Global warming is currently such a fashionable political cause that the people who doubt its dire ramifications are being ostracized and squelched by environmental activists and their friends in the so-called news media. But the validity of global warming is still up for debate, because there are plenty of reasons to question the one-sided arguments coming from the political left and the rash presuppositions of environmental activists.
There is no reason to quibble about global warming any further, because the warming has already stopped, all by itself.
Evidence of an Ominous American Climate Change. A new "nationally representative survey" has concluded that the number of Americans who still have free minds is now low enough to warrant intensifying the psychological warfare in order to finish them off for good. In fact, if this study from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication can be trusted — and with unbiased names like those, what's not to trust? — life will be getting hotter for those frustrating American holdouts who insist on thinking for themselves when there are so many qualified experts ready to provide them with all the pre-packaged thoughts they need.
"Sometimes one must look to sources outside the United States
to get a better perspective on what is happening."
The moment I became a climate skeptic. [Scroll down] One item got my attention. It said: "Projections based on the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios suggest warming over the 21st Century at a more rapid rate than that experienced for at least the last 10,000 years." I called the professor, one of the authors of the report, for a clarification (he remains nameless because we were off the record). "If global warming is caused by man-made emissions," I asked, "what accounts for the world warming to this same level 10,000 years ago?" There was a long silence. Then the professor said, "Are you serious?" I admitted that I was. The professor loudly informed me that my question was stupid. The panel's conclusion was indisputable science, arrived at after years of research by a conclave of the world's leading climate scholars. Who was I to dispute it?
Obama Mocks Climate Change Skeptics: It's Not Some 'Liberal Plot'. President Obama spoke to the League of Conservation Voters Wednesday night [6/25/2014] about climate change, and he took a few minutes to mock Republican climate change skeptics who state very openly they "don't believe anything scientists say" and actually believe it's a "hoax" or a "liberal plot."
Global Warming Witch Hunt Continues With Caleb Rossiter. The latest victim of climate McCarthyism is Caleb Rossiter, who, until his op-ed challenging the "consensus" on climate change was published in the Wall Street Journal, was a Democratic academic who briefly forayed into politics but was content to crusade against U.S. support for dictators and against the use of anti-personnel land mines. In that op-ed, Rossiter called himself an "Africanist." He not only questioned the science behind climate change warnings but the impact of abandoning fossil fuels on human progress on a continent that's lowest in production of carbon emissions and the neediest in terms of economic development. For his questioning of climate orthodoxy, Rossiter, an adjunct professor at American University, was sacked via email from his position with the Institute for Policy Studies.
At Commencement, Obama Mocks Lawmakers Who Deny Climate Change. President Obama, appearing emboldened after his recent move to cut carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants, on Saturday [6/14/2014] ridiculed members of Congress who deny climate change or plead scientific ignorance as an alibi for avoiding an uncomfortable truth.
Obama Used Commencement Speech To Attack Americans Who Disagree With Him. President Obama delivered the commencement speech at UC Irvine over the weekend and used the occasion to go on the attack against Americans who don't agree with his climate change policies. Not only did he call those skeptical of global warming theory the derogatory term "deniers" he also told the graduates that we are a threat to their existence. [...] If anyone is a threat to our future it's Obama, not people who don't buy into global warming theory.
More about Obama's speech at UC Irvine.
PC police, Big Green environmentalists are turning America into a First Amendment-free zone. America is rapidly becoming a First Amendment-free zone, thanks to the growing power of the PC police in the media and on campus and among Big Green environmentalists in the nonprofit community. American University adjunct professor and veteran self-described "progressive activist" Caleb Rossiter is the latest victim, thanks to an article he wrote for the Wall Street Journal opinion pages questioning global warming. Rossiter's sin was describing global warming as an "unproved science" and advocating that developing African nations be allowed to adopt the same "all-of-the-above" energy policies as the U.S. follows.
Obama pushes global warming agenda in commencement speech. Obama told those in attendance that they must respond now to protect children and future generations — a theme he has repeated after announcing in recent weeks new rules for reducing carbon emission for plants that burn fossil fuel. "We also have to realize, as hundreds of scientists declared last month, that climate change is no longer a distant threat but 'has moved firmly into the present,'" said Obama in the ongoing effort by him and his supporters to win the debate on global warming and its possible causes. "The overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change, including some who once disputed the data, have put the debate to rest."
Obama Flunks his Climate Science 101 at University of California, Irvine. Denying climate change is like saying the moon is made of cheese, President Obama has said in his latest attempt to persuade an unconvinced world that "global warming" is the most urgent crisis of our time. [...] "I'm not a scientist." Possibly the only factually accurate words in the president's entire speech.
Denying climate change is like saying the moon is made of cheese, argues Obama. Obama issued the call to the tens of thousands gathered at Angel Stadium even though he said Congress 'is full of folks who stubbornly and automatically reject the scientific evidence' and say climate change is a hoax or fad.
Climate McCarthyism claims yet another victim. Climate McCarthyism has claimed another victim. Dr Caleb Rossiter — an adjunct professor at American University, Washington DC — has been fired by a progressive think tank after publicly expressing doubt about man-made global warming.
Obama 'Absolutely' Wants to 'Just Go Off' on Climate Deniers in Congress. In the clip that aired on CBS Sunday morning [6/8/2014], Obama stressed the national security implications of catastrophic climate change. "We're obviously concerned about drought in California or hurricanes and floods along our coastlines and the possibility of more powerful storms or more severe droughts. All of those things are bread-and-butter issues that touch on American families," Obama said. "But when you start seeing how these shifts can displace people — entire countries can be finding themselves unable to feed themselves and the potential incidence of conflict that arises out of that — that gets your attention."
The Editor says...
Canada Cracks Down on Scientists Who Talk About Climate Change. Meteorologists are paid to talk expansively about the weather. But in Canada, they have to choose their words a little more carefully. The government has made it clear that none of the meteorologists on its payroll should be talking about climate change, according to a new report. It's unclear how long this rule has been in effect, but Environment Canada, the government entity that shares weather and meteorological information publicly, explained its position in a statement to us. "Our Weather Preparedness Meteorologists are experts in their field of severe weather and speak to this subject. Questions about climate change or long-term trends would be directed to a climatologist or other applicable authority," said Danny Kingsberry, a spokesman for Environment Canada.
Taxpayers Paid $5.6 Million for Climate Change Games. Taxpayers paid more than $5 million to create climate change games, including voicemails from the future warning that "neo-luddites" will kill global warming enthusiasts by 2035. Columbia University's Climate Center has received $5.7 million from the National Science Foundation for the university's "PoLAR Climate Change Education Partnership," to "engage adult learners and inform public understanding and response to climate change." Based on the theory that games "motivate exploration and learning of complex material," the school created "Future Coast," a website that features hundreds of made up voicemails painting a dire picture of the future as a result of climate change.
Meterologist [sic] Says Climate Alarmists Used 'McCarthy' Tactics Against Him. Meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson claims that after he joined a non-profit which expressed doubt in the global warming alarmist movement, he suffered a persistent campaign of hate and vitriol from alarmist scientists. He resigned from the group on May 14, citing fears for his health and safety. Broadcast news networks ignored Bengtsson and his claims while continuing to report on climate change.
The Climate Change Fundamentalists. Any dissent from the fundamentalists' doomsday prophesies if their radical prescriptions to save humanity and Mother Earth are not followed is regarded as heresy. Charge the well-funded climate change "deniers" with committing "criminal negligence" for "their willful disregard for human life, "says Lawrence Torcello, a philosophy professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology. After all, heretics must be punished.
John Kerry slams climate change critics in graduation speech: 'We are risking nothing less than the future of the entire planet'. Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduates of Boston College on Monday [5/19/2014] that they have doom and destruction to look forward to if they don't take climate change more seriously than previous generations. 'And I know its hard to feel the urgency as we sit here on an absolutely beautiful morning in Boston,' Kerry said, 'you might not see climate change as an immediate threat to your job, your communities or your families. 'But let me tell you, it is.'
Trick or truth! Can you even tell the difference? Speaking of settled science, it is easy to convince people it is settled when you control what gets published and what doesn't. On Friday, it was revealed that an academic journal called Environmental Research Letters rejected a paper that questioned how sensitive the climate is to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The rejection said the report was "harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of 'errors' and worse from the climate skeptics media side." In other words, the report questioned climate change orthodoxy and therefore could not be published. This would worry people who had an open mind, but most people will never even hear about it just like they won't hear about the record-setting Antarctic ice sheet.
Climategate II And The Rise Of Climate McCarthyism. A noted researcher who questioned the climate's sensitivity to greenhouse gases says his paper is not being published for ideological reasons and because it might fuel doubt in the climate change story.
Climate McCarthyism: The Scandal Grows. Professor Lennart Bengtsson — the scientist at the heart of the "Climate McCarthyism" row — has hit back at his critics by accusing them of suppressing one of his studies for political reasons. The paper, which Prof Bengtsson wrote with four co-authors, suggested that climate is probably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than is admitted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and that more research needs to be done to "reduce the underlying uncertainty". However, when submitted for publication in the leading journal Environmental Research Letters, the paper failed the peer-review process and was rejected.
Science as McCarthysim. One of the most telling features of climate science is just how few climate scientists changed their minds as the evidence changed. The pause in global temperature in the last 15 years or so has been unexpected. Now we know why: Yesterday, Bengtsson dropped a bombshell. He was resigning from the think tank. In his resignation letter, Bengtsson wrote: ["]I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety...["]
Climate McCarthyism: The Scandal Grows. Professor Lennart Bengtsson — the scientist at the heart of the "Climate McCarthyism" row — has hit back at his critics by accusing them of suppressing one of his studies for political reasons. The paper, which Prof Bengtsson wrote with four co-authors, suggested that climate is probably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than is admitted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and that more research needs to be done to "reduce the underlying uncertainty". However, when submitted for publication in the leading journal Environmental Research Letters, the paper failed the peer-review process and was rejected.
Climate Science Defector Forced to Resign by Alarmist 'Fatwa'. Professor Lennart Bengtsson — the leading scientist who three weeks ago signalled his defection to the climate sceptic camp by joining the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation — has now dramatically been forced to resign from his position. His views on the weakness of the "consensus" haven't changed. But as he admits in his resignation letter, he has been so badly bullied by his alarmist former colleagues that he is worried his health and career will suffer.
Settled and unsettled science. The NY Times calls this report "totally alarming." The only thing alarming is that an American college professor wants anyone who disagrees with the premise of manmade global warming to be thrown in jail. This report was prepared by the US Global Change Research Program. Funded with a huge annual budget of $2.5 billion, not much less than the budget of the state of Delaware, their vision is, "A Nation, globally engaged and guided by science, meeting the challenges of climate and global change." Interesting statement. They are guided by science, where very little is actually settled, yet they too assume that climate change is a settled fact.
Climate change scientist claims he has been forced from new job in 'McCarthy'-style witch-hunt. A globally-renowned climate scientist has been forced to step down from a think-tank after he was subjected to 'Mc-Carthy'-style pressure from scientists around the world. Professor Lennart Bengtsson, 79, a leading academic from the University of Reading, left the high-profile Global Warming Policy Foundation as a result of the threats, which he described as 'virtually unbearable'. The group was set up by former Tory Chancellor Lord Lawson and are sceptical about radical policy changes aimed at combating global warming.
A Wicked Orthodoxy. There is something odd about the global-warming debate — or the climate-change debate, as we are now expected to call it, since global warming has for the time being come to a halt. I have never shied away from controversy, nor — for example, as chancellor of the exchequer — worried about being unpopular if I believed that what I was saying and doing was in the public interest. But I have never in my life experienced the extremes of personal hostility, vituperation, and vilification that I — along with other dissenters, of course — have received for my views on global warming and global-warming policies.
David Bellamy OBE — Global Warming Victim. It's funny that those who stress the scientific credentials of the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGWT) use very unscientific and indeed political ways and means to silence all contradictory — or even skeptical — views about it. For example, AGWT activists, scientists and even some MPs have written to the BBC begging it not to give "airtime" to AGWT skeptics or critics. [...] Indeed individuals in America have even argued that AGWT skeptics should be prosecuted or criminalized — quite literally! Will there now be a Gulag built for those who dare to question the complete and total truth of the AGWT?
The Climate Inquisitor. In a free and open society, the correct way to respond to the accusation that one's work is "intellectually bogus and wrong" is to attempt a rebuttal, not to file a lawsuit.
Obama shuts down debate. Increasingly, however, it seems that the "shut up and move on" trope has become the go-to response of liberals on a number of serious topics they'd rather not have to discuss in open debate. Climate change? We're told there's 100 percent agreement among scientists that the climate is changing, human activity is the cause and America should upend its economy to stop it from happening.
Media ignores sold-out global warming 'skeptic' conference. Climate scientists skeptical of claims that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet gathered in Germany this month for a major, now sold-out climate conference, which the media has opted not to cover. In early April, the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) hosted its seventh Climate Conference in Mannheim, Germany. The two-day conference featured prominent climate scientists including Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, physicist Nir Shaviv of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and physicist Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Institute.
Warmist Fiona Stanley Says Skepticism Is Like "Child Abuse". The issue became politicized when Leftists started using the "science" to push their far left political agenda. Interesting that she has no problem denigrating people who do not agree with the science and the scientists, most of whom do not even have degrees in climate science, or even meteorology, to use a Warmist talking point. And, it is meant to tell skeptics to shut up.
Torquemada Invades America. This nation of free and open inquiry has been seized by totalitarians who refuse to entertain other points of view. The debate about global warming is over[,] say adherents of this position. When, if ever, has the debate about any scientific issue been over?
Kerry: Big Bucks in Climate Change. What we usually hear about when the subject is climate change is stuff meant to scare you out of your socks. Rising oceans, violent storms, draughts, famines, plagues of locusts, and so forth. The implied alternative is austerity so severe — no cars, rationed electricity, smaller houses, once-a-week cold showers, etc. — that people are inclined to think, "Well, that will never happen," and tune out. Secretary of State John Kerry is a believer and a scold of those who are called "deniers" to smear them as akin to those who believe the Holocaust never happened.
Thought police on patrol. Two months ago, a petition bearing more than 110,000 signatures was delivered to The [Washington] Post, demanding a ban on any article questioning global warming. The petition arrived the day before publication of my column, which consisted of precisely that heresy. The column ran as usual. But I was gratified by the show of intolerance because it perfectly illustrated my argument that the left is entering a new phase of ideological agitation — no longer trying to win the debate but stopping debate altogether, banishing from public discourse any and all opposition.
NYT's Thomas Friedman Calls Global Warming Skeptics Trotsky Radicals. [Scroll down] Friedman claimed that skeptics are in the bottom 3% of people who believe there are questions about the global warming science but that is not fact at all. The figure came from one survey that had been doctored.
Green 'smear campaign' against professor who dared to disown 'sexed up' UN climate dossier. The professor who refused to sign last week's high-profile UN climate report because it was too 'alarmist', has told The Mail on Sunday he has become the victim of a smear campaign. Richard Tol claims he is fighting a sustained attack on his reputation by a key figure from a leading institution that researches the impact of global warming. Prof Tol said: 'This has all the characteristics of a smear campaign. It's all about taking away my credibility as an expert.'
The Liberal Gulag. Adam Weinstein, whose downwardly mobile credibility has taken him from ABC to Gawker, called for literally imprisoning people with the wrong views about global warming, writing, "Those malcontents must be punished and stopped"; [...] Mr. Weinstein specifically called for political activists, ranging from commentators to think-tank researchers, to be locked in cages as punishment for their political beliefs. "Those denialists should face jail," he wrote. [...] At the risk of being repetitious, let's dwell on that for a minute: The Left is calling on people to be prosecuted for speaking their minds regarding their beliefs on an important public-policy question that is, as a political matter, the subject of hot dispute. That is the stuff of Soviet repression.
The freedom not to question climate change. The goal of eliminating fossil fuels would inevitably reduce civilization to a thin veneer of culture over a primitive hunting-gathering society. So with such huge consequences, it would seem a reasonable request to have a debate about the validity of the science which demands such earth-shattering changes from society. But free debate is the last thing that climate-change proponents want. Instead, they want everyone to accept "settled science" and move on to the "solution." [...] The earth's climate is changing now, in 2014, just like it has always been changing. Climate is a dynamic, not a static system. Ergo, climate change in itself does not prove anything.
Smearing Climate Skeptics. As even die-hard enthusiasts for the global warming scare campaign begin to admit that they are losing the battle to keep the public alarmed, it is time to examine how this doomsday movement has been sustained for two decades. [...] Despite widespread cries from enviro-activists and reporters that skeptics are given unwarranted attention, when is the last time you saw a global warming news report where skeptic climate assessments were thoroughly spelled out? And how many times have you seen that done in the twenty-year history of this issue?
Climate scientists refuse to debate global warming 'skeptics' in the media. Dan Weiss, the director of climate strategy at the liberal Center for American Progress, refused to appear on Fox Business to debate climate skeptic Marc Morano last week. Morano runs the blog Climate Depot, where he reports on environment and climate news. Weiss was set to debate Morano on the show "The Independents" but "refused to debate directly with Morano, and chided [the show] for airing his views," according to the Fox Business show.
Climate Change 'as Certain as Auschwitz,' Claims Guardian. 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.
6 Arguments Only A Liberal Could Believe. [#2] We're all going to die because man is causing global warming! Proof? It's science! Granted, no one can explain the science that proves global warming. But, science isn't about science, it's about repeating the word "science" over and over again like a magic incantation. [...] Why do you hate science so much? Why do you want polar bears to die?
US Philosophy Professor: Jail 'Denialist' Climate Scientists for Criminal Negligence. Scientists who don't believe in catastrophic man-made global warming should be put in prison, a US philosophy professor argues on a website funded by the UK government. Lawrence Torcello, assistant professor of philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology, NY, writes in an essay at The Conversation that climate scientists who fail to communicate the correct message about "global warming" should face trial for "criminal negligence".
Bob Beckel Battles Climate Denier on Hannity: You Know Better Than That!' "There is no scientific proof that we're causing climate change," [Patrick] Moore declared, stressing that he does believe the planet is getting warmer, just not that humans are primarily responsible. [Bob] Beckel called out Moore for abandoning his environmentalist roots, saying he "sold out" to profit off of large companies that exacerbate climate change with their carbon output. When Moore protested, saying CO2 goes into "the trees and the food that we eat" rather than the atmosphere, Beckel shouted, "Come on Patrick, you know better than that. That's what you tell your clients."
Tim Cook's Climate Change Faith Costs Apple, Shareholders. Apple CEO Tim Cook has told global warming skeptics to "get out of this stock." But in essence, he did more than that. He told every Apple shareholder to take a hike and waved potential investors away. When Cook met with shareholders Friday [2/28/2014], he lost his usual business cool when a group proposed that the company be more open about its environmental activism as well as transparent about costs it incurs as it increases its dependence on renewable energy. "If you want me to do things only for ROI (return on in vestment) reasons, you should get out of this stock," Cook snapped back.
Personal Score-Settling Is the New Climate Agenda. Surely, some kind of ending is upon us. Last week climate protesters demanded the silencing of Charles Krauthammer for a Washington Post column that notices uncertainties in the global warming hypothesis. [...] These are indications of a political movement turned to defending its self-image as its cause goes down the drain. That's how thoroughly defunct, dead, expired is the idea that humanity might take charge of earth's atmosphere through some supreme triumph of the global regulatory state over democracy, sovereignty, nationalism and political self-interest, the very facts of political human nature.
The Original Sin of Global Warming. [Scroll down] This is the original sin of the global warming theory: that it was founded in a presumption of guilt against industrial civilization. All of the billions of dollars in government research funding and the entire cultural establishment that has been built up around global warming were founded on the presumption that we already knew the conclusion — we're "ravaging the planet" — and we're only interested in evidence that supports that conclusion. That brings us to where we are today. The establishment's approach to the scientific debate over global warming is to declare that no such debate exists — and to ruthlessly stamp it out if anyone tries to start one.
Climate change advocates try to silence Krauthammer. Charles Krauthammer says it right up front in his Washington Post column: "I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier." He does, however, challenge the notion that the science on climate change is settled and says those who insist otherwise are engaged in "a crude attempt to silence critics and delegitimize debate." How ironic, then, that some environmental activists launched a petition urging the Post not to publish Krauthammer's column on Friday. Their response to opinions they disagree with is to suppress the speech.
Obama's science czar: Opposing climate views outside the 'mainstream scientific opinion'. White House science czar Dr. John Holdren wasn't in the mood to be contradicted on whether global warming was causing "extreme weather." Holdren described climate scientists whose work contradicts the White House's global warming claims as outside the "scientific mainstream."
NY Times Cartoon Suggests 'Climate-Change Deniers' Should Be Stabbed to Death. As far as cartoonists at the New York Times are concerned, if you are skeptical about climate change, you should die. Preferably in a violent manner. [...] Yes — even killing a climate-change knuckle-dragger is illegal, at least for now. But give the oh so tolerant true believers more time. All crimes are justified when one is saving the world.
NY Times publishes cartoon about killing global warming 'deniers'. When apocalyptic cults turn murderous, they become a danger to the public. The warmist cult, frustrated by the failure of nature to back-up their prophecies of doom, apparently is turning to homicidal fantasies, and venting them in the pages of the New York Times.
NYT suggests 'deniers' should be stabbed through the heart — like vampires. So, as WUWT readers well know, I have a different opinion about global warming. Do you think the New York Times should endorse stabbing me (and others with similar opinions) through the heart like a vampire because I hold that opinion?
Climate Parasites: The Answer to 'Climate Change Deniers'. It is a basic principle of psychological warfare that the side that controls the language of the argument controls the argument. Barack Obama's own website is using this PsyWar technique by calling opponents of his cap and trade agenda "climate change deniers." He has also used the financial resources of the federal government, such as whitehouse.gov, to marginalize everybody who doesn't agree with him as a climate change denier. Democrats Sheldon Whitehouse, Harry Reid, and Peter DeFazio also have followed Joseph Goebbels's advice to the effect that if you tell a big lie vigorously and often enough, people will believe it. All have used the phrase "climate change deniers," on websites paid for by the federal government, to spread the message that anybody who opposes the cap and trade scam is a knuckle-dragging troglodyte.
Why Kerry Is Flat Wrong on Climate Change. In a Feb. 16 speech in Indonesia, Secretary of State John Kerry assailed climate-change skeptics as members of the "Flat Earth Society" for doubting the reality of catastrophic climate change. [...] But who are the Flat Earthers, and who is ignoring the scientific facts? In ancient times, the notion of a flat Earth was the scientific consensus, and it was only a minority who dared question this belief. We are among today's scientists who are skeptical about the so-called consensus on climate change. Does that make us modern-day Flat Earthers, as Mr. Kerry suggests, or are we among those who defy the prevailing wisdom to declare that the world is round?
Secretary of State Kerry lashes out at climate change skeptics. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Sunday called climate change perhaps the world's "most fearsome" destructive weapon and mocked those who deny its existence or question its causes, comparing them to people who insist the Earth is flat.
Climate-Change Skeptics Have a Right to Free Speech, Too. I find myself tugged in two directions by the latest ruling in the defamation suit filed by climatologist Michael Mann. A professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, Mann has long been an object of ire among climate-change skeptics. Now it seems they have let their ire get out of hand.
Prince Charles slams climate-change deniers. Prince Charles has called people who deny human-made climate change a "headless chicken brigade" who are ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence.
GOP lawmakers accuse EPA of muzzling scientists on climate regulations. Republican leaders on the House Science Committee are accusing the Environmental Protection Agency of disregarding science in its push to impose carbon dioxide limits on power plants. Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and 20 other Republican lawmakers sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on Thursday, claiming the agency has "muzzled" members of its independent science advisory board.
Acclaimed Climatologist Bette Midler Explains Why Global Warming Is Real Or Something. Bette Midler has connected the dots to prove — definitively — that global warming is real, America. Even more impressive, she was able to do so in a single tweet — just 13 words.
Global warming advocates should take out their earplugs. Having a rational conversation about public policy issues is becoming increasingly difficult because so many advocates will brook no disagreement, even if their positions are contradicted by facts or logic. Instead of engaging the argument, they demonize those who disagree with them as corrupt, ignorant, racist or worst [sic]. They use these ad hominem attacks, in turn, to justify their refusal to compromise. The result is that urgent problems grow steadily worse. Environmental issues often provide vivid examples of this process, especially if the issue is global warming.
EPA Appoints Radical Activist as Head of 'Scientific Integrity'. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy yesterday [11/25/2013] appointed a top staffer with the environmental activist group Union of Concerned Scientists to serve as the agency's top objective referee on scientific integrity issues. McCarthy's selection of Francesca Grifo raises troubling concerns about EPA rushing headlong into anti-science environmental activism. Grifo led so-called scientific integrity efforts at the Union of Concerned Scientists. While Grifo led such efforts, the UCS attempted to suppress scientific democracy and dissent, expressing outrage that a Congressman who is skeptical of the UCS' asserted global warming crisis was allowed to be a member of the House Science Committee.
Science, Belief and Policy. The number of people who understand the issues and who are, to varying degrees, sceptical of what they see as an unnecessarily alarmist view based on incomplete evidence is not really known, but it is substantial; probably much smaller than the mainstream, but then science is about assessing evidence rather than taking a democratic vote. It is difficult to be objective, of course, but I see a large number of sceptics who are really what Matt Ridley has termed 'lukewarmists'. They know that higher levels of carbon dioxide will have some effect on temperature but see no evidence either that this is the dominant effect or that current costly political prescriptions are likely to have any worthwhile impact. For this, they are criticised by many and vilified as 'deniers' by their more zealous opponents.
What The Know-Nothings Know. They know that the world has been warming due to humanity's awfulness, even as it has cooled for the last 15 years or more, and their only answers involve hiding evidence. They know global warming and cooling have never naturally happened before, because they left that data out of their computer runs. They know that solar activity has nothing to do with global temperatures. They know that anyone who points these matters out is "anti-science." They know that only science paid for by liberals is "settled," and that to question evidently cooked "science" makes one equivalent to a Holocaust "denier."
One religion is enough. We are all aware of the climate enthusiasts, who advocate quite substantial, and costly, responses to what they see as irrefutable evidence that the world's climate faces catastrophe. By employing a sanctimonious tone against people who do not share their view, they show their true colours: to them the cause has become a substitute religion. Increasingly offensive language is used. The most egregious example has been the term "denier". We are all aware of the particular meaning that word has acquired in contemporary parlance. It has been employed in this debate with some malice aforethought. An overriding feature of the debate is the constant attempt to intimidate policy makers, in some cases successfully, with the mantras of "follow the science" and "the science is truly settled".
Who are the true denialists? People have the nasty habit of giving their opponents names. Those who are convinced that humans are wrecking the world by burning fossil fuels call those who don't believe them "denialists." It implies that they are close to the Holocaust deniers, and so are clearly beyond the pale. I have come to the conclusion that they are wrong. The true denialists are those who believe in global warming, and who will go to any lengths to deny the evidence against that position.
LA Times: We Don't Publish Letters to Editor Claiming Man Isn't Causing Climate Change. It's one thing for a news outlet to advance the as yet unproven theory of anthropogenic global warming; it's quite another to admit that you won't publish views that oppose it. As amazing as it may same, that's exactly what the Los Angeles Times did Saturday [10/5/2013] in an article by editorial writer Jon Healey.
LA Times to No Longer Print Letters that Disagree with Global Warming. The Warmist myth is collapsing. The latest data have thoroughly undermined it. But that just means the Party has to circle its wagons even tighter.
The Press Endures Obama's Unrequited Love. A recent, glaring example of how some of today's journalists have debased their profession was the decision by Paul Thornton, editor of The Los Angeles Times letter's section, to openly refuse to publish any letters from skeptics about the global warming hoax that blames "climate change" on human activity, not the Sun, oceans, and other natural factors.
It's a Cooked Book. The AP itself uses the term "climate skeptics," which is less pointed than "denialists" but is still problematic. The purported opposition between "skeptics" and adherents to "the scientific consensus" is nonsensical, for skepticism is at the very heart of the scientific method. When the data call a theory into question, a scientist revisits the theory. Instead, the panel is employing the antiscientific method: It "is expected to affirm" the theory "with greater certainty than ever." And look how the AP sums up that theory: "that humans are cooking the planet by burning fossil fuels and cutting down CO2-absorbing forests." That's science fiction, not science.
Al Gore: 'There needs to be a political price' for climate 'denial'. Former vice president Al Gore on Monday [9/23/2013] called for making climate change "denial" a taboo in society. "Within the market system we have to put a price on carbon, and within the political system, we have to put a price on denial," Gore said at the Social Good Summit New York City.
The Editor says...
UN climate panel: Hmm, how can we selectively edit these inconvenient truths? [A]nyone who doesn't immediately and vigorously seize upon the eco-radicals' predetermined conclusions about the imminent catastrophes climate change — as well as their recommendations that we must quickly and forcefully self-depress our economies from the top down, spending money we don't have and making people poorer — is forever destined to be lumped into the oh-so-heinous category of a stubbornly flat-earth-society, knuckle-dragging climate "denier."
Uncivil scientists thwart Cliff Mass' climate-change debate. [Cliff] Mass is an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington. He has been troubled for years by the way the subject of global warming can turn typically even-headed scientists into politicized, tribal warriors. As he sees it, there are the vast majority of scientists, including himself, who think human-caused global warming is a reality. But some in this group, frustrated at political inaction, have begun hyping the effects of climate change beyond what the science supports. "It has taken on some of the traits of orthodoxy, in that it can't be questioned," Mass says.
Man Made Climate Change Arguments Don't Survive Scrutiny. Proponents of man-made climate change are being challenged more and more by scientists who don't buy into the climate catastrophe scare. The arguments used to dismiss the challengers range from calling the non-believers names such as president Obama's "flat earthers" and his use of the term "denier" which is meant to equate non-believers with holocaust deniers, very un-presidential.
Who are the real deniers? Global warmers are forever calling those of us who disagree with them 'deniers.' This thinly veiled reference to the Holocaust and the murder of six million people is far from appropriate. Do skeptics deny the Holocaust and the science? Of course not, but it brings up an interesting question: [...]
Time for the BBC to ban the 'D' word?. Personally I don't believe in banning words — but I do believe in intellectual and moral consistency. You'd never hear an organisation as eggshell-treadingly right-on as the BBC use pejorative terms for Jews or black people or homosexuals or sufferers of cerebral palsy. So why, pray, does it feel it can persist in using the deliberately offensive term "denier" to write off anyone who is sceptical about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Al Gore compares global warming skeptics with racists, apartheid supporters, and homophobes. A skeptic is more likely to receive cheers than boos by challenging orthodoxy. And Gore fails to mention in the interview that US emissions of CO2 have dropped to levels not seen since 1996 — without any of his carbon get rich quick schemes or silly government pronouncements about CO2 being poisonous.
Krauthammer: The Idea That Climate Change Is A Closed Issue Is "Arrogant And Anti-Scientific". ["]Freeman Dyson, who is one of the great physicists of our time, he's a climate skeptic, he has more IQ in his pinky than the entire political echelon of the EPA put together, and they are saying this man is a scientific illiterate? The entire idea of science is that you are open to contrary evidence, it is the definition of a scientific theory.["]
All Barack and No Populist Bite. On Tuesday [8/13/2013], I visited the offices of two local congressmen: Cincinnati's Steve Chabot and Northern Kentucky's Thomas Massie. My self-appointed mission was to observe appearances by protesting members of Organizing for Action, the now supposedly "independent" entity which until late last year ran President Barack Obama's presidential campaigns. All of OFA's protest visits "just so happen" to target 135 Republicans characterized as "climate deniers." As a result, on Wednesday, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, one of the very few real heroes in what used to be the world's greatest deliberative body, announced an investigation into whether OFA has violated the Hatch Act's prohibition against engaging in political campaign activities.
For 'Action August" Little Obamanists harangue "Climate Deniers". The cadre serving under the banner of Organizing for America have declared this month "Action August," and the marching orders were issued for the Little Obamanists to stage rallies and blizzard their neighborhoods with flyers and postcards about Global Warming. [...] Key to Action August is the effort to shame members of Congress who oppose the president's environmental agenda, but also to stick them with the label: "Climate Denier."
More about the OFA.
Interior Secretary: I don't want any climate-change deniers in my department. What would happen to somebody at the department [of the Interior] who raised some skepticism regarding [Sally] Jewell's take on climate change? Would they be in danger of losing their job?
Climate Change 'Deniers' Not Welcome at Interior — Secy. Jewell. DOI Secretary Sally Jewell told employees today that combatting climate change is a "privilege" and "moral imperative," adding: "I hope there are no climate change deniers in the Department of Interior," E&E News PM reports. Such moralizing would be funny were it not for the chilling effect it is bound to have in an agency already mired in group think.
Obama's Climate Change Speech Ignores Science & EU Experience. President Obama was playing to his most extreme "green" constituency in his climate and energy speech at Georgetown University today, blasting global warming skeptics as "flat-earth society" ostriches with their heads in the sand. President Obama said he does not have "patience for anyone who denies that this problem is real."
Is Climate Change Our No. 1 Crisis, Mr. President? Global temperatures have been flat for 16 years — a curious time to unveil a grand, hugely costly, socially disruptive anti-warming program. Now, this inconvenient finding is not dispositive. It doesn't mean there is no global warming. But it is something that the very complex global warming models that Obama naïvely claims represent settled science have trouble explaining. It therefore highlights the president's presumption in dismissing skeptics as flat-earth know-nothings. On the contrary. It's flat-earthers like Obama who refuse to acknowledge the problematic nature of contradictory data.
The Global Warming Fraud. Newspapers, magazines, television programs, classrooms, and conversations all over America are awash in fraud which is being covered by the mantle of "science." The birth of the Global Warming Fraud can be traced to a conference organized by anthropologist Margaret Mead, in 1975. [...] Anyone who dares to challenge this sacred majesterium of "science" is a heretic and an ignoramus, according to advocates of The Global Warming Fraud. Nobody wants to be called stupid, much less really be stupid.
Howard Dean on climate realists: "Run 'em over". The former Governor noted it was the 10th anniversary of his campaign speech and talked about the progress he's seen in that time — such as the ability to fight back against people who say "crazy" things. "I heard a great program on CurrentTV yesterday about people who deny climate change, and I'm in favor of what their solution was," Dean said. "We don't have to talk to them anymore about stuff that's not true and this propaganda that's a lie. We're just going to run 'em over. And that's exactly what we're going to do."
Team Obama calls global warming doubters 'crazy'. The president's recently formed grass-roots campaign operation revealed Thursday that it plans to attack Republicans who question radical global warming hype, dubbing them "crazy" purveyors of "far-fetched conspiracy theories." In a fundraising memo from President Obama's re-election campaign manager, Organizing for Action slammed "climate deniers" and their doubts, which Jim Messina compared to the nutty things a crazy uncle would say at Thanksgiving dinner.
Academic warmists celebrate book burning at San Jose State University. At the San Jose State University Meteorology Department, they'd rather burn books than read them, if their faith in the gospel of man-made global warming would be challenged by the contents.
Climate Change Conversation Aborted. An editorial essay by American Chemical Society (ACS) officers Bassam Shakhashiri and Jerry Bell (Science 5 April 2013) extends a gracious invitation for a "respectful conversation" about Climate Change. Yet when I tried to respond, the editors of Science refused to print it. So much for "conversation."
Eco taxes are nonsense if the earth isn't warming. Mysteriously, anything can be produced as evidence of global warming — hot weather, cold weather, wet weather and dry. Climate change has become a religion and any diversion from the orthodox view is pounced on as evidence of heretical wickedness. Those who beg to differ about the global warming creed are held up as wicked rather than merely sceptical.
Global Warming: One NASA Scientist Vs. More Than 20. The most famous NASA scientist is James Hansen, the political activist and expert on the Venusian atmosphere who sounded the man-made global warming alarm at a 1988 congressional hearing. He's just one man, but the media and the political left have made him out to be an infallible voice on climate change. We live in a society where dissent from the left-wing narrative is not tolerated. So it's no surprise that more than 20 retired NASA scientists and engineers are not getting the same media treatment that a single doomsayer whose quarter-of-a-century-old prediction has not come to pass.
Global warming takes a vacation. Those who dare assert the Earth's temperature isn't on a perilous rise are derided as "deniers." For liberals, the climate debate has ended, and it is an unquestionable article of faith that mankind's carbon-dioxide emanations have set the stage for rising oceans, devastating hurricanes and disasters on a scale never before seen. To say otherwise is unthinkable, and that has created a dilemma. It's not actually getting warmer.
Government Scientist Gets Fired for Telling the Truth. Something's amiss at the Department of Interior. Eight government scientists were recently fired or reassigned after voicing concerns to their superiors about faulty environmental science used for policy decisions. Which begs the question, "Are some government agencies manipulating science to advance political agendas?"
How to Destroy Science: Cast Self-Interest as Public Interest. [Bruce] Alberts is obviously a scientist with broad interests — or, depending on your point of view, a know-it-all who is spread very thin. According to his website, he has managed to collect 16 honorary degrees and currently serves on 25 non-profit boards. Yet this busy man still finds the time to lecture our political leaders. He wants them to stop denying the science of climate change. Apparently, Alberts thinks that the politicians should shut up and listen to brilliant scientists, like himself, who really understand these things.
Professor Calls for Death Penalty for Climate Change 'Deniers'. It is as inevitable as the rising of the sun; the Left, when thwarted in their quest for power, suggests the use of lethal force to compel those who disagree. There is a nauseating litany of murders done by our betters in their pursuit of the Benthamite vision of "the greatest good for the most people" — which in their minds equates to collectivization and socialism. You have Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Margaret Sanger, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot. Now we can add one more name to the list: Professor Richard Parncutt, Musicologist at Graz University in Austria.
Progressive Professor Demands Death Penalty for Global Warming Skeptics and the Pope. Richard Parncutt is an Austrian professor of Music, which makes him an expert on global warming, who originally hails from Australia, but in true progressive style is ashamed of Australia. [...] Parncutt also hates Israel and Mormons, and wants a global wealth tax. And even though he is opposed to the death penalty in the case of mass murderers, he's willing to consider an exception for people he really disagrees with.
University Of Graz "Death To Deniers!" Professor Richard Parncutt Calls For The Execution Of Pope Benedict. It's nice to see that academia in Austria is getting more and more tolerant with every passing day. In fact we haven't seen this level of tolerance in about 70 years.
Professor Richard Parncutt Calls for Death Penalty for Global Warming Hoax Deniers. Hardcore global warming ideologues are not just kooks, but evil kooks. If that sounds like hyperbole, check out the final solution Australian expat Richard Parncutt, a professor at the University of Graz in Austria, advocates for those who won't drink the Kool-Aid voluntarily: ["]I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers.["]
Richard Parncutt: Musicology Prof. Changes His Tune For Christmas. After exposure of his death-penalty dissertation on several sceptical blogs yesterday, Prof. Richard Parncutt took down and rewrote the page on the University of Graz website. I have reproduced his reconsidered Christmas message to the climate debate below. He makes much of his membership of human rights organisation Amnesty International.
Earth First! Moonbats Call for "Eco-Assassinations". If Professor Richard Parncutt's demand that global warming deniers be executed didn't convince you that enviromoonbats are not just flaky but evil, maybe Earth First!'s call for "eco-assassins" will work. Enthralled by the terrorist activities of their hero and role model Ted Kaczynski, EF! is forming a splinter group explicitly devoted to not eschewing violence. A list of targets is provided, complete with addresses and phone numbers, mainly featuring CEOs of companies that provide society with the energy it requires to function.
Earth First Calling for Creepy Mock "Assasinations" hideout. So, they collect information on where their targets live and work, and invite their moronic cadre of tree huggers to target them. Of course, the first thing this does is send the message of "we know where you live." But, I think the more sinister note is that the left has a history of carrying out assassinations at an appointed time.
British peer ejected from UN climate talks for denouncing protocol. Lord Monckton of Brenchley was thrown out of the United Nations climate change talks in Doha last night. [...] After a short speech, in which he was booed, he was escorted out of the meeting by UN guards. He is understood to have claimed there is no global warming in the last sixteen years, and therefore the science needs to be reviewed. Claiming to represent Asian coastal nations, he is understood to have said: "In the 16 years we have been coming to these events there has been no global warming at all." [...] He has been banned for life from UN climate talks.
Lord Monckton Evicted from UN Climate Summit After Challenging Global Warming. Apparently criticizing Islam is not the only thing the UN considers blasphemous. [...] "In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming," Monckton said as confused murmurs filled the hall and then turned into a chorus of boos.Report finds Labor Department's green jobs program failing. The news media loves the Democrats and they are constantly making fun of Republicans for doubting evolution and global warming. I submit to you that believe in green jobs programs is the scientific equivalent of flat-Earthism. And I have the numbers to prove it. They have the blind faith and the insults. We have the evidence.
Freedom of speech is deader in Australia. It goes without saying — as it did with the Bolt affair — that the apparatus of the state must be used to crush all such voices of dissent.
The Anti-Free-Speech Brigade. Last week 18,000 people signed a petition demanding that a publicly-funded television station 'never again' report on a particular point-of-view. [...] Here's what that petition said: ["]Immediately investigate the NewsHour segment featuring climate change denier and conspiracy theorist Anthony Watts for violations of PBS standards on accuracy, integrity, and transparency, and recommend corrective action to ensure that such reporting never again occurs on PBS.["] If I were serving as ombudsman I doubt I would take seriously anyone who couldn't make their point in a professional and polite manner. Was it really necessary to insult Watts, who runs the most-read climate change blog in the world? What purpose was served by labeling him a climate change denier and a conspiracy theorist? And shouldn't people who hurl such accusations be required to supply some sort of proof?
The Skeptics Are Thrashing The Alarmists In The Global Warming Debate. Rarely will global warming alarmists step into the ring for a live debate that people can watch. There are good reasons for this. When you remove alarmists from the protection of a fawning liberal press and subject them to a debate on equal terms without media filters, embarrassing things tend to happen.
NZ Justice shows courts are useless in a science debate. [Scroll down] What's unnerving about this is that if "authority" is determined not by behavior, logic or quality of reasoning, but simply by government decree, then the court becomes a de facto arm of the government — because only people who are funded by the government (all "climate scientists" are funded by government) can give evidence that the court recognizes. Who can criticize and hold government or statutory authorities to proper standards? Not the citizens, for they are not "qualified".
Be Skeptical of Skeptic's Skepticism of Skeptics. Anyone who starts out by using the hate-speech term "Climate Deniers" — laden with political overtones of Holocaust denial — cannot expect to be taken seriously as an objective scientist. Despite this promise of "Climate Scientists' Answers", only four peer-reviewed papers by climate scientists are cited among the 41 references at the end of the article. And the implicit notion that "Climate Deniers" are non-scientists while true-believers are "Climate Scientists" is also unreasonable. Many eminent climate scientists are skeptical of the more extremist claims made by the UN's climate panel, the IPCC. We shall cite some of their work in this response to the Professor's unscientific article.
Kerry: Climate Change 'As Dangerous' as Iran's Nukes and Possibility of War. The situation facing the planet because of climate change is "as dangerous" as the possibility of war over Iran's nuclear activities, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) told the U.S. Senate on Wednesday [8/1/2012]. Delivering what his office described as "a major address and current assessment of the global climate change challenge," Kerry acknowledged and bemoaned the success of those who question the notion of human-induced global warming. He compared skeptics to flat-earthers and decried what he called a "concerted assault on reason."
Letter from R.C.E. Wyndham To the Bishop of Exeter. [Scroll down to page 17] The ethical considerations arise from the activities of propagandists when
• they seek to howl down any form of questioning or dissent,
• they use threatening vilification as a propagandist tool,
• they damage the careers of those who have the temerity to question their dogma,
• they wilfully and knowingly misrepresent data,
• they wilfully and knowingly suppress contra-indicative data,
• they claim data to be authentic and rigorous when, in reality, it is cherry picked from partisan environmentalist propaganda material,
• they undermine scientific method by refusing to disclose and share data/methodology [...]
Professor fired after expressing climate change skepticism. Oregon State University chemistry professor Nicholas Drapela was fired without warning three weeks ago and has still been given no reason for the university's decision to "not renew his contract." Drapela, an outspoken critic of man-made climate change, worked at the university for 10 years.
The '96-to-present smear of skeptic scientists. We all need to ask why the MSM didn't find the red flags I describe in these pieces — 45 all together. The smear — in its successful form — goes back to 1996, but we need to find out more about its '91-'95 time period.
Lord of the Skeptics. [Scroll down] Whenever inconvenient facts don't fit the desired narrative, out come the nasty names. Skeptics are called things like "birthers, baggers and blowhards," "love letter truthers," racists, extremists, "transcripters," "planet wreckers," flat-earthers, deniers, crack-smokers, and crackpots — in order to mock, ridicule, and shut them up, Alinsky-style.
Climate-Catastrophe Skeptics — If You Can't Beat 'Em, Shrink 'Em! For nearly three decades, certain U.S., U.K., and U.N. activists, like NASA's James Hanson, have tried to sell governments on draconian centralized economic policies supposedly to save the planet. Anyone disagreeing — regardless of credentials and reasoning — becomes the target of rhetorical terrorism. But the skeptical resistance is so strong and growing so rapidly — not just in the public, but also among scientists — that the alarmists increasingly show signs of both despair and loss of self-control.
Environmentalists compared their opponents to mass murderers long before the Heartland Institute. [Scroll down] Consider the leading British green who said climate-change deniers should be held responsible for the "coming" "Holocaust" and thus might have to be banged up for their complicity in mass murder. "I wonder what sentences judges might hand down at future international criminal tribunals on those who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead", he mused. The popular eco-magazine Grist has called for "some sort of climate Nuremberg" to try the "bastards" who deny climate change. When they aren't being likened to Hitler, climate-change sceptics are being lumped in with those who appeased him.
Eco Crowd Growing Desperate — and Dangerous lose steam, tempers. Writing for Forbes.com, [Steve] Zwick has called on so-called "climate deniers" to be treated like virtual war criminals: "We know who the active denialists are — not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies," he writes. "Let's start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let's make them pay. Let's let their houses burn until the innocent are rescued. Let's swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let's force them to bear the cost of rising food prices. They broke the climate. Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?" Those who disagree with him are not merely mistaken, they are malevolent, unworthy even of persuasion through honest debate. Instead, "denialists" deserve only to have their homes razed. This is becoming a more and more common feature of environmentalist rhetoric.
The Editor says...
Imagine the narcissism of a person who believes that he (or anyone else) could break the climate.
Climate deniers should be tracked and made to pay 'when the famine comes', says inflammatory climate columnist. A liberal environmental analyst sparked a firestorm after he used an outlandish example that suggested those who deny the existence of man-made global warming should have their houses burnt down. Steve Zwick used the example of the fire department in a small Tennessee town allowed several houses to burn to the ground because their owners had not paid the mandatory $75 fee for the service.
Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics' Homes. Writing for Forbes Magazine, climate change alarmist Steve Zwick calls for skeptics of man-made global warming to be tracked, hunted down and have their homes burned to the ground, yet another shocking illustration of how eco-fascism is rife within the environmentalist lobby.
Global Warming's Reckless Rhetoric. An acclaimed environmental studies professor contends that those who do not believe that humans are causing global warming are mentally ill and need to be "treated," according to a recent story at American Thinker. Keri Norgaard teaches at the University of Oregon and is the author of Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions and Everyday Life. In her book she compares global warming skepticism to racism, arguing that there is a "cultural resistance" that keeps some people from acknowledging that humans are responsible for global warming. This condition, she claims, "... must be recognized and treated" as an aberrant sociological behavior.
The Religion of Global Warming. [Scroll down] Global warming is harsh toward skeptics, heretics, and other "deniers." One of the most dangerous features of the global warming religion is its level of intimidation of the heretics, the non-believers. For example, former Vice President Al Gore called skeptics "global warming deniers." Many climatologists have been intimidated into silence, or have had calls to punish them go out.
The Science of Half-Baked Ideas. The more we learn about climate science, the more we learn what a shabby, back-of-the-envelope business it is. Dr. Michael Mann, the climate science poster boy who simplified the global climate of the last millennium into a hockey stick, just came out with a book to remind us how anyone who disagrees with him is a shill for dark forces.
'Fakegate': Climate Change Fanatics Wage War on Dissenters. The rise of environmentalism, however, has generated a war on science, first by distorting it, and then by propagandizing the 'findings', studies' and resulting claims based on them." The Heartland Institute, as a leading voice, led the effort to debunk the hoax through its sponsorship of six international conferences featuring scientists and others who presented papers demonstrating "that 0.038 percent of CO2 in the atmosphere had little or no "greenhouse" effect on the Earth's climate or weather events." Heartland's six International Conferences on Climate Change (ICCC) attracted scientists worldwide, who employed science rather than pseudo-science in their presentations.
Statement by The Heartland Institute on Gleick Confession. Earlier this evening [2/20/2012], Peter Gleick, a prominent figure in the global warming movement, confessed to stealing electronic documents from The Heartland Institute in an attempt to discredit and embarrass a group that disagrees with his views. Gleick's crime was a serious one. The documents he admits stealing contained personal information about Heartland staff members, donors, and allies, the release of which has violated their privacy and endangered their personal safety.
Global warming's desperate caper. For believers in a science that supposedly is "settled," global-warming advocates are awfully concerned about the need to silence dissent. Last week, the ethics chairman for the American Geophysical Union resigned in disgrace over his role in a black-bag job meant to intimidate the Heartland Institute, one of the most effective voices questioning the anti-carbon-dioxide orthodoxy.
The Not-So-Vast Conspiracy. When did it become received media wisdom that global warming skepticism was all the work of shadowy right-wing groups lavishly funded by oil companies? As best we can tell, it started with a 1995 Harper's magazine article claiming to expose this "high-powered engine of disinformation." Today anyone who raises a doubt about the causes of global warming is accused of fronting for, say, Exxon, whatever the facts.
Global warming activists seek to purge 'deniers' among local weathermen. Concerned that too many "deniers" are in the meteorology business, global warming activists this month launched a campaign to recruit local weathermen to hop aboard the alarmism bandwagon and expose those who are not fully convinced that the world is facing man-made doom.
Scientists want climate change in young minds. [Scroll down] The NCSE and other groups instead will launch a public relations effort. If it is successful, climate change skeptics could become a small minority and might be derided for their beliefs. Some already have faced persecution. Last week, Reuters news service reported that actor and conservative economist Ben Stein filed a $300,000 lawsuit against Japanese manufacturer Kyocera after, he said, the company booted him from an advertising campaign when it learned he doesn't subscribe to the theory that humans are responsible for climate change.
Dissent on global warming has been shut down from the start. The odd thing about the great debate on global warming is that there never really was a debate. As soon as the global warming scare exploded on the world in 1988, to its promoters there could be no argument about it. The scientists who that year set up the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were already convinced beyond doubt that 'human-induced climate change' was a reality. Al Gore was soon already pronouncing 'the science is settled'.
UK police seize computers of skeptic blogger in England. The first blogger to break the Climategate2 story has had a visit from the police and has had his computers seized. Tallbloke's Talkshop first reported on CG2 due to the timing of the release being overnight in the USA. Today he was raided by six UK police (Norfolk Constabulary and Metropolitan police) and several of his computers were seized as evidence.
Global Warming: the Guilty Men. [Scroll down] How did they get away with this stuff? It's a question I find myself asking time and again of all those establishment figures using every manner of dirty trick to promote the Man Made Global Warming scam. As we saw with Appeasement and we saw again with the Euro, foremost among these dirty tricks is a relentless campaign to discredit those who disagree with them by implying that they are mad, extreme, out-of-touch, unrepresentative, ill-informed.
The New Deniers. The recent publication of a report by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences prompted a number of editorial pieces that repeated this "consensus of scientists" argument. Typically, the pieces presented or summarized no data in support of the catastrophic predictions, nor did they even acknowledge alternative explanations for whatever warming the earth may be experiencing.
The Warmists Strike Back. Science is supposed to be about truth, not what the party says is truth. The modern science establishment is increasingly resembling George Orwell's Ministry of Love; two plus two equals five, if we say so! After all, ignorance is strength! Now stop that dissent.
Gore's plan to demonize catastrophic climate change skeptics. Al Gore invented the internet. He and Tipper were the basis for Erich Segal's book, Love Story. He grew up and worked in tobacco fields, he was pro-life before he was pro choice, and his mother sang him to sleep as an infant with "Look for the Union Label." Now, he is creating more lies, the big lie, the evil formula: Call people indefensible names so they shut up.
'Climate scepticism is the new racism' says Gore. Just as "racist" has been honed over the decades by liberal-lefties for casual use as a deadly weapon against anyone who disagrees them, so "climate denier" has become the new leftist shorthand for "evil, wrong, uncaring, right-wing — and almost certainly funded by Big Oil." In both cases, the intent is the same: to close down the argument by implying that your opponent is so morally compromised that his case isn't even worth consideration.
Gore: Global warming skeptics are this generation's racists. One day climate change skeptics will be seen in the same negative light as racists, or so says former Vice President Al Gore. In an interview with former advertising executive and Climate Reality Project collaborator Alex Bogusky broadcast on UStream on Friday, Gore explained that in order for climate change alarmists to succeed, they must "win the conversation" against those who deny there is a crisis.
Perry and Global Warming. Last week Rick Perry questioned the prevailing orthodoxy on global warming. There was, as is easy to imagine, no shortage of warmists waiting to pounce.
'BBC's biased climate science reporting isn't biased enough' claims report. As Biased BBC notes, it has been five years since the BBC officially abandoned all pretence that it was adopting a neutral position on "Climate Change". In a 2007 BBC Trust policy report, it wrote: ["]The BBC has held a high level seminar with some of the best scientific experts (on whose and what measurement) and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of consensus.["] This anti-heretic policy it has been pursuing with Torquemada-like fervour ever since.
Climategate U Loses Bid to Stifle Critic. James Delingpole, a take-no-prisoner blogger with the Daily Telegraph, has been a relentless critic of the university and the professor at the heart of the scandal, Phil Jones. In an attempt to curb Delingpole's blog posts, the university lodged a complaint with the UK Press Complaints Commission, an independent body. The Commission's decision, just out, is a crushing repudiation of the university's attempt to manage dissent that could strike a blow for free speech everywhere.
Britain's Prince Charles Blasts Climate-Change Skeptics. Prince Charles lashed out Wednesday [2/9/2011] at climate change skeptics, saying they are playing "a reckless game of roulette" with the planet's future.
Pop Went the Climate Bubble. The New York Times' editorial writers have apparently spent the last 11 months in a Rip Van Winkle-like state of unconsciousness when it comes to climate change. Monday's [10/18/2010] lead editorial, "In Climate Denial Again," railed about the 19 of 20 or so Republican Senate candidates who do not "accept the scientific consensus that humans are largely responsible for global warming."
Daily Kos Editor Says Skeptics Should Commit Suicide. A Daily Kos contributing editor has suggested that "Steve Milloy and his buddies" commit suicide or be euthanized apparently for the crime of opposing global warming alarmism.
Smearing Global Warming Skeptics. Meteorologist blogger Anthony Watts normally talks about the crumbling science of man-caused global warming, but recently described an uninvited office guest demanding to know about his alleged "big oil funding." The charge that only the lure of big money causes people to question warmist gospel is old, but, turns out, of highly questionable origin.
Objective: Silence the global-warming skeptics. A noted skeptic of "man-made climate change" says attempts are being made to ban individuals like himself from testifying before political committees. Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com has testified numerous times on Capitol Hill in regards to alleged "climate change," and was even the communications director for Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) on the minority staff for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. But he says he drew the ire of one individual when he was asked to testify in the state of Louisiana. According to Morano, Commissioner Foster Campbell of the Louisiana Public Service Commission was none too happy after engaging in a debate with Morano over climate change.
Silencing Dissent on Global Warming. [In 2007], the Weather Channel's Dr. Heidi Cullen called for the decertification of weathermen who were skeptical of manmade global warming. Grist Magazine's staff writer David Roberts said that his solution for the "bastards" who were members of what he termed the global warming "denial industry" is, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg."
Global Warming: Silencing The Critics. A recent poll of 530 climatologists in 27 countries showed 34.7 percent of interviewees endorsed the notion that a substantial part of the current global warming trend — which might see temperatures rise by a degree or two, on average, by century's end — is caused by man's industrial activities: driving cars and the like. More than a fifth — 20.5 percent — rejected this "anthropogenic hypothesis." Half were undecided.
Global Warming Censored: How the Major Networks Silence the Debate on Climate Change. So much for that job requirement of balance and objectivity. When it came to global warming the media clearly left out dissent in favor of hype, cute penguins and disastrous predictions.
A Major Contributor To Climate Science Effectively Sidelined By Climate Deceivers. I was saddened to hear that Ernst Georg Beck died after a battle with cancer. I was flattered when he asked me to review one of his early papers on the historic pattern of atmospheric CO2 and its relationship to global warming. I was struck by the precision, detail and perceptiveness of his work and urged its publication. I also warned him about the personal attacks and unscientific challenges he could expect. On 6 November 2009 he wrote to me, "In Germany the situation is comparable to the times of medieval inquisition."
State Climatologist Invited, then Uninvited to Rally. On Wednesday, August 25, I was invited by Environment America to speak at its September 8 press conference on "Extreme Weather in Delaware", to promote the release of their new report on the subject at Legislative Hall. Ms. Hannah Leone was pleased to have me speak because my "knowledge on climate change and weather would be a great asset to the event." On Friday, August 27, I was uninvited from the event by Ms. Leone, who noted that "I believe it is in the best interest of the success of our report that you do not participation [sic] in this event"...
Blowing Up the Climate Skeptics. This is where communism and socialism ultimately lead — even of the eco-variety. You don't get with the program; you get exterminated.
Climate Change Group Apologizes for Violent Video. Emaciated polar bears clutching to melting icebergs. Smokestacks fading to reveal wind turbines and clear air. These are the kinds of images you typically see in a TV spot for climate change awareness or clean energy use. But exploding children? That's precisely what's depicted in a new ad released Friday [10/1/2010] by British clean energy group 10:10, ironically titled "No Pressure."
"One of the two ancient principles of natural justice long recognized in British law is audiatur et altera pars. Hear the other side too. It's certainly cheaper, and it's probably right."
Document location http://www.akdart.com/warming5.html|
Updated July 15, 2014.
Entire contents Copyright 2014 by Andrew K. Dart