EnviroSpin Watch

Opposition to the so-called 'climate-change consensus' is growing rapidly.....

Following the 61 scientists who signed an 'Open Letter' to the new Canadian Prime Minister, criticism of the so-called 'global warming consensus' is growing rapidly, from scientists to business leaders to journalists and commentators. Here are just three examples taken from the media during the last few days:

(a) 'Group rejects "unfounded" global warming claims' (New Zealand Herald, May 1):

"A group of leading climate scientists has announced the formation of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, aimed at refuting what it believes are unfounded claims about man-made global warming.

'We believe this is a significant development in opening up the debate about the real effects of climate change and the justification for the costs and other measures prescribed in the Kyoto protocols,' said the coalition's secretary, Terry Dunleavy.

He said members of the coalition had had enough of 'over-exaggerated' claims about the effects of man-made global warming and aimed to provide a balance to "what is being fed to the people of New Zealand....." (read on);

(b) 'The idea everyone agrees on climate change is a fallacy' (The Daily Telegraph, May 1):

"I am no climatologist but the alarmism of the scientific establishment, including the Government's chief scientific adviser Sir David King who is on record as saying the only habitable continent will be Antarctica by the end of the century if climate change is not controlled, does strike me as slightly excessive.

I am, however, a trained statistician. One of the first things I read about statistics was that it was about measurement and variability. People's height varies, the number of leaves on trees varies, and so does the global average temperature over time. Climate change, therefore, strikes me as quite unexceptional. Indeed I would be amazed if it did not exist, given that solar activity varies......" (read on); and,

(c) 'Let's put a freeze on global warming hype' (The Calgary Sun, April 27):

"Exactly 31 years ago tomorrow Newsweek carried a story that predicted a rapidly cooling world that would result in a 'drastic decline in food production -- with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth.'

Hmmmm? It's the same doom and gloom scenario we hear today except turned on its ear - now, however, it's not about devastation caused by cooling but rather by global warming.

Confused? Well, you need not be much longer....." (read on)

There have been many other examples in a similar vein. The time may be coming to call the 'global warming' bluff. Moreover, the daft antics of leaders like David Cameron may well help to pave the way for a counter strike [I did enjoy this Letter to the Editor: 'Visiting glaciers' The Daily Telegraph, May 1)] . The more the sheer madness of the 'global warming' agenda, from carbon trading to carbon taxes, becomes apparent, the more sensible folk will begin to challenge the political myth.

And, gratuitously using the myth to gain votes from the Lib Dems is one thing; inflicting the myth on the rest of us is quite another.

Philip, time to crack open that nice Cru Bourgeoise Merlot. Plummy, yet bone dry, with a long tannic finish. Just like Stotty. Cheers.