In the 1970s, desperate for money, I wrote anything for anyone. Chapters for books, speeches, ads, direct mail, all-singing, all dancing presentations – anything to stave off the bailiffs.
And here we are 30 odd years later – not much change.
Talking of which, one book I part-wrote was about changes in the world’s weather. It was called The CIA and the World Weather Conspiracy.What the hell it was really about I have no idea now, but I do know it predicted a New Ice Age.
What goes around comes around. Last December at a U.N. Global Warming conference in Poland 650 of the world’s top climatologists said that man-made global warming is a load of old cobblers put about by the media and we should really be worried about freezing to death.
Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, asked “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?”
The earth’s temperature peaked in 1998. It’s been falling ever since; it dropped a lot in 2007 and even more in 2008 when temperatures touched 1980 levels. Satellite photos show that Arctic ice is back where it was in 1979. And has that hole in the ozone layer melted Antarctica? No; the ice has grown 5 % since 1980.
So during this period of massive global warming which has us all quivering in our shoes and being persecuted by local government fuckwits for not sorting out our garbage, the biggest chunks of ice on earth grew bigger.
Dr. Kunihiko, Chancellor of Japan’s Institute of Science and Technology actually said: “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other … every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so.” And you know Chancellors never lie if you exclude the Great Bloated Haggis, who does little else.
Interestingly, a big Russian study overwhelmingly suggests that we’re on the verge of another Ice Age. Core samples from Vostok Station in Antarctica show what’s happened to our atmosphere and temperature for the last 420,000 years. It seems the 12,000 years of relative warmth we have basked in are about to end.
So now we can all shiver our way through an ice age for some 100,000 years – well, you can, because I won’t be around. And core samples show conclusively that CO2 levels follow the earth’s temperature, not precede it – which destroys the basis for much of the scare-mongering.
So all those years ago the book I worked on had it right, and Al Gore, as I always thought, is a grasping, self-publicising tosser who runs around the world getting paid $100,000 a time plus expenses to talk bollocks, show misleading videos of polar bears and frighten people.
Did you know he got the Nobel Peace Prize? What has the weather got to do with peace?
But then, being stupid, like all committees, they have chosen some odd people, including Menachim Begin and Yasser Arafat who between them caused more than a few deaths. No doubt we shall see those murderous bastards in the IRA on the list eventually. And how about George Bush and the Bliar?
This piece is partly based on one by John Tomlinson of the Flint Journal
On the global warming, I have hidden my opinions except with a few trusted people. To speak otherwise – I would have been chopped to pieces and thrown to Al Gore’s “warm” and probably hungry, Polar Bears. I also have enjoyed the late Dr. Michael Crichton’s view on same, as well as his book State of Fear –
The melting icecap will soon flood our cities causing havoc and devastation. Cock. As any schoolboy knows, you cannot compress water. Fill a glass with ice cubes and then top it up with water. Let the ice melt and, surprise, it won’t overflow.
If the Met Office cannot tell me what the weather will be this weekend, how on earth does some left wing twat know what it is going to be in 50 years?
Hmmmm…. if these 650 scientists are right, and all the rest are wrong, are we talking some sort of conspiracy here? If so, I presume NASA’s in on the deal because only today they’ve posted fresh evidence – or perhaps I should say “evidence” – that the Antarctic ice cap is shrinking (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_antarctica.html).
• There is no “scientific consensus” on global warming
• Climate is always changing – with or without man
• Man is responsible for LESS THAN 2% of carbon emissions
• What do you think trees live on to produce oxygen? Name that gas!
• The Medieval Warm Period was significantly warmer than temperatures today – and was a golden age for agriculture, innovation, and lifespan
• Most of Antarctica is actually getting colder
• Hurricanes are not getting worse – our tendency to build houses in their path is getting greater
• Many big businesses lobby for global warming policies that will increase their profits – and our costs
• The media only recently abandoned the “global cooling” scare or have you forgotten the New Ice Age scare stories of the 70s and 80s?
• The real agenda behind the “global warming” scare? A massive expansion of government control over the economy and our lives by dramatically imposing ‘green taxes’ which do NOTHING for the climate other than the political one.
Rupert in his last post is only partly right! There is scientific concensus but no scientific evidence to support the claim of global warming, caused by man or otherwise, and most of the evidence suggests the opposite.
Concensus is not fact just as the majority is not always, if ever, 100% right. The truth is there is a conspiracy of self-serving self-interest in much of the climatological ‘scientific’ (and I use the the term very loosely) community (I know which side of my bread my butter should be on).
Most of the recent evidence supports the view that the icecaps are getting colder and growing.
The real truth is as rupert states, “A massive expansion of government control over the economy and our lives by dramatically imposing ‘green taxes’ which do NOTHING for the climate other than the political one.”
Your comment about
“Why not Bush and Blair”
just made my day.
Drayton, you are such fun. I hope you have a happy chinese new year.
Thank you, Chui. I see it will be the Year of the Sheep.
I was born in the year of The Rat (鼠), welcomed, it says in Wikipedia, as a protector and bringer of material prosperity and associated with aggression, wealth, charm, and order, yet also associated with death, war, the occult, pestilence, and atrocities.
It is an atrocity that I don’t have more wealth and prosperity. My last divorce took care of all that little lot. I must be more aggressive in future.
I have it on good authority that if you stick your head in the sand you can see things more clearly.
That’s gotta be true.
I mean who can see the sand more clearly than the one who’s got his head buried in it?
A little like Israel and the US insisting the whole world supports Israel’s actions despite all the demonstrations against them.
And don’t forget the boos Bush got at Obama’s inauguration.
If nothing else proves the man’s popularity, that’s gotta be it.
Actually, I’m surprised you haven’t written anything about that.
And, speaking of the Nobel peace prize, you forgot about that terrorist Shimon Peres.
Whoops, how did I get from the weather to murderers and morons?
I reckon that 90% of what we are told and then taxed on is lies. All the governments and there agencies and dependents tend to be curupt at many levels and so lying to get more of our money is first nature. The green issue is just the latest scape goat to use wether it be deminishing resources or weather / ozone issues they can use it to leverage more taxes, so you will never find the real ‘truth’ only what they want you to find.
“I was born in the year of The Rat”
“Year of The Rat”? Pah!
Like most Geminis, I think all astrology is just a load of bollocks.
Steve
“I was born in the year of The Rat”
“Year of The Rat”? Pah!
Like most Geminis, I think all astrology is just a load of bollocks.
Steve
I have to disagree with you on that. “X number of scientists agree” is a fairly popular tactic anything from 9/11 conspiracies to creationism. I suspect it’s the same quality of science here, too.
Consensus in science isn’t decided by popular vote but by evaluating the direction evidence is pointing at. If you look at the pool of peer-reviewed papers that have been published, the vast majority point towards an anthropogenic impact on the recent changes in climate.
As for global cooling: Scientists are free to disagree with the consensus and look for data that contradicts the conventional theory, that’s what makes science work. We’ve had studies look for global cooling in the 70s and we have them now, but in both cases, scientists and papers arguing for global cooling are the minority.
But don’t listen to me, here’s a fellow Brit explaining the cooling myth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms