Re: The Big Swindle Movie
o no b
"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:q4ednVftr4mInGTX...@westnet.com.au...
>
>
> "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
> news:diahf51jpcb9r0ejr...@4ax.com...
Scientists don't just play follow the leader. They look at
> the evidence.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ...
True scientists "look at the evidence" but not this "scientist"!!
There are many, many examples ...
"Scientist" Admits Using Climate Change To Further His Socialist Agenda
Read this book if you want insight into the mind of a "scientist" who has
surrendered all moral authority to speak truthfully about global warming.
August 6 2009
Book Review:
Why We Disagree About Climate Change By Mike Hulme
Cambridge University Press, 2009 432 pages, ISBN-13: 978-0521727327
QUOTE: We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what
climate change can do for us
QUOTE: socialists like Hulme can frame the global warming issue to achieve
unrelated goals such as sustainable development, income redistribution,
population control, social justice, and many other items on the
liberal/socialist wishlist.
QUOTE: We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change
and mobilise them in support of our projects
QUOTE: These "myths," he writes, "transcend the scientific categories of
'true' and 'false'." He suggests that his fellow global warming alarmists
promote four myths, which he labels Lamenting Eden, Presaging Apocalypse,
Constructing Babel, and Celebrating Jubilee.
QUOTE: It is troubling to read a prominent "scientist" who has so clearly
lost sight of his cardinal duty-to be skeptical of all theories and always
open to new data. It is particularly troubling when this "scientist"
endorses lying to advance his personal political agenda.
More than a few people will be tempted to buy this book based on the
promise, implicit in its title, that it examines the ideas and motives of
both sides in the global warming debate. But that is not what this book is
about. It is the musings of a British socialist about how to use global
warming claims as a means of persuading "the masses" to give up their
economic liberties.
That the author, Mike Hulme, is a "scientist" who helped write the
influential reports of the IPCC and many other government agencies makes
this book even more disturbing.
Narrow-Minded Outlook
Hulme frankly admits his perspective is colored by his politics-"democratic
socialist"-and it soon becomes apparent that the only disagreements about
climate change he's aware of are those occurring between the left (people
who think like him) and the far left, people he describes as
"eco-anarchists," "eco-socialists," and "eco-authoritarians."
Opposition from centrists, conservatives, libertarians, and nonideological
scientists who dispute his alarmist spin on the complicated data of global
warming merit hardly any mention.
Warming Gospel in Doubt
The notion that science can be determined by government agencies proclaiming
to speak on behalf of entire scientific communities might be passively
accepted in Old Europe, but it is jarring for an American reader.
Opinion polls show two-thirds of us do not believe global warming is
manmade, and more than 30,000 American scientists (including more than 9,000
with Ph.D.s) have signed a petition saying there is no convincing scientific
evidence that human activity will cause catastrophic global warming.
A group of scientists called the Nongovernmental International Panel on
Climate Change (NIPCC) has produced an 880-page rebuttal of the latest IPCC
report containing more than 4,000 references to peer-reviewed science. I
edited that work.
There is a debate taking place about global warming in America, and it is
not the one described by Hulme as being between those who favor "cap and
trade" and those who favor even more radical changes in political, social,
and economic behavior.
Rather, it is about how much of the warming of the late twentieth century
was natural and how much was manmade, whether the consequences of that
warming were on balance positive or negative, and whether anything should be
or could be done to prevent or delay future warming.
This debate-the real public policy debate-is entirely missing from Hulme's
book.
Ideological Agenda
Convinced that the scientific debate is over and he won, Hulme devotes most
of his attention to finding ways to overcome "barriers other than lack of
scientific knowledge to changing the status of climate change in the minds
of citizens-psychological, emotional, and behavioural barriers." He attempts
to explain the public's failure to respond to his calls for action in terms
of popular theories of irrational group behavior, such as anchoring, fear of
change, and so on. He lacks the power of introspection that would have led
him to understand the fountains of his own irrational beliefs.
The real purpose of this book isn't revealed until far into it. "The idea of
climate change," Hulme writes at page 326, "should be seen as an
intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities
and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for
climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us."
According to Hulme, climate change can do a lot: "Because the idea of
climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human
projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual
needs."
In other words, socialists like Hulme can frame the global warming issue to
achieve unrelated goals such as sustainable development, income
redistribution, population control, social justice, and many other items on
the liberal/socialist wishlist.
Knowingly Telling Lies
Like the notorious Stephen Schneider, who once said, "We have to offer up
scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
mention of any doubts one might have. ... Each of us has to decide what the
right balance is between being effective and being honest," Hulme writes,
"We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and
mobilise them in support of our projects."
These "myths," he writes, "transcend the scientific categories of 'true' and
'false'." He suggests that his fellow global warming alarmists promote four
myths, which he labels Lamenting Eden, Presaging Apocalypse, Constructing
Babel, and Celebrating Jubilee.
It is troubling to read a prominent "scientist" who has so clearly lost
sight of his cardinal duty-to be skeptical of all theories and always open
to new data. It is particularly troubling when this "scientist" endorses
lying to advance his personal political agenda.
Read this book if you want insight into the mind of a "scientist" who has
surrendered all moral authority to speak truthfully about global warming.
Avoid it if you are looking for a book that explains why we disagree about
climate change.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3823
Warmest Regards
Bon z0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Seon Ferguson
"o no b" <w...@x.com> wrote in message news:4af9...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:q4ednVftr4mInGTX...@westnet.com.au...
>>
>>
>> "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
>> news:diahf51jpcb9r0ejr...@4ax.com...
> Scientists don't just play follow the leader. They look at
>> the evidence.
>
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ...
>
>
> True scientists "look at the evidence" but not this "scientist"!!
> There are many, many examples ...
>
>
>
> "Scientist" Admits Using Climate Change To Further His Socialist Agenda
>
> Read this book if you want insight into the mind of a "scientist" who has
> surrendered all moral authority to speak truthfully about global warming.
>
I read most of the article. I can't deny that he is a socialist and an open
one at that. But you also can't deny that climate change skeptics have
political motives as well.
But he does have a point. I don't think global warming will bring about the
end of the world the alarmists are talking about. If anything it will just
make things a bit hotter.
Also I am a proud capitalist and think we need more capitalism to solve the
global financial crisis, not less.