See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Warmists confirmed as cheats, liars, fakers; Pope still Catholic; etc
Source:
The London Torygraph (Telegraph)/AP
URL Source: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j ... akers-pope-still-catholic-etc/
Published: Mar 16, 2012
Author: James Delingpole
Post Date: 2012-03-16 05:28:33 by Original_Intent
Ping List: *Agriculture-Environment* Subscribe to *Agriculture-Environment*
Keywords: Warmistas, Frauds, The Sky is Warming!, Liars
Views: 238
Comments: 16
I wonder how the BBC environment correspondent Richard Black would report it if the Climatic Research Unit's Phil Jones were suddenly to confess that everything he'd said in the last two decades about the anthropogenic warming threat was total rubbish. I'm guessing something like: "Hero climate scientist announces glorious discovery: world saved, research at CRU now shows!" I wonder how the New York Times, or the Guardian environment pages or Huffington Post would report it if NASA's James Hansen were to burst in with a machine gun and grenades at the next Heartland climate sceptics' conference and wipe out half the delegates. "NASA expert helps solve global overpopulation problem!", probably. If you think I'm joking consider how all the above-mentioned organs responded to the story of Fakegate, in which climate activist Peter Gleick engaged in identity theft and used a forged document in order to smear the Heartland institute with a pack of lies. The way they covered it, you'd think the real villain of the piece was not Gleick but Heartland. One liberal commentator went so far as to suggest that the person who had faked the one (and only) incriminating document was none other than Heartland's president Joe Bast. Some kind of sinister, false-flag operation to make the environmental movement look bad, I suppose. (Yeah, like it needs any help on that score). Anyway, now Anthony Watts reports that the forged document has been submitted to forensic analysis and that the most likely culprit turns out to be – as Steven Mosher suspected weeks ago – none other than Peter Gleick. Well quelle surprise and whoulda thunk?! Gleick denies it. Well of course he would. Looks kind of embarrassing, doesn't it, when your cause is so desperate that the only dirt you can manage to get on your opposition is dirt you've manufactured yourself? After Climategate Donna Laframboise asked in a Tweet: To those minimizing ClimateGate: How badly do people have to behave? What line must they cross before you’ll stop excusing them? And after Gleickgate/Fakegate she asked a similar question. Just how badly does the alarmist/warmist camp have to behave before their amen corner in their liberal MSM finally concedes that their behaviour is beyond the pale? The answer, I fear, is more badly than you could possibly imagine. Climatism (as Steve Goreham calls it) has very little to do with science, if indeed it ever did. Rather it's the new global religion and as with all religions it's really not about evidence but about faith. And when you're filled with zeal of religious conviction, what crime is there that you wouldn't commit to spread your wondrous, right and noble creed? As a perfect example of this blind faith in action, Jo Nova compares and contrasts the coverage of two stories – Climategate and Fakegate – by our old friend Richard Black of the BBC. On ClimateGate, Black waited until after he had a spokesman from the CRU to comment, and having confirmed the emails were from the CRU, Black quoted exactly none of them. On FakeGate, Black posted so quickly that he had to rewrite it after Heartland replied, which happened in the first 24 hours. With ClimateGate, Black ignored the emails that were effectively public property in the first place and turned out to be real. With Fakegate, Black either detailed or linked to quotes that turned out to be nonexistent (at least, I presume that’s what he needed to “re-work”, where is the original stored?). Then there’s the point that ClimateGate is material to the scientific practices of lead authors in an issue of major planetary concern; FakeGate is about small amounts of legal, private funding that are irrelevant to the science. Oh yessity, those influential tiny funds from anonymous citizens must be public knowledge, (and forthwith!) but the original raw data of the worlds temperature stations? I don’t think so and stop harassing those scientists. Point to note: Black is paid by public funds to report both sides of the story in an unbiased manner. The Heartland Institute is not. Let's repeat that last one because it's so important, so true. Point to note: Black is paid by public funds to report both sides of the story in an unbiased manner. The Heartland Institute is not. Hey, but as anyone from the Warmist/Alarmist camp could tell you: never let the facts get in the way of a good story. In fact, if you're a believer in the great global warming religion, facts are actually your enemy. They're your enemy a) because they so comprehensively undermine everything you believe in and b) because facts are nasty, horrid things that "deniers" use, whereas true believers have no need of them: faith, that's the thing, pure blind faith. Poster Comment: Warmism is the new secular religion of the Granola Left.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Original_Intent (#0)
you have no idea. the things I have seen recently would curl your hair. (assuming it is not already curly of course) changing the puppet does not change the play.
I was thumbing through a copy of Conde Nast's Traveler magazine...a promotional article about a pricey resort kept reiterating how the company was doing everything in its power to assuage carbon emissions; since their patrons HAD to use the airlines to reach their resort destination, and airplanes emit large carbon footprint, a carbon tax would be added to the expense of staying at the hotel. Just about every article in that little magazine included some mention of global warming due to carbon emissions, how evil!
you have no idea. the things I have seen recently would curl your hair. (assuming it is not already curly of course) It's wavy. My mom always said my hair was wasted on a boy. ;-) However, there are drawbacks - I can wear it real long or real short but in between it has a mind of its own. As for the Warmistas I can believe it, that some of what they do is unbelievable. You wind up with two camps - the paid agitators and the zealots. The zealots are more to be feared because they have no practical considerations and will kill "for the cause" in a heartbeat. Repetition is the soul of mindless propaganda and for those whose "minds" are made up and remain unconvinced by "inconvenient truths" catering to their neuroses can be profitable. And repeating the lies over and over and over will dupe a few more of the weak minded since "if it is repeated so much it must be true." I can just imagine the self-righteous little schmucks going on these little jaunts feeling smug and self-satisfied because they were required to pay a tithe to enjoy their trip, and the provider will of course ring up the extra profits. P.T. Barnum was conservative. I'm discovering there are more zealots than I knew. changing the puppet does not change the play.
I'm discovering there are more zealots than I knew. They are out there. However, a difference in viewpoint does not a zealot make. It means two different viewpoints along with all of the considerations that go with it. A zealot reacts to the puppet strings of considerations whereas the active mind adapts the considerations as modified by fact and experience. exactly. and that's what I am dealing with or seeing rather as I refuse to engage them. They are zealots who believe skeptics should be killed or silence or pick your evil. They are so convinced of the righteousness of their cause that they view skeptics as pure evil. It is astounding to view. I'll post a link when I come across one. Shouldn't be hard but it will have to wait. I'm off to work. changing the puppet does not change the play.
exactly. and that's what I am dealing with or seeing rather as I refuse to engage them. They are zealots who believe skeptics should be killed or silence or pick your evil. They are so convinced of the righteousness of their cause that they view skeptics as pure evil. It is astounding to view. I'll post a link when I come across one. Shouldn't be hard but it will have to wait. I'm off to work. Please do. My other thought, in trying to explain the zealot mindset, is that zealots think in terms of absolutes whereas the saner mind sees a gradation of black, through shades of gray, to white. Take abortion for example. To the zealot abortion is ALWAYS wrong, period, end of discussion. To the rational mind the matter is weighed of good vs bad and which way does the scale tip. Abortion for convenience is one thing, but to save the life of the mother is another. To the zealot it does not matter and to the rational mind it does matter and makes all the difference in the world. It actually goes even deeper in considering the nature of "Man" and what that implies, but that is another much longer argument. That reminds of something about a bear in the woods...can't quite remember, though... "You shall have fun, no matter what you do." -- Turtle
That reminds of something about a bear in the woods...can't quite remember, though... A Bear reciting the Rosary in the woods? Yeah, that's it! "You shall have fun, no matter what you do." -- Turtle
That would be me. Saving the life of the mother sounds good but that is usually the reason given for a late term abortion and I see no reason to kill the child at that point. Difference is I recognize my extremism in this area and so label myself. changing the puppet does not change the play.
Wasn't there a picture going around proving that one? changing the puppet does not change the play.
That would be me. Saving the life of the mother sounds good but that is usually the reason given for a late term abortion and I see no reason to kill the child at that point. Difference is I recognize my extremism in this area and so label myself. That could be handled though by requiring more than one opinion on whether it was necessary. I do not like abortion and I find the practice repugnant. However, I am also pragmatic and there are trade-offs. I don't believe in absolutes. Absolutes are unobtainable (except in theory). However, my libertarian streak also argues that it is a moral issue which is none of the government's business. that we can agree on. changing the puppet does not change the play.
Warmism is the new secular religion of the Granola Left.
#2. To: Original_Intent (#0)
Climatism (as Steve Goreham calls it) has very little to do with science, if indeed it ever did. Rather it's the new global religion and as with all religions it's really not about evidence but about faith. And when you're filled with zeal of religious conviction, what crime is there that you wouldn't commit to spread your wondrous, right and noble creed?
#3. To: farmfriend (#1)
(Edited)
Warmism is the new secular religion of the Granola Left.
#4. To: CadetD (#2)
I was thumbing through a copy of Conde Nast's Traveler magazine...a promotional article about a pricey resort kept reiterating how the company was doing everything in its power to assuage carbon emissions; since their patrons HAD to use the airlines to reach their resort destination, and airplanes emit large carbon footprint, a carbon tax would be added to the expense of staying at the hotel. Just about every article in that little magazine included some mention of global warming due to carbon emissions, how evil!
#5. To: Original_Intent (#3)
The zealots are more to be feared because they have no practical considerations and will kill "for the cause" in a heartbeat.
#6. To: farmfriend (#5)
The zealots are more to be feared because they have no practical considerations and will kill "for the cause" in a heartbeat.
#7. To: Original_Intent (#6)
They are out there. However, a difference in viewpoint does not a zealot make. It means two different viewpoints along with all of the considerations that go with it. A zealot reacts to the puppet strings of considerations whereas the active mind adapts the considerations as modified by fact and experience.
#8. To: farmfriend (#7)
They are out there. However, a difference in viewpoint does not a zealot make. It means two different viewpoints along with all of the considerations that go with it. A zealot reacts to the puppet strings of considerations whereas the active mind adapts the considerations as modified by fact and experience.
#9. To: farmfriend (#1)
Pope still Catholic
#10. To: Turtle, farmfriend (#9)
Pope still Catholic
#11. To: Original_Intent, farmfriend (#10)
A Bear reciting the Rosary in the woods?
#12. To: Original_Intent (#8)
To the zealot abortion is ALWAYS wrong, period, end of discussion.
#13. To: Turtle (#9)
That reminds of something about a bear in the woods...can't quite remember, though...
#14. To: farmfriend (#12)
To the zealot abortion is ALWAYS wrong, period, end of discussion.
#15. To: Original_Intent (#14)
However, my libertarian streak also argues that it is a moral issue which is none of the government's business.
#16. To: farmfriend (#15)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest