Purge the deniers

Maybe even burn their books.

"Let the climate inquisition begin. The ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, has written to seven universities about seven researchers who harbor impure thoughts about climate change.



One of the targets is Steven Hayward, a blogger, author and academic now at Pepperdine University (as well as an occasional contributor to National Review). As Hayward puts it, the spirit of the inquiry is, “Are you now or have you ever been a climate skeptic?”



Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...owry-climate-change-115518.html#ixzz3SrQOc4nN


And from the same article the religious overtones of true believers comes out.

"The other day, the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, quit amid a sexual harassment scandal and noted in his letter of resignation: “For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion.”

 

Since when was checking that someone has told the truth at a Senate hearing "harassing" them?

Meanwhile an ex congressional aide can get away with numerous attacks and incitement to violence against climate scientists and you lot are silent

Hypocrisy anyone?

 

That's fine if those espousing AGW are under the same scrutiny. Hypocrisy anyone?

 

sawyer wrote: “Maybe even burn their books.”

It goes without saying that for some, connection & concern for nature is often described as one’s spirituality. Personally, I find it far more tangible and rewarding than I ever did sitting in a man-made structure & praying to a false god. Who knows, should you enter the forest & ascend to the top of a mountain with a great view with the intent of engaging your surroundings, you may come away with a similar sensation? It’s a shame when the misled believe nature holds no value beyond it’s utility of capital & the often petty conveniences that which are derived. No matter the long-term cost. For me, this one was far more concerning. Your source led me to it.

Do men who want women they can’t have make stupid mistakes because of it? I dare say there’s quite a history of it. But would a 74-year-old intellectual who is married, a public figure, document unwanted advances to a women not even half his age? He says his accounts were hacked. This is what the left needs to prepare for. Just like every other issue, ultimately, the difference we’ll make is going to have to be outside the existing power structure. Here’s another one:

Key here is what many have known all along. The counter-argument to the climate dilemma isn’t about bringing truth to science, but rather attempts to discredit it and/or block legislation contrary to the interests of capital. That is, if Whitney Ball’s comments are accurately represented. Ball is President & CEO of DonorsTrust, an organization that uses donations to further a lop-sided, corporate agenda. Can a hoax clone tell me why I shouldn’t believe her?

 

Hmmmmm - and HOW many investigations did "climate gate" trigger and how many found anything of significance?

 

The family investigated themselves. What do you expect?

 

Truly?? Prove it

EIGHT committees investigated

Eight - there have been major international scandals that did not get more than one

 

I didn't know it was that many.

Link please.

 

Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

 

What do we have when science - or at least one study in science - becomes a religion?

Nothing good.

Science, by its very nature is always seeking - always changing when new data is found. The Scientific Process involved gathering all available data and then drawing a conclusion. But that conclusion is never a given - it's a scientific theory.

Compare that to religious faith, whereby the seeker already has formed the conclusion and then goes about gathering selective data that supports their conclusion.

That's what's happening with Global Warming/Climate Change. Here we have a scientific theory but suddenly political entities are pushing others to "believe," and in doing so, they're creating a religious fervor around the theory. If you don't believe - if you are a "denier" or a "skeptic," the true believers will denounce you and hound you until to claim to believe - whether or not you're convinced.

That is no different than the Inquisitor of old who would torture anyone who did not believe. Now, we don't have physical torture, but the Global Warming Inquisitors do their darnedest to destroy the careers of those who do not "believe."

Get real people! There is no such thing as "settled science" and if you keep beating that drum you are no different from the Church Fathers who demanded that Galileo retract his silly idea of a round earth. By gawd - a flat earth was "settled science" at that time.

Wake up, doofuses. You're just another cult.

 

It's okay, the deniers of climate change are alive and well and still propagating bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ists-who-tried-reshape-us-view-climate-change

 

Even though Jones was cleared, numerous problems were pointed out in some of the findings.

 

Were those problems to do with the science, the statistical methods used to form conclusions or simply that the scientist had not been as "sharing" as they should have been?
But regardless - how many sceptics have faced eight different panels of inquiry?

Why even the start of this thread is outrage that one sceptic got one letter from one congressman

 

Well, you have to admit that saying "hide the decline" really gets people's attention.

 

Cherry picked statements usually do, That is why they are cherry picked, It is a form of dishonestly misrepresenting what someone else has said to make it sound more sinister

 

So, is the IPCC dishonest for all their cherry picking of papers?

Is that your opinion?

Now I'm not one to play the "cherry picking" game. I only point it out in rare instances. You seem to have a fixation for it.

 

Oh! Please! Please show me how the IPCC has cherry picked papers!!!!

THIS I gotta see!!!

Oh! And if you can prove that there is more misinterpretation and cherry picking than say, at Wattsupwiththat I will donate $50 to this site in your name

And just to be fair I will let you know there is a vast and enormous difference between referencing a point and cherry picking to misrepresent conclusions

 

No matter how much I found, I would never convince you to break from your religion. I'll just ask you this. Doesn't it strike you as odd that most the numbers used in the IPCC assessment reports are studies that either portray the higher of values, or the lower of values, to make more differences, rather than using the averages of the several studies?

CO2 assessments... the higher ones.

Solar assessments... the lower ones.

Doesn't this repeated pattern of varied studies seem the least bit odd?

 

I could care less about Watts. The only time I see those works are when someone posts them in forums. The only blogger I appreciate is Dr. Glassman.

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/

However, he hasn't done anything new I know of for a few years.

 

Look, there ARE "significant uncertainties" in most areas of Climate Science. But that does not mean that ALL climate science is instantly wrong and that IS the conclusion that most deniers are trying to push

This is a tactic that is well-known to anti evolutionists, it's called "selling the controversy"

Science, good science, is always seeking to disprove its theories. It seeks out inconsistencies and jumps on any odd fact that seems to go against them. This is what they are supposed to do, they refine the theories in this way. They are NOT arguing that the theories are wrong and there is some sort of sinister conspiracy on the part of "Science" to promulgate one or another explanation

 

Who I never heard of until you posted him in this forum, but then again he agrees with you, so I guess that's an invalid point.

 

If you can understand the science and math of his works, you should read them.

Besides, he criticizes much of Watts material, Spenser's, etc.

Don't bother if your science is just 1st year college or less. It will lose you.

 

Importantly he didn't say the science of global warming is his religion. Now that would be a concern.

 

Would you still believe him if you discovered he is NOT a "rocket scientist"???

I have more than a few issues with his points not the least of which is I cannot verify who he is and what his qualifications are

But we have known of the solar influence for decades

 

You should realize that doesn't help the validity of someone's argument at all, in fact when you find a controversial opinion expressed obscurely that usually means the expresser is trying to obfuscate the truth rather than tell it. If you can't explain something simply the chances are that you don't understand it thoroughly yourself.