You have to hand it to him for sheer, brass neck: George Monbiot, uber-Green, is trying to claim that those calling attention to what he claims is Man’s disastrous impact on climate are being censored, while those nasty, capitalist running dogs, climate change “deniers”, are bully boys:
One of the allegations made repeatedly by climate change deniers is that they are being censored. There’s just one problem with this claim: they have yet to produce a single valid example. On the other hand, there are hundreds of examples of direct attempts to censor climate scientists.
As evidence, Mr Monbiot says:
Most were the work of the Bush administration. In 2007 the Union of Concerned Scientists collated 435 instances of political interference in the work of climate researchers in the US. Scientists working for the government were pressured by officials to remove the words “climate change” and “global warming” from their publications; their reports were edited to change the meaning of their findings, others never saw the light of day. Scientists at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the US Fish and Wildlife Service were forbidden to speak to the media; James Hansen at Nasa was told by public relations officials that there would be “dire consequences” if he continued to call for big cuts in greenhouse gases.
Well, such outrageous events are entirely possible, but Mr Monbiot, in trying to claim that the Green movement is some sort of vulnerable, weak grouping ranged against the forces of evil big business, is surely testing the reader’s patience and intelligence. The thesis of Man-Made global warming is widely promoted and repeated in the MSM. To argue against it, even to argue that such warming must be mitigated rather than reversed, can often land the arguer in hot water professionally. Consider, for example, the treatment of skeptical enviromentalist, Bjorn Lomborg. Note the use of the word “denier”. Anyone who goes against the standard party line on Man-made global warming can expect to be dubbed by the Monbiots of this world as a “denier”. Consider how even the word, “skeptic”, which once may have implied a sort of admirable refusal to take certain big claims on trust without the most rigorous testing, is now almost a term of abuse in the mouths of some, if not all, climate change alarmists.
So in truth, while Mr Monbiot may have some merit in his argument, for him to claim that the green movement is operating against forces of censorship is laughable. As far as I can see, the force is very much with the alarmist case, albeit perhaps less potent than a few years ago. There is only so much panic that flesh and blood can stand.
I am an agnostic on the climate change issue, and not being a scientist, do not presume to know what the position actually is with regard to whether such warming is man-made, or not. However, my political and economic views lead me to favour approaches that work to enhance prosperity and freedom, and my suspicions about some of the alarmists is drawn very much from the fact that their agenda seems to be incorrigibly statist. Sometimes you have to go with your gut instincts.
A few years ago, for no good reason, a referee demanded that I remove a minor reference to Bjorn Lomberg from a philosophy of science paper. There was no good reason given for this, other than that Lomberg was an environmental skeptic, and therefore a bad man.
“…my suspicions about some of the alarmists is drawn very much from the fact that their agenda seems to be incorrigibly statist.”
Exactly. Especially since it is now well-known that even something like the Endangered-Species Act can be used to push through all sorts of statist programs, even some that have nothing to do with endangered species.
The claim that Hansen of NASA Goddard Institute was censored by the Bush administration is one of those false stories that get repeated and repeated until everyone believes them.
I found out the facts a few years ago. NASA had hired as a political appointee, a young guy who went into the Public Affairs Office, which at NASA is a major holding tank for liberals. When Hansen published one of his screeds the young guy merely asked Hansen to follow normal NASA procedure and provide the PAO office with a copy beforehand.
This was blown up by the New York Times into an attempt by the Bush administration to censor Hansen who automatically became a martyr to the cause. Since then he’s become an embarrassment, but that’s another story.
It was his refusal to abide by the rules that every other NASA scientist has to follow that was the origin of this story.
Certainly in an ideal world scientists should not have to present any of their work to PR types. But to imagine that one guy was singled out for political reasons by an inexperienced flack is ridiculous.
There has been a colossal funding of climate alarmism compared to the modest or missing financial support for the realists/sceptics.
See here for links regarding $79 billion spent in US since 1989, almost all of which will have been motivated by alarmism, the ‘establishment’ position. Carbon trading, also initiated by alarmism may have reach $128b in 2008: http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/23/massive-climate-funding-exposed/
Truly, the climate realists are the reluctant radicals, massively underfunded and all but ignored by, for example, the BBC, the United Nations, and intemperate newspapers such as The Independent and The Guardian.
Here is a good site for providing a good selection of climate reality stories every day: http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
The gentle warming we have enjoyed since the little ice age has been a blessing. Long may it continue.
The Union Of Concerned Scientists isn’t a union of concerned scientists, it’s a pressure group with some scientists in it, but many non-scientists, which began as an anti-nuclear farleft etc pressure group in the late 60s.
As poitned out above, most of the “censorship” is actually activist scientists whining; Hansen’s deliberate media blitz over his “censorship” is well known- he created it out of nothing, then did a decidedly uncensored tour of the media yelling about it. He’s a well organised political maneuverer.
And basically, it’s that old progressive thing. They demand that everybody and everything else in life be regulated, but scream like babies if so much as a whiff of regulation comes in their direction.
Monbiot is complaining about a take-down due to misuse of copyright material.
The copyright owner has state he hadn’t been contacted about usage. The implication was that he’d have granted permission had he been contacted.
This isn’t a case of censorship at all. That Monbiot doesn’t or won’t understand this in a column in a respected national newspaper is disturbing. I guess it is of a piece with legislators who happily pass legislation they admit is impossible to read.
O tempore, o mores!
This is an often used tactic by those who have no moral, ethical or even logical basis through which they can argue for control of other’s lives. They claim to be persecuted so that they can gain the power necessary to persecute others.
Well why should climate change nessessarily be bad for us?
Cop this Monbiot and co…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/5916353/Climate-change-helped-the-Incas-build-civilisation.html
Counting Cats has been having a bit of an argy bargy over this subject too lately. Do pop over and look, they love to see you all.
I have to hand it to Moonbat. Not only does he look like Dr Goebbels, he has also taken the deformed little bastard’s propaganda advice to heart.
Oh and George love!
If you want one example of censorship, “Just one”
I found this in thirty seconds, you complete and utter hockey stick!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html
To claim that Jim Hansen has been censored or faced ‘dire consequences’ for essentially breaking NASA protocol is laughable. Google his name and you get over 8.7 million hits, including a screed he wrote for the Huffington Post this month and a report of his arrest at a coal mine last month.
What the hell is a NASA scientist on the public payroll doing at a coal mine protest?
The EPA affair is a discete instance of literal hard core censorship.
For those of you who didn’t read up on it, a 30+ year EPA analyst prepared a skeptical report on global warming, and his superiors did the following:
A) Prohibited the circulation of the report within the EPA and other government agencies.
B) Instructed the analyst not to speak to anyone in the EPA or other government agencies about the report.
C) Cease all analysis on climate.
and
D) Insinuated he could be dismissed to help the department budget.
Global warming/climate change is the defining issue for the green left. If they win, we will have their socialist utopia whether we like it or not. If they lose and are discredited, they will not be able to re-group in such force for decades.
They’ve bet the house and the farm on it. We have to resist, and the blogosphere is a god given weapon.
Get blogging. Start a blog …
Please see mickysmuses.blogspot.com
Following on from Taylor’s comment:
http://www.notesinthemargin.com/archives/369
Gosh, that mchitlerbush censorship was awful!
If you want to see just how faith based the pro AGW side is ask the following question.
What data or scientific fact would disprove the theory of AGW to you?
Then step back from the screen and watch the spittle fly..
All scientific data can be disproven, even Einstein had a substantial chunk of his work disproven, and had to rethink some of his theories.
But AGW…. its foolproof….
I might also ad that one of the biggest players in the whole carbon trading scheme is also the one with the most to gain.
The UN is setting itself up as the “honest broker” for certifying and removing carbon credits. All for a small processing fee of course….
Search the terms UN carbon trading certification comes up with quite a bit worth reading.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5257602.ece
The UN charges a fee for their “completeness check”
http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/completeness_check.html
for projects seeking certification.
Im always a bit suspicous when the entity with the most to gain is also the one pushing the “science” proving it.
Global climate change is real, only an idiot or liar would deny it, after all its been happening for about 4.5 billion years. As for mans contribution to it, that has to be minuscule at best.
You’re either all trolls (including the original poster), in which case it’s feeding time, or more likely just a sad bunch of self-deluding fanatics with end-to-end seriously iffy argumentation. I shall not be returning here again, even though I agree with some of what the site is about.
A tip by way of farewell: invest all your money in coastal property, preferably in the Maldives, for surely sea levels aren’t rising due to global warming. Oh, yes, nuclear power is another good one for you – so cheap! So clean!
And as a final parting shot, I invoke Godwin’s law, you moonbats.
Hehehe. There goes a climateugenic…
I am always surprised by people that think we know much about climate. From start i think it is obvious we don’t have reliable temperature measures in last 100 years, so how can they even go from that unreliable information and leap it to human made global warming…
Funny you should say that: you’ll never guess where Al Gore bought some property a couple of years ago…
Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out, Erewhon.
Amazing, erewhon, you managed all those lines without actually making a single argument. We are all wrong because… well… just because. Does that sum up your position?
The Maldives have been predicting disaster for years, and the sea has NOT risen. If it had, every media on the planet would have shots of this modern Atlantis sinking beneath the waves! The only thing their seawall was good for was the odd tsunami, so it wasn’t a total waste.
The trouble is that humans want to believe deeply in something, and if science badmouths God, then anything else will do, especially if it sounds scientific. People want absolute certainty, and science seems to keep saying everything is relative.
I blame Einstein. If he had only called his theory, which revolves around the absolute speed of light, the theory of Absoluteness, we’d be better off now. Those Germans, always causing trouble!
Government monopsony distorts climate science
07/22/09 – Science and Technology News
The US Government has spent $79 billion since 1989 on research and support for climate change studies. Yet, scientific review and criticism is left to unpaid volunteers, who have repeatedly exposed major errors.
Dedicated, uncoordinated scientists around the globe test the integrity of global warming theory. They compete with a lavishly-funded, highly-organized, centralized purchaser of climate research.
The government pours money into a single, scientifically baseless agenda. It has created a self-fulfilling prophecy, not an unbiased investigation. Sound science cannot easily survive this grip of politics and finance.
If you connect to the Libertarian International site on the right side-bar, the leading article is about some revolt by Chemical scientists against human-induced global warming theories. Does anyone know more about this?
The fact that you will not return to share your wisdom with us is deeply distressing (sarcasm). Perhaps you could explain how it is “trolling” to challenge the bizarre claim of a climate change alarmist, one who is treated with fawning respect in much of the MSM. Perhaps you could explain why my point about the bullying of skeptics is mistaken. Perhaps you could even try to defend the alarmist case, rationally, civilly, and without imagining that anyone who dissents is somehow evil or plain stupid.
xj: this is the end link, and it is great for several reasons:-)
I am an agnostic on the climate change issue, and not being a scientist, do not presume to know what the position actually is with regard to whether such warming is man-made, or not. However, my political and economic views lead me to favour approaches that work to enhance prosperity and freedom…
I’d like to add my usual comment that from the perspective of working in the “climate change industry” that those in my particular area think that there is some man-made warming going on (as you would expect) but that the solution is not extreme statism. A free market solution would be most welcome.
This is also relevant. The media may often taken any old alarmist as being a ‘climate scientist’ while downgrading the real McCoys: http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/08/03/who%E2%80%99s-a-climate-scientist-depends-on-which-side-you%E2%80%99re-on/
I have been to the Maldives.
They are so fuckin boring I would happily see them sink, but they didn’t seem to be in any danger of doing so anytime soon.
My father was based there for a while in WW2, a cook for a Catalina Flying Boat Squadron, and apart from them, there was no fucker there except for a few poor fishermen.Hardly the hub of the global economy is it?
If you have an arguement, as Perry says, then please state it, we are willing to listen. It is the entire point of this place, but I should warn you, this site has posters of frightening intellegence and Education, so you will have to do a lot better than, listen to me! I’m right, because I am right!
And as you appear not to know what a Troll is (do you have a mirror handy?) anything you may say will be treated with the due skepticism that it deserves.
Try not to slam the door on the way out, it is made of unsustainable hardwood, hard to replace these days for some reason. 😉
It would be nice to know if the globe is getting warmer and if sea levels are actually rising. I see that my nearest garden centre is now selling neat little weather stations. Perhaps The Great Helmsman could issue one to each parish and we could start to accumulate some facts. We could get each harbour master to measure the sea level as well.
When I said Side-bar, I should have also said ‘under Essential Illuminati.
That’s a routine lefty tactic. Define something as a Problem, them seek a Solution – i.e. a government action to solve the non-problem. See for example “health care”.
There is no problem. Climate changes, but that isn’t a “Problem”. And if it develops into one, in the next millennium maybe, there is no possible Solution. Nothing of the proposed actions will affect in the least the “Problem”, and will not be a “solution” to the problem. (By the way: most problems don’t have solutions, anyway).
But that does not matter. Solving a Problem is not the sought end. Enhancing Government power is the end, the “Problem” and the “Solution” are just propaganda artifacts.
Climate changes, but that isn’t a “Problem”.
On the contrary, there could be all manner of “problems” resulting from changing climate, both caused by the climate itself and ill-conceived statist plans to “correct” it.
Solving a Problem is not the sought end. Enhancing Government power is the end…
Not from where I’m standing.
Solving a Problem is not the sought end. Enhancing Government power is the end…
Not from where I’m standing.
All proposed “solutions” (cap&trade, “green” energy mandates), do nothing toward preventing climate change, but a lot toward enhancing government power and promoting poverty.
On the other hand “business as usual” (i.e. no government climate change program) – will permit people to adapt. People are’nt dummies, they solve their own problems, technology advances and evolves, and will solve whatever problem there is.
So, if you ask “what is the libertarian “solution” – here it is: business as usual, no government intervention required.