![]() |
|
|
Add to My Group
Those that have sought to muddy the waters of climate change have shifted strategies over time. Firstly we were told it wasn't happening at all, then the emphasis shifted. We are currently being told, amongst other things, that it isn't man-made, it is now either A - A natural cycle B - Because of the sun C - Communists D - Terrorists Take your pick (I might have made two up there), just don't blame governments, companies or yourself, keep buying, keep driving, keep flying. The BBC published the findings of a report that blows at least one of the denial theories away...
Further...
When the 'Great Global Warming Swindle' documentary was broadcast it caused an uproar in the scientific community and even some of the people in the documentary claimed that their views were misrepresented. It was quickly picked up by some in the conspiracy theory category, who seemed to believe it was proof that global warming was a scam designed to put us all under more stringent control. It was also picked up by others in the business community and taken as a sign that it was ok to carry on regardless. Fortunately, many people showed it up for the scam it was but not before it had warped the public perception of the issue. It is also unlikely that as many people read the debunkings of the programme as actually watched it. For non-scientists or keen amateurs (like me) it is not too difficult to find out who is funding various groups and therefore see where the interest lies. It is also not difficult to find out who is a genuine expert and who is not. This is why I believe those who say man-made climate change is a reality and not a myth. Imagine for a moment you read a report by an engineer that, based on accumulated evidence, stated that a car had a serious defect that may cause death or injury. Imagine there was then a huge campaign in order to stop anything being done about it and deny the evidence. No, wait, thats already happened hasn't it? Ok, another example. Imagine you were a doctor and based on years of evidence you knew that smoking was detrimental to health. Imagine then that there was a huge amount of time, money and air time given to studies, using selective evidence, suggesting that smoking wasn't bad for you at all. Oh. That already happened too. We are in the same area with global warming (and GM food, but that is another article). I urge you to read this
http://michaelgreenwell.wordpress.com Michael Greenwell blogs at http://michaelgreenwell.wordpress.com.and is a member of www.spinwatch.org.
Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008 |