Climategate goes uber-viral, Gore flees leaving evil henchmen to defend crumbling citadel ~ James Delingpole
In other words, people are far more interested in ClimateGate than Tiger Woods by a factor of 20 times. Twenty times, yet what are we hearing about in the print media?
Meanwhile, what does my local paper have on the whole issue? An article on Wellington being like Venice, underwater, by 2100, if we don't do something. Maybe building sea walls would be a good idea? But no, I don't think that's what is meant. Paying money to people like Al Gore is probably more like it.
Then on the front page of the World section, we have the man himself, Al-baby, saying we are not doing enough.
And whatabout ClimateGate, Al?
The title of the whole spread is Going green: Countdown to Copenhagen, with a cute little insert titled: Climate experts warn: adapt or die. Ummm, we all die, eventually.
So, how to make your home and your city more eco-friendly ... they've left out the bit that tells us how to go back to the stone age, because that's what needed if what the climate experts tell us is true.
Bah! It's all just so ridiculous. Meanwhile, have a look at this: The Battle for the Internet has begun.
Climategate is now huge. Way, way bigger than the Mainstream Media (MSM) is admitting it is – as Richard North demonstrates in this fascinating analysis. Using what he calls a Tiger Woods Index (TWI), he compares the amount of interest being shown by internet users (as shown by the number of general web pages on Google) and compares it with the number of news reports recorded. The ratio indicates what people are really interested in, as opposed to what the MSM thinks they ought to be interested in.
North explains:
Tiger Woods delivered 22,500,000 web and 46,025 news pages, giving ratio of 489. That is the “Tiger Woods Index” (TWI) against which I chose to measure a raft of other issues.
Here are the rankings:
1. Climategate: 28,400,000 – 2,930 = 9693
2. Afghanistan: 143,000,000 – 154,145 = 928
3. Obama: 202,000,000 – 252,583 = 800
4. Tiger Woods: 22,500,000 – 46,025 = 489
5. Gordon Brown: 12,300,000 – 37,021 = 332
6. Climate change: 22,200,000 – 68,419 = 324
7. Sally Bercow: 25,000 – 86 = 290
8. David Cameron: 545,000 – 4837 = 113
9. Meredith Kercher: 261,000 – 3,471 = 75
10. Chilcot Inquiry: 125,000 – 4,350 = 29
In other words, people are far more interested in ClimateGate than Tiger Woods by a factor of 20 times. Twenty times, yet what are we hearing about in the print media?
Meanwhile, what does my local paper have on the whole issue? An article on Wellington being like Venice, underwater, by 2100, if we don't do something. Maybe building sea walls would be a good idea? But no, I don't think that's what is meant. Paying money to people like Al Gore is probably more like it.
Then on the front page of the World section, we have the man himself, Al-baby, saying we are not doing enough.
"We are gambling with the future of human civilisation in accepting odds that by any definition make our present course reckless ... But it's still the most likely path to success."
And whatabout ClimateGate, Al?
The naysayers are in a sunset phase with a spectacular climax just before they subside from view," he said. This is a race between commonsense and unreality."
The title of the whole spread is Going green: Countdown to Copenhagen, with a cute little insert titled: Climate experts warn: adapt or die. Ummm, we all die, eventually.
So, how to make your home and your city more eco-friendly ... they've left out the bit that tells us how to go back to the stone age, because that's what needed if what the climate experts tell us is true.
Bah! It's all just so ridiculous. Meanwhile, have a look at this: The Battle for the Internet has begun.