Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Climate Alarmists: Prosecute Skeptics As If They Were Gangsters

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

“A Disgrace to the Profession”: The World’s Scientists on Michael E Mann, his Hockey Stick and their Damage to Science
by Mark Steyn
Defend Free Speech
September 18, 2015

One of the most malodorous and disreputable aspects of American jurisprudence is the way laws intended to have very narrow application metastasize to target almost anyone the government is minded to stick it to. Thus, the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act – RICO – which, as its name suggests, was originally aimed at racketeers, but by 2007 was being deployed against, for example, my old boss Conrad Black. US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald decided to deploy RICO against Canadian newspaper publishers he’d taken a dislike to because he could. That’s how federal law works.

Why shouldn’t others get a piece of the action? Frustrated at the failure of global-warming alarmism to shift an apathetic public, Big Climate could do several things. Most obviously, they could resume public debate with those who disagree with them, win the argument and thereby persuade the people – which is how change is effected in self-governing societies.
Instead, twenty of them have written to the President to demand that the most powerful government on earth use the RICO laws to prosecute climate “skeptics” and “deniers”. Instead of winning the debate, it’s easier to criminalize it.

Just for the record, here are the 20 climate scientists eager to jail those who disagree with them:

Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL
Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX
Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY
Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT

On that last name, I wasn’t aware that Pittsford boasted any world-class scientific institutions, but it is apparently home to “Vermont’s leading climate scientist”.

I’ve put all the signatories here so I can find them in one convenient place when I come to write a sequel to my new bookcalled Twenty More Disgraces to the Profession. Judith Curry quotes Peter Webster, who wrote to one of the above named thus:

You have signed the death warrant for science.

Granted (as I know from my trial preparation of the last three years) that scientists can be a little unworldly, there is still no excuse for any of them not knowing perfectly well the appalling implications of what they were signing. It is a euphemism to call them, as Dr Curry does, “advocates” – because the intolerant totalitarian nature of what they want makes plain that they are dissatisfied with mere “advocating” and would rather advance to demanding and ordering, and with the full power of the state behind them.
On page xii of the introduction to my new book, I write:

“Mann is suing me for defamation. I’d like to win that case – because losing it would be the worst setback for free speech in America in the half-century since New York Times vs Sullivan.”

But as important a goal for me is lifting the climate of fear that Mann and his fellow enforcers have imposed on a critical field of science and in the broader sphere of public policy. The ugly retaliation that the climate mullahs use against anyone who steps out of line – as we’ll see later in the hockey-sticking of distinguished Swedish scientist Lennart Bengtsson – ought to appall any real man of science. You shouldn’t have to be a Nobel Laureate like Ivar Giaever or as well-connected as Michael Liebreich to be able to speak out without suffering bloody reprisals. So I’d like to end the protection racket of the Clime Syndicate and put them out of the intimidation business.
That’s why I wrote the book, that’s why I’m sticking with this Mann vs Steyn case all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. The 20 additional disgraces to the profession above have, alas, made it clear that they’re not going to change their ways. And so climatology’s embrace of Lynsenkoism – science subordinate to ideology – grows ever more shameless.

Comments
FYI : Profit or prophetHeartlander
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
Statist proposal? I think you are bringing your own (US-specific) political baggage into this. All I meant was the idea of prosecuting a person of corporation for conspiring to mislead the public for their own advantage seemed reasonable to me.wd400
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
So if one of the details of a ridiculous statist proposal is unimportant, why expose yourself such as you did by even mentioning it. It appears you are deadly confident in your black and white abilities to determine who gets your discipline by force for exercising their natural rights. Oh and the American Petroleum Institute is another one of those nonprofits.groovamos
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
You certainly honed in on the most important detail here, groovamos...wd400
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
WD400: Actively misleading the public to make a profit is quite a different thing So then it will be up to you would-be gestapo to prove that in a particular year in which offending speech is perceived by an entity, that the particular entity was actually making a profit instead of incurring/minimizing loss. Or whether profit is even in the business model. Or indeed interpret for the rest of us unimportant ones what is actually considered "profit". I love how leftists think that all businesses make "profit". In their brilliance they seem to not realize that not only are many organizations, incorporated or not, nonprofit (e.g. Liberty Mutual), companies can and do incur losses. It's called the profit/loss model but nobody should think modesty will follow ignorance in these people But our society apparently needs people like WD400 to decide for what reasons any organization exists, independently of what they themselves think, and then apply the answer to a decision to use government coercion against them for their speech. And give the Sierra Club (a corporation) a pass of course.groovamos
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
IT is another brick in the wall against free men, seeking truth, with contract for free speech in North America. How dare they tell us to be silent or that we are wrong, or right, vased on their conclusions!! They mean silene opposition to thier important conclusions and so lead the people to a common conclusion IF important opposition is silenced. They did it before on earth and here we go again. So be it . There is SUCH a war against our rights that I welcome this battle. They want moral/judicial/intellectual war then let them have war to a full measure. Its our turn to fight the bad/dumb/evil folks in mankind. There is no human global warming cause. Its just upper class people wantibng a better cleaner future world. Its a myth If I may say so. Scratch that. I may say so and insist I may.Robert Byers
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
22 Heartlander September 21, 2015 at 2:56 pm Who decides the “falsehoods that would cause harm”?
Big Brother. -- Orwell, 1984 .cantor
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
Starbuck@10 Anyone who aims to convince others of falsehoods that would cause harm (climate change denial, anti-vaccine nonsense) should be highly penalized, even jailed. Who decides the “falsehoods that would cause harm”? Richard Dawkins?, North Korea?, China?, ISIS?, extreme environmentalists ?, science?...Heartlander
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
"Actively misleading the public to make a profit is quite a different thing and (my ignorance of US law aside) it might well be reasonable for people and corporations to be prosecuted for that." What about misleading the public for command and control purposes, like official agencies often do? Andrewasauber
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
Starbucks:
Anyone who aims to convince others of falsehoods that would cause harm (climate change denial, anti-vaccine nonsense) should be highly penalized , even jailed.
Anyone who lies to the whole world about the climate and about the origin of life on earth should be tarred and feathered and paraded around for all to see.Mapou
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
If we were to start jailing people for scientific fraud, leading neo-Darwinists should be at the head of the line.bornagain77
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
Hold on, isn't it the atheists position that there is no real purpose/meaning to life and that we should put full trust in the blind-watchmaker as the alpha and omega, yet we must be worried about global warming and its impact on earth and human civilization?computerist
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
. Here's a list of just a few of the men and women Starbucks would have thrown into the dungeon: Barry Marshall and Robin Warren Ludwig Boltzmann Georg Cantor Luis Alvarez Alfred Wegener Dan Shechtman Barbara McClintock Lynn Margulis .cantor
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
In fact, in so far as the Darwinian meta-narrative has influenced medical diagnostics, it has led to much medical malpractice in the past:
Evolution's "vestigial organ" argument debunked Excerpt: "The appendix, like the once 'vestigial' tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body's immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary 'left over,' many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice" (David Menton, Ph.D., "The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution," St. Louis MetroVoice , January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1). "Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery" (J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How it Works, 1975, p. 137). The tailbone, properly known as the coccyx, is another supposed example of a vestigial structure that has been found to have a valuable function—especially regarding the ability to sit comfortably. Many people who have had this bone removed have great difficulty sitting. http://www.ucg.org/science/god-science-and-bible-evolutions-vestigial-organ-argument-debunked/
In fact besides medical malpractice, Darwinian evolution, with its false predictions, such as 'junk DNA, has a long history of sending all of biological science down blind alleys instead of fostering medical breakthroughs:
Why investigate evolution’s false predictions? Excerpt: The predictions examined in this paper were selected according to several criteria. They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of evolutionary thought. They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints. Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated. They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not controversial or in question. And finally the predictions have implications for evolution’s (in)capacity to explain phenomena, as discussed in the conclusions. https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/why-investigate-evolution-s-false-predictions
Of supplemental note to atheists always bringing up the chestnut of vaccination to pretend they are 'scientific' and all Christians aren't since a few Christians (and even non-Christians) take exception to them, if atheists were truly concerned with maintaining a healthy society then they should be first and foremost to renounce their atheism since atheism is shown to be very unhealthy for individuals and for society as a whole:
Atheism and health A meta-analysis of all studies, both published and unpublished, relating to religious involvement and longevity was carried out in 2000. Forty-two studies were included, involving some 126,000 subjects. Active religious involvement increased the chance of living longer by some 29%, and participation in public religious practices, such as church attendance, increased the chance of living longer by 43%.[4][5] http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_health “The ultimate irony is that this philosophy implies that Darwinism itself is just another meme, competing in the infectivity sweepstakes by attaching itself to that seductive word “science.” Dawkins ceaselessly urges us to be rational, but he does so in the name of a philosophy that implies that no such thing as rationality exists because our thoughts are at the mercy of our genes and memes. The proper conclusion is that the Dawkins poor brain has been infected by the Darwin meme, a virus of the mind if ever there was one, and we wonder if he will ever be able to find the cure.” ~ Phillip Johnson
The unmitigated horror visited upon man, by state sponsored atheism, would be hard to exaggerate,,, Here's what happens when Atheists/evolutionists/non-Christians take control of Government:
“169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide] I BACKGROUND 2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide] 3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS 4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State 5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill 6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State 7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS 8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military 9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State 10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges 11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State 12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing 13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State 14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS 15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea 16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico 17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia” This is, in reality, probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows how many undocumented murders there were. It also doesn’t count all the millions of abortions from around the world. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
Verse and Music:
Matthew 7:18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Chris Tomlin - At The Cross (Love Ran Red Acoustic Sessions) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORyXT2ZRwUE
bornagain77
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
"What does climate science have to do with vaccination?" Indeed, what does vaccination have to do with materialistic, i.e. Darwinian, thought in the first place? Louis Pasteur, renowned for his discoveries of the principles of vaccination, thought materialistic philosophers to be foolish.
Louis Pasteur (December 27, 1822 – September 28, 1895) was a French chemist and microbiologist renowned for his discoveries of the principles of vaccination, microbial fermentation and pasteurization. He is remembered for his remarkable breakthroughs in the causes and preventions of diseases, and his discoveries have saved countless lives ever since. per wikipedia Louis Pasteur on life, matter, and spontaneous generation - June 21, 2015 "Science brings men nearer to God.,, Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory.,, The Greeks understood the mysterious power of the below things. They are the ones who gave us one of the most beautiful words in our language, the word enthusiasm: a God within.,,, I have been looking for spontaneous generation for twenty years without discovering it. No, I do not judge it impossible. But what allows you to make it the origin of life? You place matter before life and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity. How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists to consider that life has existed during eternity, and not matter? You pass from matter to life because your intelligence of today cannot conceive things otherwise. How do you know that in ten thousand years, one will not consider it more likely that matter has emerged from life? You move from matter to life because your current intelligence, so limited compared to what will be the future intelligence of the naturalist, tells you that things cannot be understand otherwise. If you want to be among the scientific minds, what only counts is that you will have to get rid of a priori reasoning and ideas, and you will have to do necessary deductions not giving more confidence than we should to deductions from wild speculation." [en francais, Pasteur et la philosophie, Patrice Pinet, Editions L’Harmattan, p. 63.]
Edward Jenner, who, like Pasteur, was a devout Christian, and who also was instrumental in the smallpox vaccination, was an English physician who was a champion of vaccination in spite of 'fierce opposition and in the teeth of threats against himself.'
"The most famous champion of vaccination was a Christian doctor, *Edward Jenner* who did his work against fierce opposition and in the teeth of threats against himself. In effect he wiped out smallpox from among the diseases that terrify mankind. He died from a cold caught carrying firewood to an impoverished woman." http://www.rae.org/pdf/influsci.pdf
As to polio and measles, John Enders, "The Father of Modern Vaccines", stated that "There must be a mind behind it all."
John Enders, MD Death Bed: "On a September evening at their water front home in Connecticut, in 1985, Enders was reading T.S. Eliot aloud to his wife, Carolyn. He finished and went to bed, then quietly died. He was eighty-eight. At his memorial service his friend, the Bishop F.C. Laurence, said, "John Enders never lost his sense of wonder - wonder at the great mystery that exists and surrounds all of God's creation. This awareness is what gave him his wide vision and open mindedness, his continued interest in all things new, his ability to listen, his humility in the presence of this great mystery, and his never-ending search for the truth." His widow said that John briefly revealed his heart when he told her, concerning how creation ran, "There must be a mind behind it all." http://www.scienceheroes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69&Itemid=117 of note: T.S. Eliot’s extraordinary journey of faith http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/10/12/2972229.htm
The same with antibiotics. Antibiotics pioneer Ernst Chain said he “would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation” as Darwinism
Ernst Chain: Antibiotics Pioneer Excerpt: In 1938, Chain stumbled across Alexander Fleming’s 1929 paper on penicillin in the British Journal of Experimental Pathology, which he brought to the attention of his colleague Florey.7 During their research, Chain isolated and purified penicillin. It was largely this work that earned him his numerous honors and awards, including a fellow of the Royal Society and numerous honorary degrees,8 the Pasteur Medal, the Paul Ehrlich Centenary Prize, the Berzelius Medal, and a knighthood.9,,, Chain concluded that he “would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation” as Darwinism.,,, Chain made it very clear what he believed about the Creator and our relationship to Him. He wrote that scientists “looking for ultimate guidance in questions of moral responsibility” would do well to “turn, or return, to the fundamental and lasting values of the code of ethical behaviour forming part of the divine message which man was uniquely privileged to receive through the intermediation of a few chosen individuals.”19 http://www.icr.org/article/ernst-chain-antibiotics-pioneer/
Philip Skell was equally scathing of Darwinian evolution
"Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.,,, Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.discovery.org/a/2816
In fact, it is by recognizing the limits of what unguided material processes can do, (recognizing that there are in fact strict limits to what Darwinian processes can do), that the most promising avenues of medical research into new drugs that combat disease are now being found:
Guide of the Perplexed: A Quick Reprise of The Edge of Evolution - Michael Behe - August 20, 2014 Excerpt: If there were a second drug with the efficacy of chloroquine which had always been administered in combination with it (but worked by a different mechanism), resistance to the combination would be expected to arise with a frequency in the neighborhood of 1 in 10^40 -- a medical triumph. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/guide_of_the_pe089161.html
The multiple drug cocktail that has been so effective in controlling HIV uses much the same strategy of being beyond the 'edge of evolution' that Dr. Behe elucidated in the preceding article:
When taking any single drug, it is fairly likely that some mutant virus in the patient might happen to be resistant, survive the onslaught, and spawn a resistant lineage. But the probability that the patient hosts a mutant virus that happens to be resistant to several different drugs at the same time is much lower.,,, it "costs" a pest or pathogen to be resistant to a pesticide or drug. If you place resistant and non-resistant organisms in head-to-head competition in the absence of the pesticide or drug, the non-resistant organisms generally win.,,, This therapy has shown early, promising results — it may not eliminate HIV, but it could keep patients' virus loads low for a long time, slowing progression of the disease. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_04
Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor states Darwinian explanations by themselves are 'worthless to medicine'.
Darwinian Medicine and Proximate and Evolutionary Explanations – Michael Egnor – neurosurgeon – June 2011 Excerpt: 4) Evolutionary explanations by themselves are worthless to medicine. All medical treatments are based on detailed proximate explanations. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/darwinian_medicine_and_proxima047701.html
Ferngren states “Darwin’s theory did not make a significant contribution to clinical medicine.”
Limited role of Darwinism in medicine - May 2, 2014 Excerpt: In eight well-written and thoroughly researched chapters, Ferngren takes the reader from ancient times to the Greco-Roman period, early Christianity, into the Middle Ages and the Islamic world, to the early modern period, and on into the 19th and 20th centuries. The roots of Western medicine, we learn, can be found in the transformative effects of Judeo-Christian traditions. But the story told here is also about the eclipse of those traditions. While it is not a book on or about Darwinism, Ferngren states accurately that “Darwin’s theory did not make a significant contribution to clinical medicine.” https://uncommondescent.com/evolutionary-psychology/limited-role-of-darwinism-in-medicine/
bornagain77
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
I don't agree that's what that phrase means, but I don't think anyone should be prosecuted for simply disagreeing with mainstream science. Actively misleading the public to make a profit is quite a different thing and (my ignorance of US law aside) it might well be reasonable for people and corporations to be prosecuted for that.wd400
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
Starbucks "If you disagree with me on the climate change issue you should be put in jail." The fascist impulse at the heart of the progressive agenda rears its ugly head.Barry Arrington
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
wd400 @ 3: I take your point. However, in the context of this discussion the phrase "have knowingly deceived the American people" means "have disagreed with us about the science." Still think they should be persecuted?Barry Arrington
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
Are you serious Andre? Referencing my paper is going to be much easier -- "just google scholar it, you have access".wd400
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
Anyone who aims to convince others of falsehoods that would cause harm (climate change denial, anti-vaccine nonsense) should be highly penalized , even jailed.Starbuck
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Al Gore and these "researchers" he quoted should be the first people to be arrested. On record they said that the ice caps will be gone by 2014. It's on record! Jail them for fraud. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVttichSzFkAndre
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
Why would anyone with access to information ask for a citation?Andre
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
What does climate science have to do with vaccination? Ah, I see. The old tired atheist tactic of creating false associations out of thin air and then claiming victory. This whole thing is just more evidence that atheists, like all religionists, are inherently fascists. They need to be cut down to size.Mapou
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Starbuck -Their is research to suggest these super vaccinations (where they bundle them all into one shot) can cause very adverse affects and need further study
Citation?wd400
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
Starbuck -Their is research to suggest these super vaccinations (where they bundle them all into one shot) can cause very adverse affects and need further study. There are several people who have died, including a 13 year old girl, with the vaccination for an STD that can cause cervical cancer (which of course the government pushed for big pharma on girls that are too young to be even considering sex). Not questioning is not science, and you answered, with same brainless black and white BS we have had to deal with for decades - way to go... I have noticed, like with Planned Parenthood vids, etc. the progressive globalist with no perspective on history, tend NOT to confront any fraud if it is their "team", instead, they try and pick another topic where they also claim some kind of perverted moral ground. You and others like you (your worldview) seem to be black and white, and furthermore, an incredible ability to refuse introspection on ones on self. Their are some studies that suggest that this is biological, tending toward the autistic spectrum, where you can't stand change, and changing a world view, is out of the question, so you shuck and jive through all comments, or just "insert expletive here" and try and assassinate the character of entire groups of very diverse people - that's why we get so incredibly frustrated with your views, they are unyielding to logic, data, introspection, or a middle ground. You shoot the messenger, employ whatever tactic to support a world view, that many times is not even based on knowledge, just part of your "teams" mantra. And worst of all, your world view tend to be one that cuts all of our throats, including your own.Tom Robbins
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
Excellent article by Matt Ridley about what the climate war has done to science: http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/what-the-climate-wars-did-to-science.aspxmike1962
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
I don't know (or to be honest care) enough about US law to know whether such an inquiry is apporopriate. But it's pretty obvious from the letter that these authors aren't attempting to silence genuine "intellectual opponents". Rather, they are talking about "corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people"wd400
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
Absolutely, along with other nutjob reality deniers that think vaccines are bad, for example.Starbuck
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
I am curious if any of the environmentalists who regularly post on this site will denounce these thugs' attempt to have the government prosecute their intellectual opponents as criminals. Will you? If not, your silence will itself speak volumes.Barry Arrington
September 21, 2015
September
09
Sep
21
21
2015
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply