Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Yet Another Reputable Denier

You could not wish for a better reasoned debunking of the AGW religion than today's Herald piece by energy consultant Brian Leyland

http://www.contrafedpublishing.co.nz/site/contrafed/images/Energy/Leyland_Brian.jpg

Some choice and heretical extracts:-

"Is there unequivocal evidence that such global warming is real and dangerous? Well, actually, no."

and

"This evidence needs to be weighed against the "projections" of IPCC climate models that failed to predict the steady decline in temperatures since 2002.

We also know that the panel ignored the close correlation between sunspot effects and temperature that has existed over many thousands of years. Hence the "risk" that climate change is natural is much greater than 10 per cent."

Not to mention the fabricated foundational 'science' called the hockey stick.

Then this

"Last year, $125 billion was "invested" worldwide in carbon trading and $160 billion in heavily subsidised renewable energy schemes such as wind farms. If climate change is natural, these investments will crash."

Promoters be warned

"I searched the internet and failed to find any evidence that anyone warned investors and others that the value of man-made global warming-driven investments would be at risk. If they crash, the promoters could be sued, many wind farms would lose their subsidies and wind turbines that break down could be abandoned."

Leyland rightly concludes that any rational risk/cost/benefit analysis will see the disastrous Emmissions Trading Scheme abandoned.

Declaration (If Brian Leyland is a descendant of Wilfred Brack Leyland then he is a distant cousin of Adolf's.)

6 comments:

Sally said...

Is Key a Global Warming enthusiast?

Lucy said...

Excellent article by Mr. Leyland.

Socrates said...

Adolf… Lets complete some of that quote shall we?

“Is there unequivocal evidence that such global warming is real and dangerous? Well, actually, no. In the opinion of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is a roughly 90 per cent “risk” that climate change is man-made and a 10 per cent “risk” that it is natural”

So firstly he says there is no unequivocal evidence that global warming is real and dangerous, then he quotes the IPCC as saying there is climate change. Very convincing argument there. The opinion of the IPCC he quotes says there is a 90% risk that climate change is man made. Gosh, in my business a 90% risk is pretty unequivocal.

In your business if you were presented with evidence that an event had a 90% risk would you say “gee that’s not unequivocal let’s ignore it?” I think not.

Anonymous said...

AGW is a scam by scientists to get funding and big business to promote themselves as green and raise prices and profits and governments to raise more taxes

It is an attack on consumers by a toxic combination of the unholy three

gd

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Yes Socrates, I would ignore it and often do, especially when it comes from an unreliable source with a vested interest.

Anonymous said...

One of the most interesting facts through history is that those who really could see through the politics and fuzz of society at the time and could see the truth were invariably ridiculed and had things like being burnt at the stake thrust upon them. The guy who said the earth wasnt flat and the guy who said that the earth wasnt the centre of the universe - the sun was - were both tortured and cast out of society.
Global warming is the current political religion (it was chritianity when these two guys above got brave) and theres no way that this reliogion is going to have people raising questions about its truth !!
Fortunately I feel totally free to utterly ignore the fuckwits.

If here really is a problem, then going nuclear will solve it. Simple.