An article written by Sean Gonsalves will have people believe that anyone who does not stand behind the weak quasi-science publications of the IPCC and who do not “believe the warnings of global warming scientists” are suffering from “paranoid fantasies imagined by those hopelessly out-of-touch with reality” and likely to be part of the right-wing America.

It makes me wonder if Mr. Gonsalves is able to look beyond the group he describes in his article, and beyond the borders of America. If he did he would find that many other nations and many other scientists there are also not putting their weight behind the IPCC and the global warming hype. Sure things are warming up but evidently not for the reasons that the “authorities” will have us –like Mr. Gonsalves does– believe.

Mr. Gonsalves claims to not have seen, nor intend to see, Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth”. Yet he’s more than ready and willing to accept the reports that already have admitted errors in them because “most of us must inevitably depend upon (authority) for most of our knowledge”. We think that everyone should see Al Gore’s movie. And then look at both sides of the debate and research. A 10-year old would probably spot all the errors and tweaked science. But Mr. Gonsalves is probably a “precautionist” (is that the opposite of the conspiracy theorists he is writing about?) who thinks that;

It’s better to believe the warnings of global warming scientists and adhere to the “precautionary principle” than not believe and suffer the consequences.

If that’s the basis of a belief in Global Warming as per the reporting by the IPCC, a belief not being the same as knowledge, then perhaps Mr. Gonsalves should not drive a car because that’s dangerous. And maybe avoid food because there have been instances in the past were food was contaminated. Why even venture outside of our homes when things have been shown to come falling out of the sky, be it meteorites or bricks from a building construction? If we all stay inside our homes we’re safe. It’s a precaution. Of course that’s a silly and unrealistic form of taking precautions and maybe Mr. Gonsalves will agree on that. However, there is a difference between individuals taking precautions based on their beliefs and having the beliefs of others, beliefs based on rigged science and incorrect models, forced down the throats of everyone else. Something Mr. Gonsalves implies he’s in favor of. Why take a chance if you can adhere to precautionary principles? But Mr. Gonsalves has a picture of how a “global warming conspiracy crowd” must look and according to him it’s a group of people who believe that “climate science is filled with a bunch of Unabombers; a collection of Ted Kaczynskis”. Maybe it’s just me but I thought the Kaczynkski’s of the world are the actual conspiracy koo-koo’s.

Of course we have to take Mr. Gonsalves’ article with a few grains of salt. Afterall, he derives his beliefs on figures of authority that are confined to only his own field of view, a view that is well within the limited borders of America it seems. Perhaps if Mr. Gonsalves did some research into how economies work he would not write things like;

And it’s just absurd to think that corporations and governments want to give millions of dollars to scientists whose research indicates our entire way of living is a global threat.

Ever heard of the word investment? Corporations and governments invest money in the hopes that there will be a return on that investment. A government, as history shows, will happily invest money into things that people would consider a ludicrous idea, only to have it later on turn into a form of tax that benefits the growth of government. Ditto for corporations. Investing in the global warming scam is the hip thing to do if you’re a government or large corporation. But not for reasons of saving the environment.

No, all the global warming talk is about climate chance, not about reducing pollution which is a real issue and which is shown to be to the detriment of the human population and nature itself. In the end, Mr. Gonsalves did write something sensible, though. He wants the younger generation to “take over the environmental conversation”. That’s exactly what we’re doing, thank you very much. Except, Mr. Gonsalves would probably have you believe that we’re a group of old-timers because our findings that are contrary to the IPCC reports would not fit in with his beliefs that the rest of us who don’t stand behind the IPCC believe that the “pro-global warming crowd” consists of Unabombers. That’s just proposterous. We don’t need Mr. Gonsalves to tell us what we believe.