EXTRACT FROM: Global Warming and Cooling
Gerrit van der Lingen
http://denisdutton.com/van_der_lingen.pdf
Several commentators have pointed to more sinister aspects of the
present MMGW
hysteria. Proposals made to curb greenhouse gas emissions will result in
a substantial
reduction of democratic and personal freedoms. For instance, the British
Government
has proposed measures along the lines of what is called "Contraction and
Conversion"
(see www.gci.org.uk/main.html). Under this system, each individual on
Earth would
be allocated a permit to emit an equal amount of greenhouse gas. This
means that an
Amerindian in the warm Amazon jungle would be allocated the same
allowance as a
person in cold Helsinki. If the person in Helsinki wants to use more
than the person in
the Amazon, he would have to buy emission permits from the Amazonian.
This
system is proposed under the principle of global equity. This would mean
a return to
war-time ration books. Almost all human activities would be strictly
controlled, from
air travel (air miles), to food consumption patterns (food miles), to
the choice of cars,
housing, etc. All this would require an immense, all-pervasive, global,
bureaucratic
control and administration system. Stalin and Hitler would have been
green with
envy. All these measures will also put severe breaks on economic
developments. The
cost of living will go up dramatically and poor people will be hit the
hardest.
There are other matters in the MMGW debate that hark back to the Nazi
era. People
who dare to criticise the catastrophic MMGW dogma have been compared to
Holocaust deniers. Even worse, some MMGW promotors are demanding that
these
'deniers' should be dragged before a Nuremberg-type tribunal. They
maintain that
"the science has been settled." Apart from the fact that science is
never settled, they
refuse to debate the science in public. Several prominent academics have
challenged
Al Gore to a public, televised debate. He always refuses. This is not
surprising, as he
must know that he cannot win such a debate. The simple truth is that
there is no
scientific evidence for catastrophic global warming caused by human
carbon dioxide
emissions. The only 'evidence' is based entirely on computer models.
Because
climate is a chaotic, non-linear system, it does not lend itself to
computer modelling.
No wonder these models give wildly different results. They depend on
what initial
parameters are being used. Such parameters can be tweaked to obtain the
desired
outcome. I therefore call these modellers 'tweakers.' Their virtual
world has nothing
to do with the real world. Nature refuses to obey the IPCC and its
computer models.
Take for instance the temperature record of Christchurch for the last
one hundred
years. Temperatures have fluctuated, but there has been no overall
increase (Figure 3).
Global warming is passing us by.
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
The Fourth Re****t of the IPCC might just as well decree the
suppression of all climatology textbooks, and replace them in our
schools with press communiqués. ... Day after day, the same mantra -
that 'the Earth is warming up' - is churned out in all its forms. As
'the
ice melts' and 'sea level rises' the Apocalypse looms ever nearer!
Without realizing it, or perhaps without wi****ng to, the average
citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, and lulled into mindless acceptance.
.... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the
position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ...
Marcel Leroux
It should be abundantly clear by now that the AGW hypothesis is
contradicted by the facts/measurements/observations and should
therefore be abandoned and be substituted by a hypothesis which
better matches the facts.
- Hans Labohm
|
