Do remember, however, that the Lefties who pushed the Climate Terror button preached by Preacher Gore, first called it Global Warming. We were all doomed. (Well, we do know this inevitable is true, but not in the context political terrorist Al Gore and the UN IPCC declared.
Unless…….we were all doomed UNLESS we voted for Marxists who would save our souls and planet Earth, and tax the wealthy and anyone else involved with private enterprise to death. The funds would be shipped off to Obamalands of the Thrird world. Left standing would be all of the glories of forced equality.
There was money to be made. There were political battles to be won. There was the World Wide Web of the Marxist Left to nurture. Private enterprise was the enemy and the U.N. had the money to deal to whomever would prove the point.
Charlatons were on the march……
But then, something happened on the way to the windmills.
Fraud…….Intimidation……Threats……Emails and the Climate Change house of cards which guaranteed the world as we know it would come to an end in a few decades fell into disarray.
Where are we now? An Aussie website, The Australian, reviewed the following:
“BRITAIN’S science academy, the Royal Society, has acknowledged the limits of current scientific understanding of climate change, revising its outlook.
A 19-page guide prepared by leading international scientists, including society fellows, is an honest account of where climate change science is clear and where it is less certain, such as the impact of energy emitted by the sun.
The ragged intersection between science and politics is the point at which much of the climate debate has been derailed. Politics demands certainty to make a convincing case for co-ordinated action. Science, on the other hand, is driven by scepticism. Each hypothesis formulated from empirical evidence needs to be challenged and tested to within an inch of its life before its veracity can be assumed. The 43 society members now believe the society’s previous position was too strident and implied a greater degree of certainty than was justified.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports should have been seen for what they were, political documents. They were designed, quite reasonably, as a basis on which to build a political solution. The mistake was to elevate them to the status of divine prophecy. When the IPCC recommended in 2007 that nations reduce global emissions by 50 to 85 per cent by 2050 to have a reasonable chance of averting warming beyond 2C and “catastrophic” consequences, it was clear to those with a sophisticated view of science that the targets were based on assumptions fed into computer models. As the debate unfolded, those who exaggerated the evidence or presented only worst-case projections did much more to set back the cause of carbon restraint than the commentators they derided as deniers. Scare tactics have not worked, and will not work.
The Royal Society sets out a strong case for pursuing the cautionary, responsible approach long advocated by The Weekend Australian. The society cites strong evidence that increases in greenhouse gases due to human activity are the dominant cause of global warming. It is all the more convincing for its honesty and avoidance of doomsday scenarios pedalled by alarmists, whose proposals would wreak economic devastation. After a long, needlessly polarised debate, the guide is a welcome new start to help restore the credibility of climate science and civility to the discussion.”
Comment: I don’t know about politics demanding certainty in the down under, but politics of the Al Gore folks is about buying votes. When the argument is against the Al Gores, politics demands confusion….uncertainty…. so no voter knows what is going on, so they will choose against climate terror just to be safe.
Filed under: Climate Change, Foreign Affairs and News, National Politics
