Tom Nelson mentions an article in Pajamas Media about an article in China Daily.
Its author, Ms Li Xing, attended the Copenhagen summit and was impressed by Fred Singer. So was I, when I met him in Berlin (and before). He showed her lots of data and she wanted to know the opinion of the other side - the "IPCC side". What can they say about these issues?
Imagine the scenery in the Danish capital. She had clearly heard a lot of details, understanding many of them, while being confused about some others. A lot of stuff to discuss. The "IPCC types" would only tell her:
It must be strikingly obvious to her - and anyone else - that all details or verifications are just unwelcome to those folks because they don't support the primary thesis of the AGW orthodoxy. This quasi-religious thrives on fear and ignorance. Knowledge is chasing it out of the holes.
Almost all AGW believers react in the same way. They never want to analyze any detailed questions. They never want to penetrate deeply enough into them. What they care about is the key religious commandment about AGW. They just think that the holy greatness of the AGW God will impress you and intimidate you much like it has apparently done with them. Too bad, it only works for irrational (or corrupt) people like themselves.
Pajamas Media ask the subtle question whether the U.S. is really a more free and democratic country than China if the journalist from the official Chinese media actually had the freedom to go to the conference, to talk to both sides, and to form and publish her opinion.
Yes, I do think that China is less democratic and free when you look at all issues that are important for human lives. But the AGW debate is clearly an example where the situation is different. The U.S. mainstream media really seem to be the worst ones in the world when it comes to the recent climatological scandals. An unusual cartel between the media, politicians, scientific institutions, and certain big business groups effectively transformed America into a totalitarian country - fortunately when we talk about this single issue only.
The Chinese journalist used some old Chinese wisdom to predict that the number and depth of recent scandals we have seen is enough for the IPCC to perish.
AfricaGate
Just one link to AfricaGate. It's becoming hard to follow all the scandals. Just a partial list:
We're lucky that they haven't begun to approve the cap-and-trade bills yet because if they had, there would be lots of BillGates to remember, too. :-)
Other green organizations are in trouble, too. For example, BBC goes through an investigation of an GreenInvestmentBiasGate.
Its author, Ms Li Xing, attended the Copenhagen summit and was impressed by Fred Singer. So was I, when I met him in Berlin (and before). He showed her lots of data and she wanted to know the opinion of the other side - the "IPCC side". What can they say about these issues?
Imagine the scenery in the Danish capital. She had clearly heard a lot of details, understanding many of them, while being confused about some others. A lot of stuff to discuss. The "IPCC types" would only tell her:
"Warming in the climate system is unequivocal".You have heard the holy word. Global warming is real (and that surely means man-made). Amen.
It must be strikingly obvious to her - and anyone else - that all details or verifications are just unwelcome to those folks because they don't support the primary thesis of the AGW orthodoxy. This quasi-religious thrives on fear and ignorance. Knowledge is chasing it out of the holes.
Almost all AGW believers react in the same way. They never want to analyze any detailed questions. They never want to penetrate deeply enough into them. What they care about is the key religious commandment about AGW. They just think that the holy greatness of the AGW God will impress you and intimidate you much like it has apparently done with them. Too bad, it only works for irrational (or corrupt) people like themselves.
Pajamas Media ask the subtle question whether the U.S. is really a more free and democratic country than China if the journalist from the official Chinese media actually had the freedom to go to the conference, to talk to both sides, and to form and publish her opinion.
Yes, I do think that China is less democratic and free when you look at all issues that are important for human lives. But the AGW debate is clearly an example where the situation is different. The U.S. mainstream media really seem to be the worst ones in the world when it comes to the recent climatological scandals. An unusual cartel between the media, politicians, scientific institutions, and certain big business groups effectively transformed America into a totalitarian country - fortunately when we talk about this single issue only.
The Chinese journalist used some old Chinese wisdom to predict that the number and depth of recent scandals we have seen is enough for the IPCC to perish.
AfricaGate
Just one link to AfricaGate. It's becoming hard to follow all the scandals. Just a partial list:
ClimateGateAlmost each of them is composed out of thousands of scandalous files or documents or pages.
GlacierGate
TeriGate and PepsiHondaTeriGate and TeriProtectedForestGate
AmazonGate
DisasterGate
HollandGate
AfricaGate
WaveEnergyGate, new DissertationGates and EcoterrorReferenceGates
We're lucky that they haven't begun to approve the cap-and-trade bills yet because if they had, there would be lots of BillGates to remember, too. :-)
Other green organizations are in trouble, too. For example, BBC goes through an investigation of an GreenInvestmentBiasGate.
Chinese media impressed by Fred Singer
![Chinese media impressed by Fred Singer]()
Reviewed by DAL
on
February 06, 2010
Rating:
No comments: