Posted on 02/28/2007 11:30:56 AM PST by rightinthemiddle
Even as a beaming and tuxedoed Al Gore was picking up his Oscar for Best Documentary of the year, greenhouse skeptics were planning to congregate in Canberra, Australia for the release of a new book claiming that environmentalism is the new religion.
In the land of Crocodile Dundee, it is still safe for skeptics to openly congregate, risk of retaliation notwithstanding. In North America, questioning the science of global warming can get you outed by lefty politicians for purportedly being on the payroll of the big oil companies.
"Hard-core global warming sceptics will descend on Canberra today for the release of a book claiming environmentalism is the new religion." (www.theage.com.au, Feb. 28, 2007). "Former mining executive Arvi Parbo will launch Ray Evans' new publication, Nine Facts About Climate Change, at a function at Parliament House."
The book makes the point that climate change is nothing new and declares Howard government investments in solar power and in cleaning up coal a "complete waste of taxpayers' money".
Hollywood had to wait until the day after handing Gore his Oscar to read about the hypocrisy of how the energy to run his 8-bedroom mansion costs 20 times the average American home. But Nine Facts About Climate Change author Ray Evans told The Age in an interview a month ago that Gore's film is "bullshit from beginning to end".
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Liberalism is the religion they practice. Global Warming is merely one of their sacraments.
"Environmentalism has largely superseded Christianity as the religion of the upper classes in Europe and to a lesser extent in the United States," Nine Facts About Climate Change author Ray Evans says in the publication. "It is a form of religious belief which fosters a sense of moral superiority in the believer, but which places no importance on telling the truth."
Indeed, Evans sees global warming as a scam that has been, "arguably, the most extraordinary example of scientific fraud in the postwar period."
_________
Ah, the truth sounds so sweet.
"Liberalism is the religion they practice. Global Warming is merely one of their sacraments."
________
Indeed. Liberalism is a religion for those who hate religion.
Is there anywhere a scientifically sound critique of the Algore slide show (like page by page)?
With 1000 presenters supposedly at the ready, how often is the show given by Algore surrogates?
We need to import this Aussie simply for his ability to cut to the heart of the matter with no beating about the bush.
Instead of the rich paying for indulgences like in the old days of the church...the rich now pay for their carbon credits and keep sinning away!!!!
brevity is the soul of wit.
Carbon offsets, what a bunch of malarkey. An indulgence as it were, or jut bribe money to keep the enviro-nuts off your back for your filthy lifestyle
Just once - print something like this on the FRONT page of the NYT. Just once...
Ray Evans may of course be 100% correct, scientifically speaking. However, Ray may be taking this too lightly. Remember the Piltdown Man? It was "scientific" dogma for decades!
It is crafted in the manner of all pyramid schemes; each person converted becomes an advocate and each new convert in turn and so on until the system collapses from either its own inertia or it exhausts its source of those left to convert.
As we all know, such schemes are very attractive early on but:
“The nonsense of believing in pyramid schemes goes back to childhood days of telling ghost stories in tents,” said Mike Caro, a games and gambling expert associated with Hollywood Park race track in the Los Angeles area.
Today there is a new element: the Internet’s ability to facilitate the spread of these schemes. Mass e-mailings, or “spam,” circulate word of new programs to thousands of potential marks at a click. “Once your name gets into the mill, it’s like junk mail,” said Reitzel. Promoters use public message boards, easily accessible via services such as Yahoo, to reach huge audiences of computer users. They often disguise themselves as delighted investors eager to pass on word of a sure-fire program. Anonymous Web-hosting services enable investment promoters to shield their identities and locations from investors and law enforcement officials.
“It’s never been easier for con men to reach so many victims so easily,” said David Marchant, a Miami-based publisher of newsletters exposing offshore investment scams. “The Internet has accelerated the life span of your average Ponzi scheme, which used to be spread by word of mouth. With the Internet, they don’t have to do the traditional things like infiltrating church groups anymore.”
Prosecution of online fraud is hampered by the difficulty of showing clear criminal intent. “You have to prove that inside a guy’s brain he knew this was a fraud,” said Timothy Healy, chief of the FBI’s Internet Fraud Complaint Center. “The challenge on any type of fraudulent scheme is to prove that he intended fraud.”
Quote is from a gluegun search.
Is Gore a believer and savior, or just another fraud?
Are more and more scientists coming out against global warming or am I just following it more closely?
It explains the recent deluge of "climate change" articles that have been appearing. It also explains the recent attempts to vilify those who dare to speak out.
So, yes. More and more scientists are speaking up.
They come out, but noboy knows about them.
You just happen to read FR.
No doubt about it, the thinkers are tired of hearing it preached as gospel. When you're an expert in a field and suddenly everyone is saying all the experts agree and you don't, well it's time to speak up.
I think the whole thing, this global warming is starting to collapse under its own weight. That's why the push to change the debate to the more ambiguous climate change.
I think the whole thing, this global warming is starting to collapse under its own weight. That's why the push to change the debate to the more ambiguous climate change.
At the core of this debate is raw political power, derivable from treaty requirements which require a crisis rooted in an anthropogenic cause to move forward.
In this Ross McKitrick, a Canadian economist and global warming agenda critic, hits the nail on the proverbial head.
An Economist's Perspective on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol,
by Ross McKitrick. November 2003
The 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defined "climate change" as follows:
"Climate change" means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
( http://unfccc.int/index.html )The recent Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defined it differently ( http://www.ipcc.ch/ ):
Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.
This is a very important difference: The IPCC is looking for signs of any change, whereas the policy instruments prescribed by the UNFCCC are not triggered unless it is a particular kind of change: that attributable to human activity. When IPCC officials declare that "climate change" is for real, this is about as informative as announcing that the passage of time is for real. Of course the climate changes: if it didn't Winnipeg would still be under a glacier. But the fact that the last ice age ended doesn't imply that the policy mechanisms of the UNFCCC should kick in. That's the problem with the ambiguity over the term "climate change"-and it seems to trip up a lot of people-accepting the reality of "climate change" does not mean accepting the need for policy interventions. And denying that global warming is a problem requiring costly policy measures is not the same as denying "climate change."
Thus it is prudent to be very skeptical and very discerning of all that is offered under the banner of Climate Change.
"Is there anywhere a scientifically sound critique of the Algore slide show (like page by page)? "
You can find many thousands of critiques on the Internet. Junkscience.com is a good place to get an overview for your own edification. Just don't expect to deprogram any converts to the cult of Global Warming by using mere scientifically sound facts. They simply dismiss the sources as "right wingers", "in the pockets of the oil companies", etc.
Recently, I've found that the UN IPCC reports (biased as they are) are the best way to debunk Gore's crockumentary. For instance, IPCC estimates the sea level will rise about 17 inches this century (or between 7 inches and about 25 inches). They say that 20 foot floods, like Gore's been scaring everyone with, are very unlikely. Since IPCC's report is the UN's official "scientific concensus", econuts have to accept its word as gospel. The MSM has been cherry picking the summary report (picking the worst of the worst case scenarios); so don't be shy about doing some cherry picking yourself.
You can access the IPCC reports at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.