Well the floods will come after the new ice-age predicted back in the 70s, so we have a while wait yet.

Damn straight it can't be that they're too stupid. I remember Michael Wharton writing (as Peter Simple) years ago while Militant was attempting its entryist tactics on the Labour Party. He excoriated the use of the phrase 'loony Left' as in his view this downplayed the cleverness, determination and malevolence of the ultra-Left. The same applies here - these people are not stupid - their ability and willingness to manipulate the media and play on the fears of a largely innumerate populace is frightening. The modern environmental movement has killed more people than Pol Pot, if by nothing more than its disgusting attack on DDT.

I'm trying to figure out why the Observer's doomsday scenario left out the obligatory "women and minorities hit hardest."

When they start invoking a "consensus of scientific opinion" to support their agenda, science has already lost the argument.

http://sisu.typepad.com/sisu/2004/02/pot_calls_kettl.html

Iain Murray came too short in his criticism of the reports. It was clear to me from reading the original observer piece alone that the Pentagon was playing war games, and adding all the AM radio style doomsday reports together to see how the US would react in the ultimate doomsday scenarios. That is their job, but how any journalist could not see this is beyond me.

In particular how come Sweden, Britain and Ireland were to see temperature drops of ( an enormous) 6 degrees and yet Amsterdam was to be flooded by increases in sea level caused by (um) ice melts and (agh) glaciar reductions in (well) Sweden and the Arctic ( maybe the Arctic bucks the 6 degree drop, but how?). I see a contradiction here which - it seems - British "scientists" do not.

Just one or 2 more points on this silliness. Much of Holland is below sea level as it is. If the sea rises they will build their dykes higher, so will every one else. Lombard makes this point in the Sceptical Environmentalist, but the blowhards keep talking about how Florida's or Amsterdam's real estate will be under water Real Soon Now. No it won't, even if the sea level rises - a very dubious prospect anyway.

And also, of course, human agency can never cope. Europe is to be swamped with freezing Swedes unable to cope with a 6 degree drop in winter time, but why? Humans will die at zero degrees centigrade if unprotected, as much as they will at -6 degrees. They Swedes can survive now, have survived for centuries, and will survive this mythical drop even if it happens - which it won't , of course.

What I haven't figured out yet is, how's the Polar Icecap going to be melting at the same time the UK's turning into Siberia?

Of course, the fact that Iain Murray works for the free-market fundamentalists at the Competitive Enterprise Institute is irrelevant. As is the fact that they are funded by the American Petroleum Institute, Amoco, General Motors, Ford Motor Company and Texaco.

I'm sure they're all jolly clever scientists with nothing in common with the corporate shills that told us - for years, against the evidence - that tobacco doesn't cause cancer, asbestos is safe, along with lead, mercury, thalidomide pcb's, and a host of other toxic goodies.

And, please, no sarcastic comments about the tobacco industry also funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Thanks, Ron F; I finally understand what 'ad hominem' means. Also 'dickhead.'

---- Of course, the fact that Iain Murray works for the free-market fundamentalists at the Competitive Enterprise Institute is irrelevant.

It is of course relevant, Iain is biased, we all are. But that doesn't make what he said wrong. If bias disqualifies from making counter arguments, intellectually we are all screwed.

Taking into account Iains bias, I still think he is spot on. On the other hand, taking the bias of the environmental movement into account (Rabidly anti capitalist) nearly everything they every say is a gross distortion of the reality.

Surely there is no need to resort to abuse in responding to Ron F. It suffices simply to say ''Brent Spar''.

Alan is spot on about the abuse, though I fail to se what Brent Spar has to do with the validity of what Iain Murray has to say - nothing in terms of the science - or the organisation he is paid to say it for.

It's extraordinary that Jonathan can dismiss all the scientists who contribute to the IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change)
as "rabidly anti capitalist". More than extraordinary, it's complete and utter nonsense.

Why not check out what other, assuredly pro-capitalists, are saying like, for example, Swiss Re, the world's second largest re-insurance company. In a recent report they claim -

""There is a danger that human intervention will accelerate and intensify natural climate changes to such a point that it will become impossible to adapt our socio-economic systems in time"

..................

"The human race can lead itself into this climatic catastrophe -- or it can avert it."

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=468753§ion=news

No doubt Swiss Re will be dismissed as "eco-fascists", but for the non-delusional it's quite clear what's happening. The fossil fuel lobby have a vested interest in denying human induced climate change while the insurance industry need to know what's really going on. since that's how they calculate premiums, risk and exposure.

They want to know why claims for flooding, storm damage, crop failures and the like are rocketing, so they commission research and hey, guess what? It says the same as that commissioned by governments, "eco-fascists" and anti-capitalists.

Ron F.

Iain Murray said nothing about whether there is global warming, or not. I personally accept that there is, and that it correlates to human activity ( and may or may not be caused by them). I think the effects will be mostly benign, and well within the scope of human competance. We were discussing here a particular report which clearly had all kinds of contradictory nonsense which you should address , rather than resort to ad homminems like "He is an Evil Capitalist". Believe it or not, even a Marxist could agree that this report, or even environmentalism is nonsense, and not get expelled from the Church of Marx for heresy. (And it is a very orthodox church, the church of the Left)

So address this one issue from the report, mentioned already:

Why is the North Sea going to rise so much as to cause floods in the NetherLands if the temperature correspndlingly falls by an astronomical 6 degress in the Northern Winter time, the effects most pronounced in the same area?

Wouldn't this cause glaciar growth, and a corresponding drop in the sea level. How could both effects happen simultanously?

Does this rubbish the report? If not why not?

My point about Brent Spar is that it is a refutation of ad hominen. The inference drawn by those sympathetic to Greenpeace's case was that BP's scientists produced figures that disagreed with those of Greenpeace because they were hired hands of BP. In fact, as Greenpeace ultimately acknowledged, the BP scientists' figures were far closer to the truth that were those of the independent scientists cited by Greenpeace.

breasts tugjob @X@ strokejob innocent masturbating @X@ cock punishing tugjobs @X@ ostra nastolatka @X@ szapolowska nago @X@ polskie lezby @X@ little girls sqrting @X@ squirt female britney @X@ gushing loli @X@ asian big pic tit @X@ hooter boobie pic @X@ free natural boob @X@ xxl penis @X@ sexsi w aucie movies @X@ sikanie na plazy trailer @X@ story handjobangels mpg @X@ hanjob sloppy videos @X@ cockstroking magazine xxx @X@ sex najtaniej mokre @X@ polskie nagie erotyka @X@ kasia latynoski @X@

extreme anal penetration* extreme anal penetrations* black mature nylons* black mature older* big tits round ass rogue* big tits round asses ana* old woman alinternal* password crack allinternall* shyra* asstit* fffm ffm lucky* fffm fuck thumbs*