Cui Bono

The Global Warming Scam Continues 

Hot days in summer!
Storms, and cold nights in winter!
Such strange times indeed.

“Unprecedented!”
yell the followers of the
global warming creed

despite the lack of
warming.  Wherefore, then, do their
rotten scams proceed? 

Cicero’s words help:
who benefits, and whither
do the profits lead?

Certainly, one thing
never changes: the sooth of
the awarmists’ greed.

UPDATE I (13 February):

“Settled Science”

“It’s settled science!”
shouted awarmists (and just
a few years ago),

“nasty deniers
refuse to believe warming
must lead to less snow!”

That “settled science”
remains their shrill cry, but now
they insist that no 

warming was what they’d
predicted, and “climate change”
has led to more snow.

Their “settled science”
means that—wet, dry, cold or hot—
whenever winds blow,
 
or ease, they come from
evil carbon preventing
any status quo.

UPDATE II (4 April):  never willing to miss an opportunity to act hysterically, awarmists have been upset, yet again, by a newspaper column from English author James Delingpole; many people have deplored the conclusion to his piece by on-line comments such as this one:

Delingpole muses about judges issuing death sentences.

Really? He wrote this:

The climate alarmist industry has some very tough questions to answer:  preferably in the defendant’s dock in a court of law, before a judge wearing a black cap.

An industry, not any one person, he imagines in the dock.  Now, English judges wear black caps on various solemn occasions—such as in the presence of the Sovereign—but not when issuing a death sentence because there is no longer any possibility of their issuing a death sentence in Britain.  So, where does he “muse about judges issuing death sentences”?

(Graham Readfearn, by the way, the consistently wrongheaded awarmist, naturally errs in his typically overwrought reaction to Delingpole, by opining, “black caps were only worn by judges when handing out death sentences.”)

Awarmist pseudo-scientists and their propagandising fellow travellers often advocate doing all sorts of harm—including having us tattooed or imprisoned or executed—to those who are slightly sceptical or rightly dismissive of their silly conjecture of AGW, but Delingpole is treated as if he issued a lethal fatwa merely for a trope.  The murderous awarmists, meanwhile, by increasing the costs of energy beyond affordability for many people are responsible for the real and not imagined deaths of thousands of unfortunate citizens in Britain alone.

UPDATE III (7 April):  in “An English class for trolls, professional offence-takers and climate activists”, Delingpole responds to those who mischievously misinterpreted his metaphor:

The last thing I would want is for Monbiot, Mann, Flannery, Jones, Hansen and the rest of the Climate rogues’ gallery to be granted the mercy of quick release.  Publicly humiliated?  Yes please.  Having all their crappy books remaindered?  Definitely.  Dragged away from their taxpayer funded troughs and their cushy sinecures, to be replaced by people who actually know what they're talking about?  For sure.  But hanging?  Hell no.  Hanging is far too good for such ineffable toerags. 
This isn’t to say that there isn’t a strong case for the myriad dodgy scientists-on-the-make, green activists, posturing and ignorant politicians, rent-seeking corporatists, UN apparatchiks, EU technocrats and hopelessly out-of-their-depth environment correspondents who talked up the global warming scare to be brought to account for the vast damage they have done to the global economy, for the people they have caused to die in fuel poverty, for the needless regulations they have inflicted on us, for the landscapes they have ravaged with wind farms, and so on.
Indeed, it would be nice to think one day that there would be a Climate Nuremberg.  But please note, all you slower trolls beneath the bridge, that when I say Climate Nuremberg I use the phrase metaphorically.  […] 
How do you hang an “industry”, I wonder.  How exactly do you put a rope round a dodgy computer model?  Or a £13.7 million UEA climate research grant?  Or an article in Guardian Environment pages called something like “How do you break it to your six-year old child that global warming is killing our planet and by the time he hits 21 the world will be a boiling soup of lava and dead puppies like on the Bedtime Stories advert”?
Seems to me that it’s quite an impossibility.  But there are others who don’t, clearly, for the day after the Australian article ran I was gobsmacked to read on Twitter that a small cabal of weapons-grade pillocks  from the further extremes of the eco loon movement had chosen to interpret this phrase as some kind of demand for “climate scientists” to be executed.  […]
(That’ll be another metaphor, btw.  I haven’t literally been smacked in the mouth).

It should surprise no-one when maleficent alarmists, who wilfully mislead the public and misinterpret data so regularly, deliberately, mala fide, and malevolently misread their critics.

UPDATE IV (8 April):  Peter FitzSimons, who is clearly a very foolish fellow, frets on Twitter:

In his article, “Not a shout but a Chinese whisper”, FitzSimons agonises:

Just supposing the best scientific brains are all but united in the view the planet faces a crippling phenomenon that will change life as we know it.  And just supposing that in response to this, Australia pioneered a scheme aimed at countering it.  You would think confirmation the scheme was actually working might be the occasion for national breast-beating, even some dancing in the streets?

His proof that “the best scientific brains” agree that our Earth faces doom?  He just asserts it (whilst arguing from authority and being inexcusably ignorant of one of our greatest physicists, Freeman Dyson).  FitzSimons’ proof that Australia’s “carbon” tax counters this alleged problem?  He merely asserts it.

UPDATE V (8 April):  see also Tim Blair’s “Unfair Fight”.