GreenWatch Newsletter 20 (March 23, 2009)

Featured Story:

Jonathon Porritt, one of the leading environmental advisers to UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, will claim this week that if the country wants to build a sustainable society, it will need to halve its population from 60 million to 30 million.

"Each person in Britain has far more impact on the environment than those in developing countries so cutting our population is one way to reduce that impact."

Population growth is one of the most politically sensitive environmental problems. The issues it raises, including religion, culture and immigration policy, have proved too toxic for most green groups.

However, Porritt is winning scientific backing. Professor Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum, will use the OPT conference, to be held at the Royal Statistical Society, to warn that population growth could help derail attempts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Rapley, who formerly ran the British Antarctic Survey, said humanity was emitting the equivalent of 50 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.

"We have to cut this by 80%, and population growth is going to make that much harder," he said.

Rick Moran of the American Thinker explains just what is so dangerous about this claim.

This is beyond insidious. In order to achieve a 50% reduction in population, Great Britain would have to mandate family size and even take control of family planning completely, making the decisions regarding which parents will be able to have children and which won't.

And there is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that reducing the population of a developed country will impact climate change one iota. They are just making stuff up as they go along.

These sustainable development freaks look at humans as the rest of us look at cockroaches. And it's high time they stopped bugging us with their wild, unsupported stupidities regarding the kind of world that would feature little industry, less commerce, and everyone rooting around on their own 40 acres growing sweet potatoes while trying not to exhale too much carbon dioxide.

Just last week we highlighted a story claiming Global Warming would reduce the world's population by more than 5 billion people, and now the solution to global warming is halve a country's population. Tell me, if dramatic population reduction is the only solution to avoiding the calamitous result of...dramatic population reduction, then what, exactly, is the point?

More Headlines:

World's Cheapest Car: Boon or Bane?

Alarmist Propaganda 101: Could Global Warming Turn Rhode Island Into the Under-Ocean State?

Democrats Carbon Cap and Trade Plans Cancelled?

Global Warming Alarmist Complains the Weather Isn't Supporting the Theory

Alarmists Turn Blind Eye to Global Warming Benefits...Again

The Reader's Corner:

Usually we feature several emails in this space. This week, however, we're saving it for just one. What a delight it was to read this email, from Gordon Cooper of Apple Valley. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. And I hope it will stimulate some discussion amongst our readership:

"A review of some facts reveal the the global warming promotors selectively pick data to support their global warming contention. The atmosphere is made up of 78 % nitrogen, 20 % oxygen, 1 % argon and .038 % carbon dioxide. Note that water is not included. However, water is the greatest absorber of solar radiation and greatest contributor to atmospheric temperature changes with carbon dioxide to a much lesser degree while nitrogen and oxygen are completely passive. Results of computer models compared with actual atmospheric data show carbon dioxide has been assigned too much affect. Computer models predict the upper atmospheric temperature should increase compared to previous times when carbon dioxide was lower. However, measurements show lower temperatures.

"The warmers underestimate the great affect of water. If you view a photo of the earth from space, you see that much is covered by clouds so that most of the sun's energy is reflected to space. The oceans have a vast effect in stabilizing the earth's temperature because one thousand times as much energy is required to evaporate water as to change the liquid one degree Fahrenheit. A slight increase in the ocean temperature would cause an increase in evaporation and cloud cover and increase the radiation to space. The temperature of our neighboring waterless planets change hundreds of degrees from day to night compared to 30 degrees in our desert or 10 in vegetated areas on earth. The reason for the difference is our oceans cover three quarters of the earth and moist land.

"If the earth is warming and the glaciers and snow packs are melting, the water must end up in the ocean and the sea level must rise. We have accurate measurements from satellites reporting one to two millimeters increase per year over the past several years. This is barely more than the seasonal variation, so what is wrong? We have photos of glaciers receding in Alaska but we are not told of the snow pack on Greenland covering planes that crashed during WW II by 200 feet. We are told Antarctica is melting and a piece of ice the size of Delaware has been sliding into the sea. Actually, the temperature of Antarctica rarely gets up to freezing and ninety percent of the earth's fresh water has accumulated there to a average height of 8200 feet. This huge piece is not melting but is sliding off a mountain of ice. Sea level would increase 260 feet if all the Antarctic ice melted. An increase of one or two millimeters should not be a cause for fear."

If you have anything you'd like to say in response to Gordon, please email us at GreenWatchAmerica@gmail.com. This space is yours, readers. We want to hear from you, even (especially) if you disagree with something you read here.

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

According to a tribunal in England, if you support the Green Agenda, you are entitled to the same legal protections for your beliefs as a Catholic, Muslim, or Jew has for theirs:

An executive, who is devoted to saving the environment, has been given permission to sue his employers for unfair dismissal for allegedly discriminating against his views on climate change.

Tim Nicholson's commitment to green causes was enshrined in law by an employment tribunal as a "philosophical belief" under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations...

Mr Nicholson said that his frustrations were underlined when the Rupert Dickinson, the chief executive, "showed contempt for the need to cut carbon emissions by flying out a member of the IT staff to Ireland to deliver his BlackBerry that he had left behind in London".

Mr Nicholson also fell foul of his colleagues when he tried establish a carbon management strategy for the company which had been listed as a target in its annual report. But when he tried to calculate the firm's carbon footprints the information was refused to him by the personnel department. He said that Grainger's executives would turn up for meetings in "some of the most high polluting cars on the road".

Effectively, this tribunal is saying that the Green Agenda is just like a religion. The most surprising aspect of this week's claim?

We actually agree with it!