October 07, 2006
Global Warming (Yes, Again) Offers New Threat
Global Warming is causing all sorts of havoc across our globe, but the one bad affect that global warming activists don't want to discuss is its threat to freedoms of speech and debate. Al Gore didn't warn us about that. Two articles point out the sides and concern by addressing: (1) What defines a global warming skeptic or denier and (2) Should we arrest them for crimes against humanity when they express skepticism (no kidding)? First, let's see what defines the skeptics.
Why do people become climate change deniers?
by Richard D. North
It is deeply pejorative to call someone a "climate change denier". This is because it is a phrase designedly reminiscent of the idea of Holocaust Denial – the label applied by nearly everyone to those misguided or wicked people who believe, or claim to believe, the Nazis did not annihilate Jews, and others, in any very great numbers. There is a relatively small group of climate scientists who disbelieve very much of the global warming (GW) hypothesis. Unpick that a bit and one finds that there are many varieties of climate change denial. ...Some people labelled as "deniers", aren't....There are many more specialists who are well short of complete denial, but who are nonetheless sceptical that it will matter very much if mankind continues to emit increased amounts of greenhouse gas. Such people are inclined to believe that it will be cheaper and easier to respond to whatever climate change throws at us, rather than attempt to stop it in its tracks.
I don't know that there are that many deniers of the Earth heating, but there are more skeptics over global warming claims and proposed solutions than the "consensus' would like to admit. I'm in the skeptic group. Well, what should be done about these deniers and even skeptics? Here's what some on the left want to do with their right to speech.
by Brendan O'Neill
...One Australian columnist has proposed outlawing ‘climate change denial.' (She wrote:) "David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial. ...Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all. (1) Others have suggested that climate change deniers should be put on trial in the future, Nuremberg-style, and made to account for their attempts to cover up the ‘global warming…Holocaust’ (2)."Whatever the truth about our warming planet, it is clear there is a tidal wave of intolerance in the debate about climate change which is eroding free speech and melting rational debate. There has been no decree from on high or piece of legislation outlawing climate change denial.... Because in recent months it has been turned into a taboo, chased out of polite society by a wink and a nod, letters of complaint, newspaper articles continually comparing climate change denial to Holocaust denial. An attitude of ‘You can’t say that!’ now surrounds debates about climate change, which in many ways is more powerful and pernicious than an outright ban.
...It is not only environmentalist activists and green-leaning writers who are seeking to silence climate change deniers/sceptics/critics/whatever you prefer. Last month the Royal Society – Britain’s premier scientific academy founded in 1660, whose members have included some of the greatest scientists – wrote a letter to ExxonMobil demanding that the oil giant cut off its funding to groups that have ‘misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence’.
...Effectively, campaigners and officials are using scientific facts – over which there is still disagreement – to shut down what ought to be a political debate about what humans need and want. This is the worst of it. Whatever side you take in the climate change clash of facts, this undermining of debate should be a cause of concern.
Chilling. What are they afraid of? And, doesn't this particular debate get to the heart of other political debates that the left wants to control? But, rather than just utilizing social control through "political correctness," such as that pointed out in the recent post by G.M., many want to exercise legal control and to criminalize what we consider free speech.
So, what's a more serious threat: (a) Questioning global warming claims or (b) limiting and/or criminalizing speech of those who do? The Left has a lot of explaining to do.
Posted by Woody M. at October 7, 2006 11:00 AM | TrackBackGreat post!
I want to point a couple of facts about the debate around global warming and climate change that many alarmists fail to grasp.
1. Global warming is not a theory but an observation that the temperature has risen .6 over the past decades. The fact does NOT suggest causation. The fact does NOT imply future increases.
2. Global warming when incorrectly transformed into a theory is vacuous. It is merely tautological. Glcoal warming is global warming is correct but meaningless.
3. The assertion that we observe climate change is also true but not meaningful. Of course we see change all around. So what?
4. Climate change is merely a collection of observations.
5. The cause of global warming is NOT at all well understood by scientists. There is NO theory that offers us a set testable of hypotheses. The fact that a number of scientists have found correlations with a number of factors with temperature changes does NOT constitute a theory. It merely indicates that they have found correlations. Even these correlations appear to not yield to simple explanation. The most notable problem is that concommitment between temp and explanatory variables is extremely weak.
Posted by bee at October 7, 2006 01:36 PM
I would certainly label myself a GCC skeptic rather than a contrarian or denier. If the GCC believers would make less extravagant claims, and could answer their critics, they might convince me. But there is just too much of the "everyone agrees...catastrophe looms...it won't cost much to fix" series of arguments. Most of the believers are people of goodwill, provoked into anger by people of less good will.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at October 7, 2006 03:17 PM
AVI, you are absolutely correct when you say "Most of the believers are people of goodwill, provoked into anger by people of less good will." The reverse is also equally true: "Most of the skeptics are people of goodwill provoked into anger by people of less good will."
I cannot emphasize enough that so far the term "consensus" as applied to GCC or GW, or what ever set of initials one wishes to apply, is a political statement not a scientific one. I am more than willing to backtrack 100% on my skepticism if given scientific proof. Instead, by being a skeptic I am labled "Wingnut," and other epithets such as "denier" etc. The only purpose of this type of response is to shut down discussion and that is something I'm not willing to do. Apparently, neither is Woody and that is what keeps this blog going. :-)
Cheers !!
Posted by GM at October 8, 2006 06:28 AM
bee sums up my stand/skepticism on the subject perfectly. I don't deny that the planet is undergoing a long term temperatue fluxtuation, I just don't assign the blame to human activities - how arrogant we are! The Sun's long term energy emmission has much more effect on the earth's temperature than anything man could possibly concoct, and the Sun does indeed undergo long term energy fluctuations. Right now, all of the GCC/GW claims are political in nature, with no solid scientific proof one way or the other. Until then, I'm very skeptical than human activities are the culprit.
Posted by Vulgorilla at October 8, 2006 11:58 AM
As I understand your post, you seem to be concerned that your free speech will be limited by he suggestion that outspoken criticism of Global warming should be outlawed?
This must be the first time in your life that you have given credence to a wild conservative (conservative, because subjects regarding restrictions are decidedly not Liberal) suggestion. I also read in your post that you object to any curbs on your free speech. As strange as it may seem. I agree with you. But ONLY on that subject.
Posted by James S Melbert at October 8, 2006 03:12 PM
Nah James, you also agree with me about God, about the "homophobia" bs charge and about a lot of other things.
Also, I'm not worried about outlawing "climate change denial," anyone proposing that in this country would be laughed out of hand... oh, wait, there are already rules against "hate speech" and other stuff like that including college speech codes. OK, I withdraw my statement...
Posted by GM at October 8, 2006 05:50 PM
Properly it is not GW but AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming.) Call me a denier. And I haven't even gotten my payoff from Exxon!
Modern AGW theory stems from Mann et al.'s "Hockey stick," which is an out and out fraud, which re-wrtites known world climatic history eliminating the Medieval Warming Period (about 2 deg. C above present levels) and the Little Ice Age (about 2 deg. C below present levels.) It is based on proxy data from bristlecone pine tree rings, although modern tree rings where temperatures are known fail to confirm their utility in predicting temperatures.
So of course they want to silence criticism.
Come on, Exxon! Send me cash!
Posted by John H. Costello at October 8, 2006 09:15 PM
I think the whold debate on the existence/danger of GCC/GCW is pretty scary: that the existence of a 1-2 degree change of temperature could induce people to such extremes of behaviour is alarming. Indeed, there are many "politically correct" topics today that are bringing Western Society to the brink of losing our cherished rights to free speech.
What's truly regrettable is that these attempts to muzzle any and all debate (or even discussion, sometimes) are coming from two of the groups one would (naively) think would benefit most by open discussion: the scientific field and the free press. I've never felt there was any merit in a position whose proponents' only means of defending or propagating it was to effectively stuff a sock into the mouth of everyone who wasn't a slavish co-adherent. Discussion and debate, when conducted in a rational and polite (above all fair and polite) manner, and drawing on well-conceived, researched and presented ideas can help an idea or process develop immeasurably or take new and progressive directions in ways that a small group of yes-men just can't. Besides, lively debate is one of the cornerstones of Western society that helped launch the scientific method as we know it, on its way.
I can only hope that somewhere in the Graves of Academia, and the Hallowed Halls of the much battered modern media, there may still be some old dinosaurs with some strength left who can stick a claw in, snarl a little, and recall everyone to their senses.
And John, if I could get my PayPal account to work properly, I'd definitely send along the few cents I could afford to right now - as a longtime fashion-history enthusiast, I've used the fashions of those times to illustrate those exact events in (relatively) recent time, and everyone just looks at me as if I'm nuts... ;)
Posted by Katje at October 9, 2006 04:23 PM
Thus far the muzzling of free speech has been nothing more than ridicule and dark threats. I would like to disregard that and say "Yeah, but real censorship will never happen," but I'm not sure what positive evidence I would base that on.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at October 9, 2006 05:20 PM
