Tuesday, 26 January 2010

Why the sceptics are winning...

...well it's always been a foregone conclusion that the green alarmists won't win THIS battle.
Here on the sceptical side of the fence we have had a massive ammount of funding from big oil, the tobacco industry, the Vatican and the estates of George Orwell and Ronald Reagan; none of us have proper day jobs so we have become a highly organised subversive cadre schooled in all the black arts of propaganda and disinformation; we have the backing of all the influential politicians, insurance companies, pop stars, actresses and Hollywood moguls, and in addition to all that - we have a total stranglehold on the major organs of the main stream media, so that we can limit green scare stories about climate change...

This anyway, is (my version of) the view of the green apologist Prof. Andy Pitman co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales. As my friend at Australian Climate Madness observes, the good professor ignores the obvious reason sceptics are winning the climate change battle; that the so called "consensus" science of the IPCC... is riddled with errors, fudged data and spin, (and) is hugely politicised...the IPCC is starting to resemble a bunch of losers who will be so discredited that they won't be able to show their faces in polite society for decades...more from ACM here...

...AND from Dr Pachauri himself..."All of this is very bad timing, it is very unfortunate," he said on Saturday "...Climate sceptics have seized upon the errors as evidence the IPCC is biased or unreliable. At this point in time, things don't look very good at all. They look very bleak," Pachauri said about the status of climate talks...

...AND from Andrew Bolt of the Sun Herald...When wild and baseless scares are pushed by a man who makes serious money from them, it’s time to call in the auditors. Pachauri may be innocent of any wrong doing, but only a fool would be blind to the danger of corruption when so many millions are being thrown at pushers of the warming faith.
Question: could the Nobel Prize be withdrawn from the IPCC if more such revelations come to light?

5 comments:

TheFatBigot said...

"... the good professor ignores the obvious reason sceptics are winning the climate change battle; that the so called "consensus" science of the IPCC... is riddled with errors, fudged data and spin, (and) is hugely politicised..."

Those reasons resonate with some but I'm not sure they apply to Mr Ordinary who, according to opinion polls in many developed countries, seems to be doubtful of impending catastrophe. I would suggest the more powerful reason is that we've all heard countless Armageddon theories during our lives and every one has proved to be nonsense.

A few people somewhere in the world contract a previously unknown, or almost unknown, virus and we are told to expect tens of thousands of deaths in the UK. As things pan out we find a few dozen die and most of them were particularly vulnerable to that type of disease.

People remember these instances. They remember "top experts" being wrong every time they ventured the opinion that the end of the world is nigh.

People remember learning that early motor cars had to be preceded by a man carrying a large flag to warn of danger. People remember learning that "experts" advised travelling at 40 or 50mph on railways would cause significant health problems. People remember astronauts being kept in quarantine after returning to earth for fear of previously unknown diseases being contracted in the vacuum of outer space. We look back and laugh at the idiocy of it all.

We form judgments based on our own experiences. As knowledge spreads of the way the doommongers have behaved I would expect their position to be rejected by ever more Mr Ordinarys.

After all, what is an ordinary person whose life revolves around working hard and fair-dealing expected to make of the CRU jiggery-pokery, the hockey stick hokey, the Himalayan hoo-hah, the Gore beach-front purchase while he warns of massive imminent rises in sea-levels, the apparent inability of the GCMs to give accurate predictions and, most of all, the vast personal fortunes being made by some of those most vociferous on the subject? I would suggest the response is both easily predicted and wholly justified.

Ayrdale said...

FB is of course quite right, and until last year ran a rollicking blog of his own which I visited daily.

Welcome back to the blogosphere !

MK said...

"Question: could the Nobel Prize be withdrawn from the IPCC if more such revelations come to light?"

Why does more bullshit need to be uncovered before it's stripped from them.

Should have been stripped from them and also from that fat scumbag al gore as well. Never forget that, millions have already been wasted on this crap and it's money that we worked for and had no say in.

Paul Clark said...

ABC news radio in Australia is chockers full of AGW propaganda. Today they were saying how much bush fires were enhanced by it. Shouldn't global warming in fact increase precipitation?

And no mention of how the green movement stopped the burning off of the bush thereby increasing the fuel load and the fire risk. Aborigines practiced firestick farming for thousands of years before white settlers arrived but that's not politically correct now to city environmentalists who who smugly declare their superior knowledge.

Good sign though: a couple of days ago even ABC radio was forced to admit that "sceptics have won the debate on climate change" (still depicting them as villains though). Ha, sucked in!

Ayrdale said...

MK and Paul, they have a ton of sticky eggs all over their shiny green faces...see the formal waving of the white flag by the UK chief scientist today.

This is the smell of napalm in the morning...