Will the U.S. Congress finally nail climate alarmists?

“The failure of Copenhagen may some day be remembered as the turning point in history that saved the world from economic ruin and loss of freedom”

    Britain believes Gordon Brown is a liar and Prince Charles is a fool, or maybe it’s the other way around. But how else would you interpret the great shrugging of the nation’s shoulders as the Copenhagen summit failed?

Didn’t Gordon Brown say, about 50 days ago, that we had 50 days to save the world? Yes; that’s what he said, and the nation was unmoved, despite the “failure” in Copenhagen. In the summer, Prince Charles said we had 100 months to save the world. Better mathematicians than me claim this means we go to hell in a handcart in July 2016, if his highness is to be believed. But of course he is ignored as a feeble-brained blowhard who’s spent too much time listening to Jonathan Porritt.

The result of all the above is an increase in those unwilling to believe humans are changing the climate. We want a sensible energy policy that conserves scarce resources. We don’t feel the least guilt about the West’s economic role of increasing prosperity that will trickle down to the developing nations. Any attempt to steal from us (Hillary Clinton wants $100 billion a year from 2020) will destroy our living standards, and wipe out any chance of 3rd world progress.

World War 1, 2 + Great Depression

    The great and good in Copenhagen failed to agree a global warming treaty, and according to Brown, this means increased droughts and a rising wave of floods, with the impact greater than both world wars and the Great Depression combined. This is nonsense, pure and simple. A couple of weeks ago, Brown underlined his own feeble grasp of global science by saying that those disagreeing with him were flat-earthers and climate change deniers. (The fact that we all know that Brown is a brazen, serial liar, means that Charles is the fool, I’m afraid).

    Despite the collusion of most of the mainstream media led by the BBC (and with the honourable exception of the Wall Street Journal) in ignoring the growing tsunami of opinion that any change in the climate is down to natural forces, and the burgeoning impact of the discovery that many leading warmists in the U.S and Britain have been fiddling the data, more and more informed citizens don’t believe this is anything more than political inspired alarmism.

Roger Helmer, European MEP and former conservative said the dodgy data is hugely significant.

“These (leaked ClimateGate emails) were not just a few casual and thoughtless comments in an off moment. No. They are evidence of a deliberate and sustained campaign of misinformation designed to achieve nothing less than a revolution in global governance,” Helmer said in his blog www.rogerhelmer.com.

BBC is a ClimateGate denier
    The BBC is trying to pretend ClimateGate never happened. On the BBC Radio 4’s Today Show, the programme’s editor gave us convinced warmists Sir David (climate change more dangerous than terrorism) King and Lord Stern of the Report and, guess what, they both agreed that Copenhagen was but a small step in the right direction towards a deal that will transfer kerzillions of our money to China, India and the developing world, bankrupting us and not changing the climate. (Incidentally, isn’t it amazing that the BBC keeps introducing Stern as some kind of climate oracle. Bjorn Lomberg in Cool It said the Stern Report was simply a collection of the most exaggerated disaster predictions. Lord Lawson said the Stern Review was quite the shoddiest pseudo-scientific and pseudo-economic document any British government has ever produced).

If you want a world government with the power to increasingly tax the western world into poverty, while 3rd world kleptocracies are enriched at our expense, with no perceptible impact on the climate, then you will be disappointed about the failure in Copenhagen. The science, far from settled in favour of the warmists, is, it seems to me, moving increasingly towards the contrarians. If you doubt me, this is what Senior Scientist Emeritus at the University of Kansas and IPCC reviewer Lee Gerhard said in a recent article on the www.icecap.us website. Significant factoids included –

Water vapour comprises 95% of the total greenhouse effect.

    Temperature change CO2 correlation not statistically significant.

    No evidence exists to definitely relate CO2 to temperature change.

    The warmest year in the last 100 in the U.S. was 1938.

    Global hurricane, cyclonic and storm activity is near 30-year lows.

    2009 Arctic ice was significantly larger than the previous 2 years.

    Sea level changes are unexceptional; might rise 4 inches by 2100.  

    CO2 concentration has been rising for nearly 100 years, but is currently near the lowest in geologic history.

    CO2’s greenhouse effect declines with increasing concentration so at current levels additional CO2 has very little effect.

This is why remarks like this from President Obama are so dispiriting.

“These discussions have taken place for two decades, and we have very little to show for it other than an increase and acceleration in the climate-change phenomenon,” Obama said in  Copenhagen.

Just where is this global warming that Obama and his fellow alarmists keep going on about? And if they can identify any changes, just why is this deemed to be so catastrophic? As Lomborg’s “Cool It” demonstrates, just about every doomsday scenario has an opposite impact that trumps it. Drought in one part of Africa killing X, but increased rains in other save 2X. Rising temperatures here kill Y, but warming winters save 2Y.

The climate change argument now moves to the U.S., and Helmer expects Congress to play an important role in flushing out the arguments.

“I believe that the U.S. Congress will now demand an independent statistical analysis of the (ClimateGate) data. That is the least they can do before they agree to cripple the U.S. economy and pauperise their grandchildren. And the data will not sustain that analysis,” Helmer said.

Huge fortunes

There are powerful vested interests in the U.S. who stand to make huge fortunes on the back of the global warming scam, says Professor Fred Singer of the University of Virginia’s Science and Environmental Policy Project.

“The main problem now may be to overcome the vested interests that profit from climate scares: The bankers and brokers who plan to make billions from “cap and trade”, the alternative energy crowd that depends on fat government subsidies, the bureaucrats angling for more power and prestige. And then there are those whose objectives are ideological: World government, income redistribution, collectivism and opposition to free enterprise,” Singer said.

Perhaps we should be thankful for the debacle in Copenhagen.

“Maybe we should thank these NGOs (non-governmental organisations like Greenpeace, WWF) for what they accomplished: The failure of Copenhagen may some day be remembered as the turning point in history that saved the world from economic ruin and loss of freedom,” Singer said

Sadly, in Britain, it’s not only the media and the government lying to us about climate change. The main opposition  Conservatives are in cahoots with the warmists, with a few honourable exceptions like David Davis, John Redwood and Peter Lilley. The liar Brown will soon be spiked by the British electorate (and of course anyone with at least half a brain just laughs at the ludicrous Charles).

Obama is here for the duration, but luckily he faces tougher political hurdles than our pathetic so-called democracy, where Parliament is supposed to call the executive to account, but is owned by it. The Wall Street Journal is looking forward to watching Obama squirm.

“We can’t wait to hear Mr Obama tell Americans that he wants them to pay higher (energy) taxes so the U.S. can pay China to become more energy efficient and thus more economically competitive,” the newspaper said.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply