Global Warming High Priest writes gospel
The new ideology, Global Warming or, on a cold day Global Change, has a new disciple in Nicholas Stern. He is the flavour of the week as the ABC put him on a pedastal and treat his every word as gospel. Stern has called for urgent world action to cut greenhouse gases or face economic failure worse than the Great Depression. It puts the global cost of global warming and its effects at $9 trillion – a bill greater than the combined cost of the two world wars and the great depression and warns us that drought and floods could render swathes of the planet uninhabitable, creating the largest migration in history. He’s put ticks in more boxes than Chicken Little ever knew existed – it’s just a pity that the science seems to be based on questionable computer modelling. He says with a 4 degree warming Australian farmlands would be rendered useless. He could be right but entering “4 degree warming” in the text box of some software doesn’t actually increase the temperature. The fact that the rise in temperature over the past century has been in the order of 0.6C (plus or minus 0.2C) then we are looking at maybe 5 centuries before we have a problem; and that presumes that in all that time the human race couldn’t come up with an answer. They may even come up with a computer model that us sceptics can believe. This ideology has the Pacific Islanders reading the new Book of Revelations and demanding migration rights to Australia and New Zealand because their low lying islands are going to be swamped. It says so in the New bible. It would also be pretty cool to live in Australia with it’s social security and all but the islands aren’t about to be swamped. Scientists and other interested parties are argueing over whether the rise is .07mm a year or 5mm a year and even then king tides, natural sand redistribution, native attempts at building on the shoreline and the effects of cyclones must be factored in. Even if you believe the Chicken Littles and accept 5mm a year rise there is still no justification for causing panic amongst the locals. The next cyclone could reverse or exacerbate any sea rises and they’ve been blowing for millenia. I’m prepared to accept there is a problem and we need to be careful but the alarmist reporting prevelant today serves little purpose. Mother earth has weathered a lot in her time without the intervention of us puny humans and she will for a long time yet. Like all religions, I am pepared to study this new one but as usual I will not be taking every single word as gospell.
I’m with you Kev, it seems we are outnumbered!!!
I believe that science with an agenda uses facts that support a particular argument and ignores facts that do not support their argument.
What do they want?
John to sign on the dotted line and we then are all happy?
Global warmin’ – that’s why they postponed a surf carnival in Tasmania because it snowed.
Let’s separate the pollution issue, nobody wants pollution, we must be realistic in this debate.
But let’s face it, hysteria rules at the moment.
Hanrahan would be very pleased indeed!
Bjorn Lomberg once held what he calls “left-wing Greenpeace views”. In 1997, he set out to challenge Julian Simon, an economist who doubted environmentalist claims—and found that the data generally supported Simon. This ultimately lead to Lomborg writing The Sceptical Enviromentalist. Lomborg has written an analysis of the Stern Report on the economics of climate change.