It should come as no surprise that the madness of the global warming crowd is a mania just made for Mark Steyn to make sport of, and he does so with great glee in England’s Telegraph:
As Steven Guilbeault of Greenpeace puts it: “Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter, that’s what we’re dealing with.” Got that? If it’s hot, that’s a sign of global warming, and, if it’s cold, that’s a sign of global warming.
And if it’s just kind of average – say, 48F and partially cloudy, as it will be in Llandudno today – that’s a sign that global warming is accelerating out of control and you need to flee immediately because time is running out ! “Time is running out to deal with climate change,” says Mr Guilbeault. “Ten years ago, we thought we had a lot of time, five years ago we thought we had a lot of time, but now science is telling us that we don’t have a lot of time.”
Really? Ten years ago, we had a lot of time? That’s not the way I recall it: “Time is running out for the climate” – Chris Rose of Greenpeace, 1997; “Time running out for action on global warming Greenpeace claims” – Irish Times, 1994; “Time is running out” – scientist Henry Kendall, speaking on behalf of Greenpeace, 1992. Admirably, Mr Guilbeault’s commitment to the environment extends to recycling last decade’s scare-mongering press releases.
“Stop worrying about your money, take care of our planet,” advised one of the protesters’ placards. Au contraire, take care of your money and the planet will follow. For anywhere other than Antarctica and a few sparsely inhabited islands, the first condition for a healthy environment is a strong economy. In the past third of a century, the American economy has swollen by 150 per cent, automobile traffic has increased by 143 per cent, and energy consumption has grown
45 per cent. During this same period, air pollutants have declined by 29 per cent, toxic emissions by 48.5 per cent, sulphur dioxide levels by 65.3 per cent, and airborne lead by 97.3 per cent. Despite signing on to Kyoto, European greenhouse gas emissions have increased since 2001, whereas America’s emissions have fallen by nearly one per cent, despite the Toxic Texan’s best efforts to destroy the planet.
Had America and Australia ratified Kyoto, and had the Europeans complied with it instead of just pretending to, by 2050 the treaty would have reduced global warming by 0.07C – a figure that would be statistically undectectable within annual climate variation. In return for this meaningless gesture, American GDP in 2010 would be lower by $97 billion to $397 billion – and those are the US Energy Information Administration’s somewhat optimistic models.
Read the rest.
Update: In a related topic, Tech Central Station looks at “Cold Britannia“:
Man-made global warming, you say? Why should we not be surprised that the UK Met Office is now predicting the coldest winter for nearly ten years? The UK government, cowed by the demands of unrealistic pressure groups, has allowed overregulation, a short-sighted greed for taxes and unrealistic view of the costs of controlling greenhouse gas emissions to leave Britain facing power cuts and an economic shut-down this winter.