Bloodthirsty Liberal

Speaking of Global Warming, how do religions die?

How do religions die? Generally they don’t, which probably explains why there’s so little literature on the subject. Zoroastrianism, for instance, lost many of its sacred texts when Alexander sacked Persepolis in 330 B.C., and most Zoroastrians converted to Islam over 1,000 years ago. Yet today old Zoroaster still counts as many as 210,000 followers, including 11,000 in the U.S. Christopher Hitchens might say you can’t kill what wasn’t there to begin with.

Still, Zeus and Apollo are no longer with us, and neither are Odin and Thor. Among the secular gods, Marx is mostly dead and Freud is totally so. Something did away with them, and it’s worth asking what.

Consider the case of global warming, another system of doomsaying prophecy and faith in things unseen.

As with religion, it is presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge that promises to make the seas retreat and the winds abate. As with religion, it comes with an elaborate list of virtues, vices and indulgences. As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term “climate change” when thermometers don’t oblige the expected trend lines. As with religion, it is harsh toward skeptics, heretics and other “deniers.” And as with religion, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit.

OK, I see his point, but feel compelled to state that I love my religion and I respect other religions. Intellectually snooty atheism isn’t all that attractive.

This week, the conclave of global warming’s cardinals are meeting in Durban, South Africa, for their 17th conference in as many years. The idea is to come up with a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which is set to expire next year, and to require rich countries to pony up $100 billion a year to help poor countries cope with the alleged effects of climate change. This is said to be essential because in 2017 global warming becomes “catastrophic and irreversible,” according to a recent report by the International Energy Agency.

Yet a funny thing happened on the way to the climate apocalypse. Namely, the financial apocalypse.

The U.S., Russia, Japan, Canada and the EU have all but confirmed they won’t be signing on to a new Kyoto. The Chinese and Indians won’t make a move unless the West does. The notion that rich (or formerly rich) countries are going to ship $100 billion every year to the Micronesias of the world is risible, especially after they’ve spent it all on Greece.

Cap and trade is a dead letter in the U.S. Even Europe is having second thoughts about carbon-reduction targets that are decimating the continent’s heavy industries and cost an estimated $67 billion a year. “Green” technologies have all proved expensive, environmentally hazardous and wildly unpopular duds.

Fun, right? So go to the link to get the rest. He has fun with the new batch of emails.

- Aggie

This is not a joke.

These folks have never read the Bible. Or history. Or even talked to an old person. So let’s break it to them slowly, gently, because we are gentle people. Here goes: THERE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN DROUGHTS AND FLOODS AND TORNADOES, STUPID.

Ok. I feel better now.

- Aggie

Back in 2005, the UN told us that there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010. They failed to materialize, and the UN clumsily tried to hide the evidence of their prediction.

Heh. This is quite entertaining. Go to the link to see the maps that the UN tried to disappear.

Oh boy, government idiocy at its finest. Not only is the original claim bogus, the attempts to disappear it are hilariously inept. Apparently, they’ve never heard of Google Cache at the UN. Rather than simply saying “we were wrong,” they’ve now brought even more distrust onto the UN.

Back on April 11th, Gavin Atkins of Asian Correspondent asked this simple question: What happened to the climate refugees?

It is a valid question, and he backs it up with census numbers. Here’s the first part of his story.

In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production.

The UNEP even provided a handy map. The map shows us the places most at risk including the very sensitive low lying islands of the Pacific and Caribbean.

It so happens that just a few of these islands and other places most at risk have since had censuses, so it should be possible for us now to get some idea of the devastating impact climate change is having on their populations. Let’s have a look at the evidence:

Bahamas:

Nassau, The Bahamas — The 2010 national statistics recorded that the population growth increased to 353,658 persons in The Bahamas. The population change figure increased by 50,047 persons during the last 10 years.

St Lucia:

The island-nation of Saint Lucia recorded an overall household population increase of 5 percent from May 2001 to May 2010 based on estimates derived from a complete enumeration of the population of Saint Lucia during the conduct of the recently completed 2010 Population and Housing Census.

[etc. go to the link... - Aggie]

…

Fear not, dear readers, because as astoundingly smart as those UN people think they are, they forgot one very important yet tiny detail. The map links to a hi-resolution version of the “climate refugee map,” and if you delete the page above and the map it contains, you also have to delete the hi-res image it links to.

Oops.

I’m always happy to help the UN in times of “need,” so I’ve recovered it and saved it, because that image link is likely to go down the memory hole on Monday.

….
This is what the UNEP web page originally said:

Fifty million climate refugees by 2010. Today we find a world of asymmetric development, unsustainable natural resource use, and continued rural and urban poverty. There is general agreement about the current global environmental and development crisis. It is also known that the consequences of these global changes have the most devastating impacts on the poorest, who historically have had limited entitlements and opportunities for growth.

And there you have it, folks, another bogus climate claim rubbished by reality, followed by an inept cover-up attempt.

Thanks to the reality of census numbers, followed by the UN’s handling of this, we can now safely say that the claim of “climate refugees” is total fantasy. Be sure to leave comments on any website that makes this claim, and link to this and the Asian Correspondent website.

And, because the UN has no shame, they’ve simply, as Obama would say, kicked the can down the road:

Update: The UN now says that there will be 50 million climate change refugees by 2020.

- Aggie

Thank to reader, David, for sharing this with us. – Aggie

Actually, when it is convenient for the Left, we can control nature, but the evil George Bush refused to do so. When it is inconvenient, turns out we can’t.

Oh No! What will we worry about if we can’t worry about Global-Warming-Climate-Change?

The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.

In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.

It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.

Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic.

His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are distorted by heat-generating equipment.

Some are next to air- conditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most infamous shows a weather station next to a waste incinerator.

Watts has also found examples overseas, such as the weather station at Rome airport, which catches the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets.

In Britain, a weather station at Manchester airport was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields but is now surrounded by heat-generating buildings.

And on and on. Check out the link.

Question, Bloodthirstanis: What will the Left do if global warming is cast aside? Will they discuss how they were snookered? Will they shut up and race to the next looming catastrophe, the next reason to bully the rest of us into submission? Will they shoot the messenger?

Any bets?

- Aggie

We all make mistakes

he U.N.’s leading panel on climate change has apologized for misleading data published in a 2007 report that warned Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

In a statement released Wednesday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said estimates relating to the rate of recession of the Himalayan glaciers in its Fourth Assessment Report were “poorly substantiated” adding that “well-established standards of evidence were not applied properly.”

We can still worry though:

Despite the admission, the IPCC reiterated its concern about the dangers melting glaciers present in a region that is home to more than one-sixth of the world’s population.

“Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes)…”

“The chair, vice-chairs, and co-chairs of the IPCC,” the statement continued, “regrets the poor application of IPCC procedures…”

The apology follows a growing storm of controversy which initially forced the IPCC to concede that data relating to the Himalayan glacier melt included in the 2007 report was not backed up by sufficient scientific data.

Speaking at the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi Wednesday, the IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri admitted errors had been made but said it was not an excuse to question the legitimacy of all global warming science.

I don’t have strong feelings about climate change one way or the other, but I know that certain readers do. You know who you are. Enjoy!

- Aggie

Copenhagen: land of Hans Christian Andersen and his fairy tales.

Hard to see how this one’s going to have a happy ending:

The UN climate summit hit major turbulence Monday when developing nations staged a five-hour walkout and China accused the West of trickery, as the spectre of failure loomed heavily over Copenhagen.

As campaigners warned negotiators had five days to avert climate chaos, ministers acknowledged they had to start making giant strides before 120 heads of state arrived for the summit’s climax on Friday.

But their hopes were hit when Africa led a boycott by developing nations of working groups, and only returned after securing guarantees that the summit would not sideline talks about the future of the Kyoto Protocol.

The “future” of Kyoto? There’s barely a past to Kyoto, and certainly no present. What on earth makes them think (or give a rat’s ass) about its future?

But it gets even better:

A top Western negotiator, speaking on condition of anonymity, said a round-table session of around 50 environment ministers Sunday had been soured by “growing tensions between the Americans and Chinese”.

“At the back of everyone’s mind is the fear of a repeat of the awful scenario in The Hague,” she told AFP, referring to a climate conference in 2000 on completing the rule book for Kyoto that broke up angrily without agreement.

In an apparent concession, China said it might not take a share of any Western funding for emerging nations to fight climate change.

But in a pointer to the tensions backstage, Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei said China would not be the fall guy if there were a fiasco.

“I know people will say if there is no deal that China is to blame. This is a trick played by the developed countries. They have to look at their own position and can’t use China as an excuse,” he told the Financial Times.

I don’t think so.

A few more images of how the future of our world is being decided:

Greenpeace activists dressed as the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” ride outside the parliament building during a brief protest in Copenhagen

Protestors run off with a balloon representing the volume of one metric ton of carbon dioxide during a demonstration outside parliament.

Environmental activists dressed up as CO2 molecules stage a protest in Berlin to coincide with the United Nations Climate Change Conference.

Oxfam activists dressed as polar bears dance at the entrance to the main hall at the UN Climate Change Conference

Oxfam activists put on their polar bear suits before an event at the UN Climate Change Conference. [You mean they weren't real bears? Ed.]

Climate change demonstrators dressed as clowns hug a police officer outside the Danish Foreign Ministry during a climate march in Copenhagen

Clowns. A perfect metaphor.

How do you say “Go [bleep] yourself” in Albanian, Belorussian, Chadian, Danish, Eritrean, etc, etc.

EU climate cash pledge ‘not enough’ say small nations

Developing countries and aid agencies have derided the latest pledges by richer states to tackle global warming.

EU leaders ended a Brussels summit with a three-year deal to pay 7.2bn euros (£6.5bn; $10.6bn) to help poorer nations cope with climate change.

…

But leaders of poorer nations and some aid agencies described the sum offered by the EU as inadequate.

I don’t always agree with reader Joe, but I refuse to be shaken down by a passel of grifters from a pathetic pack of pygmy states. Are these ingrates not familiar with the precarious position beggars take vis a vis choosing?

How do you say “not one red cent” in the local Paraguayan dialect? Or “drown for all I care” in Seychelles?

Yet more proof, though no more is needed, that “climate change” is yet another scam by socialist elements among international institutions to bleed money from states that make it to states that don’t.

How do you say “beat it” in Somalian?

A Day That Will Live In Infamy

Not a typo this time, but a highly entertaining website devoted to global warming skepticism.

December7, 2009 Copenhagen Bombed With Limos

From the Telegraph, the tale of elitist excess begins:

On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen’s biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the “summit to save the world”, which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200. “We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention,” she says. “But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report.”

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. “We haven’t got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand,” she says. “We’re having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden.”

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? “Five,” says Ms Jorgensen. “The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don’t have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it’s very Danish.”

But wait, there’s more!

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.

As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. A Republican US senator, Jim Inhofe, is jetting in at the head of an anti-climate-change “Truth Squad.” The top hotels – all fully booked at £650 a night – are readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges.

There’s more at the blog. Enjoy!

- Aggie

Just read this

From George Will discussing the nuttiness coming to Copenhagen:

Barack Obama, understanding the histrionics required in climate-change debates, promises that U.S. emissions in 2050 will be 83 percent below 2005 levels. If so, 2050 emissions will equal those in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans. But there will be 420 million Americans in 2050, so Obama’s promise means that per capita emissions then will be about what they were in 1875. That. Will. Not. Happen.

We elected this imbecile.

- Aggie