Being like Fritzl

People who fail to tackle climate change are acting like an Austrian man who locked his daughter in a cellar for 24 years, an Anglican bishop has said.

The Bishop of Stafford, Gordon Mursell, wrote in a parish letter that not confronting global warming meant people were "as guilty as" Josef Fritzl.

It meant future generations would be left in a futureless world, he said.

Doe this man even know what he is talking about? If he actually did the research he would find out that he is a lunatic to believe what he believes. He should stick to his day job of trying to get people to believe in god and not even attempt to talk about something he has no understanding over. Tens of thousands of scientists have already signed a petition denying that man is responsible for climate change. Does he think that he knows more than people who have PHDs in science?

Climate change doesn’t necessarily have to be bad as Greenland has found. In Greenland it is being seen as an opportunity for independence and prosperity. If man was responsible for global warming wouldn’t the Bishop of Stafford be more like Josef Fritzl to Greenland for trying to deny them the opportunity to prosper?

500 scientists have global warming doubts

Hundreds of scientists have cast doubts on the theory of man-made global warming, a new study has revealed.

The analysis of peer-reviewed literature found more than 500 researchers refuted at least one element of the man-made climate change model

Many have published evidence suggesting changes are due to either a natural 1,500 year climate cycle or variations in the sun's irradiance.

Less than two week ago I showed that the consensus was bogus and now there is even more proof that there is no global warming consensus and the debate still goes on. It has not ended like some climate change alarmists have been saying because there is no evidence that man is causing it.

There is no global warming consensus

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

More here.

It looks like the global warming gas bags are increasing being shown for the fools they are. There is no longer a consensus on climate change because humans have no effect on the climate and real scientists are beginning to realise this.

Hat tip: Global Warming Hysteria

Don't recycle in Croydon

If you try to be environmentally friendly in Croydon you just might end up achieving the exact opposite especially if you want to recycle. You see you are no longer allowed to walk to the recycling centre. You now have to get in a long queue with your car even if you live right close to it. I hope I am not the only one that can see the idiocy in this.

The council workers have failed to figure out that recycling this way is probably going to damage the environment more than help it but they might know this because it seems that Health and safety considerations trump environmental concerns. The health and safety concern here is that apparently pedestrians and people in cars don’t mix and it’s unsafe. Whoever made this decision needs to be shot.

Hat tip: Nanny Knows Best

Save the environment - drive a car

It can be greener to drive than catch the train, according to a rail industry study which reveals that trains are losing their environmental advantage.

Modern diesel-powered trains are so polluting that a family of three or more would be responsible for at least double the carbon dioxide emissions on many routes when travelling by rail compared with driving in a typical medium-sized car.

The study concludes that the Virgin Voyager, the most advanced diesel train on the network, has the highest emissions of any British train and that its performance compared with cars is steadily worsening as motor manufacturers improve efficiency.

Doesn’t this mean that the government should be encouraging cars and not doing everything they can to price people out of them? If we are causing global warming wouldn’t it we be environmentally better off if took the car instead of the train?

Hat tip: The ThunderDragon