"GLOBAL WARMING" GOING HYSTERICAL?

Posted yesterday on March 19th, St. Joseph's Day, this commentary by Paul Joseph Watson of Prison Planet.com tells on how those promoting the theory of "global warming" sound increasingly shrill and inane. Citing reports that show that changes in our solar system may be the actual cause of rising temperatures worldwide, Watson sees darker purposes behind the fixation on this theory.

Watson is sure this will go the way of the "global cooling" scare back in the 1970's. We at the Review think so also. Those in power opposed to Distributism from whatever direction will stop at nothing from imposing a Global State on humanity. Including theories like "global warming".

6 comments:

Nick Xylas Thursday, March 22, 2007 at 3:13:00 PM CDT  

So the vast majority of the world's climate scientists count as "those in power opposed to distributism"? Not sure it's them who sound shrill and hysterical here.

Roy F. Moore Thursday, March 22, 2007 at 5:10:00 PM CDT  

The vast majority isn't as vast as you may think. And yes, they are in sync with "those in power", etc. That "shrill and hysterical sound" you here is not coming from us. Only them.

Read Watson for yourself. Thank you.

saltynick Saturday, March 24, 2007 at 7:49:00 PM CDT  

nick xylas - you'd find the film illuminating. It comprehensively debunks the core claims of the globalwarmingTHRUco2THRUhumanaction faction.

And guess what... some of those doing the debunking are are among the supposed signatories to the document we are forever being told PROVES those claims.

Nick Xylas Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 4:46:00 PM CDT  

Yes, I'm familiar with Channel 4's "documentary". Like the director's previous series for Channel 4, Against Nature, it has come under fire for selective editing and misleading its contributors about its purpose.
George Monbiot has written an excellent rebuttal which you can read at:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/

saltynick Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 9:36:00 PM CDT  

Monbiot claims that the film's 'main contention' is that solar activity is responsible for 'global warming'.

In fact the film's main contention is that the science behind the human>>co2 theory for climate change is flawed.

Monbiot doesn't attempt to rebut the very real flaws with human>>co2 theory that the film exposes, instead he points out that an alternative theory has drawn some credible criticisms from credible scientists. (Spot the flaw!)

Of course, one of the film's main themes is the almost religious, -certainly dogmatic- insistence on a particular unproven theory.

I do like a lot of Monbiot's writing, but I know he is a polemicist with an agenda, and decidedly not an unbiased arbiter for this debate.

Post a Comment

  © Blogger template Werd by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP