This is very, very dangerous

New Zealand academic Dr Jarrod Gilbert writes

There is no greater crime being perpetuated on future generations than that committed by those who deny climate change. The scientific consensus is so overwhelming that to argue against it is to perpetuate a dangerous fraud. Denial has become a yardstick by which intelligence can be tested. The term climate sceptic is now interchangeable with the term mindless fool.

No greater crime?

Meta studies show that 97 per cent of published climate scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by human activities. The American Association for the Advancement of Science compared it to the consensus linking smoking to cancer. The debate is over, yet doubt continues.

Oh really?

Selection_001

The worst of these problems will impact more greatly on generations to come, but to ignore them now is as unconscionable as it is selfish. It ought be seen as a crime.

One way in which everyday crime can be discouraged is to ensure that “capable guardians” are around to deter criminal activity. When it comes to climate change, the capable guardians are educated members of the public who counteract the deniers.

There may be differing opinions on what policies to pursue, but those who deny that climate change exists ought be shouted down like the charlatans that they are. Or better yet, looked upon with pitiful contempt and completely ignored.

There is no room to sit on the fence and say, “I don’t know if it’s true”. Ignorance of the law excuses no one – and so it is with the laws of science.

Scientific laws?

The laws of science, scientific laws, or scientific principles are statements that describe or predict a range of phenomena behave as they appear to in nature.[1] The term “law” has diverse usage in many cases: approximate, accurate, broad or narrow theories, in all natural scientific disciplines.  They are developed either from facts or through mathematics, and are strongly supported by empirical evidence. It is generally understood that they reflect causal relationships fundamental to reality. – Wikipedia

Those must be the same scientific laws that flawlessly drive the climate science models that, to date, still have to make a single accurate prediction.  Seriously, put those laws into a model and test them to prove they indeed “reflect causal relationships fundamental to reality“.   Can’t do it?  I wonder why?

Climate always changes, when it stops changing we should be worried.

The arrogance of these people!  Thinking we can change the climate to whatever we like via taxation is astonishing.

It is intellectually dishonest for him to even claim it. I should have thought a scientist would know better.  A real scientist does.

Possibly used as an attention-getting device, the call to criminalise the act of not believing that climate change can be harnessed is of course the introduction of a thought crime.

What should be a crime is to have an organisation like NIWA dicking around with the temperature records by ignoring a long term functional station’s data in a park and replacing it with a very recent station in a concrete jungle.

As long as scientists can’t be trusted to be honest with the public, let alone themselves, the call to criminalise disagreeing with them is probably a little premature, don’t you think?

 

– NZ Herald

 

 


Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

40%