Barry woods writes in with this interesting and surprising quote, that says quite a lot about the value of the viewpoint of climate skeptics:
From Mark Lynas – India’s Coal conundrum – Which comes first the climate or the poor, and he cites GWPF in that quote! (heresy)
To be poor is to be vulnerable, even in today’s climate. The fact that only ‘climate sceptics’ tend make this point currently is somewhat shameful. – Mark Lynas
Source: http://www.marklynas.org/2014/11/indias-coal-conundrum-which-comes-first-the-climate-or-the-poor/
It only took them four years to come to the same realization that P.J. O’Rourke voiced in 2010 about climate change:
http://exileinportales.blogspot.com/2013/09/pj-orourke-on-climate-change.html
Maybe I am overly cynic, but it always was my contention of climate politics was to reduce the number of people on the planet. Especially the poor, who reproduce in great numbers. It is the dirty, not so secret, secret of climate policy. That and get rich through climate taxes. To sum up AGW-activism, make the rich bankers and politicians more rich and kill the poor. The greens (WWF crowd) has made a deal with the banks: You get the taxpayers money and we get to kill the poor, deal? – Deal…!
It was Ken Lay from Enron and Albert Gore (who invented the internet you know) who planned the carbon trade [scheme.]
We must never forget:
http://youtu.be/sH0Ryek7rHk
Variation of the old “Gore effect”, divine intervention?
http://youtu.be/awtm4NoD_IM
As I said to Barry and to Mark Lynas via Twitter, on the weekend, I was delighted to see this from Mark. I agree with Rob (7:59 am) that Matt Ridley’s robust response to Lynas 17 days ago, including over his use of the term ‘denier’, must be seen as a key input leading to one of the best moves by a AGW believer we’ve seen for many a moon. Nine days back I myself wrote this at The Conversation:
Others had perhaps been encouraging me to engage at the forum. This was my first multi-post effort. It didn’t seem to have had any effect. Then Barry pointed me to the new post by Mark. There’s probably no direct connection but I’m encouraged to think of the effect on an alarmist who happens on both. None of our efforts for truth, especially on behalf of the poor, are wasted.
Hehehe, I made a similar observation to Apple. And he went livid!
“Yes, I am a climate skeptic. I doubt the existence of climate.” Ridiculous. What the heck is a “climate skeptic?” Skeptical of climate? I don’t think so. That is such a juvenile jab. We are simply skeptical of certain individuals’ modeled predictions of the earth’s ever-changing climate. And since when did science reject skepticism? If science has rejected skepticism… well jeez… it ain’t science no more.