The Shotgun Blog
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
The overwhelming item of “Perceived Wisdom” being foisted on the Canadian public, since the US midterm elections, has switched from “Bush and all his doings are bad” to “Global warming caused by anthropomorphic (man caused) production of greenhouse gases is reaching catastrophic proportions”. I liken “Perceived Wisdom” to what Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, is reputed to have said: “A big lie repeated loudly and often enough becomes the truth”. What is the recent history of perceived truths? One example is “The Cooling World” as epitomized by a Newsweek article of that title dated April 28, 1975 which stated in part (referring to this cooling): “The evidence in support of these predictions has begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it”. Except for the direction that the temperature is supposed to be traveling, does this not sound eerily similar to what we are hearing today? Has anyone checked Goebbel’s grave lately? On another subject, but relevant when referring to “Perceived Wisdom”, the glitterati lightweights of the MSM solemnly proclaimed right up to election night that Stephen Harper did not have it in him to become Prime Minister. I believe “Perceived Wisdom” is seldom wise and almost invariably wrong.
Posted by Bob Wood on November 15, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Perceived Wisdom":
"The overwhelming item of 'Perceived Wisdom' being foisted on the Canadian public [is] 'Global warming caused by anthropomorphic (man caused) production of greenhouse gases is reaching catastrophic proportions'."
Honestly, when the national science academies of the G8 countries have issued a joint statement on the subject calling for urgent action, I think I'd have to say that it's either real, or there's a massive conspiracy going on.
Take a look at current and historical levels of atmospheric CO2. CO2 levels have never been higher than 300 ppm at any time in the previous 400,000 years (from ice core data). They're now at 380 ppm, and headed for 800 ppm by 2100. We're rapidly heading into uncharted territory here.
Posted by: Russil Wvong | 2006-11-15 5:42:32 PM
The perceived wisdom of CO2 induced climate change ignores fluctuations in solar energy output, planetary tilt, fluctuations in planetary orbit, and even earth's collapsing magnetic field. Pointing out the media's failure in so many areas is humbleing. Something the media people don't take very well.
Posted by: truthsayer | 2006-11-15 5:45:24 PM
truthsayer: see Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming."
For example, here's a discussion of planetary tilt and fluctuations in planetary orbit.
Posted by: Russil Wvong | 2006-11-15 6:04:17 PM
"Honestly, when the national science academies of the G8 countries have issued a joint statement on the subject calling for urgent action, I think I'd have to say that it's either real, or there's a massive conspiracy going on."
Honestly, I wish they'd issue a joint statement with a list of verifible observations that were correctly and publicly predicted based on their models.
Joint statements don't constitute scientific proof.
I have a thought. Their next joint statement could be urgently issued with their new predictions.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-15 6:29:33 PM
Great lefty slogan from the 60's':
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-15 6:32:49 PM
Science isn't about "perceived wisdom" or an "overwhelming consensus". It is about who is right and who is wrong.
An Australian doctor found himself at odds with "perceived wisdom" when he promoted his theory many gastric ulcers were caused by bacteria.
Galileo found himself "outside the consensus" when he proposed that the earth was not the center of the universe.
Silly phrases such as these are simply attempts to intimidate and shut up dissidents. Usually employed by non-scientists.
Posted by: Bart F. | 2006-11-15 6:58:41 PM
Well, it literally took only 1 minute into their 1 hour broadcast on climate change denial for the CBC to... wait for it...
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-15 7:04:52 PM
6 minutes in...big oil!
Hey, this could be a great drinking game. Anyone else wanna play?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-15 7:08:51 PM
hilarious. Approaching first commerical...12 minutes...equate the deniers with Big Tobacco company denials regarding addiction.
I wonder if they'll get to the holocaust at some point?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-15 7:15:22 PM
Russill, CBC just pointed out that the Tobacco company employed corrupt scientists. If scientists can be corrupted there, why not elsewhere? Like say, climate change?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-15 7:20:08 PM
20 minutes..."overwhelming scientific concensus"
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-15 7:22:07 PM
29 minutes..."the denial machine crosses the border." Shows picture of Harper.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-15 7:31:41 PM
35 minutes. blatant lie. "George Bush pulled the US out of Kyoto."
It was never in.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-15 7:36:12 PM
Irony. 37 minutes. Guy gets funding from environmental groups to keep tabs on deniers and their funding.
Hey, no conflict of interest there.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-15 7:39:51 PM
Who's denying global warming? My attacks have been on the deeply flawed and costly Kyoto Treaty. Until an exact accounting of its financial penalties is established, and the exemptions for Ontario's auto industry and Alberta's oil patch are removed, Kyoto must not be implemented.
There isn't any question as to why Liebral/Dipper/Green Party/Corporate Alliance still insist on implementing Kyoto as is. Their interests are protected - Ontario wont lose jobs, Albertans will (or should) shut up since they're exempted, and they believe that money grows on trees. If there is any group that is out of touch with global warming, it is this gang of 4.
My hope is that people in the East will realize what a bad thing Kyoto is and re-elect Mr. Harper so he can implement the much saner and less costly Clean Air Act. If not, Alberta will have no choice but to secede in order to protect itself from Corporate Tyranny from Tronna. Sorry, but as Lincoln said "as was said three thousand years ago, so still must be said, the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." In other words, it has to be this way.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2006-11-15 7:43:02 PM
See SDA "The Pathological Politicalization of Science" for a similar thread.
Posted by: BobWood | 2006-11-15 7:44:38 PM
First sane comment, 47 minutes. "if you really care about global warming, take it out of the political sphere"
Ok, it's over thankfully. I couldn't take much more beer. Anyway, not even an attempt to see whether the concensus was based in fact.
The CBC just chose the default position and went politically ballistic...not to mention cliched, hackneyed, and in several instances, contradicted themselves.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-15 7:51:57 PM
My CBC TV menu through Star choice read " Debate on climate change" That was no debate. The other side got zero time. That was pure propaganda. I couldn't make it past 10 minutes, good on you h2o273kk9 for hanging in there as long as you did.
I can buy into the idea that we have global warming, but no one has convinced me that it is all CO2 doing it -- the only arguement we hear for that theory is that some scientist say so. How about it CBC - Show us the detailed studies that take in all the factors and make me a believer. And make it a fair debate. Most debates have two sides presenting their perspective! So far, those that argue against CO2 being the sole contributor, have shown more evidence to support their claims. I wish these so called "scientist" would step up to the plate with more than "theories" and show some hard evidence that isn't based on a faulty model and takes into consideration all the factors.
Posted by: thots | 2006-11-15 9:21:13 PM
According to satellite data, the earth warmed 0.1 degrees from 1988 to 2000. Seeing as how it is only one significant digit, I am not sure about the level of certainty in that number. I also remember seeing 0.3 degrees since the 70's. Supposing that is an old number and the 0.3 was over only 25 years, and that the situation will not have a huge swing, then in 100 years, the temp would be around 1 degree warmer. Wow.
Even Russil's graph in his point 3 (from his website) proves his first point wrong, or perhaps I should say controversial. Just looking at the change between 130,000 and 115,000 years ago, the CO2 was fairly constant around 270ppm while the temp dropped from 3 to -5. What happened to the greenhouse effect? Over the next 7000 or 8000 years, the temp dropped then spiked while the CO2 dropped then stayed constant around 230 or 240ppm. But then something else other than CO2 had to cause the rise in temperature.
If you haven't had enough yet, I posted more on my blog: http://greycanada.blogspot.com/2006/11/planet-temperature.html
Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-11-15 10:00:58 PM
M&M propaganda=Kyoto. M. Strong and M. Gorbachev.
People Haters par extraordinaire! If you feel like throwing away your Freedom - go M&M and defend them like the 'useful idiots' they hope you will stay.
Posted by: jema54j | 2006-11-16 12:07:58 AM
"My CBC TV menu through Star choice read " Debate on climate change" That was no debate. The other side got zero time. That was pure propaganda. "
Not only was it no debate. It wasn't even about climate change. A more accurate description would be
An investigation into the climate change denial machine.
After watching it, I felt like Winston Smith after the "2 minute hate". On this blog, for denying that AGW has been proven, I have been called a
murderer of Africans,
denier of evolution
from some of our most excitable lefty posters.
Given the CBC program, It's only a matter of time before they start pointing at me and yelling
"Big Tobacco". I already got an email from elsewhere hinting at this. The CBC propaganda took 30 minutes to work its toxic poison into his mind.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-16 5:01:19 AM
Sometimes I think Canadians have lost their minds. Kyoto has taken on almost cult like status here in Canada. Yet I remember Chretien signing Kyoto without advising and presumably consulting the cabinet or caucus. In fact I remember him threatening to call an election if the party didn't support him. The whole premis of Kyoto is that if you can't meet your targets you buy hot air credits, thereby sending taxpayer money to lesser developed countries and then pretend you are in compliance. The Conservatives say they won't do this and therefore that is why they say they can't meet the targets. If Canadians understood the impact on the economy should the government decide to meet the targets by 2012 without buying hot air credits they would think the government irresponsible. The Liberals had 5 plans over 10 years and spent $6 billion. What did we get for that, a 30% increase in GHG's. Obviously whatever plan they were following didn't work. Godfrey was absolutely silly yesterday when he said they had a plan they were about to implement along with spending some $10 billion. Regulations would kick in in 2010. Give me a break. Typical Liberal party....spin, spin, spin.
Posted by: hollinm | 2006-11-16 5:13:14 AM
Anyone heard that trees paly a role in regulating CO2?
Treeshave globally grown 10% last year. How about that.
I listen to Radio Canada once in a while. The only good telecast is La Semaine Verte. News =propaganda.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-11-16 7:43:14 AM
Ref to the article on reopening of copper mine up here on the Western Standard in BC.
Environmentalist groups are becoming like a mad infection and evil virus. Government should step in and curtail all those abuses.
A potential industry providing employment seems to be stopped.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-11-16 8:36:48 AM
Why is anyone watching CBC anyway. It will depress and anger any thinking person. Avoid it and go on living your life in your time.
The Wisdomites are are a back of fools who are working an angle to get more private money into the hands of "one-worlder" governments and it's supporters at the UN.
It's a huge scam and I don't buy it for a minute.
Our Sun and Earth will do whatever is in their nature to do and our job is to adapt not try to buy off nature.
Posted by: Duke | 2006-11-16 8:42:02 AM
That's it, chop down all the trees for emitting CO2. How come their simple minds haven't thought of such a simple solution? Will they put a ban on exhaling too?
It's really gotten so fuddled-duddled up there's no real agreement or consensus as to what the hell's going on. It's starting to look more like a money grabbing hoax, Kyoto is just that. One of these days someone will prove it, hopefully sooner than later.
Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-16 8:46:46 AM
Chicken Little must be obeyed.
It is futile to resist.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-11-16 10:07:28 AM
Kyoto is not a science,it is a religion.
Like most religions,I am told exactly what to believe and to simply have faith.Of course,the supporters themselves cannot even comprehend that THEY could be wrong.Converting others to their cause becomes a somewhat blind obsession.
Hey,I'll help fight man-made global warming when I believe it exists.I've tried to remain open-minded(as with religion,if I find a real chance to live forever,I won't turn it down)but any irrifutable proof has of yet been anavailable.
I find many Kyoto supporters to be particularly stubborn and even arrogant with their'faith'.
The fact the CBC et al actively avoid an honest debate is not surprising.I could write a paper on how the strength of someones belief in'Kyoto'seems to correlate with how far left they are politically.
I guess that would explain the murky sea of global-warming rhetoric we are drowning in here.
Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2006-11-16 11:03:39 AM
My religion DEMANDS introspection.
The religion of Kyoto, as all philosophies that merge church and state, demand OBEDIENCE.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-11-16 11:21:15 AM
Kyoto is a scam; pure and simple,but then so little isn't in these troubled times.
There isn't much to add to what has been said here except perhaps that if this wasn't such big business;I'm sure it wouldn't be the overblow issue that it has become.
There's the real posibility that govt's(our government) will fall over this.
That plus control are really what is driving the issue.
It is encouraging to see such clearheaded thinking as is presented on this thread.
Posted by: Simon | 2006-11-16 11:24:12 AM
ebt. I could not find the article you mentioned online. Do you have the title or a link? I was amused by some of the items in the Most Commented section of the canada.com homepage about Harper's challenge of same-sex marriage, Alberta Separation, and Do the conservatives have a "hidden agenda"? I just could not find the item that was on topic for this post. Their search screen is rather poor.
About the idea of planetary tilt -- that may make some regions a bit warmer and others a bit cooler, but the global affect would be 0. The orbit may make a bit of difference if we moved closer or farther from the sun, but as long as the average distance does not change over the year, then the yearly average temp would not be affected either. The main sources of temperature are heat from the sun and our ability to retain that heat over 24 hours. If CO2 was a major factor, then Mars would be sweltering instead of -63 C.
Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-11-16 1:17:47 PM
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2006-11-16 1:24:39 PM
You are welcome. I hope I do not presume too much if I think that is a polite request for a little assistance?
1) Keep two instances of your browser open (probably Internet Explorer)
2) Put one of the instances on the Shotgun and type away in the comments section as normal until you want to provide a URL link
3) Find the URL page (the link) you want in instance 2 of the browser
3) Highlight the URL address by clicking in the "Address" field
4) ^c (while holding down the "ctrl" key, press the "c" key)
5) Use the mouse to click in the Shotgun "Comments" field in instance 1
6) ^v (while holding down the "ctrl" key, press the "v" key)
If you use the "Preview" button, you can test it out before posting. Once again, I hope I did not presume too much.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2006-11-16 5:03:13 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.