skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been the main vehicle to spread the so-called "scientific" evidence in favour of the climate change ideology. Yet, the more we poke around, the less scientific the IPCC turns out to be.
Claims that thousands of scientists contribute to the report are hugely overblown and misleading. And now we learn that interest groups are sometimes cited as the only evidence for some of the damage that climate change is supposed to wreak on our planet. Case in point:
Considered the climate Bible by governments around the world, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is meant to be a scientific analysis of the most authoritative research.
Instead, it references literature generated by Greenpeace - an organization known more for headline-grabbing publicity stunts than sober-minded analysis. (Eight IPCC-cited Greenpeace publications are listed at the bottom of this post.) (Source)
The article that I quote goes on to cite many examples where the IPCC relies on interest groups like the World Wildlife Federation, Friends of the Earth or the David Suzuki Foundation for some of their "scientific" evidence. This is a dangerous route. (By the way, don't be deceived by the David Suzuki Foundation's charismatic leader. The group is extremely politicized and ideologically driven.)
You should browse the blog quoted above, authored by Donna Laframboise of Toronto. She does a good job of exposing the holes in the credibility of the climate-change-theorists. You won't find this valuable info in the main stream media.
.
The folks pushing the climate change ideology have gone from desperate to outright ridiculous. After the incalculable damage done to their credibility by ClimateGate, now we have this claim: "Report: Harsh winter a sign of climate change" (see picture).
This report cited in the article comes from that great bastion of scientific analysis called the National Wildlife Federation (cue the sarcastic laughter).
If you've been following the climate change debate, you've realized by now that any weather development is "evidence" of global warming.
If it's hot, you obviously blame it on global warming.
If it's cold and snowy, it's also global warming.
If it's wet or dry, blame global warming.
Heck, I've even seen some people try to blame the tsunami and earthquakes on global warming.
We all know people who cling irrationally to unprovable theories and who interpret any new evidence as a confirmation of their view. It's called paranoia. It's also called conspiracy theory. You can't reason with such folks. If you try, they cut you out of their "peer reviewed" journals and they fudge their numbers to try and prove you wrong.
I'm not surprised that radicalized environmental groups pursue this road, but it annoys me when the main stream media swallows the bait, hook, line and sinker. The article featured in this picture is from MS-NBC. The report was also featured in the Washington Post. Goes to show that you really can't trust the main stream media anymore.
.
Here is an excellent article published on MacLean's web site. I found it very balanced and down to earth. It talks about the horrible sexual abuses committed by too many priests over the years. It offers a very compassionate discussion of the immense suffering that the victims have undergone. It sympathizes with the contempt that good priests now have to face because of the sins of their brothers. But the article points to a truth that is too often overlooked and that needs to be repeated:
But at the risk of downplaying decades of unspeakable abuse—or forgiving a Church hierarchy that moved heaven and earth to suppress scandal and protect criminal clergy—an obvious point is often ignored: the vast, vast majority of Catholic priests are not sexual predators. In fact, the scientific research suggests that men who target children are no more pervasive in the priesthood (and perhaps less pervasive) than in any other segment of society. Depending on the study, somewhere between two and four per cent of priests have had sexual contact with a minor. Or, to put it another way, between 96 and 98 per cent have not.
“It’s part of that myth—the myth of the pedophile priest who can’t help himself,” says Thomas Plante, a psychology professor at Santa Clara University who has published dozens of studies about sexually abusive priests. “It’s really an issue of perception rather than reality. Believe it or not, probably the safest place for a kid to be is in a Catholic church environment.”
My only reservation with this article is that it tends to use the term "pedophile" to describe these priests who abuse children. Later they say that a more accurate term would be "ephebophiles,": which means "people
Disclaimer to protect myself from Human Rights Commissions (normal people need not read this paragraph): I hereby solemnly declare that I do not harbour any hatred or anger towards any religion or religious group, especially not Islam or Muslims. I do not advocate any form of violence, hatred or discimination against Muslims. I am simply concerned by the statements made by Muslims themselves to the effect that they support terrorist acts. I am therefore exploring the implications of their position on the public good of Canadians and the world.
