The Director of Greenpeace Asks a Legitimate Question

“Why can’t we tell the truth about climate change?”

Of course, the intent of John Sauven’s question is that there is a vast, shadowy network of government and corporate entities conspiring to prevent honest scientists from revealing a necessary truth about scientific consensus to the unwashed masses. I’ll examine on how many levels that is a ridiculous assertion in just a moment. What I want to point out is that it is a legitimate question, because the groups proposing Anthropogenic Global Warming–and its scientifically-invalid neologism, “climate change”–seem to be utterly incapable of uttering a truthful statement on the subject.

The first reason that Sauven’s conspiracy theory is ridiculous is de natura: it’s a conspiracy theory. Benjamin Franklin has a famous quote on this subject, “Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.” Sauven claims a conspiracy spanning multiple administrations of the entire governments of the U.S., U.K., and India are acting to block the AGW alarmists from spreading their message. Apparently, Mr. Sauven forgets the huge waste of money and man-hours by the Democratic-led Congress of the Bush administration–or does he really think that Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t have cackled her way all the way to Bush’s impeachment over that, even if she later turned around and did the exact same thing herself later?

The second reason is that the alleged conspiracy is to prevent the dissemination of the pro-AGW opinion. Not only does virtually every government in the world have panels and departments set up for no reason other than to use climate alarmism to push for wealth confiscation, but look at the reporting by the U.S. media. Virtually any discussion which questions the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming–and it is a failed hypothesis, not a theory–is ignored. The worst cases of professional malfeasance by AGW proponents are ignored or glossed over, while long-standing professionals who engage in the virtue of skepticism find their credentials questioned and their character attacked (but rarely their questions answered). Skepticism should be the cardinal virtue of both scientists and journalists–the fact that journalists are disparaging skeptical scientists should be what people are really alarmed about.

The third reason that this position is ridiculous is that it claims that the pro-AGW crowd is the honest one. I won’t even bother spending time re-presenting cases like Climategate or the leak of the Fifth IPCC Report–you need look no further than the arguments that they make. Anyone who talks about a “consensus of scientists” or says that “the science is settled” has no credibility on the topic of science. Anyone who keeps a hypothesis based on computer modelling which directly conflicts with real-world data, has no credibility on the topic of science.

And finally, as for spreading that vital news to all those little people out there… Really? Who hasn’t heard about anthropogenic global warming? It’s in every TV show, commercials, movies, news reports in every medium. It’s going to be mandatory in American public school education. Who does he think isn’t hearing about it? Where is there ANY resistance to this message. Moreover, the very idea that there are members of the general population of sound mind, who cannot have a valid on this topic because they lack professional credentials in the field, is ridiculous. You do not need to be a professional climatologist to exercise simple rational thought. Having a specific degree does not magically change nonsense and lies into to truth.

Of course, this from the director of GREENPEACE, who constantly refers to “peaceful environmental groups”. Ahem. Of course, that speaks to his character, not his arguments–but I think I’ve covered those in detail already. A cursory reading of the article will reveal a lot of allegations of unethical behavior against anyone who disagrees with him, but nothing in the way of corroboration (or even specifics). One specific allegation is that opponents of the AGW hypothesis “produce doubt” “like the tobacco companies”. So be it. I am happy to sow doubt about junk science; comparing me to lobbyists for a legal business doesn’t bother me a bit. Bring a real argument, and we’ll talk.

These arguments are an assault not only free speech, but free thought. The very fabric upon which the United States was constructed. Do not let yourself be hypnotized or bullied by these people. They prey on your fears for the environment, but they don’t care anything about it. Their only care is establishing themselves as dictators over your life. Take responsibility for your life, because they are fighting tooth-and-nail to take it from you.


4 responses to “The Director of Greenpeace Asks a Legitimate Question

  1. A simple equation at calculates average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide (about 1895) with an accuracy of 90%, irrespective of whether the influence of CO2 is included or not. The equation uses a single external forcing, a proxy which is the time-integral of sunspot numbers. A graph in that paper shows the calculated temperature anomaly trajectory overlaid on measurements.

    ‘The End of Global Warming’ at expands recent (since 1996) temperature anomaly measurements by the five reporting agencies and includes a graph showing the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising average global temperature trend.

  2. “The third reason that this position is ridiculous is that it claims that the pro-AGW crowd is the honest one. ”

    Well that is exactly why he is doing it. All the moves by the UN/EU led global warming movement are carefully examined and coordinated – by the activists and scientists themselves but also with professional help by PR men (job title is “climate change communicator”). Phil Jones’ suicidal thoughts were an invention by his PR man.

    So he tries to give his believers the illusion that they are the underdog and in posession of a suppressed knowledge. It’s an agitation tactic.

    I only scrolled over his article and it blurred into something like
    “… tobacco Big Oil tobacco tobacco tobacco….”. No need to really read it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s