GayandRight

My name is Fred and I am a gay conservative living in Ottawa. This blog supports limited government, the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security, and tries to expose the threat to us all from cultural relativism, post-modernism, and radical Islam. I am also the founder of the Free Thinking Film Society in Ottawa (www.freethinkingfilms.com)

Sunday, April 29, 2007

They will never be satisfied by CO2 cuts...

Environmentalists will only be happy when we are back in a pre-industrial or stone-age period. This is a report from the UK...
The climate change Bill would still allow "dangerous" global warming to happen, an influential Labour backbencher said yesterday.

Colin Challen, the Labour chairman of the all-party Parliamentary climate change group, said science commissioned by the Government showed that emissions of greenhouse gases must be cut by far more than 60 per cent by 2050, the target enshrined in David Miliband's Bill.

Mr Challen's views are supported by scientists from the Tyndall Centre who say the Bill's targets are more likely to contribute to a world up to 5C warmer than pre-industrial levels than they are to constrain warming to no more than 2C.
advertisement

Mr Challen and the Tyndall scientists believe that cuts in emissions of more than 80 per cent by 2050 will be needed to prevent global temperatures rising by more than 2C on average.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Climate change 'scientists' - all bollocks all the time.

10:53 PM  
Anonymous Caveman said...

The Great GHG Fraud is just another attempt by the left to seize control of the economic levers, the good old Soviet experiment having failed miserably. It'll be agrarian, pre-industrial subsistence for the masses and all the comforts of modern society for the intelligensia who know what is best for us. Al Gore is already working on that model. Funny, sounds like old-time socialism to me. Dachas on the Black Sea, anyone?

11:26 PM  
Blogger Jesse said...

Hey Fred,

If you are going to slant an article with your headlines, you might want to not show the contradictory information in your snippet of the article. That way, we have to actually read the article to find the truth, and since fewer people actually read the article, you'll have an easier time making people agree with you.

"Environmentalists will only be happy when we are back in a pre-industrial or stone-age period."
---
"the Bill's targets are more likely to contribute to a world up to 5C warmer than pre-industrial levels than they are to constrain warming to no more than 2C."


See? You talk of development, the article talks of temperature. (Stone-age isn't even mentioned, silly! ;)

7:27 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home