Ice Work If You Can Get It

Mark Steyn on the collapsing bandwagon of global warming:

But where did all these experts get the data from? Well, NASA’s assertion that Himalayan glaciers “may disappear altogether” by 2030 rests on one footnote, citing the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report from 2007.

In fact, the Fourth Assessment Report suggests 2035 as the likely arrival of Armageddon, but what’s half a decade between scaremongers? They rate the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing as “very high”—i.e., more than 90 per cent. And the IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for that report, so it must be kosher, right? Well, yes, its Himalayan claims rest on a 2005 World Wildlife Fund report called “An Overview of Glaciers.”

WWF? Aren’t they something to do with pandas and the Duke of Edinburgh? True. But they wouldn’t be saying this stuff if they hadn’t got the science nailed down, would they? The WWF report relies on an article published in the New Scientist in 1999 by Fred Pearce.

That’s it? One article from 12 years ago in a pop-science mag? Oh, but don’t worry, back in 1999 Fred did a quickie telephone interview with a chap called Syed Hasnain of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. And this Syed Hasnain cove presumably knows a thing or two about glaciers.

Well, yes. But he now says he was just idly “speculating”; he didn’t do any research or anything like that.

But so what? His musings were wafted upwards through the New Scientist to the World Wildlife Fund to the IPCC to a global fait accompli: the glaciers are disappearing. Everyone knows that. You’re not a denier, are you? India’s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, says there was not “an iota of scienti?c evidence” to support the 2035 claim. Yet that proved no obstacle to its progress through the alarmist establishment. Dr. Murari Lal, the “scientist” who included the 2035 glacier apocalypse in the IPCC report, told Britain’s Mail on Sunday that he knew it wasn’t based on “peer-reviewed science” but “we thought we should put it in”—for political reasons.

In other words the science wasn’t settled. Rather, the propaganda was settled on. And that propaganda took on a life of its own and was repeated over and over and over, in ever more shrill bits of propaganda masquerading as science. (Go read the entire piece, Steyn is at his best when slapping around the easily led.)

If the news corpse exercised even a small amount of basic curiosity, they would be noticing odd little things, such as the vast wealth apparently acquired by Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC. Or the vast wealth acquired by Al Gore. And if the news corpse was even modestly endowed with a kindergarten level ability to connect the dots, they would have smelled a rat long ago. Several rats.

Instead, they hopped onto the bandwagon along with thousands upon thousands other useful idiots and began hyping the fraud.

And it is fraud, writ large.

What ought to be settled on is how to bring the fraudsters to justice for what they have done and are still attempting to do.

The bandwagon is collapsing under the weight of the lies piled onto it.

This entry was posted in Environment. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Ice Work If You Can Get It

  1. OKE E DOKE says:

    justa gentle reminder. it should be news “corps” which would be pronounced with the “p” silent, as in “corpsman”——- everybody knows that

  2. Tully says:

    He knows, he’s just honoring Obama by giving it the official White House pronunciation.

    Having spent a decade noisily pointing out to people (including being a credentialed 4AR reviewer for certain governmental bodies) that the IPCC was full of crap, and being throughly reviled and kicked around for it, all I can say is IT’S ABOUT DAMN TIME.

    Climate change WILL occur whether or not, and regardless of any effect humans have on the environment. Instead of wasting billions or trillions of dollars chasing the leftie-green apocalyptic anti-human agenda disguised as “science” we should be evoting our research to positive mitigations and adaptations that, you know, WORK, and have positive benefit/cost ratios.

Comments are closed.