The “climate change” movement is comprised primarily of Progressives, who are, at their very heart, fascists. They talk a good game about open debate, but when it actually happens, they want it shut down. Remember when they burned a copy of The Mad, Mad, Mad World Of Climatism?
It’s Time for Newspapers to Deny the Climate Deniers
Opinions varied widely, and those with a background in traditional print journalism seemed to have the hardest time with the idea. After all, a reporter’s job isn’t to cloud the issue with opinion, but to simply deliver the facts. How can you do that if you don’t cover both sides?
I understand this instinct; it was drilled into us in journalism classes. However, like many others, I feel that its time has past when dealing with stories about environmental destruction at the hands of corporate polluters and especially climate change.
This goes to the LA Times (which hasn’t given up their own fossil fueled travel and paper delivery) saying they will no longer print any letter or piece that denies that Mankind is mostly/solely at fault for a minuscule 1.4F temperature increase since 1850.
Since the LA Times took its stand on climate change, a grassroots campaign has been launched, targeting other major newspapers. Led by Forecast the Facts (WT note: that’s Al Gores hyperventilating group), the campaign asks editors of the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal to adopt similar policies.
On other words, another far left fascistic attempt to shut down opposition. Hiding behind all the “settled science” rhetoric is the notion that they know it’s not science and cannot stand up to inquiry, scientific or otherwise, so they do what they do best: shut people up.
[…] at Pirate’s Cove is blogging about “Climate Change Fascists Really Like LA Times Policy Of Restricting […]
The goal of journalism is not balance but truth. Reporting “both” sides of a particular issue equally is only fair if both sides of the argument are legitimate. You wouldn’t expect journalists to equate evolution with creationism would you? Back when tobacco companies were denying that cigarettes were deleterious to human health it would be wrong for journalists to equate the arguments of tobacco lobbyists with the arguments of medical researchers, right? Should journalists give equal time to 6000 yr old Earthers and Earth scientists?
There is little, if any “skeptic” science, so how does one report it? One side has science and the other side has strongly held opinions.
Science is never settled. The Theory of AGW can still be falsified with evidence. But just as with the theories of evolution, relativity, big bang and the expanding universe, the theory of AGW is consistent with the scientific observations.
My mind can be changed about AGW, just show me evidence that refutes it. Can your mind be changed?
This is an amazing argument from Jeffery.
First the goal of journalism is not to truth but to inform. One hopes that truth is a part of that information, but given the jounalists’ listserv group promoting a political agenda, “truth” is not an issue.
Secondly, he puts forth the idea that AGW can be falsified with evidence. The fact of the matter is that it has never been proven, so one cannot refute an unproven theory.
Thirdly, it should be remember that the idea of “refuting’ and “being open to changing his mind” is being said by a guy who called actual evidence contrary to the AGW theory as “anecdotal.”
Finally, it is another example of liberal hypocrisy that while screaming for a “fairness doctrine” on radio and tv, liberals want to cut off discussion on anything with which they disagree.
You are confused. Scientific theories are never proven, regardless of how much supportive evidence is accumulated. Every theory can be falsified with evidence.
The “data” you reference aren’t related to the theory of AGW. Teach and Morano constructed a straw man argument that AGW predicts an increase in tornadoes (it doesn’t) and that their data (tornado frequency in the US from 2000 to mid 2013) refutes AGW (it doesn’t, even if it were relevant).
The IPCC is agnostic about local weather events such as tornadoes. The complete data appear to show an increase in tornadoes in the US from the 1950s to the 2000s, but so what? The data are likely biased because of reporting – there are more people now and better radar technology.
Anyone who uses US tornado frequency data to SUPPORT AGW is mistaken on two counts, relevance to AGW, and biased data.
Let me repeat – Anyone who uses US tornado frequency data to SUPPORT AGW is mistaken on two counts, relevance to AGW, and biased data.
Morano is a conservative Republican activist and Swiftboat smearer, formerly working for Limbaugh, CNS and Sen. Inhofe. All he knows about climate change is that he is paid to criticize it.
“The goal of journalism is not balance but truth. Reporting “both†sides of a particular issue equally is only fair if both sides of the argument are legitimate.”
The idea that journalists only need to report the side that is “legitimate” makes perfect sense if you start with the assumption that you know the truth, and indeed know the truth with such confidence that any opposing views should not even be considered.
OF COURSE only people who agree with me should be allowed to speak in public, because people who disagree with me are obviously wrong and are just spreading ignorance and/or lies. Right?
Monday morning links…
Our old blogging friend Norm Geras has died Ma’am, Your Burger Has Been Paid For Criagslist ad from Enid, Oklahoma Search Escalates for Key to Why Matter Exists Egon Schiele and The Sketch Pad Near the Deathbed Banksy in Neverland – The curio…
Mark,
No one said it was easy. And I understand that this stokes right-wing feelings of oppression.
In discussions of the attacks of 9/11, should we consider the positions of the “inside job” crowd to be equivalent to the mainstream narrative that terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center? Would you want to fill up inches of newspapers with their theories of how the US gov’t brought down the buildings.
Outside the cloistered world of right-wing blogs and FOX “News”, the skeptic/denier position on global warming is equivalent to saying George Bush blew up the World Trade Center.
Wow, Jeffery, for a theory that has gone nowhere for the past two decades, you are sure passionate about its accuracy. I suppose you also thing the “deep ocean warming” is also a viable theory as to why there has been no warming. Just like ObamaCare, everything AGW has said or predicted has turned out to be lies. That is the real reason you approve of the LAT nonsense. You AGW folks have lost, so you are looking to silence dissent so you will get another chance. Nonsense.
When you have to silence your critics so that your dogma can stand, you know the dogma is false.
J likes to refute evidence he knows he’s tried to foster before but has been shot down time and time again. Now, he’s saying that the CAGW’ers never stated storms\hurricanes\tornados\fires\droughts\floods\snow\rain\etc will get worse and more extreme.
And then when we point out the VARIED and multiple types of storm systems that have not gone extreme, or that prior extremes have happened before (like the ’30s), he backtracks by saying, “oh, they didn’t mean tornados when they meant ‘weather’.”
Right GC, that was the point I was trying to make on another post. Can’t refute something that has not been proven.
And BTW, what is wrong with writing about the theory of evolution alongside the theory of creationishm? or some other theory?
Remember when they said there was no such thing as continental drift? Theories and ideas are changed and altered, for the better, all the time by more voices. Not less.
The comments here are exactly why the warmists are sick and tired of the denialists and fake skeptics gunking up the letters sections. The debate amongst scientists on AGW is virtually over. I spent most of this afternoon over at Judith Curry’s blog, one of the few actual scientists who think global warming is overhyped, and even she admits that its real and caused by humans. And she is the go-to gal for most of the ‘skeptic’ articles when they need to pretend there is actual debate on the subject in science circles. The only ‘debate’ is fostered by rightwing think tanks and fossil fuel mouthpieces who put out junk science, half truth and distortion, which is snapped up by the rightwing media- and then published as ‘Opinion’- cause it cannot pass muster as actual Journalism.
Look at the ‘debate’ here in this comments section: ONE person who knows the science being shouted down by the mob who doesn’t. All they do is repeat the same debunked nonsense ad nauseam, as if they are saying something new. Then they beat their chest and say ‘Look, the fascist alarmist refused to debate me! It proves I’m right!’
No, genius, it proves no one wants to debate someone who has never bothered to read the actual science. Its the same reason evolutionists refuse to debate creationists. Not cause the science will fall any day now, as both creationists and global warming deniars seem to think.
Enough of this nonsense. Enough of Science being shouted down by religious fanatics and conspiracy theorists.
Ummm.. Zed, are you sure you are commenting on the write blog? No one here denies science. No one here denies that our climate is changing. No one here denies that man has an impact upon his ecology.
No one here, except liberals as pointed to in this blog post, want to shut down reasoned debate.
No one here has even stated, “Look, the fascist alarmist refused to debate me! It proves I’m right!”
So, since we here don’t agree with you that man and CO2 are solely responsible for 1.4F of warming, then we science deniers? Despite the fact that science does not support either of those suppositions?
Having reread the comments, I stand by what I said. I am all for debate. But there are things I refuse to ‘debate’- whether or not the Earth is round of flat, I will not ‘debate’. I don’t ‘debate’ if the sun is the center of the solar system or if its the Earth. I do not ‘debate’ whether we were created by an invisible sky freind or evolution. I don’t ‘debate’ if the Moon landing is a hoax, if the earth is hollow, if the ‘face’ on Mars was created by extraterrestials or not. I don’t ‘debate’ if Jesus is going to rapture unbelievers, or if Allah will return or not. So you see, there is actually quite alot I refuse to debate. Call me narrowminded, or close minded or whatever you wish. But I refuse to be drawn into trying to have rational discussions with people who have an irrational viewpoint, which only leads to accusations and circular logic. So no, I don’t waste much time anymore on AGW deniars.
And you, in particular- you are the person who wants creationism, which isn’t even a theory, taught, ‘alongside’ evolution. As if they are co-equal. What a joke. Let them debate creationism, after you have established the earth is flat. First things first.
Until then, yes, you are Anti-science.
And thus you prove your narrow mindedness. You’ve built this safe little cocoon around you, created your own fantasy world where you get to dictate to others how things should be.
I’m betting that you don’t like the idea that you can’t control your environment(earth). Thus you like the theory that man can, and should, limit his CO2 production in order to keep the world a nice calm static place to live.
Sorry to say, but this world is a bit bigger than you or your religious beliefs. You, while proclaiming the opposite, are placing yourself in the position of the Bishops of the Catholic State-Church during the Dark Ages. You will brook no dissent and any who do will be deemed heretics and punished.
As a student of science, and biology in particular, the study of evolution was the foundation of my life and career. Except, evolution is the bastardized step-child of what Darwin first wrote about. He spoke of adaptation. Evolution is still a theory. one of many. Creationism is another. While there are fewer hard proofs for the theory of Creationism, there are just as many statements of belief on the part of evolution.
Not wanting to get in to the debate over which has better merits than the other, I will return to the topic at hand.
You may not wish to debate alternate theories out of a belief that they are crackpot, insane, non-science, or out of blind ignorance, but do you not see that by preventing a group of people from even the opportunity of expressing their opinion harms everyone?
When, where, and with who, does this stop? Once it starts, it doesn’t stop.
Thanks for proving my point. Your post is an irrational hodgepodge of accusations and circular logic.
And no, Im not going to debate you. You are thus free to go beat your chest and declare yourself the WINNER! And no, thats not shutting down free speech. You are perfectly free to express your crackpot ideas amongst your crackpot friends. But just because you open your mouth, does not mean people should be forced to listen to you. Thats because people get to decide what is worth listening to. It is still a free country.
Over at the LA Times, someone has come to to the quite reasonable conclusion it is time to stop posting letters from people who are ill educated about global warming. Its not their fault that people of your ilk decide to fill their noggins with fossil fuel industry propaganda, rather then science. There has now been over 100 years of debate amongst scientists on AGW, and its OVER.
Its about time you woke up to that FACT.
Nor does that shut down your free speech, as their are other newwpapers for you to post your crackpot ideas to. Just don’t expect everyone to publish them. Thats because people have standards. Just like we don’t want religious fanatics forcing bronze age myths to be taught as science.
You are perfectly free to teach that in Sunday School or private school to unfortunate children.
Have a nice day, and goodbye. Im not wasting anymore time with you.
OMG.. that was so funny. Thanks for the belly laugh. And you call me a “crackpot”?
You don’t even see the hypocrisy in your last post do you? You say I’m free to “beat my chest” and discuss “amongst… friends”, but in a public setting you are ok with LA Times blocking all “unacceptable” content?
You are right though. LA Times, being a user-subscription service, has to serve its subscribers. If this is how they do it, then they are free to do so. However, this trend to block either all user comments or just those that are deemed uncomfortable for public discussion won’t stop with just those topics that YOU deem heretic. Blocking free speech never has bounds. Once it starts, it does not stop.
And, I have never declared my viewpoint as the winner. That’s typical of your side: “we won, debate over!”, “consensus wins, debate over!”, “you argue, you must be a racist, debate is over!”
We lovers of science recognize that only through research, discussion, analysis, reanalysis, failure and cooperation can science truly flourish.
FYI, The idea that people could be warming the climate by putting CO2 in the atmosphere was first proposed by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
Do the math. Use a calculator.
Svante Arrhenius was not the first person to advocate the theory but rather the first to formalize it.
However, today he would be dismissed as a crack pot by warmists if he disagreed with AGW for several reasons.
First, Svante Arrhenius was a chemist, not a climatologist or any other “earth science” expert or scientist. Many times today we hear warmists claim a person isn’t qualified to offer evidence against AGW, but they are happy to use Svante Arrhenius and others to try and support the claim.
Secondly, Svante Arrhenius was a racial purist who actively proposed the The Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene in Sweden. This Society had the same beliefs as the National Socialists in Germany and led to the sterilization of thousands of Swedes because they were not “pure” enough or other issues.
If Arrhenius was alive today and against AGW he would be pilloried and savagely attacked by the left for his views.
But because the left agrees with his views – ALL of his views – he is revered by them.
What a pity.
He was a scientist. In fact he won the Nobel Prize for chemistry. He was also a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and a professor of physics at Stockholm University.
The rest of your post is typical right-wing accusations and diatribe and not worth responding to.
First Zed, no one doubts he was a scientist that won a Noble Prize. The point is that chemists and other disciplines of science are regularly dismissed by warmists when they disagree with AGW. Now seem to want to say that the chemist was somehow an expert in the field of climate science.
Once again, we see the hypocrisy of the left.
Secondly, you can deny what and who Arrhenius was and what he believed all you want. It doesn’t change the truth.
If you read through the posts on this blog, leftists regularly dismiss the thoughts and opinions of people because of unrelated beliefs. It is a typical leftist tactic.
Now that you see how that tactic is used by the left, you really hate it.
So please, resolve your hypocrisy before attacking others.
You said he was ‘not a scientist’, so I felt I needed to clear that up. As to your point- today the field is much more specialized then 100 years in the past. So specialist knowledge is much more important then back then, when there was more chance to excel in a variety of disciplines.
I do not deny that he was a racist. Many people were then.
So rather then my hypocrisy, what we have left is your general ignorance of science history, and general history.
Ok, see, as GC knows, when I am shown wrong, I admit it. I’ll admit that CO2 and its capacity to warm the air around it was analyzed back when. I had thought the research was only the finding of CO2 presence. But:
From unscientific wiki:
but, global warming didn’t occur until the 1990s we are told.
and yet he makes these preposterous claims:
Let’s see, what was the CO2 concentration in 1901?
I would even agree that our CO2 concentration has doubled since 1901.
Yet, our temperature has only increased by about 0.8 since 1850.
He himself thought that the warming earth was a good thing.
Earlier on, he mentions:
So, shall we say that he “estimated” that the global temperature of the earth would RISE by 4-6C with a doubling of CO2 as measured during his time of CO2 research (1880-1910)?
Yet, with an ever steady increase in CO2, our global temperature change is currently, but inaccurately, measured at 0.8C.
Yet, temperature did not follow CO2 did it?
Also, let’s examine Temperature. according to CAGW-biased NOAA, our global temperature has risen 1.0C since the cold periods of the 1910-1920s. Still not the 4-6C change Arrhenius hypothesized.
In fact, during this time frame (1880-1920), while temperatures were going down, he was proffing that man-made CO2 was going up. Weird, that.
Now, let’s examine our current lifestyle. Can you honestly argue that we are living in a WORSE life now than during 1900+/-20?? Would you rather have near constant snowstorms shutting down your major cities, massive hurricanes killing tens of thousands of people, or would you rather live comfortably in the now?
Yes, thanks for admitting you were wrong.
On his estimates, keep in mind that early on in any science people make many mistakes. Science as they say is self correcting. Just like no one follows ‘darwinism’ exactly as he laid it out. In 100 years, many other discoveries are made. So I would be surprised if his predictions were 100% accurate. He did think warming would be good. Today scientists disagree.
On your last point, I did not live during 1900-20 so I am just guessing. On the whole, I think I would prefer to be alive now. But Im sure there were plenty of people quite happy back then. And of course, in 100 years, Im sure people will look back on us as being deprived of everything they enjoy.
Funny part is, Svante Arrhenius was a fascist, kinda proves my point.
Furthermore, people have been Blaming Mankind for Bad Weather for thousands of years. Witchcraft, displeasing the gods, etc, and they thought they had a solid basis, too.
Yet, if CO2, or as you unscientific Warmists call it, carbon, is the driver then why the pauses? What caused the previous warm periods? What caused the mass warming during the 1930’s, followed by cooling for several decades?
Arrhenius was undoubtably a racist. If you look at the time period alot of people were, both in Europe and America. I’ve never seen any indication he was a fascist, a term that you probably don’t even know the meaning of, since you toss it about so indiscriminately.
For your other statements, if you want to know the answers to your questions, go to an actual science site that deals with climate change, and look them up. Those are really basic questions, so I think it inexcusable that you have not done so already. You seem to have plenty of time for fossil fuel industry propaganda, judging from your articles and graphs.
Gitarcarver’s point is that he would be laughed out of the climate science community and his research in to CO2 would be ignored. He was a kook with many of his alternative theories including his theory of Panspermia. You would ignore him as you are wanting to ignore us.
So, Zed, science changes through the years? So, it is possible that either of our viewpoints could be wrong in 100 years?
If I am wrong, then it is cheaper to fix or adjust to another 1.4F temperature rise than it would be to eliminate our current technology and reverse our lifestyle.
If you are wrong, then we’ve killed our economy, our way of life, and our individuality\freedom\choice for nothing.
With so much on the line, with so much unknown, with so much that has not been modeled correctly, with so much lied about, and no way to even suspect what the future may hold…. why not wait and see?
BWWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA. Love how he comes on to Teach’s site and then berates the author for expressing his views, defends the blocking of similar views on other sites, then dictates “acceptable” behavior. All the while, excusing similar unacceptable (to him) views when it serves his purpose.
Oh, do tell us. What “science” sites do you recommend we learn science from?
Find any science site you like, although at this point I doubt you even know how to look.
Well, thats it for me kids, its been fun. I won’t be back, trust me on that. I will be taking my free speech elsewhere, and lucky for me, won’t be subjected to yours.
No Zed, what I said was that he was a chemist, but was not an expert or a scientest in any “earth science.”
Secondly, he was more than a racist…..he advocated purity of race to the point of sterilizing others who were not perfect. Eugenics was much more than “racism” and you should know that.
I also did not claim he was a fascist. He held some of the same views as those who killed millions, but that doesn’t make him a fascist.
The point is that you accept him as a hero and intellectual giant, when in fact if someone opposed to AGW held the views he did, you would assail him on every point.
As for coming back here, oh well. When you look in the mirror and see the hypocrisy, youbstill can’t run from it.
Have a good life.
Well GC, Teach did call him a fascist. And Arrhenius did do other sciences. But he was best known as a chemist. But your point is still valid as they would attack him for not being a “climate scientist”. Did they not also attack Steve McIntyre and Scott McKitric(sp?) for not being “climate scientists” and laughed at them for trying to play with the big boys. But now, these two stalwarts have been the leaders in showing the fallacies in the cult’s brand of unscience. They use verifiable, crosscheckable, researchable and testable analysis to show that many of the “climate scientists'” research was not that.
But Zed, thanks for playing. We’ve appreciated your free speech and you are always welcome back. Just dont try and block us from speaking at other sites. mkay?