A rocket breaks through the clouds as viewed from space.
“The government’s document also says that Australia “will not support any measures which are socialism masquerading as environmentalism” The Australian
As a Kiwi I will give the Aussies this, they are prepared to stand up to the enviro bullies. Don’t you just love the terminology “socialism masquerading as environmentalism” – Amen!
We’ve heard the clarion call of the global warming alarmists, “the science is settled”. Or perhaps the aggressive shrill of the atheist’s faith in evolution, “all those scientists can’t be wrong”. Yeah, yeah, they rattle off the consensus science mantra ie, that peer review proves it must be so. But is that really the case or could it be that if you don’t fall into line with the magority then you are considered odd, wrong and not worthy of the scantiest consideration? Usually, as Dr Crichton says below, “Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.”
I happen to believe that consensus science ie, peer review sometimes actually impedes science. Why?Simply put, if you don’t agree then you are an outcast. It therefore falls into the realm of philosophy; not evidence and is open to subjective fantasy. The now slowly dying global warming scam is a case in point.
Dr Michael Crichton (author of film, Jurassic Park and TV medical drama series, ER) in his 2003 speech Aliens cause Global Warming said the following:
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.” [ Link to article]
Roger Aronoff writes for Accuracy in Media and has posted an article regarding the hoax that is perpetuated by the global warming alarmist fanatics. Below is an extract and this link Global Warming is a hoax takes you to that article in full.
In a recent article in American Thinker by Randall Hoven, a retired Boeing Technical Fellow who, following a three-year stint in the U.S. Navy, worked at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory from 1979 to 1982, has laid out the most recent scientific findings on global warming. He uses data from NASA/GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) data going back to 1880, and the Hadley Center from Great Britain which goes back with the data to 1875.
In short, both temperature data sets (NASA and Hadley Center) show:
1. Minimal global warming over the last 130 to 160 years: about half a degree Celsius per century.
2. No statistically significant global warming in the last 14 to 17 years.
3. Global cooling in the last 9 to 13 years.
The Australians are being conned by the climate change alarmist into believing that they need to pay for their CO2 emissions to the tune of 75 billion dollars over the next 5 years. I was sent this video recently to illustrate just how much or should I say how little CO2 man contributes to the overall CO2 levels in the world.
Don’t be conned by the deliberate liars of climate change. Use common sense and think of the Rice Grain illustration next time someone spouts off the alarmist dribble.
As you may well be aware from reading my comments in certain posts, I am a man-made global warming (AGW) skeptic and I am passionate about it. I cannot stand the lies and hypocricy that emanate from those that propose such idiotic lunacy.
Well, it appears from the midst of the IPCC fanatics there is a German scientist who has finally come to the same conclusion. He writes:
“I couldn’t take it any more. I had to write this book.”
Doubt came two years ago when he was an expert reviewer of an IPCC report on renewable energy. “I discovered numerous errors and asked myself if the other IPCC reports on climate were similarly sloppy.”
Read Anthony Watts blog Watts Up With That? and find out just why this man has come to his senses.
Monckton at his very best interviews a global warming alarmist as she campaigns against AGW. The interesting thing to note is how trusting this woman is in the Green Peace propaganda on the subject and that she would prefer this campaigning organisation’s version rather than spend 5-10 minutes checking the actual data provided free by the world’s universities.
This poor soul epitomizes the stupidity of warmists and their blind allegiance nay religious fervor to a hypothesis totally lacking in scientific credibility.
Her site contains a speech given recently by Dr Murry Salby. “It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t even control global CO2 levels.”
Well done Professor Salby.