Michael Moore for Dummies
Guest post by Rod McLaughlin
Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies. I think green anarchist turned film-maker Craig Rosebraugh once did some good. When he organized the “Liberation Collective” in old town Portland, or organized protests against police excesses, he was doing something useful. When he was a spokesman for extreme environmentalists, this was not “eco-terrorism”. Burning down an empty building in the middle of the night is not terrorism: it doesn’t terrorize anyone.
The only genuine eco-terrorist is Ted Kaczynski, the “Unabomber”. One of the most effective bits of Rosebraugh’s new documentary, “Greedy Lying Bastards”, is when it shows a billboard put up by the skeptic Heartland Institute, with a picture of Kaczynski, and the legend “I still believe in Global Warming. Do you?”. But Heartland’s idiotic mistake has nothing to do with the facts of global warming. It doesn’t show that the medieval warming period didn’t happen. It doesn’t prove that the warming in the last century was unprecedented and man-made.
Rosebraugh is shameless in using guilt by association. He tries to give the impression that global warming “deniers” tend to be American knuckledraggers, ignoring sane, smart people around the world who doubt the global warming hysteria. For example, he forgets to tell us that the three most prominent Canadian skeptics boycotted Heartland because of the above-mentioned own goal.
Left-wing American documentaries, like this one, or Michael Moore’s, or one I saw about the evils of Walmart, tend to insult the viewer by bombarding her with one side of the story, and words like “lying”, “greedy” and “bastards”. Watching Rosebraugh’s movie, every time the narrator said that there is lying and greed on the skeptic side of the debate, I wondered whether he’d consider if these vices occur among the promoters of climate change “theory”. He did not.
Unflattering shots of one’s opponents, selective information about funding, tear-jerking anecdotes about sea level rise, and shots of hurricanes and fires, with no statistical analysis to show if these events really did increase during the 20th century. All this Rosebraugh learned from Michael Moore, who has been criticized for “dumbing down the left”. Rosebraugh does the same with environmentalism.
To be fair, Rosebraugh did mention billionaire George Soros funding warm-mongering organizations, as well as the mega-rich Koch brothers backing “climate change deniers”, but only in passing.
It doesn’t matter if the CEO of Exxon says global warming is not unprecedented and anthropogenic, because it’s in his company’s interests. This has no bearing at all on whether or not it’s true. It’s the old “self-serving argument” fallacy. Just about any argument and its opposite serves someone: you have to figure out whether it’s right or wrong independently of interests.
Rosebraugh chooses the most plausible-sounding defenders, and implausible critics, of the anthropogenic global warming position. Worse, he almost avoids citing any of the numerous scientifically-trained skeptics. An honest approach would be to interview Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKittrick, who first broke Michael Mann’s “hockey stick”. Or Joanne Nova, or Anthony Watts, the creator of Watts Up With That. Or Judith Curry, a scientist of whom Michael Mann revealingly wrote “I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause”. Skeptical professor Richard Lindzen does appear, but not for long enough to explain his rejection of climate change hysteria.
For his leading climate skeptic, Rosebraugh chooses Christopher Monckton, who, by carefully selecting from his presentations carefully, is made to look like a nut. In reality, he’s merely eccentric. If you read his stuff, Monckton has a grasp of logic unheard of among warm-mongers, misanthropists and fluffies. Rosebraugh tries to refute Monckton’s views on the grounds that he isn’t “a scientist”. This is a variant of the logical fallacy of “argument from authority”.
This implies that you must accept what scientists say. So what do you do when they disagree? Two giants of science, Richard Dawkins and Edward Wilson, recently had a debate about kin selection theory. Dawkins used the number of scientists who support him as an argument. Wilson showed no mercy: “It should be born in mind that if science depended on rhetoric and polls, we would still be burning objects with phlogiston and navigating with geocentric maps.”
Michael Moore
I’m not a scientist either, but I understand logic, and the work of Karl Popper on scientific method. I know that ad hominem, post hoc ergo propter hoc, ad populam, and ad verecundiam arguments have no validity.
I first became a skeptic when I read climate “scientists” using the word “consensus”. Anyone with even a cursory familiarity with scientific method knows that that word is not in a scientist’s vocabulary.
In contrast, the argument of Rosebraugh’s documentary, like the global warming movement in general, relies on “scientific concensus”. It can therefore be dismissed out of hand.
Rosebraugh deals with the “Climategate” revelations of 2009 as follows:
· he presents the scandal as a conspiracy to derail the Copenhagen climate talks
· he claims, without evidence, that the emails were “stolen” from the CRU in East Anglia
· he uncritically accepts Michael Mann’s assurance that the emails were quoted “out of context”
· he fails to mention that all the emails are online, so we can judge if phrases like “Hide the decline”, “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith?”, “Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?” and “We have to get rid of the medieval warming period” are less damning in context – they aren’t
· he claims that the various inquiries exonerated the warmists, without saying how
Another technique he borrows from Michael Moore, is showing crowds of conservatives waving flags, wearing garish outfits, and holding up signs with ridiculously exaggerated warnings about Obama introducing communism. And rejecting climate change panic. The implication is, if you disbelieve in anthropogenic global warming, next thing, you’ll be in favor of waterboarding.
Related articles
- Movie review: “Greedy Lying Bastards” a global warming documentary with sobering evidence (denverpost.com)
- Greedy Lying Bastards (powerlineblog.com)
- ‘Greedy Lying Bastards’ film uses a fake cover photo, recycled PR from 2005, cites opinion of a ‘truther’, is directed by a former ELF spokeman and uses a big dose of hate to make its point (wattsupwiththat.com)
Okay, probably a fair review and, with no desire to see the movie, I’ll take your review at face value. However, you almost lost me right off the bat with “… Burning down an empty building in the middle of the night is not terrorism: it doesn’t terrorize anyone.” Here on one hand you treat with fairness the two sides of the AGW issue. But then on the other hand you exhibit a “the end justifies the means” moral equivalency for an illegal act. How can you honestly make such a statement? If I was the owner of the building, it would have terrorized me. If I was a neighbor, or a transient hiding in the empty building, I would have been terrorized. Although it digresses from the gist of your article, I for one am curious how you justify this statement.
Hmm, Rod you make the fundamental mistake of thinking that people who oppose environmentalism are against environmental conservation. Most of those opposed to environmentalism are opposed not because they don’t want to help the environment but instead because they think those promoting modern environmentalism don’t think critically about their actions and what they oppose.
Worse it appears the the modern environmental movement since the late 70’s early 80’s is more about taking a snap shot picture of nature and keeping nature from changing away from that picture. Something very unnatural and against the fundamental laws of nature that nature is always changing. If you took a picture of an untouched wilderness and returned to take another in 20 years there would be differences.
The rest of us recognize that nature is a changing thing and so try to work with it. We aren’t interested in freezing it into a static never changing mass but instead in learning about it and helping keep what we believe is the best of it. More environmental conservation. Look at our host. He is interested in solar power and energy conservation. Both of those topics he has covered positively when he sees an appropriate use of it to promote. What we are against is blind actions just …. because.
You’d be nice and calm if someone with an agenda burnt down your house whilst you and your family are out to dinner one night.
It would never occur to you (and you’d never be alarmed or terrorized) that by chance you or your family might have been in the house when the “do gooder” environmentalist put a torch to it.
And no, just because a building may be thought to be empty doesn’t lessen the crime. Hobos and homeless people often frequent abandoned buildings.
As soon as a person with an agenda stops civil discussions and starts violence, they’re terrorists in my book.
Good review, but a bit unfair to Michael Moore. His first film was all about trying unsuccessfully to interview someone he disagreed with – as if Rosebraugh had made a film called “Looking for Anthony” about his unsuccessful attempt to interview the champion of climate scepticism.
Michael Moore’s films tell the story he wants to tell, and reach tens of millions. I think he’d be ashamed to be associated with “Greedy Lying Bastards”. Maybe someone should ask him?
You know, there is something that is almost never discussed in the debate regarding the consensus climate science position. It is the proposition that not only do the climate scientists understand climate change, they understand what to do about it.
A climate scientist is usually trained in, well, climate science. Here are links to a couple of the foremost programs in the U.S.
http://scrippseducation.ucsd.edu/Graduate_Students/PhD_Program/Specializations/Climate_Science/
http://www.princeton.edu/aos/phd_program/
The Geosciences department collaborates with GFDL to provide an academic program of courses and seminars including physical and chemical oceanography, paleoceanography, and paleoclimatology.
All of these programs are in the physical sciences. There is not a single program in climate science that I can find globally that provides any training in energy engineering, systems engineering, systems architecture, or any other practidemic field that would provide any of these climate scientists with competence to provide answers to get humans off of a hydrocarbon industrial system and onto an alternate one that did not produce CO2. So why are the listened two in that arena? There can be no appeal to authority as they are not authorities in any discipline that is associated with energy.
James Hansen cannot have any authority when he talks about coal death trains. That would be like myself talking about the instruments that a heart surgeon use.
I actually happen to have training in systems architecture. My degree is in engineering physics, which is a combination of the physical sciences as well as mechanical and electrical engineering. My work and at the University of Alabama in Huntsville included the design and architecture of an entire off planet civilization, one where hydrocarbons are non existent and thus we are forced to look at the requirements for that civilization not considering that as an energy source. I have written books on the subject and am an acknowledged expert in the field. So why in the world would I listen to a climate scientist tell me that only by converting the entire world to solar panels and wind turbines can humans survive?
There is an absolute achilles heel of the entire environmental movement in their advocation of this strategy. A simple question illustrates the problem. How, after there are no hydrocarbons available for powering our industrial society, are you going to make solar panels and wind turbines to replace the ones built before the end of the hydrocarbon economy? There is an enormous and unaccounted for subsidy of solar and wind by oil. If all oil was removed, we could not produce sufficient energy by using solar and wind and hydro to replace what was built before. Thus is my support of nuclear power, first uranium, then thorium, then nuclear fusion. This is my expert opinion on the subject. I don’t care if every single climate scientist in the world came out in favor of solar panels and wind turbines as our energy solution, they are simply not competent to make that determination. So why do they push it so? Why, at the end of the day, are their solutions exactly the same as the environmental movement’s was in the 1970’s? Why are people from their own world such as James Lovelock who have done the research and have come to the conclusion about nuclear energy on their own so pilloried after doing so?
Answer these questions, and you have reached the root of the problem with climate science today.
Sorry. Ya lost my interest by the attempted justification of the destruction of private property. I have no further reason to read the musings of a criminal appologist.
Outraged agit-prop is what the Green/Left does; sometimes it’s done well, sometimes not.
Rosebraugh’s effort isn’t the first, and it won’t be the last, by any means — at least while the legacy media so eagerly picks up on anything which supports climate alarmism.
I can sum up the book in just two words: Ugly propaganda.
Quite succinct, Rod. It especially helps to ground Monckton’s oft-loquacious logical analysis. It is amazing how operators like Mann continually reveal their underlying motives with statements like the one dissing Judith Curry. Tracking his facebook page is almost nauseating, for all the confirmation trolling he engages in. Yet these people have the ear of the MSM, who regurgitate (with modifications) the company line in an uncritical frenzy. I try not to worry about the effect this has at the policy level, but Obama’s Stealth Climate Policy (ignored during his re-election campaign, but central in he Inauguration speech) clearly indicates that the tricksters are hard at work.
Your very first sentence:
“Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies.”
You couldn’t be more wrong.
We should always attempt to keep discourse to a civilized and as reasonable exchanges.
James Hansen, Al Gore, the masters of warming hyperbole.
Then, remember a clip made by a bunch of loony activists called 10:10 released on YouTube and with kids and exploding heads.
On the side of the righteous?
Who is righteous – certainly not the governments of the West and don’t ever try and tell me an investment banker who works for Goldman Sachs knows about ethics but of course he knows about ‘carbon trading’.
Politics, money, lies, wanton ‘liberal’ hyperbole, more statistics………………………. and global warming.
The greatest lie: CAGW.
OK, that’s funny.
“Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies.”
I think most readers of this blog are environmentalists.
There are some issues with this review, apart from its not being in the genre of movie reviews.
I understand the work of Karl Popper too, and it is oft mis-quoted. If Popperian falsification was an apt description of the scientific method, Newton’s Law of Gravitation would have been abandoned when it was found not to describe the motion of Mercury around the sun. The point Popper was making related to giant leaps forward in scientific understanding when an existing theory is overthrown by a new theory.
“Consensus” is an accurate term across all the branches of science when applied to peer-reviewed literature. It does not mean “certainty” as implied by the reviewer. In science, there is no such thing as certainty but there is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. It’s called the “95 per cent confidence” interval.
Of course the “climategate” emails were stolen, that’s what hackers do – they steal information. Does the reviewer seriously think that a whistle blower released the “climategate” emails? Where is the evidence? Who is this anonymous whistle blower? Give us his/her name.
And why should we, the film viewers – scientifically literate and illiterate alike, go to the trouble of judging the “climategate” emails when they have been reviewed by multiple panels/committees/inquiries containing experts such as Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, professor emertius University of Edinburgh? Their collective conclusions were no misconduct, scientifically sound, accurate, etc. They concluded that the trouble was not with the science, it was scientists overstepping the mark and proceeding as if by “papal announcements”.
With regard to a “scientist” knowing more about his/her field of expertise than a non-scientist, say Lord Monckton, that’s correct e.g. when it comes to cancer, I’ll take the diagnosis and treatment offered by an oncologist before that of a well-read accountant.
Mr. McLaughlin, do I have news for you. WUWT readers based on years of reading their comments have a healthy appreciation for the enviorment. Using myself as an example, I bird watch, feed birds, recycle religiously, have participated in enviorment clean up efforts, and have all my life contributed to conservation causes both with money and political activism. I’ll bet, based on the comments I have read, that thousands of WUWT followerers do similar actions. Indeed, our godfather, Anthony Watts, is notable for his own efforts. I remember, for example, when he did a whole post on how he had changed the lighting system in his own house to use low wattage bulbs.
Unfortunatetly what has happened is that many of the traditional conservation organizations have become so obsessed with global warming they have abandoned classic conservation activities. The situation has gotten to the point where local chapters on some of these organizations are rebelling against the central administrations. I specifically refer to the Audobon Society in the northwestern US rebelling against wind factories because of bird and bat kills. Also there are grassroot effort in various scientific societys against the national administrations adoption of strong anti carbon positions.
All in all, I think if you hung around here for a while, Mr. McLaughlin, you would be surprised at how we WUWT devotee are enviormentally attuned.
On the other hand , tou sure got it right about that so called doctumentary!!
There is a place for onesided doc-shock films. The very idea of balanced is dodgy, and allows the media or censors to decide what is acceptable and normal. So the problem is not this film is selective in its truth. The problem is a suitable right to reply or fair access to the media to foster debate. If you have this, people will pick up on errors of fact and form their own opinion. While the scientists do not play fair in the journals, the education system and the media will not play fair.
I wish I could type. Lets try devoteeS and you instead of tou! Also effortS! My vocabulary out paces my spelling ability. And yes I proofread. Bah!
Nobody seems to understand that mankind has been had you cannot heat water from above on this planet because surface tension blocks the transfer of heat through the surface of the water. You can radiate water but you cannot “heat” it. It follows that you can increase the temperature of the atmosphere but it will not affect the temperature of the ocean. Somebody tell Trenberth.
I stopped reading at
“Burning down an empty building in the middle of the night is not terrorism: it doesn’t terrorize anyone”
You’re very misguided in thinking that. I give you as examples of not terrorising by burning empty buildings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meibion_Glynd%C5%B5r
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-warnings-that-scotlands-patient-nationalism-could-turn-nasty-1505824.html
http://gawker.com/5976473/arson-cracked-testicles-and-internet-death-threats-how-animal-rights-extremists-are-learning-from-the-people-who-murdered-george-tiller
lost me at burning down an empty building isn’t terrorism. Didn’t bother to read much after that. The whole point of them doing that was terrorism. Everybody with a lick of sense knows burning a building without removing the plastics etc.. is bad for the environment.
Guest post by Rod McLaughlin: “When he was a spokesman for extreme environmentalists, this was not “eco-terrorism”. Burning down an empty building in the middle of the night is not terrorism: it doesn’t terrorize anyone.”
=========================================================
Interesting. Looks like, let us say, burning down extreme environmentalists’ (empty) homes in response would not be terrorism, according to your concept. It would not terrorize extreme environmentalists, right?
The biggest problems I have with ‘climate scientists’ are:
1. Serial data manipulation.
2. The deliberate and widespread policy of merging the concepts of AGW (a mildly interesting minor phenomenon) and CAGW (a scary theory with no supporting evidence and not found in the geological record).
3. Refusal to debate leading sceptics for spurious reasons, but in reality not wanting to have their ‘science’ sliced and diced.
4. The supposed scientific consensus about global warming – as a practicing scientist, I know of no other scientists who think that CAGW is anything other than a complete crock.
5. Having financial resources at least 1,000 times those of sceptics and yet perpetuating the lie that sceptics are funded by Big Oil.
6. Creating a heresy out of natural climate cycles, so that they can be ignored and their theories on global warming be allowed to provide the reason for the recent modest warming over the past 150 years.
7. Climate scientists and dodgy, gullible politicians’ mutual dependence on each other.
8. Advocating and achieving widespread media censorship of sceptic views.
This is a lame comment to post, a “me too.” But then LamonT beat me to it.
The fact that some people criticize the political-finantial-pseudoscientific aspects of CAGW doesn’t mean they dont care about nature or the environment. They also do care about obnoxious scams and believe that sound measures must be grounded in sound facts.
Finally, nature and the environment change. Climate changes. Distinguishing natural from artificial change is not simple.
ROD, please don’t presumptuously generalize about readers at WUWT not having environmentalist sympathies. If you want to influence people don’t make assertions on matters on which you have little or no knowledge
Telegram to Self:
“Burning down an empty building in the middle of the night is not terrorism: it doesn’t terrorize anyone.” STOP (reading) Add one “Rod McLaughlin” to “nut-burgers to ignore in future” list. STOP END
George Montgomery “I understand the work of Karl Popper too, and it is oft mis-quoted. If Popperian falsification was an apt description of the scientific method, Newton’s Law of Gravitation would have been abandoned when it was found not to describe the motion of Mercury around the sun. The point Popper was making related to giant leaps forward in scientific understanding when an existing theory is overthrown by a new theory.”
Well, I would say you don’t understand it. 🙂 But as even John Ziman “In Reliable Knowledge” makes the same mistake, it is understandable. Popper is not claiming that a hypothesis or theory becomes *wrong* if it is falsified. Falsification is the *demarcation* principle between science and non-science, that is all. Newton’s laws were scientific because they could be falsified. And they could be falsified by evidence such as problems in the orbits of Mercury. Such issues then become boundary problems that lead to the pressures that might or not cause a paradigm shift, as later described by Kuhn. Popper thus believed that Freud was not creating scientific theories – he did not, however, believe that non-scientists were thus rubbish or misguided – they just weren’t scientific :).
Must disagree. Burning down a building is “terrorism” as it was done to make a point, threat, send a message. That noone was killed is a matter of circumstance.
George Montgomery at 12:45 am. ‘but there is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. It’s called the “95 per cent confidence” interval’. Therefore, if we take someone randomly from the population, it is beyond reasonable doubt that he/she is not gay.
What a bizarre post.
“Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies.”
Like much of your poorly written post, the meaning is unclear. But if you claim that WUWT readers en masse hate or discount the natural world, you must have been reading another blog. What is the basis for this claim?
Then you say:
“Burning down an empty building in the middle of the night is not terrorism: it doesn’t terrorize anyone.
The only genuine eco-terrorist is Ted Kaczynski, the “Unabomber”.
Well, I don’t propose to get into a semantic argument about burning down buildings that belong to somebody else. It is called “arson”, and is rightly viewed as a serious crime in every jurisdiction where there are buildings. It can land you in jail for many years. This is because, not only are you destroying property, you are threatening lives and property onsite and adjacent.
As for your singular example of eco-terrorism, ask the scientists and their families, and their employers, who have been targeted by animal liberationists – with death threats and firebombs. Ask the power station in the UK that was closed down for a week by anti-coal activists climbing up the structure. No doubt other readers can provide other examples.
Thanks for providing this illuminating example of the thinking of those who wish to rule us.
Peter Miller says:
The biggest problems I have with ‘climate scientists’: is that they fail to work at a standard that would expected of their own ‘students’ taking an undergraduate course . It still amazes me that they ‘get away’ with tricks that would see a students essay marked as a failed .
Dear George Montgomery,
What you say is so dated.
I have never heard or used the word “consensus” in science. Consensus is a political word. It doesn’t exist in science. No it doesn’t mean 95% significance (which is quite weak unless in the social sciences). If consensus was meaningful in science we would still have a flat earth orbited by the sun, would be burning stuff with phlogiston and treating people with aphorisms and leeches.
Of course the “climategate” emails were leaked, that’s what whistleblowers do – they leak information. Do you seriously think that a thief stole the “climategate” emails? Where is the evidence? Who is this anonymous thief? Give us his/her name.
Let’s settle for a draw on this one.
The several inquiries on the climategate stuff fell in two categories. In one, the investigating comittee was made of people with vested interests who did not inquire about the actual problem but inquired about something else. It’s like when you hear a noise in the basement at night, run to the attic and conclude that nothing was happening after all.
The other, which I had the pleasure of reading in it’s entirety, was the one by the Parliament or so (sorry I dont know much about the UK). Which was very damaging in it’s text, damaging enough. Then concluded everything was really nice. It was an inquiry made by the same politicians who have been feeding the CRU with money for decades and implementing policies based upon the CRU. Would you expect them to reach the conclusion that they had been duped, lost taxpayers money and implemented baseless policies for decades? So they concluded everything went swimmingly, because all that politicians read is conclusions. To their praise the fact that the text flogs the CRU, contrarily to the conclusion.
As I said, all this is pretty much dated.
Lets see if the system doesn’t eat up this comment.
@george Montgomery:
Hi George, interesting post. I thought Popper made the point that any hypothesis had to be falsifiable and that scientist who made the hyothesis who should be able to specify what was falsifiable. As to Newton his sums worked to all intents and purposes, but he said himself that he couldn’t understand how the force acted between the two bodies, and made no attempt to guess what it might be – unlike climate scientists who tell you their failed predictions are cause by natural causes they can’t explain, Newton’s theory was replicable and falsifiable.
Geoffrey Boulton was an unfortunate choice you made for the distinguished neutral who looked at the work of the CRU and found no problems with it. He worked at the CRU of 18 years. Muir Russell didn’t look at the science, but failed to ask about Jones’ attempts to thwart FOI requests because he might have incriminated himself. Odd really given that the statute of limitations had passed and that the Information Commissioner had already said there was prima facie evidence of a crime. Russell (famed for turning a $60m dollar project into a $600m dollar project) in fact criticised the UEA for lack of transparency. Oxburgh reviewed the science, the UEA chose the papers for review, and no evidence was taken from critics. For reasons of complete transparency he asked his fellow reviewers to destroy all their notes and papers related to the enquiry.
As for going to an oncologist for cancer treatment I would too, but I wouldn’t go to one whose every prognosis had proven incorrect and who was proposing a cure far worse than the disease.
@george
““Consensus” is an accurate term across all the branches of science when applied to peer-reviewed literature. It does not mean “certainty” as implied by the reviewer. In science, there is no such thing as certainty but there is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. It’s called the “95 per cent confidence” interval.”
I have a problem with the concept of a published work being ‘true’ because it was reviewed by some others knowledgeable in the field. I do not think that is the purpose of published articles (revealing Truth).
Published articles are a conversation. You put forth your view as best you can then have it checked by people who have a clue what you are talking about. If someone opposes your opinion, they publish a counter-argument also checked by a few experts in the field. Neither has a grip on truth. It is the CAGW network who has elevated the ‘published literature’ to the status of a bible. “We are quoting peer-reviewed literature’. Meaning: therefore it is honest-to-God true. It was never intended to be ‘truth’, it is the current thinking of some people in the field. Some arguments between opposing factions run for years are are eventually agreed that both views were incorrectly constructed.
We have to get past the idea that annointing some portions of human knowledge makes the contents true. A lot of what gets published is arcane, dense, obfuscatory and deliberately written in opaque technobabble designed to keep non-initiates out. This is execrable because it restrains progress and promotes priestcraft. There is a role for specialised language but it has become a way to prevent competition and broader oversight – thus it is an abuse.
We can prove the peer reviewing process does not meaningfully guarantee ‘truth’ by looking at the junk science written in support of AGW. It is not even a conversation – the CAGW promoting authors conspire to prevent a conversation taking place! That is an attack on science itself!
Being 95% certain of something does not make it true. Mann’s manipulation of the data sets he used in his paper defending the hockey stick (Dec 2009? forgot…) was a blatant attempt to reach a 95% confidence interval while just as blatantly arriving at a predetermined conclusion in contradiction of the whole facts. 95% confidence is useful as a guide, not a bible. Mann has shown how to use it to lie, exploiting the trust generated by years of sincere searching for truth.
Climate science is no longer about truth, it is about not getting caught.
The historian in me always make me think of Fritz Hippler’s ‘The Eternal Jew’ when I see hater fims like this being made.
Just shows you, people don’t change, despite history’s lessons!
“… The implication is, if you disbelieve in anthropogenic global warming, next thing, you’ll be in favor of waterboarding.”
And your point is?
Waterboarding, snowboarding, surfboarding, as long as it helped up get Bin Laden, and I’m sure I speak for us all when I say how relieved I am that President Obama escaped the storming of the Bin Laden compound unharmed. Gutsy call, that.
” … if science depended on rhetoric and polls, we would still be burning objects with phlogiston and navigating with geocentric maps.”
Down here in Texas we burn steaks with charcoal and mesquite, and I’ve been navigating airplanes with geocentric maps my whole career.
“The only genuine eco-terrorist is Ted Kaczynski,…”
Seriously, McLaughlin, you’ve mistyped the url. This is WUWT, not the Atlantic Monthly. Kaczynski is a serial killer with three notches who got a sympathetic plea bargain from Janet
WacoReno, not an eco-terrorist.Mike in Houston
Knuckle-dragging environmentalist with an Earth Sciences major.
Wow! This is a redeeming characteristic?
What about the risk to the health and lives of the firefighters whose job is it to control and extinguish the fire before it can do damage to the environment and to the welfare of other people? Who gave him the right to put them in harm’s way or does that just not matter at all?
geoffchambers, Michael Moore actually spoke with the General Motors CEO Roger Smith before filming of Roger and Me began. He just pretended that he hadn’t, as it would not have fit the narrative.
He stole the scenario for what became Roger & Me from Michael Westfall. During a visit to Flint, Michael Moore was privy to the details of Westfall’s proposal for a documentary on General Motors that would use Ralph Nader’s idea of personalizing the harm done to Flint by focusing on individual GM executives and on Roger Smith in particular. Michael Moore was present at the meeting where Westfall’s friends discussed how to maximize the emotional impact of the film by using humor. It was the intention of the Nader group to use the profits from their documentary to help the people of Flint.
Michael Westfall generously offered Moore hundreds of pages of research on GM. Westfall even got Moore into a GM shareholder’s meeting where Moore interrogated Roger Smith at length as Moore’s camera captured every articulate response. Michael Moore had the opportunity to question Roger Smith a second time at a press luncheon and once again on an exhibit floor.
“Burning down an empty building in the middle of the night is not terrorism”,
That’s right,it’s Arson!
The writer needs to understand the root of terror from Latin before boldly stating what is and what is not terrorism. Burning down a building, empty or not, is an act in terrorem, hoping to compel the other part out of fear
“It’s called the “95 per cent confidence” interval.”
Of course, even if they were 100% confident, that doesn’t necessarily make it true. Confidence is merely a subjective feeling, it has nothing to do whatsoever with likelihood. All of the IPCC projections claim the 95% confidence level too… and they’re delusional because they’re black boxes with variables standing in for things they don’t understand.
Your review of this movie reminded me of another documentary that I saw that was basically an anti-Monsanto and anti-genetically modified movie: Food, Inc. While it made some good points, I researched some of the so-called facts in the movie and found out the “victims” of Monsanto weren’t as innocent as the movie made out. I also asked a friend of mine who is a farmer about Monsanto and he acted like Monsanto was the best thing to happen to farmers since fertilizer. I am not saying Monsanto is an upright company. I do believe that Monsanto is targeted mostly because environmentalist hate, for no good reason, genetically modified crops.
P.S. Just because I post here does not mean I care nothing for the environment. I care for the environment, but within reason. Do not think that the fringe defines the majority.
“When he was a spokesman for extreme environmentalists, this was not “eco-terrorism”. Burning down an empty building in the middle of the night is not terrorism: it doesn’t terrorize anyone.”
I agree. He’s an arsonist, not a terrorist. Punish him for arson.
BTW I see no difference between somebody being killed through terrorism vs. arson.
Usually, arsonists are as mentally deranged as are terrorists, maybe even more so – a terrorist could argue that he is a kind of guerilla fighter for some worthy goal.
“Thanks for providing this illuminating example of the thinking of those who wish to rule us.”
With apologies to our host: Puzzling Commentary. Was there no other ‘review,’ Anthony?
Dennis Ray Wingo at 11:02 pm:
Dennis, What you wrote above should be distributed far and wide, and be required reading by any and all who expect their voice to be taken seriously. I thank you for your clear thinking and the ability to put your thoughts and convictions (nay, expertise!) out there for public consideration.
Well done, Sir!
I’m with leg, LamonT, Baa Humbug (postings 1, 2 and 3), redc and many others.
Burning a building – empty or not – is a threat. That makes it terrorism.
When you say, “Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies,” you are dead wrong. Most of us have environmental AND environmentalist (in the true sense of the word) sympathies. What we are seeing with the Greens is the destruction of the environment, not its protection. The Green leaders are not environmentalists in any sense of the word, they just use it as their battle cry and a lever against humanity. It’s a mask.
You have every right to your opinions, of course, but I would like to suggest to get to know this site and the commenters a little better, you might find the REAL environmentalists are here, trying to save the planet from politically driven eco-vandalism.
Dennis Ray Wingo: I’m right behind you on that analysis (as of it mattered). That’s why I question whether the supposed beliefs of climate alarmists have anything to do with liberalism or the beliefs of some skeptics have anything to do with conservatism.
The questions are scientific and economic. Unfortunately some of those who have spoken on these platforms have revealed not rationality but the ugly side of academia – a deeply unpleasant and abusive political system that is able and willing to crush dissent and free expression of ideas in the service of ideology over and over.
So Mr. McLaughlin what is it that makes “….crowds of conservatives waving flags, wearing garish outfits, and holding up signs with ……….. warnings about Obama introducing communism.” ridiculously exaggerated? Obama literally is a Greedy Lying Bastard.
I can’t spell, either ; “I would like to suggest YOU get to know this site…”
2nd attempt to post…
It’s interesting, regarding peer review, to read this post at Bishop’s
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/3/10/review-of-what-counts-as-good-evidence-for-policy.html
Especially what is reported on the opinion of Richard Horton, editor for The Lancet. Also on activist science by public health doctors.
“Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies.”
Intelligent readers of this site care about the real environment and real toxins and degradations. I donated and supported Greenpeace in saving the whales, dolphins.. and discontinuing atmospheric atomic testing years ago. Today, I wouldn’t give them or WWF and the like a penny – I note they are out in the streets in force trying to make up the support they have lost in recent years of decent sympathetic folk. Even the founder of Greenpeace quit the org years ago and argued it had been hijacked by extremists. I even believe Michael Moore had a few points. Regarding “environmentalist sympathies”, I’m afraid I would be pretty selective about which environmentalists I would have sympathies with. I’m not sympathetic at all with those who use environmentalism dishonestly for sociopolitical agenda, evidenced by hiding declines, cherry-picking and cooking data, destroying emails, gatekeeping and disciplining the scientific publication process . If CO2 was such a danger, why the need to operate like this?
Regarding burning down an empty building – man, you sure are tolerant. This would terrorize local residents and, given that these clowns likely didn’t have a fire specialist consultant on board – whose to say they weren’t lucky they didn’t burn the whole neighborhood down. Other than that, a fine article.
Rod McLaughlin, “Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies.” McLuhan impeached by his unfalsifiable broad-brush.
In college in the Sixties I was defeated in an informal debate by an ugly hippie’s hyperbole. That taints every self-declared environmentalist. I went on to a career in nuclear power as an environmental conservative. I practice yet today, almost twenty years after retirement.
Guest post by Rod McLaughlin
“Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies.
_______________________
Sir, I just read the very first sentence of your post and already you could not be more wrong!
Many, if not most of us have been concerned with environmental issues for decades and are dismayed that the environmental “movement” has been usurped by the truly greedy, lying bastards.
I will continue to read your post, but you didn’t start out right and at this point… we’ll see.
Dear Mr. McLaughlin.
Thank you for taking the time to review Rosenbraugh’s film. I am glad to see you criticize the kind of sloppy, one-sided partisanship embedded in the film and so many other efforts to silence serious discussion.
I regret very much, however, the first paragraph in your review. Your assumption about the environmentalist attitudes of people who are skeptical about the evidence for, and the possible extent of, global warming is simply wrong – being concerned about the wide range of uncertainty associated with climate change forecasts, as well as the severe impact of proposed “solutions” on lower income people, does not make me anti-environment.
I also regret your comments about eco-terrorism. Believing their cause is righteous does not insulate environmentalist or animal rights attackers from their obligations to other members of society (including, in a free community like yours and mine, the people with whom they disagree) any more than believing their cause is righteous insulates right-wing terror by militias, burning down an “empty building”, which houses say an abortion clinic or an Army recruiting office, “in the middle of the night”, or Islamic terror by Al Qaeda.
I doubt I will persuade you, but for others on this site, I quote below the text of the US Department of Justice 2006 press release announcing 11 indictments of members of environmental and animal rights groups who committed attacks at at least 17 different sites – far more than just burning down an empty building. The list of those attacks is damning to read. The potential for hurting persons the attackers did not know were in the area, having the fire spread to other buildings and to forest and grass land, exploding gasoline and chemicals, bringing down high tension electrical wires and other electrical connections, attacks on facilities with vehicles full of gasoline, attacks on police facilities, and etc – claiming that these groups work to harm neither human nor animal cannot excuse the harm actually caused and the terror actually created.
You can find an “ordinary language” discussion of these and subsequent indictments and convictions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Backfire_%28FBI%29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism .
The press release follows:
Eleven Defendants Indicted on Domestic Terrorism Charges
Group Allegedly Responsible for Series of Arsons in Western States,
Acting on Behalf of Extremist Movements
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Eleven defendants have been indicted on charges including arson and destruction of an energy facility for allegedly participating in a campaign of domestic terrorism in five western states on behalf of the extremist Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) movements, the Justice Department announced today.
The 65-count indictment, returned by a federal grand jury in Eugene, Ore., Thursday, alleges that the defendants committed acts of domestic terrorism in Oregon, Wyoming, Washington, California, and Colorado from 1996 through 2001. Specifically, the indictment includes the charges of conspiracy to commit arson; conspiracy; arson; attempted arson; use and possession of a destructive device; and destruction of an energy facility.
Eight defendants were arrested prior to the indictment and three are believed to be outside the United States.
The indictment alleges that the group committed arsons with improvised incendiary devices made from milk jugs, petroleum products and homemade timers in a series of attacks in the five states. The targets of these attacks included U.S. Forest Service ranger stations, Bureau of Land Management wild horse facilities, meat processing companies, lumber companies, a high-tension power line, and a ski facility in Colorado. The indictment alleges that the group claimed to be acting on behalf of ALF and ELF.
“The trail of destruction left by these defendants across the western United States caused millions of dollars in damage to public and private facilities,” said Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. “Today’s indictment proves that we will not tolerate any group that terrorizes the American people, no matter its intentions or objectives.”
“Investigating and preventing animal rights and environmental extremism is one of the FBI’s highest domestic terrorism priorities,” said FBI Director Robert Mueller. “We are committed to working with our partners to disrupt and dismantle these movements, to protect our fellow citizens, and to bring to justice those who commit crime and terrorism in the name of animal rights or environmental issues.”
“To those who use arson and explosives to threaten lives and destroy property, ATF will continue to dedicate all of our expertise to solve these crimes,” said ATF Director Carl J. Truscott. “We will work relentlessly with our law enforcement partners to find you and bring you to justice.”
According to the indictment, Joseph Dibee, Chelsea Dawn Gerlach, Sarah Kendall Harvey, Daniel Gerard McGowan, Stanislas Gregory Meyerhoff, Josephine Sunshine Overaker, Jonathan Mark Christopher Paul, Rebecca Rubin, Suzanne Savoie, Darren Todd Thurston, and Kevin M. Tubbs conspired to commit numerous acts of domestic terrorism as part of a group they called “the Family,” an alleged group of the extremist movements ALF and ELF. The indictment follows a series of arrests on Dec. 7, 2005, in Oregon, Arizona, New York, and Virginia. Gerlach, Harvey, Meyerhoff, McGowan, Thurston, and Tubbs were arrested at that time for various charges, including the destruction of an energy facility. Paul was arrested on Jan. 17, 2006, on a criminal complaint charging him with one of the arsons mentioned in the indictment. Savoie was arrested on Jan. 19, 2006, on a criminal complaint. Dibee, Overaker and Rubin are believed to be outside of the United States.
The indictment refers to attacks on 17 sites:
Oct. 28, 1996, at the U.S. Forest Service Detroit Ranger Station in Marion County, Ore.;
Oct. 30, 1998, at the U.S. Forest Service Oakridge Ranger Station in Lane County, Ore.;
July 21, 1997, at the Cavel West, Inc. meat packing company in Deschutes County, Ore.;
Nov. 30, 1997, at the U.S. Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse and Burro Facility in Harney County, Ore.;
June 21, 1997, at the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Wildlife Facility in Olympia, Wash.;
Oct. 11, 1998, at the U.S. Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse Holding Facility in Rock Springs, Wyo.;
Oct. 19, 1998, at the Vail Ski Facility in Vail, Colo.;
Dec. 27, 1998, at U.S. Forest Industries in Jackson County, Ore.;
May 9, 1999, at Childers Meat Company in Lane County, Ore.;
Dec. 25, 1999, at the Boise Cascade office in Polk County, Ore.;
Dec. 30, 1999, at a Bonneville Power Administration high-tension power line tower near Bend, Ore.;
Sept. 6, 2000, at the Eugene Police Department West University Public Safety Station in Eugene, Ore.;
Jan. 2, 2001, at the Superior Lumber Company in Douglas County, Ore.;
March 30, 2001, at Joe Romania Chevrolet Truck Center in Eugene, Ore.;
May 21, 2001, at Jefferson Poplar Farms in Columbia County, Ore.;
May 21, 2001, at the University of Washington Horticultural Center in Seattle; and
Oct. 15, 2001, at the U.S. Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse Facility in Litchfield, Calif.
An indictment is not evidence of guilt. The defendants named in this indictment are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
The cases are being prosecuted by the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon. The cases are being investigated by the FBI and ATF, along with the Eugene Police Department, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, Oregon State Police, Portland Police Bureau, Oregon Department of Justice, and the Lane County Sheriff’s Office.
Dennis Wingo-
As a former scientist with a PhD in Mechanical Eng (thermal sciences side) I can sympathize with your commentary. The obvious question to any climate alarmist is :”If it is as bad as you say, why don’t we start building nuclear plants right now?” Of course the answer reveals that it is not really a “solution” to global warming they seek, it is the desire to satisfy their romance with some future utopian society where, to quote Donald Fagan, “There’ll be spandex jackets, one for everyone…” But I digress. Personally, I am convinced the enormous windmills that are being constructed today will sit motionless in 10-15 years, a testament to our own vanity. I have attempted to explain the difficulties replacing/repairing a transmission with gears as big as an average sized bedroom several hundred feet in the air under windy conditions to neighbors/acquaintances etc. and wonder if anyone promoting these devices have actually thought about this. I would think probably so, but they figure the government teat is here today, so why not? FWIW- the future of electricity and transportation energy sources will be natural gas IMO. Like wood, coal is on its way out due to economics more than GovCo regulations. Nuclear, while I agree is the most practical in the long run, will not gain acceptance in our lifetime. All IMHO of course.
So it’s ok if Obama uses a drone strike on an ELF guy, or not?
A.D. Everard says:
March 10, 2013 at 5:48 am
I’m with leg, LamonT, Baa Humbug (postings 1, 2 and 3), redc and many others.
Burning a building – empty or not – is a threat. That makes it terrorism.
=================================================================
Dittos
“With apologies to our host: Puzzling Commentary. Was there no other ‘review,’ Anthony?”
I doubt anyone else shelled out 12 bucks to see it.
Anthony, if you just put the word “realist” after the word environmentalist, I’m sure you would catch most of your reader’s sentiments. Most are environmental realists.
Everyone is a environmentalist, as we all have to live on this planet and I doubt anyone would be happy living at the center of a city dump. Skeptics are just as concerned about our environment and the future opportunities of our children. They are just more practical and desire fact based actions, instead of “warm and fuzzy” actions.There is no way we should allow the greenies to own the word environmentalist. Cheers GK
And more more thought – we all owe thanks to the firefighters who put themselves in harm’s way to battle these blazes on our behalf. Far too many of them die or are severely injured in the course of their work – http://apps.usfa.fema.gov/firefighter-fatalities/ . Arsonists who kill firefighters with their actions are murderers no less than gun-wielding robbers.
Burning down an empty building in the middle of the night is not terrorism: it doesn’t terrorize anyone.
*********************************
thats where I stopped reading.
ever been a firefighter? anyone that would say that is an idiot.
BTW: There is no difference between blowing a building up, and burning a building down. Only speed and direction differentiate, the two. GK
This review is full of weird statements that are arguable at best. If being an environmentalist means supporting disfiguring the landscape and wasting public funds with ugly, environmentally and economically nonsensical wind mills, I am certainly not an environmentalist, I am something else. I care about beauty and reason.
To many correct and well-deserved comments posted above I could add that Heartland’s Ted Kaczynski billboard was a clever and very effective thing to do. If Heartland would have guts to withstand the pressure and keep these billboards, global warmism would be seriously damaged in the eyes of common people all over America. Common people couldn’t care less about finding bits of manipulated data by playing with Excel graphs. But they would immediately see the point noticing these billboards. This is exactly why the Heartland Institute was attacked so aggressively and relentlessly by all those who have an ax to grind in the dirty green game.
I think snail darters are less important than my grand children. Same with spotted owls.
I think nature kills indiscriminately unlike people.
I think nature made extinct 99% of all animals that are extinct.
I think that if the Grand Canyon was dug by man Greenpeace & WWF would think it ugly.
I think burning down someone else’s property shows a lack of respect for the law and the Bill of Rights.
I think CO2 is blameless in any warming that may be detected.
Maybe I am the one person on WUWT that you were talking about. Respecting nature and loving the outdoors does not mean I think everything in nature is wonderful. If I could wave a wand and rid the earth of the malaria mosquito I’d do it in a heart beat and not shed a tear.
I shan’t read anymore post by you.
….”Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies.”
Stopped reading right there. It’s a really dumb way to engage your audience. I’m moving on to something else.
Thanks for all the comments.
1. Christoph Dollis got the irony in the title.
2. As many commenters have pointed out, they are as environmentalist as I am.
3. The buildings I referred to being burned down had never had anyone living in them, and were a long way from any residences. The treehuggers very carefully avoided harming, or even scaring anyone. They are called ‘terrorists’ because this culture gives human rights to property. As a result, these non-violent campaigners had their families broken up, and one was driven to suicide. THAT’s violence. In any other Western country, they wouldn’t get decades in jail for what they did.
4. Having said that, I read this site a lot, and it has a somewhat Republican bent. I don’t. But it’s interesting how the right in this country is more open to discussion than the left, who often ban me from commenting. WUWT proofread and put this up within half an hour. But then, it has a huge staff, paid for by the oil industry.
Wow. A bigot (“Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies” – done a head count, have you?) and ignoramus (“Burning down an empty building in the middle of the night is not terrorism: it doesn’t terrorize anyone”). I couldn’t bring myself to read further than that last comment.
“Burning down an empty building in the middle of the night is not terrorism”
What a load of crap. Burning down someone else’s property is wrong on so many levels! This says a lot about your lack of ethics.
As a former, and quite possibly future Aerial Firefighter, and witness to acts of arson .
Any time you have firefighters on scene, you place people in danger. i saw two good men die in an fire that was caused by an illegal paint booth in an auto parts store. One was a client and
friend.They fell through the roof. Terror enough? Nobody was in the building? how to they know?
Lost my old chief Pilot who was flying a Calfire/CDF S-2 on an ARSON caused fire. during Santa
Ana’s back in the late 90’s. Anytime you Put on the Bunking Clothes or get into the Nomex,
you are taking a risk. Arsonists should face capital crimes if somebody dies. It is Terror…
To Alex Wade:
If you think Monsanto is a good thing and that GMO crops are the way forward, you can’t have done much research. Monsanto and their fellow chemical companies (DOW, Beyer etc) which have moved into this area are attempting to take over the world food supply with their patented, sterile and chemical-laden crops. In North America they have largely succeeded with catastrophic results for human health, for biodiversity and esp for the health of bees on which we all depend for the pollination of plants and trees. They are even now trying to buy bee-research establishments with a view to engineering a new breed of bees to resist their chemicals; I have no doubt if they succeed, these would soon decimate even further the existing bee populations which are already at a critical pass, in many areas.
These supra-national companies have largely suborned the political process in North America, spending billions on the process. Such trans-national companies’ determination to control the food supply is a grave threat to mankind, to all life on earth, and to our freedoms. You should google for information on Monsanto- and GMO-related farmer suicides in India to see where we are headed.
One of my big gripes with those who push CAGW theories is that they have totally distracted the environmental movement worldwide from these and other pressing problems which need all our attention.
As for this article: Once again Anthony, I wish you would do (or insist on) a little basic editing before allowing guest posts with such contentious opinions in them.
Many other posters have remarked on the negaitve effects of “Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies” and of the remark about burning empty buildings not being terrorism. These questionable statements – both certain to antagonise large numbers of readers – could and should have been removed before publication. As it is, once more I’m unable to pass around or re-post to FB a piece which makes many useful points that warmist supporters need to hear. I can’t pass round to AGW believers anything which provides a stick with which to beat us.
@alexwade: Regarding the “safety” of gene modified plants by biotech companies. Perhaps you would like some neomycin or plastics precursor in your potatoes:
http://www.polymersolutions.com/blog/plastic-producing-potato-sites-vandalized/
Notice in the following study how easily the neomycin genes spread environmentally:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC169075/
Or perhaps some hemorrhagic virus proteins (now I’m sure that all is under control and nothing could ever possibly go wrong):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC104230/
Of course in the USA, many don’t have the qualms about this kind of research that Europe does, especially with much of our government in Pharma’s pocket and a corrupt FDA to “insure” food safety. Enjoy your veggies!
Rod (the OP) said:
The buildings I referred to being burned down had never had anyone living in them, and were a long way from any residences. The treehuggers very carefully avoided harming, or even scaring anyone. They are called ‘terrorists’ because this culture gives human rights to property. As a result, these non-violent campaigners had their families broken up, and one was driven to suicide. THAT’s violence.
————————————————–
Mate, you just don’t get it.
They had no idea if someone was dossing in those buildings. The firefighters risked their lives. We can’t tell from your post, but other buildings or countryside may have been at risk. And, if they weren’t scaring anyone, what was the point?
I leave my most strongly held point till last. What sort of victim culture are you proposing whereby the families of arsonists are the main victims of their crimes?
You have completely lost the plot.
Mr. McLaughlin
I am a conservationist. When mainstream environmentalists would not definitively condemn the actions of ELF and ALF, I ceased all connection with “environmentalists”. When they began to jump on the global warming “man is evil” bandwagon, I knew the global warming hysteria was false. When I was a child, some of the things the Sierra Club promoted were things that I wanted to be part of, but some time around 1980, they took a leftist turn and stopped being about common sense conservation. When they began opposing prescribed burns to control fuel build up, I knew they had been taken over by kooks. I had (sadly no longer with us) relatives who were range firemen in Northern California near Chico. One said he was glad he retired when he did as the fires were getting harder to control because of the fuel build up the environmentalists were causing – and this was in the 1980s. It has gotten worse now, but the people of California don’t seem to connect THEIR STUPID POLITICAL DECISIONS FOR THEIR $500,000 home being DESTROYED BY FIRE. I do pray for those still in that business, politicians have made the job all but impossible.
So you lost me in your first paragraph, and I won’t be bothering with anything else you submit. There is a difference between having a concern for nature and being a modern environmentalist. One looks for things that let nature be nature, the other looks to control other people’s actions through totalitarian government. I KNOW which side I am on, do you?
Glen Bishop says:
March 10, 2013 at 12:28 am
“Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies.”
I think most readers of this blog are environmentalists.
Very true Glen. And quite the contrary, I think that modern “environmentalism” with its crusade for wind turbines/solar pannels/biofuels was never led from the heart, or if it ever did, was long disconnected.
Reminds me somehow of the tragic of the 40000 killed elephants error. This is how I expect environmentalists to be in 20 years. Oh, we did some errors but now we have truly the solution….
This is environmentalism? It is very sad, but the forcing of bio-fuels, wind-turbines, solar panels down on the modern civilisation has done more damage to the environment then fossil fuels all together, without the added benefits that fossil fuels have. No kidding, just think it through. High priests of green religion is not environmentalism.
I have more respect for the skeptic-comunity and I trust them much more to care for humans and environment then these green-high-priests, who claim the high morale ground and do a lot of damage in the name of their religion. Like burning others property. Some time ago they were burning books also to protect us from evil.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Thank you Mr. McLaughlin for your post. I am one of many who mostly lurk on this site without posting. As a whole, WUWT has had a profound affect on my views of climate change. I do find that some of those who comment quickly drift into their own world of group think and forget how many read sites such as this with befuddled minds trying to figure out what is actually happening and what, if anything, should be done.
Your use of logic was a pleasure to read and I found in it a lot of the reasoning that has lead me, as a non scientist, away from those who are referred to on this site as “warmists.” I don’t agree with everything you write but I’m not sure I have every read anything written by someone else with which I agree with everything. That includes things I wrote in my younger years. Thank you for your efforts.
Rod McLaughlin says:
March 10, 2013 at 7:52 am
“They are called ‘terrorists’ because this culture gives human rights to property.”
What gives you the idea that property enjoys human rights in the US? This sounds very deluded.
“As a result, these non-violent campaigners had their families broken up, and one was driven to suicide.”
I wouldn’t call an arson and tree spiking campaign non-violent.
“In any other Western country, they wouldn’t get decades in jail for what they did.”
That’s true. Sad but true. Here in Germany they would have an entire industry of social workers and psychologists help them rebuild their useless and dangerous lifes.
UseToLikePotatoes says:
March 10, 2013 at 8:16 am
“@alexwade: Regarding the “safety” of gene modified plants by biotech companies. Perhaps you would like some neomycin or plastics precursor in your potatoes:
http://www.polymersolutions.com/blog/plastic-producing-potato-sites-vandalized/
”
“UseToLikePotatoes”; you fear an amino acid based polymer? Hmmm… then better avoid forests… they’re made from polymers…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lignin
…by evil GM trees. Oh, that was a joke. By non GM trees.
RE Dennis Ray Wingo says:
March 9, 2013 at 11:02 pm
————————————
Dennis, that is an excellent mini-essay in itself and far outshines the one being discussed in this thread. I suggest you expand on it and publish it here or elsewhere.
The truth of global warming, which appears less and less threatening as the debate rages on, is much less important than the response to it, should it prove to be an imminent or even long-term danger. I agree with you that the solutions being proposed are knee-jerk Luddite nonsense and potentially worse than the disease, so to speak.
Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies.
I like to rephrase the old statement “I care about women’s rights but I’m not a feminist” for my view: “I care about the environment but I’m not an environmentalist,” as I don’t burn down buildings.
Sam the First says:
March 10, 2013 at 8:13 am
“Many other posters have remarked on the negaitve effects of “Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies” and of the remark about burning empty buildings not being terrorism. These questionable statements – both certain to antagonise large numbers of readers – could and should have been removed before publication.”
Call for censorship and sanitizing contentious statements? Not supported.
@george Montgomery
You couldn’t be more wrong about Popper. To think that Popper would use “95%”
as a demarcation is laughable (and also sad).
And as to:
“And why should we, the film viewers – scientifically literate and illiterate alike, go to the trouble of judging the “climategate” emails when they have been reviewed by multiple panels/committees/inquiries containing experts such as Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, professor emertius University of Edinburgh?”
Have you heard of thinking for one’s self?
Both thumbs up for Dennis Wingo and engineering physics! His comments should be in a main post in its own right here.
Rod: “They are called ‘terrorists’ because this culture gives human rights to property.”
As Johanna says, you have completely lost the plot. The right to enjoy property you have acquired or inhabit is a basic human right and quite possibly the most important one beyond the right to live safely on that property. Attacks on property, whether it be homes or automobiles, are reprehensible and should be punished by very long stays in the Big House. The perpetrators of such crimes think they own all property and can destroy it on a whim. They base that on the ridiculous belief that they are serving some greater good. Of course, if you took ownership by force of their property, say of the vans/automobiles they own as they drive around destroying the properties of others, they’d go into shock.
People will defend their property with their lives, which should tell you something of the value it holds for people. You can question that value, criticize it, but if you get shot trying to destroy someone’s property, don’t come crying to me. As far as I’m concerned, the right to defend your property is far more important than the individual life of some miserable malcontent.
People who burn down houses, whether they are inhabited or not, are destroying the wealth of the commons as it were. Any house can provide shelter for a family and increase the comfort and health of that family. When one house is occupied, it means another house has likely become available for another family to occupy. We are talking about “hearth and home” here.
I don’t know if you live in an apartment or a house, or if you rent or own, but if someone burned down your abode, you’d certainly feel terrorized. Burning structures is something invading armies do when they occupy another country. It’s used to control the population by means of terror. Eco-terrorists have earned the name they’ve been accorded. Don’t apologize for them or defend their acts as rational somehow.
I am an environmentalist, I want a better environment now and for the future. What really annoys me is the diversion of billions to useless CO2 reduction scams. All it has done has enriched bloated hypocrites like Al Gore, and provided certain, so called, eco loons with financing to push a political rather than environmental programme. We could have had cleaner engines, more efficient power stations and a greener economy without all of this CAGW nonsense and we could have had more jobs and less poverty. These people owe us the apology not the other way around.
Rod McLaughlin says:
March 10, 2013 at 7:52 am
“WUWT proofread and put this up within half an hour. But then, it has a huge staff, paid for by the oil industry.”
Some of the things I enjoy about WUWT are the funny, sarcastic, ironic, and other crazy things people write.
jeanparisot says:
March 10, 2013 at 6:52 am
So it’s ok if Obama uses a drone strike on an ELF guy, or not?
———————————————————————————-
Only if they’ve killed someone and been convicted in court. There can be no more humane way to execute someone than with a Hellfire missile. It kills instantly and the victim will never know what hit him.
(I’m being facetious. Sort of.)
Thanks, but no thanks. I spent a good part of my younger years getting out and walking, climbing and, occasionally, skiing on the environment. For pleasure.
I’ve met more than a couple of Sociology students who almost never left the built-up area and assumed, for some strange reason, that a person who actually studied and worked in Chemistry likely spent their day injecting noxious compounds into rabbits’ eyes. They did, however, for some equally strange reason, consider themselves “environmentally aware”.
If you don’t own the building it be criminal damage. If you do own it, you might have problems getting insurance on another one. The neighbors might be more than alarmed if you don’t give them advanced warning (they probably will be in either case). Laws pertaining to fire regulations often exist for good reasons.
Do you realize yet what a foolish way that was to begin what might otherwise have been a good article?
Like many before me, I take exception to your opening sentence:
“Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies.”
But I would like to take it one step further and and posit that the majority of the readers of WUWT care more about the environment than those leading the modern environmental movement! Here’s why:
1. WUWT readers understand that ‘the environment’, like climate, is a non-linear, chaotic system that is in constant flux. They recognize this dynamic and would never dream of trying to force the environment to adhere to some idyllic fantasy born of romantic notions of bygone days. They are realists and understand how harmful and futile it would be to try and make the environment static. Leaders of the modern environmental movement are constantly selling the meme that there is a ‘right way’ for the environment to be, and any change to that is a crime against Mother Earth. Since ‘Mother Earth’ has always changed, arguing for stasis is the true crime against the planet.
2. WUWT readers rarely get emotional about the science (although they do not necessarily have the same restraint when talking about people.) Their dispassionate discussions of the physical science of the atmosphere stands in sharp contrast to the constant appeals to emotion of the modern environmentalists. The complexity of the environment demands a dispassionate analysis of the available information in order to make the best decisions. Emotional decision making based on feelings over analysis will almost always result in poor decisions that inevitably do more harm to the environment (and humanity) than good.
3. Modern environmentalism fits the definition of noble cause corruption. History shows us countless examples of noble cause corruption and the dominant results of movements misguided by this mindset. Curiously, they usually create the opposite of their expressed desires. Communism promoted the end of poverty, but made everyone poor. Nazi’s trumpeted the preservation of the Fatherland, but nearly destroyed it. Pol Pot rallied the Cambodian peasants with cries for the end of corruption, then turned them into heartless murderers. I have no doubt, that if modern environmentalists had their way on the issue of climate change, the natural environment and humanity would suffer far more, than if they did nothing.
4. Economics is the process of finding the most efficient use of the available resources. Carbon mitigation as it stands today, promotes less efficiency across the energy board. It is economically unsound, which is a gentle way of saying that people will suffer. When people are suffering their concerns for the environment drop way down, as the latest recession has shown. If the goal is to keep environmental awareness in peoples minds, it is foolish to fill their minds with worry over staying warm and having enough to eat.
These are just some of the reasons why modern environmentalism is actually anti-environment, and that the realist readers of WUWT are far more environmentally friendly than people like James Hansen and the leaders of Greenpeace et al.
On the whole, I appreciate this essay, but agree with others that the part absolving arsonists of terrorism is misguided.
geoffchambers says:
March 9, 2013 at 10:58 pm
In “Bowling for Columbine”, Moore spliced scenes of Charlton Heston speaking in different venues years apart to make it appear that he was rubbing salt in the wound after Columbine. Watch it, and see how Heston effects instantaneous wardrobe changes during his speech.
No, Mikey is not ashamed of anything.
SandyInLimousin says:
March 10, 2013 at 1:12 am
“You’re very misguided in thinking that. I give you as examples of not terrorising by burning empty buildings.”
Here’s another.
Here’s another one used in the same way for political gain, though the building was occupied at the time, and several hundred people actually died.
George Montgomery says:
March 10, 2013 at 12:45 am
“It’s called the “95 per cent confidence” interval.”
Confidence intervals are a much abused statistical tool. Calculation of a confidence interval requires assumption of a particular statistical model. Although many random variables do, in fact, conform to common distributions, many do not, and the calculations made assuming a distribution which does not apply are garbage.
Thanks for even more comments. I’ll answer a few, but then I must tear myself away.
Michael Hart, re my first sentence: “Do you realize yet what a foolish way that was to begin what might otherwise have been a good article?”. Yes, I do.
However, I maintain my view that ‘terror’ means harming a human being, or creating genuine fear of physical harm in a rational person. Not an empty building.
Mike McMillan (above) epitomises the contradictions of conservatism. He supports torture and the death penalty, then hints that he didn’t like what happened at Waco in ’93. He cheerleads the vindictive, sadistic, state-worshipping aspects of US culture, then complains about the consequences.
DirkH answers Sam the First’s call for censorship.
Johanna addresses me in my native language, but I don’t agree with her. I think if you look into the cases you’ll find there really was no danger to people. Even the prosecutors agreed. There was no-one dossing in half built ski resorts or isolated research buildings. To get the ‘terrorism’ word to stick, the prosecution got someone to say, when she arrived at her burned-down lab in the morning, she felt scared. If law derives from feelings, we’re all in trouble.
Burning down an empty building in the middle of the night is not terrorism: it doesn’t terrorize anyone.
Sure, until it goes out of control and causes a wildfire, but then their hearts were in the right place, no? I’m sure they think spiking trees to prevent logging is ok too. They warned the loggers didn’t they? Or years go by and no one remembers the spike was there. Not their fault that their chainsaw hit the spike and the logger was horribly injured. How about the burning of the ski lodge at Vail?. Hey, it was empty right. Only cost the greedy corporation 12 mill. When you start thinking that breaking the law is equivalent to civil disobedience all you do is wind up with Weathermen and the Unabomber. You really should review the acts of your so called “extreme environmentalists” before making such ignorant statements. And maybe do a better job of reviewing your own moral standards.
Rod McLaughlin says:
March 10, 2013 at 10:05 am
“However, I maintain my view that ‘terror’ means harming a human being, or creating genuine fear of physical harm in a rational person. Not an empty building.”
If there were not fear of ultimate physical harm, it would have little persuasive effect. If someone is willing to brazenly assault and violently destroy your property, how do you determine the line at which he will stop?
Here is another case of arson used as a terrorist tactic from this morning’s news.
“””””…..Guest post by Rod McLaughlin
Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies……”””””
And unlike many “environmentalists”, I have environmental sympathies.
I think I might try and make up a list of regular WUWT (skeptic) posters who appear to me to NOT have environmental sympathies.
Well here it is…………”””””
>…………………………….<
….."""""
Well that's about all I can come up with so far. I even think there are some luke warmers, and some raving (figuratively) warmers, who DO have environmental sympathies.
But there's clearly a set, whose agenda is control (by them) and has nothing to do with bettering the environment, or the well being of the world's people.
I just hope that when they come home from their taxpayer funded "work", that their mother runs out from underneath the verandah, and bites them on the leg.
Rod: you have not addressed the issue of destruction of private property. Think of it this way: if someone determined, say from your post, that you were complicit with people who are engaging in acts that destroy private property of great value to people, and consequently conducted a secret campaign to destroy things of value that you own or utilize– say your car, your house or your barn, or the office where you work– would you feel 1. afraid? 2. terrified? 3. depressed? 4. disgusted? 5. victimized? Or a combination of all of the above?
terrorist use violence or destruction to further their political/ideological views.
arsonists burn for money/sake of burning.
when an environmentalist burns a building to make a point its terrorism.
Anthony, I am saddened that you gave this nit wit a forum. I think it diminishes your brand.
If that were true, then why do it? The answer is because the perpetrators want to terrorize the community and assert power and control over others.
This is like arguing that burning a cross doesn’t hurt anyone so therefore its perfectly ok. What a load of total crap. I can’t imagine what kind of a pathetic imbecile could hold such views. And the fact that you would allow such a febrile defecation to darken the space on your otherwise excellent blog is baffling to me.
In my experience much of the left is motivated by an infantile, “stick it to the man” pathology. Radical “environmentalism” is just an excuse to engage in acts of anti-social behavior directed towards “the man”. I know this personality type. I see it in many “environmentalists”. And I see it on full display here.
I didn’t bother to read the rest of it.
jim2 says:
March 10, 2013 at 8:01 am
“Burning down an empty building in the middle of the night is not terrorism”
What a load of crap. Burning down someone else’s property is wrong on so many levels! This says a lot about your lack of ethics.
Oh come on. You included the quote yourself. He didn’t say it wasn’t “wrong” – on any number of levels. What he said was that it isn’t “terrorism.”
That was the problem I had.
A quick Google search gives a definition of terrorism as “the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” I’d say that wilfully burning down someone’s property – empty or not – is pretty violent and certainly intimidating. It is terrorism.
mpaul says:
March 10, 2013 at 11:02 am
Anthony, I am saddened that you gave this nit wit a forum. I think it diminishes your brand. . . .
——————————————
Disagree, mpaul. I think it’s good to have these views aired out and responded to by adults. I suspect Rod’s views are secretly held by a lot of young people who are resentful of the cultural legacy they’ve inherited. This is mostly because they grossly misunderstand civilization and how it developed and have been conditioned by their respective educational systems to despise it. Many of these young people don’t own much of value themselves, and consequently don’t know the value of things struggled for and duly earned. In general, their survival and the means for it have mostly been provided for them by caring and protective adults. Some, unfortunately, never outgrow their destructive urges. Bill Ayers, Obama’s ghostwriter, comes to mind.
I’m not saddened he/they have been given a forum. I’m saddened they think that way and can’t see beyond their own limited perspective.
Geoff [Chambers] wrote:
No, that was the conceit of the first film. The film was about Michael Moore attempting to humiliate those he mistakenly believes are the cause of poverty, dislocation and squalor in his home town. It was, in other words, all about him celebrating and his virulent brand of confiscatory socialism, which is, of course, utterly dependent on the capitalism he despises.
Correction: that last post was directed at geoffchambers. Will Geoff Sherrington ever forgive me? :~}
Mr. McLaughlin,
You displayed some original thought, but so much of what you have to say, especially in comments, is cliche- riddled. Why let others think for you?
Recently, there have been papers using observations to calculate climate sensitivity and it comes out on the low side. Naturally, it’s just my conspriatorial thinking, but why is it that a paper like this come out just after these others? So, no, we can’t use observation to determine climate sensitivity. Talk about moving the goal posts 😉
In agreement here with many, many others on the points raised …
.
Honestly I have been thinking that someone should do a documentary showing the billions of dollars shoveled to various political campaigns and NGO’s via the AGW issue and call THAT movie “Greedy Lying Bastards”.
Sunlight best cure for corruption.
“Conservative” has meaning.
Emotive pseudo environmentalist has another.
When an ideology denies humans as part of the environment, their delusion is apparent for all, except themselves, to see.
The modern “environmental corporations, thats Greenpeace, WWF and a horde of other self serving parties,have no interest an ecological environment.
Their environment is the same one PT Barnum exploited.
That most conducive to separating the suckers from their dollars
Most self identifying modern eco-saviours are so far removed from reason as to be considered insane.Unthinking belief in contradictory & destructive policy.
The mantra of modern “environmental sympathies” is a list of nonsense confirming a personal idiocy, Monty Python, we are all individuals, comes to mind.
I have no sympathy for delusional twits who are attempting to destroy the wealth and wellbeing of me and mine.
What contribution to society do these ideologies offer?
Save the environment by destroying it?
Save humanity by mass culls and deprivations?
Poverty will save the environment?
Prolonging and preserving poverty in the “3rd world” is a good thing?
Comes down to Ned Ludd reincarnated anew.
Thanks for the review, did not need it, propaganda is always an own goal, mostly due to the stupidity of true believers.The more ugly the better as projection begets reflection.
Those who have never built a thing do not understand the fragility of civilization.
jeanparisot says:
March 10, 2013 at 6:52 am
So it’s ok if Obama uses a drone strike
===========
the threat would certainly help “encourage” those that fail to contribute “enough” to political parties.
Guest post by Rod McLaughlin
Unlike many readers of this site,
===========
you are obviously not a reader of this site.
Guest post by Rod McLaughlin
Burning down an empty building in the middle of the night is not terrorism:
===========
if someone burned your house to the ground while you were away, you would be OK with it? I would think you and your family would be terrorized if they knew it was done deliberately. The questions that would haunt you would be “why” and “what next”.
almost certainly the burning of the house would be intended as a threat and a warning, to terrorize and intimidate you and change your future actions. the message is quite clear. if you fail to play ball, the next time things will be more serious.
Isn’t the implied threat of future harm coupled with the invisibility of the attacker the essence of terrorism? you never know where and when the next attack will take place, and thus over time will exhaust your resources and will power in trying to defend yourself. In this fashion even great nations have been defeated.
john robertson says:
March 10, 2013 at 12:25 pm
Save humanity by mass culls and deprivations?
==============
he was a threat to himself, so in the end we had no choice.
@David, UK says:
March 10, 2013 at 11:04 am
“Oh come on. You included the quote yourself. He didn’t say it wasn’t “wrong” – on any number of levels. What he said was that it isn’t “terrorism.””
I don’t care what he said. I say burning down something that doesn’t belong to you is wrong on a number of levels. I still say that!
Now that’s funny, ferd. Although I’m sure Rod doesn’t think so.
Rod McLaughlin says:
March 10, 2013 at 7:52 am
Thanks for all the comments.
Having said that, I read this site a lot, and it has a somewhat Republican bent. I don’t.
—————————————————————————————————–
Most people stop, having put their foot in their mouth once. I think that’s at least the third foot.
As asked above – you done a head count ??
Calling out the liars, huckster, frauds and scientific buffoons who represent the fake-environmental-give-me-taxpayer-money crowd does not necessarily make one a Republican or of Republican bent.
I’m not going to be so dogmatic as you, but I would bet that most on this site are politically considerably to the left of fake left-wingers like Al Gore, Michael Moore and the other multi-hundred million dollar millionaires peddling left wing claptrap to the guilt-ridden sheeple who will buy it.
Rod McLaughlin says:
March 10, 2013 at 7:52 am
“… As a result, these non-violent campaigners had their families broken up, and one was driven to suicide. THAT’s violence….
“…WUWT proofread and put this up within half an hour. But then, it has a huge staff, paid for by the oil industry.”
* * *
Now you’ve lost me completely.
Suicide is not violence – murder is. The person who chose to kill him/herself because he/she couldn’t stand the heat should have stayed out of the kitchen. If suicide counts as violence to you, then then put the blame where it belongs – with the person who did the act. No one pressured them to commit terrorism, they chose to. In choosing to break they law, an individual is required to take the consequences. You can’t have one without the other – where they are caught, they should be tried and convicted and pay the price. If a person is frightened of paying the price, then, hey, don’t break the law. How hard is that?
So, someone copped out, and you’re blaming society? Total BS on that one. Violence was not done to that person, that person did violence to him- or herself.
“WUWT… huge staff, paid for by the oil industry”? WTF? You are showing your ignorance here. How about doing some research. While you’re at it, look up who’s funding the loudest alarmists and those who want most of all to knock us all back into the Stone Age.
Sorry, mate, you are showing your true colours stark and bright. I am not interested in your agenda, nor your views. You need to take those blinkers off and get some serious studying done because someone has led you astray and you haven’t even questioned it. Good day to you.
In my opinion this article was beneath the usual standards of logic that I’ve come to expect from WUWT. The other commentors have hit upon the myriad problems with this piece. It seems like it was intended as some kind of reproachment to the phone booth full of libtards that are on the fence about the climate scam. Appeasment usually doesn’t work.
Friends almost talked me into seeing this movie, now I am glad I didn’t waste my time. Thanks for the review!
As to people here having an environmental bend… Makes sense. Who else would spend hours and hours arguing over minute details of the science?
Rod, thank you for the post, it is an interesting insight, and a rational take on the debate.
As posted by many, you unfortunately alienated many of your readers with the statements at the beginning.
Those had actually nothing to do with the post and may be clichés overtaken and not your direct thoughts. Please think about the observations mentioned by many readers and try to understand their point of view.
I am sure that with the logic that you show in analysing you will maybe rethink some of the points.
John F. Hultquist says:
March 10, 2013 at 9:34 am
Some of the things I enjoy about WUWT are the funny, sarcastic, ironic, and other crazy things people write.
This is a bit ot…. but John, then I am sure you will enjoy this comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/09/open-thread-weekend-17/#comment-1243960
A.D. Everard says:
March 10, 2013 at 1:43 pm
“WUWT… huge staff, paid for by the oil industry”?
A.D. I trust the /sarc tag was missing there, he certainly was joking.
It doesn’t help when Heartland are strident conservatives and Monckton always does interviews with uber conservative radio hosts, etc. This doesn’t mean they’re culpable, but it makes them easier to dismiss.
Hey Anthony, you should check out some libertarian-anarchist perspectives on the subject from guys like David Friedman and Bob Murphy, who the latter has written up economic papers on CC policy.
Actually I have always thought that initially crossing some body’s private property line without expressed invitation is already an issue and a criminal act, (I rule out the mail guy and the people that have a legitimate and agreed on right to enter your property and most of them nowadays call ahead of time). This is just before the issue of arson.
“””””…..I’m not a scientist either, but I understand logic, and the work of Karl Popper on scientific method. I know that ad hominem, post hoc ergo propter hoc, ad populam, and ad verecundiam arguments have no validity……”””””
Well unless you are an authoritative Classicist, as Lord Crhistopher Monckton, is well known to be; you might consider making use of your English language skills (in this particular forum), instead of regaling us with a bunch of mediaeval Roman mumbo jumbo.
I’ve never heard of Karl Popper or his positions on scientific method; but I have been getting paid fairly, for more than half a century of solid scientific work, for strictly profit making enterprises.
I can find nothing redeeming about your attitude toward open lawlessness.
You’ve obviously never been burglarized; or you wouldn’t have your cavalier attitude toward other people’s property. I can assure you that arson, and burglary most assuredly are crimes of violence, and fit any reasonable definition of terrorism.
At least in these United States of America, it is the sworn duty of the elected government to protect the property and other rights of the people.
“””””…..alexwade says:
March 10, 2013 at 5:29 am
Your review of this movie reminded me of another documentary that I saw that was basically an anti-Monsanto and anti-genetically modified movie: Food, Inc. While it made some good points, I researched some of the so-called facts in the movie and found out the “victims” of Monsanto weren’t as innocent as the movie made out. I also asked a friend of mine who is a farmer about Monsanto and he acted like Monsanto was the best thing to happen to farmers since fertilizer. I am not saying Monsanto is an upright company. I do believe that Monsanto is targeted mostly because environmentalist hate, for no good reason, genetically modified crops……”””””
Well I don’t mind telling that I once worked for Monsanto Corporation in their Central Research Laboratories in St Louis County, Missouri. My work didn’t have a darn thing to do with Crop Research. You’d be quite amazed by some of the things Monsanto Corp does; or at least was doing back then in the mid 1960s.
Their very first product was manufactureed in East St Louis, Illinois, well over 100 years ago. Sacharin, one of the first plastic substitutes for sugar; so far as I know it is still despite it’s bitter after taste, the only non-nutritive sweetener, that has never been shown in research studies (vast numbers of them) to have any known harmful side effects. You can test them out for yourself at any Starbucks, where those dummies offer all the known varieties; but brag that they use in their products no “high fructose corn syrup.” HFCS contains 10% more fructose than “ordinary (presumably low fructose) sugar. It’s main claim to infamy, is that the western corn states can make it by the rail car load, instead of mutilating trees in Vermont.. So cut your sugar usage by 10% and you will be perfectly safe from HFCS.
Speaking of rail car loads, Monsanto also makes Aspirin by the rail car load; at one point they made 85% of the entire world production of Aspirin.
If you buy a Proctor and Gamble laundry or dishwasher detergent product, it was almost certainly manufactured by Monsanto corp; no matter what brand it says on the box or bottle.
Monsanto makes “Skydrol”. It is a non flammable flame retardent hydraulic fluid that is used in close to 100% of all the world’s commercial aviation aircraft; for those who don’t think fires are good, whether empty building arson or not.
Monsanto is one of the world leading manufacturers of Nylon, even though that was originally a Dupont invention. No, Monsanto didn’t steal Dupont patented secrets. They developed their own process for Nylon, starting with quite different precursors, to come up with a lower cost better product.
Monsanto’s engineered seeds are deliberately sterile; not to force third world countries to come back to them for next year’s seeds, but to prevent them accidently taking over from other varieties; in the spirit of responsible environmentalism.
If that company has any product they should be ashamed of, I would vote for “Astroturf”, which has resulted more athletic injuries, than any harm the GM crops have caused.
I actually played a cricket match on a pitch of Astroturf for 30 seconds of film footage for their shareholder’s AGM. I have NO financial interest whatsoever in Monsanto Corp; but bad stewards of the environment, they are not.
In fact one of the things, I worked there on, in the mid 60s, is now about to make one of the most significant disruptive technology advances ever, that will be of incalculable benefit to ALL of mankind. I had very little to do with helping bring that about; just was an early part of getting it going. Solid State lighting, that will cut lighting energy costs by an order of magnitude over Edison incandescent technology, and eventually eliminate much of mercury laden fluorescent lighting technology too; and also at an energy savings.
So don’t try and tell me that Monsanto Corp is not a responsible good citizen outfit, concerned about the environment; they most certainly are. Like most large organisations they have had their accidents and disasters even. One of Monsanto’s doozies was the Texas City Texas fertilizer blast, way back when. Of course much chemical safety knowledge evolved from that accident.
East St Louis, used to have smoke of every color known to man coming from Monsanto processes. They decided to clean it up for good neighborliness reasons; so they developed all manner of chimney scrubbers and filters, to remove all kinds of pestilence. It helps when you know what your processes are using, and producing.
Not only did they clean up their local environment; but they established a multimillion dollar new business making scrubbers for sale all over the world to their competitors; a win win for everybody.
So know what you are talking about before you go after this or that business to give you a feel good feeling.
The biggest single beneficiary of “Big Oil”, is the Treasury of the United States of America; they make far more out of big oil, than does big oil. Yet the US Department of energy has never made available, enough energy to power your computer mouse, or your electric toothbrush.
So what I’m getting out of this, and frankly all I’m getting out of this, is that a “moderate leftist” is one who excuses arson and destruction of other people’s properly reflexively, but draws the line at murder. Maybe.
Can my tent *not* be *that* big, please?
dmacleo says:
March 10, 2013 at 10:58 am
terrorist use violence or destruction to further their political/ideological views.
arsonists burn for money/sake of burning.
when an environmentalist burns a building to make a point its terrorism.
————————————-
Nope, motive is irrelevant in the case of arson. It doesn’t matter why they did it; what matters is the act. People commit arson for all sorts of ‘reasons’, like getting back at their ex or because they think that they have some other grievance against the owner of the building. It isn’t just about money or politics.
As I said way above, I don’t think that the semantics matter – just like I don’t think that murder (a deliberate act) is made better or worse because it is framed as a ‘hate crime’ or whatever. This is the equivalent of post-modern science infecting the criminal justice system.
Most jurisdictions have heavy penalties for arson – up to 25 years where I live. It is no accident that it is regarded as one of the most serious crimes – because it is one of the most serious crimes, for reasons that many people have enumerated above. There is discretion in sentencing depending on motive, though. So, a deranged pyromaniac might be judged less harshly than a disgruntled ex-employee, or a political activist. In the latter examples,the arsonist is intending to intimidate, as well as destroying property and threatening extraneous lives and property.
If an activist commits a crime, they are first and foremost a thief/vandal/murderer/arsonist or whatever. Creating special categories for them just legitimises what they did by dressing it up as a ‘different’ form of that fundamental crime.
Apparently everyone forgot the ecoterrorists convicted for crimes in Arizona including cutting the bolts on a ski lift and attempting to cut a power line to the largest nuclear plant in the country (potentially causing a nuclear disaster). This was EarthFirst!’s doing. Not terrorists, excuse me?
As for torching buildings, if the intent is to cause fear (say, that your building might be next), then it’s terrorism, obviously. It’s also arson.
@johanna – the issue isn’t whether it’s arson, it’s whether it’s *also* terrorism. Motive does count, otherwise we wouldn’t have legally different degrees of homicide (justifiable homicide, manslaughter, second degree murder, first degree murder, first degree murder with special circumstances).
Lars P. says:
March 10, 2013 at 3:22 pm
A.D. Everard says:
March 10, 2013 at 1:43 pm
“WUWT… huge staff, paid for by the oil industry”?
A.D. I trust the /sarc tag was missing there, he certainly was joking.
*
Hi Lars. 🙂 Yes, I actually considered that, but could not figure how someone could jump, in the same post, from something so serious as a suicide and the “now THAT’S violence” comment, to suddenly joking about WUWT being funded by oil. So, I concluded he was either joking on both counts – which is shabby and certainly should have been made clear – or he was not joking in any way, after all.
Given his various misconceptions, it’s more likely the latter, or he’s playing a sociological game with us all to see how we react to various stimuli, kind of like the Lew paper. However, I don’t think it’s that, either.
Rod is giving his backing, or should I say, his “sympathies and understanding” to people who commit acts of terrorism, and he feels they are “victims” when brought to justice and it’s a crime that they should pay the price. Somewhere behind all that, it wouldn’t surprise me if he thought that the big bold D-word should be somehow behind it all and carry the blame.
No. He started off on the wrong foot, and has continued on the wrong foot. Instead of thinking about what he said and what we said, he is defending his stance by pointing the finger ANYWHERE but at the criminals who commit terrorism in the name of their Cause. HE isn’t wrong. THEY aren’t wrong. They are tree-huggers and GENTLE people. Yeah? So who IS to blame? Let me guess…
It’s like that.
““WUWT… huge staff, paid for by the oil industry”? WTF? You are showing your ignorance here.”
I originally thought he was being sarcastic (just as Anthony and commentors often joke that they haven’t got their Exxon check yet) until I read your reply. If he was being serious, then the author is as deluded as Mr. (not Dr. – no respect) Mann.
Disclosure: Chevron and Shell (as well as McDonald’s and others) send me a check every quarter.
Helps pay for the premium/hi-test gas I put in my excessive HP auto.
Sometimes the way facts are presented on closer examination just give the opposite conclusion. For example, the documentary showing that potato chips from Macdonalds did not decompose after sometime after it was sealed in an air tight container showed the chips were well sterilize and free from harmful organism. If the documentary added the chips to a active composting bin and it did not decompose it would have been another story. This is the problem of impassioned documentary makers and naive public. The conclusion is distorted against the facts.
John Moore says:
March 10, 2013 at 6:39 pm
Apparently everyone forgot the ecoterrorists convicted for crimes in Arizona including cutting the bolts on a ski lift and attempting to cut a power line to the largest nuclear plant in the country (potentially causing a nuclear disaster). This was EarthFirst!’s doing. Not terrorists, excuse me?
As for torching buildings, if the intent is to cause fear (say, that your building might be next), then it’s terrorism, obviously. It’s also arson.
@johanna – the issue isn’t whether it’s arson, it’s whether it’s *also* terrorism. Motive does count, otherwise we wouldn’t have legally different degrees of homicide (justifiable homicide, manslaughter, second degree murder, first degree murder, first degree murder with special circumstances).
————————————————————-
John, thanks for putting up a few more examples of eco-crime to refute the nonsense claim that there has only been one eco-criminal in human history.
But, I respectfully disagree with your last paragraph. In most Western jurisdictions, there are two broad categories of homicide – accidental or deliberate. Accidental is covered by terms like manslaughter. Deliberate is murder.
The incremental cutting and slicing of these categories (such as you mention in your post) is really just a money-fest for lawyers, not to mention increasing the ways a defendant can get off a charge because of technicalities.
As I said above, it is in sentencing that these gradations are properly made. When they are made in advance, it not only creates the impression that deliberate murder (for example) is ipso facto sorta OK or understandable in some circumstances, it creates the space in which political activists can claim partial immunity from the laws that apply to the rest of us.
Lars P. said: This is a bit ot…. but John, then I am sure you will enjoy this comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/09/open-thread-weekend-17/#comment-1243960
Thank you Lars! I would have missed that. A truly wonderful compilation of excellent comments!
Cheers!
Folks
Thanks for your kind words. This has been evolving in my brain for a while, I will turn it into a longer missive soon and the “choice” between a Mad Max and Star Trek future is before us today.
@Geoff Chambers says:
March 9, 2013 at 10:58 pm
“Good review, but a bit unfair to Michael Moore… I think he’d be ashamed to be associated with “Greedy Lying Bastards”. Maybe someone should ask him?”
++++++++
I only wish Mikey were ashamed. He has no shame, and has done more harm than good in his works.
geoffchambers says:
March 9, 2013 at 10:58 pm
Good review, but a bit unfair to Michael Moore. His first film was all about trying unsuccessfully to interview someone he disagreed with – as if Rosebraugh had made a film called “Looking for Anthony” about his unsuccessful attempt to interview the champion of climate scepticism.
Turn it around and make a movie about the biggest names in the climate alarmist gaggle, and how they dodge the interview. Think about it. Every one of them will walk through a coal fire to avoid an interview by someone who disagrees with global warming.
Make them all look like chumps. Because they are.
The worst that could happen, one of the names could break down and for the first time in his or her’s professional existence be confronted by an adversarial press.
Dennis Ray Wingo says:
March 9, 2013 at 11:02 pm
” So why do they push it so? Why, at the end of the day, are their solutions exactly the same as the environmental movement’s was in the 1970′s? Why are people from their own world such as James Lovelock who have done the research and have come to the conclusion about nuclear energy on their own so pilloried after doing so?”
Answer these questions, and you have reached the root of the problem with climate science today.
Yes, why? I would love to hear your proposal to an answer. A very good post, D.R. Wingo.
Is it because they want us back to the stone age? Because they are Pol Potters ?
Burning down empty buildings at night is arson, a felony in Virginia. Burning down 64 buildings at night in the last three months, the current count on the Virginia Eastern Shore, threatens not only lives and property, but also the sensitive wet-lands of that region. You may not agree but it feels like terrorism to those who live here in SE Virginia.
BTW, the not so “Republican” Huffington Post called it an act of terrorism when the count stood at 38 in 45 days. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/27/virginia-serial-arsonist-accomack_n_2371736.html
You, my friend, are fishing in the wrong pond.
it’s a nice post!
“Rosebraugh is shameless in using guilt by association”
Didn’t this very site attempt to apply the exact same principle to Rosebraugh’s association with 9/11 truth? I warned previously to Anthony about leaving that association out, especially knowing from a purely scientific perspective why he is absolutely wrong to believe the official account, and now we see in this article the exact reason why NOT to have included it.
Greedy Lying Bastards — Greedy Al Gore
jim2 says:
March 10, 2013 at 1:12 pm
@David, UK says:
March 10, 2013 at 11:04 am
“Oh come on. You included the quote yourself. He didn’t say it wasn’t “wrong” – on any number of levels. What he said was that it isn’t “terrorism.””
I don’t care what he said. I say burning down something that doesn’t belong to you is wrong on a number of levels. I still say that!
Yeah, and you might say that. And I might say the price of oranges is too high. But much like your comment, it’s not the point.
Geronimo:
“Oxburgh
reviewed the scienceadmitted to Steve McIntyre in writing that the science was not the object of our investigation, the UEA chose the papers for review, and no evidence was taken from critics. For reasons of complete transparency he asked his fellow reviewers to destroy all their notes and papers related to the enquiry.”FTFY 🙂
Rod McLaughlin:
But it’s interesting how the right in this country is more open to discussion than the left, who often ban me from commenting.
Have you ever wondered why that might be?
In the light of Climategate 3 – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/climategate-3-0-has-occurred-the-password-has-been-released/ – I should make a slight correction to my article (above).
I said that the film presents the original Climategate scandal “as a conspiracy to derail the Copenhagen climate talks”. Technically, it’s still true that it wasn’t a “conspiracy”, but Mr. FOIA WAS trying to derail those talks. He did it because he believes spending billions combating global warming is harmful to the lives of “millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc.”. Again, his motives have no bearing at all on the truth or falsehood of the unprecedented harmful anthropogenic global warming (UHAGW) hypothesis.