Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Snow Jobs?

From the National Post comes this piece:

Just how pervasive the bias at most news outlets is in favour of climate alarmism -- and how little interest most outlets have in reporting any research that diverges from the alarmist orthodoxy -- can be seen in a Washington Post story on the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), announced last week in New York.


I'd say that in the grand scheme of things, it is very pervasive. When you have people (who have a vested interest in this junk science being established as fact) shouting down those people with that dissent, you know there is a problem.

After reminding readers that the IPCC and former U.S. vice-president Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for their work on climate change, the paper then, sneeringly, added: "While the IPCC enlisted several hundred scientists from more than 100 countries to work over five years to produce its series of reports, the NIPCC document is the work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists."

First of all, the IPCC and Mr. Gore won the Peace Prize, not a science prize, which only proves they are good at politics. They didn't win the Physics Prize, for instance.

Also, while the former vice-prez may have invented the Internet (by his own admission), he is demonstrably not a scientist. Yet in the same paragraph as the Washington Post lionizes Mr. Gore for his work saving the planet, it backhands non-scientists for meddling in the climate change debate, never once showing any hint it recognized its own hypocrisy.


Gaza lobs rockets into Israel, Iran threatens Israel daily, and countless other hostilities exist in the world. At least Jimmy Carter won it for getting Egypt and Israel to agree to peace terms. So far, it has held.

Can anyone tell me how Gore has brought about peace by advancing a junk science theory?


6 comments:

Mustang said...

My understanding of the justification for the Peace Prize in Gore’s case — a purely political award — is that by diminishing the effects of global warming (eliminating famine), one direct result is to reduce the possibility of human conflict. I’m not sure when people last warred with one another over agricultural production, however. It could have been in Mesopotamia, about 7 thousand years ago.

The junk science you speak about becomes evident when one considers that “lowering temperature” by only 4 degrees will have a devastating effect on annual crop production. The little ice age (1750-1850) is an example of this — not a man-made event. No one should be surprised, however, that politicians champion programs without understanding the likely or potential consequences of half-baked ideas.

Nevertheless, Gore did make a lot of money from his award, and he was able to feed an over-extended ego; we may therefore conclude that he achieved his most important goals.

Mustang said...

Today, a commercial for Shell Gasoline began with this statement, “As the air quality in our cities becomes more polluted . . .”

The fact is that air quality in NYC is nothing like it was in the year 1900, when thirteen million horses deposited their droppings and urine throughout the city, and where concentrations of toxic materials contributed to the premature death of New Yorkers through disease and respiratory infection.

Now, I’m sure Shell is trying to tell us that they are working to improve air quality . . . and that’s good. But it is not true that air quality is getting comparatively worse, and it would be more honest if such ads said, “Shell Oil Company is working hard to achieve improved air quality in our cities.”

Everyone seems to capitalize on global warming and environmentalism. The problem, as I see it, is that Earthniks continually tell consumers the sky is falling; over time, they’ll stop paying attention. Most of us realize the quality of designer water is no better than that dispensed from our kitchen sink, but if there was a legitimate concern no one would be paying attention.

Mustang said...

Well, here I am wondering if the End of Times has occurred; all of my playmates have ascended into the heavens, and I’m in deep, deep, doo.

LASunsett said...

//Well, here I am wondering if the End of Times has occurred; all of my playmates have ascended into the heavens, and I’m in deep, deep, doo.//

Well, I can't speak for the rest of the bunch; it may well be you are right. But let me assure you, I have not been in heaven the last two days.

//I’m not sure when people last warred with one another over agricultural production, however. It could have been in Mesopotamia, about 7 thousand years ago.//

I would say the Indian wars were over agriculture. Expansion was to acquire land for agriculture and mining. The Europeans did it, before us. But we carried the quest over after the American states were independent.

The difference in those times and the times when Mesopotamia was the cradle of civilization: One was for rights of development of agricultural land, the other was for that which that agricultural land that had already been developed.

LASunsett said...

//Most of us realize the quality of designer water is no better than that dispensed from our kitchen sink, but if there was a legitimate concern no one would be paying attention.//

I think you are correct, the bottled water isn't any safer.

But I think it tastes better. If I am going to drink crap in my water either way, I want it to at least taste decent. For this, I am willing to pay for.

Ain't capitalism great? Choice.

;)

LASunsett said...

for that which that

It seems THAT I have an affinity for the word that. And THAT'S sad.