Yet Another Warmist Wants To Shut Down Free Speech

You’re shocked face probably looks more like a yawn, considering how much this happens. Here’s John Cigliano, director of the environmental conservation program at Cedar Crest College in Allentown, as published by Philly.com

Don’t give equal time to climate-change deniers

Let’s be clear: Climate change is real, it is happening now, we are the cause, and it will be worse than we predicted.

We know beyond not just a reasonable doubt, but all doubt, that human-caused (anthropogenic) climate change is a fact. Even as a scientist trained not to speak or think in such an absolute way, I am very comfortable stating this. This conclusion is backed by thousands of research articles from hundreds of scientists around the world from academia, think tanks, government, and non-governmental agencies. The latest National Climate Assessment report has confirmed this, and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have documented it.

Of course, there’s that pesky fact that there has been no statistically significant warming in approaching 18 years, despite rising CO2 levels. And the pesky fact that 95% of Warmist computer models failing. And that many of the Holocene warm periods were warmer than the current one. Facts do not matter when fascism is on the rise

Is it too late to do something about climate change? No. What can we do to slow it down and eventually stop it? Cut down our use of fossil fuels. Use alternative energy or less energy. Persuade local, state, and federal governments to mandate strategies to reduce carbon emissions. Eat less meat. Buy local and in season. Reduce/reuse/recycle, etc., etc.

You’ve heard all this before, but here’s a new one: The media must stop providing ink and air time to climate-change deniers. (snip)

One of the most important strategies we could employ to stop climate change is for the media to stop giving time and space to climate-change deniers. There is only one side of this story: Climate change is real, it is happening now, we are the cause, and it will be worse than we predicted.

Science as a totalitarian religion. Hitler, Chavez, Mao, Stalin, and the Ayatollah Khomeini, among others, would be proud. They would be even prouder of John’s next paragraph

The real story that should be covered is why, in the face of overwhelming, unequivocal evidence, do people still deny climate change? Is it lack of environmental literacy? Is it due to either political or financial self-interest? Why?

In other words, attack, attack, attack. Rebutting with scientific fact would be silly. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: this is not science, this is politics.

Related, Anthony Watts notes that a professor’s fellowship was terminated right after publishing an anti-climate change op-ed. See more at Climate Depot.

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

13 Responses to “Yet Another Warmist Wants To Shut Down Free Speech”

  1. david7134 says:

    Just received Time magazine and the cover says that the government got is all wrong about low fat diets and cholesterol. This is an exact parallel to the climate crud.

  2. john says:

    shutting down free speech ??? no Teach what the article wants to do is to stop giving eqyal time to something that very few scientists believe.
    Most scientists believe taht the Earth is over 4 billion years old. A very few believe that teh Earth is less tahn 10000 years old (many of those also do not believe in ADW(
    Should equal time be given to the young Eartg wack jobs? I don’t think so but apparently you seem to think taht this is a “free speech” issue,
    Free speech Teach does not mean I can not tell you to STFU
    If it did then of course you would be violating Cigiano’s rights/ the 1st Amendment prevents the Federal Government from telling you to STFU, not me
    Teach if the Earth hasn’t warmed at all in 17 years ahve you an explanation as to why the Polar ice cap has been shrinking FAST ?\
    1. No, the Earth Hasn’t Stopped Warming Since 1998 (or 1996 or 1997)

    This claim was popularized by “Lord” Christopher Monckton, a prominent British climate “skeptic” with no scientific background who presented himself as a member of the House of Lords until the Parliament published a cease and desist order demanding that he stop. His so-called “research” relies on people’s confusion about the difference between weather, which fluctuates all the time, and climate, which speaks to long-term trends. With some careful cherrypicking of data, you get the argument that there’s been “no global warming for 17 years, 3 months.”

    Kevin Trenberth
    Distinguished senior scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research
    What’s going on? “1998 was the warmest year in the last century,” explains Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist in the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “There was a big El Niño event in 1997 and 1998, and we have a lot of evidence that there was a lot of heat coming out of the ocean at that time. So that’s the real anomaly — the fact that we had what was perhaps the biggest El Niño event on record.”

    “That’s one of the cherrypicking points for deniers — they take the highest value and then compare it” with lower points in the natural temperature fluctuation we know as “weather.” “If you choose the highest value,” says Trenberth, “then the odds are that all the other values are going to be lower — even in the presence of an overall warming climate.”

    Here’s what the long-term warming trend looks like, according to both surface and ocean readings:

    (Graphic: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for

  3. gitarcarver says:

    no Teach what the article wants to do is to stop giving eqyal time to something that very few scientists believe.

    So in your opinion, if there are a lot of people who agree on something, dissenting voices should be silenced and yet you don’t think that would be stifling free speech.

    Ya gotta love the lack of critical thinking in people of john’s ilk.

  4. Steve says:

    Spooky ‘Honey’ Moon Casts Glow on Friday the 13th – Video

    http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2014/06/spooky-honey-moon-casts-glow-on-friday.html

    ps. Link Exchange??

  5. JGlanton says:

    Quoting Trenbeth in an attempt to prove a global warming point: Priceless.

  6. Jeffery says:

    jg,

    So you deny there was an El Nino event 1997-1998? Or do you deny that El Ninos redistribute heat from the Pacific to the atmosphere? Or do you deny that incorporating the El Nino year in or around the start date for your data “series” biases the interpretation?

    Which of Dr. Trenberth’s points do you dispute?

  7. Jeffery says:

    gc typed: “So in your opinion, if there are a lot of people who agree on something, dissenting voices should be silenced and yet you don’t think that would be stifling free speech.”

    John’s point was a bit more nuanced, don’t you think? Do YOU think we should give equal credence to the “6000 year old Earth” believers? Are media outlets obligated to give equal time to views that are overwhelmingly refuted by scientific evidence?

    So-called “skeptics” have more venues open to them today than ever for making their arguments known. You have the an infinite number of websites and news outlets on the internet, FOX News on television, free market billboards, the Republican Party, conservative/libertarian think tanks, industry money and dozens of talk radio programs.

    Smart people aren’t stifling your free speech, they are just disagreeing with your message, and it hurts.

    Stop whining.

  8. gitarcarver says:

    Jeffery,

    As usual, you try and make a case for denying people their rights.

    Take a look at the cited article which says, “You’ve heard all this before, but here’s a new one: The media must stop providing ink and air time to climate-change deniers.”

    Is that “nuanced?” No. It is a direct attack on people who happened to have legitimate disagreements with people of your ilk.

    John wants to shut down dissenting voices as well.

    When you cannot win on the merits, you continue to lie and then want to stop anyone from speaking out against the lies.

    That is what liberals like yourself do.

  9. gitarcarver says:

    Oh and by the way Jeffery, as to “whining….?”

    It is not the scientific side that is “whining.” It is your side.

    Notice how the article essentially says “those mean people shouldn’t be able to dispute us!”

    John says that instead of climate realists being attacked, it is people like him that are being attacked. Ever the victim, that john.

    You have been on this site for awhile and almost every point you try and make is exposed as a lie, lacking foundation, lacking logic, or lacking any type of cognitive thought.

    No one has tried to shut you down. No one has tried to tell john to shut up. More importantly, Teach hasn’t banned you or john despite your obvious qualities as trolls.

    The only people that are whining about speech are you and your ilk. Like most freedoms, you hate free speech. Anything that you disagree with must be stopped and silenced.

    Stop being a little baby and realize that the answer to speech is more speech, not less.

  10. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    It is fact that the climate gods have shut down the peer review process. So much for “science”.

  11. Jeffery says:

    gc,

    I’ve asked several times that those of your ilk specifically point out my lies. Crickets, except you say that you’ve refuted all my lies.

    So you think that media should have no editorial control of their own content? That’s an interesting idea. We call it the internet. We call it talk radio. We call it the printing press.

    Should newspapers print obvious falsehoods from science deniers or do they have a higher obligation for trying to inform rather than disinform?

    If Scientific American publishes an article on the history of the Earth, do you think they are obligated to include a discussion of the creation myth? Should they include a discussion of the 6000 year old Earth hypothesis and humans co-existing with dinosaurs?

    The repeated ‘gotcha’ objections of science deniers regarding global warming have been answered and refuted – repeatedly. Science deniers are refractory to reason.

    You have hundreds of denier websites, an entire political party, your own denier cable network, hundreds of millions of industry dollars, the Wall Street Journal and dozens of talk radio programs. All you lack are the facts. Why do you think that private newspapers are obligated to print your lies? Television networks have bent over backwards to not mock your ignorance.

    You whine because smart people don’t believe your nonsense. Live with it or get smarter arguments.

    dave – There are no ‘climate gods’. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that peer review has been ‘shut down’? As I’ve pointed out repeatedly you and your ilk have no interest in ‘science’. You find studies that support your ideology to be good science, and studies that support the theory of AGW (which almost all studies do) to be bad science.

    Why doesn’t Anthony Watts publish all these awesome studies that refute the theory of AGW and allow the scientific community to have at them?

    You know the answer. The value of being seen as victims is much greater than the value of truth. The value of muddying the scientific waters is much greater to deniers than the value of truth.

  12. gitarcarver says:

    Jeffery,

    I’ve asked several times that those of your ilk specifically point out my lies. Crickets, except you say that you’ve refuted all my lies.

    It is not on us to repeatedly show you where you lied and how you misled people because you shut your eyes. No one can make you read what you don’t want to read. But the good news is that at least your statement shows that you are acknowledging that you do lie.

    So you think that media should have no editorial control of their own content? That’s an interesting idea. We call it the internet. We call it talk radio. We call it the printing press.

    Oh please Jeffery. Not even you can be that stupid. The person and now you are calling for people to stop having valid, scientific dissenting voices from being heard.

    The repeated ‘gotcha’ objections of science deniers regarding global warming have been answered and refuted – repeatedly. Science deniers are refractory to reason.

    I would agree with that which makes one wonder why people of your ilk continue to demand that only your lies be published. Why do you deny science and then expect that everyone else do the same thing?

  13. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    Yes, there is evidence that the peer review is shut down.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6904 access attempts in the last 7 days.