The Great Global Warming Swindle Page #7

source of spectacular

stories for the media.

The thing that has amazed me

as lifelong journalist

is how the most elementary

principles of journalism

seem to have been

abandoned on this subject.

In fact, the theory of

man-made global warming

has spawned an entirely

new brand of journalism.

We've got a whole new generation of reporters,

environmental journalists;

now, if you are an

environmental journalist

and if the global warming

story goes in the trash can,

so does your job.

It really is that crude,

and their reporting has to

get more and more hysterical

because there are still,

fortunately,

a few hardened news

editors around who will say:

"This is what you were

saying five years ago".

"Oh, but now is much

much worse, you know,

they are going to be

ten feet of sea level rise

by next tuesday or something..."

They have to keep on getting shriller...

and shriller and shriller.

It is now common in the media

to lay the blame for every storm

or hurricane on global warming,

but is there any scientific basis for this?

This is purely propaganda.

Every textbook in

Meteorology is telling you

the main source of

weather disturbances

is the temperature difference

between the tropics and the pole,

and we are told in a warmer world

this difference will get less.

Now that would tell you

you'll have less storminess

you'll have less variability

but for some reason that

isn't considered catastrophic

so you tell the opposite.

News reports frequently argue

that even a mild increase

in global temperature

could lead to a catastrophic

melting of the polar ice caps,

but what does Earth's

climate history tell us?

We happen to have temperature

records of Greenland...

that go back thousands of years.

Greenland has been much warmer.

Just a thousand years ago

Greenland was warmer than it is today.

Yet it didn't have a

dramatic melting event.

Even if we talk about

something like permafrost,

a great deal of the permafrost

(that icy layer under the

forests of Russia for example)

seven or eight

thousand years ago

melted far more than we're having

any evidence about it melting now.

So in other words...

this is a historical pattern again

but the world didn't come

to a country humpy, does it?

Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu

is head of the International

Arctic Research Center...

in Alaska.

The IARC is the world's leading

Arctic research institute.

Professor Akasofu

insists that over time

the ice caps are always

naturally expanding and contracting.

There are reports

from time to time

of big chunks of ice break

away from Antarctic continent.

Those mass have been

happening all the time

but because now we have a satellite

they can detect those.

That's why they become news.

These data, from NASA's

meteorological satellites,

shows the huge

natural expansion...

and contraction

of the Polar sea ice...

taken place in the 1990's.

I'd say all the TV programs

that debate to global warming

so big chunks of ice falling

from the edge of the glaciers

well people forget that

ice is always moving.

News reports frequently

show images

of ice breaking from

the edge of the Arctic

what they don't say is that...

this is as ordinary event in the Arctic

as falling leaves on

an English autumn day.

They ask me, they just see ice falling

from the edge of the greatest:

yes, that's spring breakup

that happens every year.

Press come to us towards

the time, you know:

"you want to say something...

...about the greenhouse disaster?",

and I say:
"there is none".

Alarming television programs

raised the fear for prospect

a vast tidal waves flooding Britain.

But what causes the sea

level to change...

...and how fast does it happen?

Sea level changes over

the world in general

are governed fundamentally

by two factors:

what we would call

"local factors",

the relationship of

the sea to the land

which often by the way is

to do with the land rising or falling

and anything to do with the sea,

but if you're talking about

what we call eustatic changes of sea,

worldwide changes of sea,

that's through the thermal

expansion of the oceans,

nothing to do with melting ice.

And that's an enormously slow,

a long process.

People say:
"Oh, I see the ocean...

doing this last year...

that means that something changed

in the atmosphere last year",

and this is not

necessarily true at all,

in fact this is actually

quite unlikely

because it can take hundreds

to thousand of years

for the deep ocean to

respond to forces

and changes

hat are taking place

at the surface.

It is also suggested that

even a mild rise in temperature

will lead to the spread northward

of deadly insect-born tropical

diseases like malaria.

But is this true?

Professor Paul Reiter

of the Pasteur Institute in Paris

is recognized as one of the world's

leading experts on malaria

and other insect-born diseases.

He is a member of the

World Health Organization,

expert advisory committee...

was chairman of the...

American Committee

of Medical Entomology...

of the American Society

for Tropical Medicine...

and lead author on

the health section...

of the US National

Assessment...

of the potential consequences

of climate variability.

As Professor Reiter

is eager to point out,

mosquitoes thrive in

very cold temperatures.

Mosquitoes are not

specifically tropical.

Most people would

realize that...

in temper regions there

are mosquitoes;

in fact, mosquitoes are

extremely abundant

in the Arctic.

The most devastating

epidemic of malaria...

was in the Soviet

Union in the 1920's:

there was something like

and something like

a tremendous

catastrophy...

that raised up to

the Arctic Circle...

Archangel had

and about 10 thousand deaths.

So it's not a

tropical disease.

Yet these people in the

global warming fraternity

invent the idea that...

malaria will move northward.

Climate scare stories cannot be blamed

solely on sloppy or

biased journalism.

According to Professor Reiter,

hysterical alarms have

been encouraged...

by the reports of the UN's IPCC.

On spread of malaria,

the IPCC warns us that:

"Mosquito species that

transmit malaria...

do not usually survive...

where the mean

winter temperature...

drops below 16-18C".

According to Professor Reiter

this is clearly untrue.

I was horrified to read the second

and the third assessment reports

because there was

so much misinformation,

without any kind of records

or virtually without mention

of the scientific literature,

the trully scientific literature,

literature by specialists

in those fields.

In a letter to the

Wall Street Journal,

Professor Frederick Seitz,

America's National

Academy of Sciences,

revealed that IPCC officials

had censored the

comments of scientists.

He said that:

"This report is not

the version...

that was approved by

the contributing scientists"

At least 15 key sections

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes