The name George Monbiot sounded familiar to me, and I might have read some of his columns in The Guardian before. Maybe journos of the writing profession don't need any interview skills, or they are not used to TV interviews. However, if Mr. Monbiot represents a well acclaimed journo I'm more than happy that I trashed my idea of a degree in Media.
The self-confessed 'evangelical atheist' has embarked on a crusade against 'climate skeptics', and was given the chance to debate one in person. His believe system could not cope with disagreement, and his assumptions about the world around him sounded amazingly naive.
'Science has to be be open and tranparent'. Now that's interesting. I have to pay to see scientific papers, and any paper touching anything that's potentially related to 'national security' is most likely out of bounds. Most security, however, lies in the obscurity embedded in academic language, which makes most 'scientific findings' incomprehensive. No, Mr. Monbiot, that's lousy preparation, on a global scale, most officially done scientific research is neither open nor transparent. As evangelical atheist you might believe that scientists generate the truth religions don't want to admit, but sorry, that's just your personal believe.
The next faux pas happened when Mr. Monbiot talked about 'unequivocal opinion' of the scientific community, something fairly unfamiliar in scientific history. Science has some amazing theories on offer, which still haven't pervaded the mainstream myth about reality. According to physics, matter is highly elusive, and composes only a minor fraction of our perceivable universe. Einstein's relativity theory is hard to swallow in its original language, but translates easily into Hopi language.
Omg, I did the Alex Jones disgression. Not too surprising, considering how the interview played out. The 'climate skeptic' (professor sound-and-so, he didn't have much time to talk over the restless interruptions of an overeager evangelist) mentioned that the scare about climate change was basically a scam to feed bureaucracy without another scheme to collect taxes.
Of course, this had to be immediately classified as conspiracy by Mr. Monbiot. The myth about the impractibility of conspiracies, reiterated by a smirking journo, didn't enhance his performance or the flow of the debate. Kudos for Terry Jones, who stayed pleasantly neutral and called Mr. Monbiot to order several times.
Unless I assume that scientists find nothing but the 'truth', I wonder about the background of things like the Copenhagen conference. I think it's quite retarded to assume that the cause of the created climate crisis can be the cure as well. So if I go with the idea that the CO2 balance as main culprit for global warming, especially the surplus coming from burning fossile fuels, than it's out of the hands of government anyway. Energy companies have a higher annual budget than most governments, and most governments released corporations from any social obligations.
Witnessing the permanent attacks on nature made with imbecile excuses here in Australia doesn't give me any trust that the 'elected leaders' in this country give a damn about this planet. Having lived in other places convinces me that this is rather typical, and it doesn't even surprise me. Their actions create sufficient individual wealth for them and their offspring, and their influence on the 'lead' societies is rather symbolical.
Our spaceship Earth has too many captains, and only violence keeps most of them in power. The transition from the industrial to the information age seems so superfluously brutal. Obedience trumps empathy, rules relieve from responsibility. Gaia seems to have a little fever. I wonder if she would suggest carbon trading to cool her down, or if a bit respect and less rape could help.
'climate assume atheist believe climate conspiracy create debate give global governments interview language monbiot mr open paper person scientific seems sounded surprise talk
created at TagCrowd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment