Pirate's Cove

Warmist Sylvie Stein attempts to paint a “let’s just be responsible” picture, but, at the end of the day, she’s just another in a long line of Cultists who prefer to shut down the voices of people who disagree with her cult

The Hill must do better on climate

I recently wrote an op-ed entitled “To the Media: Don’t Help the Merchants of Doubt.” In it, I asked the media to stop publishing factually inaccurate information on climate change, such as those made in a March 20 piece by climate denier William O’Keefe.

How did O’Keefe respond? By taking a classic page out of the “merchants of doubt” playbook. Throughout his piece, he attempts to make his fringe views appear credible by invoking bunk science: he cites discredited scientists like Dr. Willie Soon — who recently described his climate denial as “deliverables” produced in exchange for money from fossil fuel corporations— and his own organization — which, as we previously mentioned, Newsweek describes as a “central cog in the [climate change] denial machine.” Moreover, O’Keefe frames himself as the David to our Goliath — even while he’s bankrolled by the most profitable industry in the world.

By these own terms, all Warmist articles/opinion pieces should not be printed: their computer models have been an almost complete failure, as have their prognostications. Hence the reason Warmist are yammering about this and that happening 50-100 years down the road.

Our argument doesn’t pertain to deniers like O’Keefe, but to the media. We say to the editors of The Hill: We believe you can — and must — do better regarding the subject of climate.

Let’s break that down: it means that the CoC wants the media to refuse to publish anything by Skeptics.

But The Hill can look to several prominent media outlets that have already taken up this task. The Washington Post and The Guardian have both launched initiatives to put climate front and center in the past year. In October 2013, The Los Angeles Times letters editor Paul Thornton announced the newspaper would no longer publish letters to the editor that deny man-made climate change. Why?In Thornton’s words:

Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying “there’s no sign humans have caused climate change” is not stating an opinion, it’s asserting a factual inaccuracy.

What’s at stake if The Hill continues to publish factual inaccuracies on climate? The Hill’s credibility as a reliable news source, for one.

In other words, Warmists are watching, and heavily approve of censorship. But, they will come after media outlets who do not comply. The only difference, when it comes to tolerance, between Islamists and Warmists is that the Warmists do not resort to outright violence. Cultists lose virtually every debate, and see their cult dying out, hence, they need to attempt to shut down debate.