“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.“
– Timothy Wirth
Fmr President of the UN Foundation
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a
false-front for the urge to rule it.”
– H.L. Mencken
No, it is not “code-red for humanity”.
Ergo, ‘DON’T PANIC’!
There’s no need to if you choose to follow known data, and not alarmist UN climate models that drive manufactured global-warming-hysteria.
In fact, the opposite of ‘hysteria’ is true if one is willing to acknowledge that thanks to technology (fossil fuels) and human ingenuity, we are ~99% less likely, now, to die from a climate related event than we were ~100 years ago.
Via Bjorn Lomborg:
Furthermore, shouldn’t we at least ‘scientifically’ assess climate conditions of the recent past in order to objectively analyse present conditions in order to avoid; unhinged, costly, desperate and political ‘solutions’ to a perceived problem that simply does-not-even-exist in the first place based on known data?
A recent post by Tony Heller, in response to the UN’s latest climate ‘assessment’, highlights the wise adage of letting “cooler heads prevail”, or at the very least, allowing past historical events a time-and-a-place for comparative analysis in order to help manage ‘public hysteria’ that appears to be based, purely, on the conclusions of a highly politicised UN body and compliant mainstream media.
Code Red For Humanity
The UN says “code red for humanity”
According to the National Climate Assessment, heatwaves have plummeted over the past century.
US heatwaves were far worse during the ‘dust-bowl’ era of the 1930’s.
The percentage of the US to reach 9%F this year is a record low.
Burn acreage is also near a record low.
Antonia didn’t like that
They claim natural disasters are getting worse.
Like medical science, climate science has been completely corrupted.
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine” (1).
More recently, Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, wrote that “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness” (2).Skeptical of medical science reports?
President Eisenhower sounded the alarm 60 years ago.
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”Our Documents – Transcript of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Farewell Address (1961)
Another day, another dollar, another useless UN-COP-taxpayer-funded-climate gabfest…
See also :
- PHYS.ORG SCIENTIST ON CLIMATE : “It’s Like The Boy Who Repeatedly Cried Wolf. If I Observe Successive Forecast Failures, I May Be Unwilling To Take Future Forecasts Seriously.” | Climatism
- 46 STATEMENTS By IPCC Experts Against The IPCC | Climatism
- Global Warming Bombshell : Science Magazine Article Blows The Whistle On Climate Model Failure | Climatism