Hat tip to Billy Beck for this one...
This is one video I hope goes viral as hell. 75 minutes and worth every second.
Tell ya what...I'd love to examine any scientific explanation as to why this video is wrong--because I don't think it is wrong.
And Billy is exactly right as to why this swindle is in play right now.
It's no accident that at one point in the documentary (43 minutes, 9 seconds), Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, explicitly describes the co-opting of the environmental movement by anti-capitalists, specifically lefties who were kinda adrift in the swamp of Chernobyl, Enver Hoxha and Ceauşescu when their grand Marxist experiments collapsed under the weight of self-inflicted misery.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Ask and ye shall receive:
1. The science is (again) misrepresented
2. At least one of the scientists used in the film is claiming that his views are exactly opposite as what is portrayed in the film.
Thus the film's credibility is in severe question. Its not just mistakes, its downright fraud and manipulation on the part of the film makers. Why lie and make up stuff it its real?
With all due respect to Billy Beck, just because he wants there to be a socialist conspiracy doesn't mean there is one. In this case he is wrong, as the actual climate scientists at RealClimate attest to.
Mike: I don't think it's a conspiracy; I don't think it's anywhere near that organized, and the real science is, I'm sure, getting overwhelmed by the politics. I have no doubt that human activity has an effect on climate--but I also think that Patrick Moore's assessment of the political under-pinning is correct.
Well true enough, but that film is meant to mislead about the science not (necessarily) the politics. The politics could have been refuted without the attempt to pretend the science isn't sound.
Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely not for state solutions to this problem. Indeed, without the state and the ability to sue for harm caused by pollution would have meant we probably wouldn't be in this situation in the first place...but I digress.
Jim Henley had a post about this a few weeks ago and I think he makes a great point:
"The difference between an insightful libertarian and a denialist shill is that the insightful libertarian wants non-government solutions to problems, while the denialist shill insists that there are no problems."
[pardon the use of "denalist" - in the original quote]
If there is worry about the political underpinnings of this, it is incumbant upon us to provide real alternative, stateless solutions, rather than latching on to any source that pretends there is no problem, just because we don't like the company the proponents keep.
By seeming to side with those, our valid criticisms of some of the supporters will be lost and not heard. Ignored and with no credibility.
I for one accept the science and wish to do something about the problem. I do not want that to be another set of government boondoggles (see Harper spend), so I feel I need to present anarchist or libertarian alternatives to the boondoggles. I feel I need to counter the Marxist lefties and I can't do that if I'm lumped in with those who pretend there is no problem.
And it sure looks like Billy thinks there is no problems because its supported by "anti-capitalist and lefties", rather than the science.
Mike: You wrote: "Indeed, without the state and the ability to sue for harm caused by pollution would have meant we probably wouldn't be in this situation in the first place...but I digress..."
Yep.
And your overall point is well-taken. Thanks for a perceptive couple of posts.
Post a Comment