If I was Dutch* and living below sea level, I would be informing myself about AGW and climate change, big time. And voting for bigger dykes. Jules' Klimaatblog is me, if I were Dutch*. And funnier...
But is he really that funny? He sounds serious.
Let's ask Bablefish...
Yes funny. Ignoring 'onbetrouwbaar' and Zen translating from bablefish to zEnglish I get...This blog seeks to provide context and background to climate change concerns, and to expose the lobbies that have contaminated the public airing of the scientific debate with the intention of confusing the general public's understanding of the scientific conclusions.
Check it out: good blogroll, lot's on AGW denialism, global warming primers, great visuals, half of it is in English, and between the English and the graphs, etc, you can roughly get a sense of what Jules is saying. Bablefish helps some. Well, you can see how much. But the point is that you know what Jules is saying because it is what every other scientific realist has been saying for 20 years — there are these freaks called Big Fossil Fuel who fund propaganda outfits to run interference on the public understanding of what climate science is telling us. The intention is to keep selling cheap oil and coal for as long as possible, disinformation is big money for as long as they don't have to factor in the cost of their pollution.
*A Dutch-speaking Belgian, in fact.
Technorati Tags: global warming, climate change
But is he really that funny? He sounds serious.
Deze blog om wat meer achtergrond te geven over klimaatverandering, en tevens over het lobbywerk dat het wetenschappelijk debat tracht te contamineren met als bedoeling de wetenschappelijke conclusies op deze wijze bij het grote publiek af te doen als onbeslist en of onbetrouwbaar.
Let's ask Bablefish...
These blog to what more context to give concerning climate change, and tevens concerning the entrance hall work which tries the scientific debate at contamineren with the intention the scientific taking off conclusions this way at the general public as outstanding and or onbetrouwbaar.
Yes funny. Ignoring 'onbetrouwbaar' and Zen translating from bablefish to zEnglish I get...This blog seeks to provide context and background to climate change concerns, and to expose the lobbies that have contaminated the public airing of the scientific debate with the intention of confusing the general public's understanding of the scientific conclusions.
Check it out: good blogroll, lot's on AGW denialism, global warming primers, great visuals, half of it is in English, and between the English and the graphs, etc, you can roughly get a sense of what Jules is saying. Bablefish helps some. Well, you can see how much. But the point is that you know what Jules is saying because it is what every other scientific realist has been saying for 20 years — there are these freaks called Big Fossil Fuel who fund propaganda outfits to run interference on the public understanding of what climate science is telling us. The intention is to keep selling cheap oil and coal for as long as possible, disinformation is big money for as long as they don't have to factor in the cost of their pollution.
*A Dutch-speaking Belgian, in fact.
Technorati Tags: global warming, climate change
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDidn't know i couldn't edit my comment, which explains the deleted comment above.
ReplyDeleteWanted to say :
Thanks for the surprisingly positive comment about my blog which makes me blush like a little schoolgirl ;-)
I am serious about the blog, that's for sure, and will maintain it once back from my holidays (never start a blog and subsequently leave for two months :) and have the feeling because of that holidays i made a false start for i quickly made some posts to make sure the blog wasn't looking too empty, but the real blogging has to start yet.
Your beyond-bablefish translation is pretty accurate. The last words "als onbeslist en of onbetrouwbaar" shoud be translated as "undecided (instead of 'outstanding') and/or unreliable".
The language to blog in IS a problem for people from non-English speaking couintries : Dutch blogger Bert Verheggen (http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/) writes every post twice, once in Dutch and once in English.
Maybe i'm going to do that tranlating of my own posts too; but only for posts i find important and/or 'innovationg' enough to invest my time in such double work.
Like the rebuttal of the piece i'm currently working on by a Belgian libertarian who wrote one of the biggest (and longest too unfortunately) pieces of nonsense i ever read coming from someone with an academic background. For i'm sure that rebuttal is something which isn't on the net yet...
Stay tuned in august ;-)
i have to disagree a little with your conclusions in your last alinea though : yes the 'denialists' (or 'sceptics' or whatever you want to dub them) receive loads of "exxon" money, but i believe the true root of the scepticism is a semi-religious belief in free-market politics. Actually this will receive a great deal of attention in the long rebuttal mentioned above. Those people would be saying exactly the same thing if did not receive one dollar from the industry (yet would reach less attention).
kind regards,
jules
p.s actually i'm Belgian, but from the Dutch speaking part. Not that it really matters :)
You style is good, I recommend you reach out to the anglobloggosphere. I'm in Aussie, I get a fair share of my hits from the US.
ReplyDeleteI like the way you have honed in on the AGW denial machine in your commentary.
...but i believe the true root of the scepticism is a semi-religious belief in free-market politics.
Interesting thought. I await your thesis with interest.
I came to this conclusion by actually debating with sceptics (and having exactly the same feeling as when debating with creationists) and noticing which kind of arguements they use
ReplyDeleteBut by far i wasn't the first to notice this thing, a good read p.ex. would be "How Climate Science Became a Victim of the Cold War" by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway
Science can conclude anything it wants. As long as it agrees with the free-market dogma. Otherwise science is wrong.