As Noel Sheppard reported in Newsbusters ”Just when you thought it was safe to turn on an NBC-owned station, the network bombarded citizens with a weeklong manmade global warming propaganda blitzkrieg that’s destined to make Nobel Laureate Al Gore and his Norwegian sycophants smile like a polar bear that’s just bagged a juicy seal. It appears the good folks at NBC didn’t feel they lost enough money—and good will!—pushing this absurd issue down citizens’ throats during July’s failed “Live Earth” concerts.” Note: recall NBC is owned by GE, the major player in Wind Power.
One of the networks amazingly actually offered an alternative view last night. John Stossel the ABS “20/20” co-anchor who along with Glenn Beck are the only courageous and true journalists left went on the attack against “experts” who warn about manmade global warming – along the way berating Al Gore for saying the debate over climate change is over.
The veteran newsman and Newsmax pundit – who won 19 Emmys exposing scammers and con artists – says: “This week on ‘20/20’ (in our new 8 p.m. Eastern time slot) I say ‘Give Me a Break!’ to our Nobel Prize-winning Vice President.
“Mr. Gore says ‘The debate is over,’ and those who disagree with his take on global warming have been ‘purchased’ in order to create ‘the illusion of a debate.’ Nonsense. It’s as if the Vice President and his allies in the environmental movement plan to win the debate through intimidation. I interview some scientists who won’t be intimidated, even though one has had his life threatened for speaking up.
“I suspect that next year’s government boondoggle will be massive spending on carbon-reducing technology. “It reminds me of George Mason University Economics Department Chairman Don Boudreax’s suggestion that such schemes really mean ‘government seizing enormous amounts of additional power in order to embark upon schemes of social engineering - schemes whose pursuit gratifies the abstract fantasies of the theory class and, simultaneously, lines the very real pockets of politically powerful corporations, organizations, and “experts.” “He is so right. The abstract fantasies of the theory class will soon send huge chunks of your money to politicians, friends, activist scientists, and politically savvy corporations.
“The debate is over? That makes me say GIVE ME A BREAK!” See a youtube playback here.
By New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has written to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures. But Dr Gray goes further: calling for IPCC’s abolition.
Dr Gray wrote: Thank you for your latest article containing your analysis of the limitations of the IPCC and your belief that it is possible for it to be reformed. I have been an “Expert Reviewer” for the IPCC right from the start and I have submitted a very large number of comments on their drafts. It has recently been revealed that I submitted 1,898 comments on the Final Draft of the current Report. Over the period I have made an intensive study of the data and procedures used by IPCC contributors throughout their whole study range. I have a large library of reprints, books and comments and have published many comments of my own in published papers, a book, and in my occasional newsletter, the current number being 157.
I began with a belief in scientific ethics, that scientists would answer queries honestly, that scientific argument would take place purely on the basis of facts, logic and established scientific and mathematical principles. Right from the beginning I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.
Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only “reform” I could envisage, would be its abolition. Read more here.
jennifermarohasy.com/blog
We are all aware of a claimed consensus on climate science, although what the consensus actually is and how far it goes has yet to be defined, in my view. That is not the issue raised here. A book authored by Janis, I. L. & Mann, L. (1977) Decision-making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment (New York Free Press), explores the concept of ‘Group Think,’ which shows a remarkable parallel with the way the climate science consensus is operated and protected.
Eight symptoms of Group Think are listed below:
1. Illusion of Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly optimistic.
2. Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking.
3. Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.
4. Excessive Stereotyping: The group constructs negative stereotypes of rivals outside the group.
5. Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group’s stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.
6. Self-Censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments.
7. Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group’s decision; silence is seen as consent.
8. Mind guards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency. Read more here.