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.
Funny, I use Social Scientist/sociologist interchangeably with mindless fool.
So, I guess the good Dr. Gilbert and I agree to disagree on this one.
“Denial has become a yardstick by which intelligence can be tested”.
Like other forms of empirical data the CAGW “scientist” use, I believe they are using the “yardstick” upside down.
The only truly criminal offence, should be ‘ignorance’.
Another name for the ‘Wall of Shame’.
But they cannot prove their case now can they. In a court of law a projection is not real evidence. Worse for them people with real science and data can indeed prove their case. Maybe we should turn their tactics on them and file a law suit for mass disinformation with the intent to panic. It is illegal to yell fire in a theatre.
It is actually perfectly legal to “yell fire in a theatre” provided there is evidence of a fire, such as smoke or visible flames.
The CAGWists are shouting “fire” without having any evidence but expect everyone to believe them and they do not accept that they have any responsibility for the results of their probably wrong shouts.
p.s. This “scientist” makes me feel embarrassed for my shaky homeland and the article proves I was correct to cease taking modern day newspapers.
Actually anyone who has benefited from taxpayer money by promoting the globull warming lie should be criminally charged and sent to prison for treason against their country.
Notice he says that the scientific CONSENSUS is so overwhelming… Nothing about evidence being overwhelming (not that there is any). If anything the consensus is falling apart as more voices are heard and more papers are written and published (yes, peer reviewed, as if that means anything anymore) expressing contrary views and evidence.
What is it about the GangGreen-Dream-Team that has them spouting the very opposite of what is happening around them? Yes, they are trying to influence the masses, having already worn out their lies and promotion of doom and gloom. Time is running out and fast now as the cold spell closes in on the world. It’s now or never for them.
They are so close to having it all and it’s slipping away. The skeptics are growing in number, populations are getting fed up with human-hating politics wrecking their lives and even school kids hate their lessons in Green and are turning away.
Yep, time is running out. They are all panicking. They have to scream louder, stamp their little feet and howl at the injustice of it all, but no one is listening anymore…
Regardless, of his opinion and ideology, which he is entitled to express freely, probably that guy has got an interesting point.
Any significant and provable fraud in matters of climate and climate change should be considered as a great crime……maybe…..why not, punishable by law…..This guy could have in principle a valid point!
Where do we start if that enforced as law………..NASA first or NOAA, Joneses or Manns or Hansenes……too many there. 🙂
cheers
Crikey – a bit of research shows this poo-stirring goon to be a self promoting berk with a truly bloated sense of entitlement to public money coupled to a dose of conceit that’s overdosed on positive feedback.
An strutting expert on gang culture no less…. with a nose for a quick buck.
Very true but the irony is that he will be lapping up the attention he is getting on the world’s most important blog.
He’ll be reading every word, his ego demands it.
I also note that Dr Gilbert cares enough about the planet to not restrict his antics on two wheels to pedal powered vehicles – intellectually he’s at the tiny tricycle with pedals on the front wheel stage…..
I do not accept his idea about making Climate Denial a crime. That said, I would like to ask him a hypothetical question. If being in a climate denier is a crime, how about those that speak his “truth” about climate but, at the same time, live like kings? Celebrities like DeCaprio and Gore SAY the right things but very much DO the wrong things. Are they criminals in his neo-fascist world?
@JB1000 – that one goes under the heading that if stupidity was a crime, most of the world would be in jail. And that is why politicians never made stupid a crime.
Please see my letter to the editor of the NZ Herald – emailed this morning. Doubt they will publish it though.
“The recent article by Dr. Jarrod Gilbert recommending criminal charges for climate change denialists is a tissue of arrant nonsense. I have yet to meet a climate sceptic who denies climate change, which has gone on for 4.5 billion years, and his quoted studies that 97% of climate scientists blame mans’ activities for recent global warming have been widely discredited as survey frauds. Clearly, Dr. Gilbert has not done much research. The great irony and danger in Dr. Gilbert’s remarks is that he is using his right to free speech to advocate shutting down the same rights for others who disagree with his opinions. Several Staes Attorneys General here in the U.S. have recently tried the same political tactic to shut down climate change dissent but all are now backing down. Based on Dr. Gilbert’s idiotic views a strong case can be made for banning all sociologists from our school rooms, giving evidence in courts and seeking political office.”
I noted a couple of grammatical errors below. I do a fair amount of letter writing to my local paper and when I notice an error I send a revision quickly, apologize for the error, and ask them to replace the previous with the corrected. They are happy to do so. But then, I am a paying subscriber.
Jarrod Gilbert lives in Christchurch. Time for him to go after those who are denying that earthquakes happen there. That should keep him out for trouble for a year or two.
pffft … I think he should investigate gender reassignment issues in (his specialty) the biker community – I don’t want to keep him out of trouble….
Online comments require little effort but typically don’t change many minds, especially when the section is troll-bombed by parrots. A letter (or an opinion piece) from a knowledgeable New Zealander debunking this despicable doctor’s dastardly diatribe would be far more effective.
http://dynamic.nzherald.co.nz/feedback/letters/
Kudos to Bill Lindqvist, who posted while I was looking at the Herald’s website. If the paper’s editor chooses to run it perhaps they will correct “a tissue of arrant nonsense” and “Staes Attorneys General.” Still, where are the New Zealanders?
Oops for the typo. Not in my original. A “tissue of lies” is a well known phrase and it’s not too much of a stretch to replace “lies” with “nonsense”. Arrant means ” utter, complete, absolute, outright etc”. So what’s the problem?
Already done…see my post above at July 26 @5:23am with a letter emailed 10 hours ago to the print version of the NZ Herald (to which I have been a subscriber for over 35 years). But they won’t publish it!
My bad, Bill, sorry. I wasn’t familiar with “tissue of lies.” Thanks to you and the Internet, I am now edified.
I’ve learned that ’tissue’ originally referred to ‘an intricately woven ornamental cloth’, not noseblow, and is first recorded in the Middle English allegorical poem “The Romaunt [Romance] of the Rose,” circa 1366, as “tyssu of satyne.” A tissue of lies as a complex, interwoven, series of lies is found in the London journal The Monthly Review of January, 1800:
I found the phrasing “tissue of arrant nonsense” is no stretch at all, as it appears in “The Modern Pythagorean: A Series of Tales, Essays, and Sketches, Volume 1” by Robert Macnish and David Macbeth Moirit, 1838.
I hope the editors at the Herald are as familiar with your phrase as I now am, in which case they must certainly publish your letter!
Kudos to you, too, Alastair. I hope the Herald’s “letters to the editor” page is filled with letters rejecting Dr. Gilbert’s tissue of arrant nonsense.
This attitude is so easy for quacks like this to have. His entire life and career produces nothing useful for society at all (ironic that they call it sociologist) and is made entirely possible by the very things which he is so vitriolic of. Essentially, it is the hard work and efficiency of the very things that he hates which enables him to have such a worthless existence as a pseudo-scientist. You’re welcome, even if you aren’t grateful.
“New Zealand Social Scientist Dr Jarrod Gilbert”
No further explanation needed.
Reblogged this on The Arts Mechanical and commented:
When you criminalize though and the pursuit of inquiry you stifle the very things that made our world. All science is the result of questioning the status quo and testing against the real world. Criminalizing that pursuit is the essence of intolerance and narrow mindedness. If the climate crowd cannot address questions, climatology is no longer a science. It’s a religion where everything must be taken on faith and acceptance and not by testing and evaluation.
What kind of a mind could justify the idea that “To disagree with me is a crime.”?
Whatever happened to “Let’s agree to disagree.”?
If one’s pride and ego have led to such a swelled head that they can’t risk the pin prick of disagreement, perhaps it’s time for them to re-examine just what it is they are so proud of?
Laying eggs, perhaps?
Carbon dioxide from fossil fuels use does not materially affect climate. Maybe climate is warming. It is supposed to be warming, because earth is in an interglacial period. Which begs the question why some scientists and government agencies seek to deceive by “adjusting” prior-period temperature data.
Nature converts ambient CO2 to limestone. Carbonates form in seawater and soils through calcification (ie. cyanobacteria and coccolithiphores). The simplified formula is CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. Anyone can make calcite quickly in a kitchen by mixing carbonated water with quicklime.
Its simple. Nature sequesters CO2 as limestone (calcite). The higher the atmospheric CO2 partial pressure, the faster it becomes limestone. 99.84% of all carbon is sequestered in sediments. Earth absorbs ambient CO2 quickly.
Climate change results from a combination of (non-CO2) causes, such as sunspots, solar orbital variations, cosmic rays’ effect on clouds, and plate tectonics (well documented elsewhere). But it cannot be caused by CO2 arising from fossil fuels use, because nature efficiently recycles CO2 as carbonate minerals.
Only 3% of CO2 emissions come from fossil fuels use. Most of the rest arises from rotting vegetation in swamps and jungles. Carbon dioxide emissions and fossil fuels use are beneficial, and climate change is a false premise for regulating them. See http://www.thegwpf.com/28155/. Changes in temperature cause changes in CO2 emissions from these sources, and are not caused by them.
CO2 is in equilibrium. Mineral carbonates are the ultimate repository of atmospheric CO2. Anyone who passed 10th grade chemistry can know this using public information. Limestone and marble are familiar forms of mineral carbonate. CO2 is an essential component of mineral carbonate (CaCO3, for calcium). See the paper http://bit.ly/1NziTF4.
The theory of human-caused climate change is based on a false premise. All the cost and hysteria of the global warming movement is a colossal waste, and results in poor economic growth. Tens of trillions of dollars wasted on foolish superstition, when hard working people are deprived. Energy policy as fashion goods. The dead hand of the state, picking winners & losers.
Coal is the lowest-cost and most reliable primary energy source for electric power generation. A modern coal plant emits few air emissions except water vapor and carbon dioxide.
Great comment…good to see some geological sense. You mention that “Only 3%of CO2 emissions come from fossil fuel use”. I have heard this figure before but have never found a reliable reference…can you help? Ian Plimer stated that 3% of the atmospheric CO2 content is manmade but I’m not sure if this is correct.
Assuming that he did actually write, “there is no greater crime” then I am sickened by this topic. I think back to the horrendous crimes committed throughout history
Regardless of the huge advancements man has made in understanding and development, wisdom has not increased by one iota throughout written history. All the academic training and achievement possible cannot open the eyes when the brain is not capable. The fact that our institutions harbour such attitudes is scary. This guy teaches our young. If I was a parent of such a student I would pull them out and make a formal complaint. It is incitement of hatred
Unfortunately we have such extreme views in the skeptic camp. This fuels a fire in which the moderates who seek truth are hidden
It is sad that this violent brawl has reached the shores of New Zealand. I am ashamed too
The inability to debate a topic reveals an absolutely infantile mindset. Stick that in your sociologist’s exhaust port, Jarrod Gilbert.
Perhaps Gilbert is stoking outrage as some kind of twisted social experiment, not fully appreciating the discomfort of tar and feathers.
Rather than suffer the indignity of being dragged away in the middle of the night by the secret Climate Denial Police, I have voluntarily admitted myself into the Climate Denial Aversion Therapy Clinic.
The admission brochure assures me that VTT (Voltaic Testicular Treatment) is highly effective and that only those resistant to 240 Volts and 1Amp will be subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques involving forced viewing of endless re runs of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth and Leonardo DiCaprio’s Oscar Award acceptance speech.
“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. ”
This is a demonstration of the power of propaganda.
Here we have a thoroughly debunked claim: that 97% of climate scientists agree on CAGW, yet it is still being used as if it were the truth.
My guess is the author probably believes it is true. He’s been fooled, and is contributing to fooling others by passing it along as truth. Until it got here. 🙂
Suggest reading Dr. Gilbert’s entire article, not just the excerpt above.
Gilbert does not advocate trial and imprisonment for the “crime” of being a “climate sceptic” (aka “mindless fool”). He seems to be suggesting organized lynch mobs.