Ridiculous quote
Some of the hysteric and extreme claims about global warming are also a symptom of pagan emptiness, of Western fear when confronted by the immense and basically uncontrollable forces of nature. Belief in a benign God who is master of the universe has a steadying psychological effect, although it is no guarantee of Utopia, no guarantee that the continuing climate and geographic changes will be benign. In the past pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
This utter clap-trap is from Cardinal Pell! Or Dr Pell, as he has a PhD. (In Church history.) So naturally, he’s an expert on global warming…In which CO2 reductions are comparable to human sacrifices.
Can people with power (I’m also talking to you, Michael Crichton) please stick to their own areas of expertise? Or at least accurately represent global scientific consensus?
Neil B. ♫ Says:
Bob Down, the consensus (albeit not “unanimity”) is that increasing CO2 has a noticeable effect on the temperature of the atmosphere.
BTW I am really sad at the pitiful logical fallacies and conspiracy-mongering going on in comments by Chu/Obama haters at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5389278/Obamas-green-guru-calls-for-white-roofs.html. These people can’t understand combined net effects, basic science, they lie or were misinformed about the current trends, don’t appreciate statistical variance etc. It isn’t just about climate: the USA (most commenters it seems) can’t be competitive given such scientific illiteracy.
PS: If you like “relativity paradoxes” then please check out my blog!
What is the Global scientific consensus on Global warming/climate change? I think comparing a scientific investigation to ritual sacrifices is pretty ridiculous myself but as scientists are gathering and assessing data all the time, trying to get a hold on what is happening with the climate and whether it is part of a natural cycle or not so please tell me what the “global scientific consensus”?