A commenter on my previous post took issue with my use of the term ‘envirofascist’. I have been thinking, and while unrepentant, I have decided that, in future, I will no longer use this term when discussing our hypocritical politicians. I will instead call them ‘pharisees’. Why? Because they prescribe how we should live our lives, while they merrily carry on doing whatever they please. Someone once condemned pharisees thus:
“They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.”
I will reserve the term ‘envirofascist’ strictly for those environmental activists who want us to swallow their untested ideology without question.
And yes, it is possible to be both a pharisee and an envirofascist.
March 12th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
I like the term envirofascist. They tire me with their pseudoscientific whingeing.
when they have decided whether we face global warming or a new ice age, they should let us know.
Bel, what’s up here?
Our long standing tradition of disagreeing is being eroded!
March 12th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Envirofascist has a great ring to it. Working in the environmental field, I am not sure that you can tar everyone who has different views on global warming with this brush.
March 12th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Not my intention, Colin. I will use this term to refer to those who expect us to swallow their dogma without question.
March 13th, 2007 at 1:34 am
Bel:
Don’t bow down to them. On my blog I call a spade a spade. I am asking for honesty in government. I don’t subscribe to the convention in Parliament which states members cannot call another member a liar even when the evidence shows that a member is a liar.
It’s what Bel is thinking that matters not what someone else tells you to say. This is as bad as Levy telling Turner to say something else.
March 13th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
There’s a double problem here. Firstly, well of course climate change is happening - you only have to look our of the window and most of the serious science supports the obvious truth about it happening.
However, it is true that the environmental fascists have hijacked the issue and by doing what they’re doing, they’re turning people against them and into the other camp.
March 13th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
James says “There’s a double problem here. Firstly, well of course climate change is happening - you only have to look our of the window and most of the serious science supports the obvious truth about it happening.”
There’s 2 small problems with your pov James (correct me if I get your pov wrong here):
1) The climate ALWAYS changes, no matter if we live in huts or pollute, that is a known fact
2) The obvious ‘truth’ is not supported by science (global warming) unless you are simply referring to climate change (then see point 1); there is not PROOF of global warming (or climate change for that matter) caused by humans; yes there are signs and calculations and forecasts that say it is so, yet there are also scientists, calculations, forecasts and simulations that say it is not so. In science this does not constitute proof.
Again, if you believe the climate is changing because the climate is always changing, then disregard this and have another beer on me
March 14th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
In science this does not constitute proof.
Lord Nazh, I have always understood that science proceeded in terms of hypotheses that most closely fit the available evidence, rather than talking of proof. I also understand that, as James says, the vast majority of serious scientists support the hypothesis of man-made climate change. I hesitate to cite George Monbiot in this august company, but he did point out that just because Galileo was right and the prevailing consensus at his time was wrong, it doesn’t follow that all voices in the wilderness are always right.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
…yes there are signs and calculations and forecasts that say it is so, yet there are also scientists, calculations, forecasts and simulations that say it is not so…
Yes, there is this ludicrous situation, which I addressed by the links on today’s post, which show how head in the sand the so-called scientists they trotted out in denial really are. The C4 programme was amazingly inaccurate.
March 14th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
the debunker of the C4 programme cited wikipedia as his proof o.O
Ian: There is no proof that a majority of scientists (that would actually have any connection to this phenomenom) are convinced of it. We have only the words of the people pushing it that the majority agree.
Yes just because one person was right when all others were wrong doesn’t make one person always right, but shouldn’t we be concerned with what IS RIGHT instead of what is AGREED?
March 16th, 2007 at 1:24 am
Ian says: “the vast majority of serious scientists support the hypothesis of man-made climate change.”
Oh?
Which “serious scientists”? Researchers in kidney oncology? Space scientists who landed instruments on Mars? Nuclear physicists - in all their many disciplines?
Which SERIOUS SCIENTISTS agree with loony-but-rich Al Gore?
Al Gore has the money through his tobacco plantations and federal funds for them to fund his bonkers movie. Al Gore is a nut case. If he didn’t have a fortune, he would be a street person.
March 16th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
The fact that they are wheeling out Al Gore shows how deluded NuLabour really are…All Labour manifestos published before the last three general elections contained the promise to deliver a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010, compared with 1990 levels. The fact that the UK is presently at about minus 6% compared with 1990, and that in the last couple of years emissions have increased seems not to worry Tony/Gordo overly. In fact, the Government has had a poor track record on matters environmental for quite some time. Right since its first term in office in fact.Did you know that “An Inconvenient Truth” is to be shown (by order of the Scottish Executive) in all Scottish secondary schools as part of the curriculum? Disturbing, isn’t it…
March 17th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Yes, but even more alarming, Stamboul Tory, is the fact that it is Cameron and the “Conservatives” who are wheeling out the hypocritical old windbag.
March 17th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Good grief, Verity, did I hit a raw nerve? There’s no need to shout, you know… I’m sorry for assuming readers would have understood from the context that I was referring to the vast majority of serious scientists in climatology and related fields, I have been spoiled by the acuity of other commenters who frequent Bel’s site.
Also, you may feel that Al Gore is both loony and rich; there probably is a discussion to be had about the relative wealth and sanity of many recent presidential candidates and, indeed, incumbents. However, I was suggesting that, it is my understanding/i>, which I accept may well be more limited than your grasp of the subject, that most serious climatologists etc agree with the hypothesis that global warming is man-made. I posit there is a clear difference between that statement and the somewhat shrill way you paraphrased it.
Leaving aside his personal qualities - I trust you’re not letting your view of them colour your view of the film? - I gather you’re not enormously impressed by Mr Gore’s production. What do you object to in it? What did you feel about the recent Channel 4 programme? [disclaimer: I've not seen either.]What is it about the man-made global warming hypothesis that worries you so much?
March 17th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Bel, just a casual question,like. What does that “Close Tags” button above your comments box do?
March 17th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Hi Ian, good question. I suppose it just supplies the closing html tag. But why would one use it, instead of just typing out the closing tag? Curious.
I don’t type out the tags myself. I tend to select the text, and then apply the formatting. Doing it that way supplies both the opening and closing tags.
March 17th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
But why would one use it, instead of just typing out the closing tag?
Ah. Comment 13?
March 19th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Ian addresses me thus: “Also, you may feel that Al Gore is both loony and rich;” Incorrect. I feel that Al Gore is a loon. I know that he is immeasurably rich.
Ian says: “there probably is a discussion to be had about the relative wealth and sanity of many recent presidential candidates and, indeed, incumbents.” I don’t agree at all. Even the most outrageous, Bill Clinton was a sleaze but he wasn’t a loon.
Ian says: “most serious climatologists etc agree with the hypothesis that global warming is man-made”. Back that up with figures. It seems to be a renegade fringe of scientists and political agenda-laden lefties who have bought into this - or say they have. Everything I have read indicates the opposite. I thought science was the art of the precise? Yet you say “most” as though presenting a figure and not an opinion. Then you go on to say “climatologists etc” - how does such imprecision help your case?
You gather I’m not enormously impressed with Gore’s film. That is correct. I’m not impressed enough to have watched it. Al Gore’s a loser. He never finished his law degree. He dropped out of theological college. He flew into a fit of towering petuousness on some bizarre theory about hanging chads when he lost the election to Mr Bush. He is one of the biggest private shareholders in Occidental Petroleum. The Gore family fortune comes from their tobacco plantation. This is one mixed-up fellow.
No, I didn’t watch the Channel 4 film. I can’t get British TV here without paying for cable and then it’s only the BBC, which they would have to pay me to watch.
Ian writes: “What is it about the man-made global warming hypothesis that worries you so much?”
It doesn’t worry me at all as it’s a load of lefty cobblers to stop progress and return mankind to the Stone Age. Why, I don’t know, as I don’t understand the eerie landscape of the lefty mind, but I don’t think the word “control” would be too far wrong.
Strange that they’ve had the coldest winter in the US midwest for decades, with vicious ice storms, which they don’t normally get. The midwest is vast. At least eight times the size of Britain, so we are speaking of a huge element of abnormal cold temperatures over a vast area. It seems to have come 20 years too late for the “global cooling” and “new Ice Age” mongerers of 20 years ago.
March 19th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Verity, thanks for your response, although I fear we may struggle to find any common ground, here. I don’t intend to get into a “my scientist is bigger than yours” contest with you. While we’re on the subject, the phrase climatologists etc. saved me repeating the formulation I used slightly earlier. Exactly which scientists do you think we should be listening to on this subject, and which can we safely ignore? Climatologists? Oceanographers? Meteorologists? Who is in, and who is out? Even a renal specialist, despite your sarcasm, presumably has experience of reading scientific papers and agreeing or disagreeing with their conclusions on the basis of the evidence presented. So, given that, how could we realistically obtain any meaningful statistical breakdown that we could both accept?
You assert Yet you say “most” as though presenting a figure and not an opinion; I beg to differ with your conclusion. Can I draw your attention to the phrase I used: it is my understanding, which ought to make clear that I am not being dogmatic, here. On the other hand, you suggest that everything you have read suggests the man-made climate change hypothesis is in fact false. OK, what sources are these? Are they reputable peer-reviewed journals? Also, if we are going to talk of scientific precision - and you raised this - doesn’t it behove you to at least examine the evidence for the opposition?
Now, you make a lot of remarks about Gore, which I’m in no position to judge. I would say, however, that there are for me a fair few unanswered questions about the 2000 election. You glide over my point about wealth and sanity, but the court-appointed winner of that election is undeniably rich and, well, I could make as many unsupported allegations about his mental health as you do over Gore.
Now, Bush Jr is undeniably linked to big business interests, including oil. You say you cannot understand why “lefties” should push the environmental agenda. However, for me the opposite case is clear and understandable: businesses exist to make money; they make money when people consume; is it any wonder they should oppose policies which discourage consumption? Is it any wonder that a president with such close ties to these interests would do his level best to stifle debate on the issue? What do you make of the precedent that tobacco companies ignored clear scientific evidence of the dangers of smoking for decades? Why should I believe that the position has changed greatly with regard to climate change?
And lastly, we are really talking about climate change as opposed to global warming. As I understand it, as the planet’s temperature grows, we can expect more extreme weather events of all types, not just unusual periods of warmer weather. Might that explain what has happened this winter in the midwest?
March 20th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Al Gore holds more stock in ‘big oil’ than Bush.
Here’s you a good piece to read Ian. From a scientist who doesn’t believe in global warming
March 20th, 2007 at 12:30 am
And let em note: I love the fact that global
warmingclimate change means anything you want it to mean at any given time.Bad hurricanes? Global
warmingclimate changeNo bad hurricanes? Global
warmingclimate changeHot weather?? Global
warmingclimate changeCold winters?? Global
warmingclimate changeAs someone on the ‘net said: Global climate change used to be called ‘weather’
March 20th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Lord Nazh - V good!
Ian - I knew it wouldn’t take you long to start in on Bush and big business. Why? Because that is what the great “man-made climate change” furore is all about. The destruction of capitalism.
Mr Bush has degrees from both Harvard and Yale. That demonstrates a strong ability to apply himself and see a project through. Gore dropped out of everything. Mr Bush was a jet fighter pilot in the Reserves. Yes, the Bush family is very rich. And?
The Gores have been very rich and privileged for generations. They are very old money. Al’s a spoiled brat.
Ian, I am not interested in engaging with you because you toe a predictable and deeply boring party line. Twenty years ago, the same crew was predicting “global cooling” and a Mini Ice Age! Brrrr! People would DIE! Crops could not grow and there would be GLOBAL STARVATION! Just look at the graphs! Oooh, err! Well, that didn’t pan out quite right,but never mind, another day another manufactured global panic.
I can recall two others, back in the Eighties. We only had enough oil left on the planet to last for 20 years! All the machinery of civilisation will groan to a halt. People will STARVE! (Especially Africans. For some reason, these predicted global disasters always seem to target Africans.) It is now determined that there are proven oil reserves that can last another 150 years - although, obviously, we will have stopped using petroleum long before that. (Sell those OXY shares, Al!)
The Eighties was a big decade. Big enough to accommodate two predicted global disasters. The other one was … the population bomb! The world would be too full of people - especially Africans! People would STARVE! Especially you-know-who!
These manipulative fantasies are always products of the left. They always try to manipulate the consciences of he West by making Africans the victims du jour. They are always targetted at sending civilisation back to the Stone Age.
Remember ‘Silent Spring’? Well, actually, I don’t, but it was written by one Rachel Carson who predicted a global disaster from the use of insecticides. She was the first international panic purveyor and people all over the world stopped spraying crops with DDT. The result: a 40-year long malaria epidemic in guess where.
Man-made climate change is grinding to a halt. (Just when David Cameron clambered aboard.) I await the next man-caused global disaster with interest.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:56 am
Ian - I knew it wouldn’t take you long to start in on Bush and big business.
Au contraire, Verity, I only raised it after you spent so much time focussing on Gore. Speaking of which: Yes, the Bush family is very rich. And? Er, someone recently said: I know that [Gore] is immeasurably rich. And?
You accuse me of trotting out a party line - incidentally, my party handlers indicate that I should at this stage raise the standard doubts over whether Bush actually met his obligations in the reserves… I can see certain parallels in what each of us is reading in the other’s comments, and I’m sorry that we haven’t been able to make a better connection. I hope you haven’t given up all hope of engaging with me.
You said that you haven’t been able to understand the Left’s motives in promoting the climate change case. Well, firstly, thanks for assuming that everyone who doesn’t share your viewpoint does share the same opposing opinions: I mean, I may assume you’re on the Right, but I’ve no reason to assume that means you share the views of the Ku Klux Klan, now, have I? I’m much more interested in individual opinions than pigeon-holing people according to pre-conceived categories.I put forward (what seems to me at least a plausible reason) why some on the right might wish to downplay climate change. Do you truly find it plausible that everyone who does not reject man-made climate change is solely motivated by knee-jerk ani-capitalism?
Even if they were, would that in itself negate any scientific evidence supporting the hypothesis? I’m still looking forward to reading your views on “scientific precision” and weighing the countervailing evidence.
March 21st, 2007 at 9:05 am
Verity, Lord Nazh. This meta-study found that out of 928 scientific papers, precisely none disagreed with the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis. I’ll repeat that. Out of 928 papers, precisely none disagreed with the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis. Someone claimed that 33 (or 34…) in fact did disagree, although that’s still hardly a large minority; this dissenter, however, was himself debunked.
Those figures good enough for you?
March 21st, 2007 at 2:15 pm
“These figures good enough for you?”
No.
Millions of people voted for the Labour Party over the last three elections. The world is full of easily duped morons and people with destructive political agendas. I’ll repeat that. The world is full of easily duped morons and people with destructive political agendas. But enough about you!
Regarding Al Windbag, I said I knew it wouldn’t be long before you tried to deflect the thread to your hatred of George Bush. You responded, “Au contraire, Verity, I only raised it after you spent so much time focussing on Gore.”
See, that is because Al Bore, who has failed at everything he has essayed despite being buoyed up be great privilege and wealth, is flying around the world promoting his moonbat theories. Al is the subject of the discussion here. We weren’t talking about George Bush or Marilyn Monroe or the president of Indonesia. This whole conversation is predicated on one moonbat and his mad theories.
You write: “I mean, I may assume you’re on the Right, but I’ve no reason to assume that means you share the views of the Ku Klux Klan, now, have I?” No. But your infantile intent to somehow associate me with the KKK confirms my judgement of your character and intelligence.
You demand: “Do you truly find it plausible that everyone who does not reject man-made climate change is solely motivated by knee-jerk ani-capitalism?”
See my point above. The world is full of gullible morons and manipulative anti-capitalist fascists with agendas. Viz, over the last 30 or 40 years, - Global Cooling! The Africans will starve! We’re running out of petroleum! The Africans will face starvation! The population time-bomb! We won’t be able to produce enough food to feed Africa! Silent Spring. We’re killing the world with DDT! Africans will die! The rainforests (aka jungles, but that does sound, well, a bit primitive, doesn’t it? Rainforests is a prettier, more emotive, word …) are being used for logging! The Sahara will creep into the Amazon Basin, make a sharp left and melt the Himalayas! Africans will drown!
Lefties have the hide of an elephant and they never give up in their fight to destroy capitalism. It never works.
I see Dave’s windmill has been hoisted onto his roof. One more reason not to vote for him.
And Iain, no, I am not interested in engaging further with you because others have already rehearsed every single one of your points over the past couple of decades - probably much longer; back to the 1920s, I believe.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Sic ‘em, Verity! (That is how you spell it, isn’t it?) As we all know, ad hominem will always trump any other argument. And no, I’m not hugely impressed withIain’s efforts right now, either, although to be fair so far he’s only had a day or so to respond to a reasonable request. If comments 21 and 24 represent your lack of interest in engaging with me, then for the sake of Bel’s bandwidth it’s a small mercy I haven’t piqued your interest further.
You’ve entirely misunderstood my point about the KKK; I was trying to say that, unlike yourself, apparently, I am able to understand that the world is divided into subtler political distinctions than simply left and right. I reiterate what I said: I have no reason to assume that you share their views. On the other hand, you are making all sorts of unfounded assumptions about the views I hold.
Al is the subject of the discussion here. We weren’t talking about George Bush or Marilyn Monroe or the president of Indonesia. This whole conversation is predicated on one moonbat and his mad theories.
Mea culpa. I had understood we were talking about climate change. Gore didn’t get mentioned until comment 10,and you introduced him into the conversation in the first place…
Lastly, you said in comment 17: Ian says: “most serious climatologists etc agree with the hypothesis that global warming is man-made”. Back that up with figures. So I back that up with figures. Surprise, surprise, you don’t accept them, or present countervailing evidence - I’m still waiting to hear your sources - you simply try and insult me instead. You’ve accused me of lacking precision: physician, heal thyself.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:22 am
So there were only 900 odd papers written on climate change?
A poll found that 82% of statistics are made up.
Again, proof Ian, proof makes science. Papers make hypothesis. I have never (and will never) argue that someone can/does think that global
warmingclimate change is man-made. What I have a problem with is the ‘fact’ that it is a ‘fact’.When there is proof that the Sun (gasp a big burning ball of fire) actually … heats the earth. Sometimes more than others.
There is proof that CO2 levels have actually been higher before on this earth (all those dino’s methanizing no doubt) and that temperatures have actually been higher than before.
Does this PROVE that global
warmingclimate change is not man-made? No, but it does indeed prove that it is not a FACT that it is man-made.I will not (on purpose) insult you for arguing your side of the story, I simply want people that believe in this new religion to admit the fact that it is not FACT.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:27 am
Lord Nazh, I don’t think that that meta-study I cited ever claimed to have covered every paper ever written on the subject, but 900+ is not a bad sample size. The link I provided above gives a little more information on how the papers were selected for the study. Can you point me in the direction of any meta-studies that suggest a different balance?
As for whether proof makes science, well, I refer you back to my comment 7 in this thread. Papers strengthen or weaken a hypothesis on the basis of the evidence they present. Does evidence equate to proof? Now we’re getting semantic. If at least 900+ papers have been published in peer-reviewed journals, that does suggest to me that there is a considerable amount of evidence in support of the man-made climate change hypothesis. Does that make it a “fact”? Well, now we’re getting post-modern
I’ve been trying to avoid talking in terms of “proof” and “facts”, but I’m willing to accept that my choice of language in this thread may not always have reflected that.
You mention “proof” (evidence?) that CO2 levels and temperatures have been higher in the past - am I right to assume you mean before the appearance of mankind, or did you have in mind more recent times? Well, OK, but isn’t there also evidence that high CO2 levels were reduced, and oxygen levels increased, by plant metabolism, rendering the planet capable of supporting more complex life forms? The suggestion is that burning fossil fuels is in fact releasing this trapped CO2 back into the atmosphere. To turn your argument around, sure, high CO2 levels need not necessarily be the result of human activity, but that is not in itself evidence that they cannot be.
What I will stand by is my belief that there is a convincing case to be made in support of the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis. I will gladly admit that I may be wrong, but I’m afraid I have yet to hear a counter-argument I find convincing… It’s nice, though, to be able to have a mutually respectful conversation about it for a change.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:04 am
With the pressure in universities and corporations for Ph.Ds to write papers in order to get tenure, 900-odd papers over years is infinitesimal. There are tens of thousands of papers and articles pumped out every year, such is the push to publish for tenure. Nine hundred, even if confined to the Anglosphere, is tiny. You don’t even state the qualifications of the writers, Ian. Many of them are, uh, aspirational.
Lord Nazh has given you a figure.
I still want an answer to the global cooling - eeeeeek! Mini-Ice-Age!!!!! stories from the eighties. Africans will die!!!! Why it’s always Africans who are going to die, who knows? Global warming, global cooling, too much DDT, no more petroleum reserves, population explosion, whatever … it’s always going to work against those poster victims, the Africans. No one ever writes “Global warming! Tens of thousands of Swedes will die in hearty cardigans they are too stupid to take off!
How patronising that they are the designated victims for every new communist assay on civilised values.
They live in the richest continent on earth, with the most arable land and the largest supply of minerals. How is it they have been kept poor by the communists? Ever asked that question? Why have the communists kept black dictators in power - oh, you mean Mr Mugabe and his free-spending Paris-addicted wife and his £3bn bank account in Switzerland, for example - when this scum would have been so easy to depose - but is predictably presented as the sad child of “impoverished Africa”?
Africa is not impoverished.
It’s an incredibly rich continent. Africans are, in the main, victim to their own tribal “strongman” mentality. “Strongmen” plus the lefties/marxists plus the UN to reinforce the agenda.
Permanent “victims”. Gobal warming, New Ice Age, over population and famine, AIDS blah blah blah.
If they can’t act like adults, who cares?
[As an aside, I do believe African producers should be allowed uncontrolled access to European markets and that it is assault on human decency that they are not given an opportunity to try their hand. The whole EU agricultural policy is an assault on human decency and is deserving of the attention of intense bloggers like Ian.]
Who is stopping them having a go?
The carey-sharey “Kumbayah, My Lord, Kumbayah” EU and its “climate change” flatluence producers. Peter Mandelson, Neil Kinnock and Chris Patton, stand up and take a bow.
But, please, not in the direction of my nose.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:22 am
I don’t know why the above didn’t register in my name, but it was posted by me, Verity.
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:25 am
If you wonder why Africa (the richest land in the world) stays in the ‘3rd world or worse’ category:
If you continue to pay/feed people without them doing anything, soon they will only look for the pay/food and will not do anything.
Africa had far fewer problems before the world started taking care of it (not counting slavery but that was a world problem, not just Africa)
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Lord Nahz - Indeed. I recommend people who regard Africa as “a basket case” to read P J O’Rourke’s “Eat The Rich”, in which he compares several countries in the world and discusses their achievements or lack thereof. Hong Kong, for example, which has a population of around 6m and absolutely no land, but also few financial regulations, is a raging success.
Tanzania, which is huge and is one of the most resource-rich nations in the world in terms of abundantly fertile agricultural land and in terms of minerals the rest of the world wants to buy, and it is a complete, poverty-stricken mess.
I commend “Eat The Rich” because, like all of O’Rourke’s work, it is not just very well written and often laugh-out-loud funny, but points out things other writers don’t seem to have noticed.
Tanzania is a failure because of apathy and towering ineptitude. There is absolutely no reason for the West to become involved in it or shovel any more taxpayer money down its gaping maw.
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:40 pm
*Just in case you missed it, my comment 27 has now appeared*
Verity, did you read the article I linked to? As I said to Lord Nazh, that gives you the basis for the study. Also, please stand up your assertion about “aspirational” qualifications. What on Earth do you mean? I am assuming you understand what a refereed scientific journal is, and how papers are selected for publication in them. Strictly speaking, the qualifications of the authors should be neither here nor there if the work itself is high enough quality. If you can link to any similar meta-studies that suggest a different balance, I’d be eager to learn about them. You raised scientific precision, let’s see some from you, then.
I have never heard about this global cooling scare you keep referring to, and so I don’t intend to comment, except to say that it sounds like you’re trying to change the subject.
I know a little, although not much, more about the plight of Africa, including the refusal of both the EU and America to open their markets to African produce hardly helping. There is also anecdotal evidence of American and EU food, in both cases produced with the aid of subsidy, being dumped on African markets and forcing local producers out of the market. Believe it or not, Verity, we have found something we can agree on: the whole thing is an outrage.
Be that as it may, though, it’s way off-topic on a climate change thread…
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:02 pm
There’s no such thing as “man made” climate change. The weather has gone in heating and cooling cycles for millions of years.
How did we have so much global warming that it melted the Ice Age without the help of jet planes and big cars? How did it get so hot that there were tropical jungles and dinosaurs on the plains of Texas? I have seen their actual footprints. All before the little hairless apes got up on their hind legs and discovered the uses of an opposable thumb?
The “mini Ice Age” man made global cooling “scare” (yawn) was in the Seventies, before everything went online. But here’s one from 1998. It just got in under the wire before Al Bore heard the starter’s gun for man made global warming. http://www.greatdreams.com/iceage.htm In 1975, the NYTimes reported on global cooling with “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.” A mere six years later - things move so fast in this modern age! - they were reporting that seven government atmospheric scientists predicted global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.”
Blah blah blah. Yawn.
If the EU is dumping produce in African countries, that is an outrage for which the dictators are answerable. They are allowing it in in return for,doubtless, huge deposits into their Swiss bank accounts. And, in turn, the population allow dictators. So frankly, who cares? I don’t see anything to be “outraged” about. Africa needs to pull itself together and I am not interested in contributing one thin dime.