Welcome once more to my weekly contribution to the debunking of the global Al Gore swindle. Last week’s round-up made a couple of readers quite angry, for which I will not apologize. This site is nudity free, so you’ll have to settle for the weekly Global Hottie’s looking hot, but decorously clothed. Live with it and love the newly organized linkery, this week’s round-up is a doozy.
Fighting Al Gore toe-to-toe in movie theatres is Not Evil Just Wrong. Watch the trailer, send cash if you can. It’ll really upset Al if this gets widely released, so you know it’s money well spent.
Does Al lead the Religion of the Sick Souled Socialists? Yes, and in case you hadn’t heard, it’s all about control.
Last year’s big Global Warming feel-good-and-kill-the-planet-at-the-same-time-event, Live Earth, celebrated it’s one year anniversary this week. Didn’t hear about it? Odd, don’t you think?
Some US bloggers have fun with WE, Al Gore’s $300 million advertising campaign to convince everyone that his apocalypse has nothing to do with how rich he’s getting.
As we head into the second part of the round-up, here is a 1998 quote from then Vice-President Al Gore on biofuels:
“I was also proud to stand up for the ethanol tax exemption when it was
under attack in the Congress — at one point, supplying a tie-breaking
vote in the Senate to save it. The more we can make this home-grown
fuel a successful, widely-used product, the better-off our farmers and
our environment will be.”
As it turns out, American farmers are better off as the cost of corn and other grains has soared along with increases in Ethanol and biofuel production. The environment is not better off at all, and untold numbers of the world’s population are facing food crises and starvation. Because Al Gore saved ethanol. With this quality of foresight, why is anyone listening to the bloated bloviator anymore?
Very serious news organizationshave discovered that biofuels, a green technology championed by Al Gore (see above), is actually a terrible solution for anything except killing people.
The Guardian
Rising food prices have pushed 100m people worldwide below the poverty
line, estimates the World Bank, and have sparked riots from Bangladesh
to Egypt.
The New York Times:
In the last year, the price of corn has risen 70 percent; wheat 55
percent; rice 160 percent. The World Bank estimates that for a group of
41 poor countries the combined shock of rising prices of food, oil and
other raw materials over the past 18 months will cost them between 3
and 10 percent of their annual economic output.
The BBC has covered the biofuels story for a long time, covering very different viewpoints:
Biofuels will not lead to hunger:
“Developed in a sustainable way, in the context of a
wide-ranging strategy for alternative crops, biofuels offer society a
win, win, win solution.”
Biofuels ‘crime against humanity’:
“A United Nations expert has condemned the growing use
of crops to produce biofuels as a replacement for petrol as a crime
against humanity”
UK to Slow Expansion of Biofuels:
“The UK is to slow its adoption of biofuels amid fears they raise
food prices and harm the environment, the transport secretary has said.”
This last story is the most important because it is the first time that a government has acknowledged that a green solution does a lot more harm than good.
People in the UK could almost have been proud of their government for this admission, had they not shown their complete incompetence by releasing this report within a few days of the biofuels decision.
But, let’s choose to look on the bright side and assume that the second report was commissioned before the biofuels decision was made, which is quite likely considering the glacial pace of government reports. While the biofuels decision may not seem much at first glance, it might be the first thread in a wider unravelling of tacit support for other green initiatives that have no benefit other than raising taxes or redistributing wealth.
Maybe. Even as the biofuels scam collapses around them activist greens are still trying to wreck global food supply.
The G8 conference in Japan featured global warming prominently on the Agenda. The Host, Prime Minister Fukuda had hopes of gaining agreement on a 50% reduction of carbon emissions by 2050. Fortunately for the planet, his hopes were somewhat immediately dashed by President Bush, who said:
“I’m also realistic enough to tell you that if China and
India don’t share that same aspiration then we’re not going to solve
the problem.”
This theme was continued through the conference, which ended with a united G8 challenging the developing countries to match the targets. India issued a resounding response which cannot be nuanced at all - they flatly refuse to acknowledge any need for carbon emission reduction and point to the flawed science behind the demands. And good for them.
The Daily Telegraph covered the G8, and included this remarkable (for a mainstream newspaper) admission, [emphasis mine]:
“The orthodox global-warming thesis, accepted by
pretty well every politician in the Western world, but not by a growing
number of scientists, is that, as CO2 levels in the atmosphere continue
to rise, so too should global temperatures. Unless we can drastically
reduce those CO2 levels, the world is thus threatened with catastrophe. In
the past year or two, however, evidence has been piling up to suggest
that there may be a fundamental flaw in this theory. Even though
atmospheric CO2 has continued to rise to levels not seen since the
distant geological past, temperatures have not been following suit.“
No wonder the politicians of the G8 are playing ‘wait and see’. If the electorates of the G8, and other, countries start to see through the global warming hoax, there will be no pressure on politicians to do anything - and even perhaps to undo some actions already taken.
Some are looking to hasten the day when politicians and policy makers actually have to defend the information they use to make climate polic. Via CO2Sceptics is this story about Piers Corbyn’s challenge to the UK Environment Minister, Tim Yeo. Also, Australian researchers from Australian National University’s centre for climate law and policy have issued a report that condemns MP’s for making decisions based on poor science.
If you happen to be involved in an activity that depends on a doomsday scenario which makes you money, or provides you with a regular income or grant money, and people start asking awkward questions about your favourite apocalypse, what do you do?
Impose a scary timeline, that’s what:
The UN: Only 7 Years Left, or 100 Months, if that’s not scary enough for you. Continuing the theme, Price Waterhouse: Time for deeds, not words.
If timelines simply bore you, then perhaps the greenies can convince you that a vengeful planet will kill you for driving that SUV! Even I like that one, I just hope Michael Bay gets the director job if they make a movie of it.
And, if you thought my poke at people who need grant money and rely on disaster to get it was unfair, read this exposé by Jennifer Marohasy.
Another fun method of ensuring your gravy train remains well oiled is to control the message, and what better tool for enviro-fascists to control than Wikipedia? The examples of pro-warming bias here are frightening.
Lastly in this section, and to pretend at being balanced, I give you the anti-global warming campaign ‘Exploit the Earth or Die‘. Now that’s how to win hearts and minds!
Anthony Watt’s Surface Stations project is featured in this piece. It’s important because Watt’s work shows that much of the input data used in global warming computer models is fundamentally flawed. Remember the old GIGO adage from computer science class? Climate modellers don’t.
Steve McIntyre asks what would happen to climate papers if they were subjected to the same rigorous peer review process endured by mathematics papers.
Australian researchers are concerned that the Sun may yet be a global cooling threat.
Anthony Watts (again) asks what risks are associated with burying carbon. This counts as an inconvenient question for warming believers.
Why won’t a NASA climatologist defend his own views? Perhaps the scientific argument is not so easy to defend when smart people are asking the questions.
Despite the alarmist cries of disaster’s causing death on a massive scale, turns out not so many people die of warming as they claimed:
Adding another item to the list of things caused by global warming: Insanity.
Who’s responsible for the US energy crisis? Clue, starts with a ‘D’ and ends in ‘emocrats’.
Quit worrying, Canada’s safe from climate change. Unless it’s global cooling, then we’re screwed.
Climate change & population? F**k it.
In case you believed that taxes raised from climate change policies would be used to fund tax cuts, or energy efficiency, Canada’s Liberal Party is happy to admit they’ll use the cash for social programs.
Fun with a Pious Prius:
.
This week’s hottie is in fact a spottie (space hottie) from the defunct series Firefly. She hails from British Columbia, the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce a carbon tax, which is the perfect excuse to give you this:
Have a terrific weekend.
