Is man-made Global Warming theory an irrational ideology that is opposed to scientific and industrial progress?

Well I have an interesting point on this matter now that I refresh myself with that statement (signed by 72 Nobel Laureates no less! Note that an IPCC author is NOT a Nobel Laureate.) I see one of the their points is:

"The Appeal was for an anthropocentric assessment of the world's resources and a utilitarian as opposed to abolitionist approach to hazardous substances used or created by technology."

We know that virtually the entire reason environmentalists exist is to point out hazardous human products like asbestos, acid rain, CFCs, nuclear waste, PCBs, etc. And there's nothing wrong with that. But where are they with the wind turbines shredding birds, blighting the landscape and affect humans medically? And even worse, look at some of the mess left by solar power companies. Read this: http://www.ncbr.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201...

If that was a fossil fuel company who left that mess do you think we'd hear about it? Anyways, the lack of environmental voice regarding the pitfalls of wind and solar power is a clear indication of a hypocritical and irrational view of the situation. They are ideologists. Frankly, I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what their ideology is lately. It seems to be a general hatred of fossil fuels with another segment also hating nuclear and a and yet another hating hydro power. But wind and solar is "free" and "renewable" and "clean" and thus cannot be wrong and thus in NEVER criticized. How is that possible?

"Is man-made Global Warming theory the "irrational ideology" the Heidelberg Appeal is talking about? "

Hard to say, but it's certainly not an unreasonable speculation.

______________________________________________________________

@antarcticice: RE: Your link to sourcewatch.org. Egads, what a dreadful article. Really hard to read. Full of speculation, opinion, conjecture and overall wishful thinking. After (painfully) reading it, I have no idea what the "scam" was. None at all. It just looks like the author is listing a whole lot of people and orgs he doesn't like. What fluff. It's not even an intelligent analysis.

Back the original question. I have some quotes which may help answer it:

Club of Rome: "In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."

Maurice Strong (former under-secretary general of the United Nations): "Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse."

That sure sounds like opposition to scientific and industrial progress to me.

Of course it is irrational and can't stand up to scrutiny.

Joseph Goebbel,

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Notice in particular, "It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent."

This is example:

Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”

Notice also:

" for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie" This is why the 'saviors of the earth' on this site lie and misrepresent and even would throw their own grannies under the bus to promote their lying agenda.

If this theory had some rationality to it, its proponents would want the truth, rather than suppress it. The proponents have no characteristics of those who want an honest debate.

Quote by Ross Gelbsan, former journalist: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.”

Let us say that if it was rational, its proponents would welcome honest debate.

No. AGW is a theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that we have increased the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere by 40%, both have been proven and it is irrational to claim that this has no effect on the heat retention capacity of the atmosphere.

Lets point out some the irrational statements on this question.

It is irrational to claim that the thousands of climate scientist all over the world are working together in secret publishing and endorsing science papers in order to get politicians to raise taxes on every one, including the scientists. Really there is no conspiracy...

It is irrational that you (and other deniers) still ignore the fact that carbon dioxide is transparent to visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared.

It is irrational to claim that advances in AGW sciences are opposed to scientific progress.

It is irrational to claim that developing renewable energy sources and improving efficiency are opposed to industrial progress. (it is also alarmist)

It is irrational to claim that the United Nations goal is to depopulate the earth. (another conspiracy theory and alarmist)

It is irrational to claim that environmentalist are not concerned about human or animal health.

It is irrational to claim problems with pollution in the manufacture of solar panels go unreported, while linking to the "Northern Colorado Business Report"

It is irrational to claim that If that was a fossil fuel company who left that mess do you think we'd hear about it, North Dakota recorded 300 oil spills in two years and we didn't get 300 stories of each individual oil spill. [1]

It is irrational to claim that ozone depletion, deforestation, air pollution, overfishing, chemicals like nitrates and hormones in our food, plastic trash in our oceans are not addressed by environmentalist.

It is irrational to claim that a consensus amongst scientist about science is wrong without producing scientific evidence that contradicts the theory.

It is irrational to claim that the scientist are a part of a "movement" and that there is an unquestioning allegiance to that "movement". (another conspiracy theory)

It is irrational to claim that SARS, Swine Flu and Y2k were insignificant potential problems because SARS only killed 775 people (9.6% of the people who got the disease) , in the case of SARS and Y2k they were addressed and resolved before they became a problem.

It is irrational to post an inaccurate quote about the "big lie". [2] Then again what else do we expect from a Nazi sympathizer who advocates for execution of over 60 million Americans for the crime of voting for the "wrong" candidate...

EDIT:

It is fine if you didn't read it, it only shows that it is the deniers who do not want an open debate. Go on stick your head in the sand, how irrational....

As I pointed out almost every argument that is made by the deniers on this question has been illogical, now you add even more illogical arguments in your additional information.

It is illogical to claim that because an event occurred naturally, mankind can not create similar events.

It is illogical to claim that CO2 lags the temperature, when the graph you use in oder to support your claim shows that we should be more then 10 °C warmer today in order to produce the current CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

And as I pointed out in the past, It is illogical for you to use data that can only be true if the earth is at least 800,000 years old when you (a young earth creationist) claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

@ O.M. It is illogical to get the quote wrong when we all have access to search engines. Furthermore it is illogical to suggest that there is not a genuine threat because the threat is used for something you may or may not agree with (in this case to unite people.) [3] You still have to show that AGW will not affect our climates as the science overwhelmingly says it has and will.

Your second quote is hearsay, wikipedia lists the national review as the source, unless you come up with a better source, we will just have to take Ronald Bailey's word that this is what Maurice Strong said and if it was, not taken out of context.. [4] Even if we accept the "quote" as accurate and in context, it does not prove or disprove the science.

ABSOLUTELY.

I don't have the numbers--for and against--but I find the AGW premise argument unconvincing. There are something like twelve aspects of this argument which are problematic...and, incidentally, real science is not based on a show of hands. This argument has become much more a matter of dogma,..or perhaps propaganda...than something based on a dispassionate examination of the evidence. Fact is, any actual (very, very modest) temp elevation leveled off in the late nineties, and does not present a reasonable basis for catastrophic predictions for, say, 2050. If world temps are now stable, a supportable prediction would tend to reflect the very same temps in 2050.

The appeal is about the whole of radical environmentalism, of which the global warming movement is a central part. The irrational nature of the movement has to do with the unquestioning allegiance to the principles of the movement (Lifton would call it the 'sacred science').

Nothing which cannot be questioned is science; it is dogma (religion). What the warmists are opposed to may vary from individual to individual; but, the central theme is that dissent is not tolerated. All those who disagree are blasphemers (deniers), and must be discounted (dispensed with).

All of this is anti-scientific.

i think that Global warming is soundly based on science, and it is now only a threat to the progress of businesses who profit from fossil fuels. We needed fossil fuels in the past, but now that we understand the threat of carbon pollution to our civilization, we need to develop industries based on sustainable energy sources.

:-) This can be confusing to anyone who doesn't understand the "whole" of the context. You are digging deep into the soul of humanity with this question. Thanks for asking!

I did have time to read OM's take, but I doubt that he realizes the controls that the United Nations has on most conscientious (and un-conscientious) observers. Maybe he should contact "The Water Lady" out in the San Francisco area and get a real impact statement on how our water supply has affected people's intelligence through United Nation's initiatives from Agenda 21 Depopulation? Just a thought for OM.

I'm not one to give any credence to Nobel Laureates at this point in time! There is a cause of cancer, and the United Nations has figured it out. "The Water Lady" has much info on this matter. Breast cancer? Have fun OM!

Good talking to you too Maxx!

It's obvious that Ottawa Mike doesn't believe humans have an inherent dominion over other animals, mammals, or the rest of the Planet even though it is bigger and more complicated than his own belief will allow him to understand. He brings intelligent issues to the subject anyways. Thanks OM!

Global warming is soundly based on science, and it is now only a threat to the progress of businesses who profit from fossil fuels. We needed fossil fuels in the past, but now that we understand the threat of carbon pollution to our civilization, we need to develop industries based on sustainable energy sources.

These are almost funny, given the 170+ theories deniers peddle, are you sure you really want to raise "irrational ideology"

As for the "Heidelberg Appeal" this is a now quite old denier sham, one with a documented history

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heidelb...

Yawn!

Perhaps, but I wish they would consider more about ozone depletion, deforestation, air pollution, overfishing, chemicals like nitrates and hormones in our food, plastic trash in our oceans, instead of just going on about CO2 which seems more beneficial than harmful.