The “Social Good” summit in NYC going on today bills itself as:
A three-day conference where big ideas meet new media to create innovative solutions.
The Social Good Summit is a three-day conference where big ideas meet new media to create innovative solutions. Held during UN Week from September 22-24, the Social Good Summit unites a dynamic community of global leaders to discuss a big idea: the power of innovative thinking and
technology to solve our greatest challenges. The most innovative technologists, influential minds and passionate activists will come together with one shared goal: to unlock the potential of new media and technology to make the world a better place, and then to translate that potential into action.
But it seems that thanks to warmists Al Gore and former Senator Tim Wirth (the guy who turned off the air conditioning and opened the windows at Hansen’s global warming hearing in June 1988) it has become a hatefest against climate skeptics.
Video follows:
Then Tim Wirth had this to say during the live video feed:
“Skeptics are ‘truly evil people”
Wow, I wonder if these guys realize how unhinged they sound in the current dynamic?
h/t to junkscience.com
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Simon, you believe Gore “merely used them as examples of people we have rallied against in society.” Seriously?
Who in the WORLD do you think Al Gore is “against” if not we, the anti-CAGW people?
You are either a sweet but terribly naïve young man, or doing a mighty fine job of pretending to be one.
Hnnn – the poodle is back.
[snip]
Sceptic = Evil sexist racist homophobe animal molester who is also a violent alcoholic?
Hate speech?
Sorry, dp. I seem to annoy others regularly on WUWT, too. How about a clue to help me be less annoying? One lacks insight into one’s own idiosyncracies.
Sigh. At least, couldn’t you compare me to a German Shepherd (if it has to be a dog, I mean)?
Anthony, if you have them available, I would appreciate original copies of what I posted so that I can ensure my account of this exchange on my blog is as accurate as possible.
[He would be unable to selectively edit those. On the other hand, this thread is saved, and will be archived under Sept 2013, and can always be opened and searched for entries under your name once you open it from the WUWT home page. Mod]
THE 9 FALSIFICATIONS IN “AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH”
Al Gore’s sequel will be less fact-based than “An Inconvenient Truth”. This is worrying given that the British courts identified 9 falsifications in his first documentary.
For the record, here are the 9 “Incorrect Truths”
1) Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”. The judge said: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore’s “wake-up call”. He agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water – “but only after, and over, millennia”. “The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”
2) The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls “are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming”, but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.
3) The documentary speaks of global warming “shutting down the Ocean Conveyor” – the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the judge said that it was “very unlikely” that the Ocean Conveyor, also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, would shut down in the future, though it might slow down.
4) Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed “an exact fit”. The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”. A closer look at Gore’s chart would reveal that CO2 levels increased after climate temperatures rose, not before.
5) Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is primarily attributable to human-induced climate change. It is actually due to deforestation lower down which alters the local mini-climate so that snow and ice can’t form at higher elevations on the mountain.
6) The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence, and that “it is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability”.
7) Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was “insufficient evidence to show that”.
8) Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from “swimming long distances – up to 60 miles – to find the ice.” The judge said: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm”. That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued – “but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description”. Note: polar bears can swim for a week without harm.
9) Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult.
The hypocrisy of this man is astounding! Sell your house at the beach, cycle to work and stop flying around the planet and maybe some of us might believe that you take this as seriously as you want us to. Otherwise stop yibbering.
Trouble is that there are millions (hundreds of millions?) of people out there who actually think the same way as this clown.
Actually he is a dangerous clown. The sceptics seem to be winning the intellectual debate but not the political battle for hearts and minds. The fact that this man – who is very influential – can speak like this suggests to me that things are hotting up (no pun intended) in the carbon wars.
At the risk of being accused by failed academics of being paranoid, with the White house generally in support of the view expressed by Gore, it doesn’t take much of a leap of imagination to postulate that if the argument cannot be won with facts and scientific rigour, it will be won using different weapons.
At 12:25 AM on 24 September, marcjf had written:
Not hardly. Bear in mind that events such as this “Liberal” fascist AGW convocation are carefully planned propaganda presentations, as rigorously scripted and devoid of heretical contrariness as a televised Sunday morning service at one of those humongous Southern Baptist megachurches out in the Midwest.
There was no more expectation of a skeptic viewpoint being voiced at that “Summit” than there was when the thugs running the Baltimore County School District recently presented their plan to use Common Core standards in the curriculum and suppressed parents’ angry concerns about that program’s pernicious manifestations of leftist political indoctrination.
When it comes to the economic adverse effects of the government thuggery being pushed by the AGW alarmists – not touching “hearts and minds” but plundering people’s wallets and well-being – the climate catastrophists are achieving nothing among the lay public but scornful dismissal and outright hatred.
Like the leftist educrats pushing Common Core, the climate alarmists dare not allow real critique or dissenting opinions in their Ministry of Truth noise-making sessions, because they have to preserve the increasingly tattered illusion that they’ve got anything remotely resembling a winning position in “the political battle for hearts and minds.”
In this regard as in almost every other goddam thing they’re peddling, they’re lying their asses off.
Mike Haseler says:
Anthony, if you have them available, I would appreciate original copies of what I posted …
Reply: this thread is saved, and will be archived under Sept 2013, and can always be opened and searched for entries under your name once you open it from the WUWT home page. Mod]
No, I cannot find any way to access my previous comments which were deleted. However if you don’t strongly disagree with my recollection of what I posted as it appears you have no intention combating this abusive language in any meaningful way I suggest we leave it at that.
REPLY: Mike, let me make this clear, I don’t give a rats ass what you think or what you want to archive. You posted something here that was off topic and also in violation of policy, and I told you I don’t want it here. You responded by elevating the issue as if you had somehow been wronged, and are now off on some vendetta. This isn’t your blog and I reserve the right to not have ugly and hateful commentary here. Otherwise, we become no better than Gore or Wirth.
Tough noogies if you don’t like it, and please do feel free to be as upset as you wish. But you need to take it elsewhere. You are now permanently in the troll bin for pre-moderation, don’t elevate it to a ban. – Anthony
“Put a price on denial”, says Gore, yeah, whatever.
Unfortunately it can only be accomplished in a lawless manner, because “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech […]”.
Therefore Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., 45th Vice President of the United States of America calls for breaking the supreme law of the country on a large scale. Fortunately for him it is his birthright to do so, for “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech […]”.
However, there is no law that would prevent ridiculing him in public for such a convoluted attempt to destroy the very bases of his own proposition. Let’s do that, and loudly.
“Skeptics are ‘truly evil people”
—
Sorry Tim, but I’m highly skeptical of that statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate
sacked Tim flannery starts a new job http://www.news.com.au/national-news/sacked-government-scientist-tim-flannery-forms-the-private-australian-climate-council/story-fncynjr2-1226725855659l
Adolf Gore fat moron and even T Blair is there supporting the BS.
Sometimes it’s odd to see how a thread wanders when you don’t check it all day… so I’ll wander into wandering territory.
Honestly, I don’t think there are many people or groups you could say I “hate”, but I hold many beliefs and belong to several groups that subject ME to “hate” on a daily basis. I usually just ignore it, because “hate” is for small minds.
I’ve had people scream right in my face for daring to disbelieve “97% of scientists”. Yep. Genuine hate for my lack of belief in what I perceive as a faith-based cult.
I’ve had people immediately jump to ridiculous conclusions about my politics and personal beliefs because I happen to be a conservative, and member of the Conservative Party of Canada. I usually, calmly, attempt to explain why they are the victims of misinformation. No, I’m not a racist. No, I don’t believe that banning abortions would be a good thing. No, I don’t believe we can indiscriminately pollute our air and water. No, I don’t think that everyone I disagree with is a communist attempting to destroy my society. You get the idea.
Every time I see someone attempting to foment “hate” with a stirring speech, whether it’s a fundamentalist roaming minister (who is probably roaming because no church would stand to have him as their own), a radical vegan, a gay activist, or a rabid environmentalist, I know they have instantly lost the majority. The majority of people in our civilization do NOT think we’re ruining everything, that the planet is in jeopardy, that homosexuality is destroying everything, that a bit of nudity on TV will immediately corrupt our children and destroy our morality, or that we need to change our entire way of life for someone’s pet belief.
Most name-calling falls right off of me. When I was in school I was a grade ahead, which meant I was usually the smallest kid in my class, and skinny. I was constantly called “gay”, “homo”, etc because apparently only skinny white kids a size smaller than the rest are gay. Somehow, this attitude is still out there. I find it entertaining, since a quick trip to a gay bar would quickly erase this stereotype. And yes, I’ve gone to gay bars with several of my girlfriends. It’s not the end of the world.
What I do object to is people putting their beliefs into action. I don’t agree with “normalizing” homosexuality, which is what has happened at an accelerated pace in the last few decades. Ask any teen today, they will tell you that some outrageously high percentage of people in the world are “gay” and it’s completely normal. But guess what? I’m not trying to change it. I just disagree with it. And I don’t need to know someone is “gay” any more than I need to know details about bedroom activities of anyone else. Unfortunately, some people think I need to know it.
All of these environmental activists that have spoken out against “skeptics” as though we are evil, or contemptible, or doing something wrong have lost. Simply, they have lost their argument. We win. I don’t in any way think that climate “scientists” should be subjected to anything greater than legal accountability for demonstrably faulty science. If they’re on the public teat then falsification should result in termination, and possibly charges. But unlike their side, I don’t think the masses should string them up with piano wire in public squares, or blow them up with big red buttons, or publicly shame them when they walk down sidewalks, or any of the other outrageous things we’ve heard them suggest.
But this fight is not about the Science, since skeptics win that one hands down. The fight is against a complicit media, an unbelievably well financed environmental front, and it is for the hearts and minds of the kids we send to school. I got a new HD tuner in my computer room and have been watching NatGeo and Discovery World the last few weeks, and it astounds me how they work in a “climate change” angle to almost every show.
The idea is to “normalize” the idea, and it becomes “common knowledge” within a generation. This is a socialist method of controlling messages and altering behavior. The only way to fight it is to educate those around you whenever you have the chance, or become part of the media and send a contrary message. Apparently our side is not even remotely as well financed, contrary to their inane claims, because the bottom bottom line of all of this is money.
So there’s my rant. And I’m sorry because whenever I see al-Gore (or his minions) bloviating as if he has some sort of moral high ground I get angry. Not because it’s al-Gore, but because I know for an absolute fact that these people DON’T BELIEVE WHAT THEY’RE SAYING. It’s kinda like being arrested for public drunkenness by a drunk cop. Hypocrisy is the one thing that I will freely admit I “HATE”. And I think that makes me a lot like most people.
Code tech
I sing from the same hymn sheet as yourself. But also hate incompetence as much as hypocracy.
I was living in Colorado when Tim Wirth was a senator there, interested only in radical environmentalist ideology. He was a lousy senator. Now he’s a lousy AGW advocate.
Gore’s wild accusations reminded me of this article:
http://reason.com/archives/2013/09/16/america-the-paranoid
Key quote – “educated elites have conspiracy theories too”.
The poodle reference was to Al Gore. (His masseuse described him as a rabid sex poodle.)
They say that history has a habit of repeating itself, and it is a bit scary that this gentleman would appear to be emulating another rather fanatical person by the name of Goebels? (sorry about the accuracy of the spelling!)
This individual was the minister of propaganda for his leader during the natzi era and the names do have some similarity as well as his rhetoric.
This charming Natzi person was well known for his vitriolic attacks on those people who did not follow the party line, and he continually tried to demonise these so called opponents with threats of retribution and violence and eventually had his fascist chums attacking these people, burning their homes and property, with the ultimate goal of have them exterminated in the Natzi’s death camps!
Will this be the next move by this modern day Fascist?
Janice, don’t change a thing. Be who you are. The ‘slings and arrows’ are only metaphorical, if any (if any ‘slings and arrows’ that is).
.
Ugh. Algore must be taking ugly pills.
And jeesh, the political correctness — social-good-summit? Should’ve gone all out & called it the diverse sustainable social-justice equality tipping-point affirmative-action summit.
_Jim says:
September 24, 2013 at 7:06 am (replying to)
Janice Moore says:
September 23, 2013 at 10:57 pm
Ooooo. Slings and arrows with hot chicks with big German Shepherds changing thongs (er, things) in public. Cool!
Perhaps, Sir Jim of the Free Republic, we should introduce the Janice to Esther Friesner’s series of sarcastic and highly irreverent Chicks in Chainmail, Did You Say Chicks, and The Chick is In the Mail? 8<)
Someone give me a gallon jug of MAD DOG 20/20 in a room filled with these communal, back-slapping, bloviating narcissists and I’ll show you a violent alcoholic.