Tim Blair’s dishonesty is glaringly transparent in his column at Sydney’s ‘Daily Telegraph’ today as he attempts to hoodwink readers yet again.
Quoting from a ‘New York Times’ report, he writes:
A flotilla of hundreds of icebergs that split off Antarctic ice shelves is drifting toward New Zealand and could pose a risk to ships in the south Pacific Ocean, officials said Tuesday.
The nearest one, measuring about 100 feet tall, was 160 miles southeast of New Zealand’s Stewart Island, Australian glaciologist Neal Young said …
But he cautioned against linking the appearance of the bergs in New Zealand waters to global warming.
As a result of cherry-picking this article Blair is attempting to infer that the ‘bergs in New Zealand waters has nothing to do with global warming.
However, if one reads all of the NYT article Blair links to, one will find what the article was actually inferring:
Icebergs are routinely sloughed off as part of the natural development of ice shelves, but Young said the rate appeared to be increasing as a result of regional warming in Antarctica. ''Whole ice shelves have broken up,'' he [Young] said, as temperatures have risen in Antarctica, where they are up as much as 5 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees Celsius) in the past 60 years.
Young ‘cautioned against linking the appearance of the bergs in New Zealand waters to climate change’ only inasmuch that climate change had nothing to do with why they were actually in New Zealand waters and that the reason they were in New Zealand waters had far more to do with ‘weather patterns and ocean currents as on the rate at which icebergs are calving off Antarctic ice shelves’.
While Blair and his fellow Pollutionists have deluded themselves into believing that climate change is some kind of hoax which once exposed will allow them to continue polluting our world, Blair’s dishonesty reflects the desperation the Pollutionists have resorted to as the world moves a little closer to realising that ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ is a real threat to all of mankind, a threat that we cannot afford to doubt.
The fact is; even if there is no ‘global warming’ or if ‘climate change’ is not man-made, the practical steps that mankind are taking anyway to find alternative, sustainable and renewable energy resources can only be good for the planet no matter who you believe or who proves to be right or wrong.
If the sceptics and deniers are wrong, then the planet is doomed unless we do something about it now. And, of course, if they are right… well then, we end up with a better planet anyway. Can we afford to take the risk?
The real argument isn’t so much about ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’; it’s about managing diminishing non-renewable resources in the face of an exponentially increasing demand for energy and profits at the expense of our future. The sceptics and deniers are only interested in the financial costs of doing something about it. They wish to protect the Pollutionist businesses that produce non-renewable energy and, at the same time, not be burdened with the costs of compensating Pollutionist businesses through taxes for obliging them to stop polluting.
The pursuit of wealth has in the past led to wars and death on a global scale. The world cannot afford to now allow the Pollutionists to perpetuate global misery that ultimately could lead to our demise.