Den sedelärande historien om vad som hände professor Don Aitkin, (a former vice-chancellor at the University of Canberra, foundation chairman of the Australian Research Council and a distinguished researcher at the Australian National University and Macquarie University).
Allt står i dagens The Australian, där han berättar hur han hotades (”he faced demonisation”) för att han ifrågasatte att Global Warming skulle vara en fara för mänskligheten. Tänk vilket fasansfullt brott!
Allt detta i sedvanlig Global Warming Hysterins ”vetenskapliga” anda där man försöker tysta alla kritiker – ”debatten är över”, ”det finns inget att diskutera”, ”det är omoraliskt att ens tänka tanken” etc.
Se även mina tidigare inlägg:
Det råder ”consensus” om Global Warming – IGEN! Eller hur kritiken mot Global Warming censureras, Miljöhysterins tyranni – nu skall vi fängslas om vi inte tror på Global Warming!, Miljöhysterin ett hot mot vår frihet, demokratin, ekonomin och vårt välstånd -2, Miljöhysterin ett hot mot vår frihet, demokratin, ekonomin och vårt välstånd, Omoraliskt att tänka självständigt!, Al Gores Science Fiction and His Climate of Fear, Climate of Fear – I am an intellectual blasphemer , Climate of Fear - 5!, Climate of Fear - 4!, Al Gore and his climate of fear!, Climate of Fear - 3!, Climate of Fear - 2!, Climate of Fear!
Artikeln finns här:
Academic cool on warming
Brad Norington | April 09, 2008
RESPECTED academic Don Aitkin has seen the ugly side of the climate change debate after being warned he faced demonisation if he challenged the accepted wisdom that global warming poses a danger to humanity.
Professor Aitkin told The Australian yesterday he had been told he was ”out of his mind” by some in the media after writing that the science of global warming ”doesn’t seem to stack up”.
Declaring global warming might not be such an important issue, Professor Aitkin argued in a speech to the Planning Insitute of Australia this month that counter measures such as carbon trading were likely to be unnecessary, expensive and futile without stronger evidence of a crisis.
The eminent historian and political scientist said in a speech called A Cool Look at Global Warming, which has received little public attention, that he was urged not to express his contrary views to orthodox thinking because he would be demonised.
He says critics who question the impact of global warming are commonly ignored or attacked because ”scientist activists” from a quasi-religious movement have spread a flawed message that ”the science is settled” and ”the debate is over”.
Professor Aitkin is a former vice-chancellor at the University of Canberra, foundation chairman of the Australian Research Council and a distinguished researcher at the Australian National University and Macquarie University.
Although not a scientist, he has brought his critical approach as an experienced academic accustomed to testing theories to a debate he says so far lacks clear evidence.
Professor Aitkin’s speech cast strong doubt on the Rudd Government’s plan to impose significant limits on carbon emissions as the key to combating climate change, while the developing economies of China and India become the world’s biggest polluters. ”I doubt the proposed extraordinary policies will actually happen,” he said. ”China and India will not reduce their own use of carbon.”
According to Professor Aitkin, attempts to set carbon-use levels in Europe, to be emulated by Australia, have been laughable because of absurd errors involved in allocating quotas and the potential for fraud. He believes carbon trading will lead to rorts, and that the ”bubble will burst” on enthusiasm for urgently containing the carbon-producing effects of burning coal and oil.
The story of the human impact on climate change, which Professor Aitkin calls Anthropogenic Global Warming, ”doesn’t seem to stack up as the best science”, according to his own research.
Despite thousands of scientists allegedly having ”consensus” on global warming, he says there is an absence of convincing data: ”Put simply, despite all the hype and models and the catastrophic predictions, it seems to me that we human beings barely understand ‘climate’. It is too vast a domain.”
Much of the evidence of global warming, he says, is based on computer modelling that does not take account of variables, and does not cover the whole planet.
Professor Aitkin calls himself a global warming ”agnostic”, and his comments are a direct challenge to the orthodoxy successfully promoted by influential figures such as former Australian of the Year Tim Flannery, whose scientific expertise is paleontology, despite his popular writings on climate change.
The basis of the Kyoto Protocol, signed by the Rudd Government, is unvalidated models that cannot provide evidence of anything, Professor Aitkin argues. But he says the Rudd Government is among policy-makers trapped, willingly or unwillingly, by the world view of climate change campaigners who take a ”quasi-religious view” that the dangers of global warming cannot be doubted.
Professor Aitkin told The Australian last night that Kevin Rudd’s climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut, was ”a captive” because of the riding instructions he had been given to provide solutions that accepted global warming as fact.
In his speech, he says: ”The hard-heads may not buy the story, but they do want to be elected or re-elected.
”Democratic governments facing elections are sensitive to popular movements that could have an electoral effect. I am sure that it was this electoral perception that caused the Howard government at the end to move significantly towards Kyoto and indicate a preparedness to go down the Kyoto path, as indeed the Labor Party had done earlier, and Kevin Rudd did as soon as he was elected.”
Professor Aitkin says the earth’s atmosphere may be warming but, if so, not by much and not in an alarming and unprecedented way.
”It is possible that the warming has a ‘significant human influence’, to use the (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s) term, and I do not dismiss the possibility.
”But there are other powerful possible causes that have nothing to do with us.”
He says an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide over the past century is agreed, some of it due to fossil fuels, cement-making and agriculture. However, normal production of CO2 is not known, and it makes up only a tiny part of the atmosphere. ”How does a small increase in a very small component have such a large apparent effect? The truth is that no one has yet shown that it does.”
According to the professor, much of the inadequate policy-making on climate change is based on ”over-certainty in the absence of convincing argument and data” and ”over-reliance on computer models”.
”While governments can never ignore what they see as popular feeling, good policy cannot be based on moods,” he says.