Dear Mr Rudd: The Opposite Of Sceptical Is Gullible
Posted by papundits on 11/12/2009
By Andrew Bolt
TonyfromOz prefaces …..
In Prime Minister Rudd’s speech, he singled out Andrew specifically, with three others as those people he terms as the main ‘offenders’, so it would seem that Andrew’s stance on this subject, gaining widespread coverage across Australia, is striking a nerve.
Science writer JoNova savages – in a most magnificent polemic – (Australian Prime Minister) Kevin Rudd’s extraordinary Lowy Institute speech, in which he slimed sceptics as corrupt, dangerous, reckless members of a conspiracy that endangered Australian children:
In 6000 words Rudd uses ad hominem attacks, baseless allegations, argument from authority, mindless inflammatory rhetoric and quotes not a single piece of evidence that carbon drives our climate. He repeats quote after quote of sensible, ordinary points from his opponents as if it shows they are confused. Yet he can’t point out how any of them are wrong. It shows the depth of his own delusions—that he thinks merely questioning “the UN committee” is a flaw in itself.It’s as if being a sceptic is a bad thing, yet the opposite of sceptical is gullible.
Rudd throws baseless innuendo when he claims vested interests are at work. The truth is the exact opposite. Exxon spent $23 million on sceptics, but the US government spent $79 billion on the climate industry.
Big Government outspent big-oil 3000 to 1. Worse, carbon trading last year was $126 billion dollars. That’s for just one year. The real vested interests stand in the open like signposted black holes hidden in plain view by a legal disclaimer. The singularities at the centre of the climate change galaxy have names like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, ABN Amro, Deutche Bank, and HSBC….
The UN bureaucrats soak in their fame and their junkets. Why wouldn’t they? Two weeks and ten thousand people in an exotic locale every year. Nobel prizes for just doing their jobs, and the promise that they might be at the centre of new world financial market: dinner with Obama and tea with Gordon Brown. Status knocks, and everyone is home.
This global gravy train got rolling in 1988 and when the evidence turned “180”, the train ran off the tracks. Now it levitates above the real world on a cushion of snarling spite and intimidation. It’s as if calling someone a “denier” replaces 100,000 radiosonde readings, 6,000 boreholes, 30 years of satellite results and ice cores that go back to a time before homo sapiens was sapien. These things are evidence, but a manufactured “consensus” from a self serving committee is not. “Denier” is an insult, a cheap attempt to bully dissent into submission.
Rudd offers up our nation to global bullies and giant bankers because he’s swallowed a UN committee report… Rudd claims sceptics “play with our children’s future”, but if a nations leader just obediently accepts a foreign decree without checking it, isn’t he the one who lets our children down?…Kevin Rudd gambles with our economy. He wants sweeping changes based on the science, but he hasn’t spent ten minutes checking the evidence…
Rudd will come to regret his Lowy Institute speech. It’s a sad indictment of what intelligent discourse in Australia has been reduced too. The nation that invented the bionic ear considers trashing its economy because someone thinks “denier” is a scientific term?
Please read it all. It’s quite outstanding. There’s a donations link at the top right of her page.
UPDATE
Miranda Devine, appalled by Kevin Rudd’s “hysterical, undergraduate piece of ad hominem hyperbole”, suggests he read the latest book questioning his “science”:
Against the apocalyptic rhetoric pushed by Rudd comes a cool-minded new book which unpicks the science underpinning the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports. Global Warming, False Alarm by Ralph Alexander, an Australian-born US scientist with a PhD in physics from Oxford, is subtitled ‘’The bad science behind the United Nations’ assertion that man-made CO2 causes global warming”. Alexander wrote the book, “because I’m a scientist. Because I’m offended that science has been perverted in the name of global warming.”
Alexander has three main objections. Read on… Or buy the book, much praised by Lord Monckton and theoretical physicist Lubos Motl:
Dr Alexander determines that the “ring” and the international character of the IPCC, the climate panel of the United Nations, are the main drivers of the hysteria so the IPCC, its process, and its reports are the main players investigated by this text. He analyzes the history and structure of the IPCC and finds out that this panel is just a particular and heavily funded group of loud partisans and activists that is meant to defend a predetermined conclusion and that doesn’t reflect the scientific opinion of the world’s scientific community, at least its financially and otherwise unbiased part, and certainly not the available body of data. Lots of numbers about the percentages of the scientist who agree and disagree with various statements are included.
TonyfromOz adds …..
As an exercise to see how much support is out there, Andrew added this short post asking readers to add their names to a list of those who agree with him and disagree with the Prime Minister’s stance. So far, in the 15 hours that post has been at his site, more than 1200 people have responded.
Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.
Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog
