Google CEO Eric Schmidt and film director James Cameron recently concurred that people who question the science of anthropogenic global warming are, in their opinions, “criminal”.Click title of post for article and video.
The two made the comments during a recent on stage conversation at a private event in Silicon Valley.
“If that continues, business as usual as our leaders in Washington say is OK for us to do, we will have extincted 70% of the species on the planet by the end of the century.” Cameron responded to Schmidt’s line of discussion on global warming.
During the same conversation Schmidt stated, “There are people who in my view criminally doubt some of the science.”
“I agree, criminally, I agree with that.” Cameron interjected.
“People, we need to evolve mentally and philosophically to something that has never existed before.” the Avatar director continued.
“We need to become techno-indigenous people of an entire Earth, not of a nation, not of a state, but of a planet.”
Come on, they can't be serious, right? Criminal? Is it just the "in" thing to use the word "criminal" when someone descents from Hollywood opinion? What I don't understand is, where does James Cameron come from here? I do not recognize him as a scientist. Why is he even given a platform for this issue? I'm so lost.
So, according to these two high priests of the scientific community, if you point out that the warming trend observed predominantly throughout the 1980s and 90s stopped over a decade ago, as admitted recently by both Professor Phil Jones, the figure at the head of the Climategate scandal, as well as one of the most prominent AGW advocate groups in existence, The Royal Society, you should be locked up.
Presumably the two would want to see thousands and thousands of scientists have their rights taken away and their freedoms eliminated, for merely expressing disagreement or dissent with the much lauded, rarely present “consensus”.
After all, questioning hypotheses and presenting counter-evidence and alternative theories has nothing at all to do with science – no no no, that’s the behaviour of morally corrupt criminals.
Cameron is of course, another green celebrity hypocrite. The man owns three large houses in Malibu, totaling 24,000 square feet – ten times the average US home. He also owns a 100 acre ranch in Santa Barbara and numerous private luxuries such as helicopters, Harley motorbikes, super cars, a yacht, and even a fleet of submarines. Nevertheless he demands that we all “live with less” because it is us that are responsible for killing the planet.
Earlier this year, Cameron said he wanted to debate the “deniers”, but then pulled out at the last minute even after the “criminals” agreed to endless dubious stipulations he kept demanding, such as no recording of the debate and no media coverage.
Cameron has also just given $1m to help defeat California’s Prop23 which will overturn the Global Warming Bill, legislation that critics have argued would cause unemployment to sky rocket, effectively killing dead the already crippled economy.
Of course he's not going to debate anyone. I'm surprised anyone would consider him an authority of some kind to bother debating him. It's just silly.
According to what I have read about him, he went to a two year college and dropped out. He doesn't appear to be a stupid man but, goodness, any scientist knows that you have to consider ALL arguments. It is clear this man has only read one side of this argument. I'd love for him to come out to Nebraska during the winter and lecture to me about how it's warming. That would be quite hilarious.
The truth is, you can't have it both ways. If we have been here for billions upon billions of years, as many of these folks claim, then the time line we currently have for properly recorded temperature would be equivalent to a dot on a line. Even if you're a creationist, and you believe we have been here for 6,000 or so years, we simply do not have enough data, concerning properly recorded temperatures, to extrapolate information that can be guaranteed. In fact, the only thing we've been able to "prove" so far, is that temperatures vary and work in cycles. They go up and they go down. Wow, this is EXACTLY what we see in all areas of study.
What comes up, comes down eventually, and vice versa. So, the idea that the temperature is going to increase and never stop increasing is actually a harder concept to follow. It makes much more sense that temperature would follow a sine curve, rather than an ever increasing line.
We should definitely be open to ideas. I would never say someone is totally wrong. Should we try and be more "green"? It certainly doesn't hurt, not from what I've see. Recycling seems to be a great way to save energy and help in small ways of having less garbage on the planet. The idea of radical change through force of government is what makes for scary stories. We all know from history what happens when a country goes down that road.
0 comments:
Post a Comment