If you’re in a car accelerating towards a cliff, Kyoto is taking you (sic) foot off the accelerator.
That is so fallacious.
It assumes that mankind is the driver (ie the one controlling the accelerator and brakes, and steering). In reality, all the human effort in the world can only reduce the speed by 0.06 km/h! After paying billions of dollars for the privilege.
That is more like a passenger opening a door, and putting their shoe on the road to try to slow down (while the wind is blowing clouds of banknotes out of our pockets).Utterly futile.
Then there is complete obscurity about the road ahead. The cliff is unconfirmed. There is no evidence of a cliff. Our sensors cannot see that far. It is pure conjecture.
As for the speed of the car -- that gives the impression that we must do something URGENTLY! This is all part of the sense of panic, and impending doom, designed to cause people to welcome...
That's what this is all about. There is no urgency -- climate changes over hundreds of years. Up and down. But warmists want your money now. They want control over your lightbulbs, your car, your electricity, your choice of TV, your choice of food, your choice of holiday.
I say "show me the sound science".
Show me the cost-benefit analysis.
Show me the cause and effect.
Keep your hands off my freedom to live my life.
Other related posts:
Surf Life Saving Flags at Long Bay could be Killers
Open Letter to Minister of Police: Don't Lower "Ticketing" Speed Limits
5 Reasons Why You Should Hear Christopher Monckton
Comment by Andrew Quaintance, on 18-Mar-2009 04:40
I could not agree with you more. I regard the concept of global warming as portrayed by the purists as yet another form of fascist imposition that yet again has vast and adverse implications for the poor and helpless. Where has intelligent research gone or integrity of conclusions.
Comment by Dratsab, on 18-Mar-2009 20:29
Youll probably be quite interested in reading this: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EDBLICKRANT.pdf
I've read some of the work of Viscount Christopher Monckton (referred to a few times in this article) and found it to be quite fascinating.
One thing I have noted about Blick's article though is that a number of sensationalist claims are made with no references cited, so I tend to treat his work with a little dubiousness. The lack of citations is a problem which afflicts both sides of the argument.
The eart changes constantly. It's had at least four ice ages. In between ice ages, sea levels rise along with temperatures, species go extinct etc. The Romans supposedly grew grapes for their wine in northern England about 2000 years ago because it was so much warmer then than it is now...
For my money: Atmospheric scientists can't tell me with any degree of accuracy what the weather will be like in 10 days, so I'm certainly not interested in their predictions of what it's going to be like in 100 years.
Add a comment
Please note: comments that are inappropriate or promotional in nature will be deleted.
E-mail addresses are not displayed, but you must enter a valid e-mail address to confirm your comments.
Are you a registered Geekzone user? Login to have the fields below automatically filled in for you and to enable links in comments. If you have (or qualify to have) a Geekzone Blog then your comment will be automatically confirmed and placed in the moderation queue for the blog owner's approval.