Christopher Smith writes in WUWT Tips and Notes:
Dr Jarrod Gilbert: Why climate denial should be a criminal offence
5:00 AM Tuesday Jul 26, 2016
New Zealand Social Scientist Dr Jarrod Gilbert is calling for the Crime of Climate Change Denial to be adopted.
There is no greater crime being perpetuated on future generations than that committed by those who deny climate change. The scientific consensus is so overwhelming that to argue against it is to perpetuate a dangerous fraud. Denial has become a yardstick by which intelligence can be tested. The term climate sceptic is now interchangeable with the term mindless fool.
Since the 1960s, it has been known that heat-trapping gasses were increasing in the earth’s atmosphere, but no one knew to what effect. In 1979, a study found “no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible”. Since then scientists have been seeking to prove it, and the results are in.
Meta studies show that 97 per cent of published climate scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by human activities. The American Association for the Advancement of Science compared it to the consensus linking smoking to cancer. The debate is over, yet doubt continues.
Source:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11681154
Using the “meta studies” of 97% consensus as his applicable research, this truly original thinker, investigator, capable observer both impartial and unbiased, has unleashed his completely reverent. timely and accurate assessment of his media fed diet of Apocalyptic climate change. Heaven forbid Nasa would ever make a mistake, falsify data or misrepresent and adjust 176 years of impartial data observations to suit its own data modelling efforts.
I’m ashamed to be a Kiwi when I read articles like this …. and I despair for the scientific method….
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Time for some more Kiwi jokes while we’re on the topic-
News Flash – Noo Zulland sux, Orstraya seven!
Those who call for the denial people to be convicted should themselves be convicted. Is this Nazi Germany all over again? These people have been so blinded by the lies that they have gone mad.
“Denial has become a yardstick by which intelligence can be tested. The term climate sceptic
is now interchangeable with the term mindless fool.”
I have found the inverse of this to be true. The problem is further compounded by rule “Never
argue with a fool because people listening soon cannot tell who the fool is.”
Never wrestle with a pig. You’ll get covered in sh*t and the pig likes it.
It would seem to me that “social scientist” is the new term for “religious prosthelytizer” as what is being foisted upon the public is nothing short of a new religion. “Denier” is the new heretic. The Torquemadas are slithering out from the muck to once again poison humanity.
I have found that when used as a modifier, the word “social” is indistinguishable from the word “not.
Thus “social scientists” is the functional equivalent of “not scientist”. “Social Justice” equals “Not Justice” and so on.
When having a dissenting opinion is a crime we have total tyranny. You have to believe whatever the government tells you even when it is obviously false, or else you go to jail. Welcome to 1984.
Nick Cater in The Australian writing an article headed- ‘Denial of speech is one step towards totalitarianism’
and a classic line-
‘The road to totalitarianism begins with a love of humanity and a contempt for humans.’
Struck me as rather poignant for left/greens who are always banging on about too many people on their precious Gaia. Soylent Greens one suspects but they seem reluctant to be in the vanguard.
I thought that “choice” was a “progressive” quality. Why so selective?
I didn’t need to change too many words to make the quote true.
There is no greater crime being perpetuated on future generations than that committed by those who subvert science to support political agendas. The IPCC’s self serving scientific consensus is so corrupt that to argue for it is to perpetuate a dangerous fraud. Alarmism has become a yardstick by which intelligence can be tested. The term climate consensus is now interchangeable with the term mindless fools.
Since the 1960s, it has been known that heat-trapping gasses were increasing in the earth’s atmosphere, but no one knew to what effect. In 1979, a study found “no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible”. Since then scientists have been trying to prove it, and the results are in. They failed on the science and had to resort to political support and fear mongering.
Meta studies show that 97 per cent of published climate scientists agree that global warming is occurring and human activities play at most a minor role. The American Association for the Advancement of Science compared it to the consensus linking smoking to cancer demonstrates how corrupt the science has become that they must resort to this kind of misrepresentation. The debate is only over in the minds of those who don’t know any better.
Very well put together! That’s what truth looks like!
Hmmm. Or….
“…to perpetuate a dangerous fraud”
“Meta studies show that 97 per cent of published climate scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by human activities”
“….and the results are in.”
“Denial has become a yardstick by which intelligence can be tested”
I know there are a lot of sheep in New Zealand, but I think the woolly kind are probably far brighter and possess a more advanced level of critical thinking.
The mindless fool Jarrod Gilbert
A mindless fool who thinks that climate was static before humans started lighting fires
A mindless fool who thinks atmospheric CO2 radiative dynamics are as simple as he is
A mindless fool who doesn’t know anything about chaos and nonlinear dynamics
A mindless fool who believes that verbiage from progressive eco-jerks and journalists is science
A mindless fool who thinks a social scientist has any chance of understanding that climate dynamics are determined by physical, not political and social processes
A mindless fool who thinks that climate can only change and has only changed by human intervention: such stupidity is unlikely to ever have been achieved before in a hominin.
A mindless fool who failed to understand his primary teacher’s explanation of CO2 and photosynthesis
A mindless fool who fails to see anything wrong with claims that more plant growth must be bad
A mindless fool who thinks that altering the temperature record means anthropogenic climate change
A mindless fool who believes the world was created in 1850 and has never heard of ice ages or Cambrian explosions happening with 10,000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere
A mindless fool unable to hold more than one simple thought in his head
A mindless fool who thinks he is safe to threaten intelligent free-thinking people just because he lives in a small remote island.
A “scientist” effectively advocating the death of real science.
Meta studies show that 97 per cent of published climate scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by human activities.
________________________________
talking about meta studies –
any new meta studies concerning Social Scientists?
Holy Sh#t liberals are stupid.
Dr. Gilbert, how about a bit of historical perspective: in the 1960s and 1970s, environmental scientists were proclaiming that the “human volcano” was causing a new ice age. Oh, wait. That’s right. Climate “scientists” today change data AND history to “prove” they’re right.
It must be inconvenient that people are still alive who remember what you’ve tried to change.
by the way – what’s Social Scientists findings about Chancellor Merkel every year attending ‘Wagner Festspiele at Bayreuth’ fighting ‘Willkommenskultur’ attracted huns by ‘burning down the house’
Lord knows what will come out of the mouths of some fools when they jump into science with no knowledge of the scientific method. We must all be ever vigilant and call out these fools when they stray from the scientific method.
How can you argue with an esteemed sociologist, deep in thought holding a book and glancing derisively at the camera like that? Anyone who doubts his wisdom is obviously a fool who should be thrown in jail post haste.
I would be willing to bet that this clown is also opposed to genetic engineering of crop plants. That’s real science denial.
You can tell a lot from a photo, this is an aggressive bullying egomaniac, I’ve seen his type, aggression is more responsible for his rise than intellect.
His twitter comments back that assertion
Jarrod Gilbert opines through the ages;
Jarrod Gilbert, 1536: “Why those who criticize our King Henry must be beheaded!”
Jarrod Gilbert , 1450: “Why those who criticize our beloved Pope must be burned at the stake!”
Jarrod Gilbert , 1st Century: “Who those who criticize Great Caesar must be crucified!”
He and his intellectual forbears have always been around, and like cockroaches, they keep having to be stamped out or else they’ll cause real trouble for all of us.
A few pebbles in an otherwise empty head can cause loud rattling.
Eugene WR Gallun
There must be lots of lawyers who both believe in the alarmism and who can draft legislation that would make climate denialism a crime. The problem is that any competent lawyer would quickly raise incovenient issues.
1. The lawyer would first have to define climate science that would distinguish it from being a belief system or a political ideology. Without that, it could raise constitutional issues in free countries.
2. The lawyer would then need to state the matters of incontrovertible truth or well-established fact. The lawyer would soon say that most of the claimed incontrovertible truths are opinions or hearsay.
Indeed, it would be a worthwhile exercise and highly enlightening exercise to undertake. From an historical perspective they will find that instead of finding increasingly strong evidence for a (potentially) catastrophic future, there are ever blander statements about the weather changing. Cook et al 2013 plumbed new depths in this trend. I have done a diagram to illustrate the issue.
https://manicbeancounter.com/2015/08/14/can-climatology-ever-be-considered-a-science/
Don’t let constitutional issues slow it down
or get in the way. New Zealand doesn’t have a written
constitution.
It does have a treaty signed by some, but not all, of the
indigenous peoples’ tribes. That could get in the way.
“The debate is over, yet doubt continues.”
They have never been willing to hold a major debate on climate change, so how could it be over? If you had overwhelming proof that humans were causing the climate to change for the worse, wouldn’t you want to debate all doubters, lay out your facts, and convince as many as you can, especially if you believed the future of the planet hung in the balance? The fact that they hide from debate and are unwilling to answer their critics directly tells you everything you need to know about the confidence they have in their ability to prove dangerous global warming is happening.
If he is ashamed to be a New Zealander, then, as a New Zealander, I am ashamed to have such a mindless, bigoted fool inciting a resumption of The Witch Hunts.
After all, they were intended to “Save the World” and “keep future generations safe” too. And they too, had no scientific basis. But everyone from the Kings down knew witches existed. And the bad weather was proof of their evil.
The solution for you Dr. Gilbert, is to find a small island somewhere which doesn’t have a climate, such as Campbell Island, or Auckland Island. They only have Weather, really bad weather.
Despite all the claims, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmopshere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majoriety of the Earth’s surface is some form of water. Models have been generated that show that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Man has no control.
The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.
Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.
The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.
This is all a matter of science
A huge question, how do we fix the 4th estate?
because it is now a 5th column
. . . and a joke.