“inconvenient truth” versus “convenient untruth”: the myth about the ” scientific consensus” on global warming.

The global warming movement became a cult with its ideologically driven disregard for real science and focused only on Gore-style convenient untruths

This is understandable because the main apocalyptic idea of global warming cult is that global warming is our apocalyptic punishment for not electing Gore in 2000 and our only redemption is if we will elect him again, otherwise we all will perish because of global warming. If it is not a politic of fear ,then what is it?

Since I posted my note on Global warming cult event, I got a few comments on other blogs that global warming is a scientific concept and that my not accepting the postulates of global warming theory means I am ignoring the science.

Nothing can be a bigger lie or ,misunderstanding than that. The scientific ignorance of global warming cult followers is is a political blessing for cult leaders.

Below is the list of recommended reading and recommended movie to all who are going to enjoy themselves on voodoo style celebration dedicated to the global warming cult:

Could you please educate yourself before enjoying the “anti global warming show”, singing dancing, smoking and drinking????

This move is a must see for all who are opening their mouths about the global warming. You will never see it on PBS

I bet none of those who are going to celebrate own political and scientific ignorance with a mega concert dedicated to Gore and Global warming saw this movie, because it is not Moore.

suggested reading :

1. global warming commentary in London Sunday Telegraph

2. Lubos Motl assistant professor, Cambridge, USA called global warming theory an hysteria. he wrote that ” This hysteria clearly doesn’t depend on science in any substantial way. If you look at these 16,800 articles, most of them are nothing else than pure crap. They offer ever crazier catastrophic predictions and ever more insane ideas how to fight with the alleged “problem” to ever less educated and ever more manipulable readers who are exerting ever more irrational pressure on the politicians. ”

3. according to Richard Lindzen of MIT said on the record all this global warming hysteria:

“Well, I think my read on it is that there is a certain climate of fear, to quote Mike Creighton. You know, for instance, Nye was talking about fresh water perhaps shutting down the Gulf Stream. But that isn’t what physical oceanographers think.

First of all, you know, we’ve measured the heat transport from the tropics to high latitudes. It’s almost all in the atmosphere. The Gulf Stream is mostly driven by wind. To shut it down, you’d have to stop the rotation of the Earth or shut off the wind.

And there’s a lot of confusion in this and, you know, at the heart of it, we’re talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. And if we had warming, it should be accomplished by less storminess. But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular, we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios — of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less.

I think it’s mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves.”

4. Thanks to Professor R.M. Carter Hon. FRSNZ (Marine Geophysical Laboratory (Node C) Sporing Road South, James Cook University Townsville, Qld. 4811, AUSTRALIA ) who listed LAYING TEN GLOBAL WARMING MYTHS nobody can tell now that scientific communality did not warn you about scientific flaws of all global warming “theory”

in summary, as Alex Beam, The Globe Columnist on Boston.com put it there is a myth about the “scientific consensus” on global warming : ” Gore inveighed, more than once. Again, the same message: If you hear tales of doubt, ignore them. They are simply untrue.

I ask you: Are these convincing arguments? And directed at journalists, who are natural questioners and skeptics, of all people? What happens when you are told not to eat the apple, not to read that book, not to date that girl? Your interest is piqued, of course. What am I not supposed to know?

Here’s the kind of information the “scientific consensus” types don’t want you to read. MIT’s Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen recently complained about the “shrill alarmism” of Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” Lindzen acknowledges that global warming is real, and he acknowledges that increased carbon emissions might be causing the warming — but they also might not.”

But cult members are not listening to those who go against the cult. Cult members are irrationally ( like in any cult ) are following direction of cult leader. They are ignoring everything what is not suited to their mythology . Do not break the party do not give them other science than what they like . After all they will drink, dance, smoke and sing for the sake of some global cause in any way

Advertisements

11 Comments

Filed under Al Gore, Global warming, Richard Lindzen, voter

11 responses to ““inconvenient truth” versus “convenient untruth”: the myth about the ” scientific consensus” on global warming.

  1. I’m a green, and you’re right on some things, but wrong on others.

    What you got Right: lots of claims are overblown and unfounded. Gulf stream stoppage, uber-hurricanes, plagues, etc. are “what-if’s” that get thrown around, but they aren’t claimed as certainties by the scientific support for GW. There’s hysteria and wackos out there.

    What you got Wrong: Your reliance on RM Carter. His “science” is bought and paid for: look him and his think tank up on Sourcewatch.org. Their funding is all from fossil-fuel energy companies, mining, pesticides — everybody who benefits from anti-environment campaigns. And you blindly trust his impartiality? They pay his salary. You aren’t required to agree with me, but don’t be a one-sided skeptic.

    Plus, he’s wrong: CO2 rises match right up with temp rises historically, and CO2 levels and temps are rising now. He says temps haven’t risen, but the 12 hottest years measured on thermometers (meaning since mid-1800’s) have happened since 1990. Sea ice at the poles is thinning and two major ice shelves have broken. Antarctic glaciers grew after that, but only because the ice-shelf breakup made room. It was a net loss. Last, the fear isn’t that 1-2 degrees will cause big trouble — 1-2 degrees has already happened. The fear is 5-8 degrees.

    At heart, there is strong science behind GW. It’s not ABSOLUTE proof, but the IPCC reports (4 reports over 17 years) are solid as well as conservative in their conclusions. How solid? Imagine if the cops pointed 10 radar guns at a speeding car, and they all say something between 90 and 100 MPH. So they come to court and say “can’t give you an exact number, judge, but it’s pretty certain he was well over 65 mph.”

    By contrast, guys like RM Carter would first cash a check from the driver, and then say that police officers are a radar-gun-believing cult of anti-car radicals, with overblown and unverifiable data. How trustworthy would that be to you? BTW, the strongest skeptics are ALL bought and paid for the same way. American Enterprise Institute (same type of funding) runs a CO2 Is Life! campaign — plants love it! You could go fall for that too. Just don’t ask who paid for their “research” (Exxon Mobil).

  2. Thank you for the feedback
    1.
    No scientist is working for free — all of them are paid by somebody. All pro-global warming “science” is paid by grant money which is initially intended only for those who are pro-global warming, so if Carter is paid by somebody it doeas not mean he serves somebody or all other scientists who took money from pro-global warning lobby have to be ignored as well.
    2.
    I am not a scientist and cannot judge the data — that was not my point. My point is that there is no consensus about global warming. Majority is not a consensus. Consensus is “an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole”: http://www.answers.com/topic/consensus?cat=health and this is not the case with global warming. Forget Carter what about many others? Lindzen for example?

    “A Russian astronomer may have declared his own “inconvenient truth” for advocates of man-made climate change this week. According to Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, polar ice caps on the planet Mars are melting, and the Red Planet is experiencing a warming trend at the same time as the Earth. Abdussamatov cites this is evidence that solar radiation is the main cause of global warming.”
    http://www.russiablog.org/2007/03/russian_astronomer_points_to_g.php
    What about them, are Russians paid by some anti-global warming conspiracy too?
    3.
    Nobody is arguing that earth is warmer and nobody is arguing that there is more CO2 than there was before. But nobody has scientific proof that earth is warmer today *because* of CO2. You know if I am turning off lights in my room when night is coming, it does not meant that night is coming because I am turning off lights in my room.
    4.
    Assuming that you are right and it is global warming because of CO2, still it is tasteless and harmfull to make a show from that and to make from that a political scare tactic: “global warming is a punishment for not electing Gore President”.
    And it is wrong in any way to sing for the sake of cause of global warming: it is shameless speculation on real problem by professional clowns and party people who would be singing and dancing any way, but they want to look spiritual during the party and therefore hijacking the real problem just making themselves visible and relevant. Ugh!
    5.
    Majority in science is always right? What was a consensus on causes of cholera in 19 century? What was consensus on light travel in ether before Einstein’s relativity? History of science is saturated with examples of majority in science being wrong. I am old enough to remember fears of global cooling.
    But thank you for stopping by any way!
    I really appreciate your opinion and I would be glad to know what I am missing.

  3. Happy to debate this with you, so I’ll go to your points (turned into a long answer):

    First, a point of agreement. I’m with a lot of Greens (and with you) who think Live Earth was such an anti-environmental thing that it hurt the movement for very little good press. It’s like buying a fur coat to wear to a PETA fundraiser. But, Al Gore has been serious about GW/environment stuff since before he was even the V.P. (released Earth in the Balance in 1990), so his involvement in this campaign not all post-election bitterness.

    All science is funded by someone, as you say, but that doesn’t mean all science is equally agenda-driven. When the UN says “here’s a million; find out how dangerous this climate-change stuff is,” that’s way different from a coal company saying “here’s a million; do studies that support our claim that there’s no impact from our emissions.” One is an inquiry, the other picks an answer and builds research that gets that answer.

    I won’t say that there’s no pressure to conform to majority views — of course there will be, on probably every issue. Nor are majority views always right. But the IPCC did 17 years of research, and their claims aren’t absolute; they say human activity is “very likely” a “large contributor” to temp increases. And it’s more conservative than other projections on likely impacts. This isn’t group-think gone mad.

    But on the other side, watch for scientific agendas designed to preserve the status quo. Anti-GW science folks usually also deny groundwater pollution impacts, deny pesticide illnesses, deny links to asthma, cancer, etc. When their positions are consistently in line with what allows their patron companies to avoid spending money on safeguards, cleanups, warnings, health care costs, etc., it’s naive not to doubt their truthfulness. Show me a GW skeptic who a) has done research, and b) breaks against corporate interests on other matters. I’ll listen closer then.

    I can’t give you much credit for the Russian guy; he doesn’t seem to have done any research on the topic — just argues his theory. If you want correlation without proof of causation, there you go. Google him to read the many criticisms.

    Genuine lack of consensus is a legitimate reason for doubt, but “lack of consensus” is the tactic used by every corporate obstructionist campaign. Tobacco said there was a “lack of consensus” for a link to cancer. Auto companies said it about seatbelts and deaths. Oil companies about leaded gas; chemical companies about groundwater. The political strategy is the same every time, because it’s successful in backing off government action: drum up some opposition science and cry lack-of-consensus. Every time, they had “scientific studies” that they’d paid for to back them up.

    Your correlation v. causation point about temperatures and CO2 rises is valid, so let’s talk causation. The correlation part is 1) CO2 is a better heat-trapper than nitrogen & oxygen, 2) CO2 levels are up, and 3) temps are up. The evidence of causation is that geologic studies show a 100% correlation between temp spikes and CO2 spikes. You might say “well, that could be because an outside source caused both — like, say, periods of volcanic activity, or some such.” Fair enough, but we KNOW the cause of the current CO2 spike: burning fossil fuels. We know there isn’t some dramatic event — a series of eruptions or megastorms or a meteor — that’s an outside cause of both phenomena. It’s like saying we’re not sure of the link between pushing on the gas pedal and the way the engine revs up, but they sure seem to happen together.

  4. Pingback: From the Grey Lady Herself « Green Bark!

  5. to Thunderbird:
    Thank you for your feedback, sorry was very busy lately could not respond but read with great interest. I am very glad that we are agree on something it is a good starting point for a dialog. I will post my response tomorrow

  6. hello Thunderbird !!!:)
    sorry for the delay i hope you are still interted to talk with about that issue:)
    below are my notes. i would be thrilled to know what you think

    1. AL GORE
    I like your metaphor of wearing fur on PETA event , so let me borrow it: AL Gore is always in fur in these terms
    As I pointed out already in one of previous postings that according to Barbara Anderson of American Chronicle “Gore received an Oscar for his film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, as the best documentary feature. Hollywood types love him. The inconvenient truth is that they arrived at the Oscars in very long air conditioned limos from their sprawling air conditioned estates, in many cases. If anybody should point this out, they could always take advantage of Gore’s convenient ploy of talking about his carbon footprint and how he mitigates his seemingly greedy consumption. The formula is a little complicated, but Gore says it is commendable and all those who can afford to pay $30,000 a year for energy can be assured that they are okay by Gore’s book.” http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=30899
    According to an independent nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization The Tennessee Center for Policy Research http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/page.php
    “Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES)….Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. ….In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.“http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367
    2. UN
    UN is not an independent objective organization as you presume it is corrupted bureaucratic monster driven only by own corrupted interests.
    I do not agree that UN is impartial . Un is in search for problems like global warming which allows it to create monstrous program to fight global warming which accumulate huge money which ,managed by UN officials with no transparency and no real supervision….. read all about Kofi Annan and Son INC. or oil for food program.
    UN is looking for scary problem in order to collect money to “fight the problem” UN represents nobody but UN . Can you prove that Lindzen is a corrupted scientist? There is a lot of noise about that but no facts whatsoever
    3. GOOGLE HIM TO READ THE MANY CRITICISMS.
    You can Google anybody and find a lot of criticism. Just for fun, google “ Al Gore” and you will find a lot criticism of him in scientific terms as well. Are we going to establish any parameters or criteria for what we accept in our debate as sufficient criticism?
    But I am not citing myself along with this Russian guy ( I am not professional enough to judge) i just gave a single and random example of other views circulating around
    4.”GENUINE LACK OF CONSENSUS” VERSUS ” TACTIC USED BY OBSTRUCTIONIST “
    I am not talking about how sides are using the fact of lack of consensus . It was not my point . Leaving aside the obvious facts of demagoguery that ,let us agree ,exists on both sides of the debate, would you deny that there is the lack of consensus? I am not judging how this lack of consensus is used by debating sides, I am just pointing out that there is no consensus and this fact is routinely diminished by pro-global warming side .They are trying to substitute majority view by illusion of consensus which does not exist , and by doing that they are making me cautious with their intent as any cheating on any side makes me cautious.
    There is lack of consensus and the fact that somebody is using this moment to obstruct a debate ( which I do not deny ) is not to override the fact that the lack of consensus indeed exist. What am I missing?
    5. CORRELATION V. CAUSATION
    There is a lot question about validity of statistic: read this : http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0
    But as usual this questions is not popular in grossly pro-global warming media . But I do not want to go this direction because I was not against global warming science per se. I am not a professional to have an educated opinion and I do not want to trivialize the important subject. My point was that I am strongly against politisation of that and using it as new social , almost religious cult . As I mentioned previously in one of my postings I do agree with Czech President Vaclav Klaus who said the “ fighting global warming has turned into a “religion” that replaced the ideology of communism and threatens to clip basic freedoms” http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/41005/story.htm
    Global warming indeed became an apocalyptic “voodoo-style” religion for people who know nothing about climatology or science, and, therefore are not capable to know anything about global warming on coherent level.
    Conclusion

    I am not for status quo by any means
    I think that our energy policy and conservation policy are just not there . Unfortunately I see no candidate who would make it priority . I agree on that with Dennis Ross who wrote in his new book that it must be a priority and it is not.

    I would agree that anti-global warming has its agenda, it would be silly to presume that they are not, but it would be idealistic to ignore that global warming proponents and environmentalists in general are sincere and have no agenda of their own.
    I would be v curious to know hat do you me think about this movie; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wth_p4p0rfY

    Thank you very much for discussing it with me I learned a lot form you:)

  7. Hey I’ve been on a mini vacation; I’ll read and reply soon. And I’ll check out that video. Peace —

  8. TinFoilHat

    “..our apocalyptic punishment for not electing Gore in 2000”

    Actually, he won in 2000. Perhaps GW is a plague being visited on the SUPREME COURT?

  9. Excellent blog here! Also your site loads up fast! What web host are you using?
    Can I get your affiliate link to your host? I wish
    my website loaded up as fast as yours lol

  10. After going over a number of the blog posts on your
    web site, I seriously like your technique of writing a blog.
    I bookmarked it to my bookmark website list and will be checking back in the near future.
    Please visit my website too and let me know
    what you think.

  11. First off I would like to say terrific blog! I had a quick question that I’d like to ask if you do not mind. I was curious to know how you center yourself and clear your mind prior to writing. I’ve had a hard time clearing my thoughts
    in getting my thoughts out there. I truly do take pleasure in writing but
    it just seems like the first 10 to 15 minutes tend to be lost just trying to figure out how to begin.
    Any suggestions or tips? Cheers!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s