Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds

CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect


Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5408
Reputation: 273.9
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:19 pm    Post subject: The Death of Global Warming Reply with quote

The global warming movement as we have known it is dead.... By the time that summit opened, campaigners were reduced to hoping for a ‘politically binding’ agreement to be agreed that would set the stage for the rapid adoption of the legally binding treaty. After the failure of the summit to agree to even that much, the movement went into a rapid decline.

The article goes on to say the movement died from two causes: bad science and bad politics.
... t turned out that the most prestigious agencies in the global warming movement were breaking laws, hiding data, and making inflated, bogus claims resting on, in some cases, no scientific basis at all. This latest story in the London Times is yet another shocker; the IPCC’s claims that the rainforests were going to disappear as a result of global warming are as bogus and fraudulent as its claims that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. It seems as if a scare story could grab a headline, the IPCC simply didn’t care about whether it was reality-based.

Right now, the scientists at East Anglia are pulling every string to stay our of jail, because their lapses go over the line, into criminal activity.

The article claims that the global warmists embroiled themselves in a cycle of hyping the threats beyond anything that the evidence would support, all in a vain attempt to get [i]political
support, to force their solutions on whole national populations.

It isn't as if the initial concerns aren't worthy. It's that scientists chose a deeply flawed political strategy, one that put their scientific character at risk, with the unfortunate results we saw.
The global warming campaigners ... were never able to develop a pragmatic approach that could reach its goals in the context of the existing international system. The global warming movement proposed a complex set of international agreements involving vast transfers of funds, intrusive regulations in national economies, and substantial changes to the domestic political economies of most countries on the planet.

Even if that first step had been reached, the second and third would almost surely not have been. The United States Congress is unlikely to pass the kind of legislation these agreements would require ... — especially as polls show that global warming ranks at or near the bottom of most voters’ priorities. (Emphasis added)

Perhaps it was not quite a quixotic struggle, but it meant that bureaucratic mountains had to be moved to make it happen.

Further, it took a lot of money, and don't we all know what happens to international projects when the question of financing comes up? The French are out the door, the Germans get preoccupied with their fingernails, and the Saudis notice that it's time to go to the Mosque. It is left, as always, to the Americans to pay.
Without a commitment from the United States to pay its share of the $100 billion plus per year that poor countries wanted as their price for compliance, and without US participation in other aspects of the proposed global approach, the intricate global deals fall apart. (Emphasis added.)

And that's what happened.

Even if the United States has financed and supported it, the Copenhagen process would not have brought the global warming movement the kind of victory it sought. Why? Because countries would cheat.

For better or worse, the global political system isn’t capable of producing the kind of result the global warming activists want. It’s like asking a jellyfish to climb a flight of stairs; you can poke and prod all you want, you can cajole and you can threaten. But you are asking for something that you just can’t get — and at the end of the day, you won’t get it. [....]

The global warming meltdown confirms all the populist suspicions out there about an arrogantly clueless establishment invoking faked ’science’ to impose cockamamie social mandates on the long-suffering American people, backed by a mainstream media that is totally in the tank. Don’t think this won’t have consequences ...

Seems like an eulogy for a lot of wasted energy, to me. Let's hope.

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5408
Reputation: 273.9
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A week later, as if to underline the death of global warming as an real threat, at least in the public's mind, 30 inches of 'the stuff' fell on Philadelphia, a record-breaking amount.

The blizzard, in fact, hit the whole east coast of North America. The White House, itself, almost disappeared in the white snow that clung to branches, making it seem to be covered with icing sugar.

And nobody even mentioned global warming!
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1


Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum

The Death of Global Warming

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB