Friday, November 20, 2009


Brendan O’Neill on Planet Gore:
If a climate-change sceptic suggests that the Sun, rather than man, is responsible for climatic variations he is denounced as evil, a heretic, someone whose words are so foul and twisted that they will be "partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead." In other words, question the environmentalist consensus, and you are endangering life itself -- your words are literally poisonous.

Yet when a climate-change activist openly calls for calamitous events and the deaths of thousands of people as a way of focusing our leaders’ minds on the problem of climate change, no one bats an eye.


O Bloody Hell said...

> "Comments policy" -- We welcome debate, but this website is not a space for debating the existence of climate change. There are many other forums for that on the web, therefore we will not publish disruptive comments by climate change sceptics.

BWAAAAhahahahhahaa.... Translated: "We won't post anything that challenges our presuppositions"

O Bloody Hell said...

You haven't yet written any piece on the E-mail Release...

I thought you might find this article interesting

I particularly liked this part:

Kevin Trenberth, who heads the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., and wrote some of the pirated e-mails, said it is the implications rather than the content of climate research that make some people uncomfortable.

"It is incontrovertible" that the world is warming as a result of human actions, Trenberth said. "The question to me is what to do."

"It's certainly a legitimate question," he added. "Unfortunately one of the side effects of this is the messengers get attacked."

Ahhh, yeah, "the messengers get attacked" -- kind of like they've been doing to everyone who is against them for a decade and more, now? Funny how that only matters when they are at risk of being thoroughly discredited as sources of information all around.

Then there's this one:

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Change the definitions to fit the requirements:
DA! DA! Ist Pravda, tovarisch!

I don't need to attack a messenger when I know I can't trust them to be giving me anything truthful. I just need to ignore them.