According to an article in TCS Daily, “climate skepticism” is growing in Europe. Whether that’s true I can’t say, but the article itself is unintentionally, um, revealing.
Climate scepticism has now gained a firm foothold in various European countries.
In Denmark Bjørn Lomborg stands out as the single most important sceptical environmentalÂist, defying the political correctness which is such a characteristic feature of his home country, as well as other Nordic countries. But wait! Bjørn Lomborg is not a genuine climate sceptic. Real climate sceptics admire his courage, his scientific rigour and debating skills, but beg to disagree with him on the fundamentals of climate science. Lomborg acknowledges that there is such a thing as man-made global warming, which is quite in line with the mantra of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). He ‘only’ challenges the cost benefit relationships of the policy measÂures, which have been proposed to do something about it. Massive expenditures (often euphemistically called ‘investments’) in exchange for undetectable returns.
In other words, the foremost “skeptical” scientist is not a skeptic.
Real climate sceptics do not accept the man-made global warming hypothesis. They are of the opinion that the human contribution to global warming over the last century or so is at most insignificant.
Real climate skeptics are not skeptical about global climate change. They just plain don’t believe it, Bjørn Lomborg’s “scientific rigour” notwithstanding.
But, of course, they are happy with the arguments advanced by Bjørn Lomborg to bolster their case against climate hysteria.
Of course.
But the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) belief is still overwhelming in Germany. In newspapers and on TV, Stefan Rahmstorf, the German climate Torquemada, — comparable to Al Gore in the US, George Monbiot in the UK and David Suzuki in Canada — are constantly attacking critics of the AGW hypothesis. Contrary to good scientific practice, he lavishly lards his interventions with ad hominem attacks and insinuations that his opponents lack qualifications and/or are being paid by industry.
Comparing Al Gore, George Monbiot and David Suzuki to Torquemada doesn’t qualify as an ad hominem attack?
The author is upset that no one on the Nobel Peace Prize committee is a scientist. But then he says,
Britannia rules the waves. Stewart Dimmock, a Kent lorry driver and school governor, took the government to court for sending copies of Gore’s film to schools. He was backed by a group of campaigners, including Viscount Monckton, a former adviser to Mrs Thatcher. They won a legal victory against ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. Mr Justice Burton ruled that the movie contained at least nine scientific errors and said ministers must send new guidance to teachers before it was screened. ‘That ruling was a fantastic victory,’ said Monckton. ‘What we want to do now is send schools material reflecting an alternative point of view so that pupils can make their own minds up.’ Monckton has also won support from the maker of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’. Martin Durkin, managing director of WAG TV, which produced the documentary, said he would be delighted for his film to go to schools. I have become a proselytiser against the so-called consensus on climate change … people can decide for themselves,’ he said.
Notice none of these people are scientists. Double standard, much?
They won a legal victory against ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. Mr Justice Burton ruled that the movie contained at least nine scientific errors and said ministers must send new guidance to teachers before it was screened. ‘That ruling was a fantastic victory,’ said Monckton. ‘What we want to do now is send schools material reflecting an alternative point of view so that pupils can make their own minds up.’
Talk about moving the goalposts, given the fact that they lost the case. But when someone’s capable of the kind of self-deception necessary to be a Global Warming Denier/Iraq War Supporter/Whatever else in the vast constellation of mental dysfunction that’s called “Conservatism” these days, it’s not surprising. It seems these people are simply unable to understand the method by which rational people apprehend reality, though they mouth its principles.
Hmm, “WAG TV”? I suppose it’s too much to ask for that to be a spoof.
The deniers are getting desperate, if the last of their champions are lorry drivers, viscounts, and guys who wear a faux lamb’s ass on their heads, at work. Mr Justice Burton ruled that the movie contained at least nine scientific errors. “And then I banged me gavel.” You go, girl.
Right now, the evidence indicates global warming is real, and the effects could be catastrophic for humans. (The world will survive; but will civilization will go along for the ride?) Now when a panel of experts (not funded by big oil or the energy companies who burn coal) can show me that the trends are temporary and self-correcting, I will listen. And look very closely at the facts.
But the best scientific minds seem to be in overwhelming agreement that some things need to change – and the most serious resitance to change is from -drum roll – the principle beneficaries of the pollution (and their mouthpieces) . Big oil – auto companies – energy companies who rely on coal.
There are two big questions – how bad will the effects be – and how soon? And no one knows; we have not been here before. But to do nothing makes the same kind of sense as teling your doctor you will wait for the first heart attack before you quit smoking and change your diet, & begin exercise. When a reputable doctor tells you that your heart is a bomb ready to go off, but you CAN prevent a possible fatal attack, what reasoanble person refuses to take medication & make any changes?
#3 — Unfortunately history provides many examples of civilizations that, despite ample warning, valued preservation of the status quo over any change necessary to avoid catastrophe.