Josh writes…
A dark cartoon for the the start of the year following the shocking events in Paris and stories about the blocking of ideas and closed minds.
I wonder what will happen when the Green Blob meets in Paris later in the year?
Josh writes…A dark cartoon for the the start of the year following the shocking events in Paris and stories about the blocking of ideas and closed minds.
I wonder what will happen when the Green Blob meets in Paris later in the year?
Have no doubt they will brings bags of free speech and 0 degrees of freedom . . .
Bubba-the UN entities have entered into an agreement with the Club of Rome to create the desired ;values’ for the post-2015 global agenda. Then the K-12 education system globally imposes them invisibly in the name of Equity, 21st Century Learning, workforce skills, and Competency.
Plus the UNITAE subsidiary in 2003 began setting up a global CIFAL network http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/stipulating-without-our-consent-that-post-literate-right-brained-man-is-necessary-for-workforce-development/ to train legislators, mayors, school supers, etc to be local change agents using their coercive powers to actually push the UN agenda.
Interestingly the North American CIFAL is in Atlanta with another in Mexico. There are 12 in all and we are all at risk until these networks of treachery and Marxist Statism are better known. The accompanying reports actually cite to what Marx called his Human Development Model. Yikes!!
Of course you know you are preaching to the choir, but I appreciate the support.
I live in Vermont, home of you know who, and with a governor who has to be in the pay of big wind. We have nothing else here to take except taxing our air with carbon measures. Our federal reps are senile and entrenched and cherish the PTC subsidies or are so stupid that they are Marx’s “useful Idiots”.
Rud Istvan has kindly agreed to help me with plaintive writings. Waiting for good contact info.
In my region, my letters are appreciated by the public and local legislators and snubbed in the zealot capitol. I mourn what must have happened and continues to happen in “higher education”, much less common core. I attended a “Courageous Conversation about Climate” hosted by a meteorologist and I confronted 1 speaker saying this isn’t about when you saw a bluebird in the backyard; this is about that IPCC horse pucky. He said I’m a reader for the IPCC. I’m the interim dean of environmental science at University of Vermont. I asked what his academic training was. “I’m an economist”.
I said “I have a PhD in actual research science. You’re not competent to assess any area of science”. Left courageous conversation, host called me that evening and apologized and said they told me before the show that they weren’t going there. Courageous. I said politics has hijacked science. He said yup.
Don’t know how to get it back but Rud and I will write stuff.
I liken the comping energy poverty here to indiscriminate violence of all the people.
Cheery
Bubba-you have Gus Speth in Vermont who wrote President Carter’s plan. He is a law prof at Vermont U now but he was the principal author of The Global 2000 Report to the President: Entering the Twenty-First Century. It is easy to locate on the Internet once its existence is known.
It really does make the role of the Environment as an excuse for a government planned economy and society front and center. Well worth the time.
Thank you , Robin.
Expect that is Vermont Law School but should be easy to find.
We need all the help we can get.
Bubba Cow, you rock. The worm the Early Bird has found is under an awful big damn rock.
=============
right !!!
Spiked have an article that is unfortunately too close to the truth for comfort. http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/what-if-icharlie-hebdo-i-had-been-published-in-britain/16443#.VLFo9SusWQC
Many thanks for that link!
It is close to the truth in the US too. Sad that.
Yeah.
Some of it.
Maybe not all of it: I hope.
But – I’m an old fart, and the world has changed (not necessarily to our advantage).
I now have run out of comment.
Auto.
The other truth is that some warmists have called for the death penalty and imprisonment for CAGW sceptics. In other words a climate FATWA. Are those warmists any more tolerant of free speech than ISIS supporters?
Freedom isn’t free.
Jimbo – have you seen this article? http://thoughtcatalog.com/tanya-cohen/2015/01/here-is-why-its-time-to-get-tough-on-hate-speech-in-america/
Frightening that people actually think this is ok.
Thanks for the link, I have saying this in a very none articulate way for 40 years ( lots of bleeps etc), It is why I left the EU.
We need someone from the top of the scientific establishment to say something similar to the words of Egypt’s President SIsi and address them to climate scientists around the world:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-al-sisi-1420760154?KEYWORDS=President+SIsi+Speech
“Honorable Imam [the Grand Sheik of Al-Azhar], you bear responsibility before Allah. The world in its entirety awaits your words, because the Islamic nation is being torn apart, destroyed, and is heading to perdition. We ourselves are bringing it to perdition.”
What is happening in Nigeria scares the crap out of me. I have lived there in that Adamawa State developing the American University of Nigeria which is based upon western education standards. We have built excellent science labs. They haven’t gone dark with social studies and climate crud. Still, I fear that it will be soon a target for Boku Haram. That Hausa is badly translated by MSM. It means “Western is Wrong” – opposite of kosher (H’allal). Security is not good.
I have many many good friends who are Muslim and call me for Christmas. I’ve lived in other Muslim countries – Morocco and Saudi. Islam is peaceful. Jihad is not well understood here – watch Traitor – perhaps Don Cheadle’s best work though he has many. I could go on here.
Agree that climate science needs the proverbial slap upside the head. I don’t even call it science anymore. I could go on here too.
I know about the suppression of debate – even at the state funded BBC but…
This still sits uneasily with me.
Silencing opposition is wrong but the use of deadly violence seems more wrong, doesn’t it?
This feels like a disproportionate complaint.
CACA faithful call for the slaying of infidel skeptics.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/12/25/progressives-call-for-murder-of-climate-skeptics-and-gun-owners/
Wasn’t the commercial with skeptical school kids’ heads being detonated in bloody explosions from Britain?
The wish is father to the deed. Have skeptics not indeed received death threats?
Here is the one you’re talking about. GreenNazi Murder Dreams:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=10%2010%2010%20video%20exploding%20children&qs=n&form=QBVR&pq=10%2010%2010%20video%20exploding%20children&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&mid=0E23EF3968D134196E280E23EF3968D134196E28
Sick, ain’t it?
But they didn’t really blow up school kids. It was a satire.
It wasn’t funny and It was offensive.
It wasn’t even very good.
But it is of a different order to actually using violence.
West Houston Geo, thanks!
M. Courtney, Give them time & even more power, & they will, IMO. Reminds me of when putative pacifists in Portland, Oregon graffitied walls calling for the beheading of Ollie North. The totalitarian mindset broaches no opposition.
Some random thoughts on this. First: Well said Josh. Dr. Mann is suing Mark Steyn and Tim Ball because of something they said. He isn’t killing anyone, but he sure is trying to bankrupt them. We do not need to defend speech that does not offend. That speech does not need defending. We need to defend speech that offends. Anthony understands this well I believe. He links to those who disagree with him and he doesn’t sue those who defame him. When I see a permanent link to WUWT at realclimate, I’ll believe they are taking baby steps to believing in defending free speech. Until then, they must accept some responsibility for the events that occurred. As do all who defend “free speech, but . . .”.
Well said.
Some years ago I had to sit through an indoctrination about “Sexual Harassment in the Workplace”.
The gist of it was that if someone claimed they were offended by what I said or did, I was guilty. No innocent until proven guilty. Guilty.
If a radical feminist took offense at my opening the door for her, I could be in trouble. With no defense.
To offend was indefensible.
The kicker was that the presenter was a minister who claimed affiliation Rev. Martin Luther King.
I bit my tongue and didn’t mention that there was a someone who offended lots of people but was more innocent than any someone has ever been.
GD, you have just nutshelled the whole PC dilemma. Given diversity (of opinion and otherwise), to give no offense to anyone is to remain silent. Not gonna happen on my watch.
But it is important to be as factualy precise (and unassailably referenced) as possible. That is where skeptics have faltered a bit. See my newest book for hopeful counterexamples.
Agree with Rud. Take the high ground and hold it.
Defending speech that offends is fine in theory but you have to remember that at least half the people on the planet are in the 15th century still from an economic, educational & social standpoint. Instant tolerance doesn’t happen. Then you through in the House of Saud funding Wahhabi schools for decades in those parts of the world. Rather than blaming Islam as a whole (like some media do) I think the fault lies clearly at the door of the Saudi royal family.
While I do not advocate violence when you publish something that you know will royally offend 1.5 billion people you have to be aware of the fact that if even 0.00001% of them are violently inclined that you could become a target.
Even if you are a devout Muslim you will still be targeted if you don’t tow the line they want you to. Look at Ramzan Kadyrov. HIs father was the Mufti (Islamic religious leader) in Chechnya and was murdered by the extremists because he wouldn’t go along. Now ISIS has a multi million dollar price on Ramzan’s head because he has been extremely successful against the extremists.
Any fanatical extremism is very dangerous to everyone because you are never “good enough” by their definition. If you don’t accept that they kill you.
We do not have free speech anymore, this concept has been obliterated by the left wing, politically correct “elite”. In Newcastle Civic Centre to ask for black or white coffee is considered racist (coffee with or without is the phrase that should be used). Birmingham City Council declared a few years ago that Christmas was to be called “Winter Festival” so as not to upset non-Christians.
It is this kind of behaviour that has fomented terrorism, both by it’s implication that somehow other religions are superior to ours and patronising those same religions.
It is ironic that the terrorists don’t need to do anything, in a few years the lefties will have done it all for them!
I understand the sentiment but honestly, the sooner we stop aligning ourselves according to right/left, the sooner we’ll all come to the realization that the political system is a sham and politicians have only two goals. 1. Getting into office 2. Staying in office. We are simply the vehicle they use to obtain and maintain power.
Oddly enough, you might actually have more in common with your lib-left neighbor than your conservative congressional/senate representatives. Except in rare circumstances, even the most honest, hard working individual has to compromise on principles in order to reach higher office. It’s then a slippery slope to the bottom.
The left/right system is endemically corrupt and politicians thrive when the electorate is divided amongst itself.
I Agree. The real problem is the left/right, Muslim/Christian/Jew/et al, 1%/99%, and any other them/us mentality. Undistinguished leaders use it for short-term political gain without regard to the long-term societal harm it causes and until we (the unwashed masses) stop following people that push these views, it will not change.
We get what we deserve and if your particular leader is telling you that it’s all the fault of some other group, you are following the wrong person.
MichaelS
Are you saying what we need is “consensus”?
Eugene WR Gallun
Brian said:
“We get what we deserve and if your particular leader is telling you that it’s all the fault of some other group, you are following the wrong person.”
That is exactly the point I was making. Thank you.
Eugene WR Gallun said:
“Are you saying what we need is “consensus”?
Yes Eugene, what we need is a “consensus”.
We need to all agree that the past 75+ years of left/right politics has helped create an adversarial mentality that fertilizes the kind of Us vs Them political idealism that keeps everyone mired in a state of perpetual bullshit.
The election cycle in 2000 was $3B.
The election cycle in 2004 was $4B
The election cycle in 2008 was $6B.
The election cycle in 2012 was $7B.
The election cycle in 2016 was $?B.
Does there really need to be this much money flowing in order to put a government in place? Will the stakes keep going up and if so, where does it end?
Very well said, MichaelS. The eternal shouting match between “left” and “right” is pure divide-and-conquer flimflam, and has little to offer at the best of times. Followers of UK politics may remember a few years ago, when the Conservative M.P. David Davis resigned and forced a by-election over the issue of the spread of state surveillance. Supporting his move, the late Tony Benn – probably about as far from Conservative politics as you could get – was asked by a BBC interviewer whether it wasn’t a bit unusual seeing Right and Left wing politicians getting together like this.
Benn smiled agreeably and told him that, while there were of course differences between them, on matters as important as liberty left and right “sort of meet round the back”. He was absolutely right. The important axis at present is not “left-right”, however you want to define them. The dichotomy now is between libertarian and authoritarian, and we must all choose between a world in which “we the people” control our governments pro bono publico and one in which arrogant, self-selected U.N. “technocrats” in a globalist “government” control – and beggar – the rest of us for their own benefit.
Given that education has been monstrously corrupted since WWII, as is so spine-chillingly documented for the U.S. on Robin’s outstanding “Invisible Serf’s Collar”, it’s not going to be an easy fight. Everyone under about 40 has already received years of “communitarian training” at school and had their critical faculties anaesthetised, for a start. Nonetheless, it is an inevitable and essential fight, if you don’t want your grandchildren to end up – at best – as minor functionaries in the “Fourth Reich”. Maybe, when we’ve got rid of the crust of globalist parasites destroying our planet and plotting our downfall, we will get back to the “left-right” stuff, but I’d rather hope that we might by then have learned to work togeether.
Believe nothing because a wise man said it.
Believe nothing because the belief is generally held.
Believe nothing because it is written in ancient books.
Believe nothing because it is of divine origin.
Believe nothing because someone else believes it.
Believe only that which you yourself judge to be true.
– Buddha
To which I would only add:
… but make sure your judgement is sound.
If you still think “right-left”, it needs working on.
MichaelS
I would describe myself as a pro-choice, atheist, extremely conservative Republican. I think that unless i run for office myself I am never going to find a candidate I am completely happy with — but isn’t that the situation of every voter?
In the real world I favor religious candidates over atheist candidates because I believe anyone out there proclaiming their atheism during a campaign is most likely a nut case.
My pro-choice beliefs find the current turmoil on this topic quite proper. Currently pro-choice women are not prevented from having abortions and pro-life women are not required to have abortions. Sounds fair to me.
I favor small government because government screws everything up so lets keep the screw-ups government is capable of as small as possible.
All the above aside, most of which was said half-jokingly, I am far more scared of consensus than I am of endless contention. Consensus demands that debate end — and there should never be an end to debate. (And I must add that so-called “obstructionism” in government is instrumental in preventing “consensus” — that is why those favoring consensus are so negative about it. It prevents them from getting their way.)
if politics is the art of cat herding — then consensus politics is the art of shooting all the cats.
Eugene WR Gallun
MichaelS says “the sooner we stop aligning ourselves according to right/left, the sooner we’ll all come to the realization that the political system is a sham and politicians have only two goals.”
Too late. You have already aligned yourself “left” by using the word “we”. It is your paradigm, the way your brain is wired, to assume the existence of “we”.
Plus it is more accurate to describe “left/right” not as a thing “we” align to, but as descriptive words that describe character traits you were very likely born possessing. You do not choose to be right or left, it is what you are and relates (IMO) to left brain / right brain (left politics, right half of brain; right politics, left half of brain).
As one matures, there’s a tendency to be able to use both sides of one’s brain in which case I, and others, see the good of both left and right, and the bad of both left and right, realizing that situational ethics pertain and sometimes one system is to be preferred depending on the circumstances.
They have peaked.
In comments on sci-fi geek blogs, I have been referring to the “chalkboard” in the latest series of Doctor Who. (Just to avoid tedious arguments, you understand.)
Recently, Doctor Who Confidential called it a “blackboard”. No public outcry. No moral panic. Nobody noticed.
Conclusion: They’ve started to lose track of their own bollocks. They can no longer remember what’s “unacceptable” and what isn’t.
They are going away. Soon they will be gone.
“”We need to defend speech that offends.”” Speech does not offend. Every individual is given a choice as to whether they choose to “take offence” at anything that is said. There is no grammatical rule; there is no dictionary of offence. We live in an “offence” culture where people try and rule the conversation by faux offence and umbrage. Freedom of speech is inviolable. There can be no rules, because to set rules demands that someone becomes the arbiter of other peoples words. Choose not to be offended and choose freedom of speech. I live in France. I am Charlie.
Yes,
No.
Ivor, I’m with you – inasmuch as I understand your words: that people have no right ‘not to be offended’. That is the key.
But I do retain the right to react to being offended – ‘to take offence’. Thing is, if you call me an a*sehole, I reserve the right to bop you on the nose. But I don’t think you deserve to die for it – and I deserve to be arrested for it.
My point is, life is full of offensive experiences – it’s how we grow – but we develop and grow as a result based on how we react to those offences.
We do need to protect free speech – even that which offends – but only inasmuch as those doing the offending are made to understand that they are (by someone’s lights) offensive. Otherwise the drunk calling your wife an offensive name will be protected. Oh, and I know this to be the way things are going because, when someone gratuitously offended my wife, and I later told (her) in fairly assertive terms (no swearing) that she should not do that, she called the police and I was the one prosecuted for common assault. (In the UK, common assault does not have to be physical, it only has to be ‘apprehended’ – and that’s another problem).
Et – je suis Charlie, aussie.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/thelist.htm
These 24,000 terrorist attacks and religious murders (some few are so-called honor-killings of a wife or daughter by the husband-father-brother) killed over 90,000 people since September 11, 2001.
It IS the religion – a 7th century model based on 7th century rituals and social values: That is, based on nothing but what the rest of the world grew away from since 680 AD.
Way to go, Harry. What a guy. Your wife is blessed to have such a gallant husband. The sickening bias shown by the prosecutor shows why the AGWers often put a woman out there as their spokesperson: the myth that all women are “nice.” (head shake) Where have they been living for their entire lives??! Or did I luck out and meet all 500 members of Nasty Women with Sweet Smiles, Inc.?
But Harry, verbal retort can have so much more impact than a bop on the nose – which is violence in response to someone who makes a verabl insult. You would be the one arrested. I remember someone calling my old uncle a big head one day (he died in April, and I miss him). He immediately came back with, ‘Yes, but my head would still rattle in your mouth’. It was a superb response, and a belittling put-down, no violence needed. In powderkeg arguments I have found that being calm and using words carefully have a massive and devastating impact. I have had people frothing at the mouth in confrontation with me, as they aren’t thinking as clearly as me. I’ve never hit anyone in my life – never had to.
Big Jim, not everyone is good with the quick retort that puts someone in their place and the line between acceptable and unacceptable is very blurred. Laws and public morals are being changed so that those that are better with their mouth can bully others. A protestor can do to others what would be considered assault, as Harry pointed out, and any reaction is portrayed as stopping free speech.
While I’m not happy to say it, I get the feeling that a world completely free of violence will be full of peace lovers who are nasty little so-and-sos. Humans are too anti-intellectual to have seen the last of a bit of biffo (or terrorist attacks).
Hell is not being able to reason.
Well said, thank you.
Nowhere is it in Western civilization stated that there is a right to not be offended. Speech is controlled by slander and libel laws, not “I am offended” laws because these would be subjective. Heck, I could even be offended by anything that I don’t like, or represents my ideological opponents.
How offended, or not? Please quantify the degree to which you are not offended and use the standard unit of measure for offence (do I need a sarc tag?)
Claims of “sexual harassment” ….. has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with “what was said”, …… but everything to do with “who said it”.
Which is where the “hate speech” crap came from.
I don’t “hate” very many people, and I certainly don’t run around trying to get others to hate people. But when someone moves here and not only refuses to be part of this culture, but actively plots our demise, how foolish is it to ignore them?
“Yes granted that you can have the right not to be offended brother even if you are deeply offended !”
“But he is always easily offended!”
“alright comrades , insofar as Achmud is always easily offended we can nevertheless agree that whilst easily and constantly offended , he has the right , if he so wishes ,to not be offended,this would not prohibit him from being madly aroused by offense,or not,as the case may be but would allow us to go forward in joint purpose as stakeholders ,in the rights of anyone ,male or female, of any race or creed ,to be entitled not to be wound up ,as a right by what may or may not be offense.”
“Splitters!!”
The life of Brian has a lot to answer for. /sarc
I sometimes find the C Bit C in Canada offensive. I turn the dial. Some people claim many TV programs are offensive – I can only assume they are unable to change the channel, hit the mute button or turn away. I find the language of many youngsters “offensive” but their peers do not – so I accept that things have changed.
300 years ago Voltaire said something like: “I detest what you say, but I defend your right to say it to the death.” That should still be valid.
I disagree with many viewpoints here and the tonality with which they are stated, but to paraphrase another old saying: “Keep your friends close, your enemies closer.” It is good to keep an open mind and listen.
I have learned much here.
Thank you. And thoughts to the bereaved families in France.
I have been listening and watching in the Great White North, where we have the CBC (taxpayer subsidized to the tune of $1.1B/yr) trying not to offend anyone and others saying that it is wrong for the PM to call these acts barbaric. The pen is only mightier than the sword when you have a liberal democracy with the rule of law to defend free speech.
I have also been saddened by my many erstwhile lefty friends who used to say “I might not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it” now having caveats about free speech if it is not part of the “consensus” they support.
As a lefty myself, your erstwhile lefty friends should be compelled to shut up …
Yet you can post here, but I am constantly and consistently deleted by your lefty friends at their lefty sites. Hmmmm.
David Ball,
Funny about that, isn’t it?
Neither the politically Left blogs, nor the alarmist blogs [pretty much the same thing], allow free exchange of ideas. Especially the alarmist climate blogs, which censor like crazy. I have long since given up trying to post comments on most of them — and knowing how sensitive they are, I am always extremely polite and careful.
Doesn’t matter. If I post a graph that contradicts their narrative, it almost never sees the light of day.
That alone ought to tell the alarmist clique commenting here who is right, and who is wrong.
What’s that, Brandon? Santa didn’t bring you a new box o’ sarc tags?
Alan, I needed my daily dose of irony. Self-administered is the best sort.
David Ball, Maybe you’re consistently more offensive than I am. It’s not like I haven’t been warned here. That said I do appreciate having been allowed to air my views here despite all the rumors I read elsewhere about censorship at WUWT.
B. Gates says:
…I do appreciate having been allowed to air my views here despite all the rumors I read elsewhere about censorship at WUWT.
Yes, I’ve read the same false accusations about ‘censorship’ here. It seems that when they can’t win debates with facts, then fabricating ‘facts’ is an acceptable tactic. It isn’t.
As always, the Romans understood human nature:
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
You fib about one thing, that makes you a fibber. You will fib about anything.
Also: I’ve read David Ball’s comments here for years. He is no more offensive than Gates — who I must admit, is pretty inoffensive.
So that excuse is out. Alarmist blogs simply do not want their readers to see any other point of view except their own.
dbstealey,
Oh dear, once again The Pause has reached The Hot Place and then some, for it has frozen over — we agree on something. There are other ways to quash debate when inconvenient arguments come to light, and — how can I put this delicately — you are among the true masters of the non sequitur.
You’re not alone. My side does it too … I do it too when frustration leads to anger and those things get the best of me. Difficult to be a caring human being and not have those kind of emotional responses.
My position on this matter is that blog owners have the privilege of deciding who comments and who does not. WUWT has its own ground rules. I myself have tested the boundaries and had my knuckles rapped. Which is fine. I’m a guest here at Anthony’s pleasure. His blog, his rules, my choice to follow them or not.
MAYBE David Ball could have been a better guest, maybe the hosts were thin-skinned and overly intolerant of reasonable opposing views …. I don’t know. I’ll not ever be able to know. These are subjective judgement calls, none of us are ever going to be able to agree on what’s fair and isn’t.
In the end I don’t much care. When we warmunists finally get the conspiracy going full swing and pass the laws to shut WUWT down forever, well then you’ll have a decent complaint in my view.
Rare that I use this device, but just to be sure … /sarc.
Cheers.
Gates says:
The Pause has reached The Hot Place…
And you call me a master of the non sequitur??
Projection.
But you have made an important admission: WUWT does not censor opposing views. THAT is what’s important. If alarmist blogs operated the same way as WUWT, I honestly believe thwey would either be forced out of business, or be cut down to even smaller traffic numbers. As it is, they are nothing more than like-minded echo chambers populated with head-nodders.
If you had kept on topic you would also have to agree that alarmist blogs censor opposing views. As I said above, that should tell you all you need to know.
dbstealey,
Self-deprication. Which requires self-awareness. Something you either wholly lack, are awfully good at pretending you don’t have … or somewhere in between.
What I know is that I have not been moderated out … and in this context I prefer the term moderated to censor. A blog owner is not the gummint, and proper terminology is something I’m a stickler for.
No, I don’t have to agree. It’s yours and David’s word that I’ve got to go on here, and that’s it. So I don’t base WUWT’s moderation policy on the basis of my experience alone because that would be extending personal anecdotal evidence to the general case, and that’s fallacious. I don’t trust much of what combatants on either side of this debate say about the other side because I know this is a political mud fest.
My anchor for understanding this row is the science itself. It’s the most objective lens through which to view the debate that I trust.
+100! And there you have it ladies and gentlemen. I too have posted up on the Guardian comments section peer reviewed abstracts that contradict their position and was promptly deleted or banned. Yet most of the articles were simply from journalists while mine was from the peer review! They insist time and again to “listen to the science”, but I think they meant listen to the journalism. LOL.
May I add that Dr. Richard Tol of the IPCC also had a comment removed. Sometimes facts hurt.
Here is the removed comment in the Guardian by Dr. Richard Tol of the IPCC, dated 21 October 2014. The really funny thing is that Tol had written an article in the Guardian a few months earlier (6 June 2014) challenging the climate consensus.
Yes, yes! Lefty! Goober!
Thanks, Jimbo. I can truly believe your comments and links have been “censored” [yes, I agree with Gates that it isn’t censorship, since only the gov’t can censor. But the effect is exactly the same: readers don’t see the other side of the debate].
You post facts, like a lot of skeptics. But they don’t like facts. They cannot argue facts. Facts show they are wrong. So the easy solution for them is to simply delete inconventient facts, and… on with the propaganda!
That worked in the 1930’s, when governments controlled the narrative. But with free speech and the internet, the alarmist contingent is losing credibility day by day — because they have no solid, supporting facts.
B. Gates says:
how can I put this delicately — you are among the true masters of the non sequitur.
Gates, after repeatedly pointing out that you, and even more, Socks, is guilty of non sequitur confusion, now you have started using it to argue. But just look at the comments Socks makes, and try to put your own house in order.
Next, you say:
Self-deprication. Which requires self-awareness. Something you either wholly lack, are awfully good at pretending you don’t have … or somewhere in between.
Gates, often times you make no sense, you just ramble on. That is one of those times.
If you stuck with the facts like Jimbo does, this would be wrapped up in short order, so I can understand why you prefer to ramble.
dbstealey,
How about a specific example?
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, donchaknow.
Meh, I’ve about had my fill of thinly-evidenced anecdotes about who’s been moderated/banned at what blog. Facts … facts … oh hey. Not to change the subject or anything have you yet answered my questions about this graph you posted a few threads back?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/clip_image0062.jpg?w=700
1) How did the creator of this chart came up with the values for the y-axis TEMPERATURE values?
2) Why do you think the TEMPERATURE values are accurate if Global Warming is too insignificant to measure?
I’m also wondering if you’ve figured out which of your idle speculations about my personal status is most likely correct:
One might wonder why I’ve mashed these seemingly unrelated questions together: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/06/on-the-futility-of-climate-models-simplistic-nonsense/#comment-1832583
“Put my own house in order … ” lol, you’re killin’ me Stealey. Mind yourself first. Then, maybe, possibly, I’ll seriously entertain anything critical you’ve got to say about something (whatever it is) Socks has written.
I can’t wait to see the reply you get Brandon
Socrates,
Here’s hoping it’s something a little more original than the last elebentyzillion times I’ve asked him about that plot. And hey, since you’re here, whatever you’ve said to get his knickers in a twist, knock it off, ok? Whatever it is you’ve flubbed, I really shouldn’t make my policing of your independent activities on this blog conditional on him shaping himself up. Cheers!
Alternate graph :
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/10/the-diminishing-influence-of-increasing-carbon-dioxide-on-temperature/
garymount,
I take it that you stand behind the accuracy of the graphic you’ve posted. That being the case, I have some questions for you:
1) The title mentions the “logarithmic diminution of the influence of CO2 on temperature”. What formula(e) were used to create this plot? Please be sure to include any constants.
2) The title also mentions “remaining maximum temperature change” due to the influence of CO2. What is that maximum temperature, and what assumptions were used to calculate this as yet, unknown future value? Again please be sure to include any formula(e) and constants.
3) What observational data sets and analysis methods were used to validate the temperature changes implied, but unstated, in this graphic?
4) Given your evident trust in this graphic, what do you think of dbstealey’s previous assertions that the temperature effects of CO2 are too small to measure?
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm
garymount,
Ok, that page lists three simplified expressions for CO2 forcing listed, let’s go with the simplest:
ΔF = α * ln(C/C₀), α = 5.35 W/m^2
They don’t give us a value for C₀ here, but 280 ppmv is standard so I’ll spot you that constant.
Now, ΔF is change in radiative forcing, not change temperature. The plot you posted is talking about temperature. How did whoever make that chart calculate equilibrium temperature? How did they validate their results?
gary mount,
Don’t fall for Gates’ incessant “But why” type of response. He has no interest in scientific veracity, only in endless, nitpicking obfluscation. This is a somewhat complicated discussion, so anyone with that intent can clutter up the threads to where it’s all about them, instead of the topical questions.
The bottom line: global warmig has stopped, which killed the alarmists’ arguments. Now they’re just getting nasty, because they can’t man-up and admit they were wrong all along.
And they were wrong. Not one of their scary predictions ever happened. Despite rising CO2, global temperatures have not followed. Polar bear populations are rising. The sea level rise is not accelerating as predicted, it is actually decelerating. Ocean “acidification” cannot even be quantified. Methane in no longer in the news, because that scare was debunked, too. The biggest scare of all runaway global warming, certainly appears to be complete nonsense. In any case, that is just another failed prediction.
And so far, no one has ever posted a verifiable, testable measurement of AGW. A measurement that quantifies the human factor in overall global warming. Is it one-third? Is it 9%? Is it 0.09%? We don’t know. Because there is no measurement of AGW!
Without any measurements, how can we be certain that AGW exists? The answer: we can’t. But the alarmist crowd is still trying to scare people with something that they cannot prove even exists! Is this the biggest HOAX ever? Or is AGW something so minuscule that it cannot even be measured? Which?
None of the alarmists’ predictions have happened. Why should anyone listen to them now? They are only trying to cover up their total failure.
dbstealey,
Tut. We’ve got this plot from you:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/clip_image0062.jpg?w=700
And this graphic that garymount has submitted into evidence:
If they’re not verifiable and testable, what in heck are proper skeptics like you two doing posting them to begin with?
Yet …
In sum, we can’t be certain AGW even exists, but we are absolutely certain it has stopped.
If you’re the cavalry, one wonders how inept the infantry is.
Gates,
Better to not comment, than to prove your foolishness.
Those are not measurements, any more than a multiplication table is a measurement.
They are graphs of a model; a model of radiative physics.
You are a noobie at this. Why not do as recommended, and read the WUWT archives for a while. Really, you will learn the difference between a model and, like, measurements.
It would do you good.
dbstealey,
That may explain why it takes so long for me to drag answers to simple questions out of you. To wit, at long last, you write:
[smacks forehead] You don’t say. Let’s have a look at this graphic again:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/clip_image0062.jpg?w=700
Near as I can tell with my eyeballs, the model for this plot is:
ΔT = ln(C₁) * 0.5 - ln(C₀) * 0.5Where C₀ and C₁ are CO2 concentrations in ppmv, and as plotted, C₁ = C₀ + 20. How we get T in units of °C from that formula I’ll never know … someone’s radiative physics text may be a little bonkers. But I digress.
Tsk. No WUWT veteran worth his or her salt would trust a model without proper validation, would they? So yet again DB, how was your little chart above validated if the effects of CO2 can’t be measured?
I am amused by Gates’ tap-dancing above.
Still no measurement, eh Gates?
Of course not. If there were, it would have been trumpeted from every media outlet 24/7/365. And we would know the exact fraction of AGW, out of total global warming. The debate would be over.
But carry on… the tap-dancing is amusing. Especially the arithmetic… ☺
dbstealey,
This here is a tango, m’dear.
You said it yourself above: This is a somewhat complicated discussion …
And now the full Stealy quote from above: He has no interest in scientific veracity, only in endless, nitpicking obfluscation. This is a somewhat complicated discussion, so anyone with that intent can clutter up the threads to where it’s all about them, instead of the topical questions.
It did occur to me after I posted that factoring out the constant to yield:
ΔT = (ln(C₁) - ln(C₀)) * 0.5would be slightly better algebra. Still, taking the log of a dimensioned value is strange. So, for the nth time DB, what’s the true formula for this plot, where did it come from, and above all:
How was it validated if the effects of CO2 are “too small to measure”?
You don’t seriously believe in the results of radiative physics models which have not been verified by observation … do you?
Of course not. And your silence on the question speaks very loudly indeed.
Gates,
Arguing with you is like dancing with the tar baby. The only thing I get from it is your confused nonsense:
So, for the nth time DB, what’s the true formula for this plot, where did it come from, and above all: How was it validated if the effects of CO2 are “too small to measure”?
I have repeatedly answered that same question. Go back and find the answer. Why should I have to explain the basics to you yet again — for the nth time?
And adding more to your arithmetic does not get you out of your hole. It is just obfuscation, which adds nothing whatever to the discussion. It is the typical Gates tactic of posting unnecessary, extraneous pixels.
Wake me if/when you begin to understand the difference between models and the real world. Because it’s clear that you still don’t see the difference.
dbstealey,
So, the possibilities are:
1) You answered it and I missed the post.
2) You answered it and I truly did not understand it was you answer.
3) You didn’t answer it and wish to make it appear I’m debating in bad faith.
4) You did answer it, I read it and understood it, and really am debating in bad faith.
So, here’s the ONE question I’m looking you to answer: How was it validated if the effects of CO2 are “too small to measure”?
The one way to resolve this conundrum is for you to provide a link to your prior answer, or simply repeat what you’ve already written.
He has explained it to you. Unfortunately, he can’t understand it for you.
Babsy,
And I repeat … So, the possibilities are:
1) You answered it and I missed the post.
2) You answered it and I truly did not understand it was you answer.
3) You didn’t answer it and wish to make it appear I’m debating in bad faith.
4) You did answer it, I read it and understood it, and really am debating in bad faith.
I allow for the possibility I have not read and/or understood his answer in (1) and (2). In (4) I allow for the possibility that I am the lying sack of bull excrement DB says I am.
Now it might occur to an honest, rational person who understood DB’s answer and knew where it was to provide the evidence that I’m:
1) inattentive,
2) stupid, or
4) dishonest
Instead what happens is I get answers like:
… which really makes option (3) look like a strong contender. OTOH, perhaps the both of you are as stupid as you think I am. It’s REAL easy to settle this … all it takes is one little linky linky to DB’s appropriate explanatory comment answering the following question:
How were the TEMPERATURE values in the following plot validated if the effects of CO2 are “too small to measure”?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/clip_image0062.jpg
I await a cogent and complete answer with much anticipation. By “cogent and complete” I do not mean something along the lines of, “Gates, you’re a lying idiot.”
Thanks ever so much.
Personally, I don’t care if you understand it or not. Not my problem. I’m watching football. Bye.
You’re not a bad place kicker yourself.
The CBC has been busy explaining why they won’t publish the cartoons while most other news organizations have published them. Speaks volumes. CBC ought to go the way of Air Canada and Petro Canada.
There are very few Crown Corporations that we still have any need to dump billions into running. Either private enterprise fills the need, or the need isn’t great enough to justify it.
“When a politician says, “The debate is over” … you can be sure of two things:
1. the debate is raging; and
2. he {or she} is losing it.”
George Will on Fox News Sunday (youtube)
**********************************************
EXCELLENT cartoon, Josh.
When a scientist says (effectively) “shut-up,” you can be sure of one of two things, he or she is:
1. Losing the debate; or
2. A religious zealot.
Happy New Year, Janice!
Well, Tom J, after all this time (smile)…
HAPPY NEW YEAR, TO YOU, TOO! #(:))
May it be your best year, so far!
You ARE going to those drag races this year!
Right on Josh: all mainstream media are buying themselves a cheap virtue on the back of Charlie… while the EU and NATO are using the events to promote their tyranny. One week ago the same media were all stigmatizing anyone who dared to criticize their masters…
Oh, the ironing. Paris, of all places. The green blob stands for lies being propounded and defended by those who weild power, which is the basis of fascism.
More ironing (lol, Bruce Cobb, you are ALWAYS so funny 🙂 —
Vichy France Anti-Allies Propaganda (youtube)
Al Gorebbels on the Den1ers (youtube)
(Note his exquisitely refined and erudite vocabulary.)
I suppose the following applies to the non-violent terrorism tactics of the climastrologists also:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/paris-attack-charlie-hebdo-muslims/2015/01/07/id/617102/
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1303/article_1149.shtml
Never mind a fundamentalist few, the VAST majority of Muslims have no comprehension of the fact that, to us, nothing is beyond ridicule, even the prophet Mohammed (or even especially). All religion, religious beliefs, sexuality, race, and everything else is fair game for laughter and to poke fun at – it’s what we (I would say especially the British) do. They are just going to have to get used to it. As a white, middle-aged man, I will take no offence about whatever you say about me, my personal beliefs, my politics, and everything I hold dear. Call me what you like. And anyone who takes offence should move to a country of like-minded people. But if you are resident in a country where such ridicule is the norm, then get used to it or piss off.
Not the vast majority Big Jim, thankfully. But it is a frighteningly and viciously growing set.
They are angry with our crusades in the Middle East, is true and I agree. Does not warrant the response however. And most Muslims I have lived with there agree and have been appalled. Was in Saudi Arabia on 9/11 watching terrorism on CNN with Crowned Princess Loolowah of the Kingdom. She was crying.
We’ve built or are building 50 universities in KSA for sciences (real ones) and professional education. One of the problems is that a generation of youth has attended subsidized university with an exclusive curriculum of Islamic studies = no life skills – and have to hire 500,000/ yr expatriates to run engineering, hospitals . . . and so the youth haven’t the skills to do anything and are ripe for propaganda.
As well the Faisal family thinks they must be an agent for dealing with Islamic terrorism.
We’ll see how that works out with Iran and watch for the energy wars as crude goes to $20/barrel.
Well I have to say that from experience of talking to many Muslims, the vasy majority cannot abide ridicule of the prophet Mohammed. To them, it’s a step too far. To ‘us’ it’s just one more thing to poke fun at. I do at Christianity, and I will at Islam.
“They are angry with our crusades in the Middle East, is true and I agree.”
Bubba Cow…..the Crusades were to recover land that had been taken BY Islam from Christianity. To say they are “angry” says 2 things….they deceived you and…………that is their plan(Taqquia)
The Crusades were a totally justified counter-attack. Don’t forget pre-1400 years ago, the middle east was Christian, with other religions co-existing.
I think Mr. Cow was referring to the modern wars in the Middle East, not the original Crusades.
Humor varies with culture, but generally I agree with the get on with it or piss off. With those I have come to know well, they concur, but it works both ways. I have found that respect is essential and then humor is accepted. Can’t criticize the King still, but his daughter used to dress in his clothes and take the Rolls for a ride through town. Agree it is a major work in progress . . . so is this climate crap.
“Y’re ‘n ‘ld c’nt”
– missive from: Keith Richard to Mick Jagger
(couldn’t he’p it)
Dear Ghost,
Given the integrity you have consistently demonstrated in your posts on WUWT, I think that you would serve your personal ethos if you, too, were to go investigate the case for the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, “crucified under Pontius Pilate… etc…. etc… .” I can assure you that you will find more eyewitness testimony and documentary evidence (see the Jewish historian Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, for two sources) for Jesus’ actions and words than ANY other single historical figure of ancient times. In other words, to be intellectually honest, you would also have to stop believing in many, many, other people whose existence you have simply accepted on authority… . Jesus’ historicity is not a serious topic of debate among the majority of historians whether they believe in him as Messiah or just as a famous man.
Examine the evidence. If you want a particular question to guide your research, just focus on the fact of the resurrection and ask: who rolled away the stone? (there is a book of that name, too here: http://www.amazon.com/Who-Moved-Stone-Frank-Morison/dp/0310295610) written by a “sceptical journalist.”
Your WUWT ally for truth AND HUMOR #(:)),
Janice
Dear Janice, ….. see this: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html
Hello Janice. I have read SO much over the years, argued on ‘belief’ forums, got into long conversations with English bishops and vicars. I was once (by my own hand) pitched against a whole ‘club’ of devout Christians on a weblog. Janice, I have argued this so many times, and of course, here isn’t the place. There’s one thing in your post that shines out: and that is the point about the veracity of other historic figures. Janice, not being able to verify others makes no stronger point for the possibility of Christ’s existence. I have researched this over and over, followed up leads from those on both sides, but they all come to one conclusion: when you REALLY look, there is no objective evidence that can be relied upon. Now, I know so well how difficult that is for you and others (and no, I’m actually not being patronising, even though it sounds like it). It is very difficult for me to discuss with you…because you start from the premise that it IS true, as you talk about the ‘resurrection’ as though it actually happened! You call it a “fact”. Do you see?
When I started out about global warming, I thought that it was true. This was around 12-15 years ago. I’m ashamed to say that I just went with the crowd, and listened to people whose opinions I respected and upheld. It was only when I had the time to do a lot of research about the subject that I found there was little or no evidence for AGW. I was shocked. The more I dug, the more I found out that things I was told, weren’t true. In those days, it was John Daly’s fantastic website that got me started (the Anthony of the 1990s!). You HAVE to find out stuff for yourself, with an open mind, to see if what you are told is true. It’s no good listening to others, they have their own belief – usually based on the fact that they themselves have simply listened to others. The idea that Jesus Christ was real is almost unanimous among scholars, but that doesn’t make it real, Janice. Outside of subjective followers, there remains only Josephus and Tacitus. These too, are at the very least mired in question.
Look again, Janice, this time with scientific eyes.
All the best.
Normally I find myself agreeing with 97% of the comments here on most subjects but I think I feel differently to the Ghost about poking fun.
Politicians , most BBC pundits, overpaid footballers and celebrities are fair game But…
I am not a Royalist but I do not like to hear people mock the Royal Family ,
I am by most criteria a poor Christian but I do not appreciate jokes about Jesus Christ
It is not because I consider them to be all powerful, but the opposite , because they are so vulnerable and
because they represent the tradition and history of the country and society into which I was lucky enough to be born.
At risk or certainty of being cast into the outer darkness I wonder if Moslems have similar feelings for similar reasons about their religious and/or historical figures, though thankfully few will experience more than a temporary annoyance.
Britain has a huge and proud history of satire and generally poking fun – it’s what we do…and everything is game, the Royal Family especially so. Don’t take any notice of their ‘not being able to answer back’! They have massive influence on how Britain is run, sometimes on a daily basis. Their little adventures and lapses make them all the more fair game. I can’t think of a funnier and more absurd institution. There isn’t any actual evidence that Jesus Christ existed (go look), hence a mythical figure is also up for ridicule. That’s just how it is, Mike.
Ooops. Ghost, sorry for the mis-posting. I responded to you above, here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/10/portents-in-paris/#comment-1833076
Note: I’m only addressing the narrow question of: Did Jesus exist or not? Whether Jesus was dead when the Roman soldiers took him off the cross (so he could indeed be resurrected), etc, etc… is also potential subject matter for your research (lots of logic and medical facts and other evidence for that, btw), but, not addressed by me here (nor shall it be — I’m already too close to the “disappear” line, now, no doubt, heh).
#(:))
I was. Interesting how difficult clear communication is. Thanks for your help.
Just don’t call me late for dinner
The error I see being made here is in the assumption that events in Paris had anything to do with freedom of speech. That is the lens through which the press views the world, and so that is the narrative through which they report it, particularly when it is them and their colleagues who are targeted. But make no mistake about it, this was not about freedom of speech, this was about freedom of religion. This was about members of one religion, through violence, attempting to make everyone else bow to their belief system.
In roughly the same time frame that events were unfolding in Paris, Boko Haram went on a rampage in Nigeria, murdering according to some reports, as many as 2 thousand people, their only “sin” being not bowing to Boko Haram’s religious beliefs. Of those murdered, was there a single cartoonist among them?
The likes of ISIS, Al Qaida, Boko Haram, the Taliban and so many others share a common belief system, that they have the right to force the rest of us to bow to theirs. To suggest otherwise is, I believe, hopelessly naive. Silencing free speech is only a tiny part of their over all strategy and ultimate goals.
First they came for the cartoonists….
You’re right, davidmhoffer. Freedom of speech was attacked, but the underlying motive was religious zeal (and also pure power-seeking by cynical thugs who are ultimately only after the wealth of a society and who use the true believers as their rabid hyenas)…. just as do the AGWer enviroprofiteers use the true believers… .
When violence against apostates
(especially if they are … dare we say it?…. Jews)
is one of the tenets of a creed,
it is most emphatically
NOT a “religion of peace.”
davidmhoffer, I fully agree. And that is the scary bit.
David, you are exactly right..
The next time someone says “religion of peace”…
….ask them to name one Muslim country where Charlie could have printed his cartoons
and if he did, what would have happened to him
Religion of peace my a55……..
Pity the hapless Africans, so frequently beset by this or that outbreak of murderous insanity. Any references to Boko Haram’s latest outrages have been sent far down the back pages, by the typical news outlet’s coverage of the atrocities in Paristan.
Media references to the House of Saud’s “dismay” at the actions of the Parisian attackers have all but disappeared and in their place, reports of the Saudi’s brutal suppression of free speech, by their sentencing of a vocal blogger to 20 consecutive weeks of public floggings, of 50 lashes at a time.
Recent news reports haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of the daily violence against the world, as practiced by the members of the R.O.P.
What’s the world to do in defense; adopt a posture of equivalence and engage in overwhelming levels of medieval ruthlessness, gaining one- upmanship against those now active on the terrorist front? Employ the scythe of death against six degrees of familial and fraternal associations of any known jihadi? There are financiers for all of this foolishness… cut off the heads of the snakes and all of their kith and kin?
The recent Boko Haram rampage went against Muslim and Christian alike, cutting down all those in their path. We’ve often seen that the Islamists’ destruction falls upon far more of their own kind, than of anyone outside the faith, with all of those Muslim deaths, then summarily rationalized and justified. Oh, well.
Master Jesus once enjoined some wayward soul to run as far down his sinful road as it would take him, if that’s what it took for him to see the light. Maybe that’s what it takes for the rest of us- just wait ’em out, they’ll figure it out, or get sick of it, someday- but keep your powder dry.
Pardon, should say above… adopt a posture of methodological equivalence…
And that’s how you differentiate fanatics from the rest of the flock. In Iraq Muslim fanatics kill faaaaar more Muslims than Christians. Boko Haram kills Muslims left, right and centre. So in all fairness we should not forget the MUSLIM victims of the fanatics.
Unease is understandable. Good satire should make us feel unease as when we are comfortable we hardly question our assumptions. It also has to be made plain Josh is not calling for violence but – for me anyway – tolerance.
We can all too easily slip into self censorship because we *might* offend – which allows those with less sensitivity or scruples to put the boot on the throat.
I believe this puts the point across well –
http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/je-suis-charlie-its-a-bit-late/
A few weeks back both Ben Pile and myself (independently of each other I add) compared the actions in Nazca with the Taliban blowing up Buddah statues. I was uneasy making the comparison but as a former warmista who once liberally dehumanised sceptics, I am more deeply uneasy with what is/has/will be be done for our grandchildren, the blasé way *some* intolerants are willing to stamp out rights and the dogmatic refusal to alleviate the suffering of those in poverty (e.g. the green ‘terrorism’ in India). Whilst clearly Nazca was not on the same bus, it’s the direction of travel – and calls for violence (death penalties) and censorship of dissent we have seen in the leadup – that is troubling. Intolerance never ends well.
We can only hope that some light may come from this, so godspeed Josh and more power to your arm.
*******
Ben’s effort –
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2014/12/we-need-to-talk-about-green-ngos.html
Mine –
http://weatheraction.wordpress.com/2014/12/11/greenblob-guerillas-in-geoglyph-gaffe/
Josh,
You know it is weird artifact of contemporary geopolitics that puts Muslim extremists in exactly the same camp as the politically correct leftists. Both are against free speech.
I think the cartoonists in Paris were a depraved herd of edgy self indulgent leftists. Despite that, they absolutely have the RIGHT to say whatever they want. I also reserve the same right to say that their cartoons sucked and were juvenile provocateur schlock. Free speech cuts both ways.
And… nobody should be killed for expressing ideas.
Quite frankly, I don’t think I would poke a person in the emotional eye simply for thinking differently than me. Further, I would attempt to convince bomb throwers ( like Charlie Hebdo ) to refrain from extreme language. Further still, I would not want to prevent anyone who may have a beef with me from speaking… IF… one big …IF..
IF I can respond in kind and I also am unencumbered in being able to express my views.
At WUWT Anthony enables this.
In the world in general, if you have a view on AGW that is out of sync with the UN and the lefties, then the lefties literally want to jail you, or/and have you physically prevented from working in climate science, or have you professionally destroyed.
So in a strange way, I am a liberal when it comes to speech, yet I am identified with the right wing on many other issues. At the same time the commies are ant-free speech just like the fascist Muslim jihadists.
Weird.
The bridge between communism and facism is a very short one.
Witness how Left wingers who might otherwise lionize a Third World, atheist feminist like Ayaan Hirsi Ali instead vilify her because she tells the truth about elements within Islam.
I reacted early to the satirists with “how dumb is that? They’ll pay for it.”
They certainly did and I envy their courage.
Paul Westhaver
I found out that there is a crime in the USA called ‘economic interference’. I don’t have details but basically it means that if someone takes actions that cause you to lose your job or income, for reasons that are unreasonable like, falsely claiming that you are a child or data molester, they are accountable for the damage caused, such as being fired or not hired or demoted or passed over.
It seems to me that targeting academics, in particular, has been successful as demonstrated by Enron being willing to give money to PR firms to do so with a view to making it economically dangerous to oppose CAGW. At the time Enron was trying to corner the natural gas market and ban coal burning for electricity generation.
If anyone can find better info on economic interference I’d like to hear it. At face value it seems it would apply to any loony green assault on the economic welfare of their victims.
Yes, it does. And so do the consequences.
I think ex-AIPAC official MJ Rosenberg captured it best with his tweets:
We went to war with the whole Muslim world? How? By not wanting Israel to cease to exist? By not believing in Islam? Islam was conquering from the very beginning – Mohammed was a mighty warrior king who forged what would become the Caliphate, which conquered areas that were Christian previously. The Crusades were a failed defensive war – it wasn’t until September 11, 1683 that the tide turned against the Caliphate.
If you actually think that radical Islamism, i.e. Islamic Supremacism, was going to be fine with people disagreeing with them, you are incredibly naive. They are theocratic totalitarians – every state should be like the Taliban or Iran. They aren’t even happy with Saudi Arabia – the Saudis dare to have a King instead of an Imam. A free society like France is an abomination to them. That’s why ISIS waves the flag of the ancient Caliphate around – they want to force the world to acknowledge their Islam as the only source of truth in the world, and to convert, enslave, subjugate or kill everyone.
You ought to take MJ Rosenberg’s advice and read. You can start with this. Hadar makes mincemeat of your histrionics:
The “Green Peril”:
Creating the Islamic Fundamentalist Threat
by Leon T. Hadar, August 27, 1992
Leon T. Hadar, a former bureau chief for the Jerusalem Post, is an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-177.html
BTW, an Imam is a scholar, not a ruler. There is no priestcraft in Islam. There’s just a book and your relationship with God. People who band together because they have similar understandings of Koranic phrases (like Sunnis, Shiites, Wahabbis) do so because they want to, not because there is an Islamic structure or need for it. There are no priests, bishops, popes, rabbis, or pastors in Islam. Just you and the Koran.
And read these:
“Something Strange about ISIS” by Gordon Duff.
http://journal-neo.org/2014/12/31/something-strange-about-isis/
“Paris Shooters Just Returned from NATO’s Proxy War in Syria.”
http://journal-neo.org/2015/01/08/paris-shooters-just-returned-from-nato-s-proxy-war-in-syria/
And here’s what you don’t know about The (nine) Crusades: http://www.medievalwarfare.info/crusades.htm
In conclusion the author writes:
John the Baptist when he saw Jesus said: “Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world”.
I thank God every day I live in a country where freedom of expression is still allowed. Jesus came to redeem us and set us free. If we are not defending our freedom and get cowed into silence, we revert back to The Sin.
In the last days God will send them a strong delusion that they will believe “The Lie” of which all the talk of Climate Change and Carbon Pollution is a symptom.
Here are my thoughts on “The sin of the world” and “The lie”, what does that mean?
http://lenbilen.com/2014/12/22/on-the-sin-of-the-world-and-the-lie-what-does-that-mean/
Are you in America? If so, don’t believe for one minute that you really do live in a country where freedom of expression is allowed! How many senators have declared that they are atheist? Sorry Americans, but that’s how it is. We’re no more free here in Britain either. The right wing British National Party is vilified, even though it is a perfectly legal political party. A school governor was recently forced to resign for being a member!
Yes, even here people are starting to lose their positions if they dare to defend the biblical position on marriage, just to name one thing.
Australia doesn’t have a Minister for Science at the moment because it would be embarrassing to not use the most qualified MP, who happens to be a sceptic.
I live in America and you are right. In Vermont specifically and certain presses have been ordered not to print climate criticism – LA Times. That is not free.
Are you sure about the US, TGOBJC … Alan Grayson : Republicans Are ‘The White Christian Party’Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) writes in the Huffington Post that the Republican Party only represents white Christians because of the demographics of its members in the House of Representatives.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/08/alan-grayson-republicans-are-the-white-christian-party/
The US is diseased with/by Christianity (or religious belief, if you prefer, but it’s primarily Christianity). No senator can stand up and say he/she is atheist. They might get away with saying ‘no affiliation’, but they are risking their political career. If the human race is going any way down the road to true civilisation then it must first shake off childish, religious belief. And the US (being one of the dominant players) must be one of the first. Isn’t going to happen, is it?
All Americans should read this next bit:
After the film (movie) ‘Creation’, about Charles Darwin, was made, the makers couldn’t initially find a distributor for the US due to the “controversy” over evolution and creation (in the US)!!! Unbelievable, but actually true.
Astounding. If you really want to change the world, and make it better, then it starts with removing the absurdity which is belief without proof. Isn’t that what we’re all trying to achieve here, on WUWT? The US MUST move away from religious belief. It could lead the world into a new era…of true enlightenment. But like I said above, isn’t going to happen, is it?
Religion is, in large part, superstition and superstition appears to be a universal human tendency.
It’s probably unrealistic to wish for it to vanish.
What we can do is establish a strong and continuously evolving social framework to mitigate the effects of irrational belief. I think the western world has made a good start and most of Asia appears to be on the same page.
As much as it is desirable that the populace be enlightened, a more attainable goal is having institutions that are ‘better’ than the individuals that comprise them. Thus the penalty for a senator professing atheism is an inability to get elected, not state-sanctioned execution.
There is room for improvement but a glance at the Muslim world shows the compass bearing we want behind us.
Ghost, I’m replying to your speech against Christianity in America.
I cannot stand by and allow you to say something that stands in such sharp contrast to the things you’ve declared in this comment section. When emotional and spirited passions drive like a spike through the mind, it is no longer capable of thinking clearly. It is no better to declare the expunging of faith (Christianity) from society than it was for Hitler to declare the expunging of Jews. Both result in the greatest possible damage to the most vulnerable level of society: the individual. Yet as Hitler’s damage was grand and morbid, atheism is one of mind and heart, while both are murder.
Frankly, there are politicians at every level who cleave to no particular faith. There are some who are atheist, agnostic, theistic, and full members of major faiths. It is absurd to so narrowly examine only the Federal level when there is also the state, county, and local principalities. Even still, many of those who are of “no-faith” are clear enough in mind to control that passion. That is, they don’t burn with the fiery, vigorous passions of atheism like teenagers do with their sexual lusts. They are able to make rational and fair decisions, and respect the law of the land, without compromising the structures that uplift the freedom of religion. Freedom of religion, it should be noted, covers as much the atheists (the religion of no-religion) as it does the Christians, Jews, Muslims, and the Eastern Asian faiths. If nothing protected faith, then no protection is afforded the “no-faith” religions, and atheists are on par with Christians and Jews and Muslims.
Put simply: passions should not guide law. Do not suggest America remove any element of its faith basis. That is extraordinarily unreasonable, and such thoughts and passions lead to destruction.
The same ones who are pulling the strings on “climate change” are the ones who are promoting the islamification of our democracies.
I’m afraid that France made its bed and is now having to lie on it. Welcome to the new, “improved”, multi-cultural world…
If you break a gun in half you have scrap metal. If you break a pencil in half you have two pencils.
Think about it.
I will be standing in the square tomorrow with my pencil
If you break a gun in half you have two clubs — normally a bad strategy unless you have run out of ammunition and have a friend with you who neglected to bring a weapon of his own.
If you break a gun in half you’re mighty strong, and probably don’t need one.
Ivor, if you wish to stand with Charlie Hebdo, you would be acknowledging their debt by standing in the square tomorrow with a copy of a Charle Hebdo cartoon.
That is a sign of free-speech.
The hashtag is a sign of surrender.
“free speech” – Britain doesn’t know what it is.
Free speech, or what we once knew as ‘free speech’ disappeared in the UK and long ago.
Throughout, the Twenties and Thirties and into the Fifties, Trotskyism, Marxism was rife on the red Brick and Oxbridge campuses, here, the Marxists of academia were virtually unchallenged. With Communist inspired lecturers working in University campuses on both sides of the pond [Ralph Miliband for one] Marxist ‘critical’ theory was so disseminated and augmented. Slowly drip by drip, Socialism it had seeped into politics but post WW II in a big way, culminating and the pathogen of Marxist ideologies they were not fully incarnate until Wilsons’ clutch of Cultural Marxists took over in 1964.
As Enoch Powell forewarned and presciently, racial discrimination laws would cause divisive imbalance and lead to the unequal rights of the indigenous people, where those of minorities supersede those of the majority. All of it, is classic Frankfurt School doctrine as are, the fellow malefactors of; diversity, promotion of [in]equality = multiculturalism.
A UK fashioned antecessor to the spavined doctrine of ‘Political Correctness’. PC was birthed – in the 60’s and when the Frankfurt School poisons were entering our system all the way from the Ivy League and by way of and on the vehicle of ‘civil rights agenda’.
The final nails were driven in by Tony Bliar scorched earth Britain circa 1997-2010 but a crucial time and the beginning of the end of Britain when we were dragooned against the will of the people: into the EU. Soon after, without a national consultation [as it ever was] – in 1976 Parliament enacted the Race discrimination Act and after that: free speech in the UK was closed down for good.
Indeed, but freedom of thought, of free speech, doesn’t exist in any country.
What a pile of rubbish. Try saying what you think in North Korea, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and many more besides and then compare that to the UK. The UK is far from perfect but for goodness sake, the idea that it is run by Marxists and there is no free speech is just delusional.
In Saudi Arabia, one can only say what one thinks to Saudis, when asked privately behind closed doors. But they have asked to learn what you think. Wahabism is strong and change requires care.
I should add to that, even if I am the only one left here – good science.
I was asked in close conference by Saudi Royal family members for my opinion of what could be improved.
I told them that in my neighborhood, if my neighbors tree fell down from a storm and crapped on my fence, I would go visit my neighbor and we’d work together to clear up that tree and fix the fence.
I said too, you have 12 foot walls erected around you castles and therefore have allowed no neighbors.
Indeed.
Remember that the knuckle-dragging thugs of Unite Against F@scism (UAF) are organised by NAFTHE, the university lecturers union. For those in the US who are not familiar with UK politics, if there is ever trouble at a demonstration it is always caused by UAF thugs. So those who are supposedly against f@scism are, in fact, anti-freedom of speech f@scists who will not tolerate or allow any point of view bar their own. That, unfortunately, is the Orwellian situation we find ourselves in.
And then we had the delightful spectacle of liberal feminists stripping off and shouting ‘we are all Hamas now’. Hmm, do these ‘ladies’ (if one dares to call them ladies) realise that Hamas would have them dressed in potato sacks and chained to a kitchen in an instant? One does wonder if feminists are naturally subnormal, or whether they have to go on a training course.
R
Hi, Ralph Ellis (smile),
Well… while I do not agree with what many of those who call themselves “feminists” say or do, I consider myself to be one, so I’ll give you one feminist’s (my off-the-cuff definition is “equal rights and equal opportunity to serve humanity according to giftedness, not gender”) answer.
No. I did not attend a training course. Equality for women just always seemed to me to be logical, wise, and fair play.
(okay, okay, (smile) I acknowledge that I realized what you meant by “feminists”… I think… and I understand and agree…. very obnoxious)
Your Friendly Feminist Ally for Truth in Science,
Janice
There is free speech within the bounds of UK law so you exaggerate.
What Athelstan failed to mention was that before the Race Relations Act 1976 landlords would put up signs on their doors saying “No Jews, No Blacks, No Dogs”. In the southern US states they too used to put up various restrictive signs if you know what I mean. Some may say it’s OK. Others don’t. Who is to decide?
Josh
Thankyou.
Je suis Charlie.
Richard
Indeed.
http://d2yhexj5rb8c94.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/styles/article_node_view/public/Charlie-hebdo-2_0_0_0.jpg
Je suis Charlie.
Not to detract from your salutary sentiment, but IMO few in the West can validly claim to be Charlie. Ayaan Hirsi Ali can. I´ve volunteered for virtually no financial gain to be shot at by the Taliban, but don´t feel I´ve earned the right to associate myself with such exemplary physical & moral courage as Charb & his colleagues (even while I don´t share the satirical magazine´s overall philosophy), although some of my comrades in arms have indeed.
Yes, Mr. Harlani. I am not likely to be murdered or severely harmed for what I post on WUWT or anywhere else, for that matter. I realize that. I do not, by identifying myself with Monsieur Hebdo, award the honor of a true warrior for truth to myself. I am just saying to all Mus1im j1hadists everywhere: “Given the opportunity, I, too, will pick up the bloodied flag of truth and carry onward. To stop truth’s advance, you will have to k1ll me, too.
For I, too, am Charlie.
Just as the world stood with us Americans on September 11th (and in the days to come), 2001 and said: “We are all Americans.”
Janice – you may have read above that I was in Saudi on 9/11.
It is important for us infidels to appreciate that there are two jihads – the greater and the lesser. The greater is the requirement for you to become a better person, the lesser is the requirement for you to help me become a better person – that’s the one that has been bastardized to believe you must attack me. You were suppose to help me come to Islam.
Bubba:
That you were in “Saudi” at the time America was attacked does nothing to add weight to your assertions.
You are misinformed about what the K0ran and the interpretations called “ijtihad” (sp?) say IN FULL about k1ll1ing 1nfidels. Your “lesser j1ihad” is not an illegitimate child — it was born of Father K0ran and Mother Ijtihad (sp?).
That there are peaceful, “greater j1had,” Musl1ms is IRRELEVANT. That these are the majority of those calling themselves “Musl1im” is IRRELEVANT.
It only takes a handful of zealots, devoted to following their faith’s clear calls to v1olence, to wreak havoc.
The murdering j1had1sts are following 1slam. Period.
Janice – of course you are right. The path has been diverted from the faith by whomever wants to justify their actions.
Janice – a little more, as I am not religious or much of a philosopher.
I helped teach a course in Islam in a small college – was a good effort. There is a huge disconnect between what someone, say Muhammed who was ignorant and had his 2nd wife write down might have believed Gabriel told him after hallucinating in a desert for whatever and what say life is like today. Lotsa lost in translation there.
And that’s the point – how does one interpret stuff today based upon an age ago? Seems like reading CET to me. I accept some, but what does that predicate?
I am not being difficult here; I am a simple fisherman.
Janice – I am not begging any argument. there really are these 2 jihads and I am not arguing about anything. Those who are using jihad for personal purposes are agiain’st the Qu’ran.
Janice
Yes! Thankyou.
Richard
Richard, according to Mark Steyn you are in good company:
Chris Schoneveld
So, according to you and Mark Steyn those who express solidarity with murdered victims of extremism are “cowards, phonies and opportunists”.
If that is the best you can contribute then I suggest you provide nothing.
Richard
The widow of Charb, the editor and cartoonist, was interviewed on French TV and she pointed out the hypocrisy of people who now walk with the slogan “je suis Charlie” and they were often the same people who were criticizing her husband for being an Islamophobe before the killing. There were very few people who supported Charlie Hebdo and the paper was in financial trouble. The paper was considered politically very incorrect with respect to the Islam. That is what Mark Steyn is alluding to.
Many years ago, when I was but a wee child (ok, it’s a stupid start) I was riding with my siblings and mother on the overnight Santa Fe RR from Chicago to Los Angeles. (Gives away my age, doesn’t it.) Anyway, there was a young serviceman traveling on that same train and he did me an incalculable favor. You see, he was absorbing the wisdom of a Mad Magazine, and he introduced me to it. At the age of eight I acquired the wisdom of the ages. What an absolutely cool magazine. And one that could appeal to, both a military grunt, and an eight year old. Over the years, unfortunately, I have fallen away from the faith. But, perhaps due to the wishes of the Supreme Arbiter of the Universe (George Washington’s description) I chanced upon an anniversary edition and purchased it last year.
What does the foregoing have to do with the tragic events in France? Not much. I can’t speak a lick of French (I’m a unilingual American) so I couldn’t understand diddly about the cartoons in Charlie Hebro. But then I heard it described as the French equivalent of Mad Magazine (albeit certainly a bit – or a lot – more explicit at times).
Even an eight year old can understand the absolute vital necessity to criticize, question, make fun of, and downright mock, not just those things that groups hold sacred, but especially those very same things. Authority needs to have its feet held to the fire. Everywhere. Every time. Dress these people in the clown suits that they deserve to wear.
What, me worry?
The Onion is the resurrection of Mad Magazine and probably Doonesbury too.
My daughter gave me a book of Onion covers for Christmas making me fearful of the similarity of our senses of humor.
One cover of asteroid streaming to earth – could this one event fix Iraq, Global Warming, and Poverty? Priceless.
Na zi ism never dies, it just morphs into different forms.
And, for its perennial use of Jews as its scapegoats, it is at least as old as Haman’s day. (Book of Esther)
In the end, truth wins.
Every time.
“In the end the truth wins”
But too often, the wait can be deadly.
I’m in agreement with Mark Steyn on all of this “Je suis Charlie” stuff. No – you’re not. “Charlie” published the “Mohammed cartoons” and died for it – because very few others had the balls to do it.
Then, Mark Steyn does not get “je suis Charlie.”
That SOME who say it would run away when actually faced with danger does not make ALL of us who say it cowardly blowhards.
Mark Steyn’s latest column.
http://www.steynonline.com/6744/hollande-daze
Seconded. Like most every Steyn column, well worth a read.
Thumbs up for Steyn!
Josh. On seeing your cartoon, my immediate reaction was unease – it’s a step too far. But having read all the comments, some of which especially davidmhoffer’s were excellent and thoughtful, I have shifted my thinking a bit. Thank you.
I can’t recall who said it but a twentieth century dictator once assured his subjects, “I support your right to freedom of speech and anyone who disagrees I will crush, I will kill!”
Hard to argue with that.
The key word is “your” – “your right to freedom of speech”: it should be “the universal right”.
I’d guess he was only speaking to his supporters.
Organized religions will be the eventual downfall of the human race. Unless everyone finally comes to the realization that it is religion that is the cause of all strife and unless everyone stops using their religion as an excuse to inflict their will on someone else we will never be free of war. If we can somehow overcome the fear that we cannot live without a god to worship perhaps we can break the bondage that holds us all hostage to some fictional higher power and then peace will guide the planets and love will steer the stars.
Couldn’t agree more Tom. That day will come, but it’s still quite some way off. Although I am an atheist, I am very often tempted to let people have their beliefs without comment, without ridicule. I sometimes think, well if it brings them comfort, let it be. But your words are so right. Unfortunately, a belief in something for which there is no evidence is a very slippery path. And faith unfortunately is like a virus which, those affected, feel the need to pass on. And there will always be those affected who think that they have a duty to spread it by any and all means.
I would amend that to “organized religion” which I have left.
I have used photos of snowflakes in the Middle East to prove the existence of God.
Of course we are scientists and will produce these explanations of such that when water phase shifts into a hard form, these molecules bind to one another in blah blah blah, but we didn’t cause that.
The details are beyond our control.
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com and http://www.aynrand.org have articles supporting freedom of speech.
(I’m not direct-linking in order to reduce odds of rejection.)
Sorry, hard to find things on their new web site:
ttps://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/individual-rights/Freedom-of-Speech-We-Will-Not-Cower#filter-bar?utm_source=bluehornet&utm_medium=impactweekly&utm_campaign=010815 should get the page.
For TOS, the slide show cycles through recent blog articles, look for the cartoons.
Just having a little fun:
Kenjisstorm is 2 minutes from running in the 7th at Santa Anita.
Finished 4th, gave them a scare though.
That is a disgusting article and cartoon.
The murderous behaviour of religiously motivated nutters has nothing to do with scientific debate.
This website may contain a lot which many would disagree with, but it is rightly free to speak its mind and its disgraceful to make any comparison with what happened in Paris.
The religiously motivated terrorists (actually fascists) such as Boko Haram and ISIS are killing thousand of people a month across a swath of countries, taking innocent people into slavery, burning down schools and using children as suicide bombers. Their victims deserve better than to have their suffering compared to the climate change debate.
That cartoon really is offensive – not to Greens, but to the victims of terrorism.
Maybe I’m not that easily offended.
The cartoon did nothing for me.
I’m still trying to make sense of it.
Something to do with “strange bedfellows” ?
It certainly didn’t send me into a tizzy.
Get a grip.
Didn’t offend me either – but it is clearly making a comparison between “The Green Blob” curtailing free speech (which is tosh) and the appalling deaths of journalists in Paris at the hands of terrorists. There is no connection whatsoever between the two things – it is just an opportunist piece of stupidity, an insult to those killed and the person who drew it should really think hard as to whether they think this is the right thing to do in the circumstances. There will rightly be people of all faiths and none, climate change sceptics, Greens and many more on the big march tomorrow in Paris – all standing up for free speech.
Seems like you are reading a lot into a cartoon (admittedly dark).
The rules of society say ya gotta play nice, you want to change that ?
It can get really ugly with no rules.
James Abbott says:
It is pathetic opportunism to try and associate two things which have no association.
Like Holocaust deniers and skeptics of man-made global warming?
The murderous behaviour of religiously motivated nutters has nothing to do with scientific debate.
_______________________________________
Au contraire, James. Sadly contraire. It has everything to do with scientific debate.
Militant Islam is not simply content with closing down freedom of speech, it also has a habit of closing down science too. Which is why Bayero University in Nigeria was attacked with 20 killed, it is why all the schools on Borno were closed, and it is why the school in Peshawar was attacked with 140 children killed. A small clue to the true goals of the Nigerian Islamists is in their name, Boko Haram, meaning ‘Western Education is Forbidden’. If you think education and science is going to progress under militant Islam, please think again.
And anti-educationism is not just a facet of militant Islam. Classical Islam only teaches Arabic and the Koran until a child (usually a boy) reaches eleven. Is it any wonder that Muslims are disadvantaged, in a competitive world economy? And the proof of this disadvantage lies in the Nobel Prizes for science. The 1.5 billion people within Islam have gained just two Nobel Prizes. (Yup, just two.) On the other hand Judaism, with just 14 million people, have gained 131 Nobel Prizes, just for science. (Yup, one hundred and thirty one.)
Now I know that liberals find such comparisons upsetting. And I know that liberals will always try and close down debate by shouting ‘ism’, ‘ism’, ‘ism’, because they hate the truth, but we need to recognise and deal with the facts. Islam has done nothing for science, technology, industry and civilisation for more than 500 years. **
Islam cannot do science because all of knowledge is contained within the Koran. And so a good Muslim scientist must believe that the Sun moves around the Earth and sets into a muddy pool, as well as believing in the principles of modern science. And yes, I have seen this sad dichotomy many times first hand, while I was there, with academics desperately trying to justify koranic ‘science’ alongside real science.
R
** Even the Golden Age of Islam is a myth. Not one of the supposed Islamic inventions from the Golden Age was actually Islamic. They were all previous Egyptian, Greek and Persian discoveries, or made by Agnostics or Syriacs.
Some of what you say, I agree with and I have been writing about it (not on WUWT because it is not relevant) for some time now. The growth of fascism motivated by religion is deeply worrying, including attacks on education by The Taliban, Boko Haram and their ilk.
But you are not addressing my main point – which is what possible justification is there for comparing the sick murders of journalists in Paris with “The Green Blob” ? It is pathetic opportunism to try and associate two things which have no association. Its the same as the attempts to links Greens with Nazis – in reality it would be difficult to find two more opposing world views.
The sceptic community does itself no favours with these name calling comparisons, its simply childish.
James,
The cartoon’s comparison is exceedingly relevant. Any shortfall in the comparison is only a question of degree. There are many citations in this thread alone, which speak of the willful persecution by the Greens, of anyone who disagrees with their view of the world. There are myriad other examples of Green attempts to muzzle all other voices, as well as calls for extreme measures of either governmental or Mob action against the unfaithful. So far, Green eco- terrorists in the USA at least, have only resorted to burning down homes and businesses and have only called for overt violence against others. Nevertheless, Green policies are unquestionably responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, to date.
The most fundamental tenet of modern Green philosophy is also the most dangerous idea which humanity has ever faced, that is the idea that too many human beings exist.
@ Alan Robertson
The current Green philosophy is just an extension of the “back-to-nature” philosophy of the Khmer Rouge and its leader Pol Pot. See: http://www.history.com/topics/pol-pot
No disagreement on the unenlightened core of Islam and I blame Bernard Lewis for attributing Indian discoveries to the Muslim world. However, the immediate issue is not how anti-science they are but how belligerent.
It is their social vision that is repugnant and their attempts to promulgate it. 80% of Egyptian citizens endorse the death penalty for apostasy (Pew 2012). It’s less important how they feel about chemistry.
Josh does lots of good cartoons. This is not one of them. Lame, at best and a tacky distraction from a current situation that merits some time in the limelight. Greenies are not caliphists or daesh trash.
As an aside, James, it’s odd to call it disgusting and offensive and then say it didn’t offend you.
Yes but the BBC did push freedom of speech and right to offend as hard as they could. but missing their own strict censorship and denial of air time to those they dislike, the real scientists.
James, please tell me which of the following climate quotes you find disgusting? Also show me the ones that encourage “scientific debate” over ‘global warming’? Take your time.
I was wondering whatever happened to Ann Barnhardt. (a little crazy eyed, but brave for what she did several years ago with her bacon bookmarked Koran) and the response she gave to the death threat: (her original YouTube videos with these quotes are nowhere to be found now):
____________________________________________________________________
“She has taken on Islam and they have noticed.
Here is her response to a death threat.
DEATH THREAT:
To: annbarnhardt
I’m going to kill you when I find you. Don’t think I
won’t, I know where you and your parents live and
all I’ll need is one phone-call to kill you all.
mufcadnan123!
———————————————-
ANN’S RESPONSE:
Re: Watch your back.
Hello mufcadnan123!
You don’t need to “find” me. My address is 9175
Kornbrust Circle, Lone Tree , CO 80124 .
Luckily for you, there are daily DIRECT FLIGHTS from
Heathrow to Denver . Here’s what you will need to do. After
arriving at Denver and passing through customs, you will
need to catch the shuttle to the rental car facility. Once in
your rental car, take Pena Boulevard to I-225 south. Proceed
on I-225 south to I-25 south. Proceed south on I-25 to Lincoln
Avenue which is exit 193. Turn right (west) onto Lincoln .
Proceed west to the fourth light, and turn left (south) onto
Ridgegate Boulevard . Proceed south, through the roundabout
to Kornbrust Drive . Turn left onto Kornbrust Drive and then
take an immediate right onto Kornbrust Circle . I’m at 9175.
Just do me one favor. PLEASE wear body armor. I have some
new ammunition that I want to try out, and frankly, close-quarter
body shots without armor would feel almost unsporting from my perspective. That and the fact that I’m probably carrying a good
50 I.Q. points on you makes it morally incumbent upon me to spot
you a tactical advantage. However, being that you are a
miserable, trembling coward I realize that you probably are incapable of actually following up on any of your threats without losing control of your bowels and crapping your pants while simultaneously sobbing yourself into hyperventilation. So, how about this: why don’t you contact the main mosque here in Denver and see if some of the local musloids
here in town would be willing to carry out your attack for you?
After all, this is what your “perfect man” mohamed did (pig
excrement be upon him).”
_______________________________________________________________
She did a facebook post just yesterday – hadn’t seen anything from her recently:
http://www.barnhardt.biz/2015/01/07/the-one-and-only-way-to-deal-with-musloids-i-did-it-the-french-magazine-did-not/
I like to read conspiracy theorist websites, blogs and Facebook posts after events that prompt world wide mainstream media solidarity of narrative. Not because I automatically agree with their conclusions (though the desire to slip on a tin foil hat is sometime quite strong) but because they help one to break from mainstream propaganda by seeing (if this make sense) alternate propaganda.
On the events in Paris, the tin foil hatters point out that France just agreed to recognise Palestine as a legitimate separate state amongst other things. Obviously they don’t believe this is coincidence. I will reserve judgement for now.
My own opinions and beliefs are that everytime news agencies go into hysteria over something like this there are two very predictable responses. Many non Muslims will increase their intolerance against Muslims and many Muslims will feel repressed and sympathise with the terrorists.
The fear of terrorists, to me, is part of the same agenda as the fear of global warming and is being exploited by the same people. They both lead to laws that strip away freedoms and sovereignty from ordinary people and put power in the hands of an oligarchy of global elite.
Our Western democracies are perverted by fear of climate on the Left and fear of Jihad on the Right.
Great post!
There’s a lot of things about the story that don’t add up – too many things to mention on a site with a focus on climate. e.g people who get shot at near point blank range generally bleed, thousands of professionally printed identical signs ready to roll out immediately after the incident in a mass display of orchestrated outrage. One of the alleged culprits was in a class at school at the time of the incident: his classmates proclaimed his innocence when the media named him as a villain. An Israeli TV producer filmed the incident from the roof.
It’s those kind of things that make you go, “hmmmmm.” But you also get you labeled with Orwellian epithets by the online Thought Police when you mention them.
There’s also the important question of who benefits–cui bono–and it sure ain’t Muslims!
Best to do your own research as a skeptic. Looks like you already did.
I can do better than that! None of it ever happened! All filmed in studio. Charlie hebdo CIA front.
So the west can steal everyone’s oil and give it to Koch bros.
It looks like the 3rd ‘suspect’ was in class at the time of the shooting. He gave himself into police when he heard he was a suspect.
I noticed that Ann Barnhardt finally made a Facebook post a couple days ago. The post I made with original quotes was moderated (I don’t blame you)…
I’ll try to post again…
I was wondering whatever happened to Ann Barnhardt. (a little crazy eyed, but brave for what she did several years ago with her bacon bookmarked Koran) and the response she gave to the death threat: (her YouTube videos with these quotes are no where to be found now):
____________________________________________________________________
“She has taken on Islam and they have noticed.
Here is her response to a death threat.
DEATH THREAT:
To: annbarnhardt
I’m going to kill you when I find you. Don’t think I
won’t, I know where you and your parents live and
all I’ll need is one phone-call to kill you all.
mufcadnan123!
———————————————-
ANN’S RESPONSE:
Re: Watch your back.
Hello mufcadnan123!
You don’t need to “find” me. My address is 9175
Kornbrust Circle, Lone Tree , CO 80124 .
Luckily for you, there are daily DIRECT FLIGHTS from
Heathrow to Denver . Here’s what you will need to do. After
arriving at Denver and passing through customs, you will
need to catch the shuttle to the rental car facility. Once in
your rental car, take Pena Boulevard to I-225 south. Proceed
on I-225 south to I-25 south. Proceed south on I-25 to Lincoln
Avenue which is exit 193. Turn right (west) onto Lincoln .
Proceed west to the fourth light, and turn left (south) onto
Ridgegate Boulevard . Proceed south, through the roundabout
to Kornbrust Drive . Turn left onto Kornbrust Drive and then
take an immediate right onto Kornbrust Circle . I’m at 9175.
Just do me one favor. PLEASE wear body armor. I have some
new ammunition that I want to try out, and frankly, close-quarter
body shots without armor would feel almost unsporting from my perspective. That and the fact that I’m probably carrying a good
50 I.Q. points on you makes it morally incumbent upon me to spot
you a tactical advantage. However, being that you are a
miserable, trembling coward I realize that you probably are incapable of actually following up on any of your threats without losing control of your bowels and crapping your pants while simultaneously sobbing yourself into hyperventilation….”
_______________________________________________________________
She did a facebook post just recently finally:
Exactly on subject, today on Breitbart:
New York Times columnist David Brooks discussed the free speech implications of last week’s terror attack in view of the intolerance to speak freely on university campuses:
“And so my point for this country is that if we are going to tolerate offensive talk, or if we’re going to expect, frankly Islamist radicals to tolerate offensive talk, then we have to tolerate offensive talk,” Brooks continued. “And we have to invite people to speak at our campuses who are offensive some of the time. And we have to widen our latitude in that area. And this should be a reminder that we have cracked down on that and we have strangled debate. And if you are going to stand up and say I’m with Charlie, then you should also stand up at home and say, I protect people even if they offend me.”
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/01/10/brooks-dont-expect-radical-islam-to-tolerate-offensive-talk-if-us-college-campus-dont/
What happened is terrible.
But let’s not pretend France or Europe has free speech. They don’t. You are threatened for, and many serve sentences and get fines for, blasphemy there.
You are threatened for blasphemy there.
_____________________________________
But only if you criticise Islam. You can blaspheme against Christianity all you like, and nothing will happen. You can dress Jesus in a big nappy, and the BBC will just laugh. But if you say one leeetle thing against Islam, or make one quote from their book, the police will be round with an arrest warrant.**
The problem with Europe is not that we don’t have freedom of speech, it is more that the freedoms we do have are very one-sided.
R
** I am Atheist, by the way, so this is not my bias.
No, if you question the holocaust, even the number of people killed, which is now holy writ.
Now, I tend to think it happened more or less as we are told (even though, as a child, I was told that Dachau and other camps in Germany and the west were purpose-built extermination camps used to kill Jews and then later that changed, for some reason, to the gas chambers there weren’t used for that purpose, but the ones controlled by the Soviets were—odd; there were other discrepancies such as massive adjustments about the numbers of Jews killed at Auschwitz, downward, without the 6 million figure being also adjusted downward; but do not say you think it might have been “only” 5.9 million, because in Germany or France, you’re headed for trial if you say that), but also that the west and the Soviets engaged in war propaganda, post-war justification, and some exaggeration.
Also, there are other topics that you simply can’t talk about without fear of prosecution in Europe. Europe very much has blasphemy laws.
However, speaking of talking about Islam, Charlie Hebdo itself was investigated by the French government for this.
And if that’s not enough, Charlie Hebdo published a political cartoon calling for right-wing parties to be banned.
Christoph Dollis
There was a Jewish cultural reference book published yearly. i can’t remember what the name of it was (this was some time back) and I happened to stumble across it while thumbing books in the library. Each year a new edition — a new big thick book. A long row of them on the library shelf.
I discovered this set of books some time after historians had reduced the number of Jews killed at one of the German concentration camp by a couple million.
In the older books the total number of Jewish deaths was given as six million. A few hundred thousand were shot outright where they lived and basically the rest shipped off to concentration camps as the story was told back then. All of this was claimed to be carefully documented.
The newer books dutifully reported the lower number of concentration camp deaths — but then upped by a couple million the number of Jews that were claimed to have never been shipped to concentration camps but were instead shot where they lived. In that way the six million figure was kept.
I have an odd sense of humor and I thought that was quite humorous.
By the way — i am 67 years old and the holocaust happened before I was born. Anyone younger than me who feels stressed by anything I said above needs to get a life. And anyone older than me? I hate to tell you this but the truth is you are not important anymore.
Eugene WR Gallun
That’s what happened. But it’s against the law to discuss this openly in much of Germany if you happen to think the actual number of Jews killed might be less than 6,000,000.
*in much of Europe
I have no dog in this fight, I detest all forms of religion.
However I detest hypocrisy even more.
Abu Hamza ‘radical cleric’ was only this week imprisoned for life for ‘Preaching Hatred’.
Anyone who even glances at the cartoons of Mohammed on the front cover of Charlie Hedbo can see instantly that they were designed to offend and provoke. In other words they were a form of ‘hate’ speech.
We (by that I mean rational, peaceful people) will never triumph until we take an even handed approach to this issue. Freedom of speech is a great privilege but also a great asset. When it is denied to one sector of society but not another you can only expect tragedy.
So I am not allowed to do a painting of Mohammed??? There are paintings of all the other religious leaders. What’s going on???
Try and figure it out J. Philip.
icons are not allowed
I really wish this blog would stay away from these issues. There are enough forums for this stuff elsewhere. What happened in my present home country is truly sad. But please, let this place be for science etc.
Jari, I am new here, but respectfully I disagree. I have a PhD and historically that is a doctor of philosophy irrespective of my discipline. That is there were ethics required. For us it is an ethics of scientific process and inquiry, replication of results, that awful transparency word thing too, but true and it is healing to me to learn that my friends here are ethical. It helps me accept their findings.
Sorry Jari but this topic is ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT for sceptics. Media outlets won’t invite sceptics. Some have called for the death penalty. A video was produced by 10:10 showing kids of sceptics being blown up in blood and gore. If Charlie should be allowed free speech, why can’t sceptics?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/03/the-silence-of-the-anti-defamation-league-suggests-they-endorse-defamation-of-climate-skeptics/#comment-1581627
In France, you can’t discuss serious ideas without going to prison.
Very good, Josh. You nailed it.
David Hoffer:
“first they came for the cartoonists”
================
When a Mossad agent assassinated a Palestinian cartoonist in London, did you complain?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naji_al-Ali
When Charlie Hebdo–an unpopular, floundering propaganda outlet–fired a cartoonist for the crime of criticizing your tribe and its culture, did you complain?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html
We hung Julius Streicher for his hate-fueled propaganda, and we’re still proud of it.
Double standards: don’t leave home without them.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/freedomofspeechvsantisemitism.jpg
Now this is a great political cartoon.
Your English is very good, but Julius Streicher was hanged, not hung.
Yup, Mike, we call it English but you, as a McMillan, should appreciate that for every UK English-speaker there are five or six North American anglophones. Just as Brits came to prefer ‘hanged’ to ‘gehängt’, we, over here rather like ‘hung’.
They could both be true …
For all we know he was well hung…
The links you provide falsify the claims you make. Given your past record of misinformation and outright hatred, no further response to you is warranted.
Actually, David, it was you who recently tried to whitewash the Isreali attack on the U.S.S Liberty as being one of those tragic accidents that clumsy little innocent Israel is always making.
But the Israeli recording of the incident was released by Al Jazeera recently, with the Hebrew dialogue between the military command and the naval crew proving that they all knew with 100% certainty (as anyone with eyes who can see a U.S. flag would understand) that the ship they were about to attack with napalm, bullets and torpedoes was American, not Egyptian.
(youtube: Special Series – The Day Israel Attacked America, at 10 minutes 20 seconds – see for yourself if you dare)
You probably knew that you were defending a myth at the time, because (i) the official story didn’t add up, (ii) it conflicted with every witness report (except Israeli ones), and (iii) you are not stupid.
And you didn’t quote anything from my links that disproved my claims – because you can’t.
I rest my case.
Do you even realize how far off base you are with your race/religious baiting comments ?
At this site you can’t even get anyone to agree on the time of day.
Khwarizmi says “When a Mossad agent assassinated a Palestinian cartoonist in London, did you complain?”
I have no memory of complaining about any cartoonist or their assassins. I tend not to patronize publications whose cartoons offend me. Such things exist in large number and complaining seems somewhat futile especially where offense is deliberate. Complaining in that circumstance merely verifies the effectiveness of the intended offense.
When Charlie Hebdo fired a cartoonist for the crime of criticizing your tribe and its culture, did you complain?
Faulty assertion. I have no information that Charlie Hebdo has any idea what is my tribe and culture; but since I am not a patron of Charlie Hebdo, I wouldn’t know it if they had. Others, however, have insulted my tribe and culture and I don’t worry about it much other than to be aware of the possibility that someone might assume permission for violence from mere insult.
Anthony, do you really want “The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change” to start to get in to this? I personally have vented my anger against these pathetic people in so many places already, marched against terrorism yesterday, I really do see any reason to do it here.
Freedom of speech has a lot to do with climate change/global warming speech. It hasn’t come to shootings, but look at the 10:10 videos…
Come to think of it, do/did they have the right to produce those 10:10 videos under the freedom of speech right??
So, you’ve done your part and nothing more needs to be disseminated ?
Or shouldn’t be.
In my anger, I was not clear, I do NOT see any reason to do it here.
If you are still around, please see my response above to what our post hole digger degrees meant originally regarding ethics.
How about a deep breath, Jari? Then take a sip of Sinebrychoff. That outta help.
@ Jari: January 10, 2015 at 6:33 pm
If or when “off subject” commentary discredits ….. and/or confirms …. “on subject” commentary …… then it should not only be permitted ….. but should also be welcomed with open arms and an open mind.
To resolve the “truth” about subjects being discussed, the reason that a “cause” happened is oftentimes more important than the “cause” itself.
The outgassing of CO2 is the “cause” of the increase in atmospheric CO2 ppm ….. but human activities is NOT the REASON for that “cause”.
In my numerous internet discussions I have found that most all partisan CAGW believers literally detest any and all “off subject” commentary that discredits and/or disproves the “cause” of their “on subject” beliefs.
Free speech is like the freedom to dress how you like. I sometimes feel like I would prefer to be confronted by the police than to put up with sneers on the street for my dress sense and hence, the latter is a more effective way of keeping clothing retailers in the black (I’ve also been ridiculed for wearing shoes a few years out of fashion by a homosexual sitting nearby at a cafe. The irony was not lost on his friend who told him to give it a rest).
The similarities with the Charlie Hebdo atrocity is the way some women interpret the freedom to wear what you like. Its as if society legitimises rape if a women is expected to look after her own safety to a large degree. Its not legitimising terrorist activity to ask for magazines to not offend people for a cheap laugh.
Use your right to free speech for when you have to speak up. Put yourself in the sights of a terrorist when something needs to be said and then you’re on par with a sceptic.
We Are Now Only Months Away From A Totalitarian One World Government in Paris | Lord Christopher Monckton
http://kingworldnews.com/now-months-away-totalitarian-one-world-government/
http://kingworldnews.com/lord-christopher-monckton-broadcast-interview-available-now/
It’s a race alright, but the bankers are out front by a couple strides.
http://sputniknews.com/radio_burning_point/20141222/1016121882.html
Dear Edward Martin (upside down — wish I knew how…),
Still praying for your cousin’s family. Such a hard time.
Take care,
Janice
P.S. Thank you for the very kind compliment on 12/31.
Anthony, kill this post/thread immediately. Now you get postings about people who have” been ridiculed for wearing shoes a few years out of fashion by a homosexual sitting nearby at a cafe.” This stuff is not for a science blog.
This “science stuff” has turned into “political stuff” – not because of WUWT…
“Use your right to free speech for when you have to speak up. Put yourself in the sights of a terrorist when something needs to be said and then you’re on par with a sceptic.” was the point of the anecdote. Freedom of speech is not about the right to harass people.
Project much ?
(sorry couldn’t resist).
Thanks Jari,
Here is a thread which is concerned with the suppression of free speech in the world and how the agents of oppression make themselves known to all of us in many ways and sure enough, you show up arguing that our speech here should be immediately suppressed.
Someone (many of us?) must have really touched a nerve with you. That’s ok, if you’re getting mad about it, then that’s the signal for you that maybe a little self- examination of your own thinking is in order.
Jeepers, Jari, take a pill.
Tomorrow, this thread is history and you can get right back to discussing sulfurous aerosols instead of salafist a$$holes.
Lol, Major Frank Jari Burns, don’t worry, the fine doctors and warriors for truth can get the job of fighting the battle for truth in science done…. and discuss politics at the same time…. and ethics….. and…. even have a little fun, too…
Now. Go grab a cola, sit, down and relax….. .
That’s an order!
heh
If you think An-thony’s blog is exclusively about science, you haven’t been around here very long.
You are angry, but, we are still glad you’re here! #(:))
Ah, … ah,….. aaah, Burns, you’re starting to smile….
People are dying everyday over this crap, beheadings, machete attacks, bombings, a whole school of children massacred.
They are not playing.
Make no mistake.
Dear U.K. — You will see that I agree with you if you read my comments above.
My Major Frank Jari Burns comment was directed at one person: Jari. It was directed at one thing: HIM and his throwing a fit over the subject matter of this thread.
Jari says “This stuff is not for a science blog.”
WUWT isn’t exactly a science blog. It is a people blog, primarily toning down the alarmism of global warming but neither denying that it exists. The science of global warming continues to be studied; what fuels this blog are political debates and it seems appropriate to me to include parallel phenomenon; any way in which one human tries to compel another to his way of thinking and acting; usually with intention of gaining power or prestige in the process.
I’m sure all the climate bigwigs are really looking forward to the U.N. Conference of Parties in Paris next November.
A strong personal preference is to separate science from politics (admittedly really hard in climate change). But to mix in pure religion seems a bridge to far. Even if radical Islam and the Green Blob (aka warmunists) both try to supress free speech no different than Communists, and for the same reasons. Deal with warmunist ‘science is settled’, ‘deniers’, newly ‘delayers’ on its own terms. No need to mix in religious nutters wanting a return to the middle ages….
Ooops, they are the same after all!! Great cartoon, Josh.
There is no such thing as free speech, there is only what is politically, socially, culturally or historically acceptable. Everyone has a right to be offended, no one has the right to use violence because they are offended.
The Middle East is an extremely violent place and a place where the west goes to practice violence. Not sure why when a relatively tiny part of this violence leaks back to the west the west is offended.
“Not sure why when a relatively tiny part of this violence leaks back to the west the west is offended.”
Perhaps some people just don’t like being dead?
Well, that escalated quickly.
Gotta watch for that, always.
So I see Josh gets slings and arrows for his cartoon. (:
Following the links is always a good idea.
BTW, I am definitely not Charlie. I object to female mutilation, polygamy, Shari- courts, madrasas funded by taxes, guns owned by musli-s who attend mosq-es in countries where the citizens do not own arms, and I want ALAC resolutions to pass in every state. I do not need a picture of a pineapple with the name of Mo underneath it, because I would rather have equality before the law, and because I might get an opportunity to share the truth of the gospel with a mus-im. So no, not Charlie. The only question is, where did the murderers get their guns in France?
A bit of old business. Was Chancellor Angela Merkel correct in 2010 – are there more mosq0es in Germany than churches?
“Our country is going to carry on changing, and integration is also a task for the society taking up the task of dealing with immigrants,” Ms. Merkel told the daily newspaper. “For years we’ve been deceiving ourselves about this. Mosques, for example, are going to be a more prominent part of our cities than they were before.”
The longer CAGW projections exceed observations, the higher the probability CAGW is about Leftistist political agendas and not about science.
The moment leftists said, “the CAGW debate is over”, it became evident CAGW was not about the free and open exchange of ideas and adherence to the scientific method, but rather about political agendas.
If you like your Leftist ideology of government control, you can keep it. Period! (TM).
In the CAGW “debate”, leftists are free to “debate” among themselves whether ECS falls between 3C and 12C, but as soon as anyone suggests ECS may well be closer to 0.5C~2C, that person becomes a “climate terrorist” that should be brought enchained to the The Hague and charged with “crimes against humanity”…. It’s become insane….
People are getting sick and tired of it.
BTW, a few days ago a saw something very interesting. I read pro-CAGW article on Yahoo News and found that every single one of the 136 comments written on the article ridiculed CAGW…
I appreciate that ridicule doesn’t really have a place in pure science, but CAGW is no longer about science and is deserving of ridicule…
Bubba Cow
January 10, 2015 at 11:56 am
Politics hijacked science? Just say “endocannabinoid” to any group on the right and watch the name calling and screaming begin.
It is not a party thing. It is human nature.
M Simon “Just say endocannabinoid to any group on the right and watch the name calling and screaming begin.”
While I haven’t actually tried this, I’m pretty sure the response would be “what?” and visions of aliens from Star Trek. Dangerous cannabinoids running around eating people.
Screaming and name calling are childish, emotional responses more properly found among leftists. You can see it daily on Huffington Post; not so much right here.
Friends:
I write to disagree with those who are objecting to the existence of this thread.
I express solidarity with and support for all Muslims, Jews, feminists, religious believers, political believers, and etc. who suffer violence and threats of violence because of who and/or what they are.
WUWT exists to enable honest debate mostly about climate issues. At times like the present it is important that we express our respect for differences honestly expressed.
Richard
When we say we ‘respect’ others’ beliefs, we don’t really. It’s actually an acknowledgement, not ‘respect’. You can even hear it when someone says, “I respect your opinion, but…”. You would like to truly respect it, but it goes against your own belief (for which you may even have evidence, when they do not). When I hear ‘God is great’, it means absolutely nothing to me, as I am an atheist. So I don’t respect it – I cannot, as to me, it is simply nonsensical. I do, however, acknowledge their belief, and steer my argument accordingly. I don’t respect Christianity or Islam, or any of the myriad of other religious beliefs. To me, they have as much veracity as Santa Claus. And it’s precisely because of this conflict that we are talking about two crazies with guns walking into an office in Paris. The cartoonists couldn’t show respect to Mohammed, as they didn’t recognise the idea of such a thing.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
You being a bigot does NOT mean everybody is a bigot.
I repeat, I express solidarity with and support for all Muslims, Jews, feminists, religious believers, political believers, and etc. who suffer violence and threats of violence because of who and/or what they are.
And there are “crazies with guns walking into an office in Paris” precisely because there are bigots who say things like
People who respect the beliefs of others cannot be “crazies with guns”.
Richard
Richard, do you realize your calling Ghost a bigot contradicts your statement of respect for others beliefs?
Tom in Florida
It doesn’t. Please explain how you think it does.
Bigotry is not a “belief”: it is a disrespect of the belief(s) of others.
Richard
@richardscourtney: January 11, 2015 at 5:32 am
Richard, do you not realize that your above statement will only serve to embolden those persons within the aforesaid groups who condone and/or are responsible for acts of violence and/or threats of violence against members of the other groups? Or members of their own group.
All of the aforesaid persons within said groups are …. “who and/or what they are” …. simply because their environment nurtured them to be who and/or what they are ….. and in most every case involving violence ….. it was either an act of violence or a threat of violence against their person that effected said nurturing.
The “nurture’ers” of said violence have to be singled out and re-nurtured, reformed or punished, otherwise you are just “spinning-your-wheels” with useless rhetoric.
Richard,
Putting a label on someone because of your own beliefs is bigotry. You labeled Ghost a bigot but I do not see him as such. Do I accept his point of view? Maybe or maybe not. But should I disrespect him for it, no. He has earned no disrespect simply by saying what he says. It is similar to the differences on economics and politics between you and I. Would you label me a bigot because I do not believe that a government should forcibly take from one to give to another? Would you label me a bigot because it is my belief that anyone who does believe in the government doing so is wrong? BTW, I do not know GOBJK other than from his postings here.
It is ironic that on the one hand Richard proclaims his respect for all the religions and on the other hand he supports the slogan “Je suis Charlie”. Charlie Hebdo was the exemplification of non-respect for the Islam (and other religions for that matter) to the point that they were accused of being Islamophobes. You can’t have it both ways, Richard.
Friends:
I hope nobody is offended that I provide this single answer to all the disputants of my comments.
Bigotry is a disrespect for the belief(s) of others. Somebody is openly declaring he is a bigot when he writes
Furthermore, that person is declaring that because HE is a bigot all others are also bigots because he says he is incapable of imagining that others do really respect others’ beliefs.
I accepted that he intended what he wrote and I still see no reason to dispute that he intended what he wrote. I did not “label” him: I accepted that he intended what he wrote and I used the dictionary definition of what he said of himself.
Openly opposing bigots is NOT supporting murderous extremists who use politics or religion as an excuse for their actions. It is a dangerous falsehood to claim that expressing support for people with other beliefs is supporting bigots, crazies and extremists.
And people who cannot recognise the difference between satire and disrespect are sad and dangerous: some of them committed murder in Paris, and one has claimed it is “ironic” that I do recognise the difference so I say Je suis Charlie.
I am saddened that these obvious truths are so easily forgotten by some. I remind of “First they came for … etc..”
Richard
Je suis The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley!
Je ne suis PAS richardscourtenay du tout, du tout!
Richard, the trouble is, you chose the wrong word in your hastened disgust at my words. Were you more intelligent, then you might have thought it through first. A bigot is someone who dislikes others for their beliefs, and is intolerant of others’ views, it isn’t someone who shows a lack of respect. Respect is having regard for someone’s feelings about their beliefs – two entirely different things, Richard. Should I have respect for someone when they tell me that they see fairies at the bottom of their garden, Richard? No! Should I have respect for someone when they tell me that they see ghosts on a regular basis? No! Should I have respect for someone when they tell me that they and their cat were abducted by aliens, and both interferred with? No! Should I have respect for someone who tells me that they believe there is a man with a beard controlling everything, and that he sent his son down to us to turn over a table? No! I am mindful of what they say, but I will show such people no respect, Richard, as what they are saying is nonsense to me. I tolerate it (meaning I will listen – often without comment), but I don’t dislike them for their beliefs. Do you see now, Richard? I don’t respect Christianity, Islam, or any religion because I think it is puerile nonsense of the most absurd level, and those beliefs exist without any evidence whatsoever. So why should I pay it any reverence? I don’t dislike these believers, Richard (the crazies, I do), so I am not a bigot. I’m happy to give you an education any time. I like giving to the needy. You can call me anything you like, I won’t take offence. All I ask is that you use what intelligence you do have, and choose the correct word for anything you think I am (and I wouldn’t have been called it for the first time)!
richardscourtenay says; “Openly opposing bigots is NOT supporting murderous extremists who use politics or religion as an excuse for their actions. It is a dangerous falsehood to claim that expressing support for people with other beliefs is supporting bigots, crazies and extremists.”
This is a bizarre disconnect that pops up all the time “…murderous extremists who use politics or religion as an excuse…”
It’s not an excuse. It’s their inspiration. What else makes them “extremist”?
It seems that people, seeing tolerance and compassion as virtues, assume that they, therefore, are unfalteringly tolerant and compassionate. This results in them being apologists for the most bigoted philosophies and condemning as bigots those that can tell the difference between Mein Kampf and the Four Noble Truths.
I’ve been a “climate denier” for 15 years, an “infidel” for always and I’m proud to qualify as a bigot in your book.
Mebbe and The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley:
Mebbe, your implication that I support Mein Kampf is an obscene untruth. I suspect it may be an example of psychological projection.
TGOBJC, I did NOT “choose the wrong word” when refuting your bigotry that you have iterated. Please try to consider the meaning of your own words both for your own good and for the good of others.
I respect the views of you guys so much that I will campaign to enable you to say them, but I state that your views are wrong and dangerous.
Richard
richardscourtney,
Here’s how I think it works. When you state someone’s views are wrong and dangerous, you do NOT respect their views. When you say that you will campaign to enable someone to say wrong and dangerous views you DO respect their person.
There is nothing wrong with disrespecting someone’s views. Doing the same for their person is another matter entirely. Know the difference.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley “When we say we ‘respect’ others’ beliefs, we don’t really.”
As soon as I see “we” I know I’m dealing with the left wing; either the sheep or the shepherd; usually both at the same time — a sheep that thinks he’s the shepherd (and a mind reader!).
“I am an atheist.”
Impossible. It is not a thing anyone can be, for it does not describe any property of a person.
I conclude that you are more properly an anti-theist; with well-defined beliefs about the nonexistence of the objects of other people’s beliefs. You wouldn’t spam a climate blog with your non-information except that it is your religion, your proselyting, to do exactly that.
“I don’t respect Christianity or Islam, or any of the myriad of other religious beliefs.”
Obviously. While that may be common, coming to a climate blog and announcing it is thankfully uncommon.
“To me, they have as much veracity as Santa Claus.”
Sometimes more, sometimes less. Saint Nicholas is described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas
Freedom of speech? Tell it to the BBC. This national broadcaster will not allow any commentary that is contrary to the main stream view on AGW. Even though we have more technical data and serious analysis on such organs as the Watts site showing responsibility and scientific method the BBC will not conscience any of its findings or those of people from the same persuasion to grace the air waves. Since when has any science been thought of as subversive in such a way since Galileo and his spat with the Vatican or any theory accepted at face value (the word ‘theory’ should provide a clue). Instead; the BBC uses denial and scoffs at the serious determination. It is in such antagonistic and unprincipled ways that freedom is denied. It is the BBC that is wearing the crank’s sandwich board, “The end is nigh”, while the serious investigation and hopefulness is blanked out. We have to come to the conclusion that people slip into hopelessness and extremism by way of manipulation of events by authority.
Once, when states were self-contained entities and communication was poor, lies may have been easy to maintain and facts censured. But today we are open to all manner of counter argument and new intuitions and insinuations. The populace is far more sophisticated and can operate in its own cause, while governments still seem to conform to the old controlling malaise. That, in the 21st century, governments dictate to their people and propagandise their prejudices is wasteful and archaic. We know that wide arrays of small computers have immense power and networks of massed arrays are used as a research tool on-line to great affect. It is about time countries used the powers of their people more purposefully and put the problem out there, for it is with the people that the answer lies.
Charlie Hebdo tells us so much about ourselves. Our proscriptions, amusement, freedoms and interactions are but extensions of that which our states allow. They pick their winners and losers and when their plans come to nothing it is the commoners that pay the bill. That the state of Europe has inflicted circumstances on its people and persists in failing policies long after their usefulness is at an end, is an aspect of the ancien regime that has been at the root of much of the troubles that Europe has been subjected too. In climate science we see states forming an opinion on scant information and forming forecasts which are ripe for disproving and yet, over time, becoming more obdurate in the cause and more intransigent along the way. Hubris has taken over from fact. States turn to antagonists, rotten apples in barrels and their canker infects organs of reason and ingenuity in a way reminiscent of Newton and his wasted years striving for gold from base metals. Our denial is not corrupt it is the true way. It is the insistence on procedure, publication and argument leading to discovery, not a system of archaic imaginings looking for signs that leans more towards astrology rather than reason.
Malcolm, I’m fairly new to this forum and so I’m sure I have missed a lot of the discussion. Be that as it may.
I am simply fascinated (and appalled) that some rag like BBC would have “views” and not allow other “views”. LA Times won’t print my stuff, but local will.
What I wonder about is – aren’t they in the news business? Wouldn’t it sell more papers to print our stuff especially if they think it is contrary to their readers views? What do they have to gain?
Malcolm Turner writes: “Charlie Hebdo tells us so much about ourselves.”
It tells me absolutely nothing about myself.
“Hubris has taken over from fact.”
As you aptly demonstrate. How do you arrogate to yourself to tell me about me?
“Our denial is not corrupt it is the true way.”
How many of you are in there? 😉
Until the Islamist s stop killing each other, ( and any that disagree with there ignorance ) and realize that if Mohamed cut his finger, he would bleed just like the rest of us, 2015 is abort 500 years to advanced for them,,We in the west have equal rights for women !
Actually I have an idea for a piece of art.
We have all heard of Piss Christ, Jesus on the cross dumped into a large glass beaker of urine. That was certainly offensive to Christians. But nobody got killed over that.
What I would suggest is forming a large pile of human turds and placing a sign in front of it in Arabic (with an English translation) that says — “Is an image of him under that pile of turds or not? Only the artist knows for sure!”
Who is him? The artist does not state. Is there even an image under the turds or is it just turds all the through? This would be something for the Mullahs to mull over. There are harsh penalties for false accusations in Islamic law.
A lucky thing too may I add. I’m sure you know that Jesus is ALSO a prophet in Islam and the Virgin Mary is apparently revered. Wonders never cease.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/493436.stm
http://islam.about.com/cs/jesus/f/jesus_quran.htm
Much has been said about imagery in Islam. Here is another view.
Although this is a creative idea, it would only achieve its didactic purpose in minds that were already capable of subordinating their emotional reflexes to dispassionate reasoning. Those aren’t the ones we’re having trouble with!
Eugene WR Gallun “Piss Christ, Jesus on the cross dumped into a large glass beaker of urine. That was certainly offensive to Christians. But nobody got killed over that.”
Public funding of offensive stuff hopefully stopped by whatever means necessary, including defunding the National Endowment for the Arts. Some things are really brain-dead stupid, biting the hand that feeds you.
I think it is weird that some people in this thread are equating freedom of speech with the freedom to have any view expressed anywhere.
People do not have the right to come into my home uninvited and start talking about whatever the hell they like. But they still have freedom of speech – they can say what they like in the public street, unless it is threatening or intimidatory.
Likewise, if I ‘censor’ someone from posting on my web site, that is not denying them their freedom of speech – they can say what they like on their own web site.
Similarly, Fox News refusing to give me an hour-long spot to air my views does not restrict my freedom of speech.
If a bunch of scientists refuse to give you permission to address a conference, that is also not a denial of your freedom of speech, as you can still give your address at your own conference, or in the marketplace on a soap box.
And someone telling you that you are wrong and should not be allowed to speak at a particular university is likewise not a denial of your freedom of speech.
The fact that the Pentagon does not let anyone in off the street to talk to all and sundry in the building about their opposition to Obama’s or Bush’s military policies is also not a restriction on freedom of speech, as you still have the freedom to raise your opposition elsewhere.
Freedom of speech also is not freedom to speak without having your ideas mocked and ridiculed. Politeness would suggest playing the ball and not the person, but freedom of speech has nothing to do with politeness.
These are all reasons why I find the suggested equivalence between my side’s suggestion that the debate is settled and an opposition to free speech similar in some fashion to that of militant Islam’s opposition to free speech unconvincing.
“I find the suggested equivalence between my side’s suggestion that the debate is settled and an opposition to free speech similar in some fashion to that of militant Islam’s opposition to free speech unconvincing.”
_________________
Your side does far more than “suggest” that the debate is settled. Active suppression of debate which affects the lives of billions of people can in no measure be considered as support of free speech. Any rationalizations to the contrary serve only to advance the banners of tyrants.
david gould “I think it is weird that some people in this thread are equating freedom of speech with the freedom to have any view expressed anywhere.”
How weird, therefore, on a climate blog is to have someone expressing how weird this is? The short answer is “YMMV” — your mileage may vary!
“they can say what they like in the public street, unless it is threatening or intimidatory.”
That’s kind of the point. Climate scientists that go against the Consensus are threatened with loss of career and employment. That’s a dangerous threat to be taken seriously. It has nothing to do with forcing Fox to publish your speech.
You have provided a list of attributes of what you believe is “Free Speech” and of course everyone else is either wrong, or weird, or both.
It is sad that freedom of speech and expression of ideas have become either a death sentence or a dismissal from ones employ. In both religion and climate science, what ever happened to the ideals of the French revolution and the American constitution. The guiding lights of freedom and equality, the goals that should make all nations happy, wealthy and wise.
It is incumbent upon all of us to fight, such as we did in both the second world war and the fight against the evil of communist dictatorship in both evils that now confront the world.
Fighting the stupidity of the global warming camp is political, fighting the evil of Islamic terrorism is a horse of a different colour. Islam is political and only religious as a means to an end, those in islam who are religious and see Islam as a religion of peace are good people. Those that see Islam as a political and conquering force are our enemies, they only pretend to be religious.
Those in Islam that support this terror stuff when asked seems a rather large percentage, thus we have a problem.
People that I talk to randomly seem to believe the rubbish published in the newspapers and the stuff sprouted on the TV about global warming, thus we have a double whammy of brain washing.
The freedom of the internet can demolish the global warming crap, only severe political action followed by correct police action and the courts can stop terrorist action in free countries. I will not hold my breathe waiting.
Real religious believers of Islam preaching peace and good will to all, would be a start, but I would not hold my breathe on that on also.
The UN has brought the Western Elephant to its knees with the myth of “climate change”. And is now so very weak.
The Jackals and Hyenas, the Islamic State has sniffed an eminent death.
The real fight will be over the carcass.
This scrap is not over by a long shot.
6 million Islamists in France ? 3 million in the UK ? Who is invading who ?
3 million.. Officially.. I’d triple that number for the real head count.
Given the scepticism re global warming, I am surprised no one is sceptical of this event in Paris. A film which has been widely taken down, showing the French Policeman being shot in the head is still available and analysis shows that he was not shot and that it is likely the “terrorist” was shooting blanks.
For professionals it is very strange that these guys took along their Ids, let alone leave them in the getaway cars. No this event smacks of being a flase flag, by whom I would not like to speculate but who stands to gain?
Je ne suis pas Charlie!
Oh, dear.
Aha! We do agree. Not that that is sufficient for argument, but we have common ground – never thought we didn’t.
Amazing to me that his post has lasted so long. Must be relevant to science and knowledge.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Lwyp–6UDlE/S84QYrNbYRI/AAAAAAAACtA/bIVq4U7S9UI/s1600/633673729262531831-TinfoilHat.jpg
Firing blanks? lol False flag, or rank amatures?
Chris, please take some medication and relax in a darkened room. Time is precious, don’t waste your life.
Malevolence hiding behind any kind of benevolent front is, in nearly every instance, the seeds of war. It goes like this: I don’t have what I think I deserve to have, therefore “x” is at fault and we, the “have nots”, need to rid ourselves of “x”.
This kind of thinking started WWI, WWII, and now radical Islam terrorism. It has also been the soil in which “anthropogenic global warming” was born. Secular fervor, religious fervor, Gaia fervor, or atheist fervor is often the dressing but not the bare truth of it.
The bare truth of it is that people who perceive that they “have not” are more often than not unwilling to change what they are doing in order to gain their life’s comforts (or rather, their idea of life’s comforts). Instead, they want everyone else to change what they are doing in order to bring to their reality, life’s comforts.
No, not about haves and have nots…more about the dehumanisation of people. Usually driven by religion, dogma! Thats why at least 1million people were literally butchered to death in Africa a few years back. Cut to death because of religious differences. Even in Muslim Africa!
[Tribal differences. .mod]
True, however, predominantly religion in the case I refer to.
Here we go again with that Meme. Hopefully in my lifetime someone with that memetic infection will quantify it with facts, or if not facts, at least some vaguely defensible specifics.
Then of course I’ll reply with Stalin’s millions, Pol Pot’s millions, Chairman Mao’s millions and you’ll go away and try again on some other blog.
And that is what literally scares the bejesus out of me. Not so much for my sake, but for the sake of the younger generations.
At such time that the exponential yearly increase of “feeders-at-the-public-trough” …….. far outnumber the producers of, as well as the quantity of said goods and services that they have become accustomed to being given to them “free of charge” to feed upon in order to sustain their life’s comforts, …… said “troughfeeders” will not be denied said “comforts” and will forcibly take said goods or services from whomever has what they want or desire.
The recent riots and looting in Ferguson, MO, is/was just a prelude of what the “have not” troughfeeders truly believe they have a right to take if they are ever deprived of their “freebies” and/or “entitlements”.
The French Revolution is a pretty good example. When the peasants revolted and took over government, they discovered PDQ they didn’t know how to govern and instead handed authority to Robespierre if I remember right and things went downhill fast. They went out to the farms and raided; leaving nothing for the next season. That started the Time of Troubles and paved the way for Napoleon Bonaparte to become dictator of France.
Thank you for thinking and in that for leading. I may not agree, but you are using your minds. I fear for all those who are not.
I have just come home from a peaceful rally in our provincial town in France. Around 2000 people (pop 9500) stood around the square and then, en masse, walked quietly around the outside of the old town. They came to show their belief in peace and acted in a peaceful way. This was repeated in every town in France.
Thank you. Wow.
For the only time in my life, I can say that I wish I were in France right now! Don’t really know how to offer my support from here in England. Everything seems inadequate.
Jail politicians who ignore climate science-Suzuki
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/Jail+politicians+ignore+climate+science+Suzuki/290513/story.html
I copied this awhile back
two big threats to free society is radical Islam and the alarmist side of climate science
Agreed, nc. Potential Climate Jihadis are in waiting. Just visit HuffPo, Media Matters, Gawker, etc., when the subject comes up, and witness the outright anger, stupidity, ignorance and closed-mindedness among supposedly “smart” people in the comments section. Re: the threats not a prediction, but a possibility down the road. At least “Occupy” style protests.
Mind your place, peasant. Lefties are oh so much smarter than you or I and their compassion is without equal…
Well, on this blog there might be a shared general opinion about global warming but on every other topic? Naw.
Every once in a while we need to remind ourselves what a diverse group comes here. If only climate debate was allowed on this blog we might begin to think of one another as faceless people all alike in other areas as well. The “explosion” above scatters and separates us and that is all for the good.
i find it amusing that Democrats believe in “cultural diversity” and “individual conformity”. (Though I have never seen the movie I will take a chance and say that such thinking might be the real villain being exposed and fought in “Divergent”.) That is sort of like saying — the clothes make the man.
Republicans seem to believe in “the melting pot” and “individual diversity”.Surprisingly those two ideas are not conflicting. Culture is like the climate — it is always changing. What you throw into a melting pot changes the contents of it. The clothes you wear today are not the clothes you will wear tomorrow (well, I have been wearing bluejeans almost every day for the last fifty years). The clothes don’t make the man.
Democrats want a tightly controlled society. All are equally free only when freedom no longer exists.
Republicans are extremely interested in expanding their own personal freedoms — and let the best man be the freest man — except for certain fundamental human rights which all share.
Oh, well. A wise man is an individual and a fool is a clone. No clones on this blog. (Except for the trolls.)
Oh, well. Done babbling I guess.
Eugene WR Gallun
Nice “babbling”.
I’m a Christian. While persecution has never stopped the spread of the Good News about Jesus Christ, I’d much rather live and be able to speak in a society where freedom to speak and believe are the laws of the land.
As I said some time ago, that means that I can tell you that Jesus is the Christ and that God raised him form the dead. You can tell tell me that he was just a nice Jewish boy who went into his Father’s business. You can even tell me he never lived. Neither one of us can call on the authorities to silence the other no matter how “offended” we might be.
Eugene,
All politics is about power, plain and simple. I don’t see that either Democrats or Republicans are significantly higher-minded about their aims than their opposition on that score. I have no love for either party, both in my eyes having fallen from past goodness. Perhaps that’s just the cynicism that comes with getting older. Due to my liberal views on most social issues, the Democrats scare me less, and that’s about as partisan as I get. As for fiscal policy, I firmly believe we live increasingly live in a democratic oligarchy where the choice at the voting booth is figuring out which special interests are likely to screw you the least. It’s almost enough to make an anarchist out of me, but I like paved roads and a strong military. I think I like healthcare too. So I patriotically pay my taxes full well knowing that no small portion of it goes to returning the favor of the campaign finance warchest.
So I end my babble with thanks for your babble, and a belated Happy New Year.
Eugene says “I will take a chance and say that such thinking might be the real villain being exposed and fought in ‘Divergent’.
It was pretty good, a bit formulaic teenager-saves-society (been a lot of that meme recently) but it seems to echo T.H. White’s “Once and Future King” when Arthur visits the ant colony and sees a sign, “”Everything not forbidden is compulsory”
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/09/everything_that_is_not_forbidd.html
This is as it must be in ant colonies and to a large extent non-voluntary socialism.
Eugene says, “(Though I have never seen the movie I will take a chance and say that such thinking might be the real villain being exposed and fought in “Divergent”.)”
Both Divergent and The Giver, and probably the Mazerunner (?), are based on Plato’s preferred caste system, Sparta. Every individual is assigned an identity and job, based on neuroscientific phrenology, and drugged and/or kept on a specific diet for good measure.
I appreciate that Josh stimulates such diverse and enlightening views (>250 comments).
I add that there should be no restriction in the open exchange (marketplace) of ideas; that is how I view the principle of free speech. Some followers of the prophet of Islam are restricting the open exchange of ideas about Islam by threatening death and killing people. Those kinds of followers of the prophet of Islam need to be eliminated with extreme prejudice by our authorities.
John
This is not about freedom of speech….it’s not about censorship
This is about some barbaric stone age religion that people are trying to force on the entire world…
Christians are running, Jews are running, atheists, women, all kinds of people are being driven out of their homes..running because if they get caught they will be killed
Where are the muslims running to?
That… is a very good question.
JIm, that’s only because 99% of the people where ISIS is are…..are you ready?…..MUSLIMS
The only reason their victims are 90% muslim…..is because they ran out of Christians and Jews
Yeah, it’s a little more subtle than that, and that’s the little detail
Turn ISIS loose in Mississippi…….and 90% of their victims would be Baptist
I was leaning more toward the philosophical.
What are they looking for, and what happens when they discover IT can’t be found ?
More of this childish behavior ?
We’ve got people that feed on this stuff.
u.k…..that post got confusing…..look down….the post was to Jim’s post below
It’s a little more subtle than that. As always the little details get buried in the small print. We all need to be sceptical about generalizations.
Some more.
look up ….LOL
Nigeria – 10 year Muslim old girl childs with bombs strapped to their bodies are sent by Muslim Bokos to blow up Muslim villagers. Surely that is Hell.
what you said reminds me of something said about Democrats who move from Blue states to Red states.
Those Democrats leave their Blue state because they are sick and tired of higher taxes and bloated government. They move to a Red state and proceed to again vote Democrat incapable of realizing they are going to turn their new Red state into a Blue state with all the same problems of their old state.
The Muslims who have left their former countries are doing the same thing in the West. What they flee, despotism, religious intolerance, arbitrary laws,etc, they are helping to recreate in their new countries.
Eugene WR Gallun
Though it is very likely only a funny accident, it seems strangely fitting to me that the color of islam is GREEN as well…
GREEN as for instance in the flag of Saudi Arabia where just last week a liberal Saudi blogger got the first 50 of 1000 whippings by official state justice only for using his fundamental human right of freedom of speech…
Or GREEN as in GREENPEACE, a radical, intolerant and not at all peace-full organization (see e.g. Golden Rice) with some even more extreme climate activists who would simply love to treat “evil” climate change deniers with lots of whippings too, just because they use their fundamental human right of freedom of speech as well…
And there is another odd similarity:
We are constantly told by do-gooders that “Islam is the religion of PEACE” just so as “AGW-Climatism is the religion of GREEN-PEACE” …
/Sarc – of course!
It is a religion of peace – the struggle is what Islam means.
Saudi is indeed a strange planet – many different standards i.e. foreign Muslims working in Kingdom from Philippines, have no rights and are equal to slaves.Send their money home, but rarely make enough to get back there themselves.
The terrorists are not Muslims, Islam must reform and identify who are and fix the inhuman rights. The West cannot fix this.
There is much propaganda there from, get this, the Ministry of Propaganda. It is in a white house.
Perhaps we need another acronym (please no more of those) FOS = freedom of speech.
Bubba Cow “Islam must reform”
It cannot. No mechanism exists for such a thing and by definition there can be no prophet after Mohammad, and only another prophet can undo what a prophet has done. Imam’s can re-interpret the words but the freedom to do so depends on varying degress of ambiguity in the original commands, which in some cases is pretty clear.
Islam can be abandoned, but I seriously doubt it can be “reformed”.
Consider Catholicism. It’s reformation is called “Lutheran” or “Anglican”. It cannot be “reformed” without destroying “Papal infallibility”; to even make the attempt is to yank the rug out from under the foundation of the religion and admit that any Pope right back to the first might well be “fallible” and then where are you?
So it is that if Imams start to say Mohammad is wrong then Islam comes crashing down and I reluctantly believe that Islam is what prevents the Middle East from being vastly worse than it already is; it would be strictly Malthusian in war and conquest, as is much of central Africa.
Is the right to free speech protected the same way as the right to murder? In a Communist Czechoslovakia, we were told: “You can say anything, but you have to be aware that there could be consequences”. Why not? You can murder anybody, but you have to be aware that there could be consequences.
Don’t know what you thought free speech would look like, but you are exercising it right now.
Thanks to all those who are speaking out in defense of free speech.
(Now, regarding Michael Mann’s lawsuits and the current state of “peer review”…..)
It’s difficult. “In my opinion” is not actionable but is deeply objectionable.
You can’t offend somone, They must choose to be offended.
Careful how and where you play that card.
Free speech for those who deserve it
al Gore
patchy
bbc..etc
Good comment seen this morning on Breitbart London (Monday)
Sajid Javid can say Islam is a “religion of peace” all he wants but those of us who understand how the Koran works know differently. Quoting the peaceful verses when Mohammed was in Mecca (and only got a handful of followers) is nonsense. The Koran works on the principle of abrogation. So if 2 verses contradict each other, the later one is the valid one and the earlier one is abrogated. Hence the violent verses when Mohammed was in Medina (and was far more successful in spreading his religion by the sword) cancel out the peaceful earlier Mecca ones. And here we are in 2015 some 1400 years later with 290+ million people killed in the name of a “peaceful religion”.
“So if 2 verses contradict each other, the later one is the valid one and the earlier one is abrogated. Hence the violent verses when Mohammed was in Medina (and was far more successful in spreading his religion by the sword) cancel out the peaceful earlier Mecca ones. ”
In practice they’re more flexible.
They use those suras that are appropriate for the desired action at a given time.
A simple question: Goddard reports daily on how the climate record is being corrupted and how biased information is being fed to the public in the name of political correctness, how the satellite datasets are being ignored, how government paid employees are lying to the people, how the scientific method is being corrupted.
Is this an issue for this web site? It seems not to be. For me, this is a parallel to the denial about Islamic fundamentalism not being about muslims. In this case the ‘muslims’ are supposedly mainstream ‘climate scientists’ that people don’t want to offend.
Well, we certainly know there is no free speech when it comes to the issue of catastrophic man-made global warming, and we also know that governments are not interested in protecting free speech when it comes to challenging the IPCC’s mantra. They are behind the IPCC and are party to the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind.
Mervyn,
And yet here you are freely writing about your contrarian views of AGW. Logic-impaired much?
Gates,
What is a “contrarian”?
Dbstealey…
..
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contrarian
…
Google is your friend.
Brandon, I think dbstealey wanted your definition of a contrarian. Many, or most, words used in debate have private meanings. For instance, “social justice” has presumably predictable meaning to the left wing but means almost nothing predictable to the right wing where individuals make up the world and “social” cannot have “justice”, only people can have justice.
On the face of it, “contrarian” simply means that someone usually or always takes an opposing point of view — but opposing what? Well that’s the part that isn’t obvious. No matter what side a contrarian takes, he’s in agreement with a large number of people while being contrary to a different large number of people.
So the term “contrarian” is about useless.
However, I recognize the herd mentality of the left, a grand assumption that it defines all norms and thus anything else is “contrarian” (or any of a great many other labels).
While I have already agreed with you that people can easily express themselves, perhaps a better choice would be “unfettered” or “I can speak without losing my job” freedom of speech.
Amazingly, that’s a libertarian outlook and that’s the problem. The world is not libertarian.
Freedom to say anything to anyone, without repercussion, cannot exist. Internet blogs are about the closest thing to it. You can also go into your backyard and talk to your tree, or your dog, and there won’t be much repercussion.
Michael.
..
You seem to have missed an import part of Mr Dbstealey’s question. It has nothing to do with what a contrarian is. If you examine the context, the sentence reads “your contrarian views of AGW.”
Notice the word your “contrarian” is used as an adjective. It is not used as a noun.
Secondly it modifies the word “view” and view is further modified by “of AGW”
..
So, in effect Brandon has labeled Mr Mervyn’s view correctly, being that it is contrary to the AGW view.
Michael 2,
And I’ve given it to him. Last time was 10 days ago:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/02/an-open-letter-to-politifact-com/#comment-1829670
Sure, dog-whistle politics.
Consensus.
I recognize the herd mentality of PEOPLE. In my mind, “contrarian” carries more complimentary meaning than negative.
My view is that the nuanced difference between the words “freedom” and “liberty” cause much confusion. About the most concisely I’ve seen it put is that freedom is the ability to choose and act as one wishes absent any external control. Liberties are the freedoms granted by society to its own members.
So, I may be free to kill someone, but by the laws of society I am not at liberty to do so.
Well no. It’s only through the collective efforts of large groups of people that we as a species have been able to accomplish what we have. Collective effort means organization, which generally entails rules. Hopefully those rules are established by good-faith negotiations by conflicting parties which end in some functional compromise.
Increasingly it’s winner take all. I don’t like that.
Well now see there you’re speaking in ambiguities which I suspect is code. So, why should I be allowed to yell FIRE in a crowded theater when the building is not in fact undergoing rapid and dangerous combustion?
Slippery this slope, innit.
Socrates,
Ah, so I did it properly this time.
In the past I have referred to “climate contrarians”, which is the noun-form. I’ve never figured out whether it’s grammatically correct to say “climate consensarians” … Google says no … so usually I’m reduced to “consensus climatologists” or the more wordy and awkward “those who hold the climate consensus view”.
What I think this fuss really is about is that I refuse to cede the word “skeptical” as a distinguishing adjective between IPCC-approved (TM) points of view and everything else.
(Signed)
B. Gates, proud warmunist, IPCC shill, professional ignoramus and unrepentant troll [1]
———————
[1] I read it on WUWT, so it must be true. Amirite? I’m right.
Me: Freedom to say anything to anyone, without repercussion, cannot exist.
You: Well now see there you’re speaking in ambiguities which I suspect is code.
Me: No code, not conspicuously anyway. It is the foundation on which a social contract is built. If I can say anything, so can you, and what you say may well constitute a “repercussion”. It is a simple statement of fact that I cannot say anything to anyone and expect everyone on earth to shut up and listen; although I sense an expectation by many (teenagers in particular) that this is possible.
You: So, why should I be allowed to yell FIRE in a crowded theater when the building is not in fact undergoing rapid and dangerous combustion?
There is no “allow” and no sovereign to do the allowing. Do it if you wish but there’s likely to be consequences. Rules tend to be reminders of the social contract; ignored by criminals. But sociology doesn’t have criminals; it has… well I forget, but they don’t subscribe to the social contract, or any such contract in case that several exist (which is indeed the case; each culture and/or religion has its own social contract).
Um, yeah, what Brandon said. There’s plenty of free speech. Perhaps you meant no financially subsidized speech in which case your assertion is a bit more true.
“Off-topic sniping?”
…
Too funny.
1) Mervyn makes a comment
2) Brandon replies labeling Mervyn’s view as contrarian (adjective)
3) Dbstealey then comes in and asks a question which is not only off topic, but a question he has asked before, and already got an answer to.
..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/02/an-open-letter-to-politifact-com/#comment-1829670
..
..
Yes, dbstealey, you are guilty of “off-topic sniping”
PS, I find your minority view very amusing. (that being in the views from the wider world outside of WUWT)
socks, that’s so cute. Believing that he’s in the “consensus”.
As I said, I have the numbers. He doesn’t.
Show me yours, and I’ll show you mine.☺
42
Still waiting…
By name, please. I have thirty thousand.
So as they say… put up or shut up.
“Show me yours”
..
I did
…
[Reply: sorry, the names didn’t come through. Must be a glitch. ~ mod.]
PS…….there are over 10 million that didn’t sign it
Now THAT’S funny!!
I am surprised to see outright duplicity admitted to like that. My challenge was for scientists by name who contradict the OISM petition, in writing the same way. You can’t, and throwing out a random number like that is an admission of failure.
There are over 310 million people in the USA
Of the 310 million people, there are over 10 million that hold “hard” science degrees, and are qualified to sign the OISM petition.
I’m a member of the 99.7% that didn’t sign it
The 30,000+ that did sign it represent 0.3% of the number of people qualifed.
..
Oh…and by the way, signers of a “petition” is not a random sample, so no statistical conclusions can be drawn from it.
[Neither is deliberately publicizing only 2 answers out of 5 questions asked from only 75 replies to a form submitted to 13,500 members.
But that 97% (75 out of 13,500) you do approve of, eh? .mod]
The OISM petiton started out as the Oregon Petition over a decade ago It has such a sordid history that the credibility of it today has yet to be restored. They had to purge the names of the Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882). prank names such as “I. C. Ewe”, and the characters of M*A*S*H from the list of signatories. There’s no way to verify any of the names, and the methodology is not transparent.
[But no OISM Petition writer gave their peer-reviewed, scientifically accurate, recorded age as 32,000 years. .mod]
It didn’t help matters in 1998 when Seitz put the NAS-lookalike document in the malilngs. The NAS disavowed this, and in 2006 Seitz admits that ‘it was stupid’ for the Oregon activists to copy the academy’s format.
Ya know, sox, if we subtract your baseless assertions from your posts, your comments would look like this: [ “…” ].
You just cannot admit that you have no evidence that your view is anything but an indication of a relatively small clique. Instead, you resort to your usual talking points, which are nothing but an opinion.
Well, there are more folks with a very favorable opinion of OISM. You can start with the 32,000+ co-signers. Who have you got? You have yet to name a single one on your side.
I’m sticking with the 10 million qualified individuals that didn’t sign that bogus petition.
” baseless assertions ”
…
Here’s a link to the 2006 quote from Seitz
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/05/warming200605?currentPage=6
It’s on page 4
Sorry, socks, but I could hardly get past page 2 of that preposterous alarmist nonsense before I had to stop reading. However, I did skip to page 4 to see what you were referring to. But there’s nothing there! That’s not the first time someone has tried to pass off a link that doesn’t say what they claimed.
What you have to contend with, socks, is the fact that tens of thousands of highly educated scientists and engineers downloaded a copy of the OISM Petition, printed it out, signed it and mailed it in [no emails accepted]. Are you claiming they did not understand exactly what they were signing?
And if you admit that they knew, you still cannot get 31,000 climate alarmists to dispute it. You can’t get 3,100. Really, you can’t get 300. Isn’t that the truth?
If you claim you can — then produce them! By name. That’s 100 – 1. Can you get one in a hundred scientists, by name, to sign an anti-OISM statement? A hundred to one, socks. You can’t get much better odds than that.
Now, I know that cAGW is sock’s religion, so I will never be able to make him see the light. But for everyone else, I think they can see exactly which side has the so-called “consensus”. If socks can’t find even one signature for every hundred I found, he has hopelessly lost the debate.
Here you go Mr Dbstealey…
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/05/warming200605?currentPage=6
page 4…
..
“For his part, Seitz says he was comfortable taking tobacco money, “as long as it was green. I’m not quite clear about this moralistic issue. We had absolutely free rein to decide how the money was spent.” Did the research give the tobacco industry political cover? “I’ll leave that to the philosophers and priests,” he replies.
Seitz is equally nonplussed by the extraordinary disavowal the National Academy of Sciences issued following his most visible intervention in the global-warming debate. In 1998 he urged fellow scientists to sign an Oregon group’s petition saying that global warming was much ado about little. The petition attracted more than 17,000 signatories and received widespread media attention. But posted along with the petition was a paper by four global-warming deniers that was presented in virtually the same layout and typeface used by the National Academy of Sciences in its scholarly journal. The formatting, combined with Seitz’s signature, gave the clear impression that the academy endorsed the petition. The academy quickly released a statement disclaiming any connection with the petition or its suggestion that global warming was not real. Scientific American later determined that only 1,400 of the petition’s signatories claimed to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science, and of these, some either were not even aware of the petition or later changed their minds.
Today, Seitz admits that “it was stupid” for the Oregon activists to copy the academy’s format. Still, he doesn’t understand why the academy felt compelled to disavow the petition, which he continues to cite as proof that it is “not true” there is a scientific consensus on global warming.”
…
Is your browser broken?
Hey soxie, seitz made some assertions. He has nothing to back them up with. I believe the proper word in cases like that is “disgruntled”.
BTW, where’s your alarmist statement? Still waiting…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/10/portents-in-paris/#comment-1834302
disgruntled?”
The VF quote was from 2006
“In August 2007, Dr. Seitz reviewed and approved the article by Robinson, Robinson, and Soon that is circulated with the petition and gave his enthusiastic approval to the continuation of the Petition Project.”
(ref: http://www.petitionproject.org/seitz_letter.php )
Yeah…..sure…
Socks never answered my question: did those 31,000+ individual scientists and engineers know and understand the statement they were co-signing their names to?
That is what is being deliberately obfuscated by Vanity Fair [not a very credible science source, is it?]
So. Did they understand? Or not?
If they understood what they were signing, then the rest of it doesn’t matter. At that point, all that matters is whether there is a contrary statement from one of the alarmist contrarians.
And: do the number of named contrarian signatories in any such alarmist statement come anywhere near to OISM’s numbers? That is the only legitimate comparison. The total number of scientists in the universe is just the old Red Herring fallacy.
Finally, I still say to Socks: you got nothin’.☺
dbstealey,
I’d rank it one step above an “overlay chart” on the credibility scale.
” did those 31,000+ individual scientists and engineers know and understand the statement they were co-signing their names to?”
There is no way to tell, the OISM organization doesn’t provide enough information to verify their list.
Also, see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/10/portents-in-paris/#comment-1834290
I don’t think we could ask Charles Darwin
As I have said earlier, the OISM’s history is quite sordid.
For those of you that don’t like Vanity Fair…
http://markhertsgaard.com/while-washington-slept/
You can even send the author of the article an email to verify the Seitz quote.
Just click “Contact”
Socks, rather than worrying about anything with the 31,000 OISM signers, why don’t you worry about the fact that you’ve got nothin’?
You are impotently trying to tear down something that makes fools out of everyone who parrots the “consensus” nonsense. You will notice that so far you have not posted one name, compared to the 31,000+ I have posted.
So you’ve got absolutely nothing — but you’re complaining about the 31K I have?? Get a grip.
Hey, what am I doing, arguing with a religious acolyte who is more fixed in his beliefs than any Jehovah’s Witness?
I like pulling the wings off flies, I guess. Debating sox is just as much fun! Easier, too.
1) The 31,000 can’t be verified
2) There are over 10,000,000 people that are qualified that didn’t sign it
…
I’m sticking with the 10 million, you can hang with the 31,000
“The U.S. Department of Education tracks the number of graduates from institutions of higher education every year, and has done so since either the 1950-51 or 1970-71 school years, depending on what specifically the Dept. of Ed. was interested in. This data was last updated in the Digest of Education Statistics: 2008. We’re specifically interested in the number of degrees that have been awarded in the various scientific disciplines as defined by the OISM in the list above. This information is available in the following tables within the 2008 Digest: 296, 298, 302, 304, 310, 311, and 312”
Neat wouldn’t you say?
(ref http://scholarsandrogues.com/2009/08/02/152-oism-scientists-cant-be-wrong/ )
Dbstealey
…
I went to http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php?run=S
and searched for “stealey”
…
How come you haven’t signed the OISM petition yet?
Socks says:
How come you haven’t signed the OISM petition yet?
Good point. I think I will. I would do a search for “Socrates”, but that is just a sockpuppet name. A ‘sockspuppet’ name. ‘Socks’ doesn’t qualify for inclusion, anyway. His GED doesn’t hack it.
Next, socks says:
The 31,000 can’t be verified
Wrong. But then, who is still counting? Socks has been wrong about everything. That’s what happens when he confuses his religion with science.
For example, right on thier first page, OISM shows the statement co-signed by Dr. Edward Teller [PhD, Physics].
See, socks has been wrong about everything. I just play Whack-A-Mole with his failed comments, because it’s fun ‘n’ easy! ☺
I have to larf out loud at sock’s desperate NEED to try and discount the 31,000+ OISM co-signers. Socks refuses to say that they didn’t know what they were signing — but of course, they did know. Every co-signer knew exactly what he/she was signing…
…all 31,000+ of them.
They were signing a statement saying that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. But socks does not like that — because if he admitted that, his entire argument, such as it is, would go down in flames.
In fact, the entire ‘man-made global warming’ scare is preposterous. There is NO scientific evidence supporting it — only religious wackos like socks and his ilk. No wonder the scare is fading fast.
It must really suck to have NO corroborating evidence to support ones belief system. But that is the tight corner Socks has painted himself into, and that is why he feels the need to get personal.
His taunts do not bother me either. It gives me much amusement to watch socks squirm around, trying to avoid admitting that tens of thousands of American scientists and engineers didn’t understand the *very* simple and straighforward statement all those scientists were signing.
Like everyone else in his rapidly failing alarmist clique, Mr. Socks has lost all credibility. Planet Earth is making a fool out of socks and his ilk. That is the difference between skeptics, and religious acolytes like socks: skeptics change their minds if/when facts change. But not socks. He just keeps digging.☺
Finally, here is an excellent example of a canard:
“There are over 10,000,000 people that are qualified that didn’t sign it”
That is a canard. Why not include the whole world? There must be six billion who didn’t sign. Hey, let’s include the universe! There must be 781×80^196 entities that didn’t sign!
And why stop there? There’s always Graham’s Number…
…see? Socks is using a canard, because he just does not have any credible alarmist scientists to counter OISM. Socks has not named one single alarmist scientist who has contradicted the OISM Petition. Not one! All he has are his baseless assertions, and his devious canards. No wonder Socks is a laughingstock here at the internet’s Best Science & Technology site. We keep socks around for larfs, and to give an example of what the term “debunked” means for new readers.
Finally, I still love to point this out to Socks: you got nothin’.☺
He doesn’t know that he doesn’t know. That said, Gates will be along at any moment to ‘splain it to us!
The 31,000 can’t be verified
Wrong”
…
Tell us how to verify the names please.
…
And while you are at it, note that Judith Curry and Roy Spencer haven’t signed, and neither has the owner of this web site.
“Why not include the whole world? ”
….
They don’t accept anyone outside of the USA, but you already knew that I’ll bet.
…
Did you see the breakdown of the 10 million?
1) Your whole post is ad-hominem, as my financial situation is irrelevant to the topic being discussed.
2) “It is Tuesday, right in the middle of the workweek” No, it’s Wednesday in Austrailia
3) ” What does that tell us? ” ….might tell us that unlike you, there are people in the world that have rich fathers that left them a boatload of money when they died.
4) “Prove me wrong” ……see item #3
..
Apparently out of substantive rebuttals, dbstealey hides behind the non sequitur.
“you are trying to convince people that not one name is legit? ”
..
No, I’m telling you that there is no way to verify the list of names they provide. I’m sure there are legitimate names on the list, and I’m sure there are illegitimate names on the list. The problem is that you can’t tell which are legitimate and which are not.
Socrates, re: item (3): you should therefore understand why I got a good chuckle when DB made the crack about me living in my mother’s basement.
Babsy says:
He doesn’t know that he doesn’t know.
Doubled and squared. The two know-nothings are proselytizing here, but it’s only their religion. It has nothing to do with science. They are just contrarians.
I still want to see even 300 alarmist names posted, from legitimate scientists who contradict the OISM Petition. Just a mere 300, compared with more than 30,000.
They can’t do it. No matter how many times they’re asked, they still fail to find some alarmist names. All they’ve got is verbiage — baseless assertions. Opinions.
So, they’ve got nothin’. ☺
Exactly.
You haven’t told us how to verify the 31,000 names.
…
Socrates,
Real skeptics don’t need no stinkin’ validation, especially when science by popularity is the subject.
Brandon,
..
This about sums up the entire discussion about the OISM petition with Mr dbstealey…..
..
“Socks says:
How come you haven’t signed the OISM petition yet?
Good point. I think I will. ”
..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/10/portents-in-paris/#comment-1834851
Soxie sez:
This about sums up the entire discussion about the OISM petition
Let me re-phrase that, correctly:
This about sums up the entire discussion, showing that sock ain’t got nothin’!
Really: NOT ONE alarmist scientist contradicting the OISM Petition. Not one!!
If that isn’t pathetic, then nothing is. An argument from ignorance, where socks can’t find a single scientist to support his religious belief.
Some nutso folks just argue because thier On/Off switch is wired around, and it’s always On. <— That's mr. socks.
Now I will sit back in amused anticipation, while socks trots back to his thinly-trafficked alarmist blog for some advice and talking points.
Go, soxy! *snicker* ☺
Dbstealey…
…
Get back to me on your OISM petition after you sign it.
…
You should also tell Roy Spencer and Judith Curry to sign it too.
..
Oh, and ask the owner of this blog to sign it when you talk to Roy and Judith.
…
Once I see your name in the list of signatories, we can talk about verification.
Gates says:
Apparently out of substantive rebuttals…
Gates, best you should have heeded Babsy’s warning, and not commented. Because when you say things like that, you are just being a dope.
I have thoroughly and decisively rebutted every lame point that socks has tried to put up. It’s easy=peasy, because Socks is a failure. He failed at every attempt; he cannot produce even one alarmist name — much less 300, as I challenged him. Or 3,000, which is only one-tenth the OISM’s numbers. And of course, neither of you could come up with even one percent of the OISM numbers working together [and you have plenty of free time, dontcha?]
Face facts, junior: the so-called “consensus” is completely on the side of the scientific skeptics of man-made global warming. Always has been. And just like socks…
…you’ve got nothin’. ☺
And as for socks: get back to me after you have signed OISM. You brought it up, so now let’s see you do it. If you can.
But like everything else, you will fail, because you do not have the necessary qualifications. Do you? No, and your GED doesn’t count.
All dbstealey has are 31,000 unverifiable names.
…
I’m sorry Mr dbstealy, I cannot sign that petition.
…
The petition’s statement is false.
Socks says:
The petition’s statement is false.
Now we’re getting somewhere. So now you actually mentioned something that can be discussed. OK…
…what is “false” about the OISM Petition? Keep in mind that it scuttled the stoopid Kyoto Protocol, so it’s already got a lot going for it.
Now DB is doing science by politics. Shocking.
This is false…..
“The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment”
Gates,
No, you are doing ‘politics by politics’. It’s all politics to you. Not long ago you said you were a big lefty. That means Lysenko is your role model.
Socks says:
“This is false…..”
*sheesh*, some folks just don’t have a clue.
The biosphere is expanding measurably due to the rise in CO2. The planet is measurably GREENING in lockstep with the rise in that beneficial trace gas. More is better.
Anyone with half a brain can see that limiting [harmless, beneficial] CO2 would harm the environment. In fact, reducing CO2 by half would kill just about every living thing on earth.
Next question…
[Wack-A-Mole is great fun!]
Tsk, tsk tsk.
..
Dbstealey accuses Gates of doing politics.
Then he says Lysenko is his role model.
…
Unfortunately dbstealey is confused.
Lysenko was not a politician.
…
So, how can he be a role model for politicization?
Dbstealey…
…
You have failed to show how a limit is harmful
…
Plants have done fine with CO2 at 350 ppm
Plants have done fine with CO2 at 360 ppm
Plants have done fine with CO2 at 370 ppm
Plants have done fine with CO2 at 380 ppm.
..
Please tell us how a limit will harm the environment.
dbstealey,
What can I say, I’m a purist.
Socrates,
To crib an “argument” from the Skeptical (TM) playbook:
Plants have done fine with CO2 at 180 ppm
Plants have done fine with CO2 at 3,000 ppm
I’ve been looking and have not found anything in the script which explains what happens during rapid transitions. Curious that.
Sock says:
Dbstealey accuses Gates of doing politics.
Gates has already admitted it.
And:
You have failed to show how a limit is harmful
A ‘harmful limit’ is exactly what I showed. But then, you come from a religious point of view, not from anything scientific or objective.
See, socks is out of facts. He is out of rebuttals. All he can do at this point is make baseless assertions. That’s the only thing he’s good at.
That is the state of alarmism today. Planet Earth is busy debunking everything the alarmist crowd says, and everything they believe in. They have been 100.0% WRONG in every prediction they ever made. Why should reasonable people still listen to them? They’re always wrong.
OTOH, playing Whack-A-Mole with the clueless is fun! Give me more of your pseudo-science and nonsense, Socks! I need another larf, and I’ve already watched every Three Stooges episode. You provide some good comic relief.
Finally, Gates seems to believe that CO2 is bad. He doesn’t know it is as essential to life on earth as H2O. There is a lower limit. Neither of the peanut galletry goofs are willing to admit it, though. Just look at ’em squirm.
“‘harmful limit’ is exactly what I showed. ”
…
You did not show any harm. An unrealized gain is not a gain (to borrow a concept from the financial sector). In a similar fashion, and unrealized loss is not a loss either.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/unrealizedgain.asp
Losing an unrealized gain is not a loss, and you can’t take a loss for it on 1040 Schedule D
So, again, please tell me what “harm” comes from a limit on emissions.
Isn’t socks cute? He’s at least in the 5th grade! I’m sure of it. He says:
You did not show any harm.
Only a fool would claim that exterminating all life on earth does not “show any harm”.
But then, I repeat myself. ☺
Soxy sez:
Do you have something better for debunking…
I have plenty — while you’ve got nothin’. The fact is that EVERY stooopid alarmist prediction has failed. All of them. No exceptions. So why should anyone listen to your alarmist nonsense?
Dbstealey.
…
Can you explain how placing a limit on the human emissions of CO2 will exterminate all life on earth?
Socks,
You are as full of inane questions as a little kid. Either you refuse to understand simple concepts, or you cannot understand. One or the other.
I can easily answer, to where everyone else can understand. But since you are incapable of understanding the simple concept that CO2 is as essential for life on earth as H2O, I’ll let you stew in your ignorance.
So answer this [one of my *very* few questions to you]:
Why should anyone answer your interminable site-pest, pestering questions? They are juvenile, and you are only running interference for whomever is paying you. And when push comes to shove, you’ve got nothing. Zero. Planet Earth is flatly contradicting your entire belief system.
But being a religious acolyte, you simply cannot accept reality. As a result, we get your incessant, stooopid questions…
“I have plenty ”
…
Go for it then.
dbstealey,
I guess you missed the nuance about me being a purist. The science informs my policy views, not the other way around.
You wrote: The science informs my policy views, not the other way around.
Then you should make an effort to get a refund on your ‘scientific education’ because you wuz RIPPED OFF!
‘Go for it’??
Since only you have a problem understanding, I prefer to let you stew in your ignorance.
No one else has a hard time understanding. Only you. So once again, I suggest that you try to get up to speed by reading the WUWT archives for a few months. Because trotting back to your misinformation blogs is not helping you to understand anything.
@Brandon:
It’s politics to you, as you said. So your climbdown is meaningless backing and filling…
dbstealey,
Tell us something we don’t know, DB. This has got to be the mother of all strawman arguments.
“I can easily answer,” ……….OK….Go for it
…
“Why should anyone answer your interminable site-pest, pestering questions?” ……because you made the statement that placing a limit on the human emissions of CO2 will exterminate all life on earth. You should know better than to make a statement of that nature without evidence to support your assertion. Does it get uncomfortable when your feet are held to the fire?
dbstealey,
And just why should I not be able to express my political views, hmmm? Or talk about the basis for them, eh? Again you miss the point of how I think:
1) Attempt to establish a factual basis for my beliefs.
2) Form policy opinions about what I believe to be correct about reality.
3) Engage in a political discussion informed by my opinions and beliefs of how things actually work.
Could I be wrong about the facts? Why yes, I most certainly could be. It’s because of my awareness of my potential wrongness that I attempt to keep the politics from driving my perceptions of the facts as I understand them. The “facts” could indeed be wrong. So I keep the discussions separate and pure in my mind as much as possible and make all efforts to ensure that politics does not inform my perceptions of fact.
Socrates,
He has no feet, having shot off both of them himself a long time ago.
Brandon, did you know that if we put limits on the human emissions of CO2, that it will exterminate all life on earth?
…
Dbstealey said so….. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/10/portents-in-paris/#comment-1835569
Gates says:
And just why should I not be able to express my political views, hmmm?
Express away. Just so everyone is on the same page: politics is your motivation, not unbiased science. You base your world view on politics, most skeptics, myself included, base our views on reality. Hmm-m-m?
Yep. That is the central difference between alarmists and skeptical scientists. Deny it all you want, but just like being wrong about the ‘consensus’, you are wrong about who the deniers are. You’re on that list…
As someone on the ‘pressurized CO2’ thread points out:
When the CO2 levels fall to 280ppm again, there will be nobody left who knows the CO2 is there, much less how to unsequester it. In the interim, it’s leftist paradise! Good intentions, road to hell?
finally, this is all the peanut gallery has left for an argument:
He has no feet, having shot off both of them himself a long time ago.
Pathetic, no? And as usual: could not be more wrong. Gates still has multiple imprints of my size 14 brogans on his posterior, from trying to argue with me.
Gates has yet to understand that any number multiplied by zero is still zero. Go figure…
Socks sez:
You should know better than to make a statement of that nature without evidence
I have posted a mountain of scientific evidence. Don’t blame others just because you are incapable of understanding.
Dbstealey…..
You have NEVER posted any evidence that putting limits on the human emissions of CO2 will exterminate all life on earth.
Soxy sez:
You have NEVER posted any evidence that putting limits on the human emissions of CO2 will exterminate all life on earth.
And Black is White, Down is Up, Ignorance is Strength…
socks could not look more stupid. I have posted plenty of evidence, he is just too lazy to look it up. And of course, there is no need to dig up evidence that plants and animals require a miniumum level of CO2. That is a given.
I can easily provide a mountain of evidence showing that limit, but why? Will the religious True Believer socks accept it?
No, he will not. His mind is made up, and closed tight. Socks will never listen to facts or reason, if they contradict his religious belief system. So why bother? No one else questions the fact that there is a lower limit. Only Mr Über-stooopid…
Next, from the ridiculous article claiming that sea level rise is accelerating, we find this pertinemt comment:
They know that what they have done is dishonest. They know they have distorted the truth. They know they are liars. They have made their bed and now the world knows the kind of twisted leftists they are. (I would have said leftist liars, but that’s repititious.)
That applies to the two site pests here, too. I think they know the truth [but I could be wrong]. The truth is that there are NO verifiable measurements quantifying AGW. Not a single one. [Disclaimer: I think that AGW exists. But that is because of my understanding of radiative physics, not because there is any quantifiable AGW measurement. Because there aren’t any such measurements.]
Planet Earth is behaving exactly as if natural variability is the sole driver. Therefore, CO2 can be completely disregarded as an unnecessary ‘extraneous variable’ [per Occam’s Razor]. The ‘carbon’ scare is an invented, fabricated and deceptive false alarm. There is NO credible evidence supporting it.
And yet… and yet… despite ZERO evidence supporting their absurd runaway global warming scare, we have folks who are absolutely fixated on that nonsense.
I think they know the score. They just cannot admit it. Thus: prevarication, obfuscation, off topic sniping, desperation, changing the subject, baseless alarmism, deflection, and all the other disreputable tactics that the alarmist crowd constantly engages in. They know what they’re doing…
…and so do we.
” I have posted plenty of evidence”
…
Really?…..give us an example of the evidence you posted that shows that placing limits on human emissions of CO2 will result in the extermination of all life on earth.
Evidence: Roscoe P. Coal Trains (Little Jimmy Hansen) of DEATH! The oceans are gonna boil and we’re all GONNA DIE! Oh, THE HUMANITY!!!
Socrates,
I did indeed see that comment. I’ve seen variations of it elsewhere. “We’re already dangerously close to the lower limit at which plants can survive,” is a common one. Does not 280 ppmv being the canonical pre-industrial CO2 level not have meaning? Maybe some folks don’t know. DB isn’t one of those folks. Incidental ignorance is not the man’s issue.
dbstealey,
What a preposterously stupid “argument”. In the name of all that is logical and allegedly self-serving, why would I advocate for expensive policies on my dime if I didn’t think there was some benefit for doing so? At best you’ve got me on being hoodwinked by a political conspiracy which has fooled me into thinking the “factual” basis represents reality.
To convince me that you are correct, you need to make reasoned arguments about the factual basis. Yet here you are pretending omniscience and manufacturing motive.
Never mind that this subthread is you vainly attempting to defend a friggin’ survey. Otherwise known as science by popularity. Me n’ Socks are already on record as saying the 97% meme is PR. For my part, I am aware of the political motivations behind it. It galled me when Obama said, “The science is settled” because nothing could be further from my perception of the truth.
I am reminded of George Carlin’s take on Mark Twain’s aphorism, “Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
I wouldn’t go so far as to call you stupid. As I see it, you write incredibly stupid things and have an exceptional knack for then claiming it’s the “peanut gallery” dragging the … discussion … into the mud. Which aggravates me a great deal. So yes, I often let my emotions get the better of me and lash out in retaliation.
My hypothesis is that’s exactly your intention. A good intention, I’m sure.
Brandon,
..
” Otherwise known as science by popularity. ”
…
As clearly demonstrated by this posting.
..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/13/anticipation/#comment-1835882
dbstealey,
It’s a start.
Difficult to prove a negative.
I think you meant “primary” driver. “Sole” driver is logically inconsistent with “I think that AGW exists.” It’s also problematic that you apparently trust the measurements which support natural variability, but not the ones which support the human component. By and large, consensus researchers provide evidence of both.
Gates,
Whatsa matter? Getting bored?
Now you’re either back to cheating your employer, or daytime TV is getting old. That’s how I see it, anyway. Prove me wrong.
Anyway, the onus is on you to show conclusively that AGW exists. But so far, you can’t even provide a simple measurement of AGW. Since you’ve failed to corroborrate AGW, where does that leave you?
It’s tough being a climate alarmist these days, isn’t it? Even Planet Earth is making a fool of the alarmist crowd.
Finally: “consensus researchers”, heh
dbstealey doing science by non sequitur. Again.
OK Socks, your definition says:
con·trar·i·an noun \kən-ˈtrer-ē-ən, kän-\
: a person who takes an opposite or different position or attitude from other people
Well, that seems to be you.
So I guess: projection, as usual.
Working that appeal to popularity again, DB? I thought that was the whole problem with the climate consensus position.
Dbstealey is working the WUWT consensus view.
So that’s what I get from the peanut gallery? Off-topic sniping? Do you have a problem being seen as having the minority point of view? I have numbers, you know. ☺
dbstealey,
There’s an actual topic here? What is this thread … oh yes … radical Muslims kill some cartoonists in Paris and suddenly conservative America cares about the French … something something … free speech …. liberals are bad … AGW is a fraud.
I didn’t get the point, and don’t like being an enabler. Sorry for not following the script.
Socrates,
My second chuckle of the day. My first one was how the first couple of paragraphs of this post clashed with the headline: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/12/another-bias-in-temperature-measurements-discovered/
Brandon says:
I didn’t get the point
That’s often the case. I’d say, “…and your point is…?”
But, like, you have no point. As you told us.
No one is forcing you to raise the background noise level here, you know.
dbstealey,
The context snip doesn’t work real well when … you know … the whole context of my comment is there for all to read without much digging.
And how do you know my taskmasters aren’t holding a gun to my head instead of paying me to be their flack? [gasp] Maybe the evil warmunists are holding me hostage!
Socks says:
Dbstealey is working the WUWT consensus view.
Yes. The correct view. While socks is working on the debunked alarmist view — the only kind of ‘work’ he does, apparently.
“The correct view.”
..
Do you have any evidence of this?
Or is this statement a matter of your “opinion?”
Michael 2,
That would defeat the purpose of being in code … did you mean not intentionally encoded? Either way, I may have misunderstood something.
Yup.
[chortle] I agree.
I’m still with you.
It’s been … a long time … since I took sociology, but that’s probably where I was introduced to the concept of moral relativism. Which to me made some sense then, but I resisted it, and now which makes a whole lot of sense. That was a bit of a journey.
What it comes down to for me is this: politics is low-contact warfare. Pure and simple might makes right. The losers whine about their “rights” being quashed. Sometimes I’d agree, but only when my own definition of what I believe it is to be a soverign person is violated.
This particular discussion is about contrarian climate views not being considered, heard, taken seriously, believed, accepted, etc., on air, at major conferences, in major peer-reviewed journals, by (some) major newspapers, etc. That sounds like whining to me and I don’t have much sympathy for it. Science doesn’t get done by whining any more than it gets done by conforming to some pre-determined conclusion. It gets done by being properly skeptical and producing new knowledge. Or more accurately, making new inferences about how things work which are not quite right, but not as wrong as the previous set of assumptions and conclusions.
As someone wise once said, “Shut up and calculate.”
The very same magazine that made a cartoon that was considered “anti-Semitic”. They immediately sacked the cartoonist.
Aligned in solidarity were several mass murderers. Sarkozy (90K+ Libyans, dead), Poroschenko (~5K Ukrainians, dead), Merkel (~3K Greeks, dead). Last but not the least Netayahoo who is personally responsible for a minimum 21K dead Palestinians.
Brandon Gates (January 11, 2015 at 8:08 pm) “In sum, we can’t be certain AGW even exists, but we are absolutely certain it has stopped.”
It would be slightly more accurate to say “GW” has stopped and many are not, and never were, certain about the “A” part. In fact, the “A” part could still exist despite no “GW” in the presence of an anti-GW force balancing the “A” part.
Michael 2, Now see, that’s a reasonable answer.
Does it cover all the bases? ☺
Well now, next time you know how to answer me.
[Snip. David Appell is one of very few persona non grata here. Banned by Anthony for repeated nastiness and violation of site Policy. Good to see him still reading WUWT, though. ~ mod.]