I was initially pleased to see this article in the Herald, thinking that perhaps common sense was beginning to return to our discussions about global warming.
Brian Rudman: Ditch fruitcake views on climate change
Sadly, Mr Rudman has been captured by the same logic inversion that affects environmentalists, in particular the Hot Topic crowd. In case you haven't been listening, these are the people who think that those who deny global warming are 'climate cranks'.
Of more concern is his indulging Mr Hide in his fruitcake
views on global warming. As part of the deal, Mr Key has agreed to a
climate change select committee.
He must know there's more chance of finding an
internationally respected flat-earther, or apostle of intelligent
design, or even a Holocaust denier than there is of finding a
peer-reviewed case against human-assisted global warming.
This is putting it a bit strongly, but sadly there a small amount of truth in this. The global warming scam has so completely captured the scientific community that all that remains is a bunch of timid grant-seekers who know that one foot wrong could see them out on there ear.
Only the other day, David Ballamy stated that the BBC ignored him for 10 years because he said that global warming wasn't true. This is the man who was all over the screen for years and was hugely popular with TV audiences.
If environmentalists can do this to one of their own, you can imagine their behaviour with scientists who don't tow the line. I note that Bjorn Lomborg's site appears to have been hacked. (Here is his advice to President-elect Obama, though).
There is a long list of scientists that oppose global warming and speak out on the flaws in it. I recently read a book about them. One (Bob Carter) has already been covered here, perhaps I should cover more.
But here is bigger point: the Holocaust and a round earth are easily verifiable. We have lots of photos and eye witness accounts of the Holocaust. Millions of people were there. Similarly, you can climb a high mountain (or fly or see images from NASA) to see the curvature of the Earth.
Intelligent design is a religious issue, very close to global warming. Mr Rudman might like to compare and contrast the debates in each. He may had hit on something here.
Mr Rudman then goes on to try to justify his religion, as follows:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells a grimly
different story, noting that 11 of the past 12 years to 2006 rank among
the 12 warmest years since global recording began in 1850.
The temperature records are dodgy. But anyway, the temperature goes up and down.
Global average sea level has risen since 1961 at an average rate of 1.8mm/yr and since 1993 at 3.1mm/yr.
This is a tiny amount - the mid estimate (even assuming that they are right and it is a trend) is less than half a meter a century. We will barely notice. The sea rises and falls all the time - it was apparently 120m higher when the ice caps melted.
"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming; climate change is a serious global threat, and it demands an urgent global response. Hundreds of millions of people could suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the world warms."
Half a meter is not going to cause too much coastal flooding, so we can worry about that in a century. The cure is worse than the disease - e.g. biofuels causing a food shortage, food miles causing people to stop buying food from Africa.
Of more concern is his indulging Mr Hide in his fruitcake views on global warming. As part of the deal, Mr Key has agreed to a climate change select committee.
He [Hide] said, "A new New Zealand that was one or two degrees warmer would be a better place to live and better for agriculture".
Really, this article is simply an affirmation of religious belief, and trying to say that Mr Rudman's religion is the better one. It is very very clear to me that Mr Hide is the rational voice here. He is simply saying that New Zealand has nothing to fear from global warming.
The Fruitcake award has to go with Mr Rudman on this one.
Although it is fair to say that Greenpeace is close competition.