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.
Overwhelmed by a bevy of scientists, politicians, and the general public, the grossly outnumbered “mindless fools” somehow continually outwit their alleged mental superiors.
Easy for a social scientist to assert!
“Social scientist”…”Dr”…this is a put-on, right? It can’t be real, why that would imply a total societal breakdown of the meaning and worth of a “scientist” and a “Dr” degree, right? Oh, wait…the breakdown is real and we now have (or maybe we’ve always had) only wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs – it just seems there are more wolves and more sheep nowadays. I blame the ozone “hole”. Or maybe Alar apples.
Make an assumption then claim that ” we know “, that’s climate science.
Why don’t preachy promoters of scary climate speak plain English ? Who denies climate change ? No one I know .
They can no longer pump the” climate has a fever” and associated melting Armageddon anymore without looking ridiculous so they throw out other politically correct climate camouflage . Climate changes . No kidding …who knew ? And guess what it even gets warmer or colder too . Take your pick which one you prefer because yep folks climate does indeed change unless you think you can control it . A potential AL Gore in the making .
Just because people don’t share your religion or puff tart choice doesn’t make it a criminal offence . It is however a sure sign the scary global warming industry is imploding .
A kind of 1930’s approach to behaviour modification is reveled and makes a desperate attempt at revival . It failed then and will fail now .
Scary climate promoters had a good run but now they are just going to have to do what humans always do when climate changes . Adapt by finding some new sources of funding and don’t forget to move the beach furniture an inch or two every 10 or 20 years . Happy fish though . More food and a bigger pool . What is not to like . Kind of makes up a bit for the millions of birds killed in bird blenders .
The book market is kind of done so not sure why this guy he is holding a book . Doesn’t he appear fashion sensitive though for the photo -op ? We hang on his every word .
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”.
Might I suggest that this “social” scientist doesn’t know the first thing about how science really works. Additionally a study in 1979 probably doesn’t take into account a going on nineteen year pause in warming during a time when mankind has pumped nearly a full third of all the CO2 he EVER pumped into the atmosphere. Maybe he should brush up on his cause and effect.
That is a curious date for a ‘definitive’ study on global warming. I wonder what study he’s referring to. Also note the reference to “meta studies”; I suppose it’s OK as a substitute for meta analysis or meta-analytic studies, but it sounds awkward to my ear. Also, “seeking to prove it and the results are in” is a bit much in any context. So it really does sound like he’s out of his depth – and that he shouldn’t be venturing outside the kiddies’ section of the pool.
RW,
The quote came from here:
Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate, “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment,” National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC (1979), quote from p. viii.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12181/carbon-dioxide-and-climate-a-scientific-assessment
This phrase is a mantra among those in the warmist cult and this paper is based on incorrect, incomplete and out of date references. It’s also clearly biased as the conclusions are the first thing in the paper.
He’s right! Denying climate change is about as silly and ignorant as it gets. But real scientists are not contesting ‘climate change’ but global warming. I for one do not think that ‘change’ means warming. It could also mean cooling. Nor do I think that warming is dangerous. Give me warming anytime over cooling. This debate will get nowhere until honest language is used.
I don’t think ‘honesty’ is what the CAGW narrative requires. That’s the problem when dogma comes before actual scientific method.
I’m fine with this, providing we also criminalise other beliefs that are detrimental to our well-being.
So let’s make it a criminal offence to be a Marxist or socialist.
To believe in the “clean slate” approach to our minds.
To believe that free trade and free markets do not create wealth,
To believe that the state should run services such as education and health,
These crazy ideas are causing real harm now, let alone in the future, so let’s send all those who believe in them straight to jail. If we can criminalise one belief, why can’t we criminalise lots of other beliefs too?
So let’s see:
“deny climate change” – Wrong! Climate has always changed, irrespective of man. #Barmy
“scientific consensus is so overwhelming” – Wrong! There is no consensus, nor does science work by consensus. #Megalomania
“to argue against it is to perpetuate a dangerous fraud” – Wrong! CC is pure conjecture, opinion. #IntellectualSnob
“intelligence can be tested” – Hahaha! His is definitely wanting. #Dumb
“heat-trapping gasses” Wrong! CO2 can no more trap heat than a garden sieve trap CO2. #YouCannotBeSerious
“but no one knew to what effect” Wrong! Observations point to CO2 having ZERO effect. #Clueless
“no reason to doubt that climate changes will result” Wrong! Presumption before the fact, and fact has demonstrated this (man’s CO2 driving climate/temperature) is false. #Astrologer
“no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible” Wrong! No basis to make any prediction as we simply don’t understand the climate system. Until we can properly and accurately measure natural variability, any presumption of man’s effect is meaningless. #ThinksHesGod
“scientists have been seeking to prove it” The antithesis of the Scientific Method. You test claims to disprove, not prove. #Clueless2
“and the results are in” and now suitably ‘adjusted’ to manufacture the proof. #Fraud
“Meta studies” i.e. not objective, not observational data, not science! #Meaningless
“97 per cent of published climate scientists” Debunked! Undefined! Unobjective! Unscientific! #PureBS
Need I continue? #No
A soft headed Bozo with a Doctorate in a soft science that thinks people should be made to do hard time for expressing thoughts and opinions or even hard science that does not agree with an imaginary scientific consensus? Leftist Academics seem to be the same in most of the developed nations of the world. It’s like they were stamped out with a cookie cutter.
BTW the butthead seems to have plenty of time to keep his dome shaved and polished but can’t seem to get around to scraping his face. That right there would be enough for the perceptive student to know he’s a phony.
“Social Scientist” what a disconnect.
I suspect the term “Social Scientist” was added by the media to make Jarrod Gilbert into a “SCIENTIST” to give the article credibility. Now, thanks to the media writer/journalist, when you search “Scientist” on the Internet, you will find Jarrod Gilbert, supporting CAGW as a Scientist rather than a Sociologist. In his own web site, he clearly calls himself a sociologist. Media hype and appeal to authority by the media by using “Scientist” in their description. Typical. ( I didn’t find where he got his degree or PhD but he lectures at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand – PhD, BA (hons), Dip Ad) I suppose Dip Ad migh be for a diploma in advertising based on the references below. No where do I see attribution of “science: by Jarrod so I think that was a journalists addition although he does say “I believe in science and rationality …” on his web site.
I would take his “sound bite” as social commentary or advertising on behalf of …???
http://www.jarrodgilbert.com/
http://www.researchsolutions.org.nz/people
Well said. The same trick of passing off a social studies lecturer as an expert in climate science is in the Christchurch Press today where a Political “Scientist” is being sent to an international conference on Climate Change. What do such people know about a such a highly complex subject – so complex that we can’t model it well?.
Disciplines infested with Post Modernism must be wrong. It’s a shame that our political masters haven’t recognized this yet.
Scientists, PhDs, and academics in general have disgraced themselves, by endorsing politically correct, but unproven, theories, that the political Establishment, which issues their paychecks, has directed them to endorse. A growing segment of the public is becoming increasingly aware of these institutional scientific and academic frauds, and as public skepticism grows, there will be “blowback” (I have seen it already), in the form of a widespread disrespect and distrust of scientists, academics, and institutions. In the circumstances, I think that the public is justified in rejecting scientific and academic credentials as an indicator of competence, or of honesty.
Why are Nazis like Dr Jarrod Gilbert given a soapbox by the media?
Sensationalism sells papers (and brings watchers to TV). Rational argument doesn’t.
I believe it is because there is actually a significant number of totalitarian minded people, who want us dead or in jail. The “sensationalism sells” mantra is just a cover . . that works because we’ve been brainwashed into believing totalitarian control freaks went extinct sometime late in the twentieth century. Nope, not even close I fear . .
Good news…my faith in the NZ Herald is (somewhat) restored…5 letters to the editor published today and two yesterday…all critical of Gilbert…none supporting his bigotry.
But they should never have printed this terrible piece in the first place.
If you look at his twitter feed you’ll see some nice stuff there also e.g. this one https://twitter.com/JarrodGilbertNZ/status/757785545661489152
I’m still trying to find someone that denies that the climate changes. when you find one of these ‘deniers’ please let me know. Jarrod should stick to gangs. Gang thinking is more in line with his. Do sociologists learn all about empirical evidence or is it all just qualitative stuff they learn?
I am pleased to say the NZ Herald has allowed one of our real scientists [Professor Chris de Freitas] to respond to Dr Jarrod Gilbert.
Mr de Freitas has been treated shabbily over the years by NZ’s CAGW establishment, but he remains true to the science. Long may it continue. Link to his response:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11682506
In my perfect world Mr Gilbert and his ilk would be set to work with a bid heavy sledgehammer in a hot,dusty rock quarry. Half-days on Sundays.
It is amazing to know that 97% of scientists believe man can control earth’s climate by simply controlling co2 output. Is this not in effect what we are to believe? That mankind now controls the thermostat to the globe? Simply by controlling a trace gas that makes up 400 parts / million of the earth’s atmosphere? Never mind that historical levels of CO2 have been considerably higher with considerably lower global temperature. Never mind that the variable solar cycles are completely ignored while perpetuating the co2 propaganda. It’s settled science, the fix is in and it’s genius because now whatever solution proposed will succeed in solving a nonexistent problem.
“The term climate sceptic is now interchangeable with the term mindless fool.”
And all mindless fools, not sitting in parliament or engaged in climate research on government funding, must be otherwise institutionalised.
Makes a weird kind of sense.
The criminalization of climate skepticism would be a signal accomplishment for the leaders of the New World Order. If they can criminalize opinions about the climate, they can criminalize opinions concerning just about anything.
Here’s another – a “musicologist” this time.
He wants us killed.
“In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers. But before coming to this surprising conclusion, please allow me to explain where I am coming from.
I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake. Apparently, it does not even act as a deterrent to would-be murderers. Hopefully, the USA and China will come to their senses soon…
GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/170948/progressive-professor-demands-death-penalty-global-daniel-greenfield
La mamma degli stupidi è sempre incinta!