Ad Hominem – attacking the arguer not the argument – is a standard tactic of lefties, and we hate it. But it’s Sunday, and since the warmists are such a loathsome bunch, we’ve suspended the rule just this once.
Let’s compare and contrast the characters of the different warmists and their principal opponents.
The UN v The World’s Poor
The UN is a deeply corrupt organization where Zimbabwe sits as an arbiter of Human Rights, and whose “peacekeepers” rape kids rather than fight.
Its warmist organ is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which issues computer-model-based “forecasts” of warming catastrophe at regular intervals. The IPCC claims to be backed by 2500 scientists, but all of its reports are written, without consultation, by about 50 people. None of the IPCC climate models predicted the decline of global temperature over the past 10 years.
The UN wants a slice of the carbon taxes planned by warmists, to fill the hole in its budget left by the busting of its oil for food fraud with Saddam.
The world’s poor nations aspire to our standard of living, and since that requires massive use of energy, they plan on emitting lots of CO2. In consequence they won’t sign up to warmism.
Gore v Klaus
Gore is the principle warmist politician. A lifelong socialist, he is notorious for his failed attempt to win the 2000 presidential election. This included the announcement by all the Democrat MSM that he had won the key state of Florida 3 hours before voting ended there and his subsequent legal challenges to the result.
Gore left public employment worth $7 million, and has grown that to $100 million by charging for his services as a warmist advocate.
Vaclav Klaus is President of the Czech Republic. He grew up under Soviet occupation and was an architect of his nation’s liberation in 1989:
His vocal enthusiasm for the free market economy and as exemplified by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman and practised by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, together with his stated belief in Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand“, soon became well-known and Klaus was the principal shaper of the Czechoslovak economic transformation.
“The relationship between his activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct,” the statement said. “It rather seems that Gore’s doubting of basic cornerstones of the current civilization does not contribute to peace.”
Klaus said in a recent speech that environmentalists’ efforts to halt global warming “fatally endanger our freedom and prosperity.”
The Czech president publicly expresses doubt on what scientists, including those participating in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, also this year’s Nobel Peace Prize laureate, deem very likely – that global warming is caused by humans…
In a newspaper interview earlier this year, Klaus said that only Al Gore, and not a sane person, would say that mankind is ruining the planet.
Hansen v Lindzen
Hansen, is Gore’s scientific adviser and runs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in NYC. He’s an Astronomer by degree but climatologist by self appointment.
Hansen and Gore testified to Congress on June 23 1988 that the world faced disaster from global warming. To add impact to their claim, they had left the windows of the committee room open overnight to ensure everyone felt very hot. 20 years later, in May 2008, global temperature has fallen by about half a degree F, in spite of a very large increase in human CO2 emissions.
He is said to have received “legal and media advice” to the tune of $720,000 from the socialist George Soros.
Hansen wants CEOs of fossil fuel companies “to be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature”, but that’s pretty minor set against his wish to have billions of people die in poverty.
Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists — especially those outside the area of climate dynamics.
Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a “moral” crusade.
Blair and Brown v The British People
The two socialists have misgoverned the UK for over 10 years, eagerly embracing warmism to justify a host of new “environmental” taxes. For example, the annual tax on an auto depends on how much CO2 it emits, a measure only justified if CO2 was a pollutant rather than an essential plant food.
The British people don’t buy warmism:
The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans – and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer.
The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The Brits are now so unimpressed with their socialist masters that they gave them just 3% of the vote in a by-election last week.
Stern v Lawson
Stern is a socialist economist aristocrat who, with 300 others, told Margaret Thatcher soon after her election that her radical economic policies would never work. Somewhat after that triumph he was asked by Blair to produce a report on what the UK should do to stop climate change. A reviewer commented on the report:
“If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a Masters thesis, perhaps if I were in a good mood I would give him a ‘D’ for diligence; but more likely I would give him an ‘F’ for fail. There is a whole range of very basic economics mistakes that somebody who claims to be a Professor of Economics simply should not make. (…)
Stern consistently picks the most pessimistic for every choice that one can make. He overestimates through cherry-picking, he double counts particularly the risks and he underestimates what development and adaptation will do to impacts.”
Like his fellow warmists, Stern is cashing in:
Lord Nicholas Stern, author of the UK’s Stern report on climate change, will launch a new carbon credit ratings agency on Wednesday, the first to score carbon credits on a similar basis to that used to rate debt.
Carbon credits have come under increasing fire as investors, academics and non-governmental organisations have complained that many lack credibility.
Lawson, while Stern was whining, engineered the UK’s resurgence under Margaret Thatcher, pioneering privatization and cutting taxes. When warmism ran out of control, he responded with a book.
“An Appeal To Reason: A Cool Look At Global Warming” He argues the case that although global warming is happening and will have negative consequences, the impact of these changes will be relatively moderate rather than apocalyptic. He criticises those “alarmist” politicians and scientists who predict catastrophe unless urgent action is taken.
There are plenty of other villains – for example the EU with its subsidized wind farms and light bulb bans – and many more heroes (for example Christopher Monckton who notes that the sun is hotter now than it has been for 11,000 years, and Anthony Watts, who regularly debunks Hansen).
And then there are the useful idiots, like Obama and McCain, both committed to trashing the US economy and the lives of all Americana with huge increases in gas, oil and electricity prices via a carbon tax.
What emerges from this analysis is that all the warmist institutions and individuals here are nonentities who are enriching themselves on the back of their scare, and that all their opponents are decent people of great achievement who seek nothing.
This hasn’t turned out very ad hominem, but here’s a try: take a look at news photos (not the studio shots) of the bad guys. To a man, their faces and bodies are twisted, as if by self-hatred. Perhaps that’s because they know the evil they do.
Then look at the good guys, who all look just that – good.