Below is an excerpt of the piece:
Climate Thuggery
July 29, 2011, 10:04 am
By Peter Wood
Is anthropogenic global warming (AGW) a valid scientific theory? Is it well supported by the empirical data or is it mostly an artifact of computer modeling? I don’t have answers to these questions. I stand, rather, on the side of those who favor rigorous scientific inquiry, transparency, and openness. I am not a climate scientist, but neither do I cede the whole matter of answering such questions to the designated experts. Good science doesn’t limit itself to the views of narrow-cast specialists. Valid observations, corrective criticism, competing hypotheses, and rigorous testing can and often do arise from other sources.
It surprises me, however, that proponents of AGW, or what might be called the climate orthodoxy section of AGW theory, often respond to criticism and dissent with a kind of fury. Far from welcoming discussion, they seek to suppress it. In doing so they jeopardize both their own authority and the prestige of the scientific community.
A month ago I posted on Innovations a brief item, “Bottling Up Global Warming Skepticism,” about the machinations of one of Professor Michael Mann’s ardent defenders, Dr. John Mashey, who has taken a no-holds-barred approach to silencing Mann’s critics. Mann himself has deployed nuisance lawsuits in a similar fashion. He has sued Tim Ball—a Canadian global-warming skeptic, an environmentalist, and former professor of geography—for libel for writing that Mann “should be in the State Pen, not Penn State,” for his role in Climategate. Mann also threatened a lawsuit against Minnesotans for Global Warming for a satiric YouTube video titled “Hide the Decline.” (YouTube suppressed the original video. There is now a “Hide the Decline II.”)
The tactic of suing critics of AGW theory to silence them isn’t Mann’s alone, and it isn’t the only extracurricular means the global warmists use in attempts to shut up dissenters. The BBC recently announced that in an effort to be more attuned to the scientific “consensus,” it would no longer strive to provide balanced coverage of climate issues. Its decision followed a report by the BBC Trust, “Review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC’s coverage of science.”
…
The techniques vary. The results, however, are similar: What cannot be established by transparent science can be imposed by coercion and intimidation.
==============================================================
Read the entire article in-depth here:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/climate-thuggery/29919?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
h/t to Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.
I have a post on this at Climate Etc.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/02/trying-to-put-the-climategate-genie-back-in-the-bottle/
Dr. Curry that is an excellent post. Thanks for the link.
8^D
We object to the other side’s logic flaws, misrepresentations, rhetorical excesses, smears, and proposals for extra taxation and submission to a UN-based governing authority. Hope I made it realer.
The main issue when talking about ‘Global Warming’ is that they are correct that CO2 does trap more heat, they are also correct in suggesting that this will cause an increase in temperature. Where they are wrong is the postulation ( which it is at this point ) that large feedback effects will take place and cause massive warming, and that this warming will be detrimental. I find it ironic that few warmists have suggested that the temperature, by becoming warmer, may be a good thing. Or that an increase in the water cycle ( which is the main driver of ‘runaway’ Global warming ) would be ought but beneficial in the long run to society.
Part of the fury may be because theirs is a belief system in decline – and in consequence they’re getting increasingly desperate. At some level they seem to know that AGW may be their last hurrah.
Indeed it probably will be, because the Left is a luxury society can no longer afford.
Interesting that environmentalists are using the same tactic they accuse others of in contexts like land development, at least in SW B.C.
They rail about something like “Strategic Lawsuits Against P…..”, when someone like a land developer sues them for defamation.
People will play whatever game occurs to them that they think will work.
In one case a developer won the lawsuit against opponents who plain invented things, neglecting to walk even a modest distance to look at reality.
(The term environmentalists use is Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, which leads to a catchy acronym SLAPP.)
People try to abuse the courts for many things, though what environmentalists are usually trying to do abuse is the court of voter opinon – which a great many climate alarmists are guilty of.