Josh writes…
A dark cartoon for the the start of the year following the shocking events in Paris and stories about the blocking of ideas and closed minds.
I wonder what will happen when the Green Blob meets in Paris later in the year?
Josh writes…A dark cartoon for the the start of the year following the shocking events in Paris and stories about the blocking of ideas and closed minds.
I wonder what will happen when the Green Blob meets in Paris later in the year?
Have no doubt they will brings bags of free speech and 0 degrees of freedom . . .
Bubba-the UN entities have entered into an agreement with the Club of Rome to create the desired ;values’ for the post-2015 global agenda. Then the K-12 education system globally imposes them invisibly in the name of Equity, 21st Century Learning, workforce skills, and Competency.
Plus the UNITAE subsidiary in 2003 began setting up a global CIFAL network http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/stipulating-without-our-consent-that-post-literate-right-brained-man-is-necessary-for-workforce-development/ to train legislators, mayors, school supers, etc to be local change agents using their coercive powers to actually push the UN agenda.
Interestingly the North American CIFAL is in Atlanta with another in Mexico. There are 12 in all and we are all at risk until these networks of treachery and Marxist Statism are better known. The accompanying reports actually cite to what Marx called his Human Development Model. Yikes!!
Of course you know you are preaching to the choir, but I appreciate the support.
I live in Vermont, home of you know who, and with a governor who has to be in the pay of big wind. We have nothing else here to take except taxing our air with carbon measures. Our federal reps are senile and entrenched and cherish the PTC subsidies or are so stupid that they are Marx’s “useful Idiots”.
Rud Istvan has kindly agreed to help me with plaintive writings. Waiting for good contact info.
In my region, my letters are appreciated by the public and local legislators and snubbed in the zealot capitol. I mourn what must have happened and continues to happen in “higher education”, much less common core. I attended a “Courageous Conversation about Climate” hosted by a meteorologist and I confronted 1 speaker saying this isn’t about when you saw a bluebird in the backyard; this is about that IPCC horse pucky. He said I’m a reader for the IPCC. I’m the interim dean of environmental science at University of Vermont. I asked what his academic training was. “I’m an economist”.
I said “I have a PhD in actual research science. You’re not competent to assess any area of science”. Left courageous conversation, host called me that evening and apologized and said they told me before the show that they weren’t going there. Courageous. I said politics has hijacked science. He said yup.
Don’t know how to get it back but Rud and I will write stuff.
I liken the comping energy poverty here to indiscriminate violence of all the people.
Cheery
Bubba-you have Gus Speth in Vermont who wrote President Carter’s plan. He is a law prof at Vermont U now but he was the principal author of The Global 2000 Report to the President: Entering the Twenty-First Century. It is easy to locate on the Internet once its existence is known.
It really does make the role of the Environment as an excuse for a government planned economy and society front and center. Well worth the time.
Thank you , Robin.
Expect that is Vermont Law School but should be easy to find.
We need all the help we can get.
Bubba Cow, you rock. The worm the Early Bird has found is under an awful big damn rock.
=============
right !!!
Spiked have an article that is unfortunately too close to the truth for comfort. http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/what-if-icharlie-hebdo-i-had-been-published-in-britain/16443#.VLFo9SusWQC
Many thanks for that link!
It is close to the truth in the US too. Sad that.
Yeah.
Some of it.
Maybe not all of it: I hope.
But – I’m an old fart, and the world has changed (not necessarily to our advantage).
I now have run out of comment.
Auto.
The other truth is that some warmists have called for the death penalty and imprisonment for CAGW sceptics. In other words a climate FATWA. Are those warmists any more tolerant of free speech than ISIS supporters?
Freedom isn’t free.
Jimbo – have you seen this article? http://thoughtcatalog.com/tanya-cohen/2015/01/here-is-why-its-time-to-get-tough-on-hate-speech-in-america/
Frightening that people actually think this is ok.
Thanks for the link, I have saying this in a very none articulate way for 40 years ( lots of bleeps etc), It is why I left the EU.
We need someone from the top of the scientific establishment to say something similar to the words of Egypt’s President SIsi and address them to climate scientists around the world:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-al-sisi-1420760154?KEYWORDS=President+SIsi+Speech
“Honorable Imam [the Grand Sheik of Al-Azhar], you bear responsibility before Allah. The world in its entirety awaits your words, because the Islamic nation is being torn apart, destroyed, and is heading to perdition. We ourselves are bringing it to perdition.”
What is happening in Nigeria scares the crap out of me. I have lived there in that Adamawa State developing the American University of Nigeria which is based upon western education standards. We have built excellent science labs. They haven’t gone dark with social studies and climate crud. Still, I fear that it will be soon a target for Boku Haram. That Hausa is badly translated by MSM. It means “Western is Wrong” – opposite of kosher (H’allal). Security is not good.
I have many many good friends who are Muslim and call me for Christmas. I’ve lived in other Muslim countries – Morocco and Saudi. Islam is peaceful. Jihad is not well understood here – watch Traitor – perhaps Don Cheadle’s best work though he has many. I could go on here.
Agree that climate science needs the proverbial slap upside the head. I don’t even call it science anymore. I could go on here too.
I know about the suppression of debate – even at the state funded BBC but…
This still sits uneasily with me.
Silencing opposition is wrong but the use of deadly violence seems more wrong, doesn’t it?
This feels like a disproportionate complaint.
CACA faithful call for the slaying of infidel skeptics.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/12/25/progressives-call-for-murder-of-climate-skeptics-and-gun-owners/
Wasn’t the commercial with skeptical school kids’ heads being detonated in bloody explosions from Britain?
The wish is father to the deed. Have skeptics not indeed received death threats?
Here is the one you’re talking about. GreenNazi Murder Dreams:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=10%2010%2010%20video%20exploding%20children&qs=n&form=QBVR&pq=10%2010%2010%20video%20exploding%20children&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&mid=0E23EF3968D134196E280E23EF3968D134196E28
Sick, ain’t it?
But they didn’t really blow up school kids. It was a satire.
It wasn’t funny and It was offensive.
It wasn’t even very good.
But it is of a different order to actually using violence.
West Houston Geo, thanks!
M. Courtney, Give them time & even more power, & they will, IMO. Reminds me of when putative pacifists in Portland, Oregon graffitied walls calling for the beheading of Ollie North. The totalitarian mindset broaches no opposition.
Some random thoughts on this. First: Well said Josh. Dr. Mann is suing Mark Steyn and Tim Ball because of something they said. He isn’t killing anyone, but he sure is trying to bankrupt them. We do not need to defend speech that does not offend. That speech does not need defending. We need to defend speech that offends. Anthony understands this well I believe. He links to those who disagree with him and he doesn’t sue those who defame him. When I see a permanent link to WUWT at realclimate, I’ll believe they are taking baby steps to believing in defending free speech. Until then, they must accept some responsibility for the events that occurred. As do all who defend “free speech, but . . .”.
Well said.
Some years ago I had to sit through an indoctrination about “Sexual Harassment in the Workplace”.
The gist of it was that if someone claimed they were offended by what I said or did, I was guilty. No innocent until proven guilty. Guilty.
If a radical feminist took offense at my opening the door for her, I could be in trouble. With no defense.
To offend was indefensible.
The kicker was that the presenter was a minister who claimed affiliation Rev. Martin Luther King.
I bit my tongue and didn’t mention that there was a someone who offended lots of people but was more innocent than any someone has ever been.
GD, you have just nutshelled the whole PC dilemma. Given diversity (of opinion and otherwise), to give no offense to anyone is to remain silent. Not gonna happen on my watch.
But it is important to be as factualy precise (and unassailably referenced) as possible. That is where skeptics have faltered a bit. See my newest book for hopeful counterexamples.
Agree with Rud. Take the high ground and hold it.
Defending speech that offends is fine in theory but you have to remember that at least half the people on the planet are in the 15th century still from an economic, educational & social standpoint. Instant tolerance doesn’t happen. Then you through in the House of Saud funding Wahhabi schools for decades in those parts of the world. Rather than blaming Islam as a whole (like some media do) I think the fault lies clearly at the door of the Saudi royal family.
While I do not advocate violence when you publish something that you know will royally offend 1.5 billion people you have to be aware of the fact that if even 0.00001% of them are violently inclined that you could become a target.
Even if you are a devout Muslim you will still be targeted if you don’t tow the line they want you to. Look at Ramzan Kadyrov. HIs father was the Mufti (Islamic religious leader) in Chechnya and was murdered by the extremists because he wouldn’t go along. Now ISIS has a multi million dollar price on Ramzan’s head because he has been extremely successful against the extremists.
Any fanatical extremism is very dangerous to everyone because you are never “good enough” by their definition. If you don’t accept that they kill you.
We do not have free speech anymore, this concept has been obliterated by the left wing, politically correct “elite”. In Newcastle Civic Centre to ask for black or white coffee is considered racist (coffee with or without is the phrase that should be used). Birmingham City Council declared a few years ago that Christmas was to be called “Winter Festival” so as not to upset non-Christians.
It is this kind of behaviour that has fomented terrorism, both by it’s implication that somehow other religions are superior to ours and patronising those same religions.
It is ironic that the terrorists don’t need to do anything, in a few years the lefties will have done it all for them!
I understand the sentiment but honestly, the sooner we stop aligning ourselves according to right/left, the sooner we’ll all come to the realization that the political system is a sham and politicians have only two goals. 1. Getting into office 2. Staying in office. We are simply the vehicle they use to obtain and maintain power.
Oddly enough, you might actually have more in common with your lib-left neighbor than your conservative congressional/senate representatives. Except in rare circumstances, even the most honest, hard working individual has to compromise on principles in order to reach higher office. It’s then a slippery slope to the bottom.
The left/right system is endemically corrupt and politicians thrive when the electorate is divided amongst itself.
I Agree. The real problem is the left/right, Muslim/Christian/Jew/et al, 1%/99%, and any other them/us mentality. Undistinguished leaders use it for short-term political gain without regard to the long-term societal harm it causes and until we (the unwashed masses) stop following people that push these views, it will not change.
We get what we deserve and if your particular leader is telling you that it’s all the fault of some other group, you are following the wrong person.
MichaelS
Are you saying what we need is “consensus”?
Eugene WR Gallun
Brian said:
“We get what we deserve and if your particular leader is telling you that it’s all the fault of some other group, you are following the wrong person.”
That is exactly the point I was making. Thank you.
Eugene WR Gallun said:
“Are you saying what we need is “consensus”?
Yes Eugene, what we need is a “consensus”.
We need to all agree that the past 75+ years of left/right politics has helped create an adversarial mentality that fertilizes the kind of Us vs Them political idealism that keeps everyone mired in a state of perpetual bullshit.
The election cycle in 2000 was $3B.
The election cycle in 2004 was $4B
The election cycle in 2008 was $6B.
The election cycle in 2012 was $7B.
The election cycle in 2016 was $?B.
Does there really need to be this much money flowing in order to put a government in place? Will the stakes keep going up and if so, where does it end?
Very well said, MichaelS. The eternal shouting match between “left” and “right” is pure divide-and-conquer flimflam, and has little to offer at the best of times. Followers of UK politics may remember a few years ago, when the Conservative M.P. David Davis resigned and forced a by-election over the issue of the spread of state surveillance. Supporting his move, the late Tony Benn – probably about as far from Conservative politics as you could get – was asked by a BBC interviewer whether it wasn’t a bit unusual seeing Right and Left wing politicians getting together like this.
Benn smiled agreeably and told him that, while there were of course differences between them, on matters as important as liberty left and right “sort of meet round the back”. He was absolutely right. The important axis at present is not “left-right”, however you want to define them. The dichotomy now is between libertarian and authoritarian, and we must all choose between a world in which “we the people” control our governments pro bono publico and one in which arrogant, self-selected U.N. “technocrats” in a globalist “government” control – and beggar – the rest of us for their own benefit.
Given that education has been monstrously corrupted since WWII, as is so spine-chillingly documented for the U.S. on Robin’s outstanding “Invisible Serf’s Collar”, it’s not going to be an easy fight. Everyone under about 40 has already received years of “communitarian training” at school and had their critical faculties anaesthetised, for a start. Nonetheless, it is an inevitable and essential fight, if you don’t want your grandchildren to end up – at best – as minor functionaries in the “Fourth Reich”. Maybe, when we’ve got rid of the crust of globalist parasites destroying our planet and plotting our downfall, we will get back to the “left-right” stuff, but I’d rather hope that we might by then have learned to work togeether.
Believe nothing because a wise man said it.
Believe nothing because the belief is generally held.
Believe nothing because it is written in ancient books.
Believe nothing because it is of divine origin.
Believe nothing because someone else believes it.
Believe only that which you yourself judge to be true.
– Buddha
To which I would only add:
… but make sure your judgement is sound.
If you still think “right-left”, it needs working on.
MichaelS
I would describe myself as a pro-choice, atheist, extremely conservative Republican. I think that unless i run for office myself I am never going to find a candidate I am completely happy with — but isn’t that the situation of every voter?
In the real world I favor religious candidates over atheist candidates because I believe anyone out there proclaiming their atheism during a campaign is most likely a nut case.
My pro-choice beliefs find the current turmoil on this topic quite proper. Currently pro-choice women are not prevented from having abortions and pro-life women are not required to have abortions. Sounds fair to me.
I favor small government because government screws everything up so lets keep the screw-ups government is capable of as small as possible.
All the above aside, most of which was said half-jokingly, I am far more scared of consensus than I am of endless contention. Consensus demands that debate end — and there should never be an end to debate. (And I must add that so-called “obstructionism” in government is instrumental in preventing “consensus” — that is why those favoring consensus are so negative about it. It prevents them from getting their way.)
if politics is the art of cat herding — then consensus politics is the art of shooting all the cats.
Eugene WR Gallun
MichaelS says “the sooner we stop aligning ourselves according to right/left, the sooner we’ll all come to the realization that the political system is a sham and politicians have only two goals.”
Too late. You have already aligned yourself “left” by using the word “we”. It is your paradigm, the way your brain is wired, to assume the existence of “we”.
Plus it is more accurate to describe “left/right” not as a thing “we” align to, but as descriptive words that describe character traits you were very likely born possessing. You do not choose to be right or left, it is what you are and relates (IMO) to left brain / right brain (left politics, right half of brain; right politics, left half of brain).
As one matures, there’s a tendency to be able to use both sides of one’s brain in which case I, and others, see the good of both left and right, and the bad of both left and right, realizing that situational ethics pertain and sometimes one system is to be preferred depending on the circumstances.
They have peaked.
In comments on sci-fi geek blogs, I have been referring to the “chalkboard” in the latest series of Doctor Who. (Just to avoid tedious arguments, you understand.)
Recently, Doctor Who Confidential called it a “blackboard”. No public outcry. No moral panic. Nobody noticed.
Conclusion: They’ve started to lose track of their own bollocks. They can no longer remember what’s “unacceptable” and what isn’t.
They are going away. Soon they will be gone.
“”We need to defend speech that offends.”” Speech does not offend. Every individual is given a choice as to whether they choose to “take offence” at anything that is said. There is no grammatical rule; there is no dictionary of offence. We live in an “offence” culture where people try and rule the conversation by faux offence and umbrage. Freedom of speech is inviolable. There can be no rules, because to set rules demands that someone becomes the arbiter of other peoples words. Choose not to be offended and choose freedom of speech. I live in France. I am Charlie.
Yes,
No.
Ivor, I’m with you – inasmuch as I understand your words: that people have no right ‘not to be offended’. That is the key.
But I do retain the right to react to being offended – ‘to take offence’. Thing is, if you call me an a*sehole, I reserve the right to bop you on the nose. But I don’t think you deserve to die for it – and I deserve to be arrested for it.
My point is, life is full of offensive experiences – it’s how we grow – but we develop and grow as a result based on how we react to those offences.
We do need to protect free speech – even that which offends – but only inasmuch as those doing the offending are made to understand that they are (by someone’s lights) offensive. Otherwise the drunk calling your wife an offensive name will be protected. Oh, and I know this to be the way things are going because, when someone gratuitously offended my wife, and I later told (her) in fairly assertive terms (no swearing) that she should not do that, she called the police and I was the one prosecuted for common assault. (In the UK, common assault does not have to be physical, it only has to be ‘apprehended’ – and that’s another problem).
Et – je suis Charlie, aussie.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/thelist.htm
These 24,000 terrorist attacks and religious murders (some few are so-called honor-killings of a wife or daughter by the husband-father-brother) killed over 90,000 people since September 11, 2001.
It IS the religion – a 7th century model based on 7th century rituals and social values: That is, based on nothing but what the rest of the world grew away from since 680 AD.
Way to go, Harry. What a guy. Your wife is blessed to have such a gallant husband. The sickening bias shown by the prosecutor shows why the AGWers often put a woman out there as their spokesperson: the myth that all women are “nice.” (head shake) Where have they been living for their entire lives??! Or did I luck out and meet all 500 members of Nasty Women with Sweet Smiles, Inc.?
But Harry, verbal retort can have so much more impact than a bop on the nose – which is violence in response to someone who makes a verabl insult. You would be the one arrested. I remember someone calling my old uncle a big head one day (he died in April, and I miss him). He immediately came back with, ‘Yes, but my head would still rattle in your mouth’. It was a superb response, and a belittling put-down, no violence needed. In powderkeg arguments I have found that being calm and using words carefully have a massive and devastating impact. I have had people frothing at the mouth in confrontation with me, as they aren’t thinking as clearly as me. I’ve never hit anyone in my life – never had to.
Big Jim, not everyone is good with the quick retort that puts someone in their place and the line between acceptable and unacceptable is very blurred. Laws and public morals are being changed so that those that are better with their mouth can bully others. A protestor can do to others what would be considered assault, as Harry pointed out, and any reaction is portrayed as stopping free speech.
While I’m not happy to say it, I get the feeling that a world completely free of violence will be full of peace lovers who are nasty little so-and-sos. Humans are too anti-intellectual to have seen the last of a bit of biffo (or terrorist attacks).
Hell is not being able to reason.
Well said, thank you.
Nowhere is it in Western civilization stated that there is a right to not be offended. Speech is controlled by slander and libel laws, not “I am offended” laws because these would be subjective. Heck, I could even be offended by anything that I don’t like, or represents my ideological opponents.
How offended, or not? Please quantify the degree to which you are not offended and use the standard unit of measure for offence (do I need a sarc tag?)
Claims of “sexual harassment” ….. has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with “what was said”, …… but everything to do with “who said it”.
Which is where the “hate speech” crap came from.
I don’t “hate” very many people, and I certainly don’t run around trying to get others to hate people. But when someone moves here and not only refuses to be part of this culture, but actively plots our demise, how foolish is it to ignore them?
“Yes granted that you can have the right not to be offended brother even if you are deeply offended !”
“But he is always easily offended!”
“alright comrades , insofar as Achmud is always easily offended we can nevertheless agree that whilst easily and constantly offended , he has the right , if he so wishes ,to not be offended,this would not prohibit him from being madly aroused by offense,or not,as the case may be but would allow us to go forward in joint purpose as stakeholders ,in the rights of anyone ,male or female, of any race or creed ,to be entitled not to be wound up ,as a right by what may or may not be offense.”
“Splitters!!”
The life of Brian has a lot to answer for. /sarc
I sometimes find the C Bit C in Canada offensive. I turn the dial. Some people claim many TV programs are offensive – I can only assume they are unable to change the channel, hit the mute button or turn away. I find the language of many youngsters “offensive” but their peers do not – so I accept that things have changed.
300 years ago Voltaire said something like: “I detest what you say, but I defend your right to say it to the death.” That should still be valid.
I disagree with many viewpoints here and the tonality with which they are stated, but to paraphrase another old saying: “Keep your friends close, your enemies closer.” It is good to keep an open mind and listen.
I have learned much here.
Thank you. And thoughts to the bereaved families in France.
I have been listening and watching in the Great White North, where we have the CBC (taxpayer subsidized to the tune of $1.1B/yr) trying not to offend anyone and others saying that it is wrong for the PM to call these acts barbaric. The pen is only mightier than the sword when you have a liberal democracy with the rule of law to defend free speech.
I have also been saddened by my many erstwhile lefty friends who used to say “I might not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it” now having caveats about free speech if it is not part of the “consensus” they support.
As a lefty myself, your erstwhile lefty friends should be compelled to shut up …
Yet you can post here, but I am constantly and consistently deleted by your lefty friends at their lefty sites. Hmmmm.
David Ball,
Funny about that, isn’t it?
Neither the politically Left blogs, nor the alarmist blogs [pretty much the same thing], allow free exchange of ideas. Especially the alarmist climate blogs, which censor like crazy. I have long since given up trying to post comments on most of them — and knowing how sensitive they are, I am always extremely polite and careful.
Doesn’t matter. If I post a graph that contradicts their narrative, it almost never sees the light of day.
That alone ought to tell the alarmist clique commenting here who is right, and who is wrong.
What’s that, Brandon? Santa didn’t bring you a new box o’ sarc tags?
Alan, I needed my daily dose of irony. Self-administered is the best sort.
David Ball, Maybe you’re consistently more offensive than I am. It’s not like I haven’t been warned here. That said I do appreciate having been allowed to air my views here despite all the rumors I read elsewhere about censorship at WUWT.
B. Gates says:
…I do appreciate having been allowed to air my views here despite all the rumors I read elsewhere about censorship at WUWT.
Yes, I’ve read the same false accusations about ‘censorship’ here. It seems that when they can’t win debates with facts, then fabricating ‘facts’ is an acceptable tactic. It isn’t.
As always, the Romans understood human nature:
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
You fib about one thing, that makes you a fibber. You will fib about anything.
Also: I’ve read David Ball’s comments here for years. He is no more offensive than Gates — who I must admit, is pretty inoffensive.
So that excuse is out. Alarmist blogs simply do not want their readers to see any other point of view except their own.
dbstealey,
Oh dear, once again The Pause has reached The Hot Place and then some, for it has frozen over — we agree on something. There are other ways to quash debate when inconvenient arguments come to light, and — how can I put this delicately — you are among the true masters of the non sequitur.
You’re not alone. My side does it too … I do it too when frustration leads to anger and those things get the best of me. Difficult to be a caring human being and not have those kind of emotional responses.
My position on this matter is that blog owners have the privilege of deciding who comments and who does not. WUWT has its own ground rules. I myself have tested the boundaries and had my knuckles rapped. Which is fine. I’m a guest here at Anthony’s pleasure. His blog, his rules, my choice to follow them or not.
MAYBE David Ball could have been a better guest, maybe the hosts were thin-skinned and overly intolerant of reasonable opposing views …. I don’t know. I’ll not ever be able to know. These are subjective judgement calls, none of us are ever going to be able to agree on what’s fair and isn’t.
In the end I don’t much care. When we warmunists finally get the conspiracy going full swing and pass the laws to shut WUWT down forever, well then you’ll have a decent complaint in my view.
Rare that I use this device, but just to be sure … /sarc.
Cheers.
Gates says:
The Pause has reached The Hot Place…
And you call me a master of the non sequitur??
Projection.
But you have made an important admission: WUWT does not censor opposing views. THAT is what’s important. If alarmist blogs operated the same way as WUWT, I honestly believe thwey would either be forced out of business, or be cut down to even smaller traffic numbers. As it is, they are nothing more than like-minded echo chambers populated with head-nodders.
If you had kept on topic you would also have to agree that alarmist blogs censor opposing views. As I said above, that should tell you all you need to know.
dbstealey,
Self-deprication. Which requires self-awareness. Something you either wholly lack, are awfully good at pretending you don’t have … or somewhere in between.
What I know is that I have not been moderated out … and in this context I prefer the term moderated to censor. A blog owner is not the gummint, and proper terminology is something I’m a stickler for.
No, I don’t have to agree. It’s yours and David’s word that I’ve got to go on here, and that’s it. So I don’t base WUWT’s moderation policy on the basis of my experience alone because that would be extending personal anecdotal evidence to the general case, and that’s fallacious. I don’t trust much of what combatants on either side of this debate say about the other side because I know this is a political mud fest.
My anchor for understanding this row is the science itself. It’s the most objective lens through which to view the debate that I trust.
+100! And there you have it ladies and gentlemen. I too have posted up on the Guardian comments section peer reviewed abstracts that contradict their position and was promptly deleted or banned. Yet most of the articles were simply from journalists while mine was from the peer review! They insist time and again to “listen to the science”, but I think they meant listen to the journalism. LOL.
May I add that Dr. Richard Tol of the IPCC also had a comment removed. Sometimes facts hurt.
Here is the removed comment in the Guardian by Dr. Richard Tol of the IPCC, dated 21 October 2014. The really funny thing is that Tol had written an article in the Guardian a few months earlier (6 June 2014) challenging the climate consensus.
Yes, yes! Lefty! Goober!
Thanks, Jimbo. I can truly believe your comments and links have been “censored” [yes, I agree with Gates that it isn’t censorship, since only the gov’t can censor. But the effect is exactly the same: readers don’t see the other side of the debate].
You post facts, like a lot of skeptics. But they don’t like facts. They cannot argue facts. Facts show they are wrong. So the easy solution for them is to simply delete inconventient facts, and… on with the propaganda!
That worked in the 1930’s, when governments controlled the narrative. But with free speech and the internet, the alarmist contingent is losing credibility day by day — because they have no solid, supporting facts.
B. Gates says:
how can I put this delicately — you are among the true masters of the non sequitur.
Gates, after repeatedly pointing out that you, and even more, Socks, is guilty of non sequitur confusion, now you have started using it to argue. But just look at the comments Socks makes, and try to put your own house in order.
Next, you say:
Self-deprication. Which requires self-awareness. Something you either wholly lack, are awfully good at pretending you don’t have … or somewhere in between.
Gates, often times you make no sense, you just ramble on. That is one of those times.
If you stuck with the facts like Jimbo does, this would be wrapped up in short order, so I can understand why you prefer to ramble.
dbstealey,
How about a specific example?
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, donchaknow.
Meh, I’ve about had my fill of thinly-evidenced anecdotes about who’s been moderated/banned at what blog. Facts … facts … oh hey. Not to change the subject or anything have you yet answered my questions about this graph you posted a few threads back?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/clip_image0062.jpg?w=700
1) How did the creator of this chart came up with the values for the y-axis TEMPERATURE values?
2) Why do you think the TEMPERATURE values are accurate if Global Warming is too insignificant to measure?
I’m also wondering if you’ve figured out which of your idle speculations about my personal status is most likely correct:
One might wonder why I’ve mashed these seemingly unrelated questions together: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/06/on-the-futility-of-climate-models-simplistic-nonsense/#comment-1832583
“Put my own house in order … ” lol, you’re killin’ me Stealey. Mind yourself first. Then, maybe, possibly, I’ll seriously entertain anything critical you’ve got to say about something (whatever it is) Socks has written.
I can’t wait to see the reply you get Brandon
Socrates,
Here’s hoping it’s something a little more original than the last elebentyzillion times I’ve asked him about that plot. And hey, since you’re here, whatever you’ve said to get his knickers in a twist, knock it off, ok? Whatever it is you’ve flubbed, I really shouldn’t make my policing of your independent activities on this blog conditional on him shaping himself up. Cheers!
Alternate graph :
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/10/the-diminishing-influence-of-increasing-carbon-dioxide-on-temperature/
garymount,
I take it that you stand behind the accuracy of the graphic you’ve posted. That being the case, I have some questions for you:
1) The title mentions the “logarithmic diminution of the influence of CO2 on temperature”. What formula(e) were used to create this plot? Please be sure to include any constants.
2) The title also mentions “remaining maximum temperature change” due to the influence of CO2. What is that maximum temperature, and what assumptions were used to calculate this as yet, unknown future value? Again please be sure to include any formula(e) and constants.
3) What observational data sets and analysis methods were used to validate the temperature changes implied, but unstated, in this graphic?
4) Given your evident trust in this graphic, what do you think of dbstealey’s previous assertions that the temperature effects of CO2 are too small to measure?
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm
garymount,
Ok, that page lists three simplified expressions for CO2 forcing listed, let’s go with the simplest:
ΔF = α * ln(C/C₀), α = 5.35 W/m^2
They don’t give us a value for C₀ here, but 280 ppmv is standard so I’ll spot you that constant.
Now, ΔF is change in radiative forcing, not change temperature. The plot you posted is talking about temperature. How did whoever make that chart calculate equilibrium temperature? How did they validate their results?
gary mount,
Don’t fall for Gates’ incessant “But why” type of response. He has no interest in scientific veracity, only in endless, nitpicking obfluscation. This is a somewhat complicated discussion, so anyone with that intent can clutter up the threads to where it’s all about them, instead of the topical questions.
The bottom line: global warmig has stopped, which killed the alarmists’ arguments. Now they’re just getting nasty, because they can’t man-up and admit they were wrong all along.
And they were wrong. Not one of their scary predictions ever happened. Despite rising CO2, global temperatures have not followed. Polar bear populations are rising. The sea level rise is not accelerating as predicted, it is actually decelerating. Ocean “acidification” cannot even be quantified. Methane in no longer in the news, because that scare was debunked, too. The biggest scare of all runaway global warming, certainly appears to be complete nonsense. In any case, that is just another failed prediction.
And so far, no one has ever posted a verifiable, testable measurement of AGW. A measurement that quantifies the human factor in overall global warming. Is it one-third? Is it 9%? Is it 0.09%? We don’t know. Because there is no measurement of AGW!
Without any measurements, how can we be certain that AGW exists? The answer: we can’t. But the alarmist crowd is still trying to scare people with something that they cannot prove even exists! Is this the biggest HOAX ever? Or is AGW something so minuscule that it cannot even be measured? Which?
None of the alarmists’ predictions have happened. Why should anyone listen to them now? They are only trying to cover up their total failure.
dbstealey,
Tut. We’ve got this plot from you:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/clip_image0062.jpg?w=700
And this graphic that garymount has submitted into evidence:
If they’re not verifiable and testable, what in heck are proper skeptics like you two doing posting them to begin with?
Yet …
In sum, we can’t be certain AGW even exists, but we are absolutely certain it has stopped.
If you’re the cavalry, one wonders how inept the infantry is.
Gates,
Better to not comment, than to prove your foolishness.
Those are not measurements, any more than a multiplication table is a measurement.
They are graphs of a model; a model of radiative physics.
You are a noobie at this. Why not do as recommended, and read the WUWT archives for a while. Really, you will learn the difference between a model and, like, measurements.
It would do you good.
dbstealey,
That may explain why it takes so long for me to drag answers to simple questions out of you. To wit, at long last, you write:
[smacks forehead] You don’t say. Let’s have a look at this graphic again:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/clip_image0062.jpg?w=700
Near as I can tell with my eyeballs, the model for this plot is:
ΔT = ln(C₁) * 0.5 - ln(C₀) * 0.5Where C₀ and C₁ are CO2 concentrations in ppmv, and as plotted, C₁ = C₀ + 20. How we get T in units of °C from that formula I’ll never know … someone’s radiative physics text may be a little bonkers. But I digress.
Tsk. No WUWT veteran worth his or her salt would trust a model without proper validation, would they? So yet again DB, how was your little chart above validated if the effects of CO2 can’t be measured?
I am amused by Gates’ tap-dancing above.
Still no measurement, eh Gates?
Of course not. If there were, it would have been trumpeted from every media outlet 24/7/365. And we would know the exact fraction of AGW, out of total global warming. The debate would be over.
But carry on… the tap-dancing is amusing. Especially the arithmetic… ☺
dbstealey,
This here is a tango, m’dear.
You said it yourself above: This is a somewhat complicated discussion …
And now the full Stealy quote from above: He has no interest in scientific veracity, only in endless, nitpicking obfluscation. This is a somewhat complicated discussion, so anyone with that intent can clutter up the threads to where it’s all about them, instead of the topical questions.
It did occur to me after I posted that factoring out the constant to yield:
ΔT = (ln(C₁) - ln(C₀)) * 0.5would be slightly better algebra. Still, taking the log of a dimensioned value is strange. So, for the nth time DB, what’s the true formula for this plot, where did it come from, and above all:
How was it validated if the effects of CO2 are “too small to measure”?
You don’t seriously believe in the results of radiative physics models which have not been verified by observation … do you?
Of course not. And your silence on the question speaks very loudly indeed.
Gates,
Arguing with you is like dancing with the tar baby. The only thing I get from it is your confused nonsense:
So, for the nth time DB, what’s the true formula for this plot, where did it come from, and above all: How was it validated if the effects of CO2 are “too small to measure”?
I have repeatedly answered that same question. Go back and find the answer. Why should I have to explain the basics to you yet again — for the nth time?
And adding more to your arithmetic does not get you out of your hole. It is just obfuscation, which adds nothing whatever to the discussion. It is the typical Gates tactic of posting unnecessary, extraneous pixels.
Wake me if/when you begin to understand the difference between models and the real world. Because it’s clear that you still don’t see the difference.
dbstealey,
So, the possibilities are:
1) You answered it and I missed the post.
2) You answered it and I truly did not understand it was you answer.
3) You didn’t answer it and wish to make it appear I’m debating in bad faith.
4) You did answer it, I read it and understood it, and really am debating in bad faith.
So, here’s the ONE question I’m looking you to answer: How was it validated if the effects of CO2 are “too small to measure”?
The one way to resolve this conundrum is for you to provide a link to your prior answer, or simply repeat what you’ve already written.
He has explained it to you. Unfortunately, he can’t understand it for you.
Babsy,
And I repeat … So, the possibilities are:
1) You answered it and I missed the post.
2) You answered it and I truly did not understand it was you answer.
3) You didn’t answer it and wish to make it appear I’m debating in bad faith.
4) You did answer it, I read it and understood it, and really am debating in bad faith.
I allow for the possibility I have not read and/or understood his answer in (1) and (2). In (4) I allow for the possibility that I am the lying sack of bull excrement DB says I am.
Now it might occur to an honest, rational person who understood DB’s answer and knew where it was to provide the evidence that I’m:
1) inattentive,
2) stupid, or
4) dishonest
Instead what happens is I get answers like:
… which really makes option (3) look like a strong contender. OTOH, perhaps the both of you are as stupid as you think I am. It’s REAL easy to settle this … all it takes is one little linky linky to DB’s appropriate explanatory comment answering the following question:
How were the TEMPERATURE values in the following plot validated if the effects of CO2 are “too small to measure”?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/clip_image0062.jpg
I await a cogent and complete answer with much anticipation. By “cogent and complete” I do not mean something along the lines of, “Gates, you’re a lying idiot.”
Thanks ever so much.
Personally, I don’t care if you understand it or not. Not my problem. I’m watching football. Bye.
You’re not a bad place kicker yourself.
The CBC has been busy explaining why they won’t publish the cartoons while most other news organizations have published them. Speaks volumes. CBC ought to go the way of Air Canada and Petro Canada.
There are very few Crown Corporations that we still have any need to dump billions into running. Either private enterprise fills the need, or the need isn’t great enough to justify it.
“When a politician says, “The debate is over” … you can be sure of two things:
1. the debate is raging; and
2. he {or she} is losing it.”
George Will on Fox News Sunday (youtube)
**********************************************
EXCELLENT cartoon, Josh.
When a scientist says (effectively) “shut-up,” you can be sure of one of two things, he or she is:
1. Losing the debate; or
2. A religious zealot.
Happy New Year, Janice!
Well, Tom J, after all this time (smile)…
HAPPY NEW YEAR, TO YOU, TOO! #(:))
May it be your best year, so far!
You ARE going to those drag races this year!
Right on Josh: all mainstream media are buying themselves a cheap virtue on the back of Charlie… while the EU and NATO are using the events to promote their tyranny. One week ago the same media were all stigmatizing anyone who dared to criticize their masters…
Oh, the ironing. Paris, of all places. The green blob stands for lies being propounded and defended by those who weild power, which is the basis of fascism.
More ironing (lol, Bruce Cobb, you are ALWAYS so funny 🙂 —
Vichy France Anti-Allies Propaganda (youtube)
Al Gorebbels on the Den1ers (youtube)
(Note his exquisitely refined and erudite vocabulary.)
I suppose the following applies to the non-violent terrorism tactics of the climastrologists also:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/paris-attack-charlie-hebdo-muslims/2015/01/07/id/617102/
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1303/article_1149.shtml
Never mind a fundamentalist few, the VAST majority of Muslims have no comprehension of the fact that, to us, nothing is beyond ridicule, even the prophet Mohammed (or even especially). All religion, religious beliefs, sexuality, race, and everything else is fair game for laughter and to poke fun at – it’s what we (I would say especially the British) do. They are just going to have to get used to it. As a white, middle-aged man, I will take no offence about whatever you say about me, my personal beliefs, my politics, and everything I hold dear. Call me what you like. And anyone who takes offence should move to a country of like-minded people. But if you are resident in a country where such ridicule is the norm, then get used to it or piss off.
Not the vast majority Big Jim, thankfully. But it is a frighteningly and viciously growing set.
They are angry with our crusades in the Middle East, is true and I agree. Does not warrant the response however. And most Muslims I have lived with there agree and have been appalled. Was in Saudi Arabia on 9/11 watching terrorism on CNN with Crowned Princess Loolowah of the Kingdom. She was crying.
We’ve built or are building 50 universities in KSA for sciences (real ones) and professional education. One of the problems is that a generation of youth has attended subsidized university with an exclusive curriculum of Islamic studies = no life skills – and have to hire 500,000/ yr expatriates to run engineering, hospitals . . . and so the youth haven’t the skills to do anything and are ripe for propaganda.
As well the Faisal family thinks they must be an agent for dealing with Islamic terrorism.
We’ll see how that works out with Iran and watch for the energy wars as crude goes to $20/barrel.
Well I have to say that from experience of talking to many Muslims, the vasy majority cannot abide ridicule of the prophet Mohammed. To them, it’s a step too far. To ‘us’ it’s just one more thing to poke fun at. I do at Christianity, and I will at Islam.
“They are angry with our crusades in the Middle East, is true and I agree.”
Bubba Cow…..the Crusades were to recover land that had been taken BY Islam from Christianity. To say they are “angry” says 2 things….they deceived you and…………that is their plan(Taqquia)
The Crusades were a totally justified counter-attack. Don’t forget pre-1400 years ago, the middle east was Christian, with other religions co-existing.
I think Mr. Cow was referring to the modern wars in the Middle East, not the original Crusades.
Humor varies with culture, but generally I agree with the get on with it or piss off. With those I have come to know well, they concur, but it works both ways. I have found that respect is essential and then humor is accepted. Can’t criticize the King still, but his daughter used to dress in his clothes and take the Rolls for a ride through town. Agree it is a major work in progress . . . so is this climate crap.
“Y’re ‘n ‘ld c’nt”
– missive from: Keith Richard to Mick Jagger
(couldn’t he’p it)
Dear Ghost,
Given the integrity you have consistently demonstrated in your posts on WUWT, I think that you would serve your personal ethos if you, too, were to go investigate the case for the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, “crucified under Pontius Pilate… etc…. etc… .” I can assure you that you will find more eyewitness testimony and documentary evidence (see the Jewish historian Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, for two sources) for Jesus’ actions and words than ANY other single historical figure of ancient times. In other words, to be intellectually honest, you would also have to stop believing in many, many, other people whose existence you have simply accepted on authority… . Jesus’ historicity is not a serious topic of debate among the majority of historians whether they believe in him as Messiah or just as a famous man.
Examine the evidence. If you want a particular question to guide your research, just focus on the fact of the resurrection and ask: who rolled away the stone? (there is a book of that name, too here: http://www.amazon.com/Who-Moved-Stone-Frank-Morison/dp/0310295610) written by a “sceptical journalist.”
Your WUWT ally for truth AND HUMOR #(:)),
Janice
Dear Janice, ….. see this: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html
Hello Janice. I have read SO much over the years, argued on ‘belief’ forums, got into long conversations with English bishops and vicars. I was once (by my own hand) pitched against a whole ‘club’ of devout Christians on a weblog. Janice, I have argued this so many times, and of course, here isn’t the place. There’s one thing in your post that shines out: and that is the point about the veracity of other historic figures. Janice, not being able to verify others makes no stronger point for the possibility of Christ’s existence. I have researched this over and over, followed up leads from those on both sides, but they all come to one conclusion: when you REALLY look, there is no objective evidence that can be relied upon. Now, I know so well how difficult that is for you and others (and no, I’m actually not being patronising, even though it sounds like it). It is very difficult for me to discuss with you…because you start from the premise that it IS true, as you talk about the ‘resurrection’ as though it actually happened! You call it a “fact”. Do you see?
When I started out about global warming, I thought that it was true. This was around 12-15 years ago. I’m ashamed to say that I just went with the crowd, and listened to people whose opinions I respected and upheld. It was only when I had the time to do a lot of research about the subject that I found there was little or no evidence for AGW. I was shocked. The more I dug, the more I found out that things I was told, weren’t true. In those days, it was John Daly’s fantastic website that got me started (the Anthony of the 1990s!). You HAVE to find out stuff for yourself, with an open mind, to see if what you are told is true. It’s no good listening to others, they have their own belief – usually based on the fact that they themselves have simply listened to others. The idea that Jesus Christ was real is almost unanimous among scholars, but that doesn’t make it real, Janice. Outside of subjective followers, there remains only Josephus and Tacitus. These too, are at the very least mired in question.
Look again, Janice, this time with scientific eyes.
All the best.
Normally I find myself agreeing with 97% of the comments here on most subjects but I think I feel differently to the Ghost about poking fun.
Politicians , most BBC pundits, overpaid footballers and celebrities are fair game But…
I am not a Royalist but I do not like to hear people mock the Royal Family ,
I am by most criteria a poor Christian but I do not appreciate jokes about Jesus Christ
It is not because I consider them to be all powerful, but the opposite , because they are so vulnerable and
because they represent the tradition and history of the country and society into which I was lucky enough to be born.
At risk or certainty of being cast into the outer darkness I wonder if Moslems have similar feelings for similar reasons about their religious and/or historical figures, though thankfully few will experience more than a temporary annoyance.
Britain has a huge and proud history of satire and generally poking fun – it’s what we do…and everything is game, the Royal Family especially so. Don’t take any notice of their ‘not being able to answer back’! They have massive influence on how Britain is run, sometimes on a daily basis. Their little adventures and lapses make them all the more fair game. I can’t think of a funnier and more absurd institution. There isn’t any actual evidence that Jesus Christ existed (go look), hence a mythical figure is also up for ridicule. That’s just how it is, Mike.
Ooops. Ghost, sorry for the mis-posting. I responded to you above, here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/10/portents-in-paris/#comment-1833076
Note: I’m only addressing the narrow question of: Did Jesus exist or not? Whether Jesus was dead when the Roman soldiers took him off the cross (so he could indeed be resurrected), etc, etc… is also potential subject matter for your research (lots of logic and medical facts and other evidence for that, btw), but, not addressed by me here (nor shall it be — I’m already too close to the “disappear” line, now, no doubt, heh).
#(:))
I was. Interesting how difficult clear communication is. Thanks for your help.
Just don’t call me late for dinner
The error I see being made here is in the assumption that events in Paris had anything to do with freedom of speech. That is the lens through which the press views the world, and so that is the narrative through which they report it, particularly when it is them and their colleagues who are targeted. But make no mistake about it, this was not about freedom of speech, this was about freedom of religion. This was about members of one religion, through violence, attempting to make everyone else bow to their belief system.
In roughly the same time frame that events were unfolding in Paris, Boko Haram went on a rampage in Nigeria, murdering according to some reports, as many as 2 thousand people, their only “sin” being not bowing to Boko Haram’s religious beliefs. Of those murdered, was there a single cartoonist among them?
The likes of ISIS, Al Qaida, Boko Haram, the Taliban and so many others share a common belief system, that they have the right to force the rest of us to bow to theirs. To suggest otherwise is, I believe, hopelessly naive. Silencing free speech is only a tiny part of their over all strategy and ultimate goals.
First they came for the cartoonists….
You’re right, davidmhoffer. Freedom of speech was attacked, but the underlying motive was religious zeal (and also pure power-seeking by cynical thugs who are ultimately only after the wealth of a society and who use the true believers as their rabid hyenas)…. just as do the AGWer enviroprofiteers use the true believers… .
When violence against apostates
(especially if they are … dare we say it?…. Jews)
is one of the tenets of a creed,
it is most emphatically
NOT a “religion of peace.”
davidmhoffer, I fully agree. And that is the scary bit.
David, you are exactly right..
The next time someone says “religion of peace”…
….ask them to name one Muslim country where Charlie could have printed his cartoons
and if he did, what would have happened to him
Religion of peace my a55……..
Pity the hapless Africans, so frequently beset by this or that outbreak of murderous insanity. Any references to Boko Haram’s latest outrages have been sent far down the back pages, by the typical news outlet’s coverage of the atrocities in Paristan.
Media references to the House of Saud’s “dismay” at the actions of the Parisian attackers have all but disappeared and in their place, reports of the Saudi’s brutal suppression of free speech, by their sentencing of a vocal blogger to 20 consecutive weeks of public floggings, of 50 lashes at a time.
Recent news reports haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of the daily violence against the world, as practiced by the members of the R.O.P.
What’s the world to do in defense; adopt a posture of equivalence and engage in overwhelming levels of medieval ruthlessness, gaining one- upmanship against those now active on the terrorist front? Employ the scythe of death against six degrees of familial and fraternal associations of any known jihadi? There are financiers for all of this foolishness… cut off the heads of the snakes and all of their kith and kin?
The recent Boko Haram rampage went against Muslim and Christian alike, cutting down all those in their path. We’ve often seen that the Islamists’ destruction falls upon far more of their own kind, than of anyone outside the faith, with all of those Muslim deaths, then summarily rationalized and justified. Oh, well.
Master Jesus once enjoined some wayward soul to run as far down his sinful road as it would take him, if that’s what it took for him to see the light. Maybe that’s what it takes for the rest of us- just wait ’em out, they’ll figure it out, or get sick of it, someday- but keep your powder dry.
Pardon, should say above… adopt a posture of methodological equivalence…
And that’s how you differentiate fanatics from the rest of the flock. In Iraq Muslim fanatics kill faaaaar more Muslims than Christians. Boko Haram kills Muslims left, right and centre. So in all fairness we should not forget the MUSLIM victims of the fanatics.
Unease is understandable. Good satire should make us feel unease as when we are comfortable we hardly question our assumptions. It also has to be made plain Josh is not calling for violence but – for me anyway – tolerance.
We can all too easily slip into self censorship because we *might* offend – which allows those with less sensitivity or scruples to put the boot on the throat.
I believe this puts the point across well –
http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/je-suis-charlie-its-a-bit-late/
A few weeks back both Ben Pile and myself (independently of each other I add) compared the actions in Nazca with the Taliban blowing up Buddah statues. I was uneasy making the comparison but as a former warmista who once liberally dehumanised sceptics, I am more deeply uneasy with what is/has/will be be done for our grandchildren, the blasé way *some* intolerants are willing to stamp out rights and the dogmatic refusal to alleviate the suffering of those in poverty (e.g. the green ‘terrorism’ in India). Whilst clearly Nazca was not on the same bus, it’s the direction of travel – and calls for violence (death penalties) and censorship of dissent we have seen in the leadup – that is troubling. Intolerance never ends well.
We can only hope that some light may come from this, so godspeed Josh and more power to your arm.
*******
Ben’s effort –
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2014/12/we-need-to-talk-about-green-ngos.html
Mine –
http://weatheraction.wordpress.com/2014/12/11/greenblob-guerillas-in-geoglyph-gaffe/
Josh,
You know it is weird artifact of contemporary geopolitics that puts Muslim extremists in exactly the same camp as the politically correct leftists. Both are against free speech.
I think the cartoonists in Paris were a depraved herd of edgy self indulgent leftists. Despite that, they absolutely have the RIGHT to say whatever they want. I also reserve the same right to say that their cartoons sucked and were juvenile provocateur schlock. Free speech cuts both ways.
And… nobody should be killed for expressing ideas.
Quite frankly, I don’t think I would poke a person in the emotional eye simply for thinking differently than me. Further, I would attempt to convince bomb throwers ( like Charlie Hebdo ) to refrain from extreme language. Further still, I would not want to prevent anyone who may have a beef with me from speaking… IF… one big …IF..
IF I can respond in kind and I also am unencumbered in being able to express my views.
At WUWT Anthony enables this.
In the world in general, if you have a view on AGW that is out of sync with the UN and the lefties, then the lefties literally want to jail you, or/and have you physically prevented from working in climate science, or have you professionally destroyed.
So in a strange way, I am a liberal when it comes to speech, yet I am identified with the right wing on many other issues. At the same time the commies are ant-free speech just like the fascist Muslim jihadists.
Weird.
The bridge between communism and facism is a very short one.
Witness how Left wingers who might otherwise lionize a Third World, atheist feminist like Ayaan Hirsi Ali instead vilify her because she tells the truth about elements within Islam.
I reacted early to the satirists with “how dumb is that? They’ll pay for it.”
They certainly did and I envy their courage.
Paul Westhaver
I found out that there is a crime in the USA called ‘economic interference’. I don’t have details but basically it means that if someone takes actions that cause you to lose your job or income, for reasons that are unreasonable like, falsely claiming that you are a child or data molester, they are accountable for the damage caused, such as being fired or not hired or demoted or passed over.
It seems to me that targeting academics, in particular, has been successful as demonstrated by Enron being willing to give money to PR firms to do so with a view to making it economically dangerous to oppose CAGW. At the time Enron was trying to corner the natural gas market and ban coal burning for electricity generation.
If anyone can find better info on economic interference I’d like to hear it. At face value it seems it would apply to any loony green assault on the economic welfare of their victims.
Yes, it does. And so do the consequences.
I think ex-AIPAC official MJ Rosenberg captured it best with his tweets:
We went to war with the whole Muslim world? How? By not wanting Israel to cease to exist? By not believing in Islam? Islam was conquering from the very beginning – Mohammed was a mighty warrior king who forged what would become the Caliphate, which conquered areas that were Christian previously. The Crusades were a failed defensive war – it wasn’t until September 11, 1683 that the tide turned against the Caliphate.
If you actually think that radical Islamism, i.e. Islamic Supremacism, was going to be fine with people disagreeing with them, you are incredibly naive. They are theocratic totalitarians – every state should be like the Taliban or Iran. They aren’t even happy with Saudi Arabia – the Saudis dare to have a King instead of an Imam. A free society like France is an abomination to them. That’s why ISIS waves the flag of the ancient Caliphate around – they want to force the world to acknowledge their Islam as the only source of truth in the world, and to convert, enslave, subjugate or kill everyone.
You ought to take MJ Rosenberg’s advice and read. You can start with this. Hadar makes mincemeat of your histrionics:
The “Green Peril”:
Creating the Islamic Fundamentalist Threat
by Leon T. Hadar, August 27, 1992
Leon T. Hadar, a former bureau chief for the Jerusalem Post, is an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-177.html
BTW, an Imam is a scholar, not a ruler. There is no priestcraft in Islam. There’s just a book and your relationship with God. People who band together because they have similar understandings of Koranic phrases (like Sunnis, Shiites, Wahabbis) do so because they want to, not because there is an Islamic structure or need for it. There are no priests, bishops, popes, rabbis, or pastors in Islam. Just you and the Koran.
And read these:
“Something Strange about ISIS” by Gordon Duff.
http://journal-neo.org/2014/12/31/something-strange-about-isis/
“Paris Shooters Just Returned from NATO’s Proxy War in Syria.”
http://journal-neo.org/2015/01/08/paris-shooters-just-returned-from-nato-s-proxy-war-in-syria/
And here’s what you don’t know about The (nine) Crusades: http://www.medievalwarfare.info/crusades.htm
In conclusion the author writes:
John the Baptist when he saw Jesus said: “Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world”.
I thank God every day I live in a country where freedom of expression is still allowed. Jesus came to redeem us and set us free. If we are not defending our freedom and get cowed into silence, we revert back to The Sin.
In the last days God will send them a strong delusion that they will believe “The Lie” of which all the talk of Climate Change and Carbon Pollution is a symptom.
Here are my thoughts on “The sin of the world” and “The lie”, what does that mean?
http://lenbilen.com/2014/12/22/on-the-sin-of-the-world-and-the-lie-what-does-that-mean/
Are you in America? If so, don’t believe for one minute that you really do live in a country where freedom of expression is allowed! How many senators have declared that they are atheist? Sorry Americans, but that’s how it is. We’re no more free here in Britain either. The right wing British National Party is vilified, even though it is a perfectly legal political party. A school governor was recently forced to resign for being a member!
Yes, even here people are starting to lose their positions if they dare to defend the biblical position on marriage, just to name one thing.
Australia doesn’t have a Minister for Science at the moment because it would be embarrassing to not use the most qualified MP, who happens to be a sceptic.
I live in America and you are right. In Vermont specifically and certain presses have been ordered not to print climate criticism – LA Times. That is not free.
Are you sure about the US, TGOBJC … Alan Grayson : Republicans Are ‘The White Christian Party’Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) writes in the Huffington Post that the Republican Party only represents white Christians because of the demographics of its members in the House of Representatives.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/08/alan-grayson-republicans-are-the-white-christian-party/
The US is diseased with/by Christianity (or religious belief, if you prefer, but it’s primarily Christianity). No senator can stand up and say he/she is atheist. They might get away with saying ‘no affiliation’, but they are risking their political career. If the human race is going any way down the road to true civilisation then it must first shake off childish, religious belief. And the US (being one of the dominant players) must be one of the first. Isn’t going to happen, is it?
All Americans should read this next bit:
After the film (movie) ‘Creation’, about Charles Darwin, was made, the makers couldn’t initially find a distributor for the US due to the “controversy” over evolution and creation (in the US)!!! Unbelievable, but actually true.
Astounding. If you really want to change the world, and make it better, then it starts with removing the absurdity which is belief without proof. Isn’t that what we’re all trying to achieve here, on WUWT? The US MUST move away from religious belief. It could lead the world into a new era…of true enlightenment. But like I said above, isn’t going to happen, is it?
Religion is, in large part, superstition and superstition appears to be a universal human tendency.
It’s probably unrealistic to wish for it to vanish.
What we can do is establish a strong and continuously evolving social framework to mitigate the effects of irrational belief. I think the western world has made a good start and most of Asia appears to be on the same page.
As much as it is desirable that the populace be enlightened, a more attainable goal is having institutions that are ‘better’ than the individuals that comprise them. Thus the penalty for a senator professing atheism is an inability to get elected, not state-sanctioned execution.
There is room for improvement but a glance at the Muslim world shows the compass bearing we want behind us.
Ghost, I’m replying to your speech against Christianity in America.
I cannot stand by and allow you to say something that stands in such sharp contrast to the things you’ve declared in this comment section. When emotional and spirited passions drive like a spike through the mind, it is no longer capable of thinking clearly. It is no better to declare the expunging of faith (Christianity) from society than it was for Hitler to declare the expunging of Jews. Both result in the greatest possible damage to the most vulnerable level of society: the individual. Yet as Hitler’s damage was grand and morbid, atheism is one of mind and heart, while both are murder.
Frankly, there are politicians at every level who cleave to no particular faith. There are some who are atheist, agnostic, theistic, and full members of major faiths. It is absurd to so narrowly examine only the Federal level when there is also the state, county, and local principalities. Even still, many of those who are of “no-faith” are clear enough in mind to control that passion. That is, they don’t burn with the fiery, vigorous passions of atheism like teenagers do with their sexual lusts. They are able to make rational and fair decisions, and respect the law of the land, without compromising the structures that uplift the freedom of religion. Freedom of religion, it should be noted, covers as much the atheists (the religion of no-religion) as it does the Christians, Jews, Muslims, and the Eastern Asian faiths. If nothing protected faith, then no protection is afforded the “no-faith” religions, and atheists are on par with Christians and Jews and Muslims.
Put simply: passions should not guide law. Do not suggest America remove any element of its faith basis. That is extraordinarily unreasonable, and such thoughts and passions lead to destruction.
The same ones who are pulling the strings on “climate change” are the ones who are promoting the islamification of our democracies.
I’m afraid that France made its bed and is now having to lie on it. Welcome to the new, “improved”, multi-cultural world…
If you break a gun in half you have scrap metal. If you break a pencil in half you have two pencils.
Think about it.
I will be standing in the square tomorrow with my pencil
If you break a gun in half you have two clubs — normally a bad strategy unless you have run out of ammunition and have a friend with you who neglected to bring a weapon of his own.
If you break a gun in half you’re mighty strong, and probably don’t need one.
Ivor, if you wish to stand with Charlie Hebdo, you would be acknowledging their debt by standing in the square tomorrow with a copy of a Charle Hebdo cartoon.
That is a sign of free-speech.
The hashtag is a sign of surrender.
“free speech” – Britain doesn’t know what it is.
Free speech, or what we once knew as ‘free speech’ disappeared in the UK and long ago.
Throughout, the Twenties and Thirties and into the Fifties, Trotskyism, Marxism was rife on the red Brick and Oxbridge campuses, here, the Marxists of academia were virtually unchallenged. With Communist inspired lecturers working in University campuses on both sides of the pond [Ralph Miliband for one] Marxist ‘critical’ theory was so disseminated and augmented. Slowly drip by drip, Socialism it had seeped into politics but post WW II in a big way, culminating and the pathogen of Marxist ideologies they were not fully incarnate until Wilsons’ clutch of Cultural Marxists took over in 1964.
As Enoch Powell forewarned and presciently, racial discrimination laws would cause divisive imbalance and lead to the unequal rights of the indigenous people, where those of minorities supersede those of the majority. All of it, is classic Frankfurt School doctrine as are, the fellow malefactors of; diversity, promotion of [in]equality = multiculturalism.
A UK fashioned antecessor to the spavined doctrine of ‘Political Correctness’. PC was birthed – in the 60’s and when the Frankfurt School poisons were entering our system all the way from the Ivy League and by way of and on the vehicle of ‘civil rights agenda’.
The final nails were driven in by Tony Bliar scorched earth Britain circa 1997-2010 but a crucial time and the beginning of the end of Britain when we were dragooned against the will of the people: into the EU. Soon after, without a national consultation [as it ever was] – in 1976 Parliament enacted the Race discrimination Act and after that: free speech in the UK was closed down for good.
Indeed, but freedom of thought, of free speech, doesn’t exist in any country.
What a pile of rubbish. Try saying what you think in North Korea, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and many more besides and then compare that to the UK. The UK is far from perfect but for goodness sake, the idea that it is run by Marxists and there is no free speech is just delusional.
In Saudi Arabia, one can only say what one thinks to Saudis, when asked privately behind closed doors. But they have asked to learn what you think. Wahabism is strong and change requires care.
I should add to that, even if I am the only one left here – good science.
I was asked in close conference by Saudi Royal family members for my opinion of what could be improved.
I told them that in my neighborhood, if my neighbors tree fell down from a storm and crapped on my fence, I would go visit my neighbor and we’d work together to clear up that tree and fix the fence.
I said too, you have 12 foot walls erected around you castles and therefore have allowed no neighbors.
Indeed.
Remember that the knuckle-dragging thugs of Unite Against F@scism (UAF) are organised by NAFTHE, the university lecturers union. For those in the US who are not familiar with UK politics, if there is ever trouble at a demonstration it is always caused by UAF thugs. So those who are supposedly against f@scism are, in fact, anti-freedom of speech f@scists who will not tolerate or allow any point of view bar their own. That, unfortunately, is the Orwellian situation we find ourselves in.
And then we had the delightful spectacle of liberal feminists stripping off and shouting ‘we are all Hamas now’. Hmm, do these ‘ladies’ (if one dares to call them ladies) realise that Hamas would have them dressed in potato sacks and chained to a kitchen in an instant? One does wonder if feminists are naturally subnormal, or whether they have to go on a training course.
R
Hi, Ralph Ellis (smile),
Well… while I do not agree with what many of those who call themselves “feminists” say or do, I consider myself to be one, so I’ll give you one feminist’s (my off-the-cuff definition is “equal rights and equal opportunity to serve humanity according to giftedness, not gender”) answer.
No. I did not attend a training course. Equality for women just always seemed to me to be logical, wise, and fair play.
(okay, okay, (smile) I acknowledge that I realized what you meant by “feminists”… I think… and I understand and agree…. very obnoxious)
Your Friendly Feminist Ally for Truth in Science,
Janice
There is free speech within the bounds of UK law so you exaggerate.
What Athelstan failed to mention was that before the Race Relations Act 1976 landlords would put up signs on their doors saying “No Jews, No Blacks, No Dogs”. In the southern US states they too used to put up various restrictive signs if you know what I mean. Some may say it’s OK. Others don’t. Who is to decide?
Josh
Thankyou.
Je suis Charlie.
Richard
Indeed.
http://d2yhexj5rb8c94.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/styles/article_node_view/public/Charlie-hebdo-2_0_0_0.jpg
Je suis Charlie.
Not to detract from your salutary sentiment, but IMO few in the West can validly claim to be Charlie. Ayaan Hirsi Ali can. I´ve volunteered for virtually no financial gain to be shot at by the Taliban, but don´t feel I´ve earned the right to associate myself with such exemplary physical & moral courage as Charb & his colleagues (even while I don´t share the satirical magazine´s overall philosophy), although some of my comrades in arms have indeed.
Yes, Mr. Harlani. I am not likely to be murdered or severely harmed for what I post on WUWT or anywhere else, for that matter. I realize that. I do not, by identifying myself with Monsieur Hebdo, award the honor of a true warrior for truth to myself. I am just saying to all Mus1im j1hadists everywhere: “Given the opportunity, I, too, will pick up the bloodied flag of truth and carry onward. To stop truth’s advance, you will have to k1ll me, too.
For I, too, am Charlie.
Just as the world stood with us Americans on September 11th (and in the days to come), 2001 and said: “We are all Americans.”
Janice – you may have read above that I was in Saudi on 9/11.
It is important for us infidels to appreciate that there are two jihads – the greater and the lesser. The greater is the requirement for you to become a better person, the lesser is the requirement for you to help me become a better person – that’s the one that has been bastardized to believe you must attack me. You were suppose to help me come to Islam.
Bubba:
That you were in “Saudi” at the time America was attacked does nothing to add weight to your assertions.
You are misinformed about what the K0ran and the interpretations called “ijtihad” (sp?) say IN FULL about k1ll1ing 1nfidels. Your “lesser j1ihad” is not an illegitimate child — it was born of Father K0ran and Mother Ijtihad (sp?).
That there are peaceful, “greater j1had,” Musl1ms is IRRELEVANT. That these are the majority of those calling themselves “Musl1im” is IRRELEVANT.
It only takes a handful of zealots, devoted to following their faith’s clear calls to v1olence, to wreak havoc.
The murdering j1had1sts are following 1slam. Period.
Janice – of course you are right. The path has been diverted from the faith by whomever wants to justify their actions.
Janice – a little more, as I am not religious or much of a philosopher.
I helped teach a course in Islam in a small college – was a good effort. There is a huge disconnect between what someone, say Muhammed who was ignorant and had his 2nd wife write down might have believed Gabriel told him after hallucinating in a desert for whatever and what say life is like today. Lotsa lost in translation there.
And that’s the point – how does one interpret stuff today based upon an age ago? Seems like reading CET to me. I accept some, but what does that predicate?
I am not being difficult here; I am a simple fisherman.
Janice – I am not begging any argument. there really are these 2 jihads and I am not arguing about anything. Those who are using jihad for personal purposes are agiain’st the Qu’ran.
Janice
Yes! Thankyou.
Richard
Richard, according to Mark Steyn you are in good company:
Chris Schoneveld
So, according to you and Mark Steyn those who express solidarity with murdered victims of extremism are “cowards, phonies and opportunists”.
If that is the best you can contribute then I suggest you provide nothing.
Richard
The widow of Charb, the editor and cartoonist, was interviewed on French TV and she pointed out the hypocrisy of people who now walk with the slogan “je suis Charlie” and they were often the same people who were criticizing her husband for being an Islamophobe before the killing. There were very few people who supported Charlie Hebdo and the paper was in financial trouble. The paper was considered politically very incorrect with respect to the Islam. That is what Mark Steyn is alluding to.
Many years ago, when I was but a wee child (ok, it’s a stupid start) I was riding with my siblings and mother on the overnight Santa Fe RR from Chicago to Los Angeles. (Gives away my age, doesn’t it.) Anyway, there was a young serviceman traveling on that same train and he did me an incalculable favor. You see, he was absorbing the wisdom of a Mad Magazine, and he introduced me to it. At the age of eight I acquired the wisdom of the ages. What an absolutely cool magazine. And one that could appeal to, both a military grunt, and an eight year old. Over the years, unfortunately, I have fallen away from the faith. But, perhaps due to the wishes of the Supreme Arbiter of the Universe (George Washington’s description) I chanced upon an anniversary edition and purchased it last year.
What does the foregoing have to do with the tragic events in France? Not much. I can’t speak a lick of French (I’m a unilingual American) so I couldn’t understand diddly about the cartoons in Charlie Hebro. But then I heard it described as the French equivalent of Mad Magazine (albeit certainly a bit – or a lot – more explicit at times).
Even an eight year old can understand the absolute vital necessity to criticize, question, make fun of, and downright mock, not just those things that groups hold sacred, but especially those very same things. Authority needs to have its feet held to the fire. Everywhere. Every time. Dress these people in the clown suits that they deserve to wear.
What, me worry?
The Onion is the resurrection of Mad Magazine and probably Doonesbury too.
My daughter gave me a book of Onion covers for Christmas making me fearful of the similarity of our senses of humor.
One cover of asteroid streaming to earth – could this one event fix Iraq, Global Warming, and Poverty? Priceless.
Na zi ism never dies, it just morphs into different forms.
And, for its perennial use of Jews as its scapegoats, it is at least as old as Haman’s day. (Book of Esther)
In the end, truth wins.
Every time.
“In the end the truth wins”
But too often, the wait can be deadly.
I’m in agreement with Mark Steyn on all of this “Je suis Charlie” stuff. No – you’re not. “Charlie” published the “Mohammed cartoons” and died for it – because very few others had the balls to do it.
Then, Mark Steyn does not get “je suis Charlie.”
That SOME who say it would run away when actually faced with danger does not make ALL of us who say it cowardly blowhards.