Gawne’s claims aren’t supported

0
Have your say

Minister Gawne, in early February, featured very prominently on Manx Radio when he was given free rein to air his views on anthropogenic global warming based on comments made by the economist/banker (not a scientist) and former vice chair of the World bank, Sir Nicholas Stern, in an interview with a Sunday newspaper which comments were based on the exaggerated predictions from computer models, not from any scientific evidence.

It has become well known and accepted by most of the world’s scientists and based on solid evidence that global warming has stopped and it appears that a cooling period has begun, but not according to Mr Gawne.

The inister in his scary propoganda interview warned about the impending dangers of the rising sea levels but the evidence from the TOPEX and other satellites show no acceleration in the rate of sea level rise which has been rising for centuries and the satellites in fact confirm that the rate of rise is showing a decrease. So the alarmist claims made by Mr Gawne that increasing CO2 will cause increased rates of sea level rise are not supported by the evidence. Neither are his claims for the supposed increase in extreme weather events supported by the evidence which has been confirmed by NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Hurricane Centre and the UK Met Office, among many.

Looking at the Stern Review on which Mr Gawne puts such reliance and which the UK Govt used to move forward with climate policy. We find that an in-depth study of this review by the MP Peter Lilley found an extraordinary number of errors and distortions which brought the validity of Stern’s review into serious question, if not outright falsifying it. In fact, the study by MP Lilley shows the review to depend critically on ‘selective choice of facts, unusual economic assumptions and a propagandist narrative which would never have passed peer review’.

The study also points out that Stern’s economic conclusions contradict the views of most of the world’s leading environmental economists and even the economic conclusions of the IPCC.

The Lilley study concludes by saying that if we follow Stern’s advice the principal losers, apart from British taxpayers and businesses would be third world countries who cannot increase their living standards without increasing their use of fossil fuels. In short, Stern selected and manipulated evidence to create policy based evidence when what was needed was an evidence based policy.

The following quote from Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace and a true environmentalist, not a headline seeking sensationalist or alarmist, made during an interview sums up the whole global warming scam quite nicely:

‘We do not have any scientific proof that we (mankind) are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years...the alarmism is driving us, through scare tactics, to adopt energy poverty among the poor people,

‘It’s not good for the people and it’s not good for the environment...in a warmer world we can produce more food.’

When asked who was responsible for promoting unwarranted climate fear and what their motives were, he said: ‘A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, the media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations and environmental groups and politicians wanting to make it look like they saving future generations from disaster. All these people have converged on this issue.’

Just like some of our MHKs!

J. Craige,

Baldrine.

Back to the top of the page