Latest Alarmist Claim: Global Warming to Unleash Flesh-Eating Fungus!

The CDC is warning of the spread of Apophysomyces,  a fungus found in soil and normally harmless to humans, but which, if it penetrates the skin through punctures and lesions will literally eat the flesh and bones, causing massive necrotizing damage. Predictably, global warming alarmists have leapt on to the study, as puncture wounds caused by flying debris (as you might expect in a tornado, for example) and warm weather are two of the contingent conditions for the fungus to affect humans.

David Engelthaler, the lead author of the study that unravelled the genetic code of the fungus warned it was unlike anything ever seen before, leaving one patient needing a titanium ribcage after it had eaten him away:

The fungus that grows in soil and water usually doesn’t cause harm unless it penetrates the skin. Lesions form that destroy the soft tissue of the body, eating away at flesh and bone. According to the CDC, infection with the spore can cause “rapid and fatal” disease in humans and is often unreported because it’s difficult to identify.

When the fungus enters the body it seals of capillaries that supply blood to the skin, causing it to rot. “It’s unlike anything you’ve ever seen before,” said Engelthaler. It’s unreal. It looks like there is no way this person can be alive.”

E-Max Health News: Awareness of Flesh Eating Soil Fungus Highlighted in New Study.

This terrifying fungus is not actually new at all, it’s always been around, but was only identified in 1979. Normally, India and other warm countries with poor medical care see sporadic cases of it affecting humans, but following the tornado which struck Joplin, Missouri, recently, it is being blamed for five deaths there as people whose skin was ruptured or punctured by flying debris succumbed to it.

Of course, whilst this is a case of an ancient and extremely rare problem being identified by modern science and medicine, rather than the emergence of an entirely new threat, it didn’t take long for the global warming alarmists to spot the possibility for linking it with global warming. Requires a warm climate? Check. Recent cases caused by skin punctures after natural weather disaster? Check. Very little real information on spread and incidence? Check.

Treehugger immediately launched a breathless piece on the issue, ludicrously  entitled “How Climate Change Can Spawn Flesh-Eating Fungi”. Of course, climate change can’t “spawn” the fungi at all, and the study says nothing of the kind. But that doesn’t stop the alarmists at Treehugger who simply juxtaposed two entirely unrelated studies next to each other as though that constituted rational analysis:

All together 13 people were infected with Apophysomyces, which occurred when their injuries were contaminated with debris from the storm, including gravel, wood and soil. The five who died did so within two weeks.

“This is one of the most severe fungal infections that anyone’s ever seen,” said David Engelthaler, Director of Programs and Operations for TGen’s Pathogen Genomics Division.

Meanwhile, a report from the U.S. Global Change and Research Program, the federal research program overseen by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, found that more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could lead to an increase in extreme weather conditions that make tornadoes possible.

Treehugger: “How Climate Change Can Spawn Flesh-Eating Fungi”

Do you see what they did there? A study which unravelled the genetic code of a newly identified fungus was linked with global warming, thus justifying (if that word can be used here) the headline about climate change “spawning” flesh-eating fungi. In reality, there is no link of course, but by  journalistic sleight of hand, the gap between the two issues is elided, and the unwary reader is led to believe that rather than bare-faced alarmism, this is the result of calm scientific analysis.

And in a way, the headline to Treehugger’s story is the only real point to them publishing the story. It allows them and others to forge a link, however tenuous, between the theory of global warming and the terror of having our flesh and bones eaten away by a mindless fungus or bacteria we can’t even see. Fear short circuits reason, and simply by juxtaposing the two unrelated issues next to each other it now becomes possible to suggest and insinuate a causal link between the two where absolutely none exists. In this way, a panic might be whipped up, a hysteria that demands “Action!” rather than analysis. And so alarmism trumps analysis once again.

Ministry of Truth: The Guardian and the Orwellian Language of Global Warming

There’s a short piece in today’s Guardian that perfectly illustrates the Orwellian influence of the global warming scare on everyday journalism and language. The article itself is a minor, inside-page piece, but it is worthy of note for the way it demonstrates the degradation of journalism and even language under the influence of the global warming lobby.

Britain is already experiencing yet another bitterly cold and snowy winter, the latest in an continuing series of arctic winters which have made a mockery of alarmists predictions that global warming would mean mild winters and no snow in Britain (we all remember the headline about snow in Britain being a thing of the past).

But rather than set the article on the latest cold winter within the context of increasingly cold and snowy winters, or instead simply reporting the bald facts, The Guardian shows the extent to which the Orwellian double-think of global warming propaganda influences the language of everyday reporting.

Readers are told that the snow and cold weather of another arctic winter is a “cold snap” rather than part of a trend and is due to gales from Scandinavia or Siberia (as though all other weather is home-made, and it’s only freakish cold weather that is blown in from elsewhere).

Consider, for a moment, the lead-in to the Guardian article:

The cold snap gripping Europe shows no sign of letting up as the UK braces for snow next week.

Overnight frosts will continue throughout next week, with increasingly wintry showers turning from sleet into snow.

UK Braces for More Snow as Cold Snap Continues

Readers are told the bitter cold is a “snap” – implying an extremely short-lived phenomenon. They then have to struggle to accommodate the cognitive dissonance of an extremely short-lived event that is “gripping” Europe and “shows no signs of letting up”. We are given the truly bizarre and contradictory statement that “Overnight frosts will continue throughout next week”! Worthy of the Ministry of Truth indeed.

The point to this is that one minor news article is of no real importance; but it demonstrates an extremely important point – the extent to which journalists today are locked into the meme of global warming and report from the assumption that the theory is correct and the facts must be made to fit. It is the very definition of Doublespeak.

Climate Change Think Tank Warns of Robot Uprising

You know that sneaking suspicion you’ve always had that climate change alarmists are all doom fetishists with an unhealthy obsession with apocalyptic scenarios? Well you’re not too far from the mark, it would seem.

Martin Rees, former president of the Royal Society, and author of uber-alarmist global warming book Our Final Centuryhas teamed up with philosophy professor, Huw Price and Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn to form the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER), a think tank devoted to looking at climate change and other ways we could all die. Maybe. Perhaps.

The BBC reports on the think tank and the inspiration behind it:

The Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) will study dangers posed by biotechnology, artificial life, nanotechnology and climate change.

The scientists said that to dismiss concerns of a potential robot uprising would be “dangerous”.

Fears that machines may take over have been central to the plot of some of the most popular science fiction films.

BBC: Risk of Robot Uprising Wiping Out Human Race to Be Studied.

It is certainly appropriate that climate change is to be studied under the same roof as robot uprisings and fears about the triffids taking over the planet. Perhaps Bigfoot will also be looked into as well, we’re not sure on that one yet.

But what is certain is that from being a front page news story and worldwide concern, climate change alarmism has slipped ever further down the slope to fringe status, joining crackpot theories like robot uprisings at the outer margins of speculation. How fitting.



Update on the German Green Energy Revolution

Comrades! Welcome to this latest update on the glorious German Green energy revolution. I know many of you have been assigned to work in the fields today, so I will keep this brief. I merely want to bring to your attention the latest triumphs over evil fossil fuels that our glorious leaders have wrought:

State police in North Rhine Westphalia have finally evicted treetop protesters who were polluting a proposed strip-mining site with their presence. “Special commando police officers” scaled trees and removed the protesters so that energy company RWE can play its part in our latest Five Year Plan for Green energy:

RWE are waiting to take control of the forest to excavate brown coal, or lignite, a controversial carbon-rich substance currently responsible for generating 24.6 percent of Germany’s energy supply in steam power plants.

In order to extract the brown coal from the ground this winter, RWE will cut down 3,900 hectares of the 12,000-year-old oak and hornbeam Hambach forest, leaving just 300 hectares in tact.

Police Clear Forest Camp for Coal Excavation.

Our congratulations to the brave police commandos, clearing the way for the removal of this 12,000 year old forest that was obstructing our glorious nation’s triumphant march to renewable energy nirvana! Another victory. Forward, comrades!

Meanwhile, capitalist plots to siphon off money needed for coal mining subsidies at home into fanciful solar power projects in Northern Africa have been routed, I am pleased to inform you. The so-called DESERTEC plot is collapsing, comrades, with German companies fleeing this sinking ship. Do not be deceived into thinking this was ever a project supported by our glorious green leaders. This is merely propaganda. We never supported this foolish escapade.

A multi-billion-euro project to harness renewable energy in the Sahara Desert, known as Desertec, has lost another big partner: German tech giant Bosch says it is jumping ship by the year’s end

. . . progress on the project has been markedly slower than expected.

Bosch’s announcement came shortly after German engineering heavyweight Siemens, which is abandoning its solar power business altogether, said it would not stay on as a shareholder in the Desertec Industrial Initiative (DII).

German Cash Dries Up for Desert Solar Project

We have no need of such wicked capitalist plots here in the green, renewable energy paradise of Germany, where cheap, sustainable green energy is always available. In fact, comrades, it gives me great pride to announce to you today that our Green energy revolution has achieved a new record in supporting the state’s income, proving that Green energy really does pay!

Consumer groups and social organisation have warned of growing numbers risking ‘electricity poverty’ due to mounting bills. Vulnerable groups could be left unable to keep the heating on, they claim. Tenants in particular could be excessively burdened by the changes.

The main reason given for price increases is the government’s guarantee of a rate for energy from sustainable sources that is well above market prices.

The biggest beneficiary of the environmental levy is the state, which is set to cash in €1.4 billion through the system in 2013. 

Vattenfall manager Rainer Wittenberg told Die Welt newspaper that they were “collecting for the state”.

Electricity Bills to Take Record Hike in January.

Comrades, I realise that those of you unable to afford your own homes and solar panels, and living in underheated rented accommodation may question this victory, but let me assure you, comrades, that your sacrifice is NOT in vain. Your hard earned money which the electricity companies are collecting for us via the glorious “environmental levy” is essential to providing funding for the key component of our green energy revolution: subsidising loss-making mining of brown coal –

Germany has won its battle to ensure that state subsidies to loss-making coal mines can continue until 2018, rather than a 2014 cut-off date proposed last summer.

Germany subsequently lobbied very hard – and at the highest level – to get the deadline pushed back to 2018, in line with its existing domestic plans. Last month, the European Parliament backed that suggestion.

Germany Wins Extension of Coal Subsidies.

So let us hear no more muttering about high cost and little sign of improvement, comrades! Such talk is unworthy of you. Think instead of the inspiring example of your revolutionary brothers and sisters in Munich who set a tremendous example for us all by voluntarily sitting through the biggest blackout in decades to demonstrate their solidarity and support for the green energy revolution:

Munich experienced its most extensive power blackout in two decades today when half a million people sat in darkness this morning at 7 am. U-Bahns, S-Bahns and trams ground to a standstill and non-functioning traffic lights caused chaos on the roads as well. The fire-brigade had their fair share to do when many people had to be rescued from lifts, and fire alarm systems went off for no apparent reason.

Munich’s Blackout on Thursday Remains a Mystery.

Our Glorious Green Leader.

End National Veto on Climate Change Talks?

Reuters is reporting on a Nature article that argues for “majority voting” in UN climate change negotiations, effectively ending the national veto.

In a paper co-authored by researchers from the University of East Anglia, the University of Colorado, and accounting firm PriceWaterhouseCoopers (now there’s a grouping that inspires confidence!) it is argued that the current UN system of “consensus” is “highly inequitable” and “obstruct[s] progress towards international climate policy cooperation”.

The authors of the paper propose ending the need for international consensus and moving instead to a system of majority voting, where a majority of countries in favour of a policy or regulation would be enough to ensure its ratification. Countries which didn’t vote for the proposal or consent to it, would still be required to comply with the new directive. As Heike Schroeder of the University of East Anglia, lead author of the paper argues:

“Majority voting would be a threat to some,” Schroeder said. “But our parliaments don’t work (with consensus), why not extend that to the realm of multilateral negotiations?”

One obvious question that arises is the extent to which dissenting countries could be compelled to fall in line with directives ordering them to take action. This is still something of a grey area in international law, but with the rise of environmental policy by lawsuit, it seems that substantial pressure could be applied to force compliance, especially against smaller countries.

Of course, it doesn’t take a PhD in international law or Political Science to see the flaw in the paper’s application of majority voting to international multilateral negotiations. If the system adopted is one country, one vote, what is to stop the nations of the world currently regarded by the UN as “developing” and therefore not required to curb their emissions or contribute to climate change funds from grouping together to hold those few “developed” nations to ransom? Remember, it’s not just nations like Ethopia or Bhutan we’re talking about, China and India are both classed as “developing” by the UN for the purposes of climate change negotiations.

What could possibly go wrong?

Obama Supporters Ridicule Suicide of Gay Man: “Natural Selection at its Finest”.

A popular alternative Left-Wing news website has revealed the ugly side of its liberal readership after publishing a link to a story about the suicide of a homosexual business owner in Florida.

Henry Hamilton, aged 64, of Key West, Florida, was a respectable local businessman, owner of the “Tropical Tan” salon. Recently business had not been so good and Mr Hamilton had become severely depressed about it, causing his partner and friends to worry about his welfare, to the extent of asking local police to check on the older man at his home regularly.

For whatever reason, Mr Hamilton blamed President Obama and his economic policies for the hardships he and his business were suffering, so much so that he told his partner, Michael Cossey, that “if Obama gets re-elected I’m not going to be around”. Shortly after President Obama’s re-election, a routine police welfare check found the unhappy local resident dead in his home, bottles of pills by his side and a note reading “F____ Obama” written on his will.

Clearly Mr Hamilton was under pressure because of his failing business, a situation made all the worse by his advancing years which meant he could hardly expect to start in business again. His suicide was very obviously a disproportionate reaction to the re-election which was the final straw, a trigger that brought things to a head for the unhappy man. A sad end to a tragic tale of the hardships many people are suffering under.

So when the left-wing / liberal alternative news website “Disinfo” posted a link to the Miami Herald’s story on its Facebook page, blithely asking its readers “Is this becoming a trend?” the jubilant and at times vicious reaction of its readers was deeply disturbing. Rather than what might perhaps be the expected response of pity for a well known local member of the gay community and small business owner, Obama supporters and other liberals were out in force, rejoicing that a homosexual that didn’t support President Obama had killed himself.

Here are a selection of the comments. WARNING: some of these are upsetting and deeply offensive. As the comments were made in a public forum, I have simply copied and pasted them without redacting names or pseudonyms:

Bridget Maryott: “Natural selection at its finest”

Timmy Huffman“Too bad he didn’t round up some like minded friends and make a suicide party out of it” [Whether Timothy means other homosexuals or simply other people who didn’t vote for the President is unclear].

Robert Elder: “One less moron”

Mike Ginevicz: “Evolution of natural selection” [Mr Ginevicz seems unaware that natural selection itself does not evolve, it is the process by which evolution happens].

Alejandro Rico: “one less dumbass I guess….long live Evolution!!!!

Danielle Manning: “Darwin’s survival of the fittest just weeded out another moron” [Ms Manning is obviously someone else who needs a lesson on how evolution works. Quite how a homosexual killing himself is “survival of the fittest” is something known only to Ms Manning herself].
Lance Kelley: “this is great news! keep up the good work republicans!“.
These, and other similarly sick and brutal responses to the death of an old man whose business was failing in the current harsh economic climate met not with condemnation from other readers, but with multiple “thumbs up” to indicate that others “liked” the thought being expressed. Neither did the Disinfo team take any action or make any statement on the hate speech broadcast on their forum.
Amidst the rejoicing and mocking the suicide of a gay business owner who dared to blame President Obama for the failure of his business, what was missing was any realization that suicide is an act of utter desperation almost always caused not by one factor, but by a number of different factors which converge to leave the victim feeling alone, trapped and helpless. The re-election of a President Mr Hamilton blamed for his economic situation (rightly or wrongly) was not the cause of his suicide, merely the trigger for the final act. The lack of understanding and outright malice shown by those who consider themselves “liberal” shows that  sadly outdated, judgmental and reactionary attitudes are still very much with us in the twenty first century. Instead, a sense of rage that a homosexual man might have the temerity to not support President Obama (who, let’s recall, opposed gay marriage for most of his tenure, only changing his position after immense pressure) was the dominant theme amongst these Obama supporters.
Given that this is by no means the first such instance of vitrolic hate speech unleashed by so called “liberals” against any homosexual or lesbian that has their own political opinions – see here for a Left-Wing Radio host advising a gay Mitt Romney supporter to go drink poison so he’d die – maybe the question Disinformation should be asking is is licensed hate speech becoming a trend?

Global Warming Author Equates USA With Nazi Germany. Accuses it of Genocide.

Another fascinating insight into the mentality of the warmist which chillingly demonstrates just how much they seem to be animated by hatred of the modern world .

Prominent global warming alarmist Chris Hedges has made a startling denouncement of his own country and condemned its actions in winning the Second World War. America, he writes, demonstrated that it was “as morally bankrupt as the Nazi machine it had recently vanquished” when it dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima and then on Nagasaki.

America, he goes on, deliberately committed an act of carefully planned, cold-blooded genocide for which there was no reason –

It was an act of mass annihilation that was strategically and militarily indefensible. The Japanese had been on the verge of surrender. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had no military significance. It was a war crime for which no one was ever tried.

Chris Hedges, The Science of Genocide.

Hedges’ contention that it was unnecessary and that Japan was “on the verge of surrender” is of course not only remarkably stupid but an insult to the lives of the tens of thousands of servicemen and women who fought and died battling the fanatical Japanese military machine which – and this is perhaps the crucial point Hedges is at pains to omit – launched an unprovoked attack on America, as well a  murderous campaign of invasion, rape, torture and slavery on neighbouring countries. On this, Hedges is totally, completely silent.

Hedges target here, though, is not just his own country, but science and technology in general which he claims are responsible for the genocides of the twentieth century by making them possible, an argument analogous in its fatuousness to claiming that matches are responsible for arson attacks because they make them possible. You see, science for Hedges is not the rational discovery of truth for the benefit of humankind. It isn’t medicine, warmth, power, light, and knowledge. Rather, for him and his kind it is something to be feared and loathed:

Science is for us what totems and spells were for our premodern ancestors. It is magical thinking. It feeds our hubris and sense of divine empowerment. And trusting in its fearsome power will mean our extinction.

Fittingly, he quotes noted psychotic liar, Bruno Bettelheim, as support for his argument that progress hasn’t actually improved the lot of mankind but is responsible for all the terror and slaughter that the rest of us thought were caused by the communists in Russia and China and the National Socialists in Germany. Bettelheim was a man so prone to confabulation that even his long-time personal assistant remarked of him “you couldn’t believe a word he said”. Why would Hedges or anyone else, then, quote such a person in support of their argument? I can’t fathom it and will leave to the reader to speculate.

How ironic then that in his column, The Sky Really is Falling, he accuses skeptics of global warming of “self-delusion”.  This from a man who apparently really believes there’s an equivalency to be drawn between Nazi Germany and Japan which launched genocidal attacks on the world, and America, which reluctantly entered the war only after it was directly attacked without provocation. A man who doesn’t welcome science for curing crippling and painful diseases and ailments, for feeding the world, and lifting humanity out of drudgery, but rather sees it as some malignant force that will lead to our extinction.

This is something, I believe, to bear in mind next time you read another jeremiad on global warming or “evil capitalism” from Hedges or one of his alarmist cronies. The fact that he is still being published by media outlets is nothing short of a scandal.

Science Fail: Popular Website Illustrates Effects of Global Warming in Antarctica with Picture of Polar Bear.

Just one of those stories that make you chuckle when warmists accuse sceptics of not knowing anything about science. The popular alternative left-wing website,, chose to illustrate a story about global warming turning Antarctica tropical with a picture  . . . of a polar bear.

Disinformation indeed! Global warming will apparently cause polar bears to migrate to Antarctica. Or something.

Publicising the post on their Facebook page with the headline “Polar Bear Luau!”  in reference to the festival on the semi-tropical Hawaiian archipelago, linked to a ScienceDaily story about Antarctica once being a tropical paradise, and warning that it may become one again, thanks to global warming.

Discounting for a moment the rather unusual fact that a story which confirms that the earth’s coldest place was once tropical before SUVs is used to warn of the so-called “dangers” of global warming, choosing to illustrate that story with a picture of an animal that lives literally on the the other side of the world is more than a little embarrassing for a website which promises to tell you the truth about the world under the slogan “Everything you know is wrong”. Indeed.

Disinfo’s Facebook post. The polar bear looks a little confused. Perhaps he’s wondering why he’s on the wrong side of the world?

This isn’t the first time warmists have warned of the effect global warming will have on the phantom polar bears of Antarctica. Only last year HauntingtheLibrary noted a similar story which warned that “The entire planet is affected by global warming, and polar bears in Antarctica aren’t the only ones facing changes”.

So, a simple request to all warmist publications out there: before accusing us sceptics of scientific illiteracy, could you at least locate your trophy animals in the right hemisphere? Or is that too much to ask?

Ignore the Elephant, Blame the Mouse: Global Warming and Food Security.

There’s a guest post today (Thursday July 19th, 2012) at ThinkProgress from Francesco Femia and Caitlin Werrell at something called “The Center for Climate and Security”, yet another “action-oriented think-tank” churning out facile analyses of complex issues. Their argument in their guest post on this year’s drought, and the effect on food supply and price, is quite spectacular for the way in which it heroically avoids any mention of the “elephant in the room” when it comes to food prices : government subsidies and mandates for biofuels, especially ethanol from corn.

Femia and Werrell spend the first five paragraphs painting a grim picture of drought-stricken America (and more widely, the world) and linking it to global warming. Having sketched out the background to their argument, they then present their case:

In lieu of the recent drought, the U.S. Department of Agriculture adjusted its prediction for corn yields, the country’s largest export crop, down by 12%. This, and any subsequent adjustments, will likely impact global corn prices, but also meat and dairy prices, as corn is used for animal feed. Meanwhile, beef prices are still high from last year’s drought in Texas.

As a leading exporter of corn and soy, the U.S. is intricately linked to the global food market. Drought and crop failure in the U.S. could spike world food prices and have serious implications for places like Mexico, China, Central America and India, who rely heavily on imports of these crops, as well as animal feed. When National Climate Disasters Go Global: On Drought, Food, And Global Insecurity

To recap their case then: Their first point is that man-made global warming is adversely affecting the weather right now, leading to more frequent and severe droughts such as the ones this year. Their second, subsequent, point is that if the predictions of a 12% reduction in US corn production this year are correct this could have “serious implications” globally. The authors point to a swathe of hazards, from food riots to instability and even possible American military involvement in countries destabalised by rising food prices – all caused by a 12% reduction in corn this year apparently. What, the article ponders, might happen in future if worsening climate reduced production of corn and other crops even further . . .?

Bizarrely – and this is truly surreal – the article does not once make any reference, directly or obliquely, to the massive impact on food prices that government mandates and subsidies for ethanol and other biofuels are having. As an article only a few days before on ThinkProgress pointed out the scale of the diversion from food to fuel is truly massive and truly moronic:

 . . .as of July 11th, this year’s corn crop is no longer projected to be history’s largest. At the same time, almost 1 billion people world wide are going hungry. However, plans remain in place to use about 40% of America’s corn crop, the world’s largest, for biofuel purposes.

The nearly 5 billion bushels of corn that will be cordoned off for to create ethanol could feed about 412 million people for an entire year. Instead, it will be turned into 13.5 billion gallons of corn ethanol

The Corn Identity: The US Will Make Ethanol Out Of Enough Corn To Feed 412 Million People

This is an astonishingly unbiased and open-eyed article for ThinkProgress. The author points out that far from diminishing yields, this year’s crop was on track to be the largest in history before the drought struck. Even with the drought, it will be substantially higher than normal yields from twenty years or so ago. And don’t forget, the US, Europe, and many other areas of the world hold vast reserves of grain against such temporary drops in production.

No, as the author of this earlier article correctly identifies, it isn’t the mouse of drought we should be concerned about, at least immediately. It’s the elephant of diverting what should be food into a completely pointless and counter-productive attempt to create an alternative fuel.  Almost half of all US corn production is earmarked for biofuels this year. Even Joe Romm argued that ethanol was stupid and in many circumstances worse than petrol. He also argued that they will “push millions into hunger” and won’t have any effect whatsoever on supposed global warming, at least not before 2050.

Femia and Werrell’s focus on the possible 12% reduction in US corn production this year is dwarfed by the diversion of a food product into a moronic attempt at making a renewable fuel that doesn’t work, costs millions, and pushes up food prices. So why don’t they even mention this, if only in their conclusion as a recommendation? In this author’s opinion, it’s unprofessional to purport to present an analysis of a serious situation that steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that in the here and now, today, it isn’t the project reduction of around 12% by drought that will affect food prices and possibly cause instability, it’s the 40% diversion into a program that many warmists pushed for, before its adverse consequences became apparent. Even the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food himself, way back in 2008 slammed the US and Europe for taking what he termed “a criminal path” in pursuing biofuels, warning of a “horrifying” increase in deaths and disturbances that would be caused by food price rises because of biofuels.

I think readers will agree with me that a case doesn’t get much clearer than this: biofuels push up food prices, cause instability and misery for millions of the world’s poor. Do biofuels kill? I’ll leave that particular discussion to others. But perhaps Femia and Werrel and their “Center for Climate and Security” would do well to take their eyes off the mouse and acknowledge the elephant in the room.

Liberal Media & How It Works: Coal is Bad, Except When it’s Socialist and Subsidised.

The recent recession in Europe, and the cuts imposed on those countries who seemed to believe governments could just spend their way to a brighter future, have shone light on an interesting aspect of liberal media and how it works. This is the Janus-faced nature of their arguments.

Take coal for example. We are told time and time and time again by the liberal media that coal is an evil fossil fuel that kills people through pollution, heats up the atmosphere by Co2 emissions, and whose existence is only kept going by shadowy lobbying of government by “big coal”. Capitalism and big coal, it is strongly implied, are destroying the environment and preventing the renewable revolution that would lead to millions of “clean energy” jobs.

For example, here’s what The Guardian had to say about those banks who financed coal power plants. These evil, capitalist banks were, the article quoted “killer banks” that were destroying the planet:

Barclays, the Royal Bank of Scotland and HSBC are among the top banks that have lent billions of euros to the coal sector – despite their much-vaunted environmental credentials, a new investigation has found

Financing coal is controversial, because it is the dirtiest fossil fuel and responsible for billions of tonnes of emissions of carbon dioxide globally, as well as other pollutants such as soot particles and mercury.

The Guardian: Coal Study Names Top 20 ‘Climate Killer’ Banks.

So, according to the liberal media, coal is evil, destroying the planet, and any moves to cut coal production would be welcomed and celebrated right?

Well, not quite. When the EPA, under the Obama administration makes it “nearly impossible” to build new coal power plants, that’s a good thing according  to The Guardian. But look at the response when Spain’s new centre-right administration recently announced cuts to subsidies for coal production in a socialist area of Spain. When a right wing administration wants to cut subsidies for coal production, the outcome, apparently, is very different:

Ana Sánchez is on her knees, saying goodbye to her three-year-old goddaughter Marina. Sánchez has worked as a miner for nine years, at the María Luisa mine. She is one of four women from the Asturian valley who will join the march. “I have to do this for my unborn granddaughter. I will do whatever it takes.”

Pepe Pérez, 45, a miner from Cerredo, adds: “The cuts approved by the conservative government would suffocate mining to the point that it would disappear. These subsidies have already been approved, so it is like we are being robbed. They want us to starve, and we cannot allow it. We must fight.”

The Guardian: Spain’s Desperate Miners Gather for a Protest March on the Capital.

Spot the difference? When it’s a right-wing administration cutting subsidies for coal production, we hear about “unborn granddaughters”, starving villagers, pregnant women marching on the capital to protest against what are described as “savage cuts”.  There are heart-rending accounts of elderly villagers weeping as their families go off to protest against the possible loss of coal production in the area. This was just one of a number of articles bemoaning the plight of the coal miners in Spain, and supporting their protests in highly emotional terms.

So. I hope this helps to explain how liberal media works, and helps clarify the party position on coal: when it’s affecting Republican voters in places like West Virginia, then it’s an evil fossil fuel that is being corruptly sanctioned by big money interests. It must be stamped out. But when it affects socialist voting areas of Europe, and it’s a right-wing administration cutting subsidies, then pity the unborn grandchildren, the weeping elderly and the heroic miners who will “starve” on the streets because those evil capitalists won’t fund coal.

I hope that’s all perfectly clear now.