Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Climate of panic
Herald Sun ^ | 9th February 2005 | Andrew Bolt

Posted on 02/08/2005 2:05:50 PM PST by naturalman1975

Hotter, colder, wetter, drier. It's all the same to green scaremongers who use any change in the weather to push their dubious agenda.

MAN-MADE global warming is a theory believed so religiously that even snow in February can't kill it.

Melbourne last week had its coldest February day on record, and its wettest day, which should surprise those still naive enough to believe our green gurus.

After all, it was only last August that Environment Victoria warned global warming would make us not cold and damp, but fried and dried. "Victoria – like the rest of the world – should adapt to global warming," it said, and see "in what ways we can prepare for the inevitability of a hotter, drier state".

Ditto the Australian Conservation Foundation, which in January 2003 blamed our drought on "human-induced global warming", and warned: "Victoria will be hotter... Victoria will be drier." No word then about freezing in February or boating over the Kooyong Tennis Club.

But stopping only to pull a parka over their boardshorts, the same green scaremongers rushed out press releases last week claiming global warming was actually making us colder. Honest.

Environment Victoria insisted that our "record-breaking freeze and flood is a sign of things to come", and demanded "urgent action if we are to avert climate change".

The Australian Conservation Foundation likewise claimed this wild weather was "a taste of tomorrow's world" and demanded we fight "climate change".

Wow. Nimble footwork for guys in koala costumes.

Note, in particular, how both groups talked this time not of "global warming", but of "climate change" – which makes their pet theory much easier to sell to shivering sceptics here, or in the deep snows of northern United States, buried last month by massive blizzards.

What a great marketing move. With it, global warming morphs into a gimme-cash theory about climate change that can never be proved wrong, come heat or hail, rain or dust.

How useful this name-switch has been, particularly given the growing debate over just how much the world is in fact warming, and whether man is really to blame for what seems to be largely natural phenomena.

So Greenpeace no longer uses "global warming" in the headlines of press releases on, er, global warming. For three years its headings have used "climate change" instead, as in: "US just being climate change `moron'."

The ACF, so frantic to exploit any freak of nature for propaganda that it even issued a statement headed "Tsunami an environmental warning", has likewise referred only to "climate change" in its press release headlines over the past year.

The pro-green Age got the wink. Last year, for the first time, it ran more items on "climate change" than on "global warming".

Just in time, given last week's floods washed up yet more signs that predictions of super-heated doom may be overheated themselves.

In 2002, for instance, the federal Health Department published Human Health and Climate Change in Oceania, a typically alarmist "risk assessment" of this deadly global warming.

Compiled by researchers from the CSIRO, Australian National University and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, it predicted a very different climate for Melbourne than these floods and freezes we're told are a "taste of tomorrow's world".

The report claimed instead that Melbourne would become such a furnace in summer that by 2050 more than 1300 of our elderly would each year drop dead of the pitiless heat.

And bye-bye to rain by 2020, according to the weather models the researchers used to compute our heat-stricken fate.

"Of the two models used for this study, CSIROMk2 simulates wetter conditions in central Australia and the Top End, but drier conditions elsewhere," their report revealed.

Their other model predicted "wetter conditions north of a diagonal line from Broome to Hobart, and much drier conditions in the west". Bad luck for our draining dams, it seemed.

But, as you see, greenhouse theory means always having a bet each way, and so this report also warned there could be more floods in our parched state – but with one exception: "The risk of flood events in parts of south-western Victoria, where drying has also been predicted, may be reduced by -35 per cent."

Warrnambool's citizens should demand a recount, after unusually heavy rains in the south-west two weeks ago sent a flash flood through their city.

Of course, one bit of wild weather in our ever-changing climate doesn't disprove the holy theory of global warming. But nor should green groups claim the odd cold snap proves it, either – especially not if it's the polar opposite to what they and their booga-booga theory so stridently predicted just the other day.


TOPICS: Australia/New Zealand
KEYWORDS: climatechange; ecofriendly; enviros; envirowhackos; globalwarming; globalwarmingfraud; greenpeace; whackos

1 posted on 02/08/2005 2:05:50 PM PST by naturalman1975
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

The whole global warming stuff gives companies the opportunity to make an "eco freindly" (and twice as expensive) product, and people like GreenPeace a reason to whine. Whether it's true or not...


2 posted on 02/08/2005 2:07:20 PM PST by CampDoha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CampDoha

"Whether it's true or not..."


I think that global-warming is pretty much indisputable, especially when you look at how much melting is occurring in places like the Arctic Circle and the various, large ice shelves in Antarctica.

Personally, I blame an increase in volcanic activity and increased solar activity moreso than anything humans can do and was glad when Bush refused to sign Kyoto.

There's plenty of evidence of warming, but little that can accurately pinpoint it on 'Man', especially when you consider the extremely large volumes of greenhouse gases released by a volcanic eruption.

Also, when 'human reasons' are given, they usually try to blame 1st world activity, namely the USA, rather than the more-probably slash&burn deforestation techniques used to decimate the South American rain forests and African jungles. After all, trees do remove CO2. Shouldn't the large-scale reduction of trees be a primary cause, rather than me driving my Honda to work?


3 posted on 02/08/2005 2:20:15 PM PST by Blzbba (Don't hate the player - hate the game!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
Shouldn't the large-scale reduction of trees be a primary cause, rather than me driving my Honda to work?

They're clear-cutting the jungle rainforest to raise beef cattle for your high-cholesterol Big Macs!

So it's still YOUR fault.

4 posted on 02/08/2005 2:24:00 PM PST by thulldud (It's bad luck to be superstitious.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: thulldud

"high-cholesterol Big Macs! "


Ugh. I don't eat Big Macs, or any other "food" served by McDonalds.


5 posted on 02/08/2005 2:25:38 PM PST by Blzbba (Don't hate the player - hate the game!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend


6 posted on 02/08/2005 2:28:07 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP (Make all taxes truly voluntary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
"There's plenty of evidence of warming..."

This article intimates at one of the critical weakness of the 'global warming' debate, but doesn't adduce it fully. This problem is embedded in your response, though I agree with most of what you wrote.

The problem is in the definition. Are you talking about temperature of the earth's surface? Of the atmosphere? Of a combination? Is this a localized increase in some areas offset by other areas that are cooler? That is, is it an aggregate mapping of trends, or is selective measurement of the warmer areas? Also, most importantly, over how long a period of time are we talking? The term "warming" denotes an on-going process. From when to when?

While most agree that there may have been some aggregate warming globally over the past 100-150 years, no one can say so definitely, because man has not been keeping accurate enough records to be sure. But those who claim there is, though they disagree on amount of warming, most put the change in the 'negligible' category.

And, if it is true, then we still need not worry because it may well be that this 'warming trend' is just a part of a cycle that will peak and then begin to fall back into another mini-ice age as we are presently emerging from.

But I agree with you. If there is some aggregate warming, I don't think man's influence comes anywhere near having the same degree of effect on global climate than volcanic and solar activity have. I believe part of the agenda behind the 'climate change' lobby is to push Marxism under a flag of a different color. It was a red flag. Now it's green.
7 posted on 02/08/2005 2:38:37 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Liberals are blind. They are the dupes of Leftists who know exactly what they're doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

Ha ha ha ha. I saw the title and thought this was another evolution thread...


8 posted on 02/08/2005 2:39:17 PM PST by RobRoy (They're trying to find themselves an audience. Their deductions need applause - Peter Gabriel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

Scaremongers. Most of them don't get past freshman/sophomore science/math classes. Some switch over to biology and get an undergrad degree and then have a small problem with the grad degree. What is that new Crichton movie about? Who is supposedly scaring us?


9 posted on 02/08/2005 2:42:59 PM PST by RightWhale (Please correct if cosmic balance requires.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CampDoha

It's quack science. Man would like to think his significance is great enough to affect the climate of the universe, but it ain't.


10 posted on 02/08/2005 3:10:58 PM PST by yldstrk (My heros have always been cowboys-Reagan and Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

My totally unscientific observation has been that Australia leads not lags North American weather patterns. This would tend to imply a very early, very cold and wet fall, especially on the West Coast. That's cool, I love to ski!


11 posted on 02/08/2005 3:18:09 PM PST by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Take Back The GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
Ugh. I don't eat Big Macs, or any other "food" served by McDonalds.

How about White Castle?

12 posted on 02/08/2005 7:02:59 PM PST by thulldud (It's bad luck to be superstitious.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
Please check out this site:

Still Waiting for the Greenhouse

But be prepared to think about what you see. Climate has been changing ever since the earth has had an atmosphere. John Daly has a great site aimed at revealing the truth about the alarm raised by GW "climatologists". Enjoy!

13 posted on 02/08/2005 7:08:38 PM PST by texson66 ("Tyranny is yielding to the lust of the governing." - Lord Moulton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: thulldud

"How about White Castle?"


Nope. They don't have any stores in Georgia...


14 posted on 02/09/2005 6:51:02 AM PST by Blzbba (Don't hate the player - hate the game!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson