ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Monday, March 12, 2007

Yet Another Inconvenient Truth - Part 1,765

Previous Inconvenient Truths here

To further demonstrate that global climate change is no longer science, but religion and faith, I submit this article in the Times of London:

Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'

By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:24am GMT 11/03/2007

Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.

They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.

"I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal."

Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do."

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."

We have entered the age of decay. The Scientific Method, Reason, and the Age of the Enlightenment has been replaced with the Age of Consensus.

Albert Einstein was laughed at for his early works and, had he not followed the science and instead allowed himself to be influenced by the consensus of his time, humanity would have suffered.

Today, those that seek to question the possibility that climate change is caused by humans, are curious as to whether its impacts can be slowed, or question the magnitude of the problem receive death threats and are threatened to be excommunicated from the scientific community.

No doubt that the scientists referenced in this article are all bought & paid for by ExxonMobil or British Petroleum. That is another weak attempt by the faithful to undermine those that ask questions - allowing the faithful to ignore the pointed questions.

And Climate Change comes down to this - 1) there are computer models which show we're headed to catastrophe; and 2) scientific community has formed a consensus.

With regard to the first - I can develop a computer model that would prove that given enough time, the probability that monkeys will fly out of my butt approaches 1. But that does not mean that I should take drastic precautions to prevent such an occurrence today.

With regard to the second - Scientific reality is not something which is negotiated and fine-tuned to accomodate the consensus of scientists. If 85 out of 100 scientists agree, it's not science - it's opinion. And as with any opinion, you should question the motivations (moolah, fame) and the underlying data separately.

*** UPDATE ***
HERESY!!! Here is the BBC 4 Program which is referenced in the above article. No wonder this generated such responses as death threats - this video is the most comprehensive and clear point for point refutation of the idiocy that is global warming and its potentially disastrous consequences on the developed and the developing world that I have ever seen.

It features scientists as well as environmentalists (such as the co-founder of Greenpeace) who are ashamed at what is taking place regarding global warming.



Is the global warming movement inevitable? Will we return to the poverty and misery of previous generations? I hope we have some very pointed questions to our next round of presidential candidates, inquiring (if they support the global warming prescriptions) as to why they would like to condemn the Third World to poverty and throw the First & Second World into the same condition.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Comments (1)
George said...

There are theories, which offer an explanation of a phenomenon, based on existing evidence; there are accepted theories, based on existing evidence AND able to make accurate predictions.

Whatever theories accompany the cult of Global Warming cannot make predictions, let alone accurate ones.