Edited by Patrick Gallagher
Published by Richard Vigilante
Dear Bob,
Featured Story:
Much has been written about the choice that developing nations have when it comes to global warming; a choice between curbing your emissions or
growing your economy. India, which, according to the CIA World Fact Book has more than 1.1 billion people, has made its choice:
In India, Growth Trumps Sustainability
(Lawrence Solomon, National Post)
As detailed by Lawrence Solomon, author of "The Deniers," India examined the facts and the needs of its people and came to the conclusion that
continuing to develop their economy in order to combat poverty and starvation was priority number one. Stifling their economy to combat global
warming somehow didn't make their final to-do list. But why?
"'No firm link between the changes described below and warming due to
anthropogenic climate change has yet been established,' the report
states matter-offactly, before proceeding to list the areas in which
the science is not settled.
"Parts of India have warmed, the
Action Plan explains, and parts have cooled. Monsoon rains have
increased in some areas and decreased in others. There have been no
marked long-term trends in droughts or floods. Some regions have had a
greater and others a lesser frequency of severe storms. Neither do the
Himalayan glaciers demonstrate any consistent trend."
Rather than put its people and economy at risk, India decided it was in its best interests to ignore the climate-change hullabaloo, after examining
the facts and coming to the conclusion that the science was dubious at best.
In this regard, India is not alone. Several prominent scientists and politicians spoke out against the global warming 'consensus' this week:
Professor Kunihiko Takeda (vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research
at Chubu University and one of the world's leading authorities on both
uranium enrichment and recycling):
"Global warming has nothing to do with how much CO2 is produced or what
we do here on Earth. For millions of years, solar activity has been
controlling temperatures on Earth and even now, the sun controls how
high the mercury goes. CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one
way or another. Soon it will cool down anyhow, once again, regardless
of what we do. Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say
so. What makes a whole lot of economic and political sense is to blame
global warming on humans and create laws that keep the status quo and
prevent up-and-coming nations from developing. Global warming, as a
political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing
nations walking barefoot."
Dr. Muriel
Newman (Established the New Zealand
Centre for Political Debate):
"Around
the world, as controversy over climate change continues to
grow, it remains very clear that contrary to what the
politicians tell us, not only is there is no consensus of
scientific thought on this matter, but the science is
certainly not settled.
In
fact, in a bizarre twist of fate, at a time when advocates of
man-made global warming continue to push government policies
to restrict energy use and the burning of fossil fuels in
order to prevent 'catastrophic' warming, the world
continues to cool. That is leading to increasing scepticism
that the call to sacrifice living standards in order to
"save the planet" is just political spin designed to
persuade the public to accept green taxes."
Professor Bob Carter [Research Professor at James Cook
University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia)]:
"No significant increase in global average temperature has
occurred since 1998 despite an increase in carbon dioxide
over the same period of about 5%...
There are alternative, very soundly based views on the
effects of carbon dioxide and warming of the climate.
A human effect on global climate change has not yet been
distinguished and measured . . . meanwhile, global
temperature change is occurring, as it always naturally does,
and a phase of cooling has succeeded the mild late 20th
century warming...
Natural climate change will continue with some of its likely
manifestations, such as sea-level rises and coastal change in
particular locations. Adaptation to that will not be aided by
imprudent restructuring of the world's energy."
Syun-Ichi
Akasofu (
Professor of Physics, Emeritus, was the director of the International
Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks from its
establishment in 1998 until January of 2007):
"There are so many times the Earth was warmer than now, or colder than
now. We are not affecting the climate change."
Lord Nigel Lawson
(
British politician, was Chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret Thatcher):
"The one thing that is absolutely clear about the science is that it isn't certain, far from it."
The consensus is breaking down because no matter how much the global warming agenda-setters may want us to be, people are not sheep, to be led around
and told what to think and what to say. You can only lie to us for so long before the truth exposes your movement for what it is; a dogma based
on faulty science and ulterior motives.
Other Headlines:
(Lenore Taylor, The Australian)
(Jessica Cheng, Popular Science)
(Mairi Beautyman, treehugger.com)
Penn and Teller on
Carbon Credits
(Warning: Strong language used for comedic effect)
(John Boudreau, San Jose Mercury News)
(Christopher Booker, The Telegraph)
Most Egregious Claim of the Week:
Have you ever noticed that the doomsday predictions of the global warming advocates never seem to come true? And that when these predictions
turn out to be wrong, they're either completely ignored or only mentioned in passing by the media? We've got two tremendous examples this week
of precisely this phenomenon First, courtesy of Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun in Australia, we learn that as recently as last year, people were
pointing to Perth, Australia and its historically low water levels as evidence that Global Warming was already rearing its ugly head (One even
ventured to say that he thought Perth stood a good chance of becoming the 21st Century's first "ghost metropolis"). Unfortunately for those
experts, they got the one thing they didn't count on happening this year: Rain in Perth. Now the water levels are at an eight year high, and even Scooby Doo couldn't find a ghost in their thriving
metropolis.
Along those same lines, we've heard prediction after
prediction after prediction about how the polar ice caps were absolutely definitely, no doubt about it inevitably going to melt away into
nothingness this summer. Of course, as we've written about in this very space, they haven't. Not even close. You'd think that would
put some humility into these Chicken Littles.
I wouldn't get your hopes up.
As it turns out, scientists have been making this very prediction for the last hundred years. First in the 20's and 30's, then again 40 years later:
New York Times, 1969: Expert Says Arctic Ocean Will Soon Be an Open Sea
This doesn't mean that any claim made by a contemporary scientist that was once made by an earlier one should be automatically dismissed (though most
new hypotheses should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism, just as scientists are taught to treat them). But when those scientists are
immediately claiming that their unproven and untested claims should influence public policy, it's important for all of us, scientist, politician, and
citizen alike, to step back and carefully examine not just the science, but all the factors and consequences of our actions. That's called being
responsible. Our leaders could use that trait nowadays.