Skip to comments.Climate scientists refuse to debate global warming ‘skeptics’ in the media
Posted on 03/24/2014 6:40:57 AM PDT by rktman
Climate scientists and environmentalists are venting their frustrations debating those who are skeptical of man-made global warming and some have even gone so far as to refuse debating skeptics.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Sounds putry familiar to just about any subject the radical leftwing extremist dimokkkrat scumbags refuse to "debate" with reasonable, logical persons. "They" know best and will let you know what your opinion is if and when they ask for it.
Right out of Atlas Shrugged. “Well, if you don’t already KNOW, I just can’t explain it to you”.
Y’see, the debate would be massive, and the warmists don’t want the public to know what excellent mass debaters they are.
Leftists never want to debate the merits or the truth of their “issues”,
they simply seek to ELIMINATE their opposition.
They aren’t interested in the truth so much as they are in advancing an agenda.
And those of us who are actually proficient in math and physics know why.
Of course they don’t want public debates. Showing them pictures of the artic all froze up goes against their profuse statements that the artic ice would be all gone by last summer.
More and more, I hope the skeptics start compiling criminal cases of science fraud against the hucksters. Not just to punish them, but to prevent such schemes in the future.
In the 1970s, the science fraud, butterfly expert, Paul R. Ehrlich and his wife wrote a hysterical Malthusian screed called “The Population Bomb”, screaming that human reproduction in the entire world must be brought under tight government control, and that all natural resources are in shortage and must be rationed by the government.
And when his predictions of global collapse in the 1980s failed utterly, *no one* called him on it. He did not spend a day in prison for his public panic, and millions of dollars spent by governments to address his demands. And importantly, even today, he is still honored and respected by *the same people* who advance the man made global warming hysteria.
Had Ehrlich and his cronies wore prison pajamas for at least 10 years each, much of the MMGW nonsense would be far more muted.
And my point is that, unless the MMGW crowd are *punished* for wasting *billions* of dollars to establish their one-world dictatorial totalitarian regime, they won’t stop.
In 20 years or so, they will be back with yet another scam, and a factor again larger than MMGW, which itself was a factor larger than the population crisis b.s.
They must be stopped. And the only way to stop them is to make them pay for their crimes against society, the taxpayers, and freedom and liberty.
These scoundrels need prison time, and it is up to the skeptics to insure they get it. They should at a minimum be stripped of their academic credentials, what they wrote should be disavowed and pulled from publication, and they should have to pay back the vast sums of government money they were given under false pretenses.
And then they need to spend time in prison to contemplate the error of their ways.
Well if debate doesn’t work why don’t we just bring it in a court of law where facts are weighed. Any one found profiting from lies and false data should be incarcerated. Fair enough?
You put it very well. I should read the replies before I post. I seem to always find some one who has beat me to the punch with my same thoughts and they express them far better than I.
If any of their computer-generated, worst case scenario models were starting to pan out these people would be more than happy to debate AGW skeptics.
That is what they mean when the say “the debate is over”; they won’t debate they will just silence the opposition.
Julian Simon did he won a bet with Erlich about several key commodities that proved Erlich was full of it. But Agree that Erlich never suffered any academic or political consequences of being so wrong - if you're a socialist/communist/green you're immune from social or political retribution.
Maybe it would have been more appropriate to use a “$” behind the word green since we all know that’s what it’s always about. Hey algore. Can you say cha ching baby?
When it snows (happens frequently here in North Dakota) it's just some more of that "global warming".
People digging their car out: "Where the $^^%#% is all the Global Warming we're supposed to get?"
You don't need a PhD to spot BS.
Part of the game is to toss out ideas and eliminate them until you have a solution, or have to hunt new ideas. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Given that, however, the freedom to contend otherwise is essential to the vindication or refutation of an idea. Without the ability to openly challenge and debate those ideas, demagoguery slips in, and science is not science, but takes on a cult religious aspect.
Demanding it be believed (or else) can only destroy innovation and progress, real progress on the frontiers of human knowledge.
Open discourse, and especially reasoned disagreement is vital to scientific inquiry, as is scrupulous honesty in both methodology and the gathering/presentation of data.
After all, whatever it is, it is what it is, and we won't understand it by assuming it is what it isn't, much less demanding that that assumption be accepted without dissent.
According to the Center for American Progress website, he is a "graduate of the University of Michigan with both a Bachelor of Arts and Master of Public Policy degrees."
LOL! Public Policy major. Guess it’s payin’ him at least. Oh, sorry. “Master” of Pubic policy.
I understand your point. I wouldn’t want to disparage true scientific study and theories. When a citizen applies for a grant , entrance to a college a job or social welfare programs they can be prosecuted for fraud fired or some other remedy for not being truthful. I’d just like the same standard for agenda driven pseudoscience for profit. If data is faked or cherry picked for favorable results and negative data thrown out because it does not support a forgon conclusion or support the theory and it is used to change policy to remove money from us or enrich the believers thru grants, paychecks or business ventures that profit from phony data then prosecute them.
With all of their anger, you would think they would love the chance to kick the ass of a denier in a debate.
Works for me!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.