Global warming temps lower since 98 highest in 1934

202typical

Long Time Member
Messages
3,123
This is out of England but still shows how INSANE the Econuts are

Christopher Booker: Planet-saving madness

By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 11:39am GMT 27/11/2007

We are set on a course of 'planet saving' madness

The scare over global warming, and our politicians' response to it, is becoming ever more bizarre. On the one hand we have the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change coming up with yet another of its notoriously politicised reports, hyping up the scare by claiming that world surface temperatures have been higher in 11 of the past 12 years (1995-2006) than ever previously recorded.

This carefully ignores the latest US satellite figures showing temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983 level - not to mention the newly revised figures for US surface temperatures showing that the 1930s had four of the 10 warmest years of the past century, with the hottest year of all being not 1998, as was previously claimed, but 1934.

On the other hand, we had Gordon Brown last week, in his "first major speech on climate change", airily committing his own and future governments to achieving a 60 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 - which is rather like prime minister Salisbury at the end of Queen Victoria's reign trying to commit Winston Churchill's government to achieving some wholly impossible goal in the middle of the Second World War.

Mr Brown's only concrete proposal for reaching this absurd target seems to be his plan to ban plastic bags, whatever they have to do with global warming (while his government also plans a near-doubling of flights out of Heathrow).

But of course he is no longer his own master in such fantasy exercises. Few people have yet really taken on board the mind-blowing scale of all the "planet-saving" measures to which we are now committed by the European Union.

By 2020 we will have to generate 20 per cent of our electricity from "renewables". At present the figure is four per cent (most of it generated by hydro-electric schemes and methane gas from landfill).
advertisement

As Whitehall officials privately briefed ministers in August, there is no way Britain can begin to meet such a fanciful target (even if the Government manages to ram through another 30,000 largely useless wind turbines).

Another EU directive commits us to deriving 10 per cent of our transport fuel from "biofuels" by 2020. This would take up pretty well all the farmland we currently use to grow food (at a time when world grain prices have doubled in six months and we are already face a global food shortage).

Then by 2009, thanks to a mad gesture by Mr Blair and his EU colleagues last March, we also face the prospect of a total ban on incandescent light bulbs.

This compulsory switch to low-energy bulbs, apart from condemning us to live in uglier homes under eye-straining light, is in practice completely out of the question, because, according to our Government's own figures, more than half Britain's domestic light fittings cannot take them.

This year will be remembered for two things.

First, it was the year when the scientific data showed that the cosmic scare over global warming may well turn out to be just that - yet another vastly inflated scare.

Second, it was the year when the hysteria generated by all the bogus science behind this scare finally drove those who rule over us, including Gordon "Plastic Bags" Brown, wholly out of their wits.
 
474c320e2c5a090c.jpg
 
Where are the enlightened ones among us? Silent so far I see. Just a matter of time for them to rush to the liberal talking points.


Ransom
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-27-07 AT 11:51AM (MST)[p]I haven't quite figured out the perfect storm of global warming fanaticism. Partly, I believe it is politicians looking for a new angle to use to tax people. Why should I have to pay an additional tax for my carbon dioxide emissions, why not just order me to stop or compel me to stop? Partly, I believe it is people trying to score some grant money or other public moneys to "study global warming." Partly, I believe it may be people trying to gain power over others. For example, it seems to me a solution to "global warming caused by human behavior" cannot be solved unilaterally, it requires a global government to impose an unpleasant and painful "solution" on everyone, hence the implementation of global government at the expense of national sovereignty. Let me state that I am far from convinced that human beings play any meaningful role in raising the temperature of our planet. If global warming is actually occuring, it seems much more likely to me to be the result of natural temperature fluctuations that have been known to happen before in our planet's history (The Little Ice Age 1325 to 1850, the Medieval Warming Period 1000 to 1200) rahter than the result of my driving a Suburban.

Yes, truth and sound data do not seem to be needed to toll the global warming bell.
 
Oh, and another thing . . . in the event that we soon realize that Global Warming is either not materially caused by human beings and/or that Global Warming is not happening in fact at all, I sure hope that the crazies who have riden this horse until it was exhausted are held accountable for their idiocy and gullibility. If I were in a position to do that, I would really ride those people into the ground. But first things first . . . let's get over this global warming is going to kill us all and 99% of the species on the planet fear first.
 
Don't it just bust your ass, that all these brilliant people really believe that nature and the natural earth in general, can be permanently affected by anything us insignificant human beings can come up with?

Just how important do they think we are anyway?

The earth has survived some real catastrophies, far beyond anything we can create. If mankind, or all life as we know it is doomed, there ain't anything we can do about it now.

Al "Chicken Little" Gore and all his koolaid drinkin', over egoed, pals can just kiss my.......Freakin' hipocrits!
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-28-07 AT 06:32AM (MST)[p]No, the thing that busts my ass is unskilled, unschooled people turning what is a matter for dispassionate research and analysis into a political rugby scrum, almost certainly to advance their personal agenda -- whatever that may be -- rather than to "save the planet." In scientific research and investigation there is an important part to be played by discipline, caution, humility, and a supreme appreciation for the fallibility of human understanding of complicated matters -- matters such as climate change. How did we come to a point where we consider ourselves to be all-knowing and possessing certitude about climate science, as if it is a well understood and fully mature model accepted by all parties when only in recent years have major weather drivers -- for example the el nino and el nano weather cycles, for example the hurricane cycle, for example the sunspot cycle -- have been identified and brought forward for analysis and investigation. Why is it that only recently have we learned that "mega droughts" have occured in the American southwest in the pre-historic past -- here pre-historic means before Columbus? Why is it that we have no explanation for historic major climate changes, for example for the Little Ice Age (~1325-1850 AD) or the Medieval Warming Period (~1000-1200 AD). The science is NOT mature. What busts my ass is people who must be aware the science is not mature advising us to take measures that will greatly diminish the standards of living of EVERYONE in the developed world and retard the advancement of standards of living of EVERYONE in the undeveloped world. What busts my ass is people who are willing to give up our national sovereignty for this chimera and non-existent boogieman. That's what busts my ass.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom