Poor babies. They have truly lost their way. They say they are interested in the science, but, alas, they are too wrapped up in their failed notion that mankind is mostly or solely the cause of the warming trend that started at the end of the Little Ice Age, and are unable to come to grips. Though, they do flip to their default position of anger, typically the second stage of the 5 stages of grief, so, Peter Foster is certainly getting plenty of hate mail for this op-ed
Those who once called skeptics about catastrophic man-made climate change “deniers†are themselves now in a state of denial as both the science and public opinion shifts against them. Last week, The Globe and Mail carried a combative piece by Gerald Butts, president and CEO of WWF Canada, an organization whose professional alarmism has found its way into the official reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with nary a trace of “peer review.â€
Mr. Butts continues, like Davy Crockett at the Alamo, to defend his lost cause, pointing to media authorities and scientific “consensus.†Intriguingly, and with admirable chutzpah, he cites a recent article in the magazine Nature that points out — which should come as a surprise to nobody — that we are biased in our perceptions: “We see the world as we want to see it, not as it is.â€Naturally, this proviso doesn’t apply either to Mr. Butts or to the WWF, but only to their “self-centred†opponents.
But, how could that be? What is driving this?
One potent but insufficiently noted factor in the climate change issue is that those on the left are inclined to believe in climate change’s “solutions†— greater central control of the economy and redistribution to underdeveloped countries — regardless of climate science. That the policy ends are more important than the scientific facts is obvious from statements by prominent members of the IPCC. For example, Murari Lal, the lead author of the chapter in the 2007 IPCC report in which wildly inaccurate claims about melting Himalayan glaciers appeared, admitted that he knew the information was inaccurate, but “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.â€
That is exactly what I, and so many others, have been saying for years, namely, that AGW is about control of economies, countries, and people.
Elsewhere
- The Calgary Herald compares AGW to the Piltdown Man
- Tampa Tribune: The global warming swindle has imploded
- Even the San Francisco Chronicle takes a shot at the egos of the climate alarmist scientists
Is it any wonder the “science” is collapsing, when the best they can do is whine about Exxon, as Brave Sir Goracle did on Twitter? And it sure doesn’t help (but does reinforce why we call them alarmists) that some scientist are claiming that jellyfish will replace penguins in Antarctica.
If you’re going to claim to be interested in the truth of the matter, don’t post out and out lies. The quote in Foster’s article from Dr. Murari Lal is from an article in the Daily Mail, by David Rose, in which he severely misquoted Dr. Lal. This is an email from Lal:
I am not a Glaciologist but a Climatologist and the statement attributed to me in “Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn’t been verified†By David Rose in UK Daily Mail on 24th January 2010 has been wrongly placed. I never said this story at any time and strongly condemn the writer for attributing this to me.
More specifically, I never said during my conversation with Rose the following statements being attributed to me:
(a) ‘it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.’
(b) ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.’
(c) ‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’, and
(d) ‘We as authors followed them to the letter,’ he said. ‘Had we received information that undermined the claim, we would have included it.’.
Contrary to the claim by Rose that “Hayley Fowler of Newcastle University, suggested that their draft did not mention that Himalayan glaciers in the Karakoram range are growing rapidly,” the Asia Chapter does include this finding under section 10.2.4.2 on page 477.
What I said was “As authors, we had to report only the best available science (inclusive of a select few grey literatures as per the rules of procedure) which is “policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral” and that’s what we collectively did while writing the Asia Chapter. None of the authors in Asia Chapter were Glaciologist and we entirely trusted the findings reported in the WWF 2005 Report and the underlying references as scientifically sound and relevant in the context of climate change impacts in the region.
Regards,
Dr. Murari Lal
1006, Osimo Bldg., Mahagun Mansion-II
1/4 Vaibhavkhand, Indirapuram
Ghaziabad – 201014
Uttar Pradesh, INDIA]”
Please stop blindly accepting such misinformation as if it were truth. How ironic that those who claim to be interested in truth and science seem to be fabricating information that suits their cause, and spreading it throughout the internet. It’s really shameless and pathetic.
There is a misinformation campaign in full swing by special interests in the industries that would most benefit from taking no action, and you are sadly falling for every bit of it. I know you’re not a paid shill, but you’re believing the message from those who are, and you’re willfully spreading it, without first examining any of it.
Funny how those ‘special interest groups’ realsick keeps harping about, have sunk MILLIONS into backing the various research groups that support ‘man-made’ global warming. Not to mention Cap-and-trade.
lol. More unsubstantiated claims. Any sources for this?
Or more specifically, any comment on the actual point?
I also have to wonder, Teach, if people like the one realsick is in hysterics about, have not been threatened since they made their original statements, hence the lines that realsick is quoting. It would be interesting to go back- IF one had the time- and trace this story all the way back to when it began, and what was said, when.
That’s been done, Otter. Google it.