Skip to comments.No change in political climate (Ellen Goodman: Global warming deniers are like Holocaust deniers)
Posted on 02/09/2007 12:09:05 PM PST by EternalVigilance
On the day that the latest report on global warming was released, I went out and bought a light bulb. OK, an environmentally friendly, compact fluorescent light bulb.
By every measure, the U N 's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change raises the level of alarm. The fact of global warming is "unequivocal." The certainty of the human role is now somewhere over 90 percent. Which is about as certain as scientists ever get.
I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.
Ellen Goodman's e-mail address is firstname.lastname@example.org.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Story from the San Francisco Chronicle, Feb 9, 2007:
"In a bizarre attack, a well-known author and Holocaust scholar was dragged out of a San Francisco hotel elevator by an apparent Holocaust denier who reportedly had been trailing him for weeks."
Dear Ellen: Would you REALLY like for us to be like Holocaust deniers?
Looks like the global warming scammers are getting really desperate!
I wonder how many scientists there are who are skeptics of AGW but are afraid to speak out of fear of being compared the the KKK and Nazi`s. Science is no longer science when attempts are made to shut down opposing points of view through vilification, fear, and intimidation. Whats next. Burning skeptics on stakes?
Do they still carry "Impeach Nixon" banners in Harvard Square?
Re: No change in political climate
If there is manmade global warming, and it has been proven to the point that those who disagree are deniers, how come countries around the world are spending BILLIONS of dollars to prove manmade global warming? I mean we spend no money on proving that the earth is round.
So since there is BILLIONS of dollars being spent to PROVE a manmade connection, then obviously it is not proven. Which means that science has not and may not ever prove a connection. If that is the case then why should be cut off all discussion?
Is this not a Stalinist tactic of quieting all those that may question your beliefs?
As a reporter do you not agree with the First Amendment and freedom of speech. Or is some speech more free than others?
Does not Science expand and grow by discussion and dissent? If as Hillary says that it is the responsibility of a Free people to disagree with the government, should than also not apply to Government Scientist so that is actually good to disagree with them?
So when you write I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future. Are you not being a hypocrite or a Stalinists?
Also before we spend trillions of dollars to stop something as questionable as manmade global warming which you are promoting, can you, Al Gore, or any environmentalist answerer the following questions?
1. What gas is responsible for approximately 95% of the "greenhouse effect" on planet Earth?
2. Are the United States a net A) Emitter, or B) Absorber of carbon dioxide?
3. Is the global climate now A) Warmer, or B) Cooler than it was approximately 1,000 to 1,100 years ago?
4. Can you name any other things that can affect the Earths temperature besides mankind.
Are you aware of the Scientific method?
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
6. Can you explain how the amount of carbon put in the atmosphere by mankind has any affect when it is less than the natural fluctuations of carbon put in the atmosphere naturally.
When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.
The environmentalists pushing the 'global warming' myth have never gotten past Step # 2!
I like this statement in the Opinion Journal in the Global Warming Smear thread.
"One can only conclude from this episode that the environmental left and their political and media supporters now believe it is legitimate to quash debate on climate change and its consequences. This is known as orthodoxy, and, until now, science accepted the legitimacy of challenging it."
It's a talking point. She's not the first one to say it by a long shot. Her column is full of trendy, liberal know it all buzzwords. The holocaust denial bit is one of them. She is a pig, has been one forever.
Very cute post devolve.
The "Overlay" worked great
I need to refine this theme further -
Ellen Goodman is the "stereotypical" millionaire-Commie Limo-lib journalist -
What did liz say, I can't find her comment?
I suspect that most cultural Marxists are.
Another hoof in the thundering stampede of the bewildered herd. Le't call her a Gnu.
That's fitting from her perspective as pro-aborts like Goodman are on a par with Holocaust perpetrators.
Of course your comment, unlike hers, is accurate.
But the sad thing is that Ellen Goodman is Jewish. For her to take a collective crap on the memories of the 6 million + Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust is one of the most vile things I have ever seen.
Wow. It's hard to reason with such solid logic. I am sold. Where do I send my money?