Brits Refuse To Accept Global Whining Bullshit

Jeffrey Turner · Joined: 10 Nov 2007 Posts: 1

Click@Knicklas.com wrote:

> First we had the judge who pointed-out Gore's lies, and now this.
> ____________________
>
> Global warming: Don't look now
> Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 10/11/2007
>
> James Delingpole reviews Scared to Death: from BSE to Global Warming:
> Why Scares are Costing Us the Earth by Christopher Booker and Richard
> North
>
> Imagine you could travel back to Britain in 1998.
>
> Why are we so susceptible to doomsday scenarios?

I dunno. Terrorist! Oooh, did they duck?

--Jeff

--
"Power never concedes anything without a
demand. It never has and it never will."
--Frederick Douglass

Archived from group: alt>bitterness

Click · Joined: 08 Oct 2007 Posts: 4

First we had the judge who pointed-out Gore's lies, and now this.
____________________

Global warming: Don't look now
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 10/11/2007

James Delingpole reviews Scared to Death: from BSE to Global Warming:
Why Scares are Costing Us the Earth by Christopher Booker and Richard
North

Imagine you could travel back to Britain in 1998.

Why are we so susceptible to doomsday scenarios?
One of the amusing things you might do there - in between buying
heavily into property and cheap gold - would be to pooh-pooh all those
ridiculous panic-mongers wittering on about the Millennium Bug.

"It's just another of those modish, silly scares that never actually
come to anything," you could declare with a knowledgeable chuckle on
Newsnight and the Today programme.

No one would take you seriously, though. Why should they, when the
prime minister himself - presumably with access to much better expert
advice than you - had declared the Millennium Bug "one of the most
serious problems facing British business and the global economy today.
Its impact cannot be overestimated"?

But had the world listened to you instead of to Tony Blair, it might
have been spared the estimated $300 billion it spent trying to solve
this non-existent problem.

Add to that the many more billions squandered in the past two decades
because of similarly groundless scares over dioxins, Mad Cow Disease,
leaded petrol, asbestos, Listeria and salmonella, and you begin to
understand the aggrieved tone of Christopher Booker and Richard North
in their rather terrifying book, Scared to Death.

Why, the authors would like to know, are we so susceptible to doomsday
scenarios which, on subsequent embarrassed examination, turn out to be
a complete load of cobblers? And what, they ask in their longest and
most contentious chapter, does this have to tell us about our current
obsession with man-made global warming?

For a scare to take flight, they argue, it must fulfil certain basic
requirements. It must be based on something true, which is then
hysterically exaggerated into a major threat.

Its danger must seem universal (eg eggs, beef, computers). It must
contain the right mix of uncertainty and scientific plausibility. And
it must be talked up by the media and "remedied" by the government,
usually at enormous expense to the taxpayer.

As a classic case of this, the authors cite the BSE fiasco, which
began in 1996 when the health secretary Stephen Dorrell stood up in
the Commons to announce the possibility of a connection between Mad
Cow Disease and a horrendous new brain disease in humans called new
variant CJD.

That night on Newsnight, Jeremy Paxman egged one of Dorrell's
scientific advisors, Dr John Patteson, into agreeing that by 2005 no
fewer than half a million people would have died through eating
infected beef.

In the Observer four days later, the scare was escalated still
further, with a prediction that by 2016 CJD victims would be dropping
at the rate of 500 a week, the NHS would have disintegrated under the
strain, and the French would have filled the Channel Tunnel with
concrete.

In the wake of Dorrell's statement, the EU banned exports from Britain
of all beef-related products. And for years to come - despite no
scientist ever having said it was necessary - all British beef cattle
more than 30 months old would have to be incinerated.

The cost of slaughtering these eight million animals would, of course,
be borne by the taxpayer to the tune of £3.45 billion - or £57 for
every man, woman and child in the country.

And for what exactly? Barely a year after his advice had set this
hysteria in train, Dr Patteson was delivering his revised estimate of
the number of deaths likely to result from vCJD. Not half a million
but, er, 200.

A decade on, even the revised figure looks excessive. Incidence of
vCJD has dropped to virtually zero, and the number of deaths has
turned out to be little more than 100. And the evidence, say North and
Booker, suggests that even those deaths were not caused by eating
beef, anyway.

Most of the scare stories analysed in the book - with the authors'
characteristically scrupulous attention to detail - follow a similarly
depressing trajectory.

The one exception to the rule, they discover, is the organophosphate
pesticides responsible for such genuine horrors as Gulf War Syndrome.
No doubt the Government was greatly aided in its initial attempts to
play down the problem by the scepticism of a public that felt it had
been fed one health-scare story too many.

Surely the book's key chapter, though, is its devastating critique of
the man-made-global-warming industry. Even if you'd like to disagree
with the authors violently - and if your heroes include Al Gore and
George Monbiot, you surely will - the chapter is well worth reading
for the clear, methodical, well-documented way in which it analyses
the growth of the phenomenon.

For "climate change deniers", it will be manna from heaven. For those
in the opposing camp it ought, at the very least, to provide serious
pause for thought.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2007/11/10/boboo110.xml

R. Steve Walz · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1906

Click@Knicklas.com wrote:
>
> First we had the judge who pointed-out Gore's lies, and now this.
>
> Global warming: Don't look now
------------------------
Obviously we're scaring you so badly with the truth that you are
more interested in denying it outright than in paying attention
to the evidence. You're rather pitiful, actually.

Your more worried about Gore being believable for mere partisan
reasons than you are about the actual plight of your planet.
Steve

sam · Joined: 11 Nov 2007 Posts: 1

zzbunker@netscape.net wrote:
>
> That's not so difficult to understand.
> Since throughout history, Europe has never been susceptible to
> anything
> other than "save-the-world-before-it-destroys-itself" fantasies.
> And it's just taken 2000 years for their peristent idiocy to
> finally catch up with itself.

http://www.erichufschmid.net/Global-warming/Global-warming.html

http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Zion-Summary.html

R. Steve Walz · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1906

sam wrote:
>
> zzbunker@netscape.net wrote:
> >
> > That's not so difficult to understand.
> > Since throughout history, Europe has never been susceptible to
> > anything
> > other than "save-the-world-before-it-destroys-itself" fantasies.
> > And it's just taken 2000 years for their peristent idiocy to
> > finally catch up with itself.
>
> http://www.erichufschmid.net/Global-warming/Global-warming.html
>
> http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Zion-Summary.html
---------------
Which shows that such persons as deny Global Warming and claim
9/11 conspiracy think that our leaders are all in the thrall of,
and in the pay of, you guessed it, the JEWS! These are just the
latest incarnation of lying NAzi anti-Semites to come along.

They tell us that we're wrong and dupes to hate those nice Arabs
and Muslims for trying to kill lots and lots of us.
Steve