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Earth-centered-universe dogmas have been replaced by a far more intolerant Church of Gaia catechism of cataclysm.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 ...
"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.
Sealing the Fate of Antarctica
Holocene elephant seal distribution implies warmer-than-present climate in the Ross Sea
Snail mail Senator Rockefeller
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:
List of scientists opposing global warming consensus
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-
Function: noun
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?
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.