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.
It’s all fun and games until someone loses an eye. Actually it’s quite depressing. The Inquisition is back, only this time it isn’t the Catholics (no offense intended, I’m one myself), it’s the Church of Leftism, and the sacrament is Global Warming. Has there really been any “progress” over the last thousand years? In technology, definitely, but in the nature of human behavior – no, not at all. False ideas are as likely to prevail as not, only to be replaced in time by other false ideas. People are as ignorant and uneducated as ever, and more so than a century ago. We’re just as gullible, and just as prone to tribalism and emotional appeals. Lately I’ve come to believe that humans have reached the limits of our intellectual ability to understand the universe, both on the cosmic scale and on the scale of our own selves. Until natural selection can again play a positive role in our evolution, and a chance mutation that enhances intellectual ability somehow spreads through the population (today it would likely be forcibly snuffed out in the name of “equality”), we’re stuck shuffling about from one tragic situation to another as the climate inevitably cools into the next 100,000 year long glacial. Damn.
“It’s time to punish the climate change liars”. Yes, it is. And we know who the real liars are; those pushing the biggest lie in history; that of manmade warming/climate change. We should consider the gravity of their crimes against humanity and the appropriate punishments, for they are enormous, and have had deadly consequences.
– – – – – – –
Robert in Calgary,
He, like everyone on this venue, does not get his way.
Although I am often intellectually opposed to him, neither of us (or any other commenter) has the ability to get our way on this venue. We just keep on reasoning with our best intellectual ability.
Please keep on reasoning.
John
“””””…..Khwarizmi says:
March 30, 2014 at 2:32 pm
TomJ,
According to every U.S. intelligence agency, Iran isn’t trying to build nuclear weapons.
So why are you catapulting NeoCon propaganda to the contrary?
Israel has 100s of nukes—and unlike moderate and tolerant Iran—refuses, to sign the nuclear non proliferation treaty or permit inspections.
Remember the U.S.S. Liberty……”””””
I do believe, that those same US intelligence agencies, assert that Iran has not yet produced enough weapons grade Uranium, to build a single nuclear weapon.
So tiny Israel, not much bigger than New York’s Central Park, has built “hundreds of nuclear weapons”.
And why is it that Iran; which purportedly only wants to produce clean nuclear electricity, has yet to construct a single power plant. Are they that inept, or what ??
NO nation on this planet, that is known to have nuclear weapons permits inspections; so why do you single out Israel to chastise for keeping theirs securely hidden. I would think that any sensible non proliferation treaty, would require those who have them to keep them away from prying eyes.
davidmhoffer says…..
…”You can learn a lot about both science and socialism and the roots of the CAGW meme if you listen to him with an open mind instead of rejecting and attacking him out of hand.”
David, the only thing I’m “rejecting and attacking” Richard over is his penchant for tantrums when folks don’t describe Socialism in the angelic (and unrealistic) way he sees it.
Perhaps it’s Richard who needs to open his mind and learn a few things.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100260720/whenever-you-mention-fascisms-socialist-roots-left-wingers-become-incandescent-why/
regards,
@DirkH – “When you’re getting a lot of Flak it means you’re over the target.”
Bingo! I wonder how they intend to imprison Gaia. Maybe mine the moon for all its minerals?
Stupid comment from layman. HOW in God’s name can a model be used to forecast 20-50 yrs out when our current collection of models go below 50% success after 7 days more or less. This is absurd. Put me in jail. I’m ready.
I love to see that graph!
Mod: Please remove all after ‘Nuff said.’
Robert in Calgary;
David, the only thing I’m “rejecting and attacking” Richard over is his penchant for tantrums when folks don’t describe Socialism in the angelic (and unrealistic) way he sees it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He objects strenuously when accusations are made against socialism which are unfair, and rightfully so. If he does so rudely, that changes the validity of his objections by precisely nothing. You and others assign 100% of the responsibility for the CAGW meme to socialism which he also strenuously objects to, and with good reason. Again, rude or not, he is entirely correct on this matter. If you excoriate the forces on the left which have worked hard to perpetrate the CAGW hoax, by all means do so. But excoriate also those on the right who have done as much or more (I would argue more) to perpetrate that same hoax.
The climate kooks do not realize that they are the ones who would be indicted, tried and convicted if there were trials for lying about the climate. Pen State, indeed. Irony, thy name is AGW fanaticism.
Hi Richard Courtney glad to see you back.
Those equating socialism with parasitism, need to consider this, parasites use whatever cover works.Especially idealist do-gooder philosophies.
Are Canadian Liberals liberal?
Do the US Democratic party have any interest in democracy?
Does the United Nations, do anything to unite nations?
Other than in poverty.
What we have, in the attempt to tax air by an unelected, unaccountable agency is not political or even ideological really, it is entrenched parasites trying to make their foul activities official.
Welcome to the world wide kleptocracy.
When you follow the money, CAGW is created by, promoted by and is now being protected from investigation by, our bureaucracies.
I think of it as an intelligence test.
These fools and bandits fell for the bait and are now exposed for what they are.
Of zero( massively negative?) benefit to taxpayers.
Hey, socialism ain’t that bad. Jonestown actually worked. Except for when the leader went nuts in the end. But that’s a risk with all centralized systems.
There is little difference between communism and socialism, accept in democratic countries we can vote a socialist government out! Now North Korea are threatening setting off a nuclear device, so I wonder if they do something wrong they will blow themselves up? Next question?
– – – – – – – –
davidmhoffer,
Step back a moment.
What is the single necessary fundamental quasi-moral concept at the essential root of all historical and current socialism?
And also, what is the single necessary fundamental moral concept at the essential root of the political ideology supported by the IPCC bureau to fight CAGW?
I think the two fundamental concepts at the root of both are the same.
Individualism based politics does not share the concept.
Collectivism is the shared root concept of both socialism all political ideology of the IPCC bureau.
Show me any gov’t or UN org (like the IPCC) that uses collectivism as it quasi-moral justifications for it actions then it is socialist no matter what it called itself or its PR says.
John
These people are pathetic and acting like some fervent fanatic who tells us we will not go to heaven, because we believe in the devil. Some people can not handle being shown up and their ideologies looking very dumb. I believe in climate change, who doesn’t but the causation factors are so silly and inaccurate, when the temps drop they wonder what is wrong. It’s bleedin’ winter mate.
I will become more powerful than you could possibly imagine,……
I have always found it appalling that anyone tries to link a view on science with left or right wing views. To do so is anti science because science is about establishing objective truth not about personal value judgements or seeking political ends.
When people mix science and politics they get organisations like the IPCC which distort the objectives of science.
This forum should, and as far as aware does, welcome the opinions of everyone whatever their politics, as long as they are willing to put those political opinions in the cupboard and enter into the debate with a free mind. As soon as the opinions become tied to a political objective, or for that matter commercial or personal objective, the science becomes compromised.
On science their can be no left or right wing view. I write as a non scientist so please correct me if I am wrong in my beliefs.
I am Spartacus.
Rejoice! The climate alarmists have confessed that they have no case. Their science has failed, and all they have left is insult. Skepticism has triumphed.
Julian I know you are correct, but in this case, there is an element of political influence. And theirs is a dangerous ideology. Threatening people even libelling them who have the right to show alarmists have manipulated the data and scientific facts, are not playing the game at all.
Shades of historical figures such as the Nazis. Comparing skeptics with holocaust deniers is scandalous. Academics do not like being challenged, and if you dare to, watch out if you are attending the same university!
Julian in Wales on March 30, 2014 at 6:14 pm
– – – – – – – – – –
Julian in Wales,
One engages in the dialog on climate science as the context is given. If it includes as an initial condition a mix of epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, politics, science and fiction then so be it. One should not intellectually avoid the context initiated.
John
Tom J says:
March 30, 2014
Now, I’ll admit I don’t know much about Iran. I do know that Barack Obama’s most trusted advisor, Valerie Jarrett, was born there. So, that’s at least one thing I know about “moderate and tolerant Iran” that you probably don’t. One thing I’m curious about, though, is why no one can seem to find a gay bar, hell, any kinda’ bar in tolerant Teheran, and why do they execute prostitutes? Seems a little harsh to me.
You have to remember: according to the midget in the Members Only jacket, there are no gays in Iran.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/07/iran-executes-men-homosexuality-charges
They’d lynch Atticus Finch?
Bushbunny – I agree their are lots of very dangerous politicos out their attaching science to their particular creed. What I am objecting to are the blanket assumptions that this or that view on science is right wing or left wing, because it is impossible to to attach views to science, because as soon as you do that the science is compromised and becomes politics.
I can see there are argument to suggest that left wing people like science that reinforces collective utopian aims, and right wing people like science that emphasises the independent of the individual. That is obviously going to happen, but only to people who refuse to put their politics in the cupboard before they enter a debate- such as posting on a forum like this one.
There are all sorts of people with all sorts of views that have useful things to add to the debate. The debate has a better opportunity of reaching objective conclusions if the posters do not ascribe viewpoints to either their own, or their opponents political beliefs