The Maldives Stunt.....
A nice stunt...but intellectually bankrupt...
In the avalanche of publicity stunts being staged in advance of December's Copenhagen conference on climate change, none was more bizarre than the meeting of the cabinet of the Maldives government 20 feet beneath the waves. President Mohammed Nasheed and his ministers sat before desks in scuba gear to discuss the forthcoming submergence of their country, due to global warming.
This prompted an open letter to President Nasheed from Dr Nils-Axel Morner, the former head of the international Inqua Commission on Sea Level Change. The Swedish geologist, who has been measuring sea-level change all over the world for over 30 years, reminded the president that his commission had visited the Maldives six times in the years since 2000, and that he himself had led three month-long investigations in every part of the coral archipelago. Their exhaustive studies had shown that from 1790 to 1970 sea-levels round the islands had averaged 20 centimetres higher than today; that the level, having fallen, has since remained stable; and that there is not the slightest sign of any rise. The most cautious forecast based on proper science (rather than computer model guesswork) shows that any rise in the next 100 years will be "small to negligible".
President Nasheed is well aware of this, because in 2001, Professor Morner offered to explain his team's findings on the local TV station, to reassure viewers that their homes were not about to disappear underwater as they had been told. The government refused to allow his film to be shown. Egged on by climate alarmists, successive Maldivan leaders since the 1980s have pleaded for vast sums of international aid to save them from rising sea levels.
"For Heaven's sake," writes Prof Morner in his open letter, "lift the terrible psychological burden you have placed on the shoulders of all people in the Maldives", who have been made to live with "a wholly false notion that is nothing but an armchair fiction artificially constructed by mere computer modelling consistently proved wrong by meticulous real-world observation".
posted by GayandRight @ 5:20 PM
11 Comments:
Would that be the same Dr Axel-Morner who undertakes works for the lobby organisation Natural Resource Stewardship Project which is funded by energy industry lobbyists? How fast can you say conflict of interests? Next week, the National Union of Lumberjacks will be telling us we have too many trees.
Yes, but is he right?
If he was independent i would be interested in what he has to say. As a journalist the first thing we are told to look at is, is there any agenda behind what anybody says. He gets paid by a firm that has a vested interest in denying climate change so his argument is invalidated. Would you take the word of a scientist who is being paid by the wind turbine industry for example, if he said wind power was the best form of creating energy. You would say, of course he would say it, he's getting paid by them. Same thing here.
By that reasoning we can safely cast aside the opinions of Al Gore and everyone else who stands to make a fortune off of convincing the world that humans are responsible for climate change. That includes, of course, all the scientists whose grants would dry up if they came out and said that humans were not responsible.
You may want to discount the word of someone being paid by the energy industry, fair enough. At least then be intellectually honest and recognize that the environmental industry has just as much reason to twist things in their favour.
Gay Inquisition has started in Maldives:
http://www.hilath.com/?p=3032
Al Gore himself has made over a hundred million dollars selling the global warming schtick, and thousands of otherwise useless scientists make a living supporting big government bureaucrats by blaming everything on global warming. But the facts do speak for themselves, there is no evidence.
PB - I agree. Anyone, Al Gore included, set to make a fortune from his or her stance on anything should not be given much credence. I give Al Gore or any scientist paid by the climate change lobby as much time as i do the likes of Dr Axel-Morner who are paid by the anti-climate change lobby.
As i said above, if you can say 'of course he would say that', then they should be dismissed regardless of whether they agree with your views or not. Unfortunately, most people don't and like our friend Fred here, his argument can be easily dismissed.
Nowhere does Lucy ever refer to the truth.
Look, at the situation in reverse. let's say you hold some views veyr strongly and you are a terrific speaker....wouldn't it make sense for someone to hire you to speak publicly???
I feel passionately about Israel, and I am not being paid by anybody, but if someone wanted to pay me to speak publicly about Israel (say the Canada-Israel Committee), I would be happy to! It wouldn't affect my message or my feelings.
Giving a point of view is very different to saying this is how something is.
As for your passion for Israel, it is blinding you. There are many things i feel passionate about but i don't allow myself to become blinded by that passion. If its wrong then we should be able to say so, not just sigh but defend it anyway.
You just end up damaging that thing, making yourself look foolish and removing any chance of anyone taking you seriously.
Lucy - I feel passionately about Israel because it alone offers a way forward in the middle east. I get passionate about they way Israel accepts gays and lesbians, about the fact that women are treated like first class human beings, the amazing economy, and the fact that no other country, facing such immense national security issues, manages to balance civil liberties so well.
My passion comes from the facts on the ground.
Your passion is your hatred of Israel.
How easy it would be for you to brand me an Israel hater. True, i don't much care for the Israeli Government but then i don't much care for Hamas either, or the present British Government, or the Chinese or Saudi or Afghan or Russian Governments either.
All i have criticised when they have acted wrong in my mind. All i have praised when they have done something i deem worthy.
Things are not as black and white as you seem to think. The broad brush approach is never a good stance to take, it just shows a narrow mind.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home