academic freedom Climate change Culture Intelligent Design

Plan to prosecute climate change skeptics was serious, FOIA dox reveal

Spread the love

Image result for climate change public domain clip art From Kevin Mooney at Daily Signal:

Just before joining climate change activist and former Vice President Al Gore for a press conference in New York City, seven state-level attorneys general huddled with a representative of the Union of Concerned Scientists. The political activist, Peter Frumhoff, called for them and other elected officials to move decisively against major corporations and institutions for “denying” climate change.

The seeds of that call to action in March were planted four years earlier at a gathering of environmental activists, trial lawyers, and academics across the country in San Diego.

The Daily Signal found this and other revealing bits of information among material produced in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed against Virginia’s George Mason University, home to six academics who urged the Obama administration to prosecute individuals and organizations for not agreeing that man has caused climate change. More.

These people do not sound as though they believe that their fellow citizens are capable of making the decisions one would expect of a free society.

Would the same sort of people try jailing ID theorists? My guess (O’Leary for News) is no—because really big money isn’t being made off Darwinism. It’s mostly just academic turf protection now. Readers?

See also: Rubber, meet Road: Climate change, the post-truth society, and going to jail: Some, like Bill Nye, propose treating doubters of government-sponsored statistics on human-caused climate change as criminals. In order to justly depriving others of liberty, one needs moral certainty. But if one lives in a post-truth world, one can never have moral certainty, only the desire for power. And that post-moral desire is precisely what raises so much suspicion in North America about the climate zealots.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

9 Replies to “Plan to prosecute climate change skeptics was serious, FOIA dox reveal

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related note via “The Deplorable Climate Science Blog”

    100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering – December 28, 2016
    http://realclimatescience.com/.....tampering/

    as well:

    “Massively Altered” …German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets By P Gosselin on 20. November 2015
    Excerpt: Ewert painstakingly examined and tabulated the reams of archived data from 1153 stations that go back to 1881 – which NASA has publicly available – data that the UN IPCC uses to base its conclusion that man is heating the Earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. According to Ederer, what Professor Ewert found is “unbelievable”:
    “From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”
    Ederer writes that Ewert particularly found alterations at stations in the Arctic. Professor Ewert randomly selected 120 stations from all over the world and compared the 2010 archived data to the 2012 data and found that they had been tampered to produce warming.
    http://notrickszone.com/2015/1.....y-altered/

    Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI

    podcast – In no ordinary presentation, Dr. Easterbrook (Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University) bombards the committee with an overwhelming arsenal of data and observations contrary to the theory of anthropogenic global warming. As the Internet jargon goes, this is a “must listen.”
    http://themindrenewed.com/episodes/268-ep007

  2. 2
    Dean_from_Ohio says:

    David Horowitz famously said, “Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out.”

    Progressives are willing to crush and kill others because of who they are. They are idol worshippers, and idolatry always ends, eventually, in a culture of death. They love abortion and euthanasia, so don’t assume they would hesitate for a second to kill you or me. If you’re a Progressive, it’s what you do.

    Progressivism poisons everything.

  3. 3
    News says:

    Dean_from-_Ohio at 2: We haven’t heard about violence but it’s always a risk when fanaticisms spin out of control. However, if the climatistas don’t have the reins of power for a few years, it’ll be easier to assess their claims safely.

  4. 4
    john_a_designer says:

    [Last week] “the D.C Court of Appeals issued its decision in Michael Mann’s defamation case against us and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The court dismissed Mann’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and also dismissed his claims based on an open letter written by our editor-in-chief Rich Lowry taking Dr. Mann to task for threatening to file this bullying lawsuit in the first place. At the same time, the court refused to dismiss the defamation claims against NR and CEI based on blog posts by Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg respectively criticizing Mann’s infamous “hockey stick” graph, which is widely touted as providing lead-pipe cinch scientific proof of man-made global warming.”

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/.....review-cei

    Even though Mann was not asking the court to bring criminal charges, his lawsuit could have a chilling effect on those who express skepticism about man caused global warming or “climate change.”

  5. 5
    bb says:

    Liberals don’t care what you do so long as it’s compulsory.

    -William F. Buckley

    I don’t like the old term “liberal” that is still used for progressives because, other than wanton sex, drugs and murdering children, they really aren’t. But we all know who Buckley was talking about. That said:

    Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.

    -William F. Buckley

  6. 6
    john_a_designer says:

    Here is a must see lecture by climate scientist John Christy, the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvO7bBuTRno&t=2452s

    In the science section of his lecture (he also covers the political and moral aspects of the issue) he makes the following points:

    First, the unreliability of forecasting models. Are our current models falsifiable? One of the things he cites are Jim Hansen’s climate predictions from 1988. Predictions which did not come even close to matching what has really happened since then in the climate. (IOW Hansen’s predictions have been falsified.) How can we make national/international policy off such forecasts?

    Second, none of the metrics we can use for measuring any of the effects of climate change: temperature, snow, sea ice, hurricanes, tornados or droughts have shown any kind of significant trend. In some cases like the recent hurricane drought (2006-2016) in the U.S. they have shown a short term trend the opposite of what the alarmists had been warning.

    He then goes on in the political section to demonstrate that even if we were to assume the climate models were accurate (which they are not) none of the policies currently being proposed would do anything to mitigate the effects of climate change. In other words, even if mankind were the cause there is little to nothing he can do to undo the damage. The only effect would be to create more poverty.

    It is because of hard data like this that I as a layman am skeptical about AGW. If you believe that man is causing global warming then that is all you are doing, believing. The science is not on your side.

  7. 7
    asauber says:

    none of the policies currently being proposed would do anything to mitigate the effects of climate change

    JAD,

    Thank you for your comment 6. The above quote is true because climate is a statistical fiction. You do all the statistical studies you want, but given current information (and lack of information) about the weather system and it’s history, you’re drawing squiggly lines with a blindfold on and calling it climate. You couldn’t possibly change it in real terms, because it doesn’t really exist other than in people’s imaginations.

    Andrew

  8. 8
    asauber says:

    Example:

    You can plot a rising temperature trend for a certain time period, but have you changed the climate? Has the weather system been changed?

    Climate science does not have have a definitive answer to the first question and no clue whatsoever about the second.

    Andrew

  9. 9
    john_a_designer says:

    In my opinion the whole climate debate all boils to one key issue: How good or how predictive are the current climate models? An objective analysis comparing what was predicted by models, beginning with Hansen in the 1988 and the IPCC in the 90’s, vs. what has actually happened is that the models have not very accurate (and that is being very kind.) The AGW alarmists have no argument because you cannot refute (pardon the pun) cold hard data with what might happen. The models so far have all been falsified because what might have happened in the past didn’t happen.

Leave a Reply