The vice that is virtue-signaling

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

In traditional Judaeo-Christian theology, the line of demarcation between good and evil is coterminous with the gulf fixed between objective truth and wilful falsehood. One of the reasons why rabbis and priests have generally, and creditably, stood firm against totalitarianism – often at the cost of their lives – is that those who would direct and compel their fellow-citizens by fear and by force nearly always do so because they are, and know in their heart of hearts that they are, wilfully wrong about just about everything.

Those who tolerate no viewpoint but their own know that if they were to permit debate about any aspect of their poisonous, hate-filled ideology they would lose and lose and lose again at the despatch-box. One of the unfailing hallmarks of totalitarianism, then, is the ruthless, systematic, systemic suppression of free speech.

The climate question – on which the totalitarians driving the scam know perfectly well by now that they were simply wrong from the get-go – was one of the earliest on which they began shutting down a debate they had come to realize they could not win by fair means. But where no debate is permitted there is no outlet by which those eager to promote the totalitarian Party Line can show off their abject, fawning obeisance to their ideological masters. They cannot earn Komsomol points by showing their acquiescence and complaisance in the public square. For debate is verboten. It is interdit. It is vitandum. It is anathema.

I’m a saint, me.

This is where virtue-signaling comes in. It marks the final stage in the suppression of free speech before totalitarianism finally overthrows a gentler, kindlier, freer system of governance. It was evident in the years immediately preceding the overthrow of Kerensky’s democratic government by the Bolsheviks. It was evident in the years immediately preceding the capture of the German state by the Nazis. It is evident now in the once-free West.

Virtue-signaling is usually on display when those in authority under the regime wish publicly to parade their Pharisaical distance from the few brave souls who continue to try to speak the truth even in the face of near-unanimous hostility, generally accompanied by libelous reputational assaults, in very nearly all the organs of public communication.

I am going to give you a particularly cringe-worthy example of virtue-signaling. But I cannot reveal either the names of the intended victims or of the virtue-signaler – the dean of an environmental-“sciences” faculty at what ambitiously describes itself as a “university”.

For the victims would be subjected to vicious reprisals if I were to disclose the identity of their tormentor. The real police, who are now actively working internationally on more and more aspects of the climate fraud, will be taking a very hard look at this case in due course – another reason for circumspection as to the identity of the perp and of the “university”.

The victims had said things which, though true, did not accord with the Party Line on the climate question. The dean, therefore, felt the need – commonplace under totalitarian systems of “thought” – hastily and head-bangingly to demonstrate to Higher Authority that the “university” was not, after all, a hotbed of dissenters against the Party Line. So the dean wrote to members of the faculty, circulating the letter as widely as possible, which is how it came to me.

You’ll need to keep the chunder-bucket close by, for this missive was more than usually rebarbative and calculated to induce the technicolor yawn. After a libelous paragraph naming the victims as defaulters against the Party Line, suggesting (baselessly, of course) that they had committed nameless crimes and menacing them with unspecified “disciplinary action”, the chirrup of virtue-signaling rose to its flaccid, pseudo-indignant crescendo –

“As Dean of our environmental-studies department, I want to be clear about our position at the [Cant University of Pietism] on issues pertaining to climate change and sustainability, an area we remain committed to through our research and scholarship.

“We recognize the reality of climate change, the large role of humans in the process, and the need to change human activities to address it. Living and working with diverse communities and industries [yada yada redacted], we are also keenly aware of the urgency of climate change impacts on local and global ecosystems.

“Our faculty in climatology, atmospheric, earth and marine sciences are conducting breakthrough science that advances our understanding of climate change and its impacts. The faculty also study and shape policy responses informed by that science. With colleagues across the university and international collaborators, we are working together to strengthen capabilities for mitigating and adapting to climate change impacts, such as sea-level rise, increasingly frequent and powerful coastal storms, and environmental degradation.

“I am proud of the contributions of our faculty, students and staff, and remain committed to supporting our community as we work together to tackle these complicated and pressing issues.”

Having made good use of the chunder-can, let us consider this repellent passage [lightly redacted to remove identifiers] from a purely scientific standpoint.

First, no true university, or scientific society, has any business taking an aprioristic “position” on any scientific question. My favorite method of illustrating this point is to ask totalitarians whether they consider it right to take a position in support of the universal truth that the square on the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is ineluctably equal to the sum of the squares on the two catheti. The dimmer ones usually reply that they don’t need to take a position on that because it is self-evident, whereupon I draw their attention to their implicit admission that the Party Line on climate is not self-evident, and they become angry. I have this effect on people.

Monckton’s proof sans paroles of Pythagoras’ theorem. The irregular pentagon, depending on how you look at it, comprises either two congruent right-angled triangles and the square on the hypotenuse or the same two triangles translated and the squares on the two catheti. Subtract the two triangles from each disposition and the Pythagorean identity is established. This not inelegant tessellation proof by inclusion is surely easier to grasp than Euclid’s demonstration, justifiably described by Schopenhauer as “a triumph of perversity”.

Yet even the Pythagorean theorem is not a universal truth. For although it is applicable to all right-angled triangles in the Euclidean plane, and even, by extension, in the hyperbolic domain [not many people know that], it generally fails on the surface on which we live and move and have our being – the near-spherical surface of the Earth.

Apriorism is a hallmark of all totalitarian ideologies. Whatever the Party says, or is thought to say, is held to be unchallengeably, unquestionably true in all respects. The dismal dean, therefore, in announcing that the “University” of Useless Uniformitarians and Washed-Up Whited Sepulchers is taking a “position” on a scientific question, is in effect abjuring any notion that it is an institution of learning. It is merely a tool and an extension of the Party. Intellectually, it is valueless. It might as well not exist: for it is there not to educate but to indoctrinate.

Next, the dean announces that the pietists “recognize the reality of climate change”. Well done indeed! Any kindergarten kid merely has to look out of the window to “recognize the reality of climate change”. It’s been going on for 4.5 billion years. Get used to it, squire.

In Britain we’ve just had the coldest cold snap in a quarter of a century. Even the unspeakable BBC has almost gone without mentioning cloimate chynge for almost a week. Here are some scenes from our Italian garden, which, being in the West Country, seldom sees snow.

The Tuscan Colonnade

The sitootery by Arthur’s Lake

The lavender walk

The Porta Monachorum

The wicker bridge

The doghouse

The dean then proposes that humans have “a large role in the process” of making the world warmer. But do we? Really? The weather is about 1 degree warmer than 170 years ago, well within natural variability, and even the Party (e.g. Wu et al., 2019) reckons that only 70% of that warming, or around three-quarters of a degree, is anthropogenic. A more objective scientific statement would be to the effect that we have a modest, net-beneficial role in “the process”.

And the terrifying consequences of this spine-chilling rate of warming – whatever its aetiology – include a record year for crop yields in 2020, half a century of declining droughts and forest fires and of burgeoning polar-bear populations, a century of sharply-declining deaths from climate-related causes … well, you know the long list of benefits from warmer weather rather than colder, from climate optima rather than ice ages.

Notwithstanding all these good things, the dean insists – by now in full-on auto-rant mode – that there is a “need to change human activities”. But it is not the function of universities to preach. Leave the preaching to the preachers. Unlike the dean, they are often good at it. If you haven’t heard a Southern Baptist in full spate, for instance, treat yourself next time you’re below the Mason-Dixon line. I love to preach in Southern Baptist churches. Their robust congregations enjoy a hearty diet of trenchantly-delivered brimstone and fire.

But I digress. It is not the function of a university to parrot and peddle some Party Line or another, but instead to promote the asking of questions.

It is the mission of the scientist to gaze at the universe, from the tiniest particle to the vastest galaxy, and to say, “I wonder!” and then “I wonder?” For the true scientist is in awe of the beauty and intricacy and simplicity and complexity of all that he observes; but above all he is incurably curious about it.

A real university, then, fosters not automatic and unthinking adherence to some drab, dreich, transiently-fashionable totalitarian orthodoxy that in all material respects flies artfully in the face of the data, the facts and the scientific method, but the greatest of all the charisms of the true scientist – eternally-unsatisfied curiosity.

Curiosity is the signature of the libertarian mind: with Pontius Pilate, the real scientist asks the question of all questions: Quid est veritas? “What is the truth?”

Like Pilate, the dean does not tarry for an answer. For the truth is not in the dean’s intellectual compass, any more than it was on Pilate’s agenda.

Unlike Pilate, the genuine scientist will be provoked by his boundless curiosity into searching for an answer the question of all questions. With Him Who prompted Pilate’s question, he will say, Ego in hoc natus sum, et ad hoc veni in mundum, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati. “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.”

There is the 15-word manifesto that ought to be blazoned in firmly-chiseled marble over the great gate of any science faculty worthy of the name.

The contemptible apriorism of the dean is the visible, hideous disfigurement of a totalitarian mind that takes a poltroon’s refuge in the security of vacuous slogans approved by the Party rather than either thinking for itself or enduring independent, rational thought on the part of anyone else.

Fortunately, HM Government, prompted by two splinter parties both taking votes from the Conservatives on the free speech question, is at last going to respond to the cancel anti-culture by putting academic freedom of expression on the statute-book. No longer will “universities” be able to get away with disinviting those of us whose researches lead to conclusions at odds with the Party Line.

At a Heartland conference a couple of years back, a notorious broadcaster from the unspeakable BBC came to interview me after I had spoken. He only had one question, delivered in a petty, impatient, exasperated tone: “Surely you all realize you’ve lost?”

I replied, “No, sir. Anyone who researches the truth with his friends as best he may and speaks it with them as fairly and as sweetly as he knows how sings with the angels. For the truth remains the truth regardless of how many, or how few, have the wit, the wisdom or the will to recognize it for what it is. You, sir, as a Communist, will naturally find the concept of objective truth alien to you. Nevertheless, hear this. The reason why we at this conference do not follow the Party Line from which you and your once-proud organization are temperamentally incapable of departing by so much as an inch or an iota is that the Party Line on the climate question that you so unthinkingly espouse Is. Not. True.”

Not a word of what I said was reported by the unspeakables, of course. For the Blanket of the Dark of which John Buchan wrote is descending once again. Nevertheless, in the words of the First Book of Esdras, musically translated by the committee of scholars who compiled that bejeweled apotheosis of English literature the King James Bible, “Great is Truth, and mighty above all things.”

The dean and all suchlike virtue-signalers are doomed to a hard-earned oblivion of their own making. Like all whose terrified small-mindedness constrains them merely to conform, the virtue-signalers will leave no footprint in the sands of time. The truth will prevail.

4.9 59 votes
Article Rating
145 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nick Schroeder
February 16, 2021 6:09 am

“…wilfully wrong about just about everything.”

“…systematic, systemic suppression of free speech.”

“…shutting down a debate they had come to realize they could not win by fair means.”

et tu?

By reflecting away 30% of the ISR the atmospheric albedo cools the earth much like that reflective panel behind a car’s windshield.

For the greenhouse effect to perform as advertised “extra” energy must radiate upwards from the surface. Because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules such ideal BB upwelling “extra” energy does not exist.

Backed by an experimental demonstration, the gold standard of classical science.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_climatechange-greenhouse-co2-activity-6749812735246254080-bc6K

There is no “extra” energy for the GHGs to “trap” or “back” radiate or “delay” or whatevah and no subsequent greenhouse type warming.

With no greenhouse effect what CO2 does or does not do, where it comes from or where it goes and its climate sensitivity value becomes moot.

Equally moot are temperatures, ice caps, glaciers, polar bears, sea levels, hurricanes, nuclear power, solar minimums, CH4, ….

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
February 16, 2021 9:07 am

Nick,
what is it about q/a= [K] x (Thot^4-Tcold^4) for 2 parallel surfaces, that you don’t understand?
Because Earth’s sky has an average temperature (Tcold) significantly warmer than outer space, that (-Tcold^4) part is referred to as back radiation, sky back to ground.
Here at ground level, the back radiation average of 325 watts consists of 166 watts worth of photons from water molecules, 96 watts from cloud water droplets, 58 watts from CO2 molecules, 4 watts from CH4, and 3 watts from N2O. No mysterious energy loops involved.

mkelly
Reply to  DMacKenzie
February 16, 2021 11:48 am

DMacKenzie what is there about the fact gases are not solid surfaces that you don’t understand?

It was reported here on WUWT that there is only about 32 W available. The 15 micro spectrum is less than 8% of total so, maybe only 16 W available not 58.

Further, Hoyt Hottel experiments show CO2 has emissivity of almost zero below 33 C.

Lastly, there is the Shomate equation that tells you there is no forcing by CO2.

“In 1954, Hoyt C. Hottel conducted an experiment to determine the total emissivity/absorptivity of carbon dioxide and water vapor11. From his experiments, he found that the carbon dioxide has a total emissivity of almost zero below a temperature of 33 °C (306 K) in combination with a partial pressure of the carbon dioxide of 0.6096 atm cm. 17 year later, B. Leckner repeated Hottel’s experiment and corrected the graphs12 plotted by Hottel. However, the results of Hottel were verified and Leckner found the same extremely insignificant emissivity of the carbon dioxide below 33 °C (306 K) of temperature and 0.6096 atm cm of partial pressure. Hottel’s and Leckner’s graphs show a total emissivity of the carbon dioxide of zero under those conditions.”

If you think CO2 can cause warming then you need to be able to supply two different values for the energy input necessary to raise 1 kg of dry air 1 C. One without IR and one without.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  mkelly
February 16, 2021 8:33 pm

Hottel was mostly concerned with furnaces with high concentrations of CO2 and H2O. I’ve used his charts in furnace design work. He would have been super thrilled to have programs like Hitran and RADIS available to him. And its not zero.

ATheoK
Reply to  DMacKenzie
February 16, 2021 10:14 pm

325 watts consists of 166 watts worth of photons from water molecules, 96 watts from cloud water droplets,”

That there is specious sophistry before you introduce your faux claim for CO₂ energy emissions to space.

Water molecules and cloud water droplets are the same.
In fact, water is very radiatively interactive across the light spectrum, including the majority of infrared wavelengths. H₂O emissivity is across the infrared spectrum missing few frequencies.

Water is very interactive in all three physical states, gaseous, liquid and solid.
Water, H₂O, the atmospheric blue whale compared to CO₂’s flea transports heat through the atmosphere by convection, conduction and emissivity.

CO₂ is poorly interactive in a very few, very weak infrared frequencies. Frequencies where water is also interactive.

Yet, you claim that CO₂’s 0.04% of the atmosphere emits 18% or your back radiation energy claim, through a miniscule handful of weak infrared wavelengths…

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
February 16, 2021 1:55 pm

Mr Schroeder imagines there is no greenhouse effect. He appears unfamiliar with the quantum physics of symmetrically-disposed heteroatomic molecules possessing no dipole moment of their own but acquiring one from interaction with photons in their characteristic absorption wavebands by way of resonance in the bending vibrational mode. That resonance is by definition heat that would not otherwise have occurred.

He also imagines that a colder body is incapable of warming a warmer one. This is a common misconception among those unfamiliar with the laws of thermodynamics. Wrap yourself in a blanket on a cold day and the blanket will assist you in retaining your own heat, so that you will be warmer than without the blanket.

n.n
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 16, 2021 4:33 pm

There are few people who question the mechanism, which is understood intuitively, and demonstrated in the lab. It is more a question of efficacy and effect Think toxicity of hexavalent chromium in isolation and in the wild; of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and Covid-19 progression; of masks’ function intuitively and statistically; of the diversity and quality of particles in nuclear radiation at the source, at a distance, and with biohazardous effects. A warmer body will have a net effect on a colder body. The thermodynamic gradient modeled with a statistical distribution.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  n.n
February 16, 2021 6:50 pm

You need to be very careful in your description of “warming”. Can a cold body make a hot one hotter, no way. The most it can do is change the gradient from hot to cold versus time. The radiation from the cold body can not drive the temperature of the hot body back against the gradient and increase the temperature of the hot body. If it could, where would it stop? What would keep the hot body from getting hotter and hotter?

What will happen is the hot body will continue to inexorably cool, just at a slower rate. In a given length of time will it be warmer than if the cool body was replaced with an even cooler one (space). Yes. Even the equilibrium temperature will be higher. It simply doesn’t cool as much. But don’t confuse that with the cool body making the warmer one more warm.

When one understands what is going on it is a simple step to see why Tmax is increasing very little if at all and why it is Tmin that is increasing. CO2 doesn’t warm anything. At best it is like the coat that you mention, it simply slows the rate if heat loss, but does not and can not warm you on its own accord.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Jim Gorman
February 16, 2021 8:25 pm

No Jim, put an intermediate temperature body between a body with a heat source and outer space, and the body with the heat source will get warmer. Because it will radiate energy at whatever rate the heat source supplies, and the heat source will cause the surface temperature to increase until the Q is the same as it was before the somewhat cooler body blocked the warmer body’s view of outer space. The Earth’s heat source is daily sunlight which is a lot warmer than the 15 C surface temp, so we pretend, in such simplified calculations, to be a planetary heat source when averaged over a day.

MarkW
Reply to  Jim Gorman
February 17, 2021 9:03 am

What matters is not the temperature difference between the cold body and the hot body, it’s the temperature difference between the cold body and the even colder body that is being eclipsed by the cold body.
If the amount of energy being received by a hot body increases, it’s temperature will go up. The temperature of the transmitting body is totally irrelevant.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 17, 2021 5:06 am

nice doghouse;-) amazed its not rented out by a family of 10
lol

Lrp
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 17, 2021 11:53 am

The colder body, in your example the blanket, does not generate heat, but it is only preventing the body heat from escaping

Tim Spence
February 16, 2021 6:23 am

I always thought the word ‘University’ signified the coming together of different ideas and talents.

Last edited 5 months ago by Tim Spence
Reply to  Tim Spence
February 16, 2021 7:09 am

Yes, that was the idea originally, but more recently “university” has come to mean the opposite of “diversity” when it comes to anything more than skin-deep.

diversity[1].png
2hotel9
Reply to  Ron Clutz
February 16, 2021 9:36 am

Shamelessly stealing this image, printing out stacks and slapping them up around several “centers of higher education” in our region.

February 16, 2021 6:42 am

Aprioristic?

Come on Chris, you made that up! At best “A prioristic”
Because a priori means ‘of that which comes before’
apriori would probably mean that which does not come before. As atheism means that which does not include God.

As for ‘cloimate chynge’ I am also at a loss. Are we here intimating the dialect of οἱ πολλοί, of the subspecies known as homo suburbus subspecies grammaticus, who thinks that because he memorised enough received wisdom to get full Marx, and pass (verbal) wind, his opinion, carefully culled from the Guardian and the Brussels’ Bollocks Corporation is now as ‘good as anyone elses’? If not better?

I think, as the tabloids say, we should be told.

As Macmillan’s late grandaughter, bless her, confided to me once, the secret of campaigning was virtue signalling because ‘we wanted to get elected’…

And also, Chris, I must take issue, a man who both quotes Schopenhauer, to then talk glibly of ‘the Truth’ as it if were attainable, let alone demonstrable, it is clear that you simply have not understood Hume’s problem of induction‘ . Nor yet fully understood Karl Popper. Fie on you!

You surely know that the only certain knowledge, is that there is no certain knowlege!

Popper called his book Conjectures and Refutations, nowhere in it is the notion of confirmation, propounded!

The Truth will never out.

But refuting ClimateBollocks™ is within reach.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Leo Smith
February 16, 2021 8:00 am

“apriori would probably mean that which does not come before”

And in that you FAIL! aprioristic means in opposition to that which came before.

Reply to  Jim Whelan
February 16, 2021 10:01 am

And that is not what Christopher meant. At all.
I love his bombast, but bombast it is. Let me have my fun,too.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Leo Smith
February 16, 2021 10:09 am

See Rick C’s comment and my reply meant as a correction.

Rick C
Reply to  Leo Smith
February 16, 2021 8:40 am

“Aprioristic?”

Or you could use a dictionary and find that it means “based on hypothesis rather than experiment”.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Rick C
February 16, 2021 10:00 am

Yes! The prefix “a-” is best understood as “without”. “atheistic”: without God, “apolitical”: without politics, “aprioristic”: without considering the past.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Jim Whelan
February 16, 2021 1:58 pm

No, the prefix “a” in “aprioristic” is not the Greek alpha privative, for a priori is a Latin phrase meaning “from that which was before”. Apriorism is the solecism of totalitarians who adhere to a predefined Party Line and are, therefore, incapable of rational thought.

n.n
Reply to  Jim Whelan
February 16, 2021 4:22 pm

Some people place their faith in God, but it is common to have faith in people…persons with a pretense to godhood.

menace
Reply to  Leo Smith
February 16, 2021 9:02 am

Hoi Polloi!

one of my favorite Three Stooges shorts

Richard Page
Reply to  Leo Smith
February 16, 2021 10:04 am

Sorry but if you intent pedantism, could you at least put ‘it’ and ‘if’ in the right order please? It jars sir, it definitely jars.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Leo Smith
February 16, 2021 1:56 pm

Mr Smith imagines, falsely, that I had invented the word “aprioristic”. He may care to consult an adult dictionary.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Leo Smith
February 16, 2021 3:28 pm

“…the only certain knowledge, is that there is no certain knowlege [sic]!”

You sure about that?

Reply to  Leo Smith
February 16, 2021 4:07 pm

This post is ripe for pedants to pull apart. You might want to capitalise the genus Homo.

ATheoK
Reply to  Leo Smith
February 16, 2021 10:26 pm

From grammarist.com:

A priori is a long-established loan phrase, so it’s usually not italicized. But it is italicized more often than other longstanding loanwords, probably because the a is easily mistaken for the English indefinite article.

Meanwhile, a one-word form, apriori, has gained some ground and now appears a significant fraction of the time (about once for every 20 instances of the two-word form in all 21st-century texts indexed in Google Books). It has given rise to several derivative words, including apriority (the quality of being derived in the mind instead of from experience) and apriorism (the use of a priori reasoning).”

I’ve heard and seen the use of apriori in other discussions and publications. It may not be in Funk & Wagnalls, it is in colloquial usage.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  ATheoK
February 20, 2021 5:42 am

A priori is a term in formal logic, like A posteriori. The term should be written as two words. However, the adjective “aprioristic” is one word.

Coeur de Lion
February 16, 2021 6:45 am

I love ‘unspeakable’. How I hate the BBC, covered as I am with scar tissue of a professional relationship in the past. But what chance that Lord Monckton’s piece can fetch up where it hurts?

Richard Page
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
February 16, 2021 10:08 am

As with everything these days, take them to court and hit them in the pockets. Hard.

Editor
February 16, 2021 6:46 am

Thanks, Christopher. As always, it was masterfully written.

Regards,
Bob

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 16, 2021 1:59 pm

Bob, how generous you always are.

kevin kilty
February 16, 2021 6:58 am

A perrenial bad guy in B movies, Steve Cochran, once said that if you wish to portray a convincing bad guy you have to imagine there is nothing wrong with the evil you are doing. I think he was correct. The worst of modern tyrants have all spoken of the good they are doing to correct historical wrongs, or protecting some beleaguered minority — in fact imagined ethnic minorities figure prominently in their ravings.

KT66
Reply to  kevin kilty
February 16, 2021 12:09 pm

Then we have the justifiers, or those that know that what they are doing is wrong but they justify it as something they must do it to bring about a greater good. The “ends justify the means” is the very essence of corruption. If your lying for God your not serving God.

MarkW
February 16, 2021 6:59 am

It was evident in the years immediately preceding the capture of the German state by the Nazis.

If you were an actress working for Disney, you could be fired for that remark.

alastair gray
Reply to  MarkW
February 16, 2021 8:49 am

Dont get it please explain

2hotel9
Reply to  alastair gray
February 16, 2021 9:38 am

Disney just fired a chick for saying something true and based in historical fact.

Richard Page
Reply to  2hotel9
February 16, 2021 10:12 am

I don’t think they did actually. I think they fired a woman for saying something true and based in historical fact. You can easily get fired at Disney, I believe, for referring to a woman as a ‘chick’!

OK S.
Reply to  Richard Page
February 16, 2021 10:22 am

And here I thought you were supposed to call women “hens”. Or is it “cows”? Or something to do with female canines.

Last edited 5 months ago by OK S.
Ben Vorlich
Reply to  OK S.
February 16, 2021 1:25 pm

Where I come from and 50 years ago an unknown female was invariably addressed as “hen” and an unknown male as “jim”. In these days of 75 genders and woke political correctness I guess terms like this have been consigned to Room 101

TonyG
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
February 16, 2021 1:38 pm

You’re supposed to replace the “man” with “woman”, so it’s “wowoman”. But then you have to replace “man” so it’s “wowowoman”, but then…

ugh I give up.

2hotel9
Reply to  Richard Page
February 17, 2021 3:35 am

So yes, Disney just fired a chick for saying something true and based in historical fact. Glad I could help clear that up. And it is the job of every real human being to take this politically correct crap and ram it right back up the posterior orifices of the wokeists. Anything they get upset about you saying, say it again, louder. Anything they get upset about you doing, do it again, with video posted where they can not avoid seeing it.

And repost this factual statement at every opportunity. “When the color of your skin is the only thing that makes your life matter you are a racist.”

MarkW
Reply to  2hotel9
February 17, 2021 9:09 am

If you believe that the color of a person’s skin defines what they are supposed to believe, then you are a racist.

2hotel9
Reply to  MarkW
February 18, 2021 3:38 am

Precisely. Skin color is irrelevant, it is the screwed up crap in people’s heads we should be worried about. Instead our educational system, media and government are telling people skin color is all that matters. And people are merrily buying into it.

Richard Page
Reply to  2hotel9
February 18, 2021 6:14 am

Skin colour is most definitely irrelevant – it’s simply how much melanin is in your skin cells. The fact is that the entire human race is one single race with very minor inherited family traits that make us look slightly different from each other – and, looking at all the work done on DNA reconstructions of early humans, we are all descended from dark complectioned ancestors.

2hotel9
Reply to  Richard Page
February 18, 2021 6:28 am

Don’t say that too loud, the progressives and Democrats will try to cancel you. 😉

Gregory Woods
February 16, 2021 7:10 am

Way Off Topic (or maybe not)
Renewables and Recyclables: ‘Clean’ Energy Is Dirty Energy

One of the biggest lies that the Greenies tell is about their favorite toys: Wind Machines, Sunny Panels and Batteries. I am calling for some brave soul to come forward and tell the world about the life-cycle of these toys: Specifically, the resources required for the manufacture of the windy machine blades, the sunny panels, and of course, the batteries required for EV’s and backup.
I listed but very few references below. And unfortunately I am not the person to write about this. 
Wind Machines
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills?fbclid=IwAR1DG-Q8ChjN5AVrQNET3qI4L6N7h38AtHoBAYTZWSrBq5mcyu-EJlLfX4Q

Wind Turbine Blades Can’t Be Recycled, So They’re Piling Up in Landfills
Tens of thousands of aging blades are coming down from steel towers around the world and most have nowhere to go but landfills. In the U.S. alone, about 8,000 will be removed in each of the next four years. Europe, which has been dealing with the problem longer, has about 3,800 coming down annually through at least 2022, according to BloombergNEF. It’s going to get worse: Most were built more than a decade ago, when installations were less than a fifth of what they are now.

“The wind turbine blade will be there, ultimately, forever,” said Bob Cappadona, chief operating officer for the North American unit of Paris-based Veolia Environnement SA, which is searching for better ways to deal with the massive waste. “Most landfills are considered a dry tomb.”
“The last thing we want to do is create even more environmental challenges.”

To prevent catastrophic climate change caused by burning fossil fuels, many governments and corporations have pledged to use only clean energy by 2050. Wind energy is one of the cheapest ways to reach that goal.

Sunny Panels
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/?sh=6030a8b9121c
If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?
The last few years have seen growing concern over what happens to solar panels at the end of their life. Consider the following statements:

  • The problem of solar panel disposal “will explode with full force in two or three decades and wreck the environment” because it “is a huge amount of waste and they are not easy to recycle.”
  • “The reality is that there is a problem now, and it’s only going to get larger, expanding as rapidly as the PV industry expanded 10 years ago.”
  • “Contrary to previous assumptions, pollutants such as lead or carcinogenic cadmium can be almost completely washed out of the fragments of solar modules over a period of several months, for example by rainwater.”

 
Batteries
Weakest link to EV growth is the material supply chain – Watts Up With That?
Weakest link to EV growth is the material supply chain

Keep up the Good Fight

Roger Knights
February 16, 2021 7:13 am

at what ambitiously describes itself as a “university”.”

LOL!

George Tetley
February 16, 2021 7:25 am

BIG mistake, *the dean* is the wrong terminology ,,,, it should be* the politicians*

Abolition Man
February 16, 2021 8:01 am

Lord Monckton,
Thank you, sir, for an enjoyable morning diatribe against the Darkness! It is a pleasure to see the English language utilized by a master who sometimes paints outside the lines; who needs lines anyway?
As part of our push back against the totalitarian Left I would like to see a general call for the Big Tech Nazis to be required to wear proper uniform! I believe that Google’s should be the SS style, while Facebook and Twitter could have a streetfight over who gets the SA look! Come to think of it, Jack Dorsey is looking rather Rasputinesque; perhaps Twitter should adopt the Red Army uniforms we in the West know and love so well! And that motto! That motto needs to be changed to describe reality! It should be: “Do More Evil!” That is far more in keeping with their actual practices!
As I sit here in the mountains of the Southwest, watching a few more inches of Gorebull Swarming accumulate, I find myself praying that AMO, PDO and ENSO come together to smack these fanatic cult members where it really hurts! Right in the thermometer AND pocketbook!

Hayden
February 16, 2021 8:07 am

Unfortunately, while the war may not yet be utterly lost, we do seem to be in the last dugouts. The trap is steadily shutting, so that expressing opinions about climate science is not possible. It is already tricky in what we used to describe as “polite society”.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Hayden
February 19, 2021 2:32 pm

Hayden should have courage: the truth remains the truth, no matter how fashionable a lie may be. One of the many advantages of standing with the angels is that lies are transient, while the truth is eternal: et veritas Domini manet in aeternum.

Bruce Cobb
February 16, 2021 8:09 am

Surely you all realize you’ve lost?”
Classic psy-ops, as well as projection on their part, and just one more of inumerable signs of desperation. They know it is in fact they, the side of Evil and Continuous Lies who are losing.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 16, 2021 8:52 am

A foe is not vanquished until he believes it is so! As long as we keep fighting the war is not lost; however dark it may seem!
In the immortal words of Commander Peter Quincy Taggart: “Never give up! Never surrender!”

Mr.
Reply to  Abolition Man
February 16, 2021 9:32 am

Or as leftist politicians and media say –
“never admit, never retract, never apologize”

Abolition Man
Reply to  Mr.
February 16, 2021 1:29 pm

Don’t know who first said it, but the best defense often is a really active offense; and it’s so much fun when you can watch the smoke coming out of the alarmist moron’s ears right before their head explodes

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Abolition Man
February 16, 2021 11:49 am

Or, in the immortal words of Sir Winston Churchill “Never give in, never give in, never, never, never…”

Richard Page
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 16, 2021 10:19 am

Sorry but who decided that this was a contest between two sides? That it was of no more consequence than a game of chess with the ‘loser’ disappearing into some historical oblivion. What completely disgusts me, what makes me want to heave when I see it is this attitude – they must, surely, realise that people will die by the thousand-fold if their lunacy comes to pass? And they just treat those mass deaths as a game, no big deal. It’s pretty damned appalling quite frankly.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Richard Page
February 16, 2021 1:37 pm

Richard,
Sadly, these are religious fanatics we are dealing with; they don’t see blasphemers and heretics dying as being a bad thing! What is especially egregious to me is the number of Third World poor who will be trapped forever in poverty and malnutrition! In addition to being anti-human and anti-technology, the Green Blob has a very wide racist stripe running down it’s back!

Don Perry
Reply to  Richard Page
February 16, 2021 1:54 pm

When one of the Green’s stated goals is significant population reduction, they probably realize that will be the consequence of their actions and revel in it.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Richard Page
February 16, 2021 2:01 pm

Mr Page is right. Totalitarians have no morals and care nothing for how many their policies are killing right now in developing countries that would have been electrified long ago were it not for the West’s insistence on climate Communism.

philincalifornia
February 16, 2021 8:20 am

Virtue-signaling San Francisco-style:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/education/article/Washington-and-Lincoln-are-out-S-F-school-board-15900963.php

They’re even going after Diane Feinstein. Hopefully someone will out-virtue signal this lot even and have the Nancy Pelosi Way signs removed from Golden Gate Park.

gringojay
Reply to  philincalifornia
February 16, 2021 11:18 am

Bless her heart, Pelosi might always have her way.

015725DC-B42A-4DB7-8A80-35B71BE8461C.gif
beng135
Reply to  gringojay
February 17, 2021 7:14 am

Owwww. That might trigger a seizure in somebody…

Joseph Zorzin
February 16, 2021 8:39 am

The author quotes the university: ““I am proud of the contributions of our faculty, students and staff, and remain committed to supporting our community as we work together to tackle these complicated and pressing issues.””

And profitably too. Not much profit in expressing skepticism.

“First, no true university, or scientific society, has any business taking an aprioristic “position” on any scientific question.”

Taking a position on science is not doing science. Taking a position on POLICY issues is OK as long as it’s clear that it’s about policy and not facts. All policies have trade offs- so those trade offs must all be noted- otherwise it’s propaganda. All the trade offs should have benefit/cost analysis and who’ll benefit and who’ll lose.

To show honesty, all universities and governments should admit that the science is NOT settled- after all, no science settled. Only revealed religion is settled in the eyes of the faithful- of THAT religion.

bonbon
February 16, 2021 8:45 am

Quid est veritas?
There is another question, scientists notoriously forget – Cui Bono, and Why now?
The truth about Pilate was the executive execution order in his hand from Tiberius via his niece, Pilate´s wife – his @ss was covered.

With Prince Charles keynoting, no, rather preaching, the Davos Great Reset just recently, I wonder if the University of the Flying Island of Laputa docked recently anywhere in the Commonwealth? The Great Reset, note, would recall the straying USA – Viceroy Biden does fit the part, what?

“Changing behavior” is euphemism for Reverend Malthus (of the Queen´s very own Church) – eugenics. Someone put the fear of Tiberius into the Dean.

Trouble is, the ´victims´ of this virtue are likely incapable of conceiving what the Great Reset intends for them – free speech would be the least of their worries.

Juan Slayton
Reply to  bonbon
February 16, 2021 10:02 am

Hi Bonbon
Not sure where you’re going with Pilate’s wife covering for his politically expedient decision. Matthew’s version of the story has her warning him not to go there:

“When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.”

bonbon
Reply to  Juan Slayton
February 17, 2021 1:36 am

The wife, nice of the most powerful Emperor in Capri, had the document. You see, it was to be a legal execution. This is where Carl Schmitt got the idea to make everything H@tler did in fact legal. Note how many of various US Admins. study Schmitt.For sure every effort is now being made to make the Great Reset legal.

Richard Page
Reply to  bonbon
February 17, 2021 6:44 am

Pontius Pilates wife, although we know little of her beyond a possible name, was certainly not the niece of any of the Julians; their lives and circumstances were documented very well, well enough that a marriage to the governor of Judea would have been known – it isn’t. It is also significant that she was canonized by the early church for attempting to stop the crucifixion, after having had a portentous dream.

MarkW
Reply to  Richard Page
February 17, 2021 9:18 am

The early church made an effort to emphasis that Jesus was a religious leader not a political one and that Christianity was not a threat to Roman power.
I’m not saying that these stories were made up, I don’t believe they were. However whenever you are documenting an event or movement, there is always a point where you have to decide what to put in and what to leave out.

Last edited 5 months ago by MarkW
bonbon
Reply to  Richard Page
February 17, 2021 3:21 pm

Adopted niece, Capri being home. Pilate was covered.
Hey, did you think “fact checkers” began with Twatter or Fakebook?

February 16, 2021 8:53 am

“Those who tolerate no viewpoint but their own know that if they were to permit debate about any aspect of their poisonous, hate-filled ideology they would lose and lose and lose again…”

For a moment there I thought you were referring to the so-called ‘Holocaust’ which, after 70-odd years and several thousand people jailed or otherwise visciously persecuted for questioning its accuracy, however mildy or tentatively, must surely qualify as the pre-eminent exemplar of all such debate suppression.

Substitute “The Holocaust for “The climate question” at the start of the 3rd paragraph and the matter is summarised to perfection, with the final word ‘anathama’ being particularly apposite

2hotel9
Reply to  Sabretache
February 16, 2021 9:43 am

The Sun rises in the west in your twisted little world. How sad. For you.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Sabretache
February 16, 2021 2:04 pm

The historical evidence for the Holocaust is substantial. The contrary case is insubstantial and appears, like Sabretache’s posting, to be deeply rooted in the nastiest prejudice.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Sabretache
February 16, 2021 7:24 pm

Sabretech cannot tell the difference between historical facts and future science fiction.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Sabretache
February 16, 2021 9:21 pm

An underground ‘zine in the 80s or 90s, Salon: A journal of aesthetics, IIRC, issue 23 IIRC, based in Fort Collins CO, published a full issue of debate on that issue. with a half-dozen libertarians ingeniously and unemotionally poking holes in an equal number of deniers’ arguments. No ad hom tactics. I hope the Holocaust museum has got a copy.

February 16, 2021 8:58 am

Corporations are getting involved in the game….very alarming….the bank corporations refuse to lend to the unclean….the automobile corporations will only offer EVs in the future whether the customer wants an EV or not…..electric power corporations are forced to go solar/wind….but at least the private jet makers are probably safe.

Last edited 5 months ago by T. C. Clark
Gregory Woods
Reply to  T. C. Clark
February 16, 2021 10:33 am

As the resources to build EV’s, batteries, get more expensive, someday in the not-to-distant future, not even Mush, er, Musk will be able to afford one…

Spetzer86
Reply to  T. C. Clark
February 16, 2021 12:12 pm

Wonder what adding EVs to the mix would do to the TX power issues today?

Richard Page
Reply to  Spetzer86
February 17, 2021 6:46 am

It might give them some warmth as the battery packs burst into flames, like the recent VW hybrid.

David Roger Wells
February 16, 2021 9:06 am

Excellent!

gbaikie
February 16, 2021 9:14 am

“Yet even the Pythagorean theorem is not a universal truth. For although it is applicable to all right-angled triangles in the Euclidean plane, and even, by extension, in the hyperbolic domain [not many people know that], it generally fails on the surface on which we live and move and have our being – the near-spherical surface of the Earth.”

That’s interesting.
First, no true university, or scientific society, has any business taking an aprioristic “position” on any scientific question.”

That is true.

Universities should be interesting.
The fear of warming when we are in an Ice Age, is strange, but not interesting.

Vuk
February 16, 2021 9:15 am

Talking about ancient cultures, London is getting Mayan style ‘lost’ pyramidcomment image

Last edited 5 months ago by Vuk
David Roger Wells
February 16, 2021 9:16 am

Did MP’s Tim Farron and Ed Miliband go to that university? They both say the Cumbrian coking coal mine must not happen especially as UK will be hosting COP26. When I explained to Sian Berry’s assistant at the London Assembly that wind turbine towers were made from iron ore and coking coal imported from Australia and therefore emitted shed loads of Co2 from fossil fuels she burst into tears bleating OMG how are we going to save the planet, this is terrible. After further discussion it became clear that she just thought wind turbines just happened no concrete, no steel, no cement. The hysteria got worse when I explained that China imports blue gem coal highly refined carbon made from Canada Oil Tar sands and Quartz from America to make solar panels to be exported to America she the anguish was painfully obvious. She really did believe that the planet had to be saved from emissions and had not realised that you cannot make stuff to save the planet without emitting emissions.

How do these people manage to breathe?

MarkW
Reply to  David Roger Wells
February 17, 2021 9:23 am

That they fail to breath sufficiently, may explain their diminished mental capacities.

Wade
February 16, 2021 9:18 am

I love the writing style. And about the Southern Baptists, in my work, sometimes I come across someone who watches the religious programs on TV. The black Southern Baptists get into it more than the white ones do. A few months ago, where I was working the person had on a black preacher lady, and she was really into it. I recognized a few passages she was quoting, having actually read the entire Bible myself (unlike most people who go to church). But after sentence, she said “AMEN!” Sometimes in between sentences.

However, Pontius Pilate probably spoke Greek to Jesus, not Latin. Most of the New Testament was written in Greek. Some have speculated that the Gospel of Matthew was written first in Hebrew and a few fragments exist where God’s name was written in Hebrew letters in between Greek words. Ancient Greek has a definite article (the) but not an indefinite article (a/an). Pilate did say to Jesus “What is the truth?”. But simply, “What is truth?” (Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια) And immediately after he uttered those words, he left Jesus’s presence. The implication was that truth cannot be known and is relative. Is that really any different than today? I think not.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Wade
February 16, 2021 2:08 pm

It is very likely that both Pilate and the Lord of Life were speaking in Latin. Though the question of all questions is often mistranslated as “What is truth?”, it must be translated not in vacuo but in context. The Lord of Life had just said, “For this was I born, for this came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth”. To which Pilate replied, “What is the truth?”, but notoriously did not tarry for an answer. And it is likely that the gospels were originally written in Aramaic.

griff
February 16, 2021 9:34 am

Yes, the coldest snap in 25 years… that’s 25 years without this kind of weather. 60 years since the Thames froze. Just weather.

Meanwhile the UK has seen serious flooding beyond that seen last century in 19 of the last 21 years and in my part of the world we don’t get frost till Xmas. That’s climate.

And all the ranting? Was that necessary to make a point about some cold weather?

Mind you its a pleasure to read words like ‘coterminous’ and ‘aetiology’.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  griff
February 16, 2021 9:46 am

Wow Griffy, that’s pretty dense, even for you. Do try to keep up.

Reply to  griff
February 16, 2021 9:57 am

60 years since the Thames froze, right, around that time AMO was negative, coincidence ?

Vuk
Reply to  griff
February 16, 2021 9:58 am

Hi Griffo,
Nice to hear from you, someone here said your electric heating failed (of course under no circumstances you would use gas fired one) and we were getting a bit concerned. I suppose yesterdays +13C must have incited you out of short hibernation, total relief .all around.

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
February 16, 2021 10:32 am

A good deal of the flooding is down to a lack of dredging – we used to dredge many of the rivers in the UK, going on hundreds of years. That ended under the EU directives and, lo-and-behold, flooding got worse and worse as the river silt has built up. But you know this griff, because every time you come out with the same party line, you get the same refutation – rainfall is not getting worse in the UK, flooding is not due to an increase in storms, severity, act of God or climate perversion. Do we really have to do this every single flippin’ time you feel the urge? Restraint, griff – that’s the key!

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Richard Page
February 16, 2021 11:59 am

Surely it is now appropriate to recommence dredging?

Roger Knights
Reply to  Mike Lowe
February 16, 2021 9:32 pm

I hope the UK didn’t promise the EU not to resume dredging. It did make other promises to maintain other EU mandates, IIRC.

Richard Page
Reply to  Roger Knights
February 17, 2021 6:55 am

The EU Water Framework Directive is the document that stops dredging and treats river silt as ‘hazardous waste’ – as far as I know we still have that as part of our environmental legislation; Labour insisted, at some length, that all environmental legislation stay in place.

alastair gray
Reply to  griff
February 16, 2021 11:39 am

Remember the winter of 63 That was stonking cold and without the assistance of global warming which had not been invented back then 58 years ago

Dave Andrews
Reply to  alastair gray
February 17, 2021 9:00 am

Lamb in his ‘Climate, History and the Modern World’ says the winter 0f 62 -63 was the coldest winter in England since 1740. (p 269)

mkelly
Reply to  griff
February 16, 2021 12:01 pm

Every person in Texas who is shivering with no heat due to the loss of wind mill energy has you, Griff, to thank for the horrible state of their affairs.

You and Loydo need to accept the consequences of actions taken that you approve of. People will be harmed by the lack of energy and folks like you are the culprit.

fred250
Reply to  griff
February 16, 2021 12:40 pm

roflmao.

DESPERATION MUCH, hey poor little griff.

Flood you KNOW are mainly cause by lack of dredgeing

If cold is “just weather”…. warm is too.

Only warming in the UK has come from an increase in sunshine hours and from urban infilling.

And all your ranting.. is it necessary to make zero point at all. !

Nigel in California
Reply to  griff
February 16, 2021 12:40 pm

Frozen then, frozen now. Where’s the ‘climate change’??

The ‘flooding’ has various causes, exacerbating factors and historical recording problems. It could very well be raining more in some areas, but you will have to show some data that proves something is out of the ordinary and that we are the cause. ’19 out of the last 21′ is not proof.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
February 17, 2021 9:26 am

As usual, griff doesn’t mention rainfall, which wasn’t unusual, rather he focuses on the flooding which was somewhat unusual.
As has been pointed out many times, the lack of maintenance on canals and rivers was the reason why a slightly higher than usual rainfall resulted in unusual amounts of flooding.
griff doesn’t care about details, all he wants to do is to convert the pagans, using anything that comes to his little mind.

Andrew Lale
February 16, 2021 9:36 am

What a wonderful article. I feel refreshed.

2hotel9
February 16, 2021 9:41 am

Very well said! Linking about liberally.

ResourceGuy
February 16, 2021 10:05 am

The Bill Gates edition of virtue signaling is to list cement and steel production as major emitters of GHG without naming the obvious place where these commodities are produced these days or the state run industries that account for the global capacity additions and global glut of steel. Virtue signaling mixed with ‘He who must not be named’ mentality is especially offensive. We wouldn’t want to get in trouble with Xi now would we. It could harm our portfolio.

CD in Wisconsin
February 16, 2021 10:37 am

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/technology/biden-reality-crisis-misinformation.html

Quote from the NYT article:
Appoint a ‘reality czar.’“…Several experts I spoke with recommended that the Biden administration put together a cross-agency task force to tackle disinformation and domestic extremism, which would be led by something like a “reality czar.”…”

Lord MoncKton states:
“..One of the unfailing hallmarks of totalitarianism, then, is the ruthless, systematic, systemic suppression of free speech…”

When a NYT contributor and others start suggesting that the govt create a “Truth Commission” and a “Reality Czar”, I propose that it is consistent with the red flags Lord Monckton is raising in this posting about free speech and totalitarianism. When government starts deciding what is truth that must be believed (and what isn’t), we are on our way toward the oppressive state that Orwell warned is about in his “Nineteen-Eighty Four“. Bring on the thought police.

Reality Czar supporters apparently don’t think that the “Truth Commission” is capable of being corrupted by politics as can so many other areas of government. With govt deciding what is to be believed and what isn’t, govt is not far removed from Big Brother and his control of the dissemination of information in Orwell’s Oceania. Remember the telescreens.

The implications this has for science is not hard to see and understand, especially when one considers the climate alarmist and “green clean energy” narratives in particular — especially if this commission has no scientific background. If it is created, it most certainly should. A leftist media would no doubt ride the bandwagon of this czar and his commission and spend little if any time questioning it as long as a leftist Democrat was in the White House. A Republican in the White House might be another story.

The inspiration for this Reality Czar idea was no doubt triggered by the January 6th incident at the Capitol in Washington. I suggest that anyone who claims to know with 100% certainty whether the November elections last year were rigged or not is giving me religion. I make no such claim to know either way.

It would be the beginning of the end for science and scientific discourse as we have known it if this idea ever sees the light of day. We all need to pray that it does not. As righteous as the supporters of a Reality Czar might believe they are, the old saying still applies here: The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Love Big Brother.

Gunga Din
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
February 16, 2021 4:42 pm

The groundwork has been laid by labeling things as “hate crimes” and “hate speech”.
A crime is a crime. If the motive was greed or sadism or lust, why is it worse if it’s hate?
We have the 1st Amendment which is to prevent Government from violating Freedom of Speech among other related Freedoms. We laws against slander and libel where what is said or published opens one to civil or, perhaps, legal consequences of a LIE that does actual harm to someone. “Hate speech” only offends those who choose to be offended.
Now we have persecuting people in the name of “diversity and inclusion”.
(I work for liberal city. Two very good workers were fired on the spot because they uttered one of the forbidden words. One of them was a supervisor tricked into saying it by one of those under him.)

atticman
Reply to  Gunga Din
February 19, 2021 5:48 am

‘Hate speech’ always tells you more about those propagating it than about those of whom they speak. They invalidate what they say by the very act of saying it. Why, therefore, take offence at perceived insults which clearly have no foundation?

lbeyeler
Reply to  Gunga Din
February 21, 2021 9:00 am

“Hate speech” only offends those who choose to be offended.

It depends. I can use the “N” word in a completely harmless way or I can use it in a derogatory way. One may be hate speech, the other is not.

2hotel9
Reply to  lbeyeler
February 21, 2021 9:03 am

Speech is speech. Being offended is always in the ear of the listener.

Richard Page
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
February 17, 2021 6:59 am

Wasn’t Sen. McCarthy a ‘reality czar’ of his times? Remind me again of how well that went and how his investigations are now viewed with pride and nostalgia? sarc

MarkW
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
February 17, 2021 9:30 am

Reality Czar supporters apparently don’t think that the “Truth Commission” is capable of being corrupted by politics

I would think that most of them are counting on the “Truth Commission” being captured by politics. Theirs.

Joel O'Bryan
February 16, 2021 10:43 am

That college dean’s letter is simply just another one of countless data points confirming that climate change has become a dogmatic religion where heretical thought and speech from those within their ranks is not tolerated.
And sadly it is a signal that academic freedom is non-existant at that instituion. It tells junior faculty, those without tenure and without full professorship status, that to watch their words and writings and to not stray from the climate dogma, lest ye find oneself at the short end of the tenure track.

Zigmaster
February 16, 2021 11:38 am

You introduce the piece by pointing out how Rabbis and priests have often stood up to totalitarian regimes. I don’t know if it’s just the ones I know but when it comes to climate change they all seem guilty of breaking the second commandment with their climate change faith appearing in the vast majority of their sermons. It has really put me off going to the synagogue where virtue signalling has become an art form.

MarkW
Reply to  Zigmaster
February 17, 2021 9:32 am

I told the pastor at a church I used to attend, as I was leaving it for the last time, that I attend church for a sermon on religion, not a lecture on politics.

Richard M
February 16, 2021 11:51 am

Even in the darkest times there are some small lights shining through. Out of the climate darkness comes a physics paper showing clearly that the GHE produces very little warming.

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=99608

The true believers will still deny science but it is nice to have something to throw in their faces.

dk_
February 16, 2021 12:00 pm

I fully enjoy reading Monckton’s columns and often agree without reservation, but the sentence contained within the quote “One of the reasons why rabbis and priests have generally… just about everything” must be one of the least credible he has ever written.

Izaak Walton
February 16, 2021 12:50 pm

I am curious to know more about the “real police” that Mr. Monckton mentions. Who are they exactly and what does “actively working internationally ” mean? I thought the idea of a global police force was a fantasy concocted by the right to make people fear the United Nations but not it appears that people have it backwards and it is the socialists who should be afraid of the police. And can anyone point one anything in the supposed letter quoted by Mr. Monckton that would interest the police (real or otherwise). It is as bland and inoffensive as nearly all University missives are.

Finally it is ironic for someone who claims to stand up for science and the right to question everything to also state that they love preaching in Southern Baptist churches. Why is a scientist preaching to begin with and why throw your lot in with people who disbelieve the fundamentals of evolution and who think the bible should be taken literally? Or does Mr. Monckton get up there and talk about evolution and how the world wasn’t made in seven days?

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 16, 2021 2:13 pm

One of the reasons why I am occasionally asked to preach in Southern Baptist churches is that I can provide traditional scriptural exegesis, which is not always taught these days. I read Latin and Greek fluently and can go back, therefore, to many documents of the early Church.

And one should not imagine that the Catholic faith is in any way incompatible with sound science. On the contrary, I should argue that without the morality that religion demands it is all too possible for science to go off the rails, just as it has on the climate question, because too many “scientists” are putting expediency and profit before the scientific method.

n.n
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 16, 2021 4:38 pm

Yes, faith, religion, ideology, and traditions are separable. The advantage of the Judeo-Christian line is the advice given by the philosopher, God, to recognize a separation of logical domains. Faith is a logical domain. Science is a logical domain characterized by a limited frame of reference, where humans observe, replicate, and deduce the systems, processes, and functions of Nature.

beng135
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 17, 2021 8:38 am

Izaak, your reply is full of marxist-taught stereotypes and cliques. Lies, IOWs.

MarkW
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 17, 2021 9:37 am

One thing you can always count on, is Izaak going out of his way to distort what others say and believe.

Then again, the highly religious do tend to do that.

it is the socialists who should be afraid of the police

I can only conclude that all good socialists, Izaak has fully bought into the Black Lies Matter propaganda.

As to what Baptists believe, some believe in evolution, some don’t. Unlike socialists, Baptists are allowed to make up their own minds on controversial issues.

Richard Page
Reply to  MarkW
February 17, 2021 10:11 am

Presumably all the socialists that Izaak knows are the extremely dodgy sort that would be put on trial if their crimes were brought to light. Not good companions, Isaak, you might want to distance yourself.

Doug Huffman
February 16, 2021 1:38 pm

Lord Monckton, good to see you again.

Editor
February 16, 2021 3:05 pm

Brilliant article as usual, thanks Christopher. Joseph Goebbels understood: “Truth is the greatest enemy of the State”. Full quote:
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to repeat it.
The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or miltary consequences of the lie.
It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the Truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the Truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 19, 2021 2:28 pm

Mike Jonas is very kind. The intellectual vacuity behind the climate nonsense continues to astonish all rational beings.

Phil
February 16, 2021 5:48 pm

Once upon a time, Liberalism was the antonym of Totalitarianism. These people are not liberals. On the contrary, they are decidedly illiberal.

Jon R
February 16, 2021 6:25 pm

I love that you care nothing about people with small vocabularies, I used to love writing with all my words but the university pretty much beat it out of me. Think I might try to revive the skill myself!

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Jon R
February 16, 2021 8:34 pm

I care everything about people with small vocabularies. If they come across a word in my writings that they have not seen before, they can reach for a dictionary and look it up, extending their vocabulary in the process.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 16, 2021 9:41 pm

they can reach for a dictionary and look it up”

Or right-click on it and then click on “look it up” in the pop-up box and get its definition within a second. (If one has a Mac.)

Richard Page
Reply to  Roger Knights
February 17, 2021 7:06 am

Not necessarily. By using the online version you are at the mercy of some (usually small vocabularied) person using a condensed American English dictionary. Try looking at the full English dictionary at some time – you may be amazed at the breadth of the English language in full majesty!

Alexy Scherbakoff
February 16, 2021 7:20 pm

I’m amazed how he can communicate nothing worthwhile so eloquently.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
February 16, 2021 8:33 pm

Don’t whine.

MarkW
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
February 17, 2021 9:41 am

Translation: you don’t agree with anything he said, therefor he said nothing.
It really is sad how socialists use themselves as the standard by which all must be measured.

Last edited 5 months ago by MarkW
Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  MarkW
February 17, 2021 3:51 pm

I said ‘nothing worthwhile’.
There was a fawning nature to some of the comments here. I disagreed. Apparently you have a problem with freedom of thought and speech.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
February 19, 2021 2:27 pm

Don’t whine.

David Blenkinsop
February 16, 2021 9:42 pm

It appears to me to be a great challenge to science departments (and/or scientists’ unions. societies, etc.), who take “positions’, to ask them, as CM describes, to “ask whether they consider it right to take a position in support of the universal truth that the square on the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is ineluctably equal to the sum of the squares on the two catheti”.

There is apparently no right sounding answer they can give to that, since endorsing prejudicial political opinions on science isn’t right to begin with! Then, I can’t help but notice that the accompanying proof of Pythagoras’ Theorem is a wonderful thing to behold, as well!

If only such sound mathematical logic and good science principles were the guiding forces in this world, how much more secure and optimistic could we possibly manage to be, I wonder?

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  David Blenkinsop
February 17, 2021 4:19 am

Glad you like the proof. It is very pretty. Though not quite as straightforward as the famous tessellation proof variously attributed to Aryabhatta and to Bhaskara, it is elegant in that it uses a single polyhedral frame.

bonbon
February 17, 2021 1:47 am

Just curious LMB, but could you extend the Pythaorean Proof sans Paroles to the urgent problem of doubling the cube at the the altar of Delos?

The Oracle mumbled it will decide our fate.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  bonbon
February 17, 2021 4:25 am

Bonbon may like to tilt his iPhone so that he is viewing it in the landscape orientation, and then click on the calculator, which, in landscape mode, is a scientific calculator. He can then instantly find the cube root of one-half, which will duplicate the cube to a sufficient precision for most practical purposes. The wonders of modern science! The answer is 0.7937. Cube that and double it and you have two cubes the sum of whose volumes is equal to the volume of an original cube of side 1.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 21, 2021 1:31 pm

Don’t solutions to ancient geometric problems require using no more than a straight edge and a compass? IPhones don’t qualify..

Richard Page
Reply to  bonbon
February 17, 2021 7:12 am

Hm-mm. And if the answer comes anywhere near, say, a value for climate sensitivity calculations, I will then vote for going through Nostradamus’ ramblings for an answer to modern problems!

Mario
February 17, 2021 9:39 am

Saint Christopher the Canine Head

xristoforos-o-kynokefalos.jpg
PeteC
February 21, 2021 10:21 am

The first line should start “In traditional Judaeo-Christian-Muslim theology…” which I shorten to Old Middle East theology.

%d bloggers like this: