Tuesday, September 22, 2009

FT Lies About Climate Change as an Editorial Policy, Apparently

Internal contradictions in libtard propaganda screeds are always comical but the once respectable Financial Times is becoming a veritable wastebin for silly exhalations ejacualated by hysterical climateers who yell the sky is falling and are amazed when after a couple of decades, people begin to doubt.

In an article fallaciously named "Global Insight: No melting of climate doubts," the agitprop cadre unconscious of silliness says:
..scepticism in the UK about man-made climate change had increased slightly over the past five years. Lorraine Whitmarsh, the project leader, said “hardened sceptics” remained steady at 20 per cent of the sample. But the number who agreed that “claims that human activities are changing the climate are exaggerated” rose from 15 to 29 per cent.

Let's do the math: 20% hardened sceptics & 29% exaggerated = 49% which in the special math of the FT equals "increased slightly" over the 35% who previously were either hardened or somewhat sceptical. Did Lorraine Whitmarsh completely bamboozle the hapless Clive Cookson who wrote the piece with her big brown eyes? Here's another stupid remark:
Climate scientists seem puzzled about what more they can do to convince people of the urgency of their case. “I don’t understand the psychology here. It should be about the evidence but it’s actually about beliefs,” says Vicky Pope, head of climate change at the UK Met Office

A case could be made that there might be other factors out there besides belief, or that perhaps the "belief" is an ideology of imposing carbon taxes on breathing so that the EU can finally tax every person [and his/her animals perhaps?] for pushing CO2 out of their nostrils & in the case of the FT writer, Clive Cookson, methane out of his buttocks. But wait, there's more:
As it happens, the average temperature of the world as a whole has risen little over the past decade, though some regions such as the Arctic have warmed appreciably – and sceptics have drawn succour from the virtual absence of global warming since 1998. But climatologists say this can be explained by natural patterns of climate, with a temporary cooling trend masking the underlying warming.

And people who are scientists, not climatologists, can explain it with solar cycles that are 11-year sunspot periods which are called Mulder events or periods. Of course, this would absolutely ruin the arguments of the socialist cabal seeking to impose cap & trade taxes on rich countries. But the serially flatulent Cookson isn't through:
There is no scientific consensus on how long this pause will continue. Mojib Latif, professor of climate physics at Germany’s Leibniz Institute, delighted sceptics with a statement this month that the world might in fact cool over the next decade or two, before rapid warming resumed.

But the UK Met Office, which has one of the world’s most respected computer models, predicts a resumption of global warming from next year, “with about half of the years to 2015 likely to be warmer globally than the current warmest year on record [1998]”.

Let's see, world-renowned scientist or "most-respected" computer models, probably by the IRCC, which the science-challenged UK which is not any more winning Nobels in anything except flatulence, sees as its hope to keep the shell game going.

Oh by the way, the northern American Midwest has had the coldest summer in decades, and since 1998, contrary to fart-machine Cookson and the "highly-respected" IRCC, the world temp has remained the same and may be beginning to decline a bit. All because of the sun, which causes 99% of the heat which affects the Earth's cliimate, give or take a tenth of a percent.

Solipsists and narcissistic "climatologists" are the intellects a mediocre moron like Cookson might "get." Herr Prof Mojib Latif probably has an IQ fifty points above and an education much better than the half-baked Oxbridge grads now posing as "experts."

Drool, Britannia, you're so over the hill that your climate science sucks as much as your NHS.

No comments :