Global Warming Hysteria – Governments AND Media Together Close Down The Debate

Som ett komplement till mitt inlägg European workers aren’t believers in the myth of ”green jobs.”  kommer här en intressant artikel av  Neil Winton, Reuters förre Science & technology korrespondent.

Han skäms över medias roll i detta den största vetenskapliga och politiska skandalen i modern tid.

And yet any rational, sane or fair person examining the evidence linking humans to climate change would be amazed by the thinness, the inconclusiveness, of the evidence. Reporters like me, who as Reuters’ Science and Technology Correspondent in the 1990s had access to the world’s most impressive climate scientists, know that the balance of evidence points to there being no link between climate change and human activity.”

”Media’s pathetic cowardice

I don’t know why politicians insist on doing this. The only reason I can think of is that leftist governments have run out of ammunition to justify ordering us about, as they lost all the arguments for more economic state control in the second half of the 20th century. But that doesn’t explain the pathetic cowardice of the world’s media in letting governments get away with this. Given the strength of the opposing view, you have to ask why? Is the media corrupt, dumb, just too lazy, or looking for a quiet life? ”

”Miniscule

”The price tag by the committee’s own estimate could reach £14 billion annually but the effect would be miniscule. Climate change models show that the impact up to 2030 would mean the U.K. would help reduce the global temperature increase by about one three thousandth of a degree Celsius by the end of the century. An economic analysis would indicate that the U.K., for every pound spent, would only do about 4p (4 per cent) worth of good for the climate. By any standard, this appears to be a gigantic waste,” Lomborg said.

Det är alltså fördetta som vår intälägänta politiker vill offra vanligt folks välstånd och våra länders ekonomier.

Se även mina inlägg:  Global Warming Skeptics: Why Do They Exist?Global Warming Mass Hysteria at it’s peak – scaremongering is the name of the gameThe Greenhouse ConspiracyMoney Behind Warming Alarmism ‘Can Corrupt Anybody’Academic inquiry failing on global warming,  Enron – The BIG Sponsor of Global Warming Hysteria!Advice on the matter of climate change is poisoned by fear among many scientists!”Blue Planet in Green Shackles”The dangers of adopting an apocalyptic mindset when addressing the issue of climate change”Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion” – 2”Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion”Global Warming Hysterics – Get out of Africa Now! Or The curse of environmentalism‘Grantsmanship’ – The Iron triangle between researchers, government and media That Distorts Global Warming ScienceThe church of green – You have to repent or be forever dammed!THE ENVIRONMENTALIST CREED – Anti human, anti scientific, anti technology!Wikipedia (Wicked Pedia) bias – At Wikipedia, one man engineers the debate on global warming, and shapes it to his views!Wikipedia (Wicked Pedia) bias – Or How Global Warming Hysterics Systematically alters everything critically of Global Warming!, Why Does Al Gore Hate The Press -2?Why Does Al Gore Hate The Press?Det råder ”consensus” om Global Warming – IGEN! Eller hur kritiken mot Global Warming censureras,  Miljöhysterins tyranni – nu skall vi fängslas om vi inte tror på Global Warming!,  Miljöhysterin ett hot mot vår frihet, demokratin, ekonomin och vårt välstånd -2,  Miljöhysterin ett hot mot vår frihet, demokratin, ekonomin och vårt välståndOmoraliskt att tänka självständigt!,  Al Gores Science Fiction and His Climate of Fear,  Climate of Fear – I am an intellectual blasphemer,  Climate of Fear – 5!,  Climate of Fear – 4!,  Al Gore and his climate of fear!Climate of Fear – 3!Climate of Fear – 2!Climate of Fear!A Cool Look at Global WarmingHow BBC AGAIN caved in to Global Warming Hysterics!How BBC AGAIN caved in to Global Warming Hysterics – part 2

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.wintonsworld.com/news/opinionconstructs/opinionframeset.html

Global Warming – Governments, Media Close Down Debate

Politicians Like Obama, Media Leaders Reuters, BBC Apparently Agree

If CO2 Cuts Are Forced, Climate Won’t Change, But Economies Will

Yet Science Isn’t Complete; CO2 Link With Climate Not Proven

Even If It Was, Lomborg Says Cutting CO2 Ineffective, Wasteful ”Is the media corrupt, dumb, lazy, or seeking a quiet life?”

 I don’t believe in conspiracy theories, but maybe I should. After all, governments and politicians around the world seem united in saying CO2 emissions by humans are warming the climate and unless action is taken soon, we will all drown or fry.

And yet any rational, sane or fair person examining the evidence linking humans to climate change would be amazed by the thinness, the inconclusiveness, of the evidence. Reporters like me, who as Reuters’ Science and Technology Correspondent in the 1990s had access to the world’s most impressive climate scientists, know that the balance of evidence points to there being no link between climate change and human activity.

Despite this, the politicians’ zeal to save us gains momentum. President-elect Barack Obama said reducing greenhouse gas emissions will remain a central plank of his new administration’s policy.

”Few challenges facing America – and the world – are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season,” Obama said, in a video shown to delegates at a climate conference in Poznan, Poland.

But this isn’t true.

The science is disputed by an array of impressive scientists. Sea levels may be rising, but at the snail’s pace we’ve seen since the end of the last ice age. Some coastlines are being eroded by tidal action, sure, but that’s got nothing to do with climate change. Even climate change alarmists have been beaten into submission by having to acknowledge that hurricanes aren’t growing stronger with each passing season, although building in likely hurricane-inflicted areas has gathered pace.

Media’s pathetic cowardice

I don’t know why politicians insist on doing this. The only reason I can think of is that leftist governments have run out of ammunition to justify ordering us about, as they lost all the arguments for more economic state control in the second half of the 20th century. But that doesn’t explain the pathetic cowardice of the world’s media in letting governments get away with this. Given the strength of the opposing view, you have to ask why? Is the media corrupt, dumb, just too lazy, or looking for a quiet life? 

You can see why the government funded BBC, riddled with a corrupt, socialist mantra, would be owned by the hand-wringing warming camp desperate to justify more reasons for governments to tell us what to do. The BBC shows with its climate change reporting that it is only interested in imposing its view on the world, not seeking to report with balance and honesty.

But why would an opinion former and leader like Thomson Reuters, a news organisation which lives or dies by its ability to report the untarnished truth with balance and fairness (my 33 years at Reuters gives me some insight into this), go along with this corrupt, one-sided version of events?

Surrender

I haven’t read all its reports recently on the environment, but the ones that I have show a complete surrender to the conventional wisdom. Not even a tacit admission in its reporting that there might be some other view that should be mentioned in passing. It’s not just the Reuters newsroom which does this. The company, now Thomson Reuters, finances an educational facility which seeks to expose reporters from the less developed world to the rigours of Reuters’ news methods. This is undoubtedly a great thing to do, except for one thing. Reuters refuses to take on board in its lectures on climate change reporting that there is an alternative view that needs to be aired. We’ve had a correspondence recently on this, in which I said the following (in part).

”You say that 97 per cent of the world’s scientists accept anthropomorphic global warming. I’m not sure where you get that figure; 97 per cent of exactly what? I can point you towards scores of top climate scientists, led by MIT’s Professor Richard Lindzen or Professor Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute who say there is not a proven link between human activity and climate change. If you take a look at the website published by Dr Fred Singer’s Science and Environment Policy Project in the U.S. (www.sepp.org) and take in its weekly newsletter TWTW, you can’t fail to be impressed and amazed at the global reach, the depth and breadth of the highly qualified scientists who doubt the link between carbon dioxide (CO2) and global warming. Read this and you will be convinced that the issue is far from done and dusted.

It is true that many of the world’s biggest companies are cranking up climate change schemes. This is possibly because they can see a huge money-making opportunity in Kyoto treaty-inspired activities like Carbon Trading, which many see as a scam to raise taxes, with little impact on climate. Why would they challenge dodgy science if it was likely to curtail their business?

Temperatures falling

Yes, things have moved on since the 1990s. We now know that global temperatures stopped rising in 1998 and have fallen since. We know that the computer models used by the IPCC (U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) didn’t pick this up. We now know that the warmest years in the 20th century were in the 1930s, not the 1990s. We know that from the early 1940s to the late 1970s, CO2 output accelerated steadily, but temperatures fell. We have seen the deliberate faking of evidence, the most egregious being the IPCC ”hockey stick” graph, which purported to show that there was no medieval warming period, and that all the heating came recently. This was achieved by putting data into the computer software to make sure the right result was achieved. This has now been withdrawn by the IPCC.

Al Gore’s movie ”An Inconvenient Truth” has been comprehensively shot down as a collection of half-truths and dodgy extrapolations, even though it is still being distributed in schools as the gospel truth.

Nicholas Stern’s report, far from pointing the way to sensible policy, has been criticised by serious people as being a mere collection of worst case scenarios designed to scare the public into line. We have seen the Royal Society, yes the Royal Society, which I thought was dedicated to finding the truth through scientific research, seeking to close down the debate in a threatening and outrageous way. The Royal Society is happy to talk, sinisterly, about climate change deniers.

There is clearly a strong, believable and informed body of opinion in the scientific community that is at best being ignored and at worse being cowed into silence by threats to employment and academic tenure if they dare step out of line. And Reuters, by ignoring this perfectly respectable source of opinion, is going along with this.”

Reality

But the reality is that governments are convinced and are starting to hatch plans to curb CO2. Britain’s Committee on Climate Change, in a report, recommended to the government ways to cut CO2 emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.

On the BBC’s flagship current affairs programme ”Newsnight”, a discussion group to discuss this included Lord Adair, author of the report, a representative of the power generation industry, and ”environmentalist” George Monbiot. Discussing measures which would seriously impoverish the British economy, but have no discernable impact on the climate, the talk was all about how to meet the CO2 objects. Not a word on the distinct possibility that the whole process was pointless. This is typical of the BBC, and much of the western media. In Britain, all the main political parties have signed up to agree that we are causing global warming, so debate has effectively been stopped. 

Bjorn Lomberg, author of ”The Skeptical Environmentalist” and ”Cool It”, said the committee’s recommendations would be a very expensive way to achieve almost nothing.

Miniscule

”The price tag by the committee’s own estimate could reach £14 billion annually but the effect would be miniscule. Climate change models show that the impact up to 2030 would mean the U.K. would help reduce the global temperature increase by about one three thousandth of a degree Celsius by the end of the century. An economic analysis would indicate that the U.K., for every pound spent, would only do about 4p (4 per cent) worth of good for the climate. By any standard, this appears to be a gigantic waste,” Lomborg said.

Lomborg does believe that humans are impacting the climate.

Christopher Booker, fearless iconoclast and author of ”Scared to Death”, doesn’t.

In an article in the Sunday Telegraph headed ”President-elect proposes economic suicide for US”, Booker talked about the conventional wisdom of CO2’s impact on climate as ”claims so demonstrably fallacious that they amount to a string of self-deluding lies”.

Obama has also signed up to cut 80 per cent of CO2 in the U.S. by 2050.

”(this) could only be achieved by closing down a large part of the U.S. economy,” Booker said.

He (Obama) then babbles on about generating five million new green jobs. This will presumably consist of hiring millions of Americans to generate power by running on treadmills, to replace all those ”dirty” coal-fired power stations which currently supply the U.S. with half its electricity,” Booker said.

Unison

There is of course a sensible course of action which could go some way to uniting these opposing views. Those who point out the weakness in the arguments put forward by the IPCC, and its supporters, would surely agree that fossil fuel based energy will run out sooner or later, that massive research funds should be committed to finding a suitable replacement, and that meanwhile coal, oil and gas should be treated in a suitably respectful way, with taxation seeking to force its economic use. But we don’t need to flagellate ourselves in the meantime back into the Stone Age, as the likes of George Monbiot would have us do.

Red State, a U.S. conservative blog-site has an interesting article by Robert L Mayo which I think puts the argument perfectly.

”I do not claim that scientists who support anthropogenic global warming are wrong, merely that it is unwise to massively reorder our society based on interpretations of extraordinarily complex data conducted by people who are not neutral as to the result.”

”When scientists who believe in global warming stop calling colleagues who disagree with them ”Flat-Earthers” and ”Neanderthals”, or insist that ”the debate is over” and therefore it is illegitimate to question them, then I may be willing to listen to their arguments. Not until then,” Mayo said.

Superbly put, Robert.

Neil Winton – December 2, 2008 

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>

Annonser

Etiketter: , , , , , , ,

4 svar to “Global Warming Hysteria – Governments AND Media Together Close Down The Debate”

  1. chasalex Says:

    I was interested to find this blog. 20 years ago I had a book published on different economic concepts to point the way to a sustainable world economy. Someone who liked the book contacted me this year to suggest that I update and re-publish it as a blog. She set up the blog, and the book is now complete on the blog in a series of postings. There are now also additional pieces on global warming and other subjects. Here is the link:

    http://www.economicsforaroundearth.com

    With all good wishes,
    Charles Pierce

  2. Sven Nilsson Says:

    Du har inte ett hål i huvudet som svenska massmedia.
    Tack för en av de intressantaste inlägg jag läst.
    Keep up the good work med ditt grävande!

  3. Tom Shannon Says:

    Your thoughts on the media being cowards. They I think are not cowards, they are socialists with an obsession for power and environmentalism is they’re game.
    They are lonely being atheists, and also knowing that socialism is a massive failure. So they invent this phony science religion. It gives them something grand to do.

  4. Al Gore, James Hansen - Carbon Communists « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] Have a baby!,  How we know that they, the Global Warming Hysterics, know they are lying,  Global Warming Hysteria – Governments AND Media Together Close Down The Debate,  Al Gore: The Mayans civilization died out because of […]

Kommentera

Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress.com-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Twitter-bild

Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Facebook-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Google+ photo

Du kommenterar med ditt Google+-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Ansluter till %s


%d bloggare gillar detta: