Global warming 'will kill'

[DaS Energy]

"Australia is going to cook and people will die through global warming, West Australian Greens senator Scott Ludlam says.
Senator Ludlam said Australia needed to stop giving climate sceptics air time and just get on with the job of responding to climate change"

This bloke will say anything for a look at me moment. But never will he reveal the Carbon abatement technology gifted to the people and held secret by the Greens. If bullshit and deceit is a river Scott Ludlam is its source!

[Neferti]

Isn't Ludlum a Greenie? Treat him with IGNORE. It's the only way. Some people are all mouth and no brains. Pathetic.

[DaS Energy]

Isn't Ludlum a Greenie? Treat him with IGNORE. It's the only way. Some people are all mouth and no brains. Pathetic.

Fide Et Fortuditine, never ignore the likes of that or them, parasites and dishonest with self greed and deception. They see themselves fit to our lead land, brother, son and father put theirs lives on the line so we could the have lifestyle we enjoy today, not to be stolen by lies, deceit, and treachery of some Political grub of the highest order.

[IQS.RLOW]

Rooooooned, roooooooooooooooooned I tells ya.

[DaS Energy]

Rooooooned, roooooooooooooooooned I tells ya.

Did they save the planet?

[Rorschach]

Ludlum is an idiot and a Greenie... seems to go hand in hand; Bandt, Milne, Hanson-Dumb, etc.

[DaS Energy]

Ludlum is an idiot and a Greenie... seems to go hand in hand; Bandt, Milne, Hanson-Dumb, etc.

Ludlum is a Greens parasite.

$30 million cash of punter money was paid by Gillard into the Greens bank account supposedly for a purpose to which no Greens account exist.

Has Ludlum got his signature on any withdrawal slip or cheque, has Ludlum ever received any money from the $30 million the Greens leave unaccounted for.

[IQS.RLOW]

Great article by Nigel Lawson This essay is based on the text of a speech given to the Institute for Sustainable Energy and the Environment at the University of Bath.

http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/5541/full" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some excerpts

There is something odd about the global warming debate — or the climate change debate, as we are now expected to call it, since global warming has for the time being come to a halt.

I have never shied away from controversy, nor — for example, as Chancellor — worried about being unpopular if I believed that what I was saying and doing was in the public interest.

But I have never in my life experienced the extremes of personal hostility, vituperation and vilification which I — along with other dissenters, of course — have received for my views on global warming and global warming policies.

Climate change alarmism is a belief system, and needs to be evaluated as such.
There is, indeed, an accepted scientific theory which I do not dispute and which, the alarmists claim, justifies their belief and their alarm.

But since then, and wholly contrary to the expectations of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, who confidently predicted that global warming would not merely continue but would accelerate, given the unprecedented growth of global carbon emissions, as China's coal-based economy has grown by leaps and bounds, there has been no further warming at all. To be precise, the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a deeply flawed body whose non-scientist chairman is a committed climate alarmist, reckons that global warming has latterly been occurring at the rate of — wait for it — 0.05ºC per decade, plus or minus 0.1ºC. Their figures, not mine. In other words, the observed rate of warming is less than the margin of error.

This leads directly to the last of my four questions. To the extent that there is a problem, what should we, calmly and rationally, do about it?

The answer is — or should be — a no-brainer: adapt. I mentioned earlier that a resumption of global warming, should it occur (and of course it might) would bring both benefits and costs. The sensible course is clearly to pocket the benefits while seeking to minimise the costs.

So how is it that much of the Western world, and this country in particular, has succumbed to the self-harming collective madness that is climate change orthodoxy? It is difficult to escape the conclusion that climate change orthodoxy has in effect become a substitute religion, attended by all the intolerant zealotry that has so often marred religion in the past, and in some places still does so today.

Throughout the Western world, the two creeds that used to vie for popular support, Christianity and the atheistic belief system of Communism, are each clearly in decline. Yet people still feel the need both for the comfort and for the transcendent values that religion can provide. It is the quasi-religion of green alarmism and global salvationism, of which the climate change dogma is the prime example, which has filled the vacuum, with reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as little short of sacrilege.

The parallel goes deeper. As I mentioned earlier, throughout the ages the weather has been an important part of the religious narrative. In primitive societies it was customary for extreme weather events to be explained as punishment from the gods for the sins of the people; and there is no shortage of this theme in the Bible, either — particularly, but not exclusively, in the Old Testament. The contemporary version of this is that, as a result of heedless industrialisation within a framework of materialistic capitalism, we have directly (albeit not deliberately) perverted the weather, and will duly receive our comeuppance.

There is another aspect, too, which may account for the appeal of this so-called explanation. Throughout the ages, something deep in man's psyche has made him receptive to apocalyptic warnings that the end of the world is nigh. And almost all of us, whether we like it or not, are imbued with feelings of guilt and a sense of sin. How much less uncomfortable it is, how much more convenient, to divert attention away from our individual sins and reasons to feel guilty, and to sublimate them in collective guilt and collective sin.

Global warming orthodoxy is not merely irrational. It is wicked.