In light of what happened yesterday with The Independent apparently disappearing a famous climate prediction blunder article while leaving an article critical of its use intact, this opinion piece by Joe Wallach seemed pertinent -Anthony
Guest opinion by Joe Wallach
Warming alarmists use a curious method to promote their view of “climate change”, censorship. If 97% of the scientific community (read IPCC) are so certain that humans are responsible for global warming, they should present irrefutable, supporting scientific evidence. Instead panic and censorship are used to advance their cause. In a society where freedom of speech is a treasured attribute, and is sought for all sorts of causes, beneficial and farcical censorship is an anathema. According to one alarmist earlier in 2015, who refused to allow me to recommend the work of a group of French scientists and engineers to his readership, he stated that:
“Climate Change denial is one of the subjects we don’t allow on UnpublishedOttawa.com because it’s not based on real facts. Anyone can grab facts and make an argument out of it, but when the vast majority of scientists, who have little to gain, agree that we have a problem, a problem that is already manifesting itself all around the world, then allowing posts that deny this reality, is in our opinion akin to intentional deception.”
More recently, I submitted a post to another human climate change site in the Ottawa, Canada area, in which I asked if anyone could provide a single piece of irrefutable, undeniable evidence that humans are responsible for global warming. That, too, was blocked by the purveyor of the site http://www.boomerwarrior.org/.
In October, 2015 the cégep (a cégep is the community college equivalent in Québec, Canada) at Trois Rivières, Quebec cancelled a scheduled talk, in which retired Professor Reynald Duberger was invited by a faculty member to speak on global warming. Professor Duberger’s opposition to the idea of anthropogenic global warming is well known among francophones on both sides of the Atlantic, a position that is not acceptable to many institutions of higher education.
That is not the first time that Professor Duberger was so rebuffed, but it is noteworthy because it made headlines in the nearly 50,000-circulation newspaper, Le Nouvelliste, in Trois Rivières (population 130,000). Translated, the bold headline declares: Climate change: The Cégep cancels Reynald Duberger’s talk (http://www.lapresse.ca/le-nouvelliste/actualites/environnement/201510/13/01-4909558-changements-climatiques-le-cegep-annule-la-conference-de-reynald-duberger.php)
Educational institutions are supposed to provide a thorough education. At the high school, community college and university levels that includes the presentation of contrary points of view that may emerge over a critical, current events issue, such as global warming. Censoring legitimate, contradictory viewpoints on human-induced global warming is a gross disservice to the students, and to society. Advocating human-induced global warming without also providing information on contradictory, scientifically supported opinions is brainwashing.
Professor Duberger is an earth scientist (seismology and geology) who understands the behavior of the planet. He is a frequent guest on talk radio in Quebec City and speaks very eloquently so that one need not be a specialist to understand him. It is unfortunate for the students that Professor Duberger’s scheduled talk to them was cancelled by the Director of Studies, Denis Rousseau.
According to the reporter for Le Nouvelliste the following explanation, in italicized text, was advanced by Denis Rousseau as justification for the cancellation: Knowing how the courses in exact sciences offered here are taught we were reluctant to hear the ideas espoused by the author (he meant speaker)…we teach exact sciences here and our professors believe that global warming is a fact, which contradicts the opinion of the speaker. Then to “punctuate” his discourse Rousseau added: The majority of scientists believe that global warming is a fact. Duberger offers a natural retort to that last statement by referring to the derision endured by Alfred Wegener until his death because the majority of geoscientists ridiculed his now widely accepted and understood theory of Plate Tectonics.
It is fascinating that Rousseau referred to exact sciences, but he should have explained, with evidence, what an exact science is, particularly with respect to terrestrial, environmental or climatological processes. I’m sure that even Mother Nature would love to hear that. In the context of supporting a position with evidence one of Professor Duberger’s notable concerns is that no one seems to have furnished incontrovertible evidence that global warming is caused by human activity. As a geoscientist Professor Duberger is fully aware of temperature variations that have occurred throughout geological time including the global warming that wiped out most of the continental ice sheets, except for Greenland and the polar regions, that covered the northern hemisphere approximately 9,000 – 12,000 years ago. During none of those previous events were there factories or hydrocarbon-fueled machines of any kind.
Rousseau’s arguments scream for knowledgeable scientists to speak at the cégep to, at the very least, give the students good, concrete reasons to think critically about natural vs. anthropogenic global warming. This is not merely an academic distinction, but has definite economic consequences as well, as illustrated in the following link (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/how-canada-s-provinces-are-tackling-greenhouse-gas-emissions-1.3030535). The subject of global warming, or the more recently minted “climate change”, must be dealt with rationally, not by censorship.
Exact science sounds a lot like Dogma that gets preached in a church. That is what religion is for. Science is more of a game where theories and hypotheses are thrown into the pitch and the teams of people on each side try to shows whose hypothesis is better. It is dynamic, there are ebbs and flows and can be very exciting. Look at how many people get “churched” on Sunday vs. how many people get wrapped up in sports plus look a the enthusiasm of each church crowd vs. the sports crowd. As long as the alarmists insist on preaching, you can be assured that all but the most devoted of the general public with have little interest.
I suggest a 2% “wealth tax” (i.e. personal property tax on all assets and equities above $50 million) to pay for Climate Change.
I figure the only people to get rich off of Climate Change are the 1%, so they should pay for it too.
This kind of proposal will bring Climate Change to a swift end.
Agreed, but I think I’d start it at the top 0.1% first. They’re the ones (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Maurice Strong, Tom Steyer, John Kerry, Leonardo DiCaprio, George Clooney, John Podesta, et al) who’d have the most to gain from draconian regulations, and the most to lose.
Actually, just call it the Hypocrisy Tax. DiCaprio would have to pay triple for staying on a yacht owned by an oil baron then calling for the oceans to be better protected from climate change.
BTW, saw an interview with a child who wants free tuition, forgiveness for student loans and unlimited unicorn rides (I’m a bit fuzzy on that last one, I was giggling too hard).
She kept mentioning that we should just “tax the 1%” to pay for it.
Sure, said the host, if everyone in the 1% paid a 100% tax rate, it would pay for Medicare. For three years…
The problem with the “tax the rich”, as we are about to find out here in Canada with our new Liberal government is that “the rich” are fairly mobile, and more importantly, so is their money.
So they have to redefine who “the rich” are (hint: its an ever decreasing income amount), and what a “tax” really is, as in, “its not a tax, its a USER FEE”.
@ur momisugly Caligula Jones –
I believe those unicorn rides are an increased minimum wage, but that hasn’t worked.
And, to add, Old Hillary is promising more money giveaways (hard to keep up with the Bern) of say a few billion to out of work coal workers – essentially thanking them for providing modern civilization or as she says’ “keeping the lights on”. (What an insult. And she doesn’t even realize it.)
But, I see no pockets in her pants suits !!! Holes all through our pants though.
I have had discussions with some who want to go after the 1%. They typically also believe in borderless countries. So I suggest that we should be talking about the global 1%, not just those contained in the confines of a ‘meaningless’ border. Once I have a buy-in on that viewpoint, I hit them with facts (so easy, since they know so few): on a global basis, the top 1% of wage earners are those who make about US $34,000 a year. How much do YOU make, and are you willing to pay about 90% in taxes to bring fairness for the 99% of people earning less than you?
They generally turn into pretzels trying to justify not supporting ‘fairness’ on a global basis. Seems only redistributing other people’s money meets their definition of fairness.
Argue the science as long as you like, it’s interesting but irrelevant — it’s political. The anti-capitalism movement explains it all.
I consider myself a non-Marxist socialist and even I can’t fathom the ignorance of those who rant against capitalism while worshipping in the AGW church. In communism, it’s the workers who control the factories, the idea being that everyone shares in the profits of industry. These fools want to burn the factories down. They’re not Marxists, they’re nihilists, self-hating humans who think man is a cancer on the planet.
Yeah, I’m in a bit of a cultural class at one of the colleges in that group and they’re jamming in various ideological nonsense. To be fair though, I can understand that they would promote what they feel are the current “correct” values in the society. But it’s really sad listening to it, knowing that while greenhouse gas theory is correct and that the earth appears to have warmed…essentially everything pushed by the politicians, media, and advocate scientists about climate change falls somewhere along the spectrum between conjecture and lies.
… but when the vast majority of scientists, who have little to gain …
This is a porker. They have big fat research grants to gain.
I like to compare these types to those who supported the claims that it had been scientifically proven that blacks were an inferior species. IIRC, that was the consensus of another time. You should see the response from people when they are compared to racists. It is hilarious.
Unfortunately there are a whole bunch of other similarities to the eugenics wisdom.
Including who the victims are of these “alternate energy” schemes.
It is almost as if our Eco-Concerned Ones have a hate on for poor brown persons.
Course it could just be poor people every where.
The blatant censorship of C.C.C activists is pure politics.
When pinned down by facts, they scream and fling faeces..
Then if you are still snickering, they plug their ears and run off at the mouth, La la la la….
The best reason I can figure for the wilful blindness, seems to be the risk of total self esteem collapse.
Their pious view of themselves is so dependent on the wisdom of that magic gas, that there is no room for doubt.
What if I am wrong? = meltdown.
I am glad I do not see what they do in their mirrors.
Speaking of censorship – here is the last reference on BBC Science and Environment to Antarctic Ice:
“Satellite data shows the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is also losing mass, and a recent study indicated that East Antarctica, which had displayed no clear warming or cooling trend, may also have started to lose mass in the last few years.”
So – that’s how they intend to play it. Apparently an entire NASA study has disappeared into a void.
The silence is audible.
But, the sniveling bum-licking BBC have hidden this study from the British public, even though it was discussed in almost all media worldwide, including state controlled Russia Today and Al Jazeera.
And inconvenient study, perhaps.
BBC seemingly want to leave thier alarmist claims unchanged and unchallenged in the lead up to COP21,
And a blanket ban on inconvenient science is the only strategy that they have left at their disposal.
Crooks!!!
While academic censorship is definitely over-the-top already, who has to wonder how bad it could get if the govt gets in on this action full-throttle:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/12/kerry-threatens-climate-skeptics-they-put-us-all-at-risk-warns-we-cannot-sit-idly-by-and-allow-them-to-do-that/
h/t Marc Morano
“In a society where freedom of speech is a treasured attribute…”
Freedom os speech means that the government can not restrict your speech, although what this means in British law is certainly not the same as in the US.
However, this article is not about government restricting speech. It’s about whether or not people wish to listen to BS.
It’s about whether or not people wish to listen to BS.
traffy, you are the perfect straight man for a comedy skit…
Deep down inside do you wonder if anyone wants to listen to your BS?. When no one responds to you at the discussions where you agree with the others … at the echo chambers of the AGW …, do you consciously wonder why? Is it your subconscious that pushes you here, where you can at least get a response to your BS and feel a little better for a short time?
[…] According to one alarmist […]
“Anyone can grab facts and make an argument out of it”
Class.
Kind of like Homer (Simpson) ‘class’ …
“Anyone can grab facts and make an argument out of it”
_____________________________________________
My personal favourite though has to be his view on learning …
(Secrets of a Successful Marriage)
“Oh. And how is ‘education’ supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home wine-making course and I forgot how to drive?”
“Remember when I took that home wine-making course and I forgot how to drive?”
That _is_ pretty funny.
That is why you are proclaimed “Certified Full” when you get your PhD. I can’t remember all of the stuff I’ve forgotten…
It’s what you remember that ain’t so. That’s the problem…
Remember this. Some people I have debated with believe CH4 has 4 carbons. Yes, he was very serial about it too.
Wot….like corn flakes ??? (:<»)
Cha! Weatbix matey… or as in a child’s story book in the UK in the 80’s, flaked corns. Serial.
“Climate Change denial is one of the subjects we don’t allow on UnpublishedOttawa.com because it’s not based on real facts. Anyone can grab facts and make an argument out of it…”
Aren’t “facts”, by definition, “real”? Isn’t grabbing “facts and make an argument out of it” the entire point?
Apparently not only do they think they own the facts but also the interpretations of the facts.
The Uni’s teach you NOT to think for yourself. You know what happens when a professor asks for your views on an exam. You dare not give him your views. Even if you can substantiate.
I’m sure that’s true at many universities. Fortunately, my education predated most of that. I met Dr. Stephen Schneider in the late 1980’s at a MTU function, and stood two feet from him, looked him in the eye, and said, “you can’t be serious?” in response to his statements on AGW. He was serious enough to suggest bending ethical rules to promote and exaggerate that message.
” The subject of global warming, or the more recently minted “climate change”, must be dealt with rationally, not by censorship.”
But part of the problem, ignoring the political aspect for a moment, is that we frequently miscommunicate our beliefs, and are thus perceived as “not believing” in global warming or climate change. We do this saying things like “global warming is a hoax” or “climate change is a fraud”. This is a big mistake on our part.
It is very easy to fix this miscommunication problem. (The political aspect, not so easy).
Repeat after me:
Global warming is a fact. (The world has been warming, slowly, since the last Ice Age. No big deal)
Global warming scare is a hoax.
Climate change is a fact. (The climate has been changing for eons, and always will. No big deal)
Climate change scare is a fraud.
“speaks very eloquently so that one need not be a specialist to understand him” – That my friends is the kiss of DEATH to them. They can’t dazzle people with brilliance so they baffle them with BS. Along comes someone who is not only extremely qualified but literate and capable of explaining the issues to non-technical people. Whoa now they can’t have that. They’d all lose their phony baloney jobs (HT to Mel Brooks).
The “vast majority” does not agree that we have a major problem, as the quote above implies, but only 41%. This 2007 George Mason poll http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union. It did not cherry pick the respondants who gave them the answer they wanted, and it asked more sophisticated questions, below:
Under its “Major Findings” are these paragraphs:
“Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.
“Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest [11%] are unsure.
“Scientists still debate the dangers. A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is NOT “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”
“A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites this increase as the point beyond which additional warming would produce major environmental disruptions.)
“Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.”
IOW, 59% doubt the “catastrophic” potential of AGW. I suspect that number would be higher now, after eight more flat years.
If 97% of the scientific community (read IPCC) are so certain that humans are responsible for global warming …’.
===============================
I know that’s how it is interpreted but that’s not what the IPCC say, viz. that over 50% of the (alleged) warming since ~1950 is very, very, likely to be caused by human activity, or words to that effect.
Statements like “… no one seems to have furnished incontrovertible evidence that global warming is caused by human activity …” oversimplifying the matter and perpetuate misunderstanding.
It’s more sensible to concede that human activity notably CO2 emissions may possibly, or even probably, be responsible for some warming but empirical evidence suggests that the resulting warming is only adding to an already existing trend coming out of one of the coldest episodes during this interglacial; that human CO2 emissions and the probable minor additional warming are a net positives and that there is no viable alternative course at this stage and the only rational approach is to utilise resultant increasing global wealth to alleviate negative effects — if any.
ABC Australia receives more than one billion Australian dollars a year from taxpayers, including vast numbers of them who are CAGW sceptics:
9 Nov: Guardian: Graham Readfearn: Why Robyn Williams won’t broadcast ‘shameless’ climate science deniers
After 40 years of fronting ABC Radio National’s Science Show, Robyn Williams says climate science deniers have said nothing different ‘for bloody years’…
To say that Robyn Williams is a bit of a legend of science broadcasting on the radio is a bit like saying David Attenborough is a dab hand at nature documentaries on the telly…
Last week Williams was in Brisbane for a celebration of the 40th anniversary of the show put on by the University of Queensland…
Joining Williams onstage was outgoing chief scientist Ian Chubb. On a big screen, there were video dedications from the likes of actress Cate Blanchett, theoretical physicist Professor Paul Davies, Nature editor-in-chief Philip Campbell and former UK chief science advisor Lord May.
Oh, and David Attenborough…
WILLIAMS: “Now all of the people who are deniers have been on the programs that my colleagues and I put out. We did so because most of us frankly like and enjoy contrarian views. We like a variety of opinion.
But then you find – as I did – that the people you are inviting in to give their contrarian views are always saying the same bloody thing. You can actually mouth the paragraphs. Here it comes again … just as if they were politicians rather than people considering science.
The people I put on the radio [now] have just written papers, they have published considered books. In other words, you are doing what you hope is serving the public by getting fresh ideas out to them to consider. But the people you are describing – those deniers – I have not noted saying anything new in bloody years…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/nov/09/why-legendary-science-broadcaster-robyn-williams-wont-broadcast-shameless-climate-science-deniers-any-more
ABC editorial policies
Impartiality Guidance note
Impartiality is one of the most fundamental elements of content-making at the ABC…
4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.
4.3 Do not state or imply that any perspective is the editorial opinion of the ABC. The ABC takes no editorial stance other than its commitment to fundamental democratic principles including the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, parliamentary democracy and equality of opportunity.
4.4 Do not misrepresent any perspective.
4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another…
http://about.abc.net.au/reports-publications/impartiality-guidance-note/
ABC editorial policies
Impartiality Guidance note
Impartiality is one of the most fundamental elements of content-making at the ABC…
4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.
4.3 Do not state or imply that any perspective is the editorial opinion of the ABC. The ABC takes no editorial stance other than its commitment to fundamental democratic principles including the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, parliamentary democracy and equality of opportunity.
4.4 Do not misrepresent any perspective.
4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another…
That’s pretty funny!
Oh wait… they’re serious?
No way.
Oh-oh. Wonder how the bombings in Paris today will affect attendance at COP21?
And – still the most eloquent summary – thanks to a Bishop Hill commenter: “Climate Bollocks”.
They can’t control something like security, yet claim to be able to control a chaotic system like climate. The world is mad !!
Great, Joé! But censorship is also used by alarmists in France.. Omerta is the rule. Nobody is allowed to be informed on disturbing observations and/or publications….Terrific!
Jean-Pierre,
You are absolutely correct. One example, the dismissal of Philippe Verdier, has already been addressed in this forum in an essay by Anthony Watts entitled “Back To The Dark Ages: Top French Weatherman Fired Over Climate Change Book” published November 2. Another, of which I am aware, is that of Dr. Brigitte Van Vliet-Lanoe. Though she is still the director of research at France’s CNRS (National Science Research Center) she was fired recently from the University of Lille for (in her own words, but translated from French) being too skeptical of anthropogenic climate change and for having taught her students to think critically.
We have a twofold world crisis IMHO….. this issue in conjunction with the growing terrorists movement coming out of the middle east….. one of these seems to be a powerful delusion…..and with horrible consequences either way!
10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12
“…little to gain…”
This is the sort of statement made by someone who is completely ignorant of what is going on. Tens of billions of dollars are spent each year “proving” global warming, but neither that money nor employment are available to anyone not engaged in proving global warming. They have everything to gain, at the loss only if integrity. Money wins.
Yeah, and don’t forget speaker’s fees. Didn’t Hansen retire as a millionaire based on his speaker’s fees?
“Duberger offers a natural retort to that last statement by referring to the derision endured by Alfred Wegener until his death because the majority of geoscientists ridiculed his now widely accepted and understood theory of Plate Tectonics.”
Actually Wegener didn’t invent the Plate Tectonics theory. It didn’t exist while he was alive. He assumed the continents somehow plowed through the ocean rocks. Trouble is there was no way to make it work. That’s why he was laughed at. But it was obvious from the physical evidence (rocks and matching edges on maps) that Wegener was correct that the continents had once been joined. I remember recognizing this in the 1950s when I was a kid. But it was only when radar and magnetic stripe evidence was produced that a workable theory was developed. This is like so many other legends which are produced to “deify” the winner in a intellectual battle.
In Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, access to newspapers older than 2 years was forbidden, except with a special permit.
Since history had changed.
You were told once, and if you kept asking you were asked to ID yourself. Better run while you could.
Climate “science” is the same, for the same reason…