jump to navigation

Contradict a green at your peril March 20, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , , ,
trackback

Contradict a green at your peril

Andrew Bolt, HeraldSun, March 20, 2009

Confront a green zealot and you could be hauled up for persecuting a religious minority:

Mr Nicholson, 41, was made redundant while head of sustainability at Grainger, Britain’s biggest residential property investment company, in July last year.  In the first case of its kind he has been given permission to sue his former employers for unfair dismissal, arguing that his beliefs on the environment prompted clashes with other senior executives, and led to his sacking.

Mr Nicholson said that his frustrations were underlined when the Rupert Dickinson, the chief executive, “showed contempt for the need to cut carbon emissions by flying out a member of the IT staff to Ireland to deliver his BlackBerry that he had left behind in London”… He said that Grainger’s executives would turn up for meetings in “some of the most high polluting cars on the road”.

But the company is defending itself by conceding precisely what it should deny:

Grainger sought to have Mr Nicholson’s case struck out arguing that his views on climate change were based on fact and science, not on philosophical belief.

UPDATE

Warming alarmist and filmmarker Gabriel London admits more than he should:

It sounds trite, but here’s my hunch: beliefs in global warming rise and fall with, well… the mercury. And that spells trouble for those of us who believe we need to make changes now to head off global warming.

Sum up: cold temperatures are frustrating alarmists who claim we’re actually hot.

Comments»

1. Tel - March 21, 2009

http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/prayer.asp

“I don’t know how I’m going to decide this, but as it appears from the paperwork, we have a bar owner that believes in the power of prayer, and an entire church congregation that does not.”

2. Tel - March 21, 2009

Having posted the smart-arse link, I feel the need to humicubate by accepting that climate change does quite reasonably fall under the category of a political belief, and such beliefs generally involve a mixture of genuine observation combined with a measure of blind faith. There is a fairly solid understanding in modern society that people should not be persecuted for unpopular political beliefs any more than religious beliefs (within reason I guess, they still have to obey the common law).

For example, I might observe that there are executives being paid millions of dollars who obviously aren’t really earning this money (and worse, getting paid bonus money for failure). From this I might come to the political conclusion that our structure of Capitalism has a few faults (which is a belief based on observation, but also philosophical).

From that point of view, I think Nicholson might have a case, but he is going to have trouble proving the reason he was made redundant (especially in the current economic climate).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: