Up against the Warming Zealots

[mountainclmbr]

Or, ABC  tries to nuke a GW "Denier"

Helmet on... Check.
Flack jacket on...Check.
Protective goggles on....Check.


Ready to jump in fox hole.....Post!



http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22105154-7583,00.html

So I wasn't shocked that the film was attacked on the same night it was broadcast on ABC television last week, although I was impressed at the vehemence of the attack. I was more surprised, and delighted, by the response of the Australian public.

The ABC studio assault, led by Tony Jones, was so vitriolic it appears to have backfired. We have been inundated with messages of support, and the ABC, I am told, has been flooded with complaints. I have been trying to understand why.

First, the ferocity of the attack, I think, revealed the intolerance and defensiveness of the global warming camp. Why were Jones and co expending such energy and resources attacking one documentary? We are told the global warming theory is robust. They say you'd have to be off your chump to disagree. We have been assured for years, in countless news broadcasts and column inches, that it's definitely true. So why bother to stamp so aggressively on the one foolish documentary-maker - who clearly must be as mad as a snake - who steps out of line?

I think viewers may also have wondered (reasonably) why the theory of global warming has not been subjected to this barrage of critical scrutiny by the media. After all, it's the theory of global warming, not my foolish little film, that is turning public and corporate policy on its head.

The apparent unwillingness of Jones and others at the ABC to give airtime to a counterargument, the tactics used to minimise the ostensible damage done by the film, the evident animosity towards those who questioned global warming: all of this served to give viewers a glimpse of what it was like for scientists who dared to disagree with the hallowed doctrine.

Why are the global warmers so zealous? After a year of arguing with people about this, I am convinced that it's because global warming is first and foremost a political theory. It is an expression of a whole middle-class political world view. This view is summed up in the oft-repeated phrase "we consume too much". I have also come to the conclusion that this is code for "they consume too much". People who believe it tend also to think that exotic foreign places are being ruined because vulgar oiks can afford to go there in significant numbers, they hate plastic toys from factories and prefer wooden ones from craftsmen, and so on.

[Sergeant Bob]

It's a religion.

[DustinD]

I know that the supporters seem to take over certain publications and then constantly say that global warming caused this or that over and over again. I guess if people hear it enough times from enough people they will believe it.

[Thor]

I know that the supporters seem to take over certain publications and then constantly say that global warming caused this or that over and over again. I guess if people hear it enough times from enough people they will believe it.

Yep, that's the controlling way...... tell a lie often enough and eventually it will become the truth....

[RocketMan]

It's a religion.

Yep.

[Art Eatman]

"Warming!"   "No, cooling!"  "No, warming!"  "Glock!"  "No, 1911!"  Warming!  Cooling!  AR!  Mini!  Buckshot!  Slug!

Urp.

Have you read that for 100 years, this same argument has been going on?  In the 1890s we were gonna go into an ice age.  Then, just after WW I, it was warming.  In the late '60s/early '70s, it was ice age again.  Now, warming again.

Homo sapiens is more sap than sapient.

Art

[Standing Wolf]

It's a religion.

I'd be more inclined to call it a whacko cult, but sure.

[Vile Nylons]

Locally Eco/GW thing seems to fulfill a religious void, perhaps social one as well, in their lives. They even purchased an abandoned church which they now use for their get-togethers. Over the past few years they have been introducing community cultural events with religiosity underpinnings, like solstice celebrations and such. I wouldn't mind but they've got their moral crusader claws out, hacking at anyone not in tune with their brand of enlightenment.   

[Ben]

Interesting website that could potentially throw the proverbial monkey wrench into much of the warming data:

http://www.surfacestations.org

[Perd Hapley]

Some have commented that environmentalism, in general, is a religion for some.  It has its Garden of Eden ( the pre-industrialized world), its Fall of Man (the Industrial Revolution), its saints and sinners (nuff said), and its own sins.  Of course, you atone for your sins by the good works of recycling, voting for Democrats, driving a golf-cart, preaching against SUVs, etc.  And now they have their own indulgences (carbon credits).


How could I forget?  The Apocalypse is a pretty big doctrine, too. 

[mountainclmbr]

I just wonder how long it will be until debating against the CO2 Greenhouse Effect will be treated as a hate crime.

[Art Eatman]

As near as I can tell, our economy and CO2 output are tied together.  I don't see how you could go back to the Kyoto Accord's 1990 Co2 levels of output without getting into unemployment toward 25%, if not worse.

IMO, any unemployment anywhere near that number would mean the wildest SHTF social unrest on a nationwide basis, not just contained like the Rodney King riots.  I don't think city folks would patiently stand in bread lines.  It would be interesting to see what the soccer moms, et al, would then do.  And it seems to me that the ultra-ultra bunny and tree huggers would be the most vulnerable on a personal level.  "Be careful what you wish for.  You might get it."

Art

[Silver Bullet]

I just wonder how long it will be until debating against the CO2 Greenhouse Effect will be treated as a hate crime.

At first I thought you were being funny; then I thought about it for a few seconds. 

Just a matter of time.  A month ago I was reading where enviro-whackos wanted metereologists or other scientists in the field to be decertified and unemployed if they didn't get in step.  Reminds me of the woman in Ohio who wants the newspapers to print the CCW holders names so that employers can identify them and not employ them.

The Bradys must be very frustrated that they haven't found a way to tie in firearms ownership to global warming.

[MechAg94]

http://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-9954583-9559228?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185390746&sr=8-1

Really good book.  Thomas Sowell recommended it for summer reading a few years ago.

[mountainclmbr]

At first I thought you were being funny; then I thought about it for a few seconds.

I was being quite serious. I was thinking about the comments by The Weather Channel climatologist stating that thoose not on board for GW should lose their certification. Also the trends in Europe for other PC speech codes that seem to forshadow the trends here.

[Gewehr98]

That Weather Channel climatologist, Dr. Heidi Cullen, has become something of a shrill barking moonbat with her insistence that those who disagree with her assessment of catastrophic global warming should have their AMS certification revoked.  I'd bitch-slap her if I got the chance. 

If I wanted to listen to barking moonbat catastrophic, Statue-of-Liberty-getting-washed-away theories, I'd either watch An Inconvenient Truth again or read Nem870's equally fanatical posts on THR.