From the newspaper SouthCoastToday.com
Our View: There is no debate on climate change
The “debate” over the reality and cause of climate change stopped being scientific long ago. Today, the “debate” is nothing more than a distraction that serves a political purpose for those who would stand to lose the most by policies that would curtail the release of carbon from its restful, stable location below the surface of the earth, in the form of fossil fuels, into our environment.
One hundred percent of the current and former UMass Dartmouth scientists participating in an editorial board meeting at The Standard-Times on Tuesday agree both that climate change is occurring and that human activity — particularly the combustion of fossil fuels — has a significant impact on it.
The point was made in the meeting that it is not typical that scientists would agree so broadly. There’s a reason for that: Theories aren’t agreed upon in the scientific community, but facts are.
Theories are debated. Facts are facts.
The UMass scientists were invited to discuss three undeniable, provable effects that burning fossil fuels has on our oceans: acidification, warming, and sea level rise.
Read the rest here: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140205/OPINION/402050305
===============================================================
When the public’s right to know is threatened, and when the rights of free speech and free press are at risk, all of the other liberties we hold dear are endangered. -Christopher Dodd
Source h/t to WUWT reader “Vico”
Stuffing newspapers in the cracks to keep reality out.
They don’t even seem to understand what is in dispute.
Just wow. The ability of people to close their minds to dissenting opinions is alive and well. It is only a matter of time before a new Hitler takes over.
This story reeks of desperation. The double down tactic will not end well for those who yell consensus the loudest.
Move along; nothing to see here.
I didn’t see CO2 referred to in the article. They label it carbon which is the first lie. And they just go on from there with some more lies.
Like a pre civil War southern paper refusing to discuss the issue of slavery. Will they just ignore the news that the IPCC is now, by their ‘news’ standard, a skeptical organization?
“Today, the “debate” is nothing more than a distraction that serves a political purpose for those who would stand to lose the most by policies that would curtail the release of carbon from its restful, stable location below the surface of the earth, in the form of fossil fuels, into our environment.”
People who stand to lose the most by these policies include, for example, anyone who drives a car, uses air travel, has products shipped via truck or ship, travels, camps, uses a refrigerator, or has a home which is heated and lit by inexpensive electricity.
100% of progressive scientists agree that purchasing electricity and fuel to use just as the individual who purchases it needs and likes, is killing the planet.
the death of the printed paper sees another nail knocked in the lid of its coffin. You cant handle the truth, you will believe what we tell you to believe!
” One hundred percent of the current and former UMass Dartmouth scientists participating in an editorial board meeting at The Standard-Times on Tuesday agree both that climate change is occurring and that human activity — particularly the combustion of fossil fuels — has a significant impact on it.”
Please obtain the names and qualifications of the participants at the editorial board meeting.
Let’s see if this makes it past their moderator:
Consensus means politics, not science.
Perhaps the SouthCoast Today can explain EXACTLY WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE has that’s man’s CO2 has caused any of the warming since the Little Ice Age. Naturally I don’t expect an answer because there is not a shred of evidence of eny kind.
The paper might also like to explain:
1. The lack of global warming for the past almost 2 decades, despite man having pumped out 1/3 of all his CO2 in this period.
2. The recent 50% INCREASE in Arctic sea ice.
3. The current record high in Antarctic sea ice.
4. The fact that the holocence, Minonan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were all warmer than now.
5. The fact that CO2 levels have been 7 times as high as currently since mammals first walked the Earth.
This does underscore the post regarding how the climate obsessed are winning the war on pretending CO2 is a pollutant. The clowns at this faux new outlet are now labeling carbon itself- the molecule of life- as the problem.
Newspaper editors have a right to print whatever they want. Perhaps the meteor strike that will precipitate their extinction is their own stubbornness about Global Warming. It was a goldmine for so long they are reluctant, to the point of destruction, to give it up.
Is it the ostrich which is supposed to hide by burying its head in the sand?
Won’t they look silly when the sea fails to flood the coastal cities, winters are
much colder and summers cooler, and the ocean remains resolutely alkaline
over the next few decades?
One more small step to help those who are intent on making this country into a third world dictatorship!
This is funny especially during a US and Canadian winter breaking so many cold records, so many snow records across an entire continent. And this is only February. This is not remotely local. If I didn’t know any better I swear I can smell the desperation from here to keep the AGW money train on track. The claims are getting wilder and more outrageous. So desperate in fact they can no longer tolerate rigorous science, nor questions that may question the science itself they so loudly yell – welcome to Obama’s America. If we had relied on consensus the world would still be flat among other silliness.
100% of progressive scientists have a five-year plan to re-make agriculture and the energy sector.
100% of progressive scientists believe that electricity is a luxury item for progressive scientists.
Remarkably effective agitprop by the CAGW “Cause”. It really is like a religion to those folks.
“It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid.”
–George Bernard Shaw
Just nitwits proving that they are also intolerant nitwits.
Only one “scientist” was named. How big was their sample of selected “scientists”? This was a very political editorial with no scientific objectivity.Who are they trying to replace in congress? Who are they trying to get elected?
One hundred percent of the
current and former UMass Dartmouth scientists
[AND] participating in an editorial board meeting
[AND] at The Standard-Times
[AND] on Tuesday
agree
How many could be included in that set? Two?
I’m sure the editors of the L.A. Times must feel all nice and warm and fuzzy inside knowing they aren’t alone anymore when engaging in self-censorship on the issue of CAGW. Who needs government censorship of the media when the editors of publications in this country seem content enough to impose it on themselves?
Since when to the editors of these publications have enough scientific information and enough of a scientific background to do this? The opinions of the “scientists” at just one university (in this case, UMass-Dartmouth) hardly form the basis to justify this action. Money talks, especially when its provided by government, and academia is all-to-easily corrupted by it — as is science itself.
If and when CAGW becomes widely known enough someday to be the fraud that it is, the editors of these publications are going to look and feel very foolish and idiotic. They are digging their own credibility graves, and I for one won’t stop them someday from having to climb down into it.
What is the sound of one hand clapping in an echo chamber?
And here’s the money shot:
“One hundred percent of the current and former UMass Dartmouth scientists participating in an editorial board meeting at The Standard-Times on Tuesday…”
It’s an attempt to stifle debate by the UMass Dartmouth “scientists”. The editor sees it as a way to get the little rag of a publication into the limelight.
It will end up as a sad and forgotten footnote in a long, drawn-out and embarrassing period in the history of humankind. Or should I say “sheepkind”? Yes, I think I should.
JackT says:
February 6, 2014 at 11:24 am
Just nitwits proving that they are also intolerant nitwits.
You hit the nail on the head there :).