De sidste tider i den klimatiske vækkelse

Diverse — Drokles on December 9, 2011 at 6:58 pm

En anekdote fra slutningen af 1800 tallet fortæller om en indremissionsk præst der i ærgelse over at menigheden var blevet for slap i troen og stram i synden brugte hele gudstjenesten på at hælde svovl ud fra prædikestolen over de stakkelels og skamfulde hoveder. Da han på et tidspunkt tager en ny vejrtrækning opdager han at flere af kvinderne græder højlydt, børnene knuger deres hoveder i deres mødres skørter og de ellers så barske mænd er lig blege i ansigterne. Og præsten siger “Så, så, børn, det kan jo være løgn alt sammen”.

Kristne siger ofte at hvis ikke man tror på Gud tror man på hvad som helst. Som ateist finder jeg dette udsagn lige vel kategorisk, men det er heller ikke helt usandt. Ved ikke at tro på Gud, den kristne altså, mangler man hurtigt et sprog for sin egen tvivl og lader sig derfor lettere forføre af sin religiøsitet, som er iboende uanset om man navngiver og tror på et eller andet væsen eller om man er overbevist om sin evne til at kende eller komme til at en endelig materiel sandhed. Kommunisme er en religiøs forstilling helt blottet for Gud og selverkendelse. Intet menneske går fri af dette dårskab uanset, hvilken klub man melder sig ind eller ud af og hvilke bekendelser man slynger ud.

Det religiøse er skam ganske gavnligt da det giver os en følelse af sammenhæng, formål og retning i en verden, der ellers er kaotisk, tilfældig og meningsløs. Men der påhviler os samtidig en pligt til at erkende vores forestillings faldgruber, så vi ikke bevæger os i en uhensigtsmæssig retning. Ateismen, som dyrkelsen af sin manglende tro på Gud, tror sig hævet over sin menneskelige begrænsninger, identificerer sig faktisk som sådan, og er således dømt til et syndefald. Troen er personlig men religionen er kollektiv og fra tid til anden kaldes der til samling i den dominerende religiøse forestilling - en religiøs vækkelse.

Klimadebatten er præget af en religiøs tro på at kende sandheden, hvor udsagn som ”vi ved nu…”, “debatten er ovre, nu skal der handles” og “FN siger…” helt ud til det nærmest selvmodsigende “jeg tror på videnskaben” følges naturligt op af begreber som “benægtere” om mennesker i dissens, som spiller lige dele på Holocaustbenægtelse og alment kætteri, som flyder frit fra især grønne interesseorganisationer og politikere. Der har i samme underforståede logik derfor været flere forslag om at betragte skeptisisme som en forbrydelse mod menneskeheden da de står i vejen for en redning af Jordens klima og dermed potentielt millioner og atter millioner af menneskeliv. Også tanker om at afskaffe demokratiet fordi problemet var for alvorligt til at det kunne løses med en uforstandig og vrangvillig befolkning og en eksisterende hæmmende lovgivning nyder indpas. Og det endda fra personer, som betragter sig selv som pæne mennesker der kæmper for demokratiet.

Diskrepansen i hekseforfølgelse af anderledes tænkende og plæderen for fascime samtidig med selvopfattelsen af egen civilitet og demokratisk tilkendegivelse er grundet i den manglende erkendelse af at den religiøse vished har overtaget fundamentet for tanken og har gjort blind. Behovet for de mange vejer tunget end behovet for de få, som det hedder på Starship Enterprise eller hensigten helliger midlet, som det hed bag jerntæppet - og den logik kræver vished for nødvendigheden.

Fra American Thinker

More and more scientists are revolting against the global warming consensus enforced by government funding, the academic establishment, and media misrepresentation. They are saying that solar cycles and the complex systems of cloud formation have much more influence on our climate, and account for historical periods of warming and cooling much more accurately that a straight line graph of industrialization, CO2, and rising temperatures. They also point out that the rising temperatures that set off the global warming panic ended in 1998.

(…)

As more and more scientific evidence is published that debunks global warming, the enforced consensus is ending. The Royal Society, Britain’s premier scientific institution — whose previous president declared that “the debate on climate change is over” — “is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures. … The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause.” Most of the rebels were retired, as one of them explained, “One of the reasons people like myself are willing to put our heads above the parapet is that our careers are not at risk from being labeled a denier or flat-Earther because we say the science is not settled. The bullying of people into silence has unfortunately been effective.”

In America, Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-winner in physics, resigned in protest from the American Physical Society this fall because of the Society’s policy statement: “The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring.” Dr. Giaver:

Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?

The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this “warming” period.

(…)

Fifty-one thousand Canadian engineers, geologists, and geophysicists were recently polled by their professional organization. Sixty-eight percent of them disagree with the statement that “the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” APEGGA’s executive director Neil Windsor said, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

Dr. Joanne Simpson, one of the world’s top weather scientists, expressed relief upon her retirement that she was finally free to speak “frankly” on global warming and announce that “as a scientist I remain skeptical.” She says she remained silent for fear of personal attacks. Dr. Simpson was a pioneer in computer modeling and points out the obvious: computer models are not yet good enough to predict weather — we cannot scientifically predict global climate trends.

Dr. Fred Singer, first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, and physicist Dr. Seitz, past president of the APS, of Rockefeller University and of the National Academy of Science, argue that the computer models are fed questionable data and assumptions that determine the answers on global warming that the scientists expect to see.

(…)

Media coverage on global warming has been criminally one-sided. The public doesn’t know where the global warming theory came from in the first place. Answer: the U.N., not a scientific body. The threat of catastrophic warming was launched by the U.N. to promote international climate treaties that would transfer wealth from rich countries to developing countries. It was political from the beginning, with the conclusion assumed: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (U.N. IPCC) was funded to report on how man was changing climate. Its scientific reports have been repeatedly corrected for misrepresentation and outright fraud.

This is important. Global warming theory did not come from a breakthrough in scientific research that enabled us to understand our climate. We still don’t understand global climate any more than we understand the human brain or how to cure cancer. The science of global climate is in its infancy.

Yet the U.N. IPCC reports drive American policy. The EPA broke federal law requiring independent analysis and used the U.N. IPCC reports in its “endangerment” finding that justifies extreme regulatory actions. Senator Inhofe is apoplectic:

(…)

This is not all about idealism. There are crasser reasons of money and power for wanting to close the debate. Billions of dollars in federal grants and subsidies are spent to fight global warming. The cover of fighting to save the planet gives the government unlimited powers to intrude into private business and our individual homes. The government can reach its long arm right into your shower and control how much hot water you are allowed to use. In the words of MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Lindzen, “[c]ontrolling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life.”

Fra National Post

Environmentalists imagine that Kyoto was a sort of bonding moment for the world’s nations. In fact, it was an exercise in multilateral cynicism, with each group of nations tying to extract advantage through green posturing. The developing countries, including China, were happy that the treaty would handcuff the industrialized world’s economic expansion until they caught up. The Europeans wanted it set up in such a way that they could boast about their environmental bona fides without doing anything. And the Russians wanted everyone else to be bound by CO2 limits because they had plenty of unused emission credits they wanted to sell for billions to guilt-ridden Western governments. No one was willing to make the massive, economy-crippling measures that would be required to actually reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, such as replacing cheap carbon-based fuel en masse with more expensive renewable fuels.

Even if all the world’s nations had somehow found some magical method for meeting their emission limits, the most the environmental treaty could have accomplished would have been to delay the total 21st-century warming projected by scientists by a decade or less. The Earth would have warmed as much under Kyoto, just at a slightly slower rate.

Steve McIntyre, som nærmest egenhændigt afslørede Ishockeystavs-grafen som svindel, lægger i dette interview vægt på, hvad også jeg finder er den afgørende afsløring i anden del af sagen om de lækkede emails fra de centrale forskere ved FN’s Klimapanel, nemlig FN-forskernes grundlæggende tvivl på egne påstande og en etisk kvabbelse over deres egne metoder, mens de udadtil fodrede ikke bare det politiske system, men også deres kollegaer i det videnskabelige miljø med den tyraniserende påstand om konsensus og en intimiderende insisteren på absolut sikkerhed.

Den canadiske journalist Donna Laframboise har som tidligere omtalt undersøgt klimapanelet i hendes morsomme og let (nogen gange dog lidt for let) læselige bog The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For The World’s Top Climate Expert.

Op imod denne virkelighed står et enormt system af forskellige interesser, som har satset hårdt på at være først på fremtidens bølge, som vil være ganske tøvende i deres erkendelse. Men de vil blive tvunget til det efterhånden og når først erkendelsen spreder sig vil det gå stærkt - det er en ånd, der slippes ud af en flaske.

I The Leader Episode (tror jeg den hedder) af Simpson flytter en nyreligiøs sekt til Springfield og får snart det meste af byen i sin magt, som giver alle deres værdier til Lederen, mens de selv træller i marken for at giver Lederen mulighed for bag lukkede døre at bygge det rumskib, der skal bringe dem alle til en anden galakse, hvor de kan blive lykkelige (Homer starter på sin samling af Lederbønner, bønner han synes ligner den Leder han aldrig har set). Da illusionen endelig afsløres flygter Lederen på det store rumskib, der viser sig ikke at være andet end en almindelig cykel dækket af papmache, mens alle udtrykker deres vrede over bedraget - alle undtagen Groundskeeper Willie, der som en anden Joey Starret desperat råber “Come Back, Willie still loves you!”. Hvem der ender i rollen som Willie bliver i sig selv spændende at se, men mere vigtigt bliver den selvrangsagelse i den vestlige verden af at Gudløsheden ikke er befrielsen for religionen. Vigtigt er det nemlig altid at holde sig for øje at det kan være løgn alt sammen - endda også dette.

3 Kommentarer »

  1. [...] også her, hvor jeg fik inspiration (og 2 videoer) fra Share this:TwitterLike this:LikeBe the first to like [...]

  2. If it’s mostly do to the priristohec creatures that we depend on the oil produced by the bodies of those creatures!?! as well as whatever naturally oil producing methothods such as decaying plants/vegetation along with other NATURAL ways or resources !?! . What would be so wrong in setting aside months or a season & making it illegal to : 1.) rape land of it’s natural recources!?! 2.) to use a chemical to help destroy garbage when no plans to send it to either the atroid belt,the sun,in the direction of a galaxy PAST the next galaxy nearest ours.,.!?! “R”r.r`r,r’.a`,wWw rRr.,.

    Comment by Luis — March 15, 2014 @ 12:54 am
  3. This is very funny. I hope our children don’t read this and see that we are jnokig about their future.By the way when did the U.S. National Academy of Science become liberal? I missed that.

    Comment by Julia — February 22, 2015 @ 6:36 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress