UK Independence Party Seeks to Ban Al Gore Junk Science Schlockumentary

Let's hope they start doing it in schools here as well. It's a start. Click the image for a review of all his lies.

Pending the results of the commission, the party, that has no MPs at the moment, have promised to build new fossil-fuelled power stations to meet energy demands and scrap subsidies for wind farms. Global warming 'propaganda' like the Al Gore film Inconvenient Truth will be banned in schools and public authorities will not be allowed to spend money on climate change initiatives.

A recent poll found the just one in five people believe climate change is man-made, compared to one in three a year ago.

The survey of 1,000 people found people over 65 were more likely to be sceptical.

Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, the UKIP climate change spokesman, said his party was the only opportunity to vote against the climate change consensus.

"At the moment all the major parties have decided to sign up to the eco-fascist agenda and therefore anyone who does not believe in eco-fascist agenda has no where else to go," he said.

Climate change sceptics claim that emails stolen from the University of East Anglia show scientists were willing to manipulate the data around global warming in a scandal known as 'climategate'.

In another scandal known as 'glaciergate' the UN body in charge of climate change science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was forced to retract a claim that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

However leading scientists, including the Royal Society, insist the case for man-made global warming remains convincing and it is a grave threat to human civilisation.

Well, you can't ever expect the true believers to admit they're in on the hoax.

Save the Whales ... From Climate Change!

The climate change hysteria has now moved on to whales. I guess now that we have more polar bears than ever, they have to change the subject.

CLIMATE change could help do to whale populations what commercial whaling has not - wipe out an entire species.

Humpback, southern right and minke whale populations could be damaged by a lack of food caused by a change in sea temperatures, according to researchers from the Federal Environment Department.

Data from the department’s Australian Antarctic Division (AAD), published in the Marine and Freshwater Research journal, claimed that if the availability of krill - the main diet for “baleen” whales which filter food from water - deteriorated due to climate change, other species could be wiped out.

“In an era of climate change, the ecological effects of baleen whales, and the effects of physical changes on these key predators can no longer be ignored,” the researchers said.

“The abundance of their primary prey, krill, can vary dramatically over relatively short periods of time and baleen whales that feed on krill have adapted to this variability.

Could. If. May.

They could be damaged if what they survive on is wiped out. No kidding. Humans would starve if food could not be grown and produced.

Doesn't mean it's going to happen.

I've been on enough whale watch boats and I sure see far more whales in recent years than I ever did.

Just A Global Warming Sunday

Click on image to enlarge

What more can possibly be said?





自由西藏

A Global Warming 'Denier' Sounds Off

The Global Warming Bubble
You didn’t have to be a rocket scientist in the 1990s to figure that speculative investment in dot-coms with no revenues would be disastrous. The same goes for lenders giving mortgages to borrowers with no job, no income and no assets. So after surviving the tech bubble and while trying to extricate the economy from the housing bubble, why are we bent on heading into the global warming bubble?

Just this week, the Environmental Protection Agency issued its economic analysis of the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill that is now being considered by the Senate. The EPA projects that, if the bill is enacted, the size of our economy as measured by its gross domestic product (GDP) would shrink by as much as $2.9 trillion by the year 2050. That’s a 6.9 percent smaller economy than we might otherwise have if no action was taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Sen. James Inhofe (eeeeevil Republican-OK) notes that the fiscal impact to consumers will include a 44% increase in the cost of electricity.

For an idea of what that might mean, consider our current economic crisis. During the fourth quarter of 2007, GDP actually increased by 0.6 percent, yet trepidation still spread among businesses, consumers and the financial markets. Though the EPA says that Lieberman-Warner would send our economy in the opposite direction by more than a factor of 10, few in Congress seem concerned. For more perspective, consider that during 1929 and 1930, the first two years of the Great Depression, GDP declined by 8.6 percent and 6.4 percent, respectively.

And what would we get for such a massive self-inflicted wound? It ought to be something that is climatically spectacular, right? You be the judge.

The EPA says that by the year 2095—45 years after GDP has been slashed by 6.9 percent—atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels would be 25 parts per million (ppm) lower than if no greenhouse gas regulation was implemented.

Keeping in mind that the current atmospheric CO2 level is 380 ppm and the projected 2095 CO2 level is about 500 ppm, according to the EPA, what are the potential global temperature implications for such a slight change in atmospheric CO2 concentration? Not much, as average global temperature would only be reduced by a maximum of about 0.10 to 0.20 degrees Celsius, according to existing research.

Oh, c'mon! If there was a shred of truth to this, al-Gore would have told us so in his award-winning documentary propaganda film.

Sacrificing many trillions of dollars of GDP for a trivial, 45-year-delayed and merely hypothetical reduction in average global temperature must be considered as exponentially more asinine than the dot-bombs of the late-1990s and the NINJA subprime loans that we now look upon scornfully.

So who in their right mind would push for this?

I met many of them up-close-and-personal last week at a major Wall Street Journal conference at which I was an invited speaker.

My fellow speakers included many CEOs (from General Electric, Wal-Mart, Duke Energy, and Dow Chemical, to name just a few), California’s Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the heads of several environmental activist groups.

The audience ― a sold-out crowd of hundreds who had to apply to be admitted and pay a $3,500 fee ― consisted of representatives of the myriad businesses that seek to make a financial killing from climate alarmism. There were representatives of the solar, wind, and biofuel industries that profit from taxpayer mandates and subsidies, representatives from financial services companies that want to trade permits to emit CO2, and public relations and strategic consultants to all of the above.

We libertarians would call such an event a rent-seekers ball ― the vast majority of the audience was there to plot how they could lock-in profits from government mandates on taxpayers and consumers.

It was an amazing collection of pseudo-entrepreneurs who were absolutely impervious to the scientific and economic facts that ought to deflate the global warming bubble.

In the interlude between presentations by the CEOs of Dow Chemical and Duke Energy, for example, the audience was shown a slide ― similar to this one ― of the diverging relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and average global temperature since 1998. That slide should have caused jaws to drop and audience members to ponder why anyone is considering regulating CO2 emissions in hopes of taming global climate.

Instead, it was as if the audience did a collective blink and missed the slide entirely. When I tried to draw attention to the slide during my presentation, it was as if I was speaking in a foreign dialect.

The only conclusion I could come to was that the audience is so steeped in anticipation of climate profiteering that there is no fact that will cause them to reconsider whether or not manmade global warming is a reality.

The callousness of their blind greed was also on display at the conference.

Heh. They were just demonstrating what's been learned from the high priest of the Religion of Environmentalism.

In an instantaneous poll, the Wall Street Journal asked the audience to select the most pressing societal problem from a list of five that included infectious disease (malaria, AIDs, etc.), terrorism, and global warming.

Global warming was the most popular response, receiving 31 percent of the vote, while infectious disease was far behind in last place with only 3 percent of the vote. It’s an amazing result given that billions are sickened, and millions die every year from infectious disease. The consequences of future global warming, on the other hand, are entirely speculative.

Finally, I was astounded by the double-speak practiced by the global warmers.

Nothing to be astounded about. Fluency in double-speak is the cult hallmark.

Virtually every speaker at the conference professed that they were either in favor of free markets or that they supported a free-market solution to global warming. But invariably in their next breath, they would plead for government regulation of greenhouse gases and government subsidies for alternative energy.

And the next POTUS will gladly sign whatever obscenely generous give-away legislation lands on his/her desk.

It’s hard to conceive of any good coming from a public policy in which facts play no substantial role in its development and words have no meaning in its public debate.

Steve Milloy

Via Canada Free Press

I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: “future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”. ― Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Enrage your brainwashed friends and family and send them the link to this video. I doubt the makers will be feted in Hollywood, but who cares when you have the truth on your side?

More from Hot Air and Riehl World View.