This won’t make the mainstream media because it contradicts their rants and raves about doom and gloom climate change.
This won’t make the mainstream media because it contradicts their rants and raves about doom and gloom climate change.
“The government’s document also says that Australia “will not support any measures which are socialism masquerading as environmentalism” The Australian
As a Kiwi I will give the Aussies this, they are prepared to stand up to the enviro bullies. Don’t you just love the terminology “socialism masquerading as environmentalism” – Amen!
The following statement caught my eye in this morning’s Timaru Herald: “plague on the Earth”. It was uttered by the documentary maker/environmentalist Sir David Attenborough, 86, in his latest rant about the world’s flora and fauna being endangered by man’s over population of the earth. He says “either we limit our population growth or nature will do it for us.” He cites famines as nature’s source of population control. Of course we should expect no less from the patron of the Optimum Population Trust, an organisation (England’s leading charity, apparently) setup to help in the fight against so called climate change. Yes, you guessed it; in amongst the fray there is the modern father of climate change/global warming whatever, Dr. James Lovelock and friend of that nutcase on the British throne, HRH Prince Philip and his equally nutty son HRH Prince Charles who are on record stating more-or-less the same rhetoric as Attenbourgh. It is not the first time such inflammatory and idiotic statements have been issued by these predominantly well heeled, white Europeans, for George Monbiot has an excellent take on these nutters here http://www.monbiot.com/2009/09/29/the-population-myth/
We have our own home-grown version of such a mind-set here in New Zealand, Dr Gareth Morgan. He is a man of humble origins who is very good at maths. I went to school with this guy back in the 1960’s in Putaruru although he was a year ahead of me. We shared a very good maths teacher by the name of Jack Sumich and I guess Morgan soaked up his knowledge like a sponge because he went on to become a very wealthy man (good on him, too) having gained a PhD from Wellington’s Victoria University, worked for the New Zealand Reserve Bank and founding the highly successful economic consultancy firm Infometrics Limited among other things then rising to such a status that he is now called upon by leading news organisations in New Zealand for his take on the country’s and world economic situation. By the way, New Zealand’s version of EBay known as TradeMe was invented by his son Sam with a little help from his mother and sold for an astronomical sum of $750 million to Fairfax News of which Morgan and his wife reputedly received $50 million of that sum which gives you a background perspective of this family and its new money of which they use as generous philanthropists of The Morgan Foundation.
Of course Morgan had a reputation as an outspoken go getter at Putaruru High School and Sumich was a man prepared to whip your hide off with the bamboo cane for serious wrong doing (those were the days of legalised corporal punishment; not this namby pamby age we are now subjected to) and therefore a man to be feared. One wonders whether some of that rough and tough boy mentality from Sumich rubbed off on Morgan for the latter is certainly on record for exhibiting forceful and rambunctious no holds barred views throughout the past few years. Which leads me to his latest rant on his newly created website Cats To Go. He says that cats should be exterminated from New Zealand because they are killing off the native bird life. Naturally, this high-spirited attack has ruffled feathers in the cat fancier’s realm but to me it has highlighted the stupidity that invades a person that has nothing better to do with their time because they have no financial worries and it seems they have a whole lot of time on their hands. You see, up until five or six years ago, Morgan was a sceptic of man induced global warming belittling anyone that dare raise their head above the parapet to suggest there was such a thing (my guess is he didn’t want to bite the hand that fed him). Then, out of the blue, he changes his position and joins up with another global warming alarmist nut, the journalist Rod Oram becoming a pro-climate change nutter going on crusades to Antarctic and sub Antarctic expeditions to save this bird and that insect et al because of evil men pumping CO2 into the earth’s atmosphere out of his exploitative sense of greed. I guess that is the price of money and fame.
There you are. That is what jumped out at me this week in the antipodes.
Hurricane Sandy has caused massive damage on the Eastern Seaboard of the USA over the past few days but not only that, it has also brought out of the wood work the global-warming alarmists who seek to use the disaster’s public attention to pedal their nonsensical and wanton money profiteering clap trap.
Last night New Zealand’s Television One’s News program Close Up interviewed an individual waiting to run the imminent New York Marathon who could not constrain herself from decrying the lack of global-warming coverage by the two Presidential candidates saying Sandy is clear evidence of such. Also the man sacked by the New Zealand Government’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Dr. Jim Salinger who now pedals his alarmist theory in the USA also lay claim to Sandy being caused directly through the atmosphere being warmed by man’s discharge of CO2. This is blatant propaganda and pure ignorance of information which was released by the UK Meteorological Office and none other than the IPCC headquarters of global warming East Anglia University which both state categorically that there has been no global warming in the atmosphere for the past 16 years. The controversial head of the unit monitoring the earth’s atmosphere, Dr Phil “hide the decline” Jones fobbed the data off as a mere 16 year “plateau” obviously still clinging to the idea that global-warming is still real but just having a break. However, his contempory at Georgia Tech., Prof. Judith Curry, who by-the-way is normally on Prof. Jones’ side, disagrees with him saying the computer modelling used to show global-warming is “deeply flawed”. See this article for the report.
The point I am making is the lengths people will go to in order to promote their propaganda. They seize with relish the opportunity to spew forth what they believe to be true even though it is challenged and denied as truth by those who once spewed forth the tripe themselves.
It is like that when it comes to the Bible and its gospel message. A man who describes himself as one “Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal” went about “persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless” (Philippians 3:5-6). His murdering rampage was due because he felt he was abiding in the truth yet after being blinded by the “light from heaven” (Acts 9:3) he conceded he was wrong and that the law of Moses he so passionately defended as being the only law to justify one’s soul is now dead and buried having been “nailed to the cross” (Colossians 2:14). Yet, still, many today want to push the idea that the Old Law plays a part in the justification of one’s soul despite that stalwart apostle’s claim to the contrary: “But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster” (Galatians 3:23-25). He uses the adjectives “tutor” and “schoolmaster” to describe the Law of Moses which he says man is no longer subservient to. Paul concluded that the Law of Moses could not put right man’s soul from sin by saying “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (Romans 3:28).
Folks, those that cling to the Law of Moses to justify their belief are like Dr. Phil “hide the decline” Jones and his false belief that global-warming is still real even though the evidence is against him. Take a leaf out of Prof. Judith Curry’s book and concede like the apostle Paul that the evidence provided by those contrary is “deeply flawed” and get real with the true gospel plan before it is everlasting too late.
Anthony Watts has been having a bit of fun poking the borax at global-warming alarmists at where they take their temperature readings from. His site Watts Up With That is the most visited climate change site on the web. Visit and be informed regarding the bogus claims and outrageous hoaxes the likes of James Hansen, Al Gore, Michael Mann ad nausem make and see them systematically debunked for the outright lies that they are guilty of. These people are not as smart as they make out, rather, they are rather dumb.
A number of sources are reporting the human induced global warming argument is false. Even the British media (not Aunty BBC, though) are begrudgingly reporting it. The Daily Mail reports:
Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now – and world has been cooling for 2,000 years
Tree ring study gives first accurate climate reading back to 138BC
World has been slowly cooling for 2,000 years
World was warmer in Roman and Medieval times than it is now
Study of semi-fossilised trees in Finland
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html#ixzz20MBvMkwI
Anyone remotely interested in the so-called Global Warming crisis knows who Dr James Hansen is. He is the wizz bang kid who tried to convince us since the 1970s that global temperatures are a thing to be worried about. He has had three goes at trying to push his ideas as being credible. He even convinced failed US Presidential candidate Al Gore that his data was factual to which Al responded with the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” which has been force-fed to gullible little school children ever since. Problem is each time Hansen produced his evidence someone of high acclaim has produced the counter evidence to repudiate it.
The following link is to the chart that shows right up to May 2012 what the temperatures are really doing. NB: be careful to notice the curved median line running through the middle, for while it may be true to have the occasion where one or two years are higher it is also noteworthy to see the years when it is cooler. Also note how events such as Mt Pinatubo and El Nino have a dramatic effect on temperatures which such temperatures are effected not by man’s puny input but natural events.
The trend is obvious to the truth seeker but of course the Hansen slanted eye will never believe it even if an ice age were to suddenly form.
We’ve heard the clarion call of the global warming alarmists, “the science is settled”. Or perhaps the aggressive shrill of the atheist’s faith in evolution, “all those scientists can’t be wrong”. Yeah, yeah, they rattle off the consensus science mantra ie, that peer review proves it must be so. But is that really the case or could it be that if you don’t fall into line with the magority then you are considered odd, wrong and not worthy of the scantiest consideration? Usually, as Dr Crichton says below, “Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.”
I happen to believe that consensus science ie, peer review sometimes actually impedes science. Why?Simply put, if you don’t agree then you are an outcast. It therefore falls into the realm of philosophy; not evidence and is open to subjective fantasy. The now slowly dying global warming scam is a case in point.
Dr Michael Crichton (author of film, Jurassic Park and TV medical drama series, ER) in his 2003 speech Aliens cause Global Warming said the following:
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.” [ Link to article]
Roger Aronoff writes for Accuracy in Media and has posted an article regarding the hoax that is perpetuated by the global warming alarmist fanatics. Below is an extract and this link Global Warming is a hoax takes you to that article in full.
In a recent article in American Thinker by Randall Hoven, a retired Boeing Technical Fellow who, following a three-year stint in the U.S. Navy, worked at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory from 1979 to 1982, has laid out the most recent scientific findings on global warming. He uses data from NASA/GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) data going back to 1880, and the Hadley Center from Great Britain which goes back with the data to 1875.
In short, both temperature data sets (NASA and Hadley Center) show:
1. Minimal global warming over the last 130 to 160 years: about half a degree Celsius per century.
2. No statistically significant global warming in the last 14 to 17 years.
3. Global cooling in the last 9 to 13 years.