Virtually all the world’s nations, a very significant proportion of the world’s science bodies, countless universities, research establishments, and even major oil companies accept the facts of man-made Global Warming.
But that doesn’t stop commentators at The Spectator magazine from not only attacking Climate Change science, but also scientists and writers who are experts in the field. Some could say it makes them look foolish. Or illiterate.
Let’s just review exactly what I just found on the website a few moments ago :-
Tuesday, 15th September 2009
So, spite, then: is there anybody in Britain with a more exalted opinion of themselves than George Monbiot? His entire column in today’s Guardian deals exclusively with the one subject which has obsessed the man for many years, and bored the rest of us: himself.
In particular, he is outraged that the scientist Ian Plimer has apparently failed to rise to the challenge and debate the certainty of man-made climate change with the world’s acknowledged expert on the subject, George Monbiot. Plimer’s views were published in The Spectator recently: he is, according to Monbiot, a “climate-change denier” (a typically loaded phrase which deliberately echoes the accusation of “holocaust denier”). Monbiot doesn’t merely have it in for Plimer – he attacks The Spectator for having had the audacity to publish the man’s views and thus “dropping editorial standards”.
You pompous, monomaniacal, jackass. The unchallengeable certitude with which Monbiot treats his second favourite subject, and the viciousness with which he denounces anyone who disagrees, reminds me a little of the hardline creationists you find jabbering in the backwoods of the Appalachian Mountains: there is no argument, we are not qualified to argue, man-made climate change simply IS, and let there be an end to the debate. It is this very certitude, and the response to critics, which makes me doubtful.
Now then. Does that seem reasonable to you ? If you are a mediator, a diplomatic person, affable, able to manage social interactions, then you can probably recognise that piece of writing as unlikely to be fair.
Let me just unpack three vital areas in which Rod Liddle could be said to lack comprehension.
1. As far as I know, Rod Liddle is not qualified to judge George Monbiot’s character or intentions.
This fact alone makes his writing insincere, in my view.
To me, it also makes his writing like that of war propaganda, where one of the main jobs is to demonise the opposition by imputing or ascribing negative or immoral emotions, where there is no proof of any.
2. I take it Rod Liddle is not qualified to assess the validity of the writing of Ian Plimer.
I don’t see Rod Liddle making any scientific arguments. All I see is personal attack on George Monbiot.
This indicates that Rod Liddle, like many of the writers and commentators and even journalists for the mainstream Media, probably does not have even the slightest hint of scientific training.
If he wanted to back up his arguments against George Monbiot, if he had a science training background, surely he would be able to present one teensy, eensy theory or fact from the study of the physical sciences ?
3. In my view, Rod Liddle is not qualified to be writing for a public journal.
I would expect all publications to conform to the basic standards of decent human interaction, which this piece clearly does not, from my reading of it.
He would bleat, I expect, if the same writing were published about himself, so why does he think he is justified in this kind of personal attack ?
From where I’m sitting, Rod Liddle makes The Spectator appear to be a playpen for bullies.
In my view, the facts of the matter are that Rod Liddle is being rude, and wrong.
George Monbiot has made detailed research of Climate Change. He is correct. Ian Plimer is in error. Rod Liddle should be castigated for his poor behaviour in my opinion.
The Spectator should admit the facts : Global Warming is real and the temperature of the world is increasing. Climate Change is happening. It’s caused by mankind’s destructive activities, mostly with Fossil Fuels and trees.
Climate Change is dangerous. So are those who spout pseudo-science. The Spectator should get a proper science editor if they want to be taken seriously, in my view.
More background :-