Last week there was an op ed in which the writer suggested that "climate deniers" should be rounded up. Now, this piece from The Guardian says that "climate deniers" are as bad as holocaust deniers.
Except there's a little bit of something called "science" that would support my claim that "global warming" (which has been magically changed into "climate change" over the past couple years) does not exist.
Let's look at some "science".
Over the past many years, an actual scientist, has been monitoring satellites and gathering actual temperatures from around the globe.
The result:
Over the past many years, an actual scientist, has been monitoring satellites and gathering actual temperatures from around the globe.
The result:
Temperatures haven't changed in 17 years.
"Climate change" advocates also assume that the earth has some static, set temperature/energy level that man has disturbed, although any look into something called "history" would illustrate that this is a false assumption.
Seen any good dinosaurs lately?
OH MY GOD!!! DID WE KILL THEM TOO!?!
No. No "we" did not.
Turns out they had a period of time on earth in which they dominated and then that ended.
"Experts" that support and get hysterical about climate change should look at the long history of our planet and realize that outside of some dramatic catastrophic event, like a meteor strike or total nuclear war, the earth will continue on, with or without humans.
(BTW, is anyone else catching on to how intolerant many on the left are when you disagree with them?)
The end.
________________________________________________________________________________
MARCH 18, 2014 BY BRUCE MCQUAIN
It never fails. At some point, the mask slips among the “tolerant” members of academia and we are exposed to their real controlling and authoritarian face. Over the past few weeks there have been two good examples of this. At Harvard, we had senior Sandra Korn (“a joint history of science and studies of women, gender and sexuality concentrator”, whatever that might be) declare that academic freedom is an outdated concept and that “academic justice”is a much better concept:
In its oft-cited Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors declares that “Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results.” In principle, this policy seems sound: It would not do for academics to have their research restricted by the political whims of the moment.
Yet the liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever “free” from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?
Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.
Tolerance of ideas you don’t like or agree with? Forget about it. Instead, refuse to fund research that doesn’t conform to your agenda and we’ll call that “academic justice”. Feel a little chill?
Now we have an assistant professor of philosophy at the Rochester Institute of Technology who would like to see those who disagree with him on climate change put in jail. Apparently freedom of thought and speech and the right to disagree are outdated concepts as well. Eric Owens at the Daily Caller brings us up to date:
The professor is Lawrence Torcello. Last week, he published a 900-word-plus essay at an academic website called The Conversation.
His main complaint is his belief that certain nefarious, unidentified individuals have organized a “campaign funding misinformation.” Such a campaign, he argues, “ought to be considered criminally negligent.”
Torcello, who has a Ph.D. from the University at Buffalo, explains that there are times when criminal negligence and “science misinformation” must be linked. The threat of climate change, he says, is one of those times.
Throughout the piece, he refers to the bizarre political aftermath of an earthquake in L’Aquila, Italy, which saw six scientists imprisoned for six years each because they failed to “clearly communicate risks to the public” about living in an earthquake zone.
“Consider cases in which science communication is intentionally undermined for political and financial gain,” the assistant professor urges.
“Imagine if in L’Aquila, scientists themselves had made every effort to communicate the risks of living in an earthquake zone,” Torcello argues, but evil “financiers” of a “denialist campaign” “funded an organised [sic] campaign to discredit the consensus findings of seismology, and for that reason no preparations were made.”
“I submit that this is just what is happening with the current, well documented funding of global warming denialism,” Torcello asserts.
No mention of the current, well documented funding of global warming alarmism (Al Gore, call your booking agent). No mention of the science that counters many of the claims of alarmists. No mention of the unexplained 15 year temperature pause. In fact, no mention of anything that might derail his argument. But that’s par for the course among alarmists, and Torcello is certainly one of them. And, as he makes clear, he will not tolerate deniers because they’re not only wrong, they’re criminals:
Torcello says that people are already dying because of global warming. “Nonetheless, climate denial remains a serious deterrent against meaningful political action in the very countries most responsible for the crisis.”
As such, Torcello wants governments to make “the funding of climate denial” a crime.
“The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.”
Of course the reason he’s so upset is this new fangled thing called the internet has enabled anyone who is curious about the climate debate to actually see both sides of the argument layed out before them. For the alarmists, that has inconveniently helped a majority of people realize that the science behind the alarmism is weak at best and fraudulent in some cases. It has also helped them understand that the alarmist science that Torcello wants enshrined as “truth” was gathered from deeply flawed computer models and fudged data. And, it has also let the voices of dissenting scientists be heard. Finally, this ability for the public to weigh the arguments has found most of the public viewing climate change as a minor problem at best.
Torcello would like to make all of that a crimnal activity based simply on his belief that the alarmist argument is the accurate argument. He’d jail the heretics and deny the public the opposing argument.
The Torcellos of the world once tried to do this to a man named Gallileo. And we know how that worked out.
It is always easy to wave away those like Torcello and claim they’re an anomoly. But it seems we see more and more of them popping up each day. The struggle to gain and maintain freedom is a daily struggle. It is the Torcellos and the Korns of the world who would – for your own good, of course – be happy to help incrementally rob you of your freedoms. They must be called out each and every time they do so and exposed for what they are.
~McQ
_________________________________________________________________________________
by JAMES DELINGPOLE 22 Mar 2014 1173POST A COMMENT
Global warming 'deniers' are as bad as 'Holocaust deniers' because climate change is as "as certain as Auschwitz", a Guardian columnist, Nick Cohen, has claimed.
________________________________________________________________________________
College professor: “Jail climate change deniers!”
MARCH 18, 2014 BY BRUCE MCQUAIN
It never fails. At some point, the mask slips among the “tolerant” members of academia and we are exposed to their real controlling and authoritarian face. Over the past few weeks there have been two good examples of this. At Harvard, we had senior Sandra Korn (“a joint history of science and studies of women, gender and sexuality concentrator”, whatever that might be) declare that academic freedom is an outdated concept and that “academic justice”is a much better concept:
In its oft-cited Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors declares that “Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results.” In principle, this policy seems sound: It would not do for academics to have their research restricted by the political whims of the moment.
Yet the liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever “free” from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?
Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.
Tolerance of ideas you don’t like or agree with? Forget about it. Instead, refuse to fund research that doesn’t conform to your agenda and we’ll call that “academic justice”. Feel a little chill?
Now we have an assistant professor of philosophy at the Rochester Institute of Technology who would like to see those who disagree with him on climate change put in jail. Apparently freedom of thought and speech and the right to disagree are outdated concepts as well. Eric Owens at the Daily Caller brings us up to date:
The professor is Lawrence Torcello. Last week, he published a 900-word-plus essay at an academic website called The Conversation.
His main complaint is his belief that certain nefarious, unidentified individuals have organized a “campaign funding misinformation.” Such a campaign, he argues, “ought to be considered criminally negligent.”
Torcello, who has a Ph.D. from the University at Buffalo, explains that there are times when criminal negligence and “science misinformation” must be linked. The threat of climate change, he says, is one of those times.
Throughout the piece, he refers to the bizarre political aftermath of an earthquake in L’Aquila, Italy, which saw six scientists imprisoned for six years each because they failed to “clearly communicate risks to the public” about living in an earthquake zone.
“Consider cases in which science communication is intentionally undermined for political and financial gain,” the assistant professor urges.
“Imagine if in L’Aquila, scientists themselves had made every effort to communicate the risks of living in an earthquake zone,” Torcello argues, but evil “financiers” of a “denialist campaign” “funded an organised [sic] campaign to discredit the consensus findings of seismology, and for that reason no preparations were made.”
“I submit that this is just what is happening with the current, well documented funding of global warming denialism,” Torcello asserts.
No mention of the current, well documented funding of global warming alarmism (Al Gore, call your booking agent). No mention of the science that counters many of the claims of alarmists. No mention of the unexplained 15 year temperature pause. In fact, no mention of anything that might derail his argument. But that’s par for the course among alarmists, and Torcello is certainly one of them. And, as he makes clear, he will not tolerate deniers because they’re not only wrong, they’re criminals:
Torcello says that people are already dying because of global warming. “Nonetheless, climate denial remains a serious deterrent against meaningful political action in the very countries most responsible for the crisis.”
As such, Torcello wants governments to make “the funding of climate denial” a crime.
“The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.”
Of course the reason he’s so upset is this new fangled thing called the internet has enabled anyone who is curious about the climate debate to actually see both sides of the argument layed out before them. For the alarmists, that has inconveniently helped a majority of people realize that the science behind the alarmism is weak at best and fraudulent in some cases. It has also helped them understand that the alarmist science that Torcello wants enshrined as “truth” was gathered from deeply flawed computer models and fudged data. And, it has also let the voices of dissenting scientists be heard. Finally, this ability for the public to weigh the arguments has found most of the public viewing climate change as a minor problem at best.
Torcello would like to make all of that a crimnal activity based simply on his belief that the alarmist argument is the accurate argument. He’d jail the heretics and deny the public the opposing argument.
The Torcellos of the world once tried to do this to a man named Gallileo. And we know how that worked out.
It is always easy to wave away those like Torcello and claim they’re an anomoly. But it seems we see more and more of them popping up each day. The struggle to gain and maintain freedom is a daily struggle. It is the Torcellos and the Korns of the world who would – for your own good, of course – be happy to help incrementally rob you of your freedoms. They must be called out each and every time they do so and exposed for what they are.
~McQ
_________________________________________________________________________________
CLIMATE CHANGE 'AS CERTAIN AS AUSCHWITZ,' CLAIMS GUARDIAN
by JAMES DELINGPOLE 22 Mar 2014 1173POST A COMMENT
Global warming 'deniers' are as bad as 'Holocaust deniers' because climate change is as "as certain as Auschwitz", a Guardian columnist, Nick Cohen, has claimed.
Anyone who disagrees with this is a "bed-wetting kidult", he says.
Oh, and also, climate change deniers are a bit like people who believe in aliens.
Clive Hamilton, the Australian author of Requiem for a Species, made the essential point a few years ago that climate change denial was no longer just a corporate lobbying campaign. The opponents of science would say what they said unbribed. The movement was in the grip of "cognitive dissonance", a condition first defined by Leon Festinger and his colleagues in the 1950s . They examined a cult that had attached itself to a Chicago housewife called Dorothy Martin. She convinced her followers to resign from their jobs and sell their possessions because a great flood was to engulf the earth on 21 December 1954. They would be the only survivors. Aliens in a flying saucer would swoop down and save the chosen few.
Cohen has a well-deserved reputation as one of the British left's most thoughtful, articulate and original journalists. He is sufficiently eclectic to write an excellent monthly column on television for the high-brow, right-wing journal Standpoint. And he is one of only very few left-liberal commentators to have called out the left's hypocrisy and double-standards on Islamism. His book What's Left is a corrosive attack on the way so many left-wingers have abandoned their progressive principles by refusing to condemn the abuse of women by Islamic fundamentalists and by effectively condoning the worst excesses of jihadism, including 9/11.
Unfortunately, though, it would appear that on the climate change issue he has abandoned his customary rigour and intellectual independence and fallen victim to the environmental left's lazy groupthink. To appreciate just how lazy, here's a website which shows just how often the "denier" smear has been used by the left against sceptics in order to try to close down the climate change debate.
He asks:
Whatever you do or say, it is going to happen. How can you persuade countries to accept huge reductions in their living standards to limit (not stop) the rise in temperatures? How can you persuade the human race to put the future ahead of the present?
But actually, had Cohen bothered to research the issue rather than simply regurgitating the green propaganda associated with NGOs like Greenpeace and Friends Of The Earth and warmed over in the pages of HuffPo, Slate and Climate Progress, he would not have needed to ask these questions rhetorically. The answers would have been bleeding obvious.
You will never persuade countries to accept huge reductions in their living standards until you have made an irrefutable scientific and economic case for doing so.
The scientific case is looking shakier by the minute: if there has been no global warming since 1997, why should we stake our faith in all those doomsday computer models which failed to predict this "pause"?
The economic case is non-existent. By the time - if it ever does - catastrophic global warming makes its presence known in the future, our descendants will all be considerably richer than we are and therefore have more than enough money spare to take whatever remedial actions are necessary.
Perhaps finally Cohen, as normally careful journalist, ought to consider whether the "Holocaust denial" really is an appropriate metaphor to use to describe as a blanket dismissal for anyone who is unconvinced by climate change alarmism.
Since he obviously hasn't got time to research this issue, I'll help him out.
Number of dead directly attributable to the Holocaust: around six million.
Number of dead directly attributable to "climate change": none.
Do the math, Cohen.
Oh, and also, climate change deniers are a bit like people who believe in aliens.
Clive Hamilton, the Australian author of Requiem for a Species, made the essential point a few years ago that climate change denial was no longer just a corporate lobbying campaign. The opponents of science would say what they said unbribed. The movement was in the grip of "cognitive dissonance", a condition first defined by Leon Festinger and his colleagues in the 1950s . They examined a cult that had attached itself to a Chicago housewife called Dorothy Martin. She convinced her followers to resign from their jobs and sell their possessions because a great flood was to engulf the earth on 21 December 1954. They would be the only survivors. Aliens in a flying saucer would swoop down and save the chosen few.
Cohen has a well-deserved reputation as one of the British left's most thoughtful, articulate and original journalists. He is sufficiently eclectic to write an excellent monthly column on television for the high-brow, right-wing journal Standpoint. And he is one of only very few left-liberal commentators to have called out the left's hypocrisy and double-standards on Islamism. His book What's Left is a corrosive attack on the way so many left-wingers have abandoned their progressive principles by refusing to condemn the abuse of women by Islamic fundamentalists and by effectively condoning the worst excesses of jihadism, including 9/11.
Unfortunately, though, it would appear that on the climate change issue he has abandoned his customary rigour and intellectual independence and fallen victim to the environmental left's lazy groupthink. To appreciate just how lazy, here's a website which shows just how often the "denier" smear has been used by the left against sceptics in order to try to close down the climate change debate.
He asks:
Whatever you do or say, it is going to happen. How can you persuade countries to accept huge reductions in their living standards to limit (not stop) the rise in temperatures? How can you persuade the human race to put the future ahead of the present?
But actually, had Cohen bothered to research the issue rather than simply regurgitating the green propaganda associated with NGOs like Greenpeace and Friends Of The Earth and warmed over in the pages of HuffPo, Slate and Climate Progress, he would not have needed to ask these questions rhetorically. The answers would have been bleeding obvious.
You will never persuade countries to accept huge reductions in their living standards until you have made an irrefutable scientific and economic case for doing so.
The scientific case is looking shakier by the minute: if there has been no global warming since 1997, why should we stake our faith in all those doomsday computer models which failed to predict this "pause"?
The economic case is non-existent. By the time - if it ever does - catastrophic global warming makes its presence known in the future, our descendants will all be considerably richer than we are and therefore have more than enough money spare to take whatever remedial actions are necessary.
Perhaps finally Cohen, as normally careful journalist, ought to consider whether the "Holocaust denial" really is an appropriate metaphor to use to describe as a blanket dismissal for anyone who is unconvinced by climate change alarmism.
Since he obviously hasn't got time to research this issue, I'll help him out.
Number of dead directly attributable to the Holocaust: around six million.
Number of dead directly attributable to "climate change": none.
Do the math, Cohen.
_______________________________________________________________________________
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/02/skeptics-smeared-as-holocaust-deniers.html
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/24/climate-scientists-refuse-to-debate-global-warming-skeptics-in-the-media/
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/21/scientists-government-agencies-use-the-peer-review-process-to-squash-dissent/
_________________________________________________________________________________
New Yorkers are the reason New York can't have nice stuff -
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/exclusive-citi-bike-operators-neglecting-bikes-stations-article-1.1731484
This is the last known photo of Wu Meng who was attacked by 22 bears in China.
Authorities say the bears killed Ms. Meng for her pancreas, known in traditional Chinese Bear Homeopathy to be a powerful aphrodesiac.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587391/Smuggler-caught-22-bears-running-free-car-tried-convince-customs-officials-dogs.html
A Chicago train decides to take a walk causing mass confusion at O'hare.
In it's defense, there was no sign stating, "NO TRAINS ON ESCALATOR".
The train is said to have retained counsel.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587889/BREAKING-NEWS-30-injured-train-derails-platform-rides-UP-escalator-Chicago-OHare-airport.html
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/24/climate-scientists-refuse-to-debate-global-warming-skeptics-in-the-media/
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/21/scientists-government-agencies-use-the-peer-review-process-to-squash-dissent/
_________________________________________________________________________________
New Yorkers are the reason New York can't have nice stuff -
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/exclusive-citi-bike-operators-neglecting-bikes-stations-article-1.1731484
This is the last known photo of Wu Meng who was attacked by 22 bears in China.
Authorities say the bears killed Ms. Meng for her pancreas, known in traditional Chinese Bear Homeopathy to be a powerful aphrodesiac.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587391/Smuggler-caught-22-bears-running-free-car-tried-convince-customs-officials-dogs.html
A Chicago train decides to take a walk causing mass confusion at O'hare.
In it's defense, there was no sign stating, "NO TRAINS ON ESCALATOR".
The train is said to have retained counsel.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587889/BREAKING-NEWS-30-injured-train-derails-platform-rides-UP-escalator-Chicago-OHare-airport.html
No comments:
Post a Comment