It was actually rather tough, figuring out the headline, since this letter to the Duluth News Tribune by Peter Johnson is a mishmash of Warmist thoughts beliefs
Reader’s view: Newspapers should publish climate-change evidence
Human-caused climate change is real and supported overwhelmingly by climate scientists worldwide.
It’s funny how so many man-made global warming deniers deny receiving payments from conservative organizations or financial support from big oil, big coal and powerful lobbyists who can influence legislation. However, if one researches, one typically discovers conservative roots spending conservative money.
Yet, believers in Hotcoldwetdry, overwhelmingly obtain “payments” from Left leaning organizations and Government. How is that money any better? Oh, right, I’m not supposed to ask inconvenient questions. BTW, Warmists organizations also receive funding from fossil fuels companies.
Considering this, it’s grossly unethical that ordinary people be successfully duped by conservative propaganda — as well as the testimony of self-appointed “experts†who supposedly see through an alleged liberal hoax.
Is it ethical to rely almost solely on computer models from, to put it generously, on flawed data? Is it ethical to force one’s almost religious belief sets on other people while refusing to practice them yourself?
A popular conspiracy theory proposes that scientists are seeking to control future energy markets at the behest of Democrats and are pressured by Democrats to skew research. That’s ironic since, from the 1970s on, climate scientists have dispensed the same essential findings, no matter which party controlled Washington. They also must have used a time machine to visit 2015 and gain accurate information about today’s climate conditions. Or were they just lucky to promote a massive conspiracy that actually came true — based on guesses?
Yeah, remember when these same climate scientists were Very Concerned about the coming ice age? Too bad the conditions via their talking points and computer models keep being invalidated by real world data. BTW, I’ve never heard the conspiracy theory offered.
How about asking newspapers to publish weekly debates between learned climate scientists and their opponents? They could then offer evidence supporting or refuting specific arguments, not just shots in the dark taken without prior knowledge of which issues will be discussed.
I’m all in for that one. Too bad that very few Warmists will actually debate actual Skeptics, because the Warmists usually lose. And lose badly. And look bad. Really bad. Foolish. And like they have a political agenda.
Mr. Johnson wraps up by seemingly pushing the notion that newspapers should actually refuse to publish anything from Skeptics. Is anyone surprised?
