Here is the truth about global warming: It is an anti-capitalist agenda, a Machiavellian political plot and a convenient rumor started by bungling Japanese pineapple farmers. It is a front for paranoia about immigration, an incitement to civil war, and the reason that the world's attention was distracted from the risk of a tsunami. And it hasn't killed as many people as Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin.
Welcome to the UK's first dedicated meeting of climate change skeptics, where the consistent message is that global warming will not have a catastrophic effect, and if it does there is little the world can or should do about it.
The meeting, held last Thursday at the Royal Institution in London, was billed by organizers as "a valuable opportunity for debate on a topic frequently obscured by angst and alarmism." Climate change, they said, was a topic "that has been subject to widespread misrepresentation and politicization."
Speakers included British botanist David Bellamy, a former television presenter and a special professor at the University of Nottingham, England; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the US; and Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University, England.
It precedes a big meeting of climate scientists this week at the Hadley Center, part of the UK Met Office.
Peiser said Thursday's meeting, organized by the lobby group the Scientific Alliance, grew from a concern that the Hadley Center conference would ignore important questions about whether current predictions were alarmist.
He said catastrophic climate change was falsely blamed for everything from the fall of the Mayan civilization to extreme weather events such as the 2003 summer heatwave.
"It's important for people to know there are eminent scientists who don't share this viewpoint," he said.
Famine, war and disease were bigger threats to civilization.
Fred Singer, a former director of the US Weather Satellite Service, told the conference that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had overestimated the risk posed by carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas that scientists think warms the atmosphere by trapping heat.
"Carbon dioxide is plant food and makes them grow faster," Singer said.
Global warming would increase levels of fresh water because it evaporated more sea water and led to it falling as rain.
Nils-Axel Morner, the head of the paleogeophysics and geodynamics department at Stockholm University, Sweden, showed pictures of the high tide slipping down beaches in the Maldives to challenge predictions that future climate change could raise global sea levels and flood cities such as London and New York.
"I want to break the IPCC link between global warming and sea-level rise," he said. "It's nonsense."
Some tales of sea-level rises, he said, could be attributed to the Japanese pineapple industry, which caused land to subside by drilling for too much fresh water. Several at the conference compared themselves to Galileo, who was tortured when he said the Earth orbited the sun.
Other scientists dismissed their arguments.
"There is a very clear consensus from the scientific community on the problems of global warming and our use of fossil fuels," said David King, the chief scientific adviser to the British government.
"It's very important to know where these skeptics are coming from and to identify lobbyists as distinct from scientists," he said.
Last month the Scientific Alliance published a joint report with the George C Marshall Institute, a group funded by ExxonMobil, which it claimed "undermined" theories of climate change.
Bob May, the president of the UK's Royal Society, said the skeptics were a "denial lobby" similar to those who refused to accept that smoking caused cancer.
But John Maddox, a former editor of the journal Nature, who attended Thursday's meeting, said the skeptics might have a point.
He did not dispute that carbon dioxide emissions could drive global warming, but said: "The IPCC is monolithic and complacent, and it is conceivable that they are exaggerating the speed of change."
David Adam is the science correspondent of the Guardian newspaper.
It is almost three years since Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin declared a friendship with “no limits” — weeks before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Since then, they have retreated from such rhetorical enthusiasm. The “no limits” language was quickly dumped, probably at Beijing’s behest. When Putin visited China in May last year, he said that he and his counterpart were “as close as brothers.” Xi more coolly called the Russian president “a good friend and a good neighbor.” China has conspicuously not reciprocated Putin’s description of it as an ally. Yet the partnership
The ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu (孫子) said “know yourself and know your enemy and you will win a hundred battles.” Applied in our times, Taiwanese should know themselves and know the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) so that Taiwan will win a hundred battles and hopefully, deter the CCP. Taiwanese receive information daily about the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) threat from the Ministry of National Defense and news sources. One area that needs better understanding is which forces would the People’s Republic of China (PRC) use to impose martial law and what would be the consequences for living under PRC
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) said that he expects this year to be a year of “peace.” However, this is ironic given the actions of some KMT legislators and politicians. To push forward several amendments, they went against the principles of legislation such as substantive deliberation, and even tried to remove obstacles with violence during the third readings of the bills. Chu says that the KMT represents the public interest, accusing President William Lai (賴清德) and the Democratic Progressive Party of fighting against the opposition. After pushing through the amendments, the KMT caucus demanded that Legislative Speaker
Beijing’s approval of a controversial mega-dam in the lower reaches of the Yarlung Tsangpo River — which flows from Tibet — has ignited widespread debate over its strategic and environmental implications. The project exacerbates the complexities of India-China relations, and underscores Beijing’s push for hydropower dominance and potential weaponization of water against India. India and China are caught in a protracted territorial dispute along the Line of Actual Control. The approval of a dam on a transboundary river adds another layer to an already strained bilateral relationship, making dialogue and trust-building even more challenging, especially given that the two Asian
RSS