Let’s get up a great big hand for one of the best European climate change dissemblers, the previously unremarked Scientific Alliance.
The Alliance appears to be one of those โintellectualโ sweatshops that industry cobbles together in the guise of a think tank. In these vacuous vessels, said intellectuals-for-hire produce dogma on demand โ questionable โscientificโ material designed to excuse their industrial financiers from taking any responsibility for the environmental costs they are dumping onย society.
The Alliance provides a gorgeous example with its diatribe on climate change, the most entertaining part of which isย this:
A number of questions surrounding the science behind the climate change debate pose challenges to the notion that there is scientific consensus on climate change. Instead of blindly or ideologically invoking the ‘precautionary principle’ as a justification for the Kyoto protocol, we should take a step back and consider all the possible consequences, both of climate change and of the measures taken to preventย it.โ
First, there is no legitimate โchallenge to the notion that there is scientific consensus on climateย change.โ
Second, imagine the Orwellian twist of logic involved in conceiving a sentence that includes โblindly or ideologically invoking the ‘precautionaryย principle.’โ
That principle suggests that we should, indeed, step back and consider all the possible consequences or our actions โ ideological or otherwise. It suggests, for example, that we should not be pursuing a global fossil fuel consumption pattern that threatens to make the planetย uninhabitable.
Anyway, read their blather if youย dare.
Pay close attention to the 17 questions, each designed to suggest 17 areas of doubt. Then read the seven almost-entirely unrelated โanswers.โ You’ll come away with a headache or a lingering sense of doubt โ which was the wholeย point.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts