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:
Rowan Williams warns of climate catastrophe
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
The Left stages a two minute hate on Nate Silver, Roger Pielke Jr (& me)
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:
The silence of the Anti Defamation League suggests they endorse defamation of climate skeptics
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Its been a long cold winter.
At what point does “nothing happening” finally get recognized by them. They just chant over and over again that “climate change is real, its happening now and it is caused by humans.”
When is this thing supposed to happen.
How it came to Name Calling, Bearing False Witness and all that
As ecology comprises for some reason 50% of a climate science course one has to look at it to understand why climate science is not about climate but sustainability.
To understand the language of ipcc style ‘climate science’ one needs to know the difference between deep ecology and social ecology and why they hate each other. How their aim is to create a ‘new man’ that has a new ecology who is not ego centric but eco centric. The current ego centric ecology with its hierarchy and domination is summed up in capitalism. The eco centric model of man renounces these for a new life in harmony with an idealised vision of what ecology should be. This they claim will end all ‘threats’ to sustainability to this new man ecosystem and will be joy.
The hatred expressed by those wanting an eco man ecology for those they see as stuck in ego centric ecology [with all its destruction and co2 creation] comes out in name calling and bearing false witness.
As we see we are now a long way from ice age cycles, inter glacial warming, models, measurements, recording and other topics one might think is proper climate science.
Science is a tool. i go to the car mechanic to fix my car. What his views on vegetarianism are not relevant to fixing the car. To be called a science a science has a standard of prove predict. As presently constructed what is usually called climate science fails that test [see ipcc reports] because its main concern is creating a ‘new man’ who is eco centric.
“jauntycyclist says: March 30, 2014 at 11:08 am
when one understands that climate science = ecology promoting sustainability which demands certain behaviour modification ie a ‘new ecology’ or ‘new man’ then it all becomes clear.
the drive for this ‘new ecology’ or ‘new man’ could be represented with soviet style posters where each person guards their ‘quota’ of earth resources.
the reason they use the term d enier is because they cannot use the word counter revolutionary in public”
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
You are spot on. And as history will show, and with new phraseology, they are back…rejuvenated under a new banner. With a smile they will strike first as they always do, but first they have to disarm the sheep dog.
And as Janice pointed out… it is Sunday… 🙂
“The wicked plot against the righteous
and gnash their teeth at them;
but the Lord laughs at the wicked,
for he knows their day is coming.”
Psalm 37:12, 13.
Commune often…
We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people’s
deathsloss of property and liberty by means of deception. It’s time to punish the climate-change liars. . .Fixed. Now I agree.
For those wondering what is driving their desperation it is this. They see their dreams of a green utopia are slipping away.
Ah, that well known international crime of being more convincing that warmists. Who knew that a blog could be classed as a weapon of mass destruction?
When will those people stop feeling the need to demonstrate their anadequacies? If I was on the other side I would now feel a strong desire to defect so as not to be a member of the stupid party.
One more thing…… Let’s not lose track of the fact that obama’s “Science and Technology” czar john holdren, the eugenics freak and climate liar, has NO ACCREDITED SCIENTIFIC CREDENTIALS! (He’s also the monster that, along with his mentors, refers to the population as “A pulsating mass of maggots.” Yeah, I believe that guy when he tells me the sky is falling and the only way to stop it is if I die..
“Michael D Smith says:
March 30, 2014 at 9:59 am
How, exactly, does one arrest the climate itself? That should be a neat trick.”
Gore, Feinstein, Pelosi, Brown & co. will probably try – they’ve already done all they can to
kill business and the economy…
Douglas Adams had a few thoughts on that (or at least the judges did…)
(from THHGTT radio script)
’The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’ is an indispensable companion to all those who are keen to make sense of life in an infinitely complex and confusing universe. For though it cannot hope to be useful or informative on all matters, it does make the reassuring claim that where it is inaccurate, it is at least definitively inaccurate.
In cases of major discrepancy it is always reality that’s got it wrong.
So, for instance, when the Guide was sued by the families of those who had died as a result of taking the entry on the planet Traal literally – it said “Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts often make a very good meal for visiting tourists” instead of “Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts often make a very good meal of visiting tourists” –
the editors claimed that the first version of the sentence was the more aesthetically pleasing; summoned a qualified poet to testify under oath that beauty was truth, truth beauty, and hoped thereby to prove that the guilty party in this case was life itself for failing to be either beautiful or true.
The judges concurred…and in a moving speech held that life itself was in contempt of court and duly confiscated it from all those there present before going off for a pleasant evening’s Ultra-golf.
….. (/excerpt)
they’re trying to confiscate it, but by much slower means….regulations, killing economies, etc.
…
otoh, better to take the high road than stoop down to their level
with regard to Rowan Williams, wasn’t there someone from the Church of England in that BBC secret meeting (to set reporting, er, direction)?
Could be money or other interests involved….have to say sometimes that perhaps Rowan Atkinson
(Mr. Bean) would have made more sense than Rowan Williams
They don’t have the facts. They do have the PR. The smear is pure PR.
It’s cold outside and they said it wouldn’t be.
Time to silence those pointing to the thermometer.
Adam Weinstein is so clued in as to what caused most of the surface warming since 1950 that he asks for sceptics to go to jail. He might also want to tell us the cause of the similar rate of warming between 1910 to 1940?
He forgot to add the environment. 😉
There may be hope. I regularly visit the Guardian Enviro/Climate Change page (as well a couple others) and today there is an interview article titled: “James Lovelock: environmentalism has become a religion. Scientist behind the Gaia hypothesis says environment movement does not pay enough attention to facts and he was too certain in the past about rising temperatures.”
at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/30/james-lovelock-environmentalism-religion
Three things struck me about it. First he seems eminently reasonable in his views. Second the fact that it appeared as it is in the Guardian surprised me in that it is decidedly agnostic. Third, there is very little (almost none actually) cheap criticism and snark directed at Lovelock in the article for his views. It may be because he specifically says he is not a “denier” even though his views seem to qualify. It may be a bit of a zombie thing – the alarmist warmists may, like zombies, be unable to recognize and go after prey if the prey does not look or smell like what they have been told it should. Perhaps reasonable people should start every conversation with “Not A Denier” and it would bestow immunity to spew.
they hate us because they know we are right, and always have been. They are wrong and always have been.
You know, looking at the graph you see that the measured numbers have been diverging from the predicted numbers from the start. The models came out in what, the 1990’s? So any accuracy prior to that doesnt count, and the divergence was noticeable almost immediately. And they didnt try to improve the models at all.
” It’s time to punish the climate-change liars. . . ”
In the infamous words of “Duke Nukem”; my response to Anthropological Global Warming Sham Alarmists threats of frog marching is: ‘Come Get Some!’
I read a lot of these pseudo-philosophical and neo-political rants on left-wing blogs (and Socialist MSM too). They are definitely getting more shrill. To steal a phrase: WUWT?
Regardless, the threads and comments of those same extremist sites are always packed with comments from (I assume) average people who are outraged at the radical, almost totalitarian world view of the articles’ authors.
Conversely, WUWT and other AGW sceptic sites seem to be populated with (for the most part) people engaged in reasonable discussion, debate and a quest for knowledge. I can only assume that the crazed climate haters have surrendered these battle fields. After all, they only seem to thrive in a self-contained bubble of circular reaffirmation….poor deluded fools I say.
it seems trying to counter the social ecologists [i mean climate scientists] with climate facts is a waste of time because their drive for an eco centric man exists even if there was no climate warming. This is sometimes shown when they say ‘wouldn’t it be good to be sustainable anyway’.
imo they are not even interested in the science which is why its so bad with incompetent models with no prove predict capability and that falls apart like a well boiled chicken when examined.
social ecology hides behind the fig leaf of global warming then it became climate change now probably ocean acidification etc. The name doesn’t matter to them. Anything with co2 they see as ego centric ecology and thus bad [must include plants then?].
Climate Change and Social Ecology
A New Perspective on the Climate Challenge
http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415809870/
was written by a town planner
Man Bearpig says: “they hate us because …”
The hate us because we are starting to impact their lively hood$ by cutting off their Air-$upply.
They are also worried about facing possible fraud charges involving government funding. Given scope of involvement with AGW, people, organizations, politicians, etc. seems like RICO would be a perfect fit.
There is a sickness in the world, climate alarmists are showing their true colours and horrifyingly there is no difference between them and the nazis or Islamic fundamentalists who want to kill anyone who does not share their cause or religion.
The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, is clearly strongly engaged by the new religion of global warming (despite clearly having no understanding of facts). Were I a cleric such as he I would muse over the fact that at all the previous climate conferences there has been unseasonably cold weather and wonder if, in fact, my God was sending a clear message about this false religion.
And folks still wonder why socialism so often degenerates into tyranny? You’ll search far and wide for a “leftie” who doesn’t vow fealty to AGW theory. It’s a religion for those folks. That frame of mind leads them, as religions often do, to view their battles as “good against evil” and where the end justifies any means.
CH
Food for a good lawyer I think.
The extremer those warmist hacks become, the easier it will be to kick their ass.
That’s from a legal point of view of course.
The hundreds of billions of dollars diverted by the Church of Global Warming to silly science, conferences and alternative energy projects could have saved tens of millions of lives in the third world. Time to frog march Warmers off to the gulags.
Okay, we may not actually go to prison. “…Now thanks to thought policing by the American Psychiatric Association the latest addition of the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) is setting up the dominoes for arbitrary diagnosis of any dissenting individuals.
Listed as new mental illnesses are above-average creativity and cynicism. The manual goes on to identify a mental illness called “oppositional defiant disorder” or ODD. Defined as an “ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior,” symptoms include questioning authority, negativity, defiance, argumentativeness, and being easily annoyed.”
Sure sounds like sceptics. Say hello to Nurse Ratchet.
Socialism always turns into totalitarianism. Especially when they run out of other people’s money.
Maybe they could take the 30k plus names from the petition project to court for starters?
In a more serious vein:
I still don’t think the thinking side of this discussion should even be using the term ‘hate speech’. By that I mean that the whole scam of hollering “I am SO offended” is an alinskyite / cultural marxist meme.
Instead of being offended we should just call them names back when occasionally appropriate.
Hollering about ‘hate speech’ just validates their approach.
If someone wants to call me a climate change dexxxxer, my response would be:
“That’s incorrect. I am a CAGW dexxxxer. Please be precise.”