| |
|
|
- Please refer to the Forum Rules Amended section for additional rules and modifications.
- This is a moderated forum, all posts will be checked for bad language and composition.
- Before you post in the information section, make sure the information you add is fully accurate.
- All posts within the local and national policy sections must be factually correct and substantively debatable.
- Feel free to be provocative or even politically incorrect, within the rules set.
- No threats, sexual or racist remarks of any nature will be tolerated. Any posts that violate these common sense rules will be removed. Your account may also be suspended after so many violations.
- Creating multiple accounts and pretending to be someone else will result in instant termination of all accounts. We check up on all accounts / IP addresses frequently. You must register and login in order to post within the forums. Your information will not be given out or sold for mailing lists.
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
Gunrights
Posts:666
Senior User
Online Status:
Intergalactic Multi Phase Dementsion
 |
| 08/08/2007 1:12 PM |
|
| |
<form> action="/Email/send_to_friend.asp" method="post" name="EmailForm">
Silencing Dissent
By Walter E. Williams
CNSNews.com Commentary
August 08, 2007
Global warming has become a big-ticket item in the eyes of its supporters. At stake are research funds, jobs and the ability to control lives all over the globe. Most climatologists agree that over the last century, the Earth's average temperature has risen about one degree Celsius.
The controversy centers around the source of the temperature change -- manmade or natural causes. Global warming alarmists hold the view that it's manmade emissions of CO2 that's driving climate change, and they seek to suppress any dissent suggesting other causes.
According to the July 16 Washington Times, Michael T. Eckhart, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), sent a threatening missive to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, which read: "Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."
The Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce and the Department of Energy are all members of ACORE. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, held hearings on the matter. Following the hearings, the senator sent letters to the agencies asking them to "reconsider their membership in ACORE."
Speaking at the American leg of Live Earth: The Concerts for a Climate in Crisis, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the son of the late Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Get rid of all these rotten politicians that we have in Washington, who are nothing more than corporate toadies." Referring to skeptics of manmade global warming, he said, "This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors." Traitors are either shot or imprisoned. I wonder which Robert Kennedy has in mind for the skeptics.
University of Oregon's George Taylor holds the title of state climatologist. Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski wants to take that title from Taylor. The governor said Taylor's skepticism interferes with Oregon's stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases, the accepted cause of global warming in the eyes of a vast majority of scientists.
Earlier this year, the Weather Channel's Dr. Heidi Cullen called for the decertification of weathermen who were skeptical of manmade global warming. Grist Magazine's staff writer David Roberts said that his solution for the "bastards" who were members of what he termed the global warming "denial industry" is, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg."
"Global warming driven by greenhouse gas pollution (but ultimately by greed, racism and lying) is killing our Planet," says an article in Media With Conscience. It goes on to say, "Our Planet, the Earth -- is under acute threat from Climate Criminals threatening the Third World with Climate Genocide and the Biosphere with Terracide (the killing of our Planet)."
Sen. Inhofe maintains a website citing these and other many examples of attacks on skeptics of manmade global warming.
This kind of suppression of different ideas and dissent is simply the tip of a much larger iceberg that has many of its roots on today's college campuses. Suppression of ideas is far more dangerous to our civilization than manmade global warming -- real or imagined. Given the horrible history of brutal attempts to silence people who have different ideas or dissent from the conventional wisdom, those of us in the academic and scientific communities ought to openly repudiate and condemn the efforts to silence global warming skeptics.
This is particularly so in light of the mounting evidence that man-made CO2 emissions have little or nothing to do with climate change.
(Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and a member of the Board of Advisors for the Media Research Center's Business & Media Institute. The views expressed are those of the writer.)
Copyright 2007, Creators Syndicate, Inc.
</form>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 08/08/2007 11:08 PM |
|
None of this is particularly an example of surpression of dissent. The Competitive Enterprise Institute is known for having recieved substantial funds from oil companies in the past. Apparently they also funded a series of ads saying "Carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant! Other people are trying to call it pollution: But we breathe it out, plants breathe it in, and therefore we call it life", which is highly intellectually troubling at best (and a blatantly intentional misrepresentation at worst). Also, they attempted to cite various research published in Science (an academic journal) and the authors later criticised them for intentionally misrepresenting the research. Hence, attacking a senior fellow of this institute for being a liar and bought by corporations may have some merit.
Jim Inhofe is also not a particularly good example of anything. He has, in the past, compared environmentalism to the "Big Lie" and to Nazi Germany. According to Wikipedia (citing CNN and a video of Inhofe on Fox News) he has claimed that the Weather Channel is behind the global warming hoax, and that it is the second-largest hoax ever (after the separation of church and state, which isn't a hoax). Also, quite interestingly, he seems to have recieved a large number of donations from the oil and gas industry in 2004 alone.
He was also apparently "outraged over the outrage" of the Abu Gharib scandal, voted against banning torture, has characterised the Red Cross as being "bleeding heart"...hence, he isn't exactly someone you ought to be citing in your support.
I've already pointed out why Robert Kennedy's criticism is meaningless. I should also point out the irony of your article saying that those who call treason on such trivialities are "silencing dissent", but your article also (at time of writing) contains an ad for Ann Coulter, author of a book called...."Treason"!
If some scientific proposition X is supported by science, and some specific scientist does not support X, it makes sense for that specific scientist to be removed.
"Media With Conscience" is a, as far as I can tell, non-notable left wing website that basically has no bearing on this discussion.
Again, citing Mr. Inhofe isn't exactly supportive of your position at all.
Ultimately, while a lot of people may be somewhat vocal on the subject of global warming, your article doesn't really use valid examples to demonstrate this at all, and is a far ways away from meeting the criteria for showing systematic silencing of dissent. Also, the parting shot at the end, "in light of mountaing evidence that man-made CO2 emissions have little or nothing to do with climate change", is something rejected by most scientists on the matter and probably betrays a bias in the author of this article.
Try again. |
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 08/14/2007 5:50 PM |
|
Just thought I'd post this ad from the Competitive Enterprise Institute:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sGKvDNdJNA |
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|