First we saw the alleged "consensus" of a supposed 2,500 "scientists" telling us that we are destroying Earth and that we must stop using energy or else a massive climactic catastrophe will ensue and wipe out the human race (but their confidence level, in fine print, that we're at fault, is only 90%, plus I've read that many of the "scientists" never really agreed with the position of the IPCC organization and that their signatures aren't worth much more than the ink with which they're squiggled).
Now we have a "consensus" of 130 people who want the "safe-injection site" in Vancouver to remain in operation. These folks clearly are of an ideological bias themselves and are playing IPCC, claiming they know scientifically that these druggie-shooting centers are good for society, good for the druggies, are actually widely used by the druggies and are going to get druggies off the streets and ultimately reduce drug use in the streets. One must question them, investigate them. Especially because they're getting all political about it now while telling politicians not to get political! Hoo boy!
Hey! I had a great idea! Let's get a whole bunch of conservative-in-ideology scientists to gather together, formulate a claim that they've proven something that the left won't like one bit and announce that they're "in consensus" that this thing must be as they declare! Now, that'll work- if it works for the leftist scientists to carry through such an impressive scheme, then it'll work for anyone! Nothing will be too farfetched!
Expect to see more of these "consensuses" (is that a word?!) by leftist scientists (and later conservative ones) in grand schemes to force governments to forget about important stuff and do what the consensus-mongers want.
Nevertheless, notwithstanding the leftwing group's claims of scientific proof supporting their position of keeping these shoot-yourself-up-high-as-a-kite fun factories in operation (on the taxpayer's dime, mind y'all!), I accuse them of faking and of defaming the government by accusing it of being merely "ideological".
So they say the government is being ideological, not scientific? Well, I ask: How do they know? Have they been made privy to Health Department documents and so on? Have they been granted access to the government's scientific research into the matter? I'd be bloody surprised if they had been! It would be unprecedented, as far as I know! Imagine that: a bunch of self-proclaimed "experts" demanding access to whatever they want in the government. And being granted such access. Heh- I don't think so!
Yes, I'm a "denier". I deny that we need to have places folks can go to to get high. If people are addicted, then they must go to some kind of rehab clinic... to get off the drugs, not to keep doing them, and doing them at taxpayer expense, to boot! So I suggest that the money that goes into the injection sites be reallocated to rehab clinics to get people off the drugs.
Besides, I've heard that at least some of the junkies don't go to the sites as they're frustrated at the bureaucrats there who tell them how much and when they may do. I mean, really, do you think junkies are going to do what they're told, rather than what they want to do? Get real. Junkies are already stuck in the nightmare world of only doing what they feel like doing, no matter what, no matter what anyone else says. And destroying themselves. It would be evil to actually help them to continue to destroy themselves!
So I'll see if I can find this alleged "scientific evidence" of which the consensus-mongers speak so adamantly. Should be interesting. Wonder if they have millions of pages just like the IPCC does, so no one will be able to make any sense of the mountain range of alleged "evidence"?
Still, no "consensus" of self-proclaimed "experts" can compel the government to do or not do anything. It takes a vast, well-organized, well-planned, well-funded conspiracy, such as that created by Maurice Strong (the chief architect of the Kyoto Protocol as well as apparently having a lot to do with the UN-Iraq Oil for Food Scandal, and who has been in voluntary exile in China since his name came up regarding the latter and has recently been in a conspiracy with George Soros and Malcolm Bricklin to dump cheap Chinese crap cars onto the NA market) and Al Gore (you know what's what about that snake oil salesman! The guy makes Benny Hinn look like an amateur!) and is known as "global warming" and "climate change".
Wonder what they'll come up with next? I know! They'll push the human-rights-for-monkeys nonsense!
UPDATE
Here's the "evidence" offered. Not much, is it? Real impressive, eh? Much better than what the Government of Canada can do, eh? Sorry, not impressed. You would call the Government of Canada "ideological", yet this is all you offer? You claim proof and that everyone must agree?
It comes across as quite political and ideological as I read it. Not so much in the way of scientific evidence I can see, other than a few references, amongst which are mainstream media (MSM) reports. MSM. Think about that. Some of his sources are MSM!
I think that Mr. Hwang and his 129 comrades are as ideological as anyone could be. They clearly want there to be "injection sites". I note also that they don't mention that it's a good idea for people to get off drugs rather than keep using them.
As for the 130 "experts", so they "endorse" his commentary. Ok, but the places they work for do not, it is disclaimered.
(...) have endorsed Dr. Hwang’s commentary, and their names are listed below. Institutional affiliations are provided for identification purposes only; no endorsement by any of these institutions is intended or should be inferred.
Well, nothing's wrong with "endorsing" something. I guess "peer-reviewed", an impressive-sounding (but perhaps ultimately meaningless) phrase, means that they "endorse" whatever someone asserts. I doubt that those who sign (just like the IPCC consensus-mongers) actually are tested to determine whether they actually read any evidence or even the commentary. What's stopping them from simply signing, like we do with contracts without reading them at all? Impress your colleagues by acquiescing and "fitting in" and your future will be more financially rewarding. Refuse and, well, we've heard what has been happening to scientists who question the IPCC's claims.
It's a lot like being in politics. If you belong to a political party, it is expected that you endorse its ideology and policy positions, even if you don't agree with it all. No one likes a refusenik, I guess.
It's okay to doubt. Doubt is healthy.
