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.
As I see more of this, it seems to me the true believers are getting more and more agitated – I fear the results if it continues.
Their God has not manifest.
David the Censor for Zion, said:
Ah, so you admit that you didn’t work at the school as you claimed
=========
Easy for you to tell such brazen hategful lies after imposing censorship, you “P.O.S.”
Your people dehumanize PAlestinains in the same way you dehumanized =me and censored my facts.
I said I worked at a hope kindergarten in Australia, not the accurate parody of one from the sketch made and broadcast in Isreal.
Don’t you have any shame?
I have a copy of my post that you had censored.
Is the moderator going to apologize for censoring the entirety of my post on the basis of David’s warped and hate-filled misrepresentation?
A shameless little man with a diseased conscience and an infinite supply of vanity demanded that my post be censored.
An invigilator obeyed the order.
Why?
David recited the Kol Nidre and then lied…
Ah, so you admit that you didn’t work at the school as you claimed
=========
No, I didn’t claim I worked at the fictional school in the Israeli broadcast television parody.
I said I previously worked at, quote, ” a hope kindergarten in Australia.”
That’s what my censored post said, verbatim. I still have a copy.
Don’t you have any shame, “P.O.S.”?
Is “POS” acceptable parlance in conformity with site policy, btw?
Or is it a kosher kind of hate speech?
Khwarizmi says:
March 31, 2014 at 12:56 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’m shameless? Who is the one posting anonymously? Who is the one who is now resorting to nothing but ad hominem attacks?
LOL.
Jeff:
In your post at March 31, 2014 at 8:39 am you write
YES!
The desire of some to pretend the AGW scare is a left-wing plot implies they are a ‘fifth column’ trying to induce “fighting amongst ourselves”.
The AGW scare is promoted by people across the political spectrum and mostly from the right.
And it is opposed by other people from across the political spectrum.
Supporters of the scare find any excuse to revile opponents of the scare.
Richard
Robert in Calgary:
re your untrue propaganda in your post at March 31, 2014 at 6:47 am.
Thatcher started the AGW scare for reasons of personal political advancement.
My analysis predicted the AGW scare would occur.
I linked to that analysis with explanation of it and its origin in my post at March 30, 2014 at 1:38 pm which is here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/30/hate-week-on-the-climate-certainty-channel/#comment-1601780
The anti-left propaganda of you and others in this thread is ridiculous.
Richard
@Khwarizmi and others going back and forth: this is a post ABOUT hate, with regard to climate skepticism and true science, not FOR hate. Please, if you want to, erm, discuss politics, there are TONS of fora devoted to that….there’s already more than enough hate to go around, let’s quit adding fuel (CO2-producing or not) to the fire…
A former colleague of mine would probably have said “PUT A SOCK IN IT!!!”, but I’ll just say, we need to deal with the CAGW nuts…they’re enough for now. And, if you need something else to worry about, there’s always “hairdo” in North Korea who’s threatening to use another, very uneconomical, form of nuclear power….
thanks
P.S. As regards to nuts, I prefer salted, with a high proportion of Cashews…unfortunately, what is usually sold is what we the ordinary people usually get….peanuts….
“richardscourtney says:
March 31, 2014 at 2:04 pm ”
Hi Richard,
thanks…I don’t think it matters if it’s left, right, center, shortstop, or whatever (hey, if Italy can have a pornstar [Ciccolino?] and Berlusconi, there’s LOT’s of viewpoints out there) (and, I’m not picking on Italy, I’m just thinking about the, erm, Photoshopped inauguration pics going around the net after their latest elections – we all have our colorful politicos and papers, etc.). WHAT DOES MATTER is governments (kings, rulers, elites, what-have-you) all seem to focus on “I see that money in your pocket/bank account/house/farm/etc. and I WANT IT”.
Money transfer. Reverse Robin-Hood. “Redistribution of Wealth”. THAT is the real problem, not what the purported political point-of-view-source is. Because the real Mannipulators are “above” (in their view) nations and politics….and until WE realize it, we will remain their fealty…..
(fealty towers?)
The labels/names of left-vs-right, conservative-vs-liberal and socialist-vs-capitalist are too emotive and imprecise in dealing with the fundamental core issue in the lead post of ‘consensus’ hate toward independent thinkers in climate science dialogs.
A more precise and less emotive alternative follows. The core issue at hand in the lead post is the hatred collectivists must, by their own quasi-morality, have for the independent (of the collective) individualists who dare to publicly criticize/refute the collective’s claims, values and actions. That hatred is exhibited by Adam Weinstein and Lawrence Torcello in the lead post; who in turn support hatred exhibited by collectivist CAGW exaggerators and activists within the science community; who in turn are supporting the quasi-governmental IPCC bureau.
Corollary => It is a parallel but important discussion that socialism necessarily has a quasi-moral collectivist basis and consistently portrays collective public hatred leading to public expressions of mass collective violence on its own citizens. Sadly, such expressions have frequently been implemented by collectivists in the 20th century.
John
Interesting about the JDL posture. Perhaps if they saw it this way (snark): Sure the CO2s may not be a problem but can civilization afford to take that chance? We need a Final Solution to the CO2-ish problem.
and yes, I am part CO2-ish
Depends if the book is consider non fiction, academic, fiction, creative factual, etc. Has anyone read ‘Mien Kampf” (excuse spelling) I remember requesting if they had a copy in the Dixon library at UNE (Armidale) and the librarian couldn’t find it. “Impossible”, I replied, ” it’s a classic by Adolf Hitler” ‘Oh dear, I’ve been looking under ‘My Camp”. I did get through the first chapter, but you could tell it was the ravings of a bigot and worse. But he impressed the Germans didn’t he? Anyone who went against him, disappeared or worse. Do you think there are similarities with these alarmist group, who wish we never existed?
‘snarkmania says:
March 31, 2014 at 5:19 pm
… “but can civilization afford to take that chance?”…’
Don’t mean to feed a troll here, but the precautionary principle is no reason to dump TRILLIONS of
dollars/euros/pesos/you-name-it down the plughole for something that has neither been proven nor
presented with data that is falsify-able (or not, as the case may be)….
Adaption to various severe climate changes costs money. And I agree they were spending trillions on the wrong predictions. For all those who put money into carbon credits, green energy etc., are going to lose theirs. It was funny that Tivula that little island group that cried at the Copenhagen COP that they were in danger of sinking. They didn’t apply for help as they found the documents too difficult. Hence they missed out on funding from the UNCCF. I wonder why?
“bushbunny says:
March 31, 2014 at 7:37 pm”
Actually, no, Germans weren’t that impressed. When the first volume was published it was a flop, like his art/paintings. Even the second volume didn’t sell well initially. It was not until after he came to power that the book became “nationalised” (I can’t think of a better way to describe it) and was compulsory reading by all and became a “success”.
The precautionary principle would clearly advise you to turn off your computer & disconnect your house from the grid & hopefully either freeze to death or starve.
You are correct of course, but I couldn’t finish reading it. It rambled. But he blamed the Jews for everything, no doubt the weather too.
John Whitman:
re the silly, utrue and wicked prejudice expressed by you in your post at March 31, 2014 at 3:33 pm.
Please read the post (adjacent to your drivel) by Jeff at March 31, 2014 at 2:53 pm and try to learn from it.
Richard
– – – – – – – – –
richardscourtney,
I will be happy to address Jeff at March 31, 2014 at 2:53 pm if he directs a comment to me with specific points. I await Jeff’s commentary on my last comment (John Whitman on March 31, 2014 at 3:33 pm).
Do you have specific points instead of your namecalling? {NOTE: your namecalling was: silly, wicked, drivel, . . . }
I will take your comment to me as an opportunity to add to my comment at March 31, 2014 at 3:33 pm. When I discussed the hatred discussed in the lead post, the reason I used the term ‘quasi-morality’ wrt collectivism is that collectivism is a bridge concept between ethics and politics; it is not a purely ethics concept. To complete an analysis of why collectives evolve hatred for individualists we need to step into the question of what pure ethics concept supports a collective’s urge to violate the sovereignty of an individual life where that urge gives birth to the expression of hatred by the collective toward individuals.
John
[trimmed. Mod]
Lets stop this political argument regarding socialism. Communism is so outdated even by Russia, and look what’s happened to them. If the majority of people in a country are poor and uneducated, they will obviously exchange their ideology to embrace communism to get bread and rob the rich of their luxuries.
Don’t confuse socialism that has in the past been good for the people well in UK anyway. National Health Service for one and welfare for the disadvantaged. But we now have the ALP or New Labor who have moderated their stance and no longer fly the red flag.
It’s the Green political movement in Australia that has grown in their political ideology, to embrace
a one world government, vegetarianism, and clean energy. Financial equality for all, well when that happens it will be nothing short of stupid. We need employers and the worst thing with capitalism, we are at the stage where the majority of workers depend on a job or permanent employment. I think one politician once said, “civil rights are a right for everyone, but so long as it doesn’t trample on the civil rights of another.”
Freedom of speech and of course America had the KKK, they got a short shift in Australia and UK. We have to start separating politics from science, or it get’s messy.
In the Australian constitution it states,…”No person should be prejudiced against because of race, gender, religion or political views if they wish to apply for a public post or career.”
End note.I have just changed over to NBN and the Telstra technician was interested in your site as I was on it when he came to change over Anthony, and was pleased I debate the AGW factions and I think he might join.
I agree with Richard, those who have taken this climate change rage against skeptical science, is primarily to protect their future and past profit or grants to submit false information. But being a socialist has nothing to do with it, not in UK or Australia. Russia doesn’t believe in the AGW nonsense.
Where’s my last post? Don’t say the NBN hasn’t put it through yet?
Oh, it’s gone but I agree socialism or any political ideology should not interfere with ones point of view and science. I agree with Richard, these AGW’s are more worried about their past rants and how they ripped off the tax payer by producing one eyed science.