Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Progressive Fascists (But I Repeat Myself) Strike Again

arroba Email

This time they have climate scientist Roger Pielke in their sites, and even being proved correct did not save him:

Much to my surprise, I showed up in the WikiLeaks releases before the election. In a 2014 email, a staffer at the Center for American Progress, founded by John Podesta in 2003, took credit for a campaign to have me eliminated as a writer for Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight website. In the email, the editor of the think tank’s climate blog bragged to one of its billionaire donors, Tom Steyer: “I think it’s fair [to] say that, without Climate Progress, Pielke would still be writing on climate change for 538.” . . .

I understand why Mr. Podesta—most recently Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman—wanted to drive me out of the climate-change discussion. When substantively countering an academic’s research proves difficult, other techniques are needed to banish it. . . .

Yet I was right to question the IPCC’s 2007 report, which included a graph purporting to show that disaster costs were rising due to global temperature increases. The graph was later revealed to have been based on invented and inaccurate information, as I documented in my book “The Climate Fix.” The insurance industry scientist Robert-Muir Wood of Risk Management Solutions had smuggled the graph into the IPCC report. He explained in a public debate with me in London in 2010 that he had included the graph and misreferenced it because he expected future research to show a relationship between increasing disaster costs and rising temperatures.

When his research was eventually published in 2008, well after the IPCC report, it concluded the opposite: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and normalized catastrophe losses.” Whoops.

The IPCC never acknowledged the snafu, but subsequent reports got the science right: There is not a strong basis for connecting weather disasters with human-caused climate change. . . .

In August this year on Twitter, I criticized poor reporting on the website Mashable about a supposed coming hurricane apocalypse—including a bad misquote of me in the cartoon role of climate skeptic. (The misquote was later removed.) The publication’s lead science editor, Andrew Freedman, helpfully explained via Twitter that this sort of behavior “is why you’re on many reporters’ ‘do not call’ lists despite your expertise.”

I didn’t know reporters had such lists. But I get it. No one likes being told that he misreported scientific research, especially on climate change. Some believe that connecting extreme weather with greenhouse gases helps to advance the cause of climate policy . . .

I wonder if our progressive friends who comment here will decry these jackbooted, brown-shirted tactics.  Actually, that’s not true.  I don’t wonder at all.  They won’t.




@Barry: I think they have him in their SIGHTS (first sentence of OP). He may well be in their "sites", but that's a whole 'nother thing. ScuzzaMan
If anyone here ever thought that AGW was something other than politics, that anyone should petition their betters and ask for their brain back. Andrew asauber
My comment was directed toward the AGW side which claims to have the evidence on their side yet feels they need to resort to fascist like tactics. Notice that Pielke actually believes that climate change is real and man caused.
I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather. This is a topic I’ve studied and published on as much as anyone over two decades. My conclusion might be wrong, but I think I’ve earned the right to share this research without risk to my career.
Yet it was not toeing the “party line” which led to Pielke being demonized, vilified and marginalized
Instead, my research was under constant attack for years by activists, journalists and politicians. In 2011 writers in the journal Foreign Policy signaled that some accused me of being a “climate-change denier.” I earned the title, the authors explained, by “questioning certain graphs presented in IPCC reports.” That an academic who raised questions about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in an area of his expertise was tarred as a denier reveals the groupthink at work.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic-1480723518 The secular progressive group think that Pielke is talking about is-- more often than not-- arbitrary, incoherent and irrational. It is feeling and power based rather than fact and truth based. You see the same dynamic with political, cultural and ID related issues. john_a_designer
I'm not understanding who john_a is addressing on here. groovamos
john-a-designer at 3: Apocalyptic causes like AGW, the one Pielke collided with, can be blamed on people living their normal lives. Irrespective of evidence, they are very helpful for establishing and maintaining a certain type of politics: They employ a large number of people in the relatively easy job of policing non-criminals, at public expense. They enable taxes and prices to be raised without extra value being provided. They enable persons who murder, steal, cheat, and lie to posture as our virtuous benefactors because those people are - at least - on the right side of the apocalyptic cause, which transvalues all values. Hint: Beware of all apocalyptic causes. News
If you have the so-called evidence on your side and your arguments are convincing and compelling, why do you have to resort to demonizing, vilifying and marginalizing your opponents? Is it maybe because you are hiding the fact your reasoning and arguments are on shaky grounds? john_a_designer
I keep asking for just two numbers that will prove "global warming". The earth's mean temperature over 4 dimensions, time included, over 1 year intervals, for two years, 2014 and 2015. These two numbers would be agreed upon by all scientists worldwide. Then us supposed dumbass "deniers" could see right there that the earth is "warming". Funny thing, I have actually seen the admission by "climate scientists" that the earth doesn't even have a mean temperature over two dimensions (the surface) at one point in time, much less than what I am asking for. So I can ask for eliminating two dimensions from my quest and the numbers still would not exist. So if these two numbers can't even exist in two dimensions, somehow us "deniers" are dumbasses for asking how ANY computer model can predict what can't be measured. And further, the dumbasses question how an entire "science" can have as basis a portfolio of computer programs I'm sure are written by the best programmers among "climate scientists", you know, that great pool of highest experts that know how to harness computers as the core basis for not only a science but also as basis for a political program of coercion and indoctrination worldwide. BTW here is a good video about the political abuse of the "science" showing the testimony of Mark Steyn to a congressional committee: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTM13sI2BFQ And more currently check out the strange, otherworldly conference on "global warming" at Columbia U. recently where even the one climate "scientist" seemed to be hedging all bets: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/12/columbia_universitys_climate_a_visit_to_an_alternate_universe.html groovamos
Barry, they should stop and think? They won't. They can't. They are Darwin's dhimmis and Dawkins' fanboys. If they win, science will just be fascism's public relations. They believe that evolution bred a sense of reality out of us, so presumably we are all stuck with whatever government says reality is, irrespective of evidence. See also: The war on falsifiability in science continues and Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth, and reporting facts adverse to policy can be very difficult. Oh, and we evolved to need coercion, even in how we buy non-alcoholic soda pop. News

Leave a Reply