I do not normally read The Independent as it is a dire newspaper pandering to deluded lefties like my entire family (bar step sister Flea and Chris Booker) by printing utter bilge. But, for your sake dear readers, I prepared the sick bag to read one stormer of an article today. It defies belief.
The headline reads: Aid groups warn of growing hunger and disease as planet warms
Fantastic, maybe those Scottish moors I bought to grow vines on will prove a stunning investment after all?
Greatly encouraged I read on as the Indescribablyboring newspaper continued:
The potentially devastating effects of climate change on future generations are revealed today by two British aid groups, before a crucial UN report due out this week. On Friday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is set to unveil its latest report on global warming. It is expected to show researchers’ increasing confidence that humans are the main cause of climate change, largely through use of fossil fuels.
In a report on food security published today, Oxfam claims that climate change could leave one in five people worldwide at risk of hunger by 2050. This will increase child malnutrition by 20 per cent, it says. The charity also states that global yields of maize and wheat are down 3.8 and 5.5 per cent respectively, compared with what they would be without climate change, and that crop yields could fall by between 10 and 20 per cent by 2050.
The increase in extreme weather patterns due to global warming could also cause more crop failures, Oxfam says. Research commissioned by the group shows that the average price of staple foods could double in the next two decades.
So according to Oxfam the global warming we have already seen has caused wheat and maize yields to fall and things are going to get worse, blah, blah, blah.
But before you all get your chequebooks out for Oxfam there is one small inconvenient truth: the world has not got warmer. Here I quote from one of my two family members who is not a deluded lefty, Christopher Booker, in his Torygraph column of yesterday:
The air is already thick with familiar claims and counterclaims, President Obama quotes yet another laughably silly paper trying to make out that “97 per cent of scientists” support the IPCC “consensus”. Sceptics point out yet again that the lack of global warming over the past 17 years makes a nonsense of all those computer-model projections on which the IPCC has been basing its case for 23 years.
This very weekend of September 2013, we were being told back in 2007, would be the moment when the Arctic was “ice-free”. Yet this summer’s ice-melt has been the smallest in seven years, and the global extent of polar sea ice is currently equal to its average over the past 34 years. Tuvalu and the Maldives are not vanishing beneath the waves. Far from hurricanes and tornadoes becoming more frequent and intense, their incidence is lower than it has been for decades. The Himalayan glaciers are not on course to have melted by 2035, as the IPCC’s last report predicted in 2007.
Nothing has changed except that the IPCC itself, as the main driver of the scare, has been more comprehensively discredited than ever as no more than a one-sided pressure group, essentially run by a clique of scientific activists committed to their belief that rising CO2 levels threaten the world with an overheating which is not taking place.
Spot on Uncle Chris. So if the world has not actually got warmer why have crop yields fallen? Perhaps Oxfam would look less ridiculous if it examined that rather than arriving at a conclusion which fits its biased world view but cannot be justified by the facts.
The inconvenient truth is that as the world belches out ever more carbon all the computer models used to support the bogus science of global warming have been 100% wrong – the world is not getting warmer. It is still colder than it was in the medieval warm period when vines grew in Greenland (with minimal carbon emissions). Those poor frigging polar bears are now applying for a winter fuel allowance as the ice cap has grown steadily in the past five years and will by Christmas be greater in size than the long run average size.
Oxfam is a bureaucratic nightmare which swallows up a terribly high percentage of donations on admin costs employing the sort of deluded lefty who thinks that global warming is still happening. As it (again) strays beyond its stated remit of transferring cash from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor ones, by engaging in ridiculous political posturing the case for boycotting it altogether becomes unanswerable. Heck, even the deluded lefties of Sheep Street Shipston (well my Dad at least) might give it a miss this Christmas after this effort.
As for the Indy…it has become the sort of publication which if you bought a copy you would also buy a hard core gay porn mag to wrap it up in, to prevent folks knowing about your disgusting reading habits as you wandered back from the newsagents. What a rag.