Five ludicrous climate change claims

While one can see what the Bishop of Stafford was trying to say with his remarks on the selfishness of climate change inaction, his analogy with the horrific crimes of Josef Fritzl was a leap of superhuman scale, it must be said.

Here's some other bizarre claims on the subject of climate change, in no particular order. Please feel free to write in with further nominations:

1. Severe climate events such as the ice storms that hit the US Mid West last year are God's punishment for pressure on Israel to make a peace deal with the Palestinians.  Pat Robertson, US televangelist, December 2007.

2. Last year's floods in England were the consequence of "our moral degradation", particularly the introduction of pro-gay laws and ignorance of the Bible. The Rt Rev Graham Dow, Bishop of Carlisle, July 2007.

3. Hurricane Katrina's lashing of the Mississippi coast was God's punishment for Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour's memo urging President George W. Bush not to sign the Kyoto Protocol. Robert F. Kennedy Jr, August 2005 (before the full impact of Katrina on New Orleans was known).

4. The greatest threat to freedom, democracy and prosperity at the start of the 21st century is environmentalism, an ideology worse than communism which “wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central, now global, planning of the whole world.” Czech President Vaclav Klaus, March 2007.

5. By the year 2000, England will no longer exist, while America's population will have shrunk to 22 million due to starvation. Professor Paul Erlich, 1968.

Comments

[Dodgy Geezer]

Here is my contribution.

Dodgy Claim No. 6

Lewis Smith, Robin Pagnamenta, and John-Paul Flintoff know what they are talking about.

[Liz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

Watch this video everyone -- and Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

[John Stalker]

Z. Plonkenburg

Calling anyone who questions the validity of climate change hysteria stupid reveals more about the green evangelists like yourself.

The debate has not even begun.

[robin biles]

The easiest way to save the planet is for all of the human race to die off, it will then, in time, heal itself. We have had our chance and messed it up, human greed will ensure that no solution will be arrived at. Now where did I leave my low energy light bulb?

[Caroline]

Ok, clearly one of the more ridiculous statements was George Monbiot's assertion that "flying across the Atlantic is as unacceptable as child abuse"... Really, George? I hardly think so - and what an insult to those who have actually suffered abuse as a child.

[Vanessa]

The basic problem seems to me to be that the human race is a victim of its own success. Within normal animal populations natural selection/survival of the fittest and food limitations maintain the numbers at a sensible and sustainable level, we however increase our numbers perpetually, the probability is that sooner or later the earth will not be able to support our ever increasing population and we will not have enough food etc. to maintain ourselves and in our efforts to prevent the collapse of our huge population we will slowly destroy the ecosystem of the world. Not a happy thought.

[GN, Dublin]

I'm off to the Czech Republic.

[aph]

The most outrageous claim of all is that we should do nothing.

[Scott]

All are outrageous claims?

Czech President Vaclav Klaus', March 2007 comments in #4 are right on the money!

[Pete Lloyd]

After the collapse of communism, 'Central Planners', with their simplistic answers to the world's problems, were discredited and at a loose end. "Environmentalism" was adopted as a cause that none could decry, so complex that almost any claim could be made without fear of refutation. It has provided thousands of jobs in science, government and the media for those unable or unwilling to think for themselves, or just wanting a soft job. Planners, second-rate scientists and journalists, as well as witless politicians, are having a wonderful time telling us all what to do and warning of the dreadful consequences if we don't all do what they say. None of these people actually know much about the many scientific disciplines involved. The good scientists are all directing their research at trying to disentangle the facts to find out how our global climate really works and admit freely that they don't yet know enough about it.

Disbelieve, immediately, any article or TV programme that says "Scientists say that......", implying 'all (or most) scientists'.
They don't. They don't know yet, by their own admission.

Basic environmentalism is, of course, a good thing. Don't waste energy, or water, or materials. Use the land carefully, with a view to its continuing productivity. But be balanced - you can still go and visit your family in New Zealand with a clear conscience, but be prepared to pay a realistic cost for use of the plane and the fuel.

But it is all starting to cost ridiculous amounts of money and to divert effort from really important problems. Politicians are beginning to extract too much in taxes, too easily, with environment as too glib an excuse. Careful science is beginning to reveal the truth. This house of cards is beginning to totter.

Good. Then we can get down to effective action on the real problems.

[Harry Forbes]

A recent petition, questioning the 'Green' fact that man is causing 'global warming' was signed by 31000 Scientists from all over the world, 9000 of them were PhDs. Why are we not listening to them as part of a reasoned debate. The comment by the ludicrous Bishop of Stafford clearly indicates that we have totally lost the plot here, we are now listening to idiots without question and ignoring the men and women of Science.

[Z. Plonkenburg]

Central control is bad? Allright, lets be principled about it, give Slough and Liverpool and every little town in between the right to do whatever they want.

There WAS a debate, but since most of you holocaustic global warming deniers are too stupid to do 5th grade math ....

The best one is : "it snows so there's no global warming!" Especially since people are that stupid we've come to use the word climate change.
London will be the first to go when the water rises, dam or no dam.

[pete best]

He he, after all this time people still think weather is climate and hence it cannnot be a threat can it! No more of a threat to our freedoms and ability to wage war for precious finite resources (hence the war in the first place). The biblical fraternity have always made these connections othewise why believe in God in your cannot reign damnation on everyone for heavens sake.

Its typcial rhetoric will some people always fall for. However digging up the Athabasca tar sands (heavy CO2 release) and taking control of Iraq's oil supplies whilst spitting our own rhetoric about freedom and growth and how we can double our economy every 15 years on a finite sized planet is beyond me.

[Kunoichi]

No, 4 shouldn't be on that list. There's nothing bizarre about it - Klaus happens to be right.

[Frank Adams]

According to my calculations, the scientific fact is equivalent to the nucleus.

[Frank Adams]

Global warming? It's snowing today in my small city of Redding, CA. Maybe I need to disperse more CO2 to heat my home.

[Amanda Hill]

EXCELLENT list, TDK.
How badly do the Greens need better public relations??
I used to work for BAE, where the office motto was 'more carrot, less stick'. I'm all for saving the world, but the Greens should be getting us to focus on the carrot, and forget that there's any stick involved.
If I ran IPCC conferences, I'd insist on a good old 'bonding sessions' with a few choruses of 'Put on a Happy Face'.

...Take off the gloomy mask of tragedy,
It's not your style;
You'll look so good that you'll be glad
You decide to smile!
Pick out a pleasant outlook,
Stick out that noble chin;
Wipe off that "full of doubt" look,
Slap on a happy grin!
...And if you're feeling cross and bitterish
Don't sit and whine
Think of banana split and licorice
And you'll feel fine.
I knew a girl so glooming
She'd never laugh or sing
She wouldn't listen to me
Now she's a mean old thing...etc etc.

I think this is the way forward for Green public relations.
*adjusts Lucinda-beret*
*quietly vexes over killer cornflakes*

[Mike]

Ludicrous climate change claims
1 IPCC. CO2 is the major cause of global warming. Has anyone actually seen the proof. Proof to an IPCC stated 90% level of confidence not weak evidence based on unverified climate models that did not forecast the lack of global warming this century.
2 Numerous alarmists. The debate about causes of global warming is over. What debate? Can anyone remember an open debate.
3 The Nobel prize committee. Al 9 errors Gore deserves the Nobel Peace prize. Sorry there are actually 35 errors

[Adrian Vance]

We have patents pending on several new processes that create a carbon economy by making CO2 valuable, saving 1/2 the water used in agriculture, which is now 70% of all water and generating all the motor and home heating fuel we need from 200 sq. miles of land or sea. See it all at http://SCAF.i8.com

[TDK]

Well the greatest list of claimed effects of climate change is here: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Paul Erlich believed in 1968 that it was already too late to avoid mass starvation. None of other predictions has come true either yet he still remains a guru to the Green movement.

Intriguing comment by Vaclav Havel, a man who actually lived under totalitarianism and might have some useful insight to offer. Let's break down his claim:
1. freedom - greens want to restrict freedom to travel
2. democracy - part of democracy is open debate but apparently the debate is over.
3. prosperity - well we have been told by Nick Stern and others that we must spend billions now to avoid catastrophe. That must surely affect prosperity.
4. a sort of central, now global, planning of the whole world - perhaps he means a sort of UN body that controls worldwide redistribution and economic growth rates. Kyoto is considered insufficient by just about all Greens.

Looks a reasonable worry to me. Talk to any Greenpeace member in the street and they are open about how much control they want to impose. They speak a far too common year zero rhetoric that is much too tolerated by journalists who should be a bit more challenging.