Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global ...

and animal sacrifices. Science taught us that that was not founded, and here that this old
antiquated belief re-appears with a found vitality, and who in more is pressed on the
scientists in the name of science," he explained. (translated) (LINK)
James Woudhuysen, a professor of Forecasting and Innovation at De Montfort
University in Britain, critiqued the environmental movement from a liberal perspective.
"Science seems to have become the Great Dictator, and no dissent can be allowed. We refer
to this as the New Scientism. We call it new to distinguish it from the old sort - the sort
that, ironically enough, was organised by US imperialism in the Cold War," Woudhuysen
wrote on February 5, 2007. "As with the original Cold War scientism, the New Scientism
perverts objective science towards questionable political ends," he wrote. "Ironically,
greens now rehabilitate the Cold War scientism of RAND, which they affect to hate so
much, so as to legitimise not the Cold War, but today's war on personal behaviour - the war
to colonise people's minds, make them internalise green mores, and make them spend all
their time buying (and repairing) windmills, sorting their rubbish, and turning off their
consumer electronics equipment. Instead of rationing access to fallout shelters, David
Miliband wants a nationwide scheme to ration carbon," he added. Woudhuysen also
mocked the UN IPCC's claims of "consensus." "Some have used the IPCC summary to
assert that the debate on climate change is over. In part, this stems from the proclamations
of the IPCC itself and its supporters. For example, Achim Steiner said that 2 February, the
day the summary was published, would be ‗remembered as the day the question mark was
removed'. Anyone interested in genuine scientific inquiry, not to mention political debate,
should always be concerned when question marks are removed," Woudhuysen wrote. "The
heart of the problem with today's supposed consensus on climate science is not so much a
false claim to knowledge of how climate works, as an assertion that such knowledge can
tell us how to live our lives. In this sense, the real consensus on climate change today is
more political than scientific. It is a consensus that privileges emotional fears of loss, and
which is based on apocalyptic thinking and doubt about humanity's achievements and
capabilities," he added. (LINK)
Geologist Peter Sciaky who has served as a chief geologist for companies and written
scientific reports, declared himself a skeptic of man-made climate change in 2007.
"Among all my liberal and leftist friends (and I am certainly one of those), I know not a
one who does not accept that global warming is an event caused by mankind. I do not know
one geologist who believes that global warming is not taking place. I do not know a single
geologist who believes that it is a man-made phenomenon," Sciaky wrote in a June 9, 2007
article at CounterPunch.org. "A geologist has a much longer perspective. There are several
salient points about our earth that the greenhouse theorists overlook (or are not aware). The
first of these is that the planet has never been this cool," Sciaky wrote. "There is abundant
fossil evidence to support this--from plants of the monocot order (such as palm trees) in the
rocks of Cretaceous Age in Greenland and warm water fossil in sedimentary rocks of the
far north. This is hardly the first warming period in the earth's history. The present global
warming is hardly unique. It is arriving pretty much ‗on schedule.' One thing, for sure, is
that the environmental community has always spurned any input from geologists (many of
whom are employed by the petroleum industry)," Sciaky wrote. "There are hundreds of
reasons--political, pragmatic and economic, health and environmental--for cleaning up our
environment, for conservation of energy, for developing alternate fuels, cleaning up our
nuclear program, etc. Global warming is not one of them," he concluded. (LINK)
207