Skip to comments.Climate ideology control
Posted on 12/20/2006 8:56:24 AM PST by neverdem
America's vital traditions of free speech, association and debate are under assault.
Al Gore bristles at anyone who raises inconvenient truths about climate alarmism. Greenpeace calls us "climate criminals." Grist magazine wants "Nuremberg-style war crimes trials" for climate disaster skeptics, probably followed by hangings, since burning at the stake would release greenhouse gases.
Climate catastrophist Ross Gelbspan told a Washington, D.C., audience: "Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what those scientists say."
Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, shamefully treated physician-scientist-author Michael Crichton like a child molester during a congressional hearing, for suggesting climate change theories be reviewed by double-blind studies and evidentiary standards akin to what the Food and Drug Administration uses for new medicine. And Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia have issued a "gag order" against ExxonMobil. "Its message: Start toeing the senators' line on climate change, or else," said the Wall Street Journal.
Earth-centered-universe dogmas have been replaced by a far more intolerant Church of Gaia catechism of cataclysm. We have entered an era of climate McCarthyism and eco-Inquisitions, whose goal appears to be slashing energy use and economic growth, by making activists, politicians and bureaucrats the final arbiters of every energy and economic decision.
Yes, Earth's climate is changing -- again, though far less than it has repeatedly throughout our planet's history. Yes, people influence our weather and climate -- to some degree. But few scientists have joined astronomer James Hansen in saying humans have replaced the sun and other natural forces as the primary cause, Climate Armageddon is nigh and drastic action must be taken immediately.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
We have the new McCarthyism, folks. Anyone who doubts anthropogenic, i.e. manmade, global warming is a heretic needing a neck stretching!
Not that the original McCarthy had it wrong. The government, especially the dems, was full of commie sympathizers, the ancestors of the dems.
In the next ten years, Hollywood will probably make three or four more boring retread movies about the horrors of McCarthy in the 50's, while completely ignoring the real censorship going on today.
They can take away my opinion on climate when they pry it from my dead wet overheated fingers.
Government Science never changes - it's always been a whore to the highest bidder or the toughest thug!
Eco-bullsh*t is merely the newest scam - remember eugenics? Remember Lysenkoism? Remember "scientific socialism'?
Heads up, because old Cogitator will soon show up here espousing how man is changing the climate. Folks like him are as big a problem as the cow fart hypothesis.
Is there any area of science where doomsayers have a poorer record of foretelling the future? Remember the deep freeze we were supposed to have if Saddam Hussein ignited the Kuwaiti oil fields during his retreat?
Here's what Jonathan Swift had to say about government science in Laputa(The Whore):
....They are very bad reasoners, and vehemently given to opposition, unless when they happen to be of the right opinion, which is seldom their case. Imagination, fancy, and invention, they are wholly strangers to, nor have any words in their language, by which those ideas can be expressed; the whole compass of their thoughts and mind being shut up within the two forementioned sciences.
Most of them, and especially those who deal in the astronomical part, have great faith in judicial astrology, although they are ashamed to own it publicly. But what I chiefly admired, and thought altogether unaccountable, was the strong disposition I observed in them towards news and politics, perpetually inquiring into public affairs, giving their judgments in matters of state, and passionately disputing every inch of a party opinion. I have indeed observed the same disposition among most of the mathematicians I have known in Europe, although I could never discover the least analogy between the two sciences; unless those people suppose, that because the smallest circle has as many degrees as the largest, therefore the regulation and management of the world require no more abilities than the handling and turning of a globe; but I rather take this quality to spring from a very common infirmity of human nature, inclining us to be most curious and conceited in matters where we have least concern, and for which we are least adapted by study or nature.
These people are under continual disquietudes, never enjoying a minutes peace of mind; and their disturbances proceed from causes which very little affect the rest of mortals. Their apprehensions arise from several changes they dread in the celestial bodies: for instance, that the earth, by the continual approaches of the sun towards it, must, in course of time, be absorbed, or swallowed up; that the face of the sun, will, by degrees, be encrusted with its own effluvia, and give no more light to the world; that the earth very narrowly escaped a brush from the tail of the last comet, which would have infallibly reduced it to ashes; and that the next, which they have calculated for one-and-thirty years hence, will probably destroy us. For if, in its perihelion, it should approach within a certain degree of the sun (as by their calculations they have reason to dread) it will receive a degree of heat ten thousand times more intense than that of red hot glowing iron, and in its absence from the sun, carry a blazing tail ten hundred thousand and fourteen miles long, through which, if the earth should pass at the distance of one hundred thousand miles from the nucleus, or main body of the comet, it must in its passage be set on fire, and reduced to ashes: that the sun, daily spending its rays without any nutriment to supply them, will at last be wholly consumed and annihilated; which must be attended with the destruction of this earth, and of all the planets that receive their light from it.
They are so perpetually alarmed with the apprehensions of these, and the like impending dangers, that they can neither sleep quietly in their beds, nor have any relish for the common pleasures and amusements of life. When they meet an acquaintance in the morning, the first question is about the suns health, how he looked at his setting and rising, and what hopes they have to avoid the stroke of the approaching comet. This conversation they are apt to run into with the same temper that boys discover in delighting to hear terrible stories of spirits and hobgoblins, which they greedily listen to, and dare not go to bed for fear....
Time is of the essence for the global warming hustlers. If another five or ten years go by without the earth being turned into a flooded, methane-filled greenhouse, their cause will be weakened, if not lost entirely. On the other hand, if they can intimidate science and bulldoze government into the actions they demand, they can claim credit for saving us all from irreversable climate catastrophe. This is sometimes called "the heads-I win; tails-you lose con." :)
"Climate catastrophist Ross Gelbspan told a Washington, D.C., audience: "Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what those scientists say."
The above quote is a quintessential example of the success that the 60's radical Marcuse had in indoctrinating the vacuous before they ever developed any critical thinking skills.
Link to my previous post on the subject:
Today's schools and university campuses are filled with those who have been indoctrinated by Marcusian Marxist professors, specifically.
You can recognize them by how they justify their attempts at silencing those with whom they disagree. Herbert Marcuse is where they get their convoluted fascistic ideas about "tolerance" and set themselves up as the ones who get to define what the word "repressive" means (as in: "it all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"):
In Herbert Marcuse's 1965 essay "Repressive Tolerance", Marcuse argues that genuine tolerance does not tolerate support for repression, since doing so ensures that marginalized voices will remain unheard. He characterizes tolerance of repressive speech as "inauthentic." Instead, he advocates a discriminating tolerance that does not allow repressive intolerance to be voiced.
Google: Herbert Marcuse / Frankfurt School
26 posted on 11/22/2006 9:58:32 AM EST by Matchett-PI (To have no voice in the Party that always sides with America's enemies is a badge of honor.)
You know- here I thought we citizens were going to have to take to the streets with arms against radical islamists, but it appears that it might come down to fighting against radical chicken little's instead- it'll just be a different battle- all we'll have to do to win this war will be to keep starting forrest fires- the shock will kill the alarmists dead! http://sacredscoop.com
In most branches of science, scientists and non scientists can discuss opposing theories in a detached clinical way. For some reason, many people adhering to the 'man is warming the earth' theories dismiss people believing otherwise as lone nuts, idiots, heretics and the like. Wonder why they are so defensive...
In addition to indirect climate management it should always be mentioned that there are many direct methods as well. Man-made clouds and snow are edible heat reflectors and will play a key role in climate management in the future. The total water content in the atmosphere remains about the same. Whether it reflects or is invisible depends on the availability of tiny nucleotides to trigger condensation.
In the oceans, low level cloud formation happens more easily near the coasts than far offshore. The reason is shoreline waves spray salt into the air, giving the water vapor something to start condensing on. Making water vapor reflect more on 70% of Earth's surface may be a simple matter of spraying some ocean water. Wave action and wind powered devices are one of many ways to do this.
Cogitator's biggest problem is he is under the delusion that the science of global warming is not politicized. Cogitator does not see the extreme bias in the reporting.
No doubt many of you saw this;http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/18/prnw.20061218.DCM029.html
Newark 1968, read about what the locals did with drug dealers and criminals.
Here's what I posted in another article about GW on 6/30/2006, regarding the "truthfulness" of the GW hoaxers and their minions in the DBM:
Awwww, jeez, ya don't think these very honest, highly perceptive, published-in-Science-mag scientists would LIE to us, do ya!??? C'mon, these are SCIENTISTS, after all!
Just like some of these cretins, who fully admit that they are lying and will continue to lie to get their agenda across:
"I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism. I don't think it's possible under capitalism."
--Judi Bari, Earth First! member
"The environmentalist's dream is an egalitarian society, based on rejection of economic growth, a smaller population, eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally."
--Aaron Wildavsky, political scientist and professor
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits... [C]limate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
--Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister
"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists, and their projects... We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers, and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land."
-David Foreman, EarthFirst! member
"We've got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy
--Timothy Wirth, Clinton Administration U.S. Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, and one of a number of politicians (including Barbara Boxer, Barney Frank, Al Gore, John Kerry, Christopher Shays, and others) who were designated as "Green Leadership for the '90s."
"[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios [about global warming and destruction of the environment], make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts one might have... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
--Stephen Schneider, Stanford University environmentalist
"We routinely wrote scare stories about the hazards of chemicals, employing words like "cancer," and "birth defects" to splash a little cold water in reporters' faces... Our press reports were more or less true... Few handouts, however, can be completely honest, and ours were no exception... We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."
--Jim Sibbison, former EPA press officer
"Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming, they have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say."
--Ross Gelbspan, former editor of The Boston Globe
And we can't forget that shining beacon of leftist truth- Time Magazine:
"I would freely admit that on [global warming] we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy."
--Charles Alexander, Time magazine science editor
All ya gotta do to see through these lying phonies is just open yer eyes and ears -- they'll tell ya themselves how they are duping you, as evidenced by the quotes above...
But then again, IQ is distributed on the Bell curve and 50% of the population are gullible morons, hanging on every word and promise of the leftists, who know this and are catering to exactly that part of the population.
Although, one certainly does get the impression that freak weather events have been increasing in severity and frequency over the past 20 years or so, enough so that you must at least consider the possibility of global climate change, in particular warming. Having said that it's quite a big jump to say that it is not just cyclical, or that it's human-caused. I suppose I also have to consider the possibility that the perception of increasingly frequent and severe weather events is the deliberate result of MSM reporting, and is, in fact, only a perception.
"I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism. I don't think it's possible under capitalism."I'm sure that the woman has never been to vast swaths of the former USSR, Eastern Europe or Beijing ... or else if she has she was far more interested in the monuments to socialism than all the 'socialism' in the air. ^.^
--Judi Bari, Earth First! member
Socialism's in the air:
Everywhere you look around:
Socialism's in the air:
In every sooty sky, every acid cloud:
And I don't know if I'm being foolish:
Don't know if I'm being wise:
But it's something that I dearly believe in:
So I'll ignore the evidence right before my eyes!
To the tune of Love in in the Air
Global Warming is setting records for bias in reporting. Something like 97% of articles in the MSM are sounding the horns of catrostraphic global warming, while only 3% offer balanced coverage. I really think Hitler had more balanced coverage than global warming skeptics.
Yes I did, but it's such a great letter that I couldn't resist reading it again.
Thanks for the link, Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah & Happy New Year!
I'd be more inclined to argue that the widespread reporting of freak weather events has become more prolific in the past 20 years or so, and at that, it's been increasingly reported in the context of 'global warming'.
Man is changing the climate. Even if there was absolutely no fossil fuel CO2 involved, man's activities would change the climate (think about the difference between a plowed agricultural field and a deciduous hardwood forest, for a moment, and then think about what Minnesota used to look like). To think that man's activities have no effect on climate is foolish.
What happens if the global temperature rises, on average, about 0.2 C over the next decade, as is currently projected? Will the "global warming" cause be lost entirely?
I've been aware of this issue, and monitoring it, since the 1980s. I was heading in the direction of an academic geochemist (before family economics and career feasibility intervened). I know about Earth's paleoclimate history back to the Archaean. What I know is this: the current scientific view of climate change/global warming is that mankind's activities are increasingly becoming the dominant forcing factor. I admit and recognize that there is a liberal political bias (which frequently results in miscommunication and overhype) in the reporting of scientific results. But I also recognize the basic scientific conclusions with minimal political bias involved. Furthermore, I've got a sufficiently informed scientific background to know that the basics of the science (i.e., what increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 should do) are sound.
If "balanced coverage" means getting a counterpoint quote from a member of the list of skeptics below:
then it's not balanced, it's skewed in favor of the skeptics. Why? Because getting a quote from a skeptical source expressing the opinion that there might be some uncertainty about the results of a particular study increases the perception that there is uncertainty about the results of a particular study, even if there actually isn't much uncertainty!
You are naive then. From Science Magazine to the IPCC to funding dollars the message is clear, you support catastrophic global warming or you will not receive one red cent and will not get published. Politics has been corrupting science for hundreds of years, and global warming science is today's worst offender. Any critic is blackballed, ridiculed, and defunded. How can you call that unbias?
LOL, and on a related note, just because you are parinoid does not mean they aren't out to get you.
I disagree, but... I agree that it is probably difficult to get funding for research that would directly challenge the basics of anthropogenically-forced climate change from standard funding agencies (not foundations with a political bent). That's because a funding proposal would have to be reviewed, and a very strong case would have to be made that the research proposed has a sound basis to get approved by the reviewers. Somebody can't just write a proposal that says something like "I'm going to research alternatives to greenhouse gas climate forcing" and expect the funding agencies to pony up!
As for blackballing, the skeptics have been playing fast and loose with the facts for years. A lot of what they get, criticism-wise, is deserved. For one of the prime examples, go back and research what was being said by the skeptics about the MSU tropospheric temperature data about a decade ago, and compare that to what's being said now. Prove it to yourself.
It is customary on here to cc somebody when talking about him.
Reasonable people disagree. It's best to hear them out.
Wishing it were not so will not make it go away.
As per Merriam-Webster, McCarthyism
Main Entry: Mc·Car·thy·ism
Pronunciation: m&-'kär-thE-"i-z&m also -'kär-tE-
Etymology: Joseph R. McCarthy
: a mid-20th century political attitude characterized
chiefly by opposition to elements held to be subversive
and by the use of tactics involving personal attacks on
individuals by means of widely publicized
indiscriminate allegations especially on the basis of
unsubstantiated charges; broadly : defamation of
character or reputation through McCarthyite tactics
- McCarthyist adjective
- Mc·Car·thy·ite /-"It/ noun or adjective
IMHO, we should return the favor and call most of the left and the media Stalinist, Communist, etc., when they go with the ad hominem attacks, regardless of the issue, but most especially when they pretend to scientific wisdom as they almost invariably portray the right as Know Nothings and Luddites.
I agree. But when you hear the same rehashed, refuted argument for the tenth time...
Maybe the nuts are. The scientists are actually doing research.
I see your dictionary definition, and raise you one Treason, by Ann Coulter.
She does a masterful job of establishing that McCarthy was not only right, but probably didn't go far enough in his anti-communist crusade.
I recognize that the word has become synonymous with the idea of a witch hunt or smear campaign, but FReepers should know better than to agree with that, however cliché it is. McCarthy was right, and he was a patriot.
No, I suppose it will not be, but I will, for the first time in many years, see a reduced winter heating bill!
True enough. Some of those scientists do not agree with the alarmist rhetoric. They should be permitted to debate the research, should they not?
The bias is undeniable. Everytime there is evidence against the catestrophic theory of global warming, scientists jump all over it and review it with a fine tooth comb trying to pick it apart. Contrast that with anything that supports it, and you will find it is blindly accepted by the scientific community.
For one of the prime examples, go back and research what was being said by the skeptics about the MSU tropospheric temperature data about a decade ago, and compare that to what's being said now. Prove it to yourself.
Which is a perfect example. Christy and Spencer were attacked by scientists and the media as being widely discredited and were highly criticized for having ties to 'industry-friendly organizations'. Well at least when their data showed a serious conflict. Now they have somewhat corrected their data (not nearly as much as their catestrophic crowd would like) they are now somewhat accepted and not tarred and feathered like they once were.
Herbert Maurcuse spoke at my college, way back when. He stated, without apology, that freedom of speech was only for people with correct ideas.
This of course will be averted if you vote Democrat from here on in, keep buying Al Gore's books (we also have to surrender to the Mooselimbs, grant amnesty to illegals and free all minorities in prison).
Wish I could read it all, but I just don't have time. I have read some of it, and it sounds very convincing. However, the fella that created the guide supports Kyoto, and I still don't.
I've never supported Kyoto. It was simply a "feel-good" measure that was unlikely to be followed, even by the signatories (and this is showing to be true); and it's used as a way to attack U.S. policies. If we'd get really serious about alternative fuel technologies, the EU would climb on board so fast it'd make the world spin slower.
The site is a good resource if you think you've discovered a "convincing" skeptical argument. Most of the classics are covered there.