Why should I believe you?

November 22, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

It was a few years ago, when I said that the media don’t always tell the truth, and that even the evening news on TV are often used to tell falsehoods, either by distorting the truth, putting the wrong spin on things or by not reporting some things at all, and someone commented: “Why should I believe you, when professionals tell me something that is quite different from what you tell me?”

Well, it seems that a good answer to that is not that easy to come by; but is that true?

I have not ever knowingly tried to pull  a fast one on people by deliberately telling a lie in anything I told on this blog or anything else I presented as the truth on the Internet.  Still, why should anyone believe me?

The answer to that is that no one needs to believe me or believe anything I state, but if they don’t believe me, why should they believe anyone else who is making an effort to tell them anything? The truth is out there, and, thanks to the Internet, the truth about anything is as accessible as are lies about it.  All that is necessary is to be able to tell the truth from lies that are intentional or unintentional.  The difference is often easy to tell.

Let’s take the truth with respect to what is being told in Richard Lindzen’s testimony to the US Congress about global warming hype and hysteria and compare it to what some parties like Shell, the Canadian federal government and the Alberta provincial government want us to do.  That is, buy in and pay for, at a billion dollars and more a shot,  to allegedly alleviate the consequences of global warming through Shell’s CCS project that is proposed to be constructed in Alberta’s Industrial Heartland, north-east of Fort Saskatchewan and north of Bruderheim.

Richard Lindzen, one of the foremost climatologists in the world, said in concluding his testimony to the US Congress, Nov. 17, 2010, that,

You now have some idea of why I think that there won’t be much warming due to CO2, and without significant global warming, it is impossible to tie catastrophes to such warming. Even with significant warming it would have been extremely difficult to make this connection.

Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’ Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating.

In the meantime, while I avoid making forecasts for tenths of a degree change in globally averaged temperature anomaly, I am quite willing to state that unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the horizon though in several thousand years we may return to an ice age.

Richard Lindzen provided the following information on slides 11, 12, and 13 of his presentation to the US Congress:

(Click on each image to see it in full resolution.)

Will anyone in their right mind truly believe that the range of temperature trends for global average temperatures (the area covered by the red line in the preceding image) compared to local measurement for Boston (or anywhere else for that matter) will be impacted in any measurable fashion by what is contemplated through Shell’s CCS Project?  After all, the width of the red line would at best be reduced by no more than an infinitesimally tiny fraction of 4 percent of the width of the red line.

Mind you, Richard Lindzen uses well-mannered language in his presentations.  Instead of using words like “anyone in their right mind”, he uses words such as these: “Given the above, the notion that alarming warming is ‘settled science’ should be offensive to any sentient individual, though to be sure, the above is hardly emphasized by the IPCC.” (Emphasis as in the original on page 4 of the full PDF file of Richard Lindzen’s testimony to the US Congress)

Whether one says “anyone in their right mind” or that the claims of global-warming alarmism are based on ’settled science’ is “offensive to any sentient individual,” makes little difference.  Someone who is right in his mind is a sentient individual, and the facts are the same.  Cries of climate alarmism and all attempts to use “Carbon Capture and Storage” as a thermostat for regulating global temperature trends are bunk.

______________
By the way, besides Richard Lindzen, there were other prominent authorities who set straight the facts at the US Congress Hearing on Global Warming:

Watch: The House Hearing on Global Warming today

Posted on November 17, 2010 by Anthony Watts

Posted in Propaganda debunked, Taxes, Censorship, Shell CCS Project, Alarmist Insanity, Corruption & Fraud, Community & Industry, Climate Change, Health issues, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »