Slovak Sociologist Now Questions Manmade Climate Change

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Not only in Western Europe are people doubting the assertions made by warmists, but people in Eastern Europe too. In fact they’ve been ahead of the “enlightened” western Europeans on this issue.Naturally the warmists are not amused by this. Their take on the debate in general is: “Just shut up, believe me, and don’t ask questions.”

NTZ reader Juraj Vanovcan brings our attention to an opinion piece here in the online Slovak daily SMEsk written by sociologist  Tomáš Gális, who wants to distance himself from the alarmists, called:

And what if it is not warming anymore?”

Juraj was kind enough to translate the piece into English for me, and now I offer the following brief analysis.

Gális thinks that much of the belief in AGW stems from the human need to believe in some religion, and is not based on rational scientific observation.

I really do not have a clue whether the world is warming or not. But I have a growing feeling that the whole affair has become a question of belief, or some kind of pseudo-religious conviction.”

Gális adds later:

For me as a layman, the biggest source of doubts is the religious drive of AGW fighters. I felt it most pronounced last year in Copenhagen. “Hopenhagen“ was not only a place of climate summit, but it seemed to me as a big religious meeting, where everyone expected some kind of miracle from US president Obama.”

Much of Gális’sdoubt stems from errors in the IPCC 2007 Report, sloppy meteorological measurement of temperatures, the invalidation of the hockey stick graph, and that temperatures have stagnated since 1998. There are simply just too many inconsistencies out there that have lead to doubt.

“Suspicious argumments”

Another red flag were the tired, repeated slogans that the warmist use as substitutes for scientific discourse. Gális:

Also arguments, such as “most scientists agree“, “skeptics are paid by big oil“, “we are better off to reduce our consumption as a preventive measure“ and forecasts for year 2100, which are barely testifiable, sound suspicious to me. It is suspicious that alarmists (from ranks of scientists, journalists or politicians) consider CO2 and other gases as universal initiators of climate changes and the climate change for universal initiator of many events – from floods and hurricanes, to wars.”

Gális sums it up nicely with:

As Chesterton wrote, when people will stop believing in God it does not mean they will believe in nothing; but that they will believe in anything.”

Gális makes plain what seems to escape many: when people start substituting scientific arguments with emotional pleas and dogmatism, then you know something is up.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

5 responses to “Slovak Sociologist Now Questions Manmade Climate Change”

  1. Pointman

    Thank you for the translation Juraj. When I hear ‘scientific consensus’ mentioned, I’m reminded of what the late Michael Crichton said it meant; “they don’t know”.

    His site is still up and has some fine pieces there http://www.michaelcrichton.net/

    Pointman

  2. TinyCO2

    There’s not just a need for religion, there’s a need for catastrophe. In one of Douglas Adam’s Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy radio shows, he sets Arthur down on a planet with no danger. To engender enthusiasm/excitement the people wear devices that simulate things like a broken arm or being chased by an assailant. It’s mirrored in myths and legends and modern movies. People want drama without real consequences. It explains why people are becoming disillusioned with AGW, they are only just coming to the realisation that it’s going to cost… forever. There won’t be a plucky hero/heroine who averts the disaster at the last minute, when everything goes back to normal. I think even the scientists are largely blinkered about what living under AGW theory would mean.

    Once you look at the thing realistically the first thought that should occur to you is ‘are we sure this is necessary?’ And then you’re a sceptic.

    1. DirkH

      “I think even the scientists are largely blinkered about what living under AGW theory would mean.”

      The ‘scientists’ of the AGW orthodoxy are in my not so humble opinion very mediocre bureaucrats, nothing more. Not one of them is what i would call a thinker; not one of them has published what i would call a scientific breakthrough. Every one of them is a rent seeker. There is nothing wrong about being a rent seeker, but there is also nothing scientific about it.

      1. TinyCO2

        The hardships of AGW theory aren’t rocket science. Anyone who’s calculated their own CO2 footprint must know how bloody difficult it is to reduce it significantly. But what almost every CO2aphobe seems to do, is assume the big cuts will be made by someone else. Their own CO2 output is deemed unavoidable and they think that it’s other people and Big Business who are wasting huge quantities of energy. Only they’re not.

        One of the reasons climate hawks (snigger) are so cross with sceptics is they hope that when those practical people stop denying AGW they’ll invent the perfect, cheap, safe, magical power source. Not gonna happen.

  3. Juraj V.

    Thank you Pierre. SME is the most read online newspaper in Slovakia (right-liberal oriented) and this is the first article questioning the “scientific consensus”. Their “science” section consists of die-hard alarmists, which are very quiet in recent period. Looks like internal fight is about to begin!

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close