MIT professor rips global warming theory apart


Will this dissent be tolerated? Will this lead to more debate? Or will it be shoved aside for some politico's power agenda?
Richard Lindzen is a Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., and he has written a fantastic article in the London Daily Mail. I'm going to break with my usual practice and take the choice quotes out of sequence. Emphasis added.

First quote.

Genuine science is about gathering evidence and testing the veracity of theories, not cheerleading for a particular ideology.

That is what is so disturbing about the current debate on global warming. Healthy scepticism, which should be at the heart of all scientific inquiry, is treated with contempt.

Great stuff but it gets better. Second quote, a long one this time.

In support of his gloomy thesis, Stern, like all global warming enthusiasts, ignores the evidence that does not suit his ideology. He glosses over the fact that, according to a host of historical accounts, Europe was far warmer in the Middle Ages than it is today, or that the 17th century was much colder, prompting what was known as 'The Little Ice Age', when the Thames was often frozen over for months at a time.

Stern also refers to 'significant melting of and an acceleration of ice floes' near the coast of Greenland because of global warming.

Yet several reputable scientific studies have shown that the mass of the Greenland ice sheet is actually expanding, while Stern also fails to note that the temperature of Greenland is now lower than it was in 1940 and little changed from the first measurements in the 1780s.

Environmentalists are fond of jerking heartstrings with pictures of polar bears struggling on supposedly melting icebergs, but it is estimated that there are now 22,000 polar bears compared with 5,000 in 1940.

Nor can we be sure that any long-term changes in our climate are due to mankind. There are any number of other possibilities and the programme tonight examines the possibility that the sun's radiation is primarily responsible for climate change.

Indeed, the climate can fluctuate without any external cause at all — something again ignored by Stern, who wants only to indulge in the fashionable notion that western capitalism is entirely to blame for every drought and disaster.

If all this sounds familiar, it should. Critics of global warming have been saying it for years. Last quote, with some editorial comments on religion by yours truly.

Like a religion, environmentalism is suffused with hatred for the material world and again, like religion, it requires devotion rather than intellectual rigour from its adherents. (NW: Like SOME religions)

It is intolerant of dissent; those who question the message of doom are regarded as heretics, or 'climate change deniers', to use green parlance. (NW: I can't help but add here for there to be heresy there has to be One True Way™)

And, just as in many religions, the route to personal salvation lies in the performance of superstitious rituals, such as changing a lightbulb or arranging for a tree to be planted after every plane journey. (NW: Not all paths or faiths place an emphasis on personal salvation)

What is so tragic is the way that this dubious ideology has achieved such dominance in our public life.

Politicians love the green agenda, of course, because it means more control, more regulation, more taxes, more summits, and more opportunities for displays of self-important zeal. (NW: Amen! Say it loud, brother!)

So where does this put us? Hopefully where we should have started, with debate over the science instead of the politics. I've said before the only reason why the politics become an issue is because the science is shaky.

There's no doubt in my mind there are some very committed and concerned people who believe very firmly in human caused global warming.

There is also no doubt in my mind that there are those who do not understand the science but choose to use global warming to advance their own agenda.

And there is no doubt in my mind who understand the science perfectly well but deliberately mislead people to give themselves power, respect, and money.

I am constantly amazed that many modern Pagans not only accept the global warming theory and tactics, but actively support them. Those are the same tactics that many fundamentalist Christians have tried to use against modern Pagans. We SHOULD be familiar with the look and feel, some Pagans have had to fight it again and again. The only difference is the name of the god and some of the terminology.

That is why I oppose global warming apologists. As it is practiced, global warming theory is a fundamental religion.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Fri - March 9, 2007 at 04:49 AM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved