Climate Changers

by: the Common Constitutionalist

The following are excerpts from an article in the British publication, The Economist, written Nov. 2008. That’s just 5 years ago. I know in seems a lot longer considering our current state of affairs in this country:

The Economist “The most important year for climate change since 2001, when the Kyoto protocol (which set targets for cutting carbon-dioxide emissions) was agreed, will be 2009… The first period of the protocol runs out in 2012. The deal to replace it is supposed to be done at the United Nations’ Climate Change conference in Copenhagen…”

 “No deal means that mankind gives up on trying to save the planet.”

 

Wow, really? Is the planet in that much danger? It must be. These men of science wouldn’t overstate a problem, or create one, just to score political points and extract money from us?

It continues:

 “The rich world (especially America) needs to commit itself to legally enforceable carbon-emissions reductions… The rich world, which has been responsible for most emissions so far and recognises that it needs to pay up… The Clean Development Mechanism, which was set up under Kyoto to allow rich countries to buy carbon credits from poor countries that have cut their emission, does that already, but is probably not robust enough to do the job on the scale needed.”

 kyoto protocol

I was shocked, and I’m sure you as well, to see America singled out. I was also surprised to read that carbon credit purchasing isn’t solving the problem. Huh.

They seemed to be quite pleased at the arrival of “The One”:

 “What happens in Washington is most important. Progress on climate change is much likelier under the new administration than the old, for the new one is committed to introducing mandatory federal carbon-emissions cuts through a cap-and-trade scheme…”

 

So what’s the big deal? That was old news. Nothing has changed. The eco-weenies will never change, you say. No matter what happens they will never change their tune on climate change or man-caused global warming.

Well, not so fast. It seems that actual science may be catching up to the hysteria. I know, dare to dream, but in a March 30 article in the very same publication, the folks at The Economist seem to report honestly of the un-changing climate:

 “OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar… And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

 

This must have killed Hansen to even utter these words, for he is dishonest climate change whore, and that’s being kind.

Continuing:

 “Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise… If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.”

 Climate Graph

“The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion.”

 

No, of course not. The only deluded people have been us man-caused climate change deniers. And it’s funny that they are always surprised when nothing happens. Kind of exactly as we’ve been predicting for years.

The article continues:

 “…an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.”

 

Ruh Ro Reorge. The earth is cleaning itself?! The profound significance could be that as nothing continues to happen, it’s already getting harder to keep beating that same old world apocalypse drum.

The rest of the article is rather long and boring with explanations of new climate modelling, sprinkled with a lot of what-ifs, in an attempt to further the global warming cause.

Although we on the reasonable side of this argument can be slightly heartened by this quasi-admission, this battle is far from over. These folks will not go down without a fight. They have far too much to lose.

We may, in the long run, win this war against the climate weenies, and heh, as the world economy crumbles and we all go the way of Cyprus, no one will worry about man-made climate change.

Global Warming…Not

We’re Still Being Screwed Even Though ‘Global Warming’ Stopped 15 Years Ago

by:

The chart below is what global warming looks like folks. Non-existent for the last 15+ years. Zero. Nada. Zilch. (Before that, in the ’70′s, it was all about the “Coming Ice Age” and where did that go?) All the while the developing world has been cranking up carbon use for manufacturing.

And in the meantime? We have energy starvation policies stuffed down our throats. And a President, in the debate, going on and on about “Green Jobs,” which are either non-existent also…or are causing bankruptcy eruptions all over the place. Not to mention the dire straights he is putting people in with regard to the energy they need to survive.

Excuse the unladylike word in my title, but the entire Al Gorebasm insanity is causing nothing but draconian, opportunistic, tyrannical thievery and controls over our very daily lives to the point of stark raving global madness.

You have been sold down the proverbial river. Sent over the cliff. Robbed blind. And screwed…totally. Americans are supposed to be smarter than this. I want to believe Americans are smarter than this. But every day, in America, bureaucrats, planners, non-profits, corporations, and politicians are spending their time, and energy, and your money, to capture you…not carbon, but you…..into their schemes of control. None of that has one whit to do with some conjured up fiction that you are causing the global temperatures to rise. You aren’t. You never did. But they won’t let a little thing like the truth stop them from their central control of your energy use.

Some food for thought:

“Industries are already leaving Germany, and more will soon follow. The loss of energy and jobs will damage the German economy almost as much as the exploding cost of new infrastructure required to deal with the intermittent unreliables. And the cost — THE COST!!! Hundreds of thousands of lower class workers in Germany already cannot afford to pay their skyrocketing power bills. That number will only grow larger.”

From the Telegraph – UK

“The shift to renewable energy is also taking a toll on family budgets. On Monday Germany’s electrical grid operators announced that a special tax levied on consumers to finance subsidies for green energy would increase by almost 50 per cent.”

The EU is going straight down the road to serfdom….again, I might add. (Note Spain’s 17%+ unemployment after converting to a “Green” economy. Throw in a little Greece, Italy, and the rest…and what do you have?) How many times in history have European nations been sucked into the central planning models of either Monarchs or Dictators. I thought we fought and won a revolution to get out of that mold of ignorance.

Townhall Finance asks,

“Remember last summer- and the summer before that, and the summer before that- when droughts and tornadoes were pinned to global warming by a compliant media? Or when we were told that 100 million people would die in the next twenty minutes, or twenty years- is there really a difference?- because of global warming? And that of course women and children would bear the brunt of those deaths? Or last year when we were told about the wave of Polar Bear cannibals terrorizing the animal kingdom in the great white north?”

Too bad Candy Crowley never got to the Global Warming issue in the debate. Too bad….
If Romney and Ryan have the facts on this, we might be saved from the economic devastation that Europe is facing right now. God bless them both.

Global Warming Causes Everything

By Michelle Malkin

Good news: The Waldo Canyon fire, which forced 32,000 residents (including our family) to flee, claimed two lives and destroyed 347 homes, is now 100 percent contained. Bad news: Radical environmentalists won’t stop blowing hot air about this year’s infernal season across the West.

Al Gore slithered out of the political morgue to bemoan nationwide heat records and pimp his new “Climate Reality Project,” which blames global warming for the wildfire outbreak. NBC meteorologist Doug Kammerer asserted: “If we did not have global warming, we wouldn’t see this.” Agriculture Department Undersecretary Harris Sherman, who oversees the Forest Service, claimed to the Washington Post: “The climate is changing, and these fires are a very strong indicator of that.”

And the Associated Press (or rather, the Activist Press) lit the fear-mongering torch with an eco-propaganda piece titled “U.S. summer is what ‘global warming will look like.'”

The problem is that the actual conclusions of scientists included in AP’s screed don’t back up the apocalyptic headline. As the reporter acknowledges under that panicky banner:

“Scientifically linking individual weather events to climate change takes intensive study, complicated mathematics, computer models and lots of time. Sometimes it isn’t caused by global warming. Weather is always variable; freak things happen.”

So, this U.S. summer may or may not really look like “what global warming looks like.” Kinda. Sorta. Possibly. Possibly not.

Furthermore, the AP reporter concedes, the “global” nature of the warming and its supposed catastrophic events have “been local. Europe, Asia and Africa aren’t having similar disasters now, although they’ve had their own extreme events in recent years.”

A more hedging headline would have been journalistically responsible, but Chicken Little-ism better serves the global warming blame-ologists’ agenda.

More inconvenient truths: As The Washington Times noted, the National Climatic Data Center shows that “Colorado has actually seen its average temperature drop slightly from 1998 to 2011, when data is collected only from rural stations and not those that have been urbanized since 1900.”

Radical green efforts to block logging and timber sales in national forests since the 1990s are the real culprits. Wildlife mitigation experts point to incompetent forest management and militant opposition to thinning the timber fuel supply.

Another symptom of green obstructionism: widespread bark beetle infestations. The U.S. Forest Service itself reported last year:

“During the last part of the 20th century, widespread treatments in lodgepole pine stands that would have created age class diversity, enhanced the vigor of remaining trees, and improved stand resiliency to drought or insect attack — such as timber harvest and thinning — lacked public acceptance. Proposals for such practices were routinely appealed and litigated, constraining the ability of the Forest Service to manage what had become large expanses of even-aged stands susceptible to a bark beetle outbreak.”

Capitulation to lawsuit-happy green thugs, in others, undermined “public acceptance” of common sense, biodiversity-preserving and lifesaving timber harvest and thinning practices.

Local, state and federal officials offered effusive praise for my fellow Colorado Springs residents who engaged in preventive mitigation efforts in their neighborhoods. The government flacks said it made a life-and-death difference. Yet, litigious environmental groups have sabotaged such mitigation efforts at the national level — in effect, creating an explosive tinderbox out of the West.

Stoking global warming alarms may make for titillating headlines and posh Al Gore confabs. But it’s a human blame avoidance strategy rooted in ideological extremism and flaming idiocy.

The Threat of Global Warming…Deniers

By:

In 2006, then climate change enthusiast James Lovelock believed that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.” The 92-year-old scientist is now in the recanting phase of his life. He admits that some of the language in his 2006 book Revenge of Gaia had been over the top. He admits that if he were writing today he would be more cautious.

It’s a little late now that laws are being implemented to curtail what was said to be “scientific fact.”

More than a century ago, John William Draper made the unsupported claim that scientific “opinions on every subject are continually liable to modification, from the irresistible advance of human knowledge.”[1] This wasn’t true then and it’s not true today.

In reality, scientists for any number of reasons often oppose many new scientific theories. There is continued scientific debate over the causes or even the reality of human-caused global warming, whether oil is a “fossil” fuel or a renewable abiotic resource, [2] the medical benefits of embryonic stem-cells, and much more. A lot of it has to do with grant money.

These debates can be downright hostile as charges and counter charges are lobbed from scientific strongholds where the claim is made that there is no room for debate. Consider the Inquisition-like reaction to those who question the certainty of global warming:

Scientists who dissent from the alarmism [over global warming] have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.

Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis. . . . In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.[3]

Some have gone so far as to propose that “global warming deniers” are aiding and abetting a global holocaust and should be prosecuted. Australian columnist Margo Kingston “has proposed outlawing ‘climate change denial.’ ‘David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial,’ she wrote. ‘Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offense. It is a crime against humanity, after all.’ Others have suggested that climate change deniers should be put on trial in the future, Nuremberg-style, and made to account for their attempts to cover up the ‘global warming . . . Holocaust.’”[4] These arguments are being made by those within the secular scientific community. Follow the money. 

There’s a new Inquisition in operation. If you don’t hold to the agreed-upon theories, then you will not be hired, and if you already have a position, there is a good chance you will lose it if you express your opinion, especially if that opinion goes against a theory that might jeopardize money that flows from government grants. Stephen Jay Gould has written: “The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method,’ with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology.”[5] Scientists are just like everybody else. They want the same things.

We shouldn’t be surprised that climate scientists might fudge the evidence to keep the grant money coming in. Who’s really getting harmed? Anyway, the kids need new shoes and an investment portfolio so they can get into the best universities to learn how to game the system.

Gary Sutton, writing in an online article for Forbes, makes the point:

You can’t blame these scientists for sucking up to the fed’s mantra du jour. Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today’s scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work [6].

Of course, they can be blamed when they claim that they are doing real science, there is no contrary evidence, and what contrary evidence they do find they suppress it. So the next time someone dogmatically asserts that the majority of scientists believe in Global Warming, ask your antagonist how much grant money he’s getting?

Notes:

1.       John William Draper, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1875), vi. []

2.      Jerome R. Corsi and Craig R. Smith, Black Gold Stranglehold (Nashville, TN: WND Books, 2005). []

3.      Richard Lindsen, “Climate of Fear: Global-Warming Alarmists Intimidate Dissenting Scientists into Silence,” The Wall Street Journal (April 12, 2006): www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 []

4.      Brendan O’Neill, “Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech” (October 6, 2006): www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/ []

5.      Stephen Jay Gould, “In the Mind of the Beholder,” Natural History (February 1994), 103:14. []

Gary Sutton, “The Fiction of Climate Science,” Forbes.com (December 4, 2009). []

The Real Political Science

 Even as climate alarmists amplify their call for a worldwide tax on carbon dioxide emissions in the name of preventing global warming – penguins, polar bears, Himalayan glaciers and Arctic sea ice are all thriving.

With dire proclamations of ice free Arctic summers vehemently debunked, the latest data indicates that both wildlife and the environment in earth’s coldest regions has not experienced the catastrophic devastation predicted as a result of man-made climate change.

Forecasts that Canada’s polar bear population would significantly decline due to global warming have been proven completely inaccurate. The latest study shows that the Hudson Bay area polar bear population has remained steady at around 1000 – the same number found by a 2004 study, confounding the “doom-and-gloom” predictions of environmentalists about the demise of the polar bear (which) have failed to come true,” reports the Canadian Press.

“We are not observing these impacts right at this moment in time. And it is not a crisis situation as a lot of people would like the world to believe it is,” said Drikus Gissing, Nunavut’s director of wildlife management.

Gissing added that their survey of Polar Bear population could yield twice as many as earlier predicted.

Meanwhile, Live Science reports, “A new study using satellite mapping technology reveals there are twice as many emperor penguins in Antarctica than previously thought.”

Using state of the art technology that can single out penguins from other birds, researchers counted almost 600,000 penguins around the coastal regions, almost double the previous estimate of 270,000-350,000.

But it’s not just wildlife that is contradicting the claims of climate change alarmists, the environment itself is not behaving as global warming data models predicted.

Satellite data produced by French researchers shows that glaciers in the western Himalayan region are “putting on mass” rather than melting completely as doomsayers had warned in a 2007 UN IPCC report, which claimed that most of the region would be ice-free by 2035.

Despite the findings, BBC News, an ardent promoter of climate change propaganda, blamed the thickening of the glaciers on man-made global warming. When the earth last showed similar activity back in the 1970′s, the same scientific establishment, which now pushes anthropogenic global warming, blamed the changes on global cooling.

New research from the Arctic’s Bering Sea also found that ice is thickening.

“The amount of floating ice in the Arctic’s Bering Sea – which had long been expected to retreat disastrously by climate-alarmist organizations such as Greenpeace – reached all-time record high levels last month, according to US researchers monitoring the area using satellites,” reports The Register.

The article points to a 1999 Greenpeace prediction that sea ice in the area “could vanish altogether,” another piece of alarmist propaganda debunked by reality.

Despite a multitude of data that continually serves to eviscerate the pseudo-science behind man-made global warming, illustrating again that the earth has gone through natural warming and cooling cycles since its very genesis, climate change snake oil salesmen like NASA’s James Hansen, who this week will call for a global tax on CO2 emissions, continue to ignore real science in pursuit of their political agenda to exploit heartfelt environmental concerns for profit and power.

 Attribution: Paul Joseph Watson

Greenies on the Run

Three Cheers for James Inhofe, an American hero. Thanks to spearheads like Inhofe, could it be that we may actually be able to beat back these Enviro-Fools?
It appears we’re making progress.

The following video is from December, 2011. It is quite funny to watch these desperate Green Movement pin heads as they throw out their talking points & slogans. The newest one is “Climate Justice”. They’ve even folded in the old 99 vs. the evil 1%. Listen carefully. No facts or evidence, just slogans.

Next we have a short article by John Gizzi at Human Events entitled: Inhofe unveils “the greatest hoax” of climate control from Friday:

After years in the wilderness decrying the scientific argument for climate control (formerly known as climate control), Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) is finding that the tide is turning to his point of view–that climate control is little more than a hoax, and one perpetrated on the world for many years.

In an interview HUMAN EVENTS at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment Committee unveiled his new book, “The Greatest Hoax,” about the lack of truth in the case for climate control.

“Yes, we’re finding that the tide is turning,” Inhofe told us, citing “Climate Gate–the 2010 revelation that much of the evidence produced by scientists to support climate change on earth had been confabulated and was untrue. The Oklahoman said that since the revelation, people who formerly assumed climate change existed have come over to his point of view.

“And much of the international community feels the way [I] do,” said Inhofe, In just the last few weeks, the environment minister in Canada has come out against international agreements on the agreement. Other countries have followed suit.

For Inhofe, the publication of “The Greatest Hoax” puts into print what he has argued against the tide for a long time. Like the author, the book will in arguably be controversial.

And from Tulsa World News:  Ralph Nader has dropped out of efforts to schedule a global-warming debate between U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe and a House Democrat, the Tulsa World learned Thursday.

Katherine Raymond, an assistant to the veteran activist, said Nader is leaving the organization of a debate to Inhofe and Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass.

“Ralph won’t be doing anything further on this, it appears,” Raymond said.

Several weeks ago, Nader issued his debate challenge to Inhofe after the Oklahoma Republican declared victory on the years-long global warming controversy.

Inhofe, who once declared global warming a scientific hoax, quickly accepted Nader’s challenge.

Not much has happened since then.

It was unclear what impact Nader’s decision will have on whether a debate will occur.

How Green Zealots are Destroying the Planet

By: James Delingpole, courtesy, UK Daily Mail

Just imagine a world where you never had to worry about global warming, where the ice caps, the ‘drowning’ Maldives and the polar bears were all doing just fine.

Imagine a world where CO2 was our friend, fossil fuels were a miracle we should cherish, and economic growth made the planet cleaner, healthier, happier and with more open spaces.

Actually, there’s no need to imagine: it already exists. So why do so many people still believe otherwise?

How come, against so much evidence, everyone from the BBC to your kids’ teachers to the Coalition government (though that may change somewhat now Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has resigned), to the President of the Royal Society to the Prince of Wales continues to pump out the message that man-made ‘climate change’ is a major threat?

Why, when the records show that there has been no global warming since 1997, are we still squandering billions of pounds trying to avert it?

These are some of the questions I set out to answer in my new book — which I can guarantee will not make me popular with environmentalists.

Almost every day, on Twitter or by email, I get violent messages of hate directed not just at me, but even my children. Separately, I’ve been criticised by websites such as the Campaign Against Climate Change (Honorary President: the environmental activist and writer George Monbiot). I’ve had a green activist set up a false website in my name to misdirect my internet traffic. I’ve been vilified everywhere from the Guardian to a BBC Horizon documentary as a wicked ‘denier’ who knows nothing about science.

Not that I’m complaining. Margaret Thatcher once famously said: ‘I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.’

That’s just how I feel about my critics’ ad hominem assaults. They’re born not of strength but out of sheer desperation.

The turning point towards some semblance of sanity in the great climate war came in November 2009 with the leak of the notorious Climategate emails from the University of East Anglia.

What these showed is that the so-called ‘consensus’ science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) — ie the theory that man-made CO2 is causing our planet to heat up in a dangerous, unprecedented fashion — simply cannot be trusted.

The experts had, for years, been twisting the evidence, abusing the scientific process, breaching Freedom of Information requests (by illegally hiding or deleting emails and taxpayer-funded research) and silencing dissent in a way which removes all credibility from the scaremongering reports they write for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

(The IPCC is the heavily politicised but supposedly neutral UN advisory body which has been described by President Obama as the ‘gold standard’ of international climate science.)

Since Climategate, the scientific case against AGW theory has hardened still further. Experiments at the CERN laboratory in Geneva have supported the theory of Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark that the sun — not man-made CO2 — is the biggest driver of climate change.

The latest data released by the Met Office, based on readings from 30,000 measuring stations, confirms there has been no global warming for 15 years.
Now, with sunspot activity (solar flares caused by magnetic activity) at its lowest since the days of the 17th-century frost fairs on the Thames, it seems increasingly likely we are about to enter a new mini Ice Age. Should we be bothered by this? Of course we should. Not only does it mean that for the rest of our lives we’re likely to be doomed to experience colder winters and duller summers, but it also makes us victims of perhaps the most expensive fraud in history.

Over the past 20 years, across the Western world, billions of pounds, dollars and euros have been squandered by governments on hare-brained schemes to ‘combat climate change’.

Taxes have been raised, regulations increased, flights made more expensive, incandescent light bulbs banned, landscapes despoiled by ugly, bird-chomping wind farms, economic growth curtailed — all to deal with what now turns out to have been a non-existent problem: man-made CO2.

But if anthropogenic warming is not the threat environmentalists would have us believe, why do so many people believe it is? And how come so many disparate groups — from the hair-shirt anti-capitalist activists of Greenpeace and Friends Of The Earth to the executives of big corporations, to politicians of every hue from Gordon Brown to David Cameron to scientists at NASA and the UEA — are working together to promote this pernicious myth?

The short answer is ‘follow the money’.

Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA which was at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal, for example, was given £13.7 million in grants for his department’s research work; the environmental non-governmental organisations such as Greenpeace came on board because scaremongering helps them raise revenue.

You’re not going to give money to the charity’s Project Thin Ice if you think the polar bear is good for another 10,000 years, but you might if you’re told it’s seriously endangered.

Politicians were attracted because it was a good way of being seen to be addressing an issue of popular concern, and a handy excuse to put up taxes.

Big corporations joined in the scam as a) it enabled them to ‘greenwash’ their image through campaigns like BP’s ‘Beyond Petroleum’ and b) it meant all that extra environmental regulation would be a handy way of pricing their smaller competitors out of the market place.

But money isn’t the only reason. If you read the private emails of the Climategate scientists, what you discover is that most of them genuinely believe in the climate change peril.

That’s why they lied about the evidence and why they tried to destroy the careers of those scientists who disagreed with them: because they wanted to scare politicians into action before time ran out. This was not science, in other words, but political activism.

A similar ‘end justifies the means’ mentality seems to prevail among all those environmental lobby groups. They don’t exaggerate or misrepresent because they’re bad people. They do it, as a former head of Greenpeace once charmingly put it when accused of having overstated the decline in Arctic sea ice, to ‘emotionalise the issue’; because they want to make the rest of the world care about these issues as much as they do.
Powerful feelings, though, are hardly the most sensible basis for global policy. Especially not when, as it turns out, they are based on a misreading of the facts.

One of the grimmest ironies of the modern environmental movement is just how much damage it has done to the planet in the name of ‘saving’ it. Green biofuels (crops such as palm oil grown for fuel) have not only led to the destruction of millions of acres of rainforest in Asia, Africa and South America, but are now known to produce four times more CO2 pollution than fossil fuels.

Wind farms, besides blighting views, destroying topsoil and causing massive noise pollution, kill around 400,000 birds a year in the U.S. alone. Environmentalists, in fact, have a disastrous track record when it comes to predictions and policy recommendations. Rachel Carson’s 1962 bestseller Silent Spring — which promised a cancer epidemic from pesticides — led to a near worldwide ban on the malarial pesticide DDT, thus condemning millions in the Third World to die from malaria.

Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb, meanwhile, rehearsed another of the green movement’s favourite themes: overpopulation. By the Seventies and Eighties, he warned, hundreds of millions of us would be dying like flies because there wouldn’t be enough food.

Why did Ehrlich’s prediction never come to pass? Because, like most of the greenies’ doomsday scenarios, it overlooked one vital factor: progress.

Because the green movement has for years been ideologically wedded to the notion that mankind is an ecological curse (‘The Earth has a cancer. The cancer is man’, as a global think tank called The Club of Rome, which includes several current and former heads of state, puts it), it fails to understand the role which technology, human ingenuity and adaption play in our species’ survival.
Ehrlich’s population disaster was averted thanks to a brilliant American scientist called Norman Borlaug who devised new mutant strains of wheat which managed to triple cereal production on the starving Indian subcontinent.

Of course, there is still widespread concern over the use of genetically modified crops, but scientists argue that with proper safeguards in place they can actually be more environmentally friendly than conventional crops, using less water and fewer pesticides.

Similar technological advances in the field of energy make a nonsense of environmentalists’ claims that we are running out of fuel: long before coal ran out came the petroleum revolution; and, though we still have plenty of oil left, we now have the miracle of shale gas which lies in abundance everywhere from Blackpool to the North Sea, and is released using blasts of high-pressure liquid to open pockets of gas in rock.

When, many decades hence, that runs out we will start to harvest clathrates (solid methane deposits) buried on the ocean floor.

Economic progress is not our enemy but our friend. It is an historical fact that the richer nations are, the more money they have to spare on ensuring a cleaner environment: compare the relatively clean air in London to the choking smog that envelops Beijing and Delhi; look at where the worst ecological disasters happened in the last century — under impoverished Communist regimes, from the Aral Sea to Chernobyl.

But the greens refuse to accept this because, according to their quasi-religious doctrine, industrial civilisation is a curse and economic growth a disease which can only be cured by rationing and self-sacrifice, higher taxes and greater state control.

That’s why I call my new book Watermelons — because it’s about zealots who are green on the outside, but in political terms, red on the inside. If only their views weren’t so influential, in schools, universities, in the media, in the corridors of power, the global economy wouldn’t be nearly in the mess it’s in today.

As someone who loves long walks in unspoilt countryside and who wants a brighter future for his children, I’m sickened by the way environmental activists tar anyone who disagrees with them as a selfish, polluting, anti-science ‘denier’.

The real deniers are those ideological greens who refuse to look at hard evidence (not just pie-in-the-sky computer models which are no more accurate than the suspect data fed into them) and won’t accept that their well-intentioned schemes to make our world a better place are in fact making it uglier, poorer and less free.

Another Green President, Perhaps

With the recent shakeup in the republican primary, Mitt Romney can no longer be considered the prohibitve favorite. I still think he is favored, but it’s getting very interesting.

With that said, do we really want or need another global warming advocate in the White House? Is Mitt a greenie or a flip flopper? You decide.

I guess I wouldn’t classify Mitt Romney’s positions on Global Warming, Flip Flops. I would say it’s more of a slow climb over a fence, climbing from the left to the right side of the fence.

First you’re on one side. Then you climb up, you straddle said fence while you inspect the lay of the land on the other side and then climb down. Voilà, you have changed your position.

As recently as his 2010 book, No Apology, Romney wrote, “I believe that climate change is occurring. … I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor. I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control.”

In June of 2011 he said, “I think the earth is getting warmer. … I think humans contribute to that. I don’t know by how much. It could be a little. It could be a lot.”

During a campaign stop back in October 2011 Mitt Romney stated, “My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us,”

Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said recently, “Governor Romney has been consistent in his statements on global warming.”

However, EPA Abuse reports:

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has had numerous positions on climate change, carbon dioxide and global warming over the years.
His most recent views seem conservative, but as governor of Massachusetts, his views were in line with Al Gore’s views.

Human Events columnist Deroy Murdock recently outlined some of these “hot and cold” positions on global warming from the man who wishes to be President of the United States.

Murdock notes:
In 2004, Romney launched the Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan, “a coordinated statewide response to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the climate,” as his office described it.

Romney’s December 7, 2005 press release announced, “Strict state limitations on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants take effect on January 1, 2006.”

“These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment,” Romney said. This red tape, the communiqué noted, is designed to lower emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury from power plant smokestacks.” Furthermore, the experts whom Romney consulted “include John Holdren [sic]…at Harvard University.”

“Romney (or his staff) was misled by John ‘Holdren’ [sic], a rabid environmentalist and collaborator of the notorious Paul Ehrlich.

John Holdren is now Obama’s science adviser,” says Dr. S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., a University of Virginia professor emeritus of physics and environmental science and the U.S. Weather Satellite Service’s founding director. “They consider CO2 a pollutant and mention it along with sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury — all real pollutants, injurious to human health. Clearly, they had no clue about the science.”

“No one would choose such a green course, enlist such advisors, and then suddenly reverse himself,” the Cato Institute’s Dr. Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., tells me. “As president, Romney will revert to his more familiar green self.”

Now, let’s juxtapose Rick Santorum’s (you know, the real conservative) view on the subject:

“There is no such thing as global warming,” he told a smiling Glenn Beck on Fox News in June 2011. That same month, he told Rush Limbaugh that climate change is a liberal conspiracy: “It’s just an excuse for more government control of your life and I’ve never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative.”
Santorum accused the EPA of acting on a philosophy of “We hate carbon, we hate fossil fuels, we hate blue-collar Americans who work in those areas.”

“Drill everywhere” is his philosophy when it comes to oil, he told Beck.

Santorum doesn’t see what the big fuss is about the proposed Keystone XL pipeline traversing the Ogallala Aquifer. “Has anybody looked at the number of pipelines that go through that aquifer now? I mean, you can’t even see the aquifer if you look at a schematic of how many pipelines are there,” he told Iowans at a Dec. 31 rally. Opposition to the pipeline is just “pandering to radical environmentalists who don’t want energy production, who don’t want us to burn more carbon,” he continued. “… It has to do with an ideology, a religion of its own that’s being pushed on the American public.”

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Attribution: UK Guardian, CBS News