A Clearer Picture Of The Climate Alarmist End Game

30 Nov, 2010 by John Hawkins

Print this article Font size -16+

Imagine, if you will, talking with someone who is demanding that the government force you to lose 40 pounds in the next two weeks. When you ask how this can possibly be accomplished, he talks about making a few minor changes. Maybe you can walk up the stairs at work instead of taking the elevator and eat a few less calories at dinner. That doesn’t sound so bad, but it also doesn’t make any sense. There’s no way in the world that you can lose 40 pounds in two weeks doing that and you can’t help but notice, out of the corner of your eye, that he’s holding a bloody hacksaw. And eyeing your leg.

Whether people realize it or not, this scenario is not much different than what’s going on with global warming. If you listen to the end goals of the Al Gore crowd, you’ll come to realize that they’re very radical. In fact, to achieve the sort of cuts in greenhouse gasses they want, it would not only mean an end to worldwide economic progress for the foreseeable future, it would mean going BACKWARDS from where we are today. Yet, even Kyoto and Cap and Trade schemes, which would do enormous economic damage, fall leagues short of what the global warming alarmists say we need to do to control global temperatures like a thermostat.

However, every so often, somebody blabs about what AlGorism would really mean for the world,

In a series of papers published by the Royal Society, physicists and chemists from some of world’s most respected scientific institutions, including Oxford University and the Met Office, agreed that current plans to tackle global warming are not enough.

…In one paper Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years.

This would mean a drastic change in lifestyles for many people in countries like Britain as everyone will have to buy less ‘carbon intensive’ goods and services such as long haul flights and fuel hungry cars.

Prof Anderson admitted it “would not be easy” to persuade people to reduce their consumption of goods.

He said politicians should consider a rationing system similar to the one introduced during the last “time of crisis” in the 1930s and 40s.

This could mean a limit on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.

“The Second World War and the concept of rationing is something we need to seriously consider if we are to address the scale of the problem we face,” he said.

…At the moment efforts are focused on trying to get countries to cut emissions by 50 per cent by 2050 relative to 1990 levels.

But Dr Myles Allen, of Oxford University’s Department of Physics, said this might not be enough. He said that if emissions do not come down quick enough even a slight change in temperature will be too rapid for ecosystems to keep up. Also by measuring emissions relative to a particular baseline, rather than putting a limit on the total amount that can ever be pumped into the atmosphere, there is a danger that the limit is exceeded.

Welcome to the world people like Al Gore want to create. So, is it worth doing all that to fight what’s highly likely to be a non-existent threat or should we perhaps do a little more research first? The latter course seems smarter, but of course, saying “do more research” doesn’t make liberals feel caring and compassionate, so most of them would prefer to destroy the world economy instead.