Climate Extremism & The Chilling Effect On Free Speech
From the GWPF and Dr. Benny Peiser
At the end of that process, some Global Warming deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed. Perhaps that would be the only way to stop the rest of them. The death penalty would have been justified in terms of the enormous numbers of saved future lives. — Professor Richard Parncutt, University of Graz, Austria, 25 October 2012 
As I read the grim headlines from Paris, I was reminded of another encounter in another European city, Berlin, specifically at the Opernplatz where the Nazis staged one of their most infamous book burnings in 1933. One of the authors whose works they incinerated was the great German poet, Heinrich Heine, whose epigraph now lines a memorial marking this historically ominous event: “That was but a prelude; where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people as well.” And where they drive out and kill Jews, they will ultimately drive out and kill you, too. –James Kirchick, The Daily Beast, 10 January 2015
The message is clear: climate change deniers are scum. Their words are so wicked and dangerous that they must be silenced, or criminalised, or forced beyond the pale alongside those other crackpots who claim there was no Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Perhaps climate change deniers should even be killed off, hanged like those evil men who were tried Nuremberg-style the first time around. Whatever the truth about our warming planet, it is clear there is a tidal wave of intolerance in the debate about climate change which is eroding free speech and melting rational debate. —Brendan O’Neill, Spiked, 6 October 2006
I wonder what sentences judges might hand down at future international criminal tribunals on those who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead. I put [their climate change denial] in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial – except that this time the Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it. Those who try to ensure we don’t will one day have to answer for their crimes. –Mark Lynas, 19 May 2006
In the climate wars, those that use pejorative names for people that they disagree with are the equivalents of racists and anti-semites, and deserve opprobrium and disrespect. It is very sad, not to mention bad for science, to see scientists engaging in this behavior. We need to open up the public debate about climate change, and get rid of the tyranny of political ‘correctness’ in the climate debate that is being enforced by a handful of self-appointed and readily-offended fools. –Judith Curry, Climate Etc, 11 January 2015
As George Bernard Shaw said, “All great truths begin as blasphemies”. In the West in the past, it was the Christian God that was protected by a censorious forcefield. Now it’s climate-change orthodoxy, the ideology of multiculturalism, Islamo-sensitivities, gay marriage… These days, speaking ill of any of those new gods could earn you a metaphorical lashing from the mob, or expulsion from polite society, or possibly a prison sentence. –Brendan O’Neill, The Australian, 10 January 2014
A globally-renowned climate scientist has been forced to step down from a think-tank after he was subjected to ‘Mc-Carthy’-style pressure from scientists around the world. Professor Lennart Bengtsson, 79, a leading academic from the University of Reading, left the high-profile Global Warming Policy Foundation as a result of the threats, which he described as ‘virtually unbearable’. In his resignation letter, published on the think-tank’s website, he wrote: ‘If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy.” –Willis Robinson, Daily Mail, 15 May 2014
Science regresses if it becomes intolerant of criticism. At the beginning of her reign, Queen Elizabeth I of England spoke words of tolerance in an age of religious strife, declaring that she had no intention of making windows into men’s souls. Unlike religion, science is not a matter of the heart or of belief. It exists only in what can be demonstrated. In their persecution of an aged colleague who stepped out of line and their call for scientists to be subject to a faith test, 21st-century climate scientists have shown less tolerance than a 16th-century monarch. There is something rotten in the state of climate science. –Rupert Darwall, National Review, 15 May 2014
Ministers who question the majority view among scientists about climate change should “shut up” and instead repeat the Government line on the issue, according to MPs. The BBC should also give less airtime to climate sceptics and its editors should seek special clearance to interview them, according to the Commons Science and Technology Committee. Andrew Miller, the committee’s Labour chairman, said that appearances on radio and television by climate sceptics such as Lord Lawson of Blaby, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, should be accompanied by “health warnings”. –Ben Webster, The Times, 2 April 2014
The danger comes instead from self-censorship. Which BBC editor now is going to invite Lord Lawson or even Prof Bob Carter on to their programmes in the certain knowledge that they are likely to be criticised and perhaps have time-consuming complaints upheld against them? As Lord Lawson argues, surely correctly, he has, in effect, been banned by the BBC. It is an easy thing to judge. Let’s see when he next appears in the climate change context. There will, of course, be no edict. He will just never ever be invited to take part in any BBC programme on the issue. –Raymond Snoddy, MediaTel, 9 July 2014
The BBC has effectively banned Lord Lawson, the former chancellor (and former editor of this magazine) from appearing on its programmes to debate climate change, unless he is introduced with a statement discrediting his views. When people try to close down debate rather than engage with it, there is a pretty clear conclusion to be drawn: they lack confidence in their own case. —The Spectator, 12 July 2014
Speaking of freedom of speech have a listen to Richard Muller…
Richard Muller: I Was wrong on Climate Change.
Wow – was he on drugs? Or did a really juicy financial incentive help him out?
Martin,
Just posted this over at the YouTube site in response to this. Dr. Muller is certainly welcome to his scientific opinion, but despite what sounds like a great deal of good work, his conclusions seem to be surprisingly trivially based. Here’s the full response:
“I still haven’t seen any comments about the first question (how Professor Muller explains MVP and RWP). He has analyzed over 200 years of records, (since the planet came out of the Little Ice Age), and it has warmed since then. I don’t think anybody serious denies that. Most skeptics point out, quite rightly, that the rate is well less than the IPCC sensitivity to CO2 increases predicts in their models. Whether or not the last 18 years of hiatus is significant or not is still unknown IMO – we’ll know in another 12 years or so. What is significant is that there are 20+ years of rapid warming, and 20+ years of cooling over the last 200 years that are not correlated to CO2, and it’s not clear what the professor’s answer for that is either. The fact that in some data sources (and only some) 2014 is the warmest year, is some what tempered by the fact that is such by a few hundredths of a degree C as compared to the hottest year some 16 years ago. If warming continues at that rate, we’ll have less than a 0.125C increase in 100 years – I truly hope for more.
I also feel that Muller’s “straw man” description of skeptic’s claims of an warming explanation trivializes the science behind alternative explanations for warming and cooling cycles – I don’t know any serious scientific skeptics who say it’s just “random” variation. Most cite AMO and PDO cycles, and other major ocean influences, cloud cover variance, among other alternatives. Most serious skeptics also point out that AGW theory, particularly the CAGW proponents, cite CO2 forcing of water vapor as the only way that a mildly influencing GHG like CO2 could really cause large temperature swings. Correlation with warming or not, there doesn’t seem to be much science I’ve seen proving that link, and without it, the current estimates of <2K/century of warming in the face of progressive CO2 increases seems realistic, or perhaps even aggressive, given the increases over the past 100 years or so, rendering much of the current panic, and the destructive solutions (destructive to the 3rd world at least) to be moot.
Finally, remember that some warming is good, even very good, and CO2 increases, once the CAGW alarmism is finally disproven, will be very good as well. We're unlikely to feed a growing global population without its positive impact on plant and crop growth, and more arid climates will be opened to new agriculture by CO2's positive effect on transpiration.. The notion that CO2 is pollution is just political nonsense – should we reduce oxygen levels because too much causes rust? If you want to challenge the CO2 pollution notion, just get a job in a greenhouse, where you'll spend all day at 1000PPM+ vs. 400 PPM outside in the open air. Any claims by OSHA that greenhouse companies are poisoning their workers?
Let's all calm down and let the science talk. I don't argue with Proff. Muller's data, I'm sure he is a competent and ethical guy. I do argue with his "the curve fit says it has to be CO2" on a less than 300 year record which everybody agrees was a warming period, and for most of which, CO2 could not have been a factor. "
Comments welcome,
Taylor
looking at the ice cores, for hundreds of thousands of year the interglacial warming ALWAYS start when CO2 is low. And the cooling of the interglacials back to ice age conditions always starts when CO2 is high.
The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from this information is that high CO2 leads to cooling, and low CO2 leads to warming. There is zero information in the ice cores to suggest the reverse.
Reblogged this on a simple man of God and commented:
My blog is about the Christian religion, religion being the set of beliefs we live by. Sometimes I write about other religions so that we can all be aware of what others believe, and maybe we can dialogue better with others.
That is why I share this post from Watts Up With That. When scientific theory turns into a religious belief, it becomes dangerous.
Daniel
He (O’Neill) only identified a few other areas, but this has never been about ‘climate change’ alone. It is an ongoing theme crossing many ‘borders’.
I have a view, and instead of debating my view openly and perhaps changing my view as a result, I am forced take ‘a side’ from which I can never move. In ‘Politics’ that is normal but when this same poison leaks into ‘Science’? Where else does one turn? (assuming one is science based!)
Cold weather meets Islamic extremism.
The Guardian (my most trusted source of news on everything/sarc) has an article on a “Saudi cleric [who has] issued a fatwa on snowman”.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/saudi-arabia-snowmen-winter-fatwa
The last line of the piece reads “Snow has covered upland areas of Tabuk province near Saudi Arabia’s border with Jordan for the third consecutive year as cold weather swept across the Middle East”. WUWT?
What is the fundamental cause that allows forcing intolerance of ideas on a topic instead of embracing open exchange (marketplace) of ideas on a topic?
I suggest the cause is a preference for repressing reasoning’s processes on a topic. So what causes a preference for repressing reasoning’s processes on a topic? The cause is explicitly choosing to avoid focusing on a topic and then wanting to extend that to others in society by wanting to stop them from focusing on a topic.
John
‘At the end of that process, some Global Warming deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed. Perhaps that would be the only way to stop the rest of them. The death penalty would have been justified … Professor Richard Parncutt, University of Graz, Austria’
Heyo Mr. Parncutt. Strange though this may sound I truly hope you are the one to execute me. You see, I have this nagging suspicion that you don’t have a clue as to which end of an AK47 the bullet comes out of. (Aw, what the heck, it’s not just a nagging suspicion, I’m downright certain of it.) So, I would say there’s a good 50% chance you wouldn’t end up executing me; you’d end up executing yourself. (Funny how that tends to happen to people who wish ill will upon others.) And, if you actually have the gun pointing in the right direction I’ll bet there’s less than a one in four chance that you could even hit the broad side of a barn. So, in light of these considerations I would say dear Parncutt that perhaps you should shut up before you go around spouting stupid, immature, flea ridden, self absorbed, and vicious nonsense.
Fortunately, CAGW doesn’t even make the top 20 concerns in the US, according to Gallup.
Perhaps because it’s hard to get concerned when the earth has not warmed in 18 years and 3 months?
see: http://www.gallup.com/poll/180398/cluster-concerns-vie-top-problem-2014.aspx
I was hoping this wouldn’t happen. I know the article isn’t comparing the events in Paris to how climate sceptics are treated but we shouldn’t be even discussing this. Yes, sceptics find it DIFFICULT to get their arguments across but we don’t have crazed enviroMENTALISTS shooting us – yet. It is many order of magnitude worse than that. Sceptics have always had more dignity than the alarmists let’s not lose our heads. What we deal with causes frustration not death!
It’s a question of perspective. The warmists have claimed that they get “death threats” from the skeptics. Of course, phrases like “it will be a great day in Science when the last of you warmists finally die off” are now defined as “death threats”, whereas “all the skeptics should be killed” is seen as a logical way of dealing with the problem.
Long time reader first time poster. Had a question I’ve been wanting to ask of people at this site for a long time. I’ve noticed a lot recently that climate change skeptics seem to always be lumped in with young earth creationists or evolution deniers. Sometimes it even seems like climate change skeptics are in favor of this grouping. So my question to anyone interested in answering is have you noticed the same thing? And do you think this could be a reason skeptics lose credibility in the eyes of the science community?
At 2:13 PM on 12 January, jkl had posted:
Curious. I have not noted such a tendency – among those of us properly scrupulous in our skeptical regard of the great gaudy anthropogenic global warming fraud – to embrace the religious whackjobbery of the creationists or the equally insensate cement-headedness of those who receive the notion of natural selection as an assault upon their equally ghostly pet bigotries.
In fact, I find reliable prevalence among climate realists – who abjure the preposterous presumption that a trace anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide (itself a trace atmospheric gas component) could possibly effect significant global average temperature increases – considered contempt for other supernaturalists.
Just where the hell d’you claim to have seen any of us “climate change skeptics” cuddle up with – or even behave politely toward – those godstruck friggin’ idiots?
Hm. You seem overly enamored of “the science community” as such.
Not scientific method, but the “community.”
Getting a tingle down your leg when you read the word “consensus”?
This happens because our opponents, being bereft of ideas (or data to support them), throw whatever epithets that they think will impugn our reputations. You see for most of them it isn’t about the science, but about “winning” the political battle in the long con. Not all of the AGW proponents are in on the con, but the ones who are, are up to their necks at the public trough. The others work from other people’s notes and try to make sense of the science as seen through the all-powerful CO2 filter. They also get caught up in tribalism and project those feelings onto us. The very worst ones aren’t even physical scientists themselves.
The problem is that the skeptics are not a monolithic block. We do have a few cuckoo birds over here too. Luckily, most of them listen to others when the science is being explained. We have a diverse group that came to the realization that something wasn’t right with the story we were being fed, but did so from many different directions. I personally came to it from a combination of History and long study of circuitry. Mann’s hockey stick eliminated an awful lot of known history, from the little ice age to the medieval warm period, to the dust bowl of the 1930s. That caused my credibility meter to peg off-scale fraud. The next thing was folks describing a climate with runaway tipping points that seemed to indicate overcritical positive feedbacks in a closed gain circuit – something I knew to be unstable in rather short periods of time. This contradicted everything I studied of chaos mathematics in college and again pegged my credibility meter. Others came to the skeptical side from their Geological experiences – these tend to be disregarded by the AGW camp as being in the “pay of big energy” since most of them made their living in the petrochemical and mining industries. Personally I listen to everything these folks say – their livelihood has depended on being right about what is under the ground and being able to figure out how it got there. Others became skeptics because the statistical methods didn’t make sense. These tended to come from an economics or other statistical background and when they say a distribution doesn’t pass the smell test, I believe them. The last group that I think of is the engineers. This group tends to attack the models. They know what it means to validate against reality and understand that no model is ever reality; we can only hope it models the parameters important to a simple process of interest. The ideal that one can predict an initial condition critical chaotic system with unknown feedbacks to any degree of certainty out 100 years is a ridiculousness to the engineers and I am with them on that.
As to “why the skeptics lose credibility in the eyes of the science community”, that is more a function of the tribalism that exists in the politics of the situation. In many cases, the individuals know their hypotheses have problems but can not stand the idea that the gravy train might come to an end.
Upton Sinclair
+ 10
Well stated, Owen
jkl,
The ‘science community’ is well represented on the WUWT site. A high percentage of participants here have physics, engineering, chemistry, etc. ‘science’ degrees. The extremists in the man made climate change cadres push the meme that anyone who questions their streeeeeetched science claims is a ‘skeptic’ and has lost credibility with the ‘science community’. That is a propaganda technique called ‘band wagon’ appeal; a baseless assertion that ‘everyone that matters agrees with us’ and you should also, unless you want to be labeled a flat earther skeptic as well. In truth, the climate extremists only represent a small slice of climate scientists… and an even smaller slice of the full spectrum science community.
Don’t buy in to the false assertions and propaganda. Don’t ‘drink the koolaid’.
Appreciate all the responses! I was more just curious than anything, not trying to be accusing or inflammatory. In a vast oversimplification of the issue I probably fall closer to “pro-AGW” side than where most of the posters on this site are just from my limited reading. And I do see a fair amount of over zealousness (which I think leads to some deceitful arguments or tactics) from both sides which I think hurts the debate a lot in the short term.
I did not realize that “scientific community” was a controversial phrase, that’s merely how I refer to research scientists.
Occasions such as this – free speech discussions – always go off the rails. What hasn’t been said yet (unless I missed it) is that in the USA the idea of “free speech” is strongly tied to the Federal, and now too, state governments in the sense of what they cannot restrict.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
So most of the discussion (above) is just folks talking at ya!
Thanks John!
Nice to hear from someone returning to first principles. I’d like to hear your perspectives on how we should confront those who would murder to avenge their perception of slights to a ‘prophet’ from 570AD.
My perspective: We must have the personal courage to confront them and overwhelm them. Let’s start in a simple way. Let’s print and post the Hedbo cartoons on every bulletin board, power pole, picket fence and Imam’s door across our nation. Those who froth and foam at the mouth excessively can be treated to remedial education in the 1st Amendment and the laws and traditions of the USA. They must be encouraged to embrace our culture. Our culture is a ‘melting pot’, where all cultures that respect and embrace our Constitution and our Laws are welcome. Embrace our principles, laws, work ethic, and cheerful derision of anyone we think is ‘too full of themselves’. Get with ‘melting’ into our culture, if you want to stay here. It’s time to firmly reassert that requirement for all immigrants that hope to attain citizenship.
If they won’t embrace our principles of individual freedoms and rights, deny them citizenship and send them elsewhere. If they try to circumvent the system by ‘overstaying their visas’ or illegally crossing the borders, deport them. Change our ‘citizenship by birth right’ laws to exclude citizenship for children born to illegal aliens. Enact a nationwide verification system for legal status of all job seekers in the US and hold employers responsible for verifying all employees legal status. Finally, reform our immigration policies to a merit based system and end the current system that rewards criminals who come here and steal the identities of US citizens to gain employment and social welfare benefits.
Notice John that it says “Congress shall make no law……” but it doesn’t say anything about the sovereign States making laws, for their States that the Congress would not be able to make for everybody. But the sovereignty of the States has gotten swallowed up.
And that about …..” respecting an establishment of religion “…. too often that part about ….”or prohibiting the free exercise thereof “… gets brushed aside.
Zealots of the “Atheists United” stripe seem to ignore the heck out of that. They have the freedom to mind their own damn business, and allow those who wish to have their “free exercise”…do so.
And just for the record, I’m not any kind of an “ist” ; well if you don’t count “physic”ist”.
I did think that WUWT was supposed to be:
“The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change”
and that at least some worthy scientific debate might be found here.
But these recent Paris inspired postings have shown just how much the majority of the climate sceptic community (or at least the part of it on WUWT) is off the wall, conspiracy-theorist and anti-science.
The Paris stuff comes on the back of bizarre claims from Lord M, posted on WUWT, about the UK being in the grip of Marxist eduction, leading to parliament being of the same ilk – when the reality is that the largest party in the Commons is the Tories and the largest group in the House of Lords is the Tories. Lord M is welcome to try and find any Marxists in that lot.
This latest thread, weaving in the horrors of Paris, Nazism, AGW = religion, death sentences on sceptics and more besides is just bolt on, gold plated, delusion.
Having contributed to this site on and off for some time, I don’t intend to any more. There is so little science being discussed, its not worth a moment longer. WUWT, the GWPF and similar are simply a vortex of self-reinforcing belief. Religion anyone ?
The Tories of today are not the Tories of old. They are far to the left of where they started and we are all the poorer for it.
WE did not proclaim that those that don’t agree with us should be imprisoned or executed – that rhetorical leap has always been by mostly bit players on the CAGW side. (Some of us may have lamented with the old observation that the progress in science has occurred one obituary at a time, but that isn’t wishing ill on the person, just tiring of certain paradigms dominating the debate until their champions expire of long natural causes.)
You, sirrah, are a deluded fool if you think that TALK of imprisoning and killing ones opponents in a scientific debate cannot become reality if those people so speaking come to power. History is replete with such occurrences. If you are offended that such as we may bring these words back to the fore so that they will not be forgotten then SO BE IT. You chose to post and show yourself the fool.
Religion anyone ?
———–
No, religion is science that is “settled”. Religion is “scientists”, the media and politicians trying to suppress free speech and an open debate about a science that has abandoned the scientific method. The whole 97% argument is nothing more than using beliefs to justify an unjustifiable science.
Climate Science has a track record of being wrong, horribly wrong, for more than two decades. Only the naive, uneducated, those that make their livelihood from it, or politically motivated, faith based, feel good believers still cling to it.
Remove the politics from it, and focus solely on the science, and an objective, honest person would conclude that our understanding the earth’s climate is primitive, at best, at this point in time, which is fine. What isn’t fine is wasting billions of dollars on an unproven theory, and unnecessarily lowering the standard of living for millions.
Hey James- Nice flounce!
Bye James
James, you were disappointed in a WUWT thread not having a lot of science in the comments. But that particular article was not about the science at all. It was about politics of fanaticism, including death threats against those bringing up too many of the really inconvenient truths.
I do not read every WUWT article. I am more interested in some subjects than others. You will find an amazing amount of real scientific data about climate on WUWT. It appears that those articles are the ones you are interested in. Stick to those, then.
17 dead in Paris. Islamic terrorists claiming responsibility. Where is the conspiracy?
In your delusions?
I am a climate change denier and am proud of it. I think there should be a web site where we can all register our names as objectors proudly so that in the future we can show our grandchildren that we were not as stupid as the rest of them.
That would be a mighty peculiar thing to sign up for! All together now – The ONE THING THAT NEVER CHANGES ABOUT CLIMATE IS THAT IT IS ALWAYS CHANGING!!!! To sign up to some petition or other that says that one denies climate change is to tell posterity that one is a highly ill-educated fool.
Other than that, I understand what you meant to say, but it was poorly stated. If you said you were a CAGW denier, I’d be right there with you. Of course, the troubling part of that moniker “denier” is that the CAGW faithful intended it to be construed as in the same category as “holocaust denier” and was an attempt to win the argument by giving those who have not studied the situation an uneasy feeling about associating with it.
I seem to have hit the “D” word too often and got stuck in moderation limbo…
James Abbott says, on this twelfth day of January 2015:
Having contributed to this site on and off for some time, I don’t intend to any more.
We’ll see about that. ☺
only reality deniers
will think of anything like
‘climate denier’ for a reasonable approach.
Regards – Hans
– to clarify –
only reality deniers
will adress one as
‘climate denier’
esteeming a reasonable approach.
Thanks – Hans
So now gay marriage is being lumped with climate orthodoxy? What’s up with that? Science shows that homosexuality is somewhat common among warm blooded animals, which indicates strongly that it’s natural for some humans to be romantically and sexually attracted to ones of their own genders. I don’t want lawmakers telling me that I can’t marry someone I am in love with, and get Social Security survivor benefits and a bunch of other benefits that straight people get from marrying. Or that humans have a special responsibility among warm blooded animals to refrain from falling in love with or having sex with someone of the same gender.
Did you read the article? The “lumping” was done by The Australian, not by people questioning the CO2 doom mongering.
it was a Strawman argument, based on bigoted stereotypes.
“””””….. having sex with someone of the same gender……””””
Seems like an oxymoron to me.
Now I am familiar with the Pololo Worm, that lives in the Florida Keys. It’s a hermaphrodite, so it can and does have sex with itself. (pretty much every year around May /June, at the time of the highest Spring Tide. The debauchery goes on all the way from the Dry Tortugas, up past Miami, like it was the path of an eclipse. Then half of them (it) heads out to sea on the surface, all heading on a 150 degree compass heading, never to be seen again (except out to sea).
But I have no problem with anyone who doesn’t care to engage in “sex”. It’s what they do instead, that puzzles me.
The desire for murder is not unusual. Some years back Newt Gingrich proposed death for the sale of two ounces of pot. This past year he promoted a measure in California that not only decriminalized pot but also heroin. Occasionally people wake up to the error of their ways and do a 180.
I think the quoted actions in the original post represent a very slippery slope for the CAGW crowd. By the same theory some are citing (for example the Mark Lynas quote), if Rachel Carson was still alive, could she be hauled into court for the death of millions of children in Africa, who didn’t get the value of DDT, as our own USA population did? Would Paul Erlich be liable for the terribly wrong predictions he’s made over the years, which, if followed, would have been horribly destructive?
Freedom of speech is granted with the assumption that free people will recognize nonsense and reject it. When dogma must be believed, and the government forces acceptance of one class of ideas (notice I did not say actions), and not another, then we don’t have freedom, we have tyranny, and that is a two-edged sword. There is no guarantee that the folks you like, and who agree with you, will be in power. If i were in the CAGW camp, I would be glad not to have to face the consequences of my opinions, just in case (as most of us believe) that I am profoundly wrong.
“…The death penalty would have been justified in terms of the enormous numbers of saved future lives. — Professor Richard Parncutt, University of Graz, Austria, 25 October 2012”
Saving the lives of people who haven’t been born. Hmmm.
In keeping with the spirit of ‘freedom of speech’ here is a link to a piece on Mohammed’s image
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
I post this only for those who will not be offended and enjoy freedom, for all others look away now!
At least 4 people who’ve been banned here, and one on moderation:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28837843&postID=5592254714846476641
So much for free speech, huh?
[Nope. No free speech here. (Anthony pays for all of it.) .mod]
Well you see, what you have to do is imagine you were invited into the living room of a neighbor.
Social graces (if you have any) suggest you await your next move.
If it turns out to be mushrooms, acid and an orgy, then maybe you go with it.
If it ain’t , probably not a good idea to suggest it.
Apple, free speech is from GOVERNMENT intervention. So when did they elect Anth0ny Emperor for life?
Not too many marbles in your bag.
“[Nope. No free speech here. (Anthony pays for all of it.) .mod”
Exactly why you’re hypocrites.
No, hypocrites are clowns who stalk children when they lose arguments. Still stalking apple?
Here is a list of those forced from their institutions due to global warming thugism
George Taylor – Oregon State Climatologist
Sallie Baliunas – Harvard University
Pat Michaels – University of Virginia
Murry Salby – Macquarie University, Australia
Caleb Rossiter – Institute for Policy Studies, USA
Nickolas Drapela, PhD – Oregon State University
Henrik Møller – Aalborg University, Denmark
Recently sent to a friend who wrote an article critical of global warming alarmism:
You will know you have truly “arrived” when you receive your first death threat from the enviro-nuts. Dr. Tim Ball has received several. I feel somewhat slighted because I only received rather lame one – more than a decade ago.
Warmist violence has been minor – one scientist friend had the family dog killed, an oil industry colleague had his house fire-bombed – as was the Calgary Petroleum Club.
I was concerned that violence would ramp up as the warmists became more desperate – fortunately this has not happened (yet).
I did recommend many years ago that my friends take certain precautions – lock your office entrances, vary your routes home, etc. I still think this is prudent.
Environmental extremism appeals to the uneducated and the feeble-minded – fortunately most of these people are too lazy to take serious action.
Best regards, Allan
“Science regresses if it becomes intolerant of criticism.”
I hope the global warming ‘denier’ movement supports this as a principle.
see Ben Stein’s ‘Expelled’ for a parallel minority suffering intolerance under a ‘consensus’ that has been ruling far longer and is firmly established to be feared. My guess is some here will draw the line based on personal ideology, worldview, and self-preservation rather than on a principle, but I hope not.
Je suis Charlie
Don’t for get this class of zealots! Only this one can bring down agriculture, energy, and personal transportation with his half-baked science.
http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/86649/115062265/stock-vector-old-hippie-smokes-marijuana-and-shows-the-peace-symbol-color-version-vector-illustration-115062265.jpg