All Riled Up For A Lynchin’ Here…!â€
Nothing like a good bleeding to balance the humours. I understand leeches can be rather useful for this.
Well, if someone were to apply a sackful of leeches to Gordon Brown, it’d certainly do wonders for my humour! 😀
JuliaMs last blog post..â€Hey, We Were All Riled Up For A Lynchin’ Here…!â€
f you were to go back in time, I suspect you’d find rather more ‘experts’ diagnosing disease based on the humours than claiming they were caused by microscopic bacteria or viruses…
Up to a point. The fact is that there are serious scientists on both sides of the argument. Since this is a specialised area, which I am certainly not an expert in, I have no ready means at my disposal to make a truly informed decision as to which side should be believed. I certainly don’t believe that all of the scientists who accept man made global warming are the equivalent of medievalists following Aristotle’s doctrines about the body!
“I certainly don’t believe that all of the scientists who accept man made global warming are the equivalent of medievalists following Aristotle’s doctrines about the body!”
I made no comparisons as regards the quality of their work. Merely pointed out the fact that like them, they were once the voiciferous majority, who nonetheless were eventually swept asisde by the growth of new knowledge.
JuliaMs last blog post..I Have The Perfect Solution To This Problem….
Apart from personal observation. Mine tells me that the catastrophe predicted hasn’t happened. Just as the new ice age didn’t happen.
Interestingly, I’ve gone from mild belief to scepticism as a consequence of observation and taking an interest in what information is available. When someone indulges in half-truths, lies and obfuscation, I’m inclined to suspect their argument. Strange, that…