Global Warmist - To be defined as a global warmist, a person must have all of the following traits:
1) An absolute belief that humans are primarily or even completely responsible for causing a mass climate change which will raise the average temperature of the planet.
2) Will not entertain the idea that it is possible that natural phenomena may cause climate change, regardless of any evidence.
3) Believes it is a good thing to throw billions upon billions of dollars at an idea that may or may not work to stop climate change, "just in case."
4) Believes that natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes are an indirect result of humankind's actions to cause climate change.
5) Shouts down, puts down, and insults anyone whose beliefs run contrary to their own, rather than having intelligent discourse. A zealot for their cause.
From The Urban Dictionary.
The four tools of propaganda employed by Global Warmists to perpetrate their fraud, as pointed out in the previous
Death Knell post, are
Hysterical Predictions; Persecution of Non-believers;
Data Anomalies, Questionable Practices, and Bad Models (read: fraud); and the
Governmental Full-court Press to force the issue.
This installment addresses the
Persecution of Non-believers.
This is quite possibly the scariest aspect of the AGW
worship-the-Earth crowd. How on Earth can science function in this kind of environment? What kind of environment, you ask? What follows are links and a brief explanatory blurb detailing the 4 types of intimidation employed to ensure that "the right answer" is being parroted by one and all.
1. Blackballing This technique is employed to assure that dissenting voices are denied a platform from which to speak their heresy.
This is the story of Naturalist David Bellamy, once the darling of the BBC, now a pariah.
FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV.
A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm.
Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists.
His crime? Bellamy says he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming.
This is how the blackball works. You simply become an un-person. You are no longer welcome, no longer a member of the club. You're out, and you won't be allowed back in.
2. Denial of fundingThis tactic, the favorite of governmental agencies, is the most cynical of the persecution tactics. "Give us the answer we want, or you'll get no more money from us". Most of the "denial of funding" talk is apocryphal, but the other side of that coin -
favor the warming premise and you WILL get funded - is much easier to prove.
In fact, if you want to get a study funded today on anything from suicides to butterflies, researchers are finding that they better somehow link the issue to global warming and it will increase your chances of securing funding dramatically.
Meteorologist James Spann suggests scientific objectively is being compromised by the "big cash grab" of money flowing to proponents of man-made climate fears. I previously noted that NASA's James Hansen received a $250,000 award from the Heinz Foundation.
"Billions of dollars of grant money are flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story," Spann wrote on January 18, 2007.
3. Peer pressureMost of what we view as "science" is information that is published in peer-reviewed journals. By denying scientists the ability to publish their findings, and by deriding their findings in those same lofty publications, scientists who are unbelievers are shouted down and denied a platform to state their case.
Here is the experience of
Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.
4. Threats of Legal ActionWhen all else fails, sue. Or worse. The infamous James Hansen
proposes the establishment of a special court to prosecute unbelievers.
James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.
That's it. Not for crimes like fouling the environment with oil spills, or cartel-like pricing of their products. No, for the high-crime of DENYING!
Another group wants to establish an International Court for the environment.
Stephen Hockman QC is proposing a body similar to the International Court of Justice in The Hague to be the supreme legal authority on issues regarding the environment.
The first role of the new body would be to enforce international agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions set to be agreed next year.
But the court would also fine countries or companies that fail to protect endangered species or degrade the natural environment and enforce the "right to a healthy environment".
And where the limits of its power stops......nobody knows.
Parallels with the Eugenics MovementFinally, take a gander at
this. I won't try to summarize it. Suffice it to say that the AGW crowd is employing the same tactics that were employed by the Eugenics movement of the early 20th century. Nothing bad happened as a result of that, right? Oh, that Adolph Hitler guy...yeah, I suppose maybe there WAS some harm there.
The bottom line is this: a very real campaign exists to silence critics of AGW. One ignores this at the peril of their personal freedoms.
There are government policies that can make you scratch your head. There are policies that can make you irritated. And then there are policies that can elicit just one response: WTF?!?!?!
