Thursday, November 25, 2010

Climate Change Idiocy and The Economist

By Alan Caruba

For a brief period I subscribed to The Economist, the London-based internationally distributed magazine, but I stopped as it became obvious that its editors are idiots and the general purpose of the magazine is to ignore any and all facts that might contradict their obsession with “global warming” and now “climate change.”

Last year, The Economist had a cover that said, “Stop Climate Change.” That’s like saying stop the Earth from circumnavigating the Sun. The issue came out about the same time as the entire fictitious infrastructure of “global warming” came undone and resulted in the collapse of the last United Nations conference of liars who had gathered in Copenhagen to impose the purchase, sale and trade of “carbon credits” on the world.

A year later, the Chicago Exchange that had been set up to cash in on the scam had closed its doors. The one in Europe is selling carbon credits for pennies these days. Naturally, California, besotted with global warming idiocy, is preparing to have its own exchanges.

Apparently, despite glaring headlines in British newspapers, no one at The Economist was aware that the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University had been found to be rigging the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change data for years.

Did the Economist’s editors learn anything in the past year? No. Indeed, its latest issue sports a cover that says “How to Live with Climate Change.” In a year’s time, they have gone from saying stop climate change to learn to live with it. Is there a choice?

This is not the most original idea given the fact that human beings have been living with climate change since we climbed down from the trees and began walking upright, developing language, and spreading across the face of the Earth.

Eskimos found ways to survive in the Arctic. Polynesians learned to travel among Pacific islands. Everywhere civilizations came and went while agriculture was introduced to feed more and more people who, in turn, preferred living in cities as opposed to plowing the soil. The art and science of war flourished.

The Economist focused its attention on next week’s “meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”, the subject of a conference to be held in Cancun, Mexico.

You may recall that President Obama attended last year’s conference in Copenhagen that foundered on the news that there never was any dramatic increase in the Earth’s temperature.

Leaked emails revealed that the only “proof” of “global warming” could be found in corrupt, falsified computer models churned out by the CRU and a coordinated climate scam out of Pennsylvania State University, the recipient of comparable “climate research” funding.

The President had to depart early because of a massive blizzard that enveloped Copenhagen.

Even the Economist had to admit that “in the wake of the Copenhagen summit, there is a growing acceptance that the effort to avert serious climate change has run out of steam.” That’s also likely due to the fact that there is no way to “avert serious climate change.”

The Economist, however, held out hope that “a few climatic disasters” might get the scam going again.

It is an act of journalistic criminality to publish outright lies, but The Economist is not deterred by anything resembling the truth. It asserts a “likelihood “ that “the Earth will be at least 3 degrees Celsius warmer at the end of this century than it was at the beginning of the industrial revolution, less warming is possible, but so is more, and quicker.” So there could be less, but there could be more

This is utter rot.

It is typical of the way “global warming” was always predicted to arrive twenty, fifty or a hundred years from now; all based on manipulated and mendacious computer models. The usual predictions of heat waves, droughts, along with melting poles and glaciers are cited in its cover editorial.

Just as the Cancun festival of climate lies will do, The Economist rhapsodizes about a massive redistribution of wealth from industrialized developed nations to those in the grip of despots, Islam, communism or other systems that keep them poor. When interviewed recently, IPCC official, Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist, bluntly said that “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy,”

So what is climate change policy really about? It is about how “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth….” If this sounds like the usual communist claptrap, it is.

© Alan Caruba, 2010


Bluejohn said...

I agree. Today the UK Met. Office stated that 2010 is on course to be the second warmest year ever. This is a very bold statement considering that 2010 started with the coldest NH winter for 30 years and the SH winter was the coldest on record. The Argo data sets show sea surface temperatures cooling. So not a good start for the second warmest year. And to state that it will be the 2nd warmest ever assumes that we have accurate temperature details since the earth was formed. Another guess based on hope and assumption. Another case of model runs that have poor information input and wrong assumptions as to how the atmosphere actually works.

Bluejohn said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
TheJollyGreenMan said...

I am a subscriber to The Economist and am waiting for the delivery of this weeks copy. I am surprised that you in North America have already a copy in hand whilst I am still waiting for mine. That's an aside.

I fully agree with your view that the science reporting of said publication has been going downhill since the start of this century; a change of ownership and editors perchance?

Yet, I can recall reading a very good article in 1993, in which the reporter said someting to the effect that ...communism has lost its credibility (this was a couple of years after the fall of the wall in Berlin, the symbolic end of the Soviet empire) ...don't be mistaken, people in the West that used to support communism is going to find a call to rally around... the environment, and environmental issues, is going to become the new battleground for the the old communist supporters...

This prediction proved to be absolutely spot on, and this rot has now penetrated to the very core of this once proud publication!

I am not giving up the fight, as I continue to post comments on the web site of said magazine.

DAILEY said...

Alan Caruba is correct of course except that the Editors of The Economist are not idiots but are truly corrupt villains bent on helping to deceive their readers and as many of the public as they can influence.

It is a great mistake to think these people are fools. They are evil.

JohnofEnfield said...

The Economist has become a very lightweight publication since the turn of the century. Its analysis of the state of the AGW scam was devoid of fact, devoid of analysis (only partly because it didn't consider any facts), skirted over every single issue and completely failed to engage with the disastrous economics implied by applying Carbon Tax. The UK is heading to hell in a hand-basket because Chris Huhne is destroying our energy industry and applying a gigantic flat tax on every unit of electricity used.

The coalition government will be voted out purely because of this egregious tax at the next possible opportunity. Now that is surely what the Economist should be discussing.