Neo-env Watch - Rhetoric Exposed
Andrew Bolt reveals how the neo-environmentalist movement thinks. It's a pity so many people forget how dishonest people can be in pursuing their irrational agenda.
Professor Stepen Schneider, US global warming consultant, today (in The Age):
We cannot dismiss the possibility of potentially catastrophic outliers and that includes Greenland and West Antarctica [ice sheets breaking up], massive species extinctions, intensified hurricanes and all those things. There’s at least a 10 per cent chance of that. And that to me for a society is too high a risk … My value judgement when you’re talking about planetary life support systems is that 10 per cent, my God, that’s Russian roulette with a Luger.
Professor Schneider, global warming alarmist, in 1996:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
Yep. Distortions, lies and spin. The clues are all there, and always have been. Claiming certitude about non-experimental science. Denying there is a debate. Ignoring contrary evidence. It sounds just like evolution.
(HT: Tim Blair)