An interesting title, a post on ‘The FEDERALIST’ category “Global Warming“.
For me, this adds another opportunity to “beat my head against a brick wall”, as a friend highlighted and something of which I am constantly aware. “Brick wall” it certainly is, as is shown in this article.
Not a material barrier but one of enormous substance nevertheless.
Its main elements are political motivation; virtually unlimited funding; professional academics prepared to depart from honest scientific principles, or unbelievably unable to understand that they have departed from them; media, both scientific and mainstream, with very few exceptions, deliberately refraining from what should include a healthy proportion of investigative journalism, or even balanced reporting, an essential component of the responsibility of a public information source. Probably true to add the failure of the general public to be critical in their absorbing of information and trusting the newspapers and governments who themselves are naive at very best, or corrupt at worst.
Unfortunately, part of this mix includes unscrupulous behaviour, a distinct absence of ethics and, in too many cases, downright lies.
In case the reader is inclined to a conclusion that these opinions are the product of a raving activist, it needs to be pointed out that there exists a wealth of knowledge and evidence from a great many completely balanced, unbiased and highly educated scientists, some belonging to sound technical organizations, some individuals simply seeking honesty and justice, and a long list of internet blog sites that openly provide scientific proofs and/or hypotheses that genuinely contest much of the claimed science of the IPCC group and its followers.
The leading blog site would have to be WUWT, with their 33,000+ followers and 250,000,000 views and endless supply of meaningful information.
On my blog alone, many internet links are listed. Hundreds of posts, searchable by “AGW”, “climate change” or “global warming”, and pages in the drop-down menu header “AGW”, shows the amount of reading and research that supports the formation of my beliefs and enthusiasm for promoting a factual and unbiassed critique of the official “climate change” debacle.
Arriving at the title subject, [at last, 🙂 ], the justification for claiming the existence of an ‘inquisition’. (In its strongest meaning according to https://www.google.com.au/search?q=inquisition+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=4wlEVvH9AsWOmwXGy5jADg,
“an ecclesiastical tribunal established by Pope Gregory IX circa 1232 for the suppression of heresy. It was active chiefly in northern Italy and southern France, becoming notorious for the use of torture. In 1542 the papal Inquisition was revived to combat Protestantism, eventually becoming an organ of papal government.”)
we see here the first part, “suppression of heresy” in action with the CAGW warmists branding anybody who questions their “science” and conclusions as heretics. Hopefully the “torture” stage will never be seen but coercion in the form of finance and job security does, and as in this case, some extremists propose legal action and punishment of so-called “deniers”. (BTW, another ridiculous use of a word, along with “climate change”, a term referring to an absolutely normal global phenomena, being corrupted to mean “catastrophic man-made climate influence”. Another pathetic, unsupportable claim introduced by desperate people).
New York’s attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, has started an investigation of Exxon Mobil “to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how such risks might hurt the oil business.” According to The New York Times, its sources “said the inquiry would include a period of at least a decade during which Exxon Mobil funded outside groups that sought to undermine climate science.” See what they did there? To have a different view of climate science is to “undermine” it because there is no scientific study of the climate except that which they agree with.
We should start with the observation that Exxon could not possibly have “lied” about climate change, even if it intended to, because first there would have to be a proven truth on the subject. If the company later contradicted warnings about global warming issued by scientists it funded in the 1980s, that would be justified by the fact that those warnings were almost certainly wrong. The arguments for global warming have been undercut — not by anything Exxon did — but by what the earth didn’t do. It didn’t keep warming, with global temperatures leveling off for the past 15 to 20 years. Global temperatures are now trending at or below the lowest, least dire predictions of warming.
But this isn’t really about the science, is it? To make it clear that this is entirely a political witch hunt, the Times explains that “the company published extensive research over decades that largely lined up with mainstream climatology. Thus, any potential fraud prosecution might depend on exactly how big a role company executives can be shown to have played in directing campaigns of climate denial, usually by libertarian-leaning political groups.”
A Bloomberg analysis describes the “weird theory” needed to transform this into a case of securities fraud but gets down to the nub of why Schneiderman is pursuing that theory: to evade the First Amendment. “[S]ecurities fraud is perhaps the least protected speech of all. Securities law fits notoriously uncomfortably with the First Amendment; the Securities and Exchange Commission forbids even truthful speech by companies in many situations.”
So there you go. This is about suppressing political speech by using the threat of government prosecution to intimidate corporations into withdrawing funding from pro-free-market advocates.
This is part of the whole “consensus” scam that is central to global warming hysteria. The idea is to make it impossible for scientists who are skeptical of global warming to receive any funding or get published in peer-reviewed journals — and then declare that, lo and behold, there are no published scientists who are skeptical about global warming! The idea is to proclaim a spontaneous “consensus” that you created by excluding anyone who disagrees with you.
The complete article is linked here.
I wonder how readers react to realizing that we live in a civilization, (by the way, nowadays a misnomer as any civility from our authoritarian leaders is often difficult to discern), that resorts to legal force to pursue a program seriously threatening peoples welfare and well-being, which is based on false premises.
Certainly, it is necessary to sensibly phase out the burning of fossil fuels for cheap energy generation, because they are not renewable ( a genuine consensus), but when the method becomes a tool for financial and political control, it is time to wake up to the reality of this purely politically motivated agenda.