Green fraud is not a victimless crime
In celebration of Climategate: the world learnt the true nature of the academic “science” behind the biggest scam in human history.
WUWT have an interesting article which appears to suggest that in the Beaufort sea region of the Arctic thicker ice conditions are correlated with declines in polar bears but thinner ice is good for them.
Who can doubt if the science-deniers of the pause had been pushing “Man-made global cooling” that they would not have jumped on this news as “yet further proof that man-made warming is harmful to cuddly polar bears”?
And in further news:
Eco-Hypocrisy as Sea Shepherd Vessel Dumps 500 Litres of Diesel Into Sea
I came across this on a site I’ve not seen before equites.com:
Chocolate.
In a statement issued by the evil empire of chocolate shortage sceptics, their highly paid PR consultancy and well known website “wattILikeIsChocolate said: “we’re sceptical”, followed later by corrections that only 97% were sceptical, the others disagreed with the hypothesis and others were thought to be evil chocolate hating warmists Trolls.
The SS Establishment hits the Iceberg of public opinion
I take my mother-in-law as being a better indicator of our likely weather than the Met Office forecast:
But, seeing the Met Office squirm from yet another failed BBQ forecast would be only half the fun. Because the whole UK establishment could be in for a fall.
A a piece today no WattsUpWithThat, Lond Mockton is reported to have said:
This memorandum sets out evidence of falsehood with intent to mislead a court by Dr Michael E. Mann in a case in the District of Columbia against the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Review.
A number of times Lord Monckton is reported to have said that Mann “falsely stated” and moreover that he did so “with intent”. It appears to me that that in common parlance, this saying that Mann intentionally lied to a court and isn’t that Perjury?
Looking at the definition of “Perjury” I find:
Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.
I would assume that documents supplied to a court as part of a case would either have an express or implied affirmation that they are the truth. Looking online I find that the following relating specifically to the US:
Saw this next video – it sums up everything I think about Global Warming alarmism – particularly the putrid smell of a decayed and rotting scam …
The Global warming scam has no science backing their doomsday prophecies, and now I find there’s not a day when I don’t start singing this song (except obviously I change my to their, etc.):
And the other metaphor – what happens when you dig out more and more of the support: Continue reading
Recently I realised that after WWII a very strange thing happened: the Nazis lost WWII because Hitler was obsessed with rockets, death rays and other “blue-sky” science. In contrast, in good old Blighty and the US we won the war, because we focussed on tried and tested technology like the Spitfire, had post office engineers adapt exchange technology to build calculating machines and used the available magnetron technology to build RADAR.
But after the war what happened? Did we:
We chose to adopt not only the failed German strategy based on U2 rockets, “blue-sky” research, nuclear bombs, costly nuclear power, etc. etc. and in so doing some of the most dispicable Nazi criminals were let of scot free to work in our “science”.
In other words, in the UK and US, after WWII, our political elite put failed Nazi “science” on a pedestal … and we’ve had “deathray” doomsday nuclear “science” dictating government policy for the last 70 years. And in Germany … they put engineering on a pedestal, and as a result, their economy boomed and they don’t have anything near the same non-science of climate alarmism. Now from this article (Nuclear or coal? – The German Greens have chosen coal) it appears that even German greens are pragmatic and have grown cold on global warming:-
Spiegel Online is reporting (translation here) that Germany is planning to back away from its 2020 climate target of 40% emissions reduction, because of a continued reliance on coal to run the German economy as a result of the nuclear phase-out known as the ‘Energiewende’.
In fairness, Spiegel has long been pretty sceptical on the Energiewende – but for good reason. It really is pretty much impossible for Germany to exit the two main sources of baseload electricity generation, coal and nuclear, at the same time. Faced with a choice, so-called ‘green’ Germany appears to be prepared to sacrifice its climate targets on the altar of its anti-nuclear ideology. I had expected a couple more years to pass before this became glaringly obvious to everyone except the most blinkered anti-nuke campaigners, but it seems to be happening earlier than I’d thought.
– See more at: Mark Lynas
