LuckyWillIs Global Warming the next Y2K bug?
May 27th 2007 11:37
Reading the Sunday paper today I was shocked to learn about a documentary that not only opposes Al Gores famous An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) but tries to wholeheartedly refute it. It's called The Great Global Warming Swindle (TGGWS) and likely has as many staunch partisan supporters from the other end of the spectrum as does AIT.
Now, I'm no scientist (though have spent time in a lab for academic research on rats) but clearly I'm just caught up in the massive groundswell that has become a major issue quite recently. I've seen the photos of pre-existing waterfalls, rainforests and the statistics on an incline of termperature and all the rest Gore has to offer - but what I can't say is that this has been caused from a single, direct result of environmental pollution that humans are causing and nothing else besides. Consequently from his argument, I'm taking his words as an authority to which seem reasonable enough and also quite believable to an extent.
However, if I was stopped in the street to speak on the issue all I could give was a circular argument. Being that, pollution is changing the globe at a rapid rate, pollution is bad, there's an influx of things either going missing or being outright destroyed and this is because of pollution. Therefore, pollution which is bad is changing the globe due to the detrimental things that are happening. I'm really only re-stating the premise to offer as a conclusion. What do I know for certain that isn't expressed by people (admittedly scientists) that haven't already been vouched for?
This documentary (probably much maligned like that of AIT) forces a heavy-heanded approach to the issue without reservation for decisive, empirically based testing and careful, even deliberation. It will be screening in Australia on the ABC in June sometime and should hopefully provide for a reconsideration if nothing else than just a piece of propaganda. Though it's doubtful.
Co founder and critic of greenie issues Patrick Moore (not Michael's brother) had these very interesting things to say about IAT and the climate change theory.
"(IAT is) ...how a theory about climate turned into a political ideology... ...a story of censorship and intimidation... ...of the distortion of a whole area of science... ...a cautionary tale of how a media scare became the defining of a generation."
Miranda Devine, 2007
This, he attributes, is the most recent focus of extremists after "world communism failed, the Wall came down and a lot of peaceniks and political activists moved into the environmental movement bringing their neo-Marxism with them and learnt to use green language in a very clever way to cloak agendas that have more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalisation than... ...ecology and science."
Ibid
Devine, M. 2007, Sydney Morning Herald Open your eyes to see who really is doing the swindling pp15, Fairfax Media.
Now, I'm no scientist (though have spent time in a lab for academic research on rats) but clearly I'm just caught up in the massive groundswell that has become a major issue quite recently. I've seen the photos of pre-existing waterfalls, rainforests and the statistics on an incline of termperature and all the rest Gore has to offer - but what I can't say is that this has been caused from a single, direct result of environmental pollution that humans are causing and nothing else besides. Consequently from his argument, I'm taking his words as an authority to which seem reasonable enough and also quite believable to an extent.
However, if I was stopped in the street to speak on the issue all I could give was a circular argument. Being that, pollution is changing the globe at a rapid rate, pollution is bad, there's an influx of things either going missing or being outright destroyed and this is because of pollution. Therefore, pollution which is bad is changing the globe due to the detrimental things that are happening. I'm really only re-stating the premise to offer as a conclusion. What do I know for certain that isn't expressed by people (admittedly scientists) that haven't already been vouched for?
This documentary (probably much maligned like that of AIT) forces a heavy-heanded approach to the issue without reservation for decisive, empirically based testing and careful, even deliberation. It will be screening in Australia on the ABC in June sometime and should hopefully provide for a reconsideration if nothing else than just a piece of propaganda. Though it's doubtful.
Co founder and critic of greenie issues Patrick Moore (not Michael's brother) had these very interesting things to say about IAT and the climate change theory.
"(IAT is) ...how a theory about climate turned into a political ideology... ...a story of censorship and intimidation... ...of the distortion of a whole area of science... ...a cautionary tale of how a media scare became the defining of a generation."
Miranda Devine, 2007
This, he attributes, is the most recent focus of extremists after "world communism failed, the Wall came down and a lot of peaceniks and political activists moved into the environmental movement bringing their neo-Marxism with them and learnt to use green language in a very clever way to cloak agendas that have more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalisation than... ...ecology and science."
Ibid
Could this in fact be the case?
Have we all been duped under caring and altruistic but misguided sentiments to further a cause that at it's roots is a socialist and neo-Marxist banner of propaganda?
Even if this isn't the case at all, pondering on it for a moment is still highly alarming.
Even moreso alarming as an ideology that nearly everyone subscribes to as a deductive theory due to what other people have said (from both sides) but no one really knows for certain.
Have we all been duped under caring and altruistic but misguided sentiments to further a cause that at it's roots is a socialist and neo-Marxist banner of propaganda?
Even if this isn't the case at all, pondering on it for a moment is still highly alarming.
Even moreso alarming as an ideology that nearly everyone subscribes to as a deductive theory due to what other people have said (from both sides) but no one really knows for certain.
Devine, M. 2007, Sydney Morning Herald Open your eyes to see who really is doing the swindling pp15, Fairfax Media.
| 103 |
| Vote |
Comments (8)
Add Comments
