Tuesday, 29 May 2007

Crystalising My Mistrust of Econazism.

Snipped from a comment on a posting on the Bishop Hill Blog a couple of weeks ago (Hat tip: Devil's Kitchen)

I'm also not a climate research specialist, so would not comment on those aspects. I do know, however, that IPCC is an assessment of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, among other things. "Just because 2500 scientists agree". Well, you would trust a pilot to fly a plane, rather than ask the guy sitting down the end row without qualifications, wouldn't you?
Well, madam, if the pilots have baracaded themselves into the cockpit, pushed the stick forward and begun yelling "Allah Akhbar!" then my faith is in the old git at the back, even if he has helped himself to a couple of Johnny Walkers from a plastic cup.

How else can I express my deep distrust at the blind fanaticism of the climate Econazis?


Phil A said...

A definite point there.

The promoters of the anthropocentric global warming theory do seem to be suspiciously sensitive.

Their response seems to have much more in common with the religious zealot, who’s faith has been called into question.

Also, it must be said, there are an awful lot of scientists and politicians, who have bet their whole personal shooting match on the man made global warming gravy train and (to mix metaphors) are in the trough well past their snouts.

They would probably not want anyone to pay any attention to say, recent equivalent, global warming on Mars, difficult to blame that on a couple of solar powered 4X4 Martian Rovers...

gun-totin-wacko said...

I'm with Phil. I have a friend who constantly tells me that "there is no debate" on warming, and that it's 10000+ scientists in favor of anthropocentric, and only a handful against. And that it's the peer-reviewed against the ignorant, blah blah blah.

He's hitched his wagon to the Gore Train, I've hitched mine to the anti-terrorism one. As somebody once said, in about 20 years one of us will be proven correct, and one proven a fool.

(Oh, I almost forgot. His response to that was that we could both be right. No way he's wrong, I guess. Perhaps he'll call it "inconceivable", and I'll get to go Inigo Montoya on him).

Roger Thornhill said...


Interesting that the response to "too much air travel" is not to spare people night flights or new runways, but forms of taxation or subversive redistributive wheezes via "tradeable air miles".