Its shameless how governments around the world and media are promoting the global warming issue. This is a science issue, yet arguments are being shifted and used by politicians and collectivists to achieve their political ends. There is no crisis, unless of course you are referring to the disturbing misuse of science for political ends. This is of course not the first time. In the 1970s it was asteroids striking earth, in the 1980s it was a 'Mini-Ice Age'. What this highlights is not simply the fact that media and government have some vested interest in some scare to create a new tax, to sell more newspapers, to placate the reader, but an underlying lack of critical thinking skills by all concerned. The greatest threat is that people will lose confidence in reason as a standard of value because it was wrong again on scientific assertions. Of course the problem is 'science is not a popularity contest'. The truth is destined to lie with the few scientists who challenge convention. That is historically how the world progresses. The Einstein's of the world, not typically science committees are what moves the world.
So where is the evidence of this. The evidence arises in several forms:
1. The assertion that there is a global consensus which believes humanity is a significant cause of global warming. In fact there are a significant number of opponents to the hypothesis
2. The fact that no attempt is made to acknowledge or challenge critics of the hypothesis
3. The fact that governments spend millions promoting global warming as if it was an incontestable fact
4. The fact that the media will give no air-time to differing arguments
5. The fact that scientists will not risk 'alienation' by offering differing views. The 'Cold Fusion' issue highlighted how a 'scientific consensus' can destroy a promising career.
6. The fact that you have popular personalities 'selling' global warming. The most pathetic was Jamie Durie, the former host of a landscaping/gardening TV program in Australia going to the Arctic, and asserting that the falling population of seals was the result of global warming. I suspect he made that up himself. Might I suggest over-fishing is a more probable cause or hunting. But no, suddenly global warming is the unquestioned cause of all sinister events.
There are also the scientific committees comprising scientists of no particular scientific credibility who achieved standing, not because of their scientific credentials, but because they host good parties and are well liked by politicians or the media. These people have a disproportionate media standing because they are a 'compelling face' on TV. Just like Jamie Durie - they make great TV. They make TV look personable. 'Science with a smile'. That is the face of modern science.
-----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
So where is the evidence of this. The evidence arises in several forms:
1. The assertion that there is a global consensus which believes humanity is a significant cause of global warming. In fact there are a significant number of opponents to the hypothesis
2. The fact that no attempt is made to acknowledge or challenge critics of the hypothesis
3. The fact that governments spend millions promoting global warming as if it was an incontestable fact
4. The fact that the media will give no air-time to differing arguments
5. The fact that scientists will not risk 'alienation' by offering differing views. The 'Cold Fusion' issue highlighted how a 'scientific consensus' can destroy a promising career.
6. The fact that you have popular personalities 'selling' global warming. The most pathetic was Jamie Durie, the former host of a landscaping/gardening TV program in Australia going to the Arctic, and asserting that the falling population of seals was the result of global warming. I suspect he made that up himself. Might I suggest over-fishing is a more probable cause or hunting. But no, suddenly global warming is the unquestioned cause of all sinister events.
There are also the scientific committees comprising scientists of no particular scientific credibility who achieved standing, not because of their scientific credentials, but because they host good parties and are well liked by politicians or the media. These people have a disproportionate media standing because they are a 'compelling face' on TV. Just like Jamie Durie - they make great TV. They make TV look personable. 'Science with a smile'. That is the face of modern science.
-----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
No comments:
Post a Comment