The “Global Warming Deniers” are beginning to speak up.
The chilling effect on free speech;
Earlier this year, when a correspondent for the American current affairs show 60 Minutes was asked why his various feature programmes on global warming did not include the views of global warming sceptics, he replied: ‘If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?’ Here, climate change deniers are explicitly painted as the bad guys. He also argued that, ‘This isn’t about politics…this is about sound science’, and went so far as to claim that it would be problematic even to air the views of climate change sceptics: ‘There comes a point in journalism where striving for balance becomes irresponsible.’
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist – “An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change”
So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.
Tom Brodbeck on “pack journalism”;
It’s not because there aren’t qualified scientists out there who are skeptical about the findings or who reject them entirely. There are plenty. I’ve heard from them before. But for some reason, reporters and editors chose not to tell that side of the story.
Is environmentalism the new religion?
“The track record of any kind of long-distance prediction is really bad, but everyone’s still really interested in it. It’s sort of a way of picturing the future. But we can’t make long-term predictions of the economy, and we can’t make long-term predictions of the climate,” Dr. Orrell said in an interview. After all, he said, scientists cannot even write the equation of a cloud, let alone make a workable model of the climate.
And public response? Watch not what they say. Watch what they drive.
That’s just a small sampling of what I’ve seen and received. Use the comments for your own on-topic links.
Global warming or global cooling?
by Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1034077.cms
It’s not just what they drive, it’s also how they drive it.
CO + CO2 byproducts are nonlinear with respect to velocity.
Serious environmentally-conscious citizens drive in a style most fuel efficient, don’t they? Don’t they all?
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.
In an interview with “Hospodárské noviny”, a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:
Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•
A: It’s not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it’s an undignified slapstick that people don’t wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the “but’s” are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•
Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions…•
A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.
• Q: But you’re not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•
A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don’t know how to do it and don’t plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don’t have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don’t appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•
Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•
A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it’s obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•
Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right …•
A: …I am right…•
Q: Isn’t there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•
A: It’s such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•
Q: Don’t you believe that we’re ruining our planet?•
A: I will pretend that I haven’t heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can’t. I don’t see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don’t think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It’s clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It’s also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature – by eliminating private ownership and similar things – much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That’s why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you’re unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.
Personally I think his best point is the one about wealth, technology and enviro protection vs poverty and nature abuse
The comment questioning Al’s sanity is kind of funny, not useful, but funny.
Defintiely looking forward to his book.
There is a push on now….best to find ways to resist rash actions to give the real scientists time to gather their evidence….accoriding to the “believers” the world is going to continue to warm for decades anyway so why stop now….oh thats right we only have 10 years to save the planet….classic classic crisis creation to force action….if it werent so transparent you would wonder why more people dont see through it….
Same tactics used for Charlotteton, smae tactics used for Iraq War act now because disaster coming…..
Drat, I should have included a quote from Swaminathan’s essay, here’s one: “In the media, disaster is news, and its absence is not. This principle has been exploited so skillfully by ecological scare-mongers that it is now regarded as politically incorrect, even unscientific, to denounce global warming hysteria as unproven speculation.” – that’s from timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1034077.cms
Also, David Warren had an excellent essay on these matters last week – http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/index.php?artID=704 – where he wrote, “The solution, to this possibly non-existent problem, would be the positive introduction of more efficient energy sources that do not require oil, gas, coal, or firewood. Now, strange to say, global capitalism is working on this night and day, for there is big money to be had from a breakthrough. And nobody else is working on it. Killing the global capitalist goose will not lay the golden egg.”
(I hope this comment is of the type you meant, Kate, when you wrote Use the comments for your own on-topic links. The way some people behave, I worry that I have might have misunderstood you.)
“Why is east Antarctica getting colder?”
So… we went from AGW to Climate Change. In light of the more recent temp records from the Antarctic region what should we expect next.
ASGW —> Anthropogenic Semi-Global Warming
or
AHCC —-> Anthropogenic Hemispherical Climate Change
or
WYSIWYGCC-BIIAMF —-> What You See Is What You Get Climate Change- But Irregardless, IT’S All Man’s Fault
Interesting article from Nir J. Shaviv, Associate Professor at Racah Institute of Physics.
Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?
Great article by Brodbeck!
so using the 60 minutes/Elie Weisel logic . . . if they had a program where they had advocates of economic chaos resulting from the the pursuit of Kyoto goals, they wouldn’t put a “devastation of lifestyle denier” on the program because.
I believe in all the science, not just those obligated to the C02 theory.
The IPCC jihadis are like kids when they tell a little lie, then get wedded to it and tell more and bigger lies to protect you from the embarrassment of admitting the first lie.
The IPCC picked one theory and sticks to despite all theevidence it is false. Because the theory is really the basis of a proxy campaign against western industrialized nations.
direct quote from Mo. Strong, Head, 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, the father of the IPCC/Kyoto ponzi scheme
“isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse ?? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about ?
Cosmic rays are being implicated along with the sun with so called global warming. It is interesting that the same cosmic rays have been found to be the cause of lightning….. the rays upon penetrating the atmosphere create a cascade of ionization that opens a pathway for electrical discharge….. and to think that we have only just found out this causal connection. It seems we are not as knowledgeble as we thought….. Were those who predicted global cooling simply ahead of their time?
Does anybody have the info where the money on carbon trading comes from and goes to and thru who. Haven’t seen the facts anywhere yet.
A quick point of procedure if I may, Madam Speaker. K.C., are you just using the normal <a href=”url“>text</a> technique for your links? Every time I try it, it dumps me into the junk mail filter.
Serious environmentally-conscious citizens drive in a style most fuel efficient, don’t they? Don’t they all?
Of course so. I’m sure that big, diesel-burning bus that the holy rollers from the First Church of Suzuki are using to traverse this swirling cesspool of socialism on the Kyoto Kriss Krosses Kanaduh Tour gets the same gas mileage as a Toyota Yaris.
Wow, what the perfect religion this whole climate change phenomenon has become. Perfect for the modern day socialist, that is. A movement founded on a myth, understood by none, predicated on junk science, steeped in lies and brought to you by a fruit fly expert who is touring the country, trolling for doomsday sheep in his self-styled version of the Popemobile funded by a corporate welfare bum (Uncle Mo)with shady ties to mid east dictators (oil for fraud scandal) but that’s all cool because the nasties that spew from the back end of the bus will be “offset” because the climate change cultists reserved some carbon credits prior to leaving the west coast on their cross country tour. You know the west coast? That’s right, the place that dumps thier raw sewage into the ocean.
Meanwhile, we watch the tumleweeds go by as we wait for the silence of the complacent MSM to pass.
A quick point of procedure if I may, Madam Speaker. K.C., are you just using the normal text technique for your links? Every time I try it, it dumps me into the junk mail filter.
Posted by: Vitruvius at February 12, 2007 4:19 PM
I am using it.
I always preview first to make sure everythings okay
This whold global warming, ghg emmissions crap, and the reports generated to prove it remind me of that game we used to play at parties and in school. I whisper something in your ear, you pass it on, to the end of the line. What is said by the last person has no relation to what the original whisper was. How do you get 2500 people, from vaious countries, universities, labs and agendas to come up with one report. Look how long it is taking the committee to come up with a design for replacing the towers in New York. And politicians are upset that a whole country, Iraq, has not been rebuilt in 5 years.
If we have an election before May, when the final report of Kyoto will be presented, showing many assumptions made in previous reports, have been changed, lowered, thrown out, cdns might be voting on lies and innuendos put out by the liberals, but it will be too late.
The new committee Harper is appointing for law reform will have the ability to lay charges of election fraud, going back to adscam. Is that why the liberals are fighting so hard to discredit this.
Here’s a link to & quote from another essay by David Warren, The Two Cultures, from a few days ago: “The decay of standards is not subtle. The academic science world, persisting on tax money, has been intellectually flatlining. It becomes increasingly a closed camp of ideologues whose job security depends on their avoidance of apostasy. In a word, science is being swamped by an almost religious scientism. Whereas serious, open-minded research has retreated almost entirely into the corporate research labs, where a different ethos prevails. This is the environmental scare that should worry us. That we are becoming, increasingly, the prey of sensationalism in the service of scientism.”
(Emphasis mine.)
(Thanks, K.C., but it did it again. I’m just not going to try any more until Kate clarifies the situation, should she choose to.)
Here’s a link to & quote from another essay by David Warren – davidwarrenonline.com/index.php?id=706 – from a few days ago: “The decay of standards is not subtle. The academic science world, persisting on tax money, has been intellectually flatlining. It becomes increasingly a closed camp of ideologues whose job security depends on their avoidance of apostasy. In a word, science is being swamped by an almost religious scientism. Whereas serious, open-minded research has retreated almost entirely into the corporate research labs, where a different ethos prevails. This is the environmental scare that should worry us. That we are becoming, increasingly, the prey of sensationalism in the service of scientism.”
(Emphasis mine.)
Someone should refer this SDA thread to Dr. John Fyfe at Environment Canada (see calgarysun.canoe.ca/NewsStand/News/Columnists/Kaufmann_Bill/2007/02/12/3596069-sun.html), since he says:
“As for (climate change) deniers receiving media play beyond their credibility, Fyfe says they’re “not working climate scientists and not anyone I’ve ever come across in scientific circles.””
We wouldn’t want one of our public servants being ignorant of facts, would we?
Before anyone dumps on me, I am also an AGW-denier…I’m just pointing out this article for your information.
Well, I guess we have known for a long time that “Political Correctness” would come to “Reeducation Camps” with zero rate of return. Of course using the phrase “climate change” is dishonest; I doubt that anyone denies climate change – we did have at least one Ice Age, after all, and its relicts are evident in many places – certainly in Newfoundland, where most of the hills show the marks of glaciation.
Another thought – “climate change” might also mean “global cooling”, as it did 25 years ago, in which case SUVs should be subsidised!
It is hard – as a physicist I have thought that it was part of my job to be sceptical; and will continue to think so.
We will see how bad it can get – after all, 90 years ago a bogus theory of economics and deeply flawed analysis of power structures motivated the impostiion of Communism on Russia, and led to a destruction of the Russian economy and society from which it probably will never recover.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-ref_query?bibcode=2003JKAS…36S..75G&refs=AR&db_key=AST
lots of abstracts as science digs into variability in solar output
Awwww…all this second considered opinion….I was just starting to enjoy how stupid the witch hunters were stating to sound when they thought they had exhaustively bullied dissent into silence.
Damn, I was looking forward to seeing the burning pires of heritics alight…the acrid stench from the cremation of our rationality…a foaming mob to run in frenzied abandon with…another unrestrained MSM death Fatwa of unbelievers.
Now the witch hunters start to appear in the pillories.
Reason is such a spoiler.
Hey Vitro
Maybe you are junk and just got outed.
I love harness racing,I have studied winning from many angles,tryin to get an edge.when you look at the form you try to predict the future from the past.I have bought computer programs that take myriad computations into regard.Guess what.Throwin darts is the same.So Climate changers don’t scare me .
Where’s Jose and his ‘rubbish, there’s debate going on all the time’ schtick?
Isn’t it enlightening how AGW skeptics are lumped into the same group as Holocaust deniers? Nice touch, that.
The above link should be mandatory course material for every journalist student in the country.
Or, rather, every student interested in objective journalism.
It will seamlessly change from Global Warming to Climate Change to Global Cooling to Climate Stasis to . . . you get the picture. And all the while they’ll claim “We were right all along.”
Climate change? Proabably true. There was an ice age and it melted.
So climate change is a fact.
So why do so want people want Canada to commit economic suicide for something that just happens? And it is apparantly happening on Mars too. Could it be the sun?
No **** it could be the sun!
And I ask again, why are there people willing to commit economic suicide in Canada for this?
The question I ask Dion and Layton, what is in it for them? And how do you run the country in the newxt few weeks after you get to do all the things you want? Yeah right, If I do not burn any fuel I do nothing. And I do not spend any money. Nobody does. Then what?
Also, I heard on the radio Regina has idiling free school zones. Great.
Soon you will be looked upon as a smoker or a pedophile or something worse becouse, at -25 C you want to keep your car warm for the 5 min you wait to pick up your kid.
As I said, great
“The track record of any kind of long-distance prediction is really bad, but everyone’s still really interested in it. It’s sort of a way of picturing the future. But we can’t make long-term predictions of the economy, and we can’t make long-term predictions of the climate,” Dr. Orrell said in an interview. After all, he said, scientists cannot even write the equation of a cloud, let alone make a workable model of the climate.”
I’ve been saying that for years. The problem is, there are too many journalism majors trying to report on Science in the media. Most of these journalists don’t realize the first thing about how science works – just because one paper in Science says something is true doesn’t mean that it’s carved in bloody stone. The models we’re currently using for climate change predictions are so complex that it’s almost impossible to predict what the climate is going to be like in 100 years – we can’t predict the weather next WEEK, let alone one hundred years from now.
Jeff,
The school zone idling issue is as much about safety and the students breathing in exhaust fumes – particulary the crossing guards – as it is about the environment, although that was also mentioned as a benifit. With 10 or 15 cars idling at – 30 C it would create a large cloud to make it hard to see and many people are to ignorant to slow down in school zones already – I have no problem with this idea.
You may disagree on Global Warming / Climate Change but I think the science is pretty solid that exhaust from gasoline engines is not healthy to breathe.
I’ve been finding more and more articles denying climate change recently. I’m wondering if we’re beginning to see a paradigm shift in the focal point of consensus driven media/poli climate science.
“Trofim Denisovich Lysenko was put in charge of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the Soviet Union and made responsible for ending the propagation of “harmful” ideas among scientists. Lysenko served this purpose faithfully, causing the expulsion, imprisonment, and death of hundreds of scientists and the demise of genetics throughout the Soviet Union.” – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko
Emphasis mine. Millions died.
Not to put to fine a point on it, but one of the reasons I’m double-extra skeptical of the whole “climate change is evil” conjecture is just because of the tactics that its salesmen are using. If they had due cause, they wouldn’t need to use those tactics.
I see that at least one scientist is on record as saying what I was thinking when I heard the absurd and pompous pronouncement of the climate change committee spokes-thingie last week when He said essentially that the matter of climate change was now “settled”…
…and I remember thinking to myself; how ludicrous, spoken like a truth-manipulating, agenda driven political weasel and not a scientist….science, at least the real science I was schooled in, NEVER would pronounce a THEORY to be unconteastable fact…or intimate that the status-quo accepted wisdom of the day be concrete and not be challened with new thinking.
Another reason science and politics do not mix.
so about a thousand or so scientists reached a consensus . i wonder how they arrived at it ? did the guy who was the best talker win? or did they decide their consensus on what would sell best?
“but I think the science is pretty solid that exhaust from gasoline engines is not healthy to breathe.”
There is nothing that says “Canadian identity” more than the scent of Arctic Cat exhaust hanging in the air.
Fanatical environmentalists are starting to behave much like the Roman Catholic Church did during the medieval ages Like the old church, they do not like dissent and anyone who disagrees is painted as a “global warming denier” or in other words, a heretic. The global warming advocates even go as far as comparing the “heretics” to holocaust deniers. True science does not prosper where there are biased views and stifling politics, as the scientific method demands that every theory be tested without bias, proven 100% and verified without bias before it is accepted as fact. Global warming is not fact, it is only a theory and should be treated as such unless proven otherwise.
Just wondering if the Theory of Evolution has been proven. What about all those math theories we learned in school, still theories or fact.
Heard a new phrase on Newman today, Jeff Norquay calling the Bloc Fiscal Imbalance Deniers.
Also some lib female mp trying to explain why the libs are flipflopping on their terrorist legislation. Have the islamofacists in TO made a large financial contribution to assist this flipflop. With all kinds of deniers coming out of the woodwork, can we call gta liberal voters truth deniers.
Harpers announcement re the Ecotrust got some support from all except the Bloc guy.
“but I think the science is pretty solid that exhaust from gasoline engines is not healthy to breathe.”
Its still not as toxic as junk science mated to kleptocratic socialism
I agree Kate, There is nothing that says “Canadian identity” more than the scent of Arctic Cat exhaust hanging in the air: tinyurl.com/pzgqq
Today’s Letters page at steynonline.com contains one from a geophysicist named Glen Williams (living in Dubai), who says (in part),
“Recently, I came across an interesting factoid in EOS, a newsletter journal published by the American Geophysical Union. One of the writers made passing reference to a result, apparently common knowledge in the scientific climate modeling community, that if CO2 levels were still at pre-industrial levels, we would be entering an ice age now! The quote from the article is, “It may well be that the intense worldwide exploitation of fossil fuel resources came just in time to provide a way to warm the Earth enough to delay, for a long time, the occurrence of another ice age.”
He goes on to say, “Talk about an “inconvenient truth”, I don’t think we’ll be reading about that in the IPCC Summary.”
Damn right we won’t!
Folks, somehow all of us just don’t get it. CTV
carries a picture of Karla and the baby story as thier lead, which of course is way more important than our Prime Minister announcing a 1.5 billion fund to battle climate change.
I’m writing to CTV to thank them for setting me straight about which issues are the most important in Canada.
I will not check out cbc as they can get even worse. what disgusting news reporting,eh!
Mark Steyn’s latest column also says that the term ‘climate change’ is passe. The politically correct term is now ‘climate disruption’. I wonder what they are going to call it next week.
Mike Jenkinson’s column in today’s Edmonton Sun does a nice job of skewering the Kyotoites using their own logic.
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Columnists/Jenkinson_Michael/2007/02/12/3596763.html
Folks, I’ve been on the case myself. Have found information that leads me to believe that the whole climate change thing is a massive, brilliant scam… but one that’s rapidly falling apart at the schemes. My suspicion of the whole thing being a conspiracy in which dissidents are treated like lepers and in which there’s actually no particular science underlying the theory is being supported every day by evidence I come across… and I’m blogging it as I find it.
I’d post a bunch of urls to my posts, but the filter’d probably catch me for too many urls. So just start at the top of my blog and scroll down to see what I’ve found… and my analysis.
I’ll tell y’all… I’m having fun with it. Last time I had so much fun was when Paul Martin and the Liberals were decimated day by day in the last election. Feels like deja vu.
http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com
They want us all to become Zimbabwe. The whole world.
This cabal of dung eaters would have us all either dead or living like slaves, as already they figure we are. This translates into children in their minds that must be controlled. Them being the only adults.
This religion would be their boat of opportunity to skin the marks world wide. Its devilish conception in the wake of the Global freezing try is a clear signal of the billions these charlatan will rake in.
I have often wondered what secularists would replace Christianity with once they had demonized Christian’s & Christ. After all people need something to believe in or worship. Even if its themselves. Be that religion, politics or any other Icon. To completely destroy as Pol Pot did his Nation to transform it into a mad Utopia. At any cost but to themselves. Mix in a form of false spiritualism & wham you can change the whole template of social intercourse & direction.
Not one in ten people now know what real Christianity is including church goers. TV is that pervasive with the Church in a slump. The world suffused in superstition.
I have noticed on TV & other media the pushing of this as rational.
Based on a modern form of animism & sprites in the environmental movement. You can see it in shows like Medium, Ghost Whisper & other spirit’s fascination.
The fact Climatoligists & others now call for the banning of any viewpoint hostile to green. The almost inquisitional atmosphere of their spokesmen (prophets). The skewed science. When these guys can’t predict two days in a row of weather change.
Anyways The Romans never seen Christianity ( The savoir of their culture) coming nor the barbarians who would destroy them. Are we going to see a new State Church movement based on these Myths? All bowing before this man made idol of nature worship for socialism. An interesting speculation I think anyway.
False religions like false political systems can destroy entire Civilizations. In Rome’s case Christianity preserved the western heritage. Pagans views & all. This one aims to deconstruct our entire way of life based on computer models & feelings.
As Islam would do violently, by using our own weakness of multiculturalism against in concert with the Nations man made religious vacuum . In fact its prophets have made false predictions before. We must be wary of these hucksters, as they have no problems with millions of dead for wealth or reign. When has any socialist or other tyrants, political or religious ?
Yes Dorothy , the world has gone panic-stricken with psychosis.
Over at the Moscow Times, Susan Eisenhower has a review of Ethan Pollock’s new book, “Scientist in Chief” – context.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2007/02/09/105.html – which begins like this: “As the 20th century recedes, it becomes increasingly difficult to explain to younger generations the peculiar combination of idealism, naivete, cynicism and brutality that was the hallmark of that century’s totalitarian states. Ethan Pollock’s “Stalin and the Soviet Science Wars” looks at this phenomenon through the lens of Soviet science policy in the immediate postwar period to explain Josef Stalin’s determination to articulate and demonstrate “the compatibility of its ideology with all fields of knowledge.”
[…] “As the Soviet regime was to discover, science policy by fiat comes at great cost. For those scientists who did not successfully “deviate with the Party line,” as the Soviet anecdote went, it was their last mistake: “Countless scientists in every discipline miscalculated what ideologically correct science was supposed to look like. Stalin was the only person who could keep up with his own evolving interpretations.”
(Eisenhower’s essay contains a reference to lberia, hmm, were have I heard that name before 😉
We have all belonged to a club or organization of some kind, and attended meetings, listened to ideas being discussed whether it is what to serve at the yearly fall supper or should there be a smoking room in school. (yes, when my kids were in highschool that was a big issue, and it passed)
Then there are the motions, resolutions, election of officers and what not. How many in the room actually said anything, asked a question, brought up their concerns, especially if they were on the against side. It was always the most vocal who always got up. Then there was a vote by show of hands, and you could watch to see how your friend, neighbor or leader voted and slowly put their hand with the pro side. Does anyone think 2500 scientists in a room, or a bunch of politicians are any different. Most of them have never read the reports, listened to both sides or in reality paid attention to what anyone is saying. The result, the kyoto protocol. If these so called experts were really serious, they would have a similar group coming up with reasons to disprove their ideas or experiments or computer models. Failing to allow dissent means they know they are full of the hot air they are warning us about.
Funny how the Left is so big on the importance of dissent, except of course when the Left has decided it is dangerous to allow it, like in the case of AGW.
If the NDP ever gets into power, let the counter-revolutionary war begin!
The global Left thinks it has finally found the premier issue upon which to accelerate their attempt at destroying free enterprise and freedom generally in the capitalist free democracies of the planet.
It’s based in envy and very a complete misunderstanding of how things work.
I listened to the pitiful callers on the Bill (do) Good show this morning and the crux of the biscuit was what kind of car will we have to buy to prove that we care.
Small petty thinking as usual from the sheep who continue to make more productive right thinking, and less panicky tax-payers miserable and oh so frustrated.
The developing world has no such problems, nor will they ever.
The 20% of the world that is is Islam of course, know that all things are the will of Allah.
We are the only ones who must do the heavy lifting and put up with the load after load of Socialist horse crap.
The global Left thinks it has finally found the premier issue upon which to accelerate their attempt at destroying free enterprise and freedom generally in the capitalist free democracies of the planet.
It’s based in envy and very a complete misunderstanding of how things work.
I listened to the pitiful callers on the Bill (do) Good show this morning and the crux of the biscuit was what kind of car will we have to buy to prove that we care.
Small petty thinking as usual from the sheep who continue to make more productive right thinking, and less panicky tax-payers miserable and oh so frustrated.
The developing world has no such problems, nor will they ever.
The 20% of the world that is is Islam of course, know that all things are the will of Allah.
We are the only ones who must do the heavy lifting and put up with the load after load of Socialist horse crap.
Does anyone remember Chaos Theory? The flavour of the month, “new paradigm”, Big New Thing in pop science, way back in the 90’s?
I recall that it was all the rage back then; seemed like every week you would open the paper and find another article about chaos theory. And the articles would always mention the so-called “Butterfly Effect” – something to the effect that a butterfly flapping its wings in Montreal could affect the weather in Singapore. This was trotted out as the standard illustration of how the weather was a textbook “chaotic system”, one which was – by definition – impossible to predict with any accuracy.
I wonder how come we never hear much about this butterfly effect anymore? You would think it would have a significant effect on all these global warming calculations? It is a real puzzler.
so about a thousand or so scientists reached a consensus . i wonder how they arrived at it ? did the guy who was the best talker win? or did they decide their consensus on what would sell best?
john demerais :
They probably gain recognition of their myths much like the Jesus seminar defrocked ministers do. How they arrive at what they call the real saying’s of Jesus.
Just drop in a Pink ball for wrong, a red for right or a gray for maybe. Black for made up.
All this cogitation & theology come by feeling whether it sounds like a saying He might say. Truth by Emoting. Than make tons of money hustling this garbage on TV as experts (without revealing their pasts of course) including your own feelings based Bible.
In this case the computer is their oracle. Suzuki & Al gore as avatars of Mother Earth.
Proclaiming our sins with future repentance by government proclamation. Indulgences by changing the toilet flow or shower. Putting in a neon bulb. Driving a smug mobile. Learning to live like a cave man.
A quiz on the IPCC 4th Assessment Report versus ” An Inconvenient Truth”
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/