American Thinker presents insight not only into the current state of climate alarmism but the whys of it.
The Current State of Climate Alarmism
Excerpt from the entirely worthwhile Ari Halperin article:
. . . This tower of lies started shaking in 2004, the sixth year without warming. At the end of 2003 Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published an article in Energy & Environment, pointing to errors in the centerpiece of the latest IPCC report, Mann’s hockey stick. Mann was unrepentant, and other participants in the IPCC process jumped to defend their centerpiece. When the “errors” were exposed as a deliberate fraud, the alarmists decided to rally behind Mann and launched a major PR offensive. Such pattern of defending the dogma at any cost was repeated many times in similar situations. And each time the stakes rose, climate alarmism sank lower — scientifically, ethically, and legally. More importantly, the core believers were pulling their followers further in, making them like partners in crime, sometimes without their awareness. That made it impossible for the inner circle to come clean, or even to quit.
The second problem can be illustrated by the words of former Senator Timothy Wirth, which he said no later than 1993: “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” Too bad he did not ask where the ride was heading and who was at the wheel. The result was that many liberal or left-leaning institutions, including the whole Democratic Party, hitched themselves to the hostile agendas of the UN and European Greens. Timothy Wirth became the Chairman of the UN Foundation. Unable to get off this hellish ride, some of his allies effectively became tools of foreign governments and NGOs. An example of such behavior at the highest level is the joint climate change statement with China, in which the U.S. promised to decrease carbon dioxide emissions, while China promised to increase them! This document was signed by Obama and praised by the formerly mainstream media as a breakthrough agreement. . . .
Then there is this via Twitchy where respondents have some fun at Newsweak’s Newsweek’s and other climate alarmists expense:
GOOD NEWS: According to Newsweek, global warming is really, really affordable
Newsweek Tweet:
A sea level rise of 4 inches by 2050 would lead to $1.1 billion in economic losses
Some folks on the thread respond:
Never Trump @MetricButtload @Newsweek Dr. Evil is impressed.
Robert @deepereyes So politicians want to cause $2 trillion to fix that?
Megawatt Herb Drench @mdrache A billion dollars is a rounding error in the US budget. Really, really scary.
It turns out Newsweek was only talking about Copenhagen, Denmark and it’s Copenhagen that will supposedly experience $1.1 billion in losses over the next 34 years. (emphasis ours)
From Newsweek via Twitchy:
For example, the researchers found that in Copenhagen, Denmark, a sea level rise of just 11 centimeters (or just over 4 inches) by mid-century would lead to $1.1 billion in economic losses. And that’s a relatively conservative estimate; Denmark as a whole is projected to experience between 10 and 40 centimeters of sea level rise by mid-century. The researchers told Reuters if the rate of sea level rise doubles from that conservative estimate to about 25 centimeters (9.8 inches) by mid-century, the damage costs would quadruple to $4.35 billion.
That is not all that scary even if true, as respondents point out:
.@TotesBryan @Newsweek If you actually believe there will be a 4 inch sea rise, I have a bridge I want to sell you(for $1.1B)
As Twitchy points out:
Newsweek’s alarmism is still hilarious, however. Denmark’s GDP is about $330 billion, which means the $1.1 billion over the next 34 years is still like a rounding error in the overall scheme of things.
Bring on the warming!
DLH and R Mall
