When scientists try to speak out against this absurdity, they get treated like an abortion doctor visiting a Baptist church. God forbid we should have an open public debate!
One example:
"“Most of the climate changes we have seen up until now have been a result of natural variations,” [George] Taylor asserts.
Taylor has held the title of [Oregon's] "state climatologist" since 1991 when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU The university created the job title, not the state.
His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon's policies.
So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint."
Can't have a scientist disagreeing with our politics, can we?
Thanks to an anonymous comment on my post from yesterday about Dr. Timothy Ball, who spoke out against this mankind-causing-Global Warming nonsense, I even have an example of blogging attacks on scientists, over at Desmogblog.com:
"The deathless and - in many specific respects - completely fictional meanderings of Dr. Tim Ball have begun appearing again on right-wing blogs all over the net. At City Troll, at Convenient Untruth and at New Orleans Lady, the same tired and retreaded old climate rant paints Dr. Ball as the courageous victim of a plot to silence a well-meaning skeptic.
But Ball can't even tell the truth about his own resume. His claim to be the first Climatology Ph.D. in Canada is a total falsehood; his degree was in historical geography - not climatology - and it was nowhere near the first ever granted to someone writing vaguely in the field."
Of course, they don't challenge WHAT Ball is saying. They merely attack the messenger.
Even more interesting is how they claim he is unqualified to discuss climatology, since "his degree was in historical geography". I wonder if these morons ever stopped to consider: Climatology is a sub-science of Geography. But don't let a little thing like "facts" get in the way of your crusade, right?
How about this little disturbing information from Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby (bold part added by me):
"YOU KNOW that big United Nations report on global warming that appeared last week amid so much media sound and fury? Here's a flash: It wasn't the big, new United Nations report on global warming.
Oddly enough, most of the news coverage neglected to mention that the document released on Feb. 2 by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was not the latest multiyear assessment report, which will run to something like 1,500 pages when it is released in May. It was only the 21-page "Summary for Policymakers," a document written chiefly by government bureaucrats -- not scientists -- and intended to shape public opinion. Perhaps the summary will turn out to be a faithful reflection of the scientists' conclusions, but it wouldn't be the first time if it doesn't.
In years past, scientists contributing to IPCC assessment reports have protested that the policymakers' summary distorted their findings -- for example, by presenting as unambiguous what were actually only tentative conclusions about human involvement in global warming."
I just hope America's Freedom of Speech can survive this lunacy. Otherwise, the Global Warming idiots may end up burning me at the stake.
5 comments:
Ed, I just got off the phone with a friend of mine and we were talking about this same issue. There are various stories linked via the Drudge Report and the common thread is... reporters/editors are more interested in playing politics than in reporting on the actual points/counterpoints of the global warming debate. Frankly, it makes me sick. I've been a straight reporter and I've been an "opinion" writer and I can tell you this: Either you have integrity or you don't. Either you put honesty above ideology... or you don't. There's a reason journalism is a profession in largely in disrepute. Far too many journalists are more interested in "opining" than in reporting.
BILL
Amen brother!
he leaders in Canadian Climate science:
http://conservationcouncil.ca/climate/files/ClimateScienceLettertoPM_CanadianClimateScienceLeaders.pdf
Anonymous,
Your point being? Are these the guys willing to toe the Canadian government's line on Global Warming?
Yeah, Anonymous... what's your point and how does it relate to my point?
Here... let me expand on my original point with an example. Last night O'Reilly had a segment titled "Politics of Global Warming." His guest was Dr. Patrick Michaels, University of Virginia, speaking in his role as a fellow at the CATO Institute.
Early on in the interview, Dr. Michaels stated that he DID believe man is partially - perhaps even largely - responsible for the exceleration of global warming trend via human industrial activity. HOWEVER... and here's the point... he made it VERY clear that other scientists - scientists he respected and whose methodology and intellectual integrity he placed great store in - disagreed (based on THEIR research) with the contention that man is responsible for global warming.
Dr. Michaels ALSO went on to state that there may be little the United States and the developed world can do to "stop" global warming and that in any even it's crucial to examine cost/benefit and consider carefully WHAT "we" want to achieve with regard to "effecting" climate and HOW we intend to achieve it.
WE... "regular" folks... non-scientists... need to hear from people like Dr. Michaels. We need to hear from people like Al Gore's "go-to" guys in the SCIENTIFIC community. We need to hear from the naysayers - or to put it more neutrally... those SCIENTISTS who DON'T believe man is the sole or even major cause of global warming.
MY POINT with my initial post is that a politicized ideologically driven media and educational establishment is largely STOPPING this debate from taking place IN THE PUBLIC EYE in a way that educates rather than simply provokes.
Anyway... (*SMILE*)
BILL
Post a Comment