James Delingpole does it again.
Dr Spencer, formerly senior scientist for climate studies at NASA, now leads the US science team for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS (AMSRE) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He co-developed the original satellite method for precise monitoring of global temperatures from Earth-orbiting satellites. He’s just the kind of egghead the IPCC claims to represent when it tells us the world is getting dangerously warmer, it’s man’s fault – the result of CO2 emissions – and it must be urgently addressed.
Except Dr Spencer doesn’t agree with any of that. He thinks it’s all nonsense, based on a very elementary error he describes in his new book The Great Global Warming Blunder. I summarise his arguments in this article.
Ah by the way, Lib/Lab/Con are all committed to spending lots of your money and raising the cost of living to ‘fight’ something that doesn’t exist. Don’t worry, it’ll only cost the Western world about $1 trillion a year.
Now maybe you’ll have a better idea of why Maurice Strong, UN Eco-Fascist extraordinaire said this little gem in 2002;
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Posts
5 comments:
Either (man-made) global warming (sorry 'climate change') exists, so we should throw money at it to sort it out. Or at least try to.
It doesn't exist, but we're naturally warming up (we're still in an Ice Age by definition - year long polar ice caps). In which case we should throw money at it slow it down and to create jobs/capital/technology (ie fusion) [ this is the view that I hold]
It doesn't exist at all, but still throwing money at it helps our economies.
The oil is going to run out at some stage. I reckon we have 150 years of it (they said we had 70-80 in 1990, now it's 80-100 in 2010 because of the reserves in Canada and around the Latin American coast that have been found, so I reckon we'll find some more at some point)
So we still need to develop fission and fusion techonolgy, even if they weren't good things in themselves.
Don't throw the cautionary principle at me. That's the same mentality that leads governments to sterilise women without their consent because they believe the lies about linear population growth.
The climate has been changing for as long as their has been a climate. There is nothing we can do about it. The best thing to do is allow more of the world to industrialise, develop tech and resources to combat any physical changes it may lead to.
But giving the property rights of the entire Western world to a bunch of bankers and 'intellectual elite' to rule the human race with is what they are talking about, in case you couldn't see past your anthropomorphised Mother Earth Gaia nonsense.
"The climate has been changing for as long as their has been a climate. There is nothing we can do about it. The best thing to do is allow more of the world to industrialise, develop tech and resources to combat any physical changes it may lead to."
Isn't that what I said? (all be it convoluted)
Maybe, I read your comment as 'just throw money at it regardless.' Throwing money people don't have at something that doesn't exist doesn't make sense.
And remember, it is never people's money that simply helps things, some globalist beaucracy must 'regulate it'. We start seeing inefficient crap like wind farms and taxes on energy bills, manufacturing gets shut down in the West just so the money (subsidies) and factories can set up in the East.
With no regulations, health and safety, workers rights. Good for corporations, bad for people.
True, I did say throw money at it.
Even if it doesn't exist, we still need new techonologies and a way of saving our bacon when the bottom falls off the service-industry bubble (and the only way to do that is to 're-industrialise')
Post a Comment