Some nutty biologists pontificate on climate
Some comments below from physicist Lubos Motl
Some people seem to be unwilling to accept that the era of the global warming panic that couldn’t even be questioned is over.
In 1967, Paul Ehrlich predicted that hundreds of millions of people would starve to death in the 1970s and 1980s. Later, he updated his prediction and argued that most of the U.S. population would starve to death before 2000. His whole career has been built on making absolutely preposterous statements of this kind.
Of course, he always had to suffer by the knowledge that most people have always realized that he is a kook, a lunatic obsessed with doomsdays, and a parasite on the Academic system. Is there a method for him to prove that he was right and most Americans would prematurely disappear from the world? Maybe.
The Washington Times has revealed e-mails showing that right now, he may have finally found out the magic formula. Together with Stephen Schneider and others, such as Paul Falkowski, the director of an energy institute at Rutgers who wants to replace fossil fuels by biofuels from duckweeds (aquatic plants) that will be growing on the surface of all ponds and oceans in the world (yes, he’s another nut), Ehrlich decided that it’s time to destroy the climate skeptics – i.e. most of the world’s population. One of the participants of the project described its goal as: “an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach to gut the credibility of skeptics.”
Very nice. I just wonder whether the participants have also found a method to do these things while hiding that they’re a criminal cabal that deserves to be put in jail if not on an electric chair.
The number of people who continue to be as mad as Paul Ehrlich is strictly finite but it is still much greater than one. For example, Mr David Adam, a green ink-spiller in the Guardian, has made a “shocking” revelation: “Climate emails inquiry: Energy consultant linked to physics body’s submission”
If you don’t understand the “juice” of the title, he is complaining that it must be a sin for the Institute of Physics to have listened to one expert in the energy industry – among many witnesses they have listened to! Holy crap. If I were doing such things where the practical consequences of possible policies – mainly for the energy industry – are far more important than the underlying science as a pure theory, then most of the people I would invite would be economists or energy experts.
Mr Adam, do you really think that in March 2010, it’s still possible to defend the idea that energy experts are devils who can’t ever be listened to or invited anywhere? Do you want to defend a complete isolation – or elimination? – of the energy companies? Have you lost your mind? Is The Guardian aware that they’re employing a crazy person?
I can imagine that this poor guy will soon complain that he is getting unfriendly e-mails and exchanges with the other people. Will you really be surprised? You are trying to attack the dignity – if not the existence – of one of the most important sectors of the economy that everyone else needs to survive. What else would you expect than unfavorable messages if not something worse, moron?
It’s kind of amazing that they don’t see what’s important here. All of their focus is on the tricks how to brainwash the people and force them to believe the “best science” that this group can offer. But their “best science” is no longer good enough.
All the brainwashing tricks and types of frauds, cherr-picking, censorship, lies, libels, and distortions have already been used by them in the past: but they won’t work again because most of the public has learned something during the last 3 months and has already acquired a kind of “immunity” against these types of deception that they won’t “unlearn” anytime soon.
Selected, unfiltered, and one-sided ads won’t help them in any way because it will be clear that these ads fail to be impartial. And the detailed content won’t impress anyone, either. That’s because they don’t have any real counter-arguments against the observations revealed in the last 3 months (and before that) – simply because no such counter-arguments exist. They’re not interested in the content – how the climate actually works. They’re only interested in the methods how to promote a particular “type” of reasoning and particular results. It has worked for years. But it won’t work again.
They can’t fix this “subtle” problem by collecting $15,000 after an e-mail conversation. The problem is much deeper than something that can be bought for $15,000. The problem is that their lives are built upon lies and this fact has been getting increasingly self-evident to everyone.