It’s enough to make anyone weaken.
Given the events of just the last two weeks:
- The leader of the Liberal Party in Australia, Malcolm Turnbull, has been toppled on the issue of cap and trade and replaced by an avowed climate sceptic, Tony Abbott
- The news from New Zealand that raw data on weather had been blatantly manipulated by pro-climate change scientists
- The revelations about what’s been going on at East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit
- And more
One would think that most people would say to themselves "Hey, wait a minute, there may be a problem here?"
Unfortunately, we can only assume that this is not the case. Yesterday, protests took place in the UK calling for greater action on climate change? Included in their ranks were the usual useful idiots from the world of entertainment. That they attach themselves to "causes" rather than partying themselves into oblivion is a good thing. But, given the enormous influence that they can exert over their millions of fans, they owe it to them to at least do a bit of reading beforehand.
But we shouldn’t be that surprised. They are just as easily influenced as everyone else by the anti-sceptic bias in the MSM. Here’s a good example from just two days ago — can it get any more biased or obvious than this?
We live in a statist world of lies and deceit all made possible by fiat money — the root cause of so many of our problems. If you can’t tax or borrow enough to pay for all the lies, hoaxes and scams then, hey, just print the damned stuff!
It has fed the growth in statism. It is feeding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as it has fed so many others in the past. It has also fed the far more insidious perpetual wars, the so-called wars on concepts.
So many lucrative and high-profile careers and reputations in politics, science and the media have been built on this lie. If they didn’t know it was bogus at the start they must know it by now. But still they keep going
This is perhaps the most wretched part of the whole story.
When Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth was premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2006 it appeared to be lapped up by everyone. The central thrust of this film was that climate change was man-made (anthropogenic); the main culprit was rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels.
At the time when it was screened the general "consensus" was that the arguments were over. CO2 emissions were driving weather change. The whole thing was done and dusted so full speed ahead.
The first was that it was sunspot activity which drove climate change not CO2 emissions.
The second was that the climate change movement was, first and last, a political movement. With the collapse of Communism the Left found itself in a boat without a paddle. Driven by their hatred of Capitalism, left-wing activists hijacked the "Green" movement for their own ends.
They set about using that old political trick of giving people something to worry about and then converting this fear into votes. This they did in expert fashion.
From about 1990 onwards these political activists, euphemistically known as "environmentalists", consolidated their power base. All people had to do was utter the magic words "climate change" and career paths opened and research funds flowed. As time passed it started to become an ideology — anyone who spoke against it was shouted down
The pro-climate-change movement reached its zenith with Gore’s film. It won two Oscars and an Emmy and earned him a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Martin Durkin, for his efforts, was slaughtered on the internet and everywhere else.
However, in retrospect, his film it did prove to be a turning point for many people.
They went to the internet. They learned that there was another side to the story. They learned that there were many highly qualified people in this field who disputed cause and effect — who argued that it was changes in the weather that drove changes in CO2 — not the other way around. They claimed that the whole thing was a scam and a hoax. People like Prof. Richard Lindzen, William M. Gray and John Coleman.
For Al Gore’s film the honeymoon period came to an end when Christopher Monckton decided to go after him. In March 2007 he ran a series of newspaper advertisements challenging Gore to an internationally televised debate on climate change. Gore did not respond. Given Monckton’s demolition of Gore’s film this was a sensible decision.
Monckton’s onslaught can be tracked here.
Joanne Nova in this quote goes to the heart of the debate:
"[T]he only thing that matters here is whether adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will make the world much warmer … If carbon dioxide is not a significant cause, then carbon sequestration, cap-and-trade, emissions trading, and the Kyoto agreement are a waste of time and money."
The same can be said for Copenhagen.
The case for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) has not been proved — far from it in fact.
To cap it all the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency commissioned its own report by one of its own people, Alan Carlin, into the validity of the science behind AGW.
His conclusion was that the science was no longer defendable!
Given all this and more we have to ask the question — why are we even having Copenhagen?
Chris Clancy [send him mail] is Associate Professor of Financial Accounting at Zhongnan University of Economics and Law in Wuhan, Hubei Province, People’s Republic of China.