Apparently, being uncertain about climate certainty is a crime worth jail time
What a week this has been. In preparation for the release of the IPCC Working Group II report, hate speech against climate skeptics seems to have ramped up and turned into a week-long unreality show. The proprietors and cheerleaders of the Climate Certainty Channel™ seem to be ever more sure of impending doom caused by (take your pick) global warming – climate change – climate disruption. Here is a summary of the feature programs this past week.
First, priming the pump, just about two weeks ago, we started out with this: Despicable climate ugliness courtesy of Lawrence Torcello – assistant professor of philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology where he rationalized for climate “deniers” to be jailed.
Monckton followed up with a letter: Monckton’s letter to the Rochester Institute of Technology regarding Assistant Professor Lawrence Torcello
Of course, according to the David Suzuki funded Hoggan PR firm “DeSmog Blog” we are all just a bunch of angry lunatic fringe types for suggesting we take an exception to being jailed…that, and they say we completely misread the intent of Torcello’s essay, which is somehow philosophical: Exclusive: Climate Change Philosopher A Target Of Abusive Hate Campaign:
Under the headline “US Philosophy Professor: Jail ‘Denialist’ Climate Scientists For Criminal Negligence“ Delingpole wrote Torcello had argued “scientists who don’t believe in catastrophic man-made global warming should be put in prison”.
“This was a blatant misrepresentation of my article,” says Torcello
Then on March 19th, it was Anders and his wottsupwiththat spawn blog now changed to andthentheresphysics blog (which is a change in name only), he still allows hate speech: Quote of the Week – get your war crimes trial tickets now!
Apparently, I’m to be “frog marched” to The Hague for war crimes like trials all for having the temerity to have an opinion about not wanting to be jailed for having a skeptical opinion about climate.
Meanwhile, back at Bar-X Hate Ranch, another fan of the Climate Certainty Channel™ embraces Torcello’s essay, and decides to turn the volume up to 11:
In “Arrest Climate Change Deniers,” Gawker writer Adam Weinstein has such gems as:
This is an argument that’s just being discussed seriously in some circles. It was laid out earlier this month, with all the appropriate caveats, by Lawrence Torcello, a philosophy professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology.
“…with all the appropriate caveats,” Well, that makes it OK then! /sarc He adds:
We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people’s deaths. It’s time to punish the climate-change liars. . .
Those denialists should face jail. They should face fines. They should face lawsuits from the classes of people whose lives and livelihoods are most threatened by denialist tactics. . . Those people are criminally negligent.
So far, not a peep from the standard bearers of climate morals at DeSmog or “andthentheresphyics” about Weinstein taking Torcello’s idea and running with it.
Some reactions to Adam Weinstein’s call for jail time:
Climatistas Double Down on Stupid (Powerline)
Another Fool Calls For My Arrest: Or, Adam Weinstein Slips A Nut (William Briggs)
But wait, it gets better, the clergy steps in and provides their sanction, but just not the one we expect:
The former Archbishop of Canterbury argues that Western lifestyles bear the responsibility for causing climate change in world’s poorest regions
While the “chaos [of the flood] came as a shock to many”, other countries in the developing world such as Bangladesh and Kenya among others had suffered far worse catastrophes caused by climate change over many years.
Dr Williams goes on to attack global warming sceptics and climate change deniers. “There are of course some who doubt the role of human agency in creating and responding to climate change, and who argue that we should direct our efforts solely to adapting to changes that are inevitable, rather than modifying our behaviour,” says Dr Williams.
A clergyman OK with the Telegraph using the hateful term “deniers”? oof!
In other hate-related news, the left went ballistic on Nate Silver for allowing Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. to write. Fabius Maximus has a summary
Summary: This week many on the Left served a banquet of snark on Nate Silver and his new 538 website for the sin of posting an article by Roger Pielke Jr (Prof Environmental Studies, U CO-Boulder). An article well-supported in the climate studies literature, and consistent with the work of the IPCC (they conceal these things from their followers; least they ruin the narrative). These posts demonstrate the ineffectual tactics that have drained away the Left’s support during the past 3 decades, and after 25 years of work produced no gains in their highest-profile public policy initiative. See other posts in this series, listed below.
It seems the left was arguing more about the fact that Pielke was allowed a place to speak, than what he planned to write about climate at http://fivethirtyeight.com/ It reminded me of the uproar over my interview on PBS News Hour, where they went ballistic because I had somehow violated their perceived inner sanctum, not so much because of what I said.
Predictably, editor Nate Silver caved to pressure, and he’s now back in the good graces of the proprietors of the Climate Certainty Channel™.
And, the Anti-Defamation League is still silent:
So while we wait for the next IPCC report to come out, let’s consider climate certainty and uncertainty. This graph sums it up nicely.
The boxes represent the statements of certainty from IPCC reports over time. As reality (measurements) diverge from models, becoming more uncertain, the certainty of the IPCC gets stronger, and the hateful rhetoric ramps up to match the mean.