Warmists Really Hate Allowing “Skeptics” To Give Their Views

We’ve seen some websites, such as the LA Times and Reddit science, ban any discourse that disagrees with the cult talking points. Warmists have been agitating for other papers to do the same. They do the same in the public sphere, where they freak out on the BBC, MSNBC, and other outlets for daring to allow skeptics to show their faces. They especially hate it when they participate in debates, because Warmists get beaten like a rented mule every time. They don’t like it when any skeptic is allowed to speak in public

(Santa Barbara Independent) In a meeting that left everyone a bit confused, the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) heard a 20-minute speech Thursday from Bob Hinnrichs, a Santa Ynez Valley resident whose resume impressed the board but made some members question the credibility — and purpose — of his presentation topic: climate change.

Hinnrichs, an engineer who helped design rocket engines for NASA and said he began studying climate change data in 2000 after he retired, was asked to give his presentation by the board’s outgoing chair, Solvang Mayor Jim Richardson. Ahead of the meeting, environmental groups, including the Community Environmental Council, expressed concern both with Hinnrichs’s speech — which cast aspersions on the scientific community’s consensus that climate change is not only happening but happening because of humans — and that a climate scientist was not also asked to speak.

It further worried environmental groups that the APCD — a group composed of the five county supervisors, plus elected representatives from each of the county’s eight incorporated cities, that is in charge of looking out for the county’s air quality — was hearing from a climate change denier in the first place.

“I think it is outrageous and embarrassing that the chair of the organization tasked with regulating emissions in the county would invite a denier to come present demonstrably wrong and deliberately misleading information about climate change to the board,” Katie Davis, a representative of 350sb.org who worked for Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project, wrote in an email. “He did this despite warnings that the information was incorrect, objections from many board members, the fact that climate change poses a direct and urgent threat, and the fact that we have many actual scientists and experts in the field living and working in Santa Barbara.”

The cult doesn’t want anyone to hear any divergent views and data. At their hearts, progressives hate free speech that isn’t Approved. They’re always attempting to shut down any viewpoint that they do not agree with, and not just with “climate change”. They’re fascists.

A gentleman in Helena has some thoughts on free speech and climate change

It is absolutely frightening the number of people in Helena who are against free speech. I speak of those who are against the policy of the Helena IR to print letters of those that question manmade “Global Warming” or is it “Climate Change” this week? They wish to hide all of the lies, manipulated data and intimidation of scientists. They ignore scientists who discredit manmade global warming and want the Helena IR to be their proxy to continue this one sided policy.

They call those that disagree science deniers, liars and fools of corporate propaganda. While they idolatrize a failed seminary student who stated the North Pole would be completely free of ice today, while snow falls on the Sphinx in Egypt. They fail to notice that nearly all of the dire predictions have failed to mature. They fail to listen to scientists that have discovered that it was warmer 2000 years ago then today.

Their one sided approach to free speech rivals any totalitarian government. Making me question what they are trying to hide.

Liberals/Warmists can attempt to rationalize their fascistic ways all they want, but the very fact is that they hate free speech.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “Warmists Really Hate Allowing “Skeptics” To Give Their Views”

  1. Jeffery says:

    from the article: “Michael Chiacos, who works at the Community Environmental Council as its energy and transportation manager, came to the meeting to address his concerns with Hinnrichs’s speech. When he was called to talk, Richardson immediately moved to shut him down…”

    So Mayor Richardson, who had invited denier Hinnrich to speak, did not want to hear a debate, but only wanted the government to support one side of the argument.

    So why do you claim the climate realists are fascists? It sounds like the only suppression of ideas came from the fossilist/luddite camp.

    There are not two equal sides to every issue. There are those(some in Congress) who think the Earth is 6000-9000 years old, but we wouldn’t want them teaching this to our children. There are people who believe the Earth is at the center of the universe rather than the insignificant (in cosmic terms) little speck that it actually is.

    I’ve seen it on this site (and similar sites, such as the Gateway Pudenda) – the same irrelevancies and zombie lies told again and again, with the intent to mislead not to edify. Snow in Egypt! Mars is warming! It’s all natural! It’s the sun! It’s cosmic rays! It’s cooling! It’s warmed before without SUVs! CO2 is a trace gas! The arctic ice has rebounded! Climategate! Where’s Waldo? All to obscure a few basic facts. These are semantic and political arguments to assert a position rather than a search for truth.

    The Earth is warming. This warming almost certainly results from the enhanced greenhouse effect from human’s burning fossil fuels (and clearing forests) leading to higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 traps heat re-emitted from the Earth causing the atmosphere and oceans to warm. This will most likely lead to drastic changes in human civilization. This is the core of the theory of human-generated global warming. The only argument left is over “how drastic” the effects will be.

    I do not understand why deniers deny. Perhaps it’s a religious idea – that God controls all and would not let his people suffer from their own stupidity. Perhaps the denier cult (all are far-right) hate liberals so much that anything a liberal proposes is instantly suspect. Perhaps the far-right denier cult is so wed to wealthy authority that they cannot imagine opposing it. Perhaps the far-right denier cult is wed to fossil fuel money (some in Congress certainly are – as are some conservative think tanks and pundits).

  2. gitarcarver says:

    Interesting premise, Jeffy. Except for the fact that Chiacos was allowed to speak which afforded him the same opportunity to express his ideas.

    I do not understand why deniers deny.

    We don’t either.

    As a denier of science, maybe you can explain it?

  3. gitarcarver says:

    By the way, Jeffy, look at what Chiacos said:

    The science is settled. Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that humans are causing climate change,” Chiacos said, calling it “unfortunate” that the subject has become a political one.

    (emphasis mine.)

    Aren’t you the one that constantly says that science is never “settled?” Isn’t that part of your core belief?

    So the guy whose views you support disagrees with you on a core issue.

    One of you has to be wrong.

  4. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    Perhaps I can help with some of your confusion. You see, there is no data. Many of us have concerns, but we are not allowed to look at the raw data. Plus, the so called “scientist” will not present as single paper directly linking CO2 with humans or fossil fuels, instead, there is only implication. Now that would not be bad, except that this information is being used to tax us or destroy our economy. Note that the Chinese, Indians and Russians feel that the “science” is bunk. They constitute the bulk of those that would take our place if we scale down our economy to bow to your demands. Then, let me remind you that when scientist agree on everything, that does not make it right. Remember that blood letting and leeches were totally endorsed by the scientist.

  5. jl says:

    j- “The warming almost certainly results from greenhouse gases…” Wait- “almost certainly”? That means you’re not certain- and all this time I thought the science was “settled”. Welcome to the side of reason. “I don’t understand why deniers deny.” Well of course you don’t. And we don’t understand why supposed people of science practice the art of astrology. Which brings us back to square one, so as usual you’re not saying anything. “Maybe it’s a religious idea, or is wed to fossil fuel money, or blah, blah, blah…..” Or maybe it’s because the data isn’t there.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5282 access attempts in the last 7 days.