Global Warming Hoax
(POPEYE) We are living in an open air science experiment where people think that skies that look like this are normal. They aren’t. Do some research into what Geoenginnering is. We live in an enclosed bio-dome, what is done in the sky will have a direct effect on your health.
LINKS TO THE ARCHIVE PAGES, LISTEN LIVE PAGE, FACEBOOK & TWITTER
(Susanne Posel) Blueseed is a San Francisco startup corporations that plans to launch a floating city 12 nautical miles off the coast of California.Blueseed will revamp a cruise ship or barge to create the off-shore city. It will sit in international waters and be a metropolis where foreign and American workers can conduct business and theorize new corporations without the pesky need for American work visas.
The sustainable design of the ship will allow for an environmentally-friendly workplace.
Only passports will be needed for businesses to work from the ship. Being situated in international waters means that no taxes will be collected or have to be paid by the corporations involved.
Those living on the ship and working on the mainland will be given temporary or tourist visas through investors, partners and collaborators.
Sitting just across from Silicon Valley, this floating city will allow entrepreneurs to do what they cannot do in the US because of business restrictions.
The ship will showcase all the luxuries of the Elite, including pools, massage parlors, gyms, rock climbing walls and indoor soccer fields as well as trendy food and other aesthetics. Food and supplies will be provided by local merchants and corporations on the West coast.
Employees can use either a ferry or helicopter ride to and from Blueseed to the mainland. With more than 250 corporations wanting to rent space, the cost of a standard cabin is estimated to be $1,600 per month. Start-ups in the US, India, the UK, Australia, Canada and Spain are eager to be part of this endeavor.
Founders of Blueseed are Marty Max, the son of Cuban immigrants, and Dario Mutabdzja are gaining momentum in the corporate world for their idea.
Peter Thiel, founder of PayPal is leading the financial research in supporting this seastead; a self-ruling city on the ocean. Both Max and Mutabdzja have worked for the Seasteading Institute.
Libertarian activist, member of the Bilderberg Group and corporate titan, Peter Thiel has contributed$1.25 million to the floating city project. Political influence in the Libertarian party ends with Thiel who was the biggest campaign contributor to Ron Paul, an influential collaborator who was in secret meetings with Rand Paul just before he publicly endorsed Mitt Romney and in a private conference with Ron Paul 3 days prior to his announcement that he was ending his campaign for US President.
Blueseed is a concept for “new sovereign nations built on oil-rig-type platforms anchored in international waters — free from the regulation, laws, and moral suasion of any landlocked country. . . They’d be small city-states at first, although the aim is to have tens of millions of seasteading residents by 2050.”
Other members of the Libretarian movement are in full support of Theil. The fake revolution established by the ideals cry anti-government sentiment for the ignorant masses while also promoting their self-proclaimed rise to power. Just as any political party controlled by the global Elite, Libretarians have escaped comparison to their socialist peers – the Democrats and Republicans.
Theil, heading the offshore gang of nation-states may reflect the invention of a radical movement toward publicly establishing the global Elite as supreme rule. By rewriting political systems with the advent of floating cities, these independent nations could be allowed to “offer people the opportunity to peacefully test new ideas about how to live together.”
The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) could become the most valid international document with regard to seasteading. LOST binds the US to UN tribunals and international mandates, and these international mandates do not have the best interests of the US in mind. LOST could assist seasteading in becoming legitimate as sovereign nation-states.
The International Tribunal of LOST (ITLOS) which has binding authority over all treaty participants under Annex 8. Although there are many tribunals created within the treaty, one of particular interest is the Special Arbitral Tribunal (SAT). This is defined as a 5 person body with majority rule. Each party to a dispute within SAT chooses 2 representative panelists. The fifth panelist, if both parties cannot agree to who it should be, is decided by the UN Secretary General.
Should seasteading become the norm, LOST would be relevant and applicable regardless of its ratification in the US Congress.
Investing in Facebook when it was a burgeoning startup, Theil understands the power behind Blueseed and is not only financially contributing, but also assisting in gaining more funding for the project.
The Seasteading Institute collaborates ideas for potions for governments as the option of floating cities provides new avenues of living and ultimately controlling the population. Offering business opportunities for venture captiol and startups to invest and participate in seasteading extends real estate markets, economies of countries and creates a new level of diplomacy.
Research into engineering, science and technology would not be constrained by laws and regulations that are imposed on the mainland.
Slated for 2015, the Seasteading Institute expects to have manufactured the first independent city-state guided by inter-nation provisions and not responsible to any established country or sovereignty.
Moving the multi-national corporations offshore and into international water alleviates the jurisdiction of these megaliths from all known and established governments. Perhaps replacing sovereign nations would be the corporate-establishment where the floating city could be socially and technologically influenced and directed by the corporate-industrial complex.
Nation states created by Google, Microsoft or Facebook that owed no answer to the US could create such an over-reaching monster that the necessity of established governments could fall to the way side.
Off-shoots of the Seasteading Institute are forming around the world at technological universities to force the American corporation to remain competitive. Focusing on eco-sustainability and making money, the Seasteading Institute want to take advantage of the ocean as an untapped real estate resource.
Living on the ocean may become a reality in “balancing at the edge of uptopia.”
(TORONTO SUN) Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change.
The implications were extraordinary.
Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory.
Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic.
His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific organizations.
Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement.
Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.
Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.
He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.
Among his observations to the Guardian:
(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.
As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)
(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.
“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”
(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.
As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”
(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”
(INFOWARS) The climate change professor at the center of the scandal over her assertion that global warming skeptics were akin to racists and should be “treated” for having a psychiatric disorder wrote a letter in which she praised Barack Obama for hiring eugenicist John P. Holdren as his chief science advisor, while also urging Obama to ignore public opinion and disregard democracy in favor of enforcing draconian climate change mandates.
Following University of Oregon Professor Kari Norgaard’s presentation of a discussion document at the recent Planet Under Pressure conference, in which she called for global warming skeptics to be viewed as racists who need to be “treated” for mental disorders, every academic establishment associated with her has attempted to memory hole information concerning Norgaard’s biography and her previous work.
As the Watts Up With That blog documents, the University of Oregon has attempted to re-write history Soviet-style by amending the controversial terms used in Norgaard’s paper without so much as an editor’s note.
However, a damning letter written by Norgaard which appears on the Whitman College Magazine website has not yet been erased. In the letter, Norgaard praises Barack Obama for making an “excellent choice” in hiring John P. Holdren, whom she inaccurately describes as a “Nobel Peace Prize winner”.
As we have exhaustively documented, Holdren is an avowed eugenicist who in his 1977 book Ecoscience called for a “planetary regime” to carry out forced abortions and mandatory sterilization procedures, as well as drugging the water supply, in an effort to cull the human surplus.
“Please listen to Holdren and Hansen,” writes Norgaard, referring to prominent NASA global warming alarmist and Al Gore ally Dr. James Hansen, the man who endorsed a book by fellow alarmist Keith Farnish which advocated acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism in blowing up dams and demolishing cities in order to return the planet to the agrarian age.
Norgaard then openly urges Obama to virtually suspend democracy, ignore public sentiment, and enforce climate change mandates by executive fiat.
(JAMES DELINGPOLE) Last week, 5,000 files of private email correspondence among several of the world’s top climate scientists were anonymously leaked onto the Internet. Like the first “climategate” leak of 2009, the latest release shows top scientists in the field fudging data, conspiring to bully and silence opponents, and displaying far less certainty about the reliability of anthropogenic global warming theory in private than they ever admit in public.
The scientists include men like Michael Mann of Penn State University and Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, both of whose reports inform what President Obama has called “the gold standard” of international climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The new release of emails was timed to coincide with the second anniversary of the original climategate leak and with the upcoming United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa. And it has already stirred strong emotions. To Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), for example, the leaker or leakers responsible are attempting to “sabotage the international climate talks” and should be identified and brought “to justice.”
One might sympathize with Mr. Markey’s outrage if, say, the emails were maliciously rewritten or invented. But at least one scientist involved—Mr. Mann—has confirmed that the emails are genuine, as were the first batch released two years ago. So any malfeasance revealed therein ought to be blamed on the scientists who wrote them, rather than on the whistleblower who exposed them.
Consider an email written by Mr. Mann in August 2007. “I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thus far unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests. Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.” Doug Keenan is a skeptic and gadfly of the climate-change establishment. Steve McIntyre is the tenacious Canadian ex-mining engineer whose dogged research helped expose flaws in Mr. Mann’s “hockey stick” graph of global temperatures.
One can understand Mr. Mann’s irritation. His hockey stick, which purported to demonstrate the link between man-made carbon emissions and catastrophic global warming, was the central pillar of the IPCC’s 2001 Third Assessment Report, and it brought him near-legendary status in his community. Naturally he wanted to put Mr. McIntyre in his place.
The sensible way to do so is to prove Mr. McIntyre wrong using facts and evidence and improved data. Instead the email reveals Mr. Mann casting about for a way to smear him. If the case for man-made global warming is really as strong as the so-called consensus claims it is, why do the climategate emails show scientists attempting to stamp out dissenting points of view? Why must they manipulate data, such as Mr. Jones’s infamous effort (revealed in the first batch of climategate emails) to “hide the decline,” deliberately concealing an inconvenient divergence, post-1960, between real-world, observed temperature data and scientists’ preferred proxies derived from analyzing tree rings?
This is the real significance of the climategate emails. They show that major scientists who inform the IPCC can’t be trusted to stick to the science and avoid political activism. This, in turn, has very worrying implications for the major international policy decisions adopted on the basis of their research.
In his introductory notes, he writes: “Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day. Every day nearly 16,000 children die from hunger and related causes. One dollar can save a life. . . . Poverty is a death sentence. Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels. Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline.”
Mr. Delingpole is a contributing editor of the Spectator and author of “Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors” (Publius Books, 2011).
(Herald Sun) In a Sydney hotel on Monday night, Czech President Vaclav Klaus, an economist who fought against communism, was warning of the new threats to our freedom he recognises in the doctrine of global warming.
“I feel threatened now, not by global warming — I don’t see any — (but) by the global warming doctrine, which I consider a new dangerous attempt to control and mastermind my life and our lives, in the name of controlling the climate or temperature.”
“They don’t care about resources or poverty or pollution.
“They hate us, the humans. They consider us dangerous and sinful creatures who must be controlled by them.
“I used to live in a similar world called communism. And I know it led to the worst environmental damage the world has ever experienced.”
(WATTS UP WITH THAT) Personally, I’ve always thought that the key to an advanced and open society was freedom of information. Apparently too much freedom for certain labeled groups of people is going to destroy the planet. Gosh. Australian media really has gone off the edge of the Earth since Gillard took over. Oh in case you haven’t seen it, here’s the leaked Gillard game plan to teach those Australian “deniers” to accept a new carbon tax. Damn that Internet and those meddling kids!
From Jammie Wearing Fool (via Chris Horner) who sums this farce up quite nicely.
Great News: The Internet Will Destroy the Planet
Now how exactly will Al Gore’s masterful invention go about destroying the planet? Why, by giving climate change “deniers” a voice to oppose the environmental wackos.
Broadcaster and Sydney Morning Herald columnist
The planet may not be so lucky. It’s increasingly apparent that the internet may bring about the death of human civilisation, beating out previous contenders such as nuclear holocaust and the election of George W. Bush.
The agents of this planetary death will be the climate-change deniers who, it’s now clear, owe much of their existence to the internet. Would the climate-change deniers be this sure of themselves without the internet?
Somehow I doubt it. They are so damn confident.
They don’t just bury their heads in the sand, they fiercely drive their own heads energetically into the nearest beachfront, their bums defiantly aquiver as they fart their toxic message to the world. How can they be so confident, in the face of so much evidence to the contrary?
It’s the internet, of course, and the way it has given climate-change deniers the perfect forum — one in which groups of quite dim people can swap spurious information, reassuring each other there’s no evidence on the other side, right up to the point they’ve derailed all efforts to save the planet. Call it ”mutually reassured destruction”.
In decades past, the climate-change deniers would have swapped theories in the pub or at a barbecue. But at the barbecue there was always one person willing to put a contrary view, to say: ”There’s another side.” And unless the barbecue was particularly nutty, there was no one handing out gestetnered sheets of dodgy science for people to take home.
The net allows the climate-change deniers to bleat about the scientists and whine about a price on carbon without fear of ever hearing a different voice, right up to the point of planetary collapse. To reformulate T.S. Eliot: ”This is the way the world will end — not with a bang but a whinger.”
On the upside, when it all does end it’ll spare us from reading nonsense like that.
Gosh, those intellectual media types are so smart. Oh wait, I’m a “broadcaster and columnist” too. Hmmm. I thought about leaving a comment on his blog as a courtesy just to let him know that some deniers took notice of what he wrote, but he doesn’t accept comments. Good thing too, the wrong people could get ideas that way.
Maybe we could all send Mr. Glover the The big self parodying “climate change blame” list.
Problem is lately, the “deniers” as we are called, outnumber the “believers” when opinion polls are taken.
UPDATE: Some commenters have questioned whether Mr Glover isn’t simply writing a sarcastic piece. There’s two reasons why I don’t think so:
#1 While it is often difficult to detect sarcasm in writing, there appears to be no hint of it here in this piece that I can detect.
#2 He’s written about his dislike of the Internet and people who use it before, specifically Twitter. In March 2009 he claimed it would be gone in 3 months. Here it still going strong is two years later, more successful than ever.
This quote from that article rather sums up his world view when it comes to technology use by people:
The 1970s were full of innovations that were meant to change the world forever but then retreated to the fringe, providing little more than a safe habitat for nutters.
Reality about Twitter is far different than Mr. Glover’s opinion, see this:
(WASHINGTON POST) The scene: A crowded room at the American Meteorological Society’s 91st Annual Meeting in Seattle last week, where the theme was “communicating weather and climate.” Climate scientists and weather experts from the U.S. and around the world, along with a sizable contingent of communications specialists from various media outlets, government agencies and academic institutions, are listening to a presentation by Kevin Trenberth, a climate researcher who heads up the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo.
Trenberth, whose accent betrays hints of his New Zealand heritage, is delivering a presentation in memory of his friend and colleague, Stephen Schneider, a Stanford University climate scientist who died suddenly last year. Schneider was a passionate advocate of communicating climate science to the public and policymakers.
The question: Will Trenberth refer to those who disagree with the scientific consensus – that human activities are very likely warming the climate system – as “climate deniers,” which he did in an earlier version of his talk, thereby raising an outcry and a fusillade of emails from the climate skeptic blogosphere?
The answer: Yes, he most certainly will.
Perhaps it’s just human nature to dig in your heels when under attack for holding a particular viewpoint, or maybe Trenberth really believes that it’s useful to use the term “denier” when discussing certain people who disagree with him. Whatever the reason or reasons, Trenberth does indeed show a slide entitled “The Deniers” during his wide-ranging talk, which touches upon the changing nature of extreme weather and climate events in a warming climate.
Defending his use of a term that many climate change skeptics say they find offensive due to its association with those who deny the Holocaust, Trenberth defiantly tells the audience: “My reaction to some of them is, ‘well, if the shoe fits, wear it.'”
Trenberth continues, “Indeed they are deniers. They deny rather basic information about climate science.” Without going into specifics, he says he does distinguish between “climate skeptics” and “climate deniers.”
Trenberth notes that, leading up to the AMS meeting, he received hundreds of angry, and occasionally even threatening emails regarding his presentation. These emails arrived in his inbox after two popular climate skeptic websites – Climate Depot, which is the climate skeptic equivalent of the Drudge Report, and Watts Up With That – harshly criticized him for his use of the term (among other things).
Both sites published his email address and encouraged readers to contact him regarding the upcoming presentation.
The Background: The Trenberth dustup is only the latest skirmish in an increasingly heated climate of confrontation between mainstream climate scientists and climate skeptics. Ever since the so-called “climategate” emails in 2009, the intensity of the climate debate has reached new levels, with climate scientists receiving not only insulting emails, but even threats of bodily harm, with some threats referred to the FBI.
Climate researchers have found their work under attack by skeptic bloggers who, unlike them, do not need to be published in peer reviewed scientific journals in order to have their work taken seriously by their readers and the media. Drawing large audiences, these bloggers wield significant influence, and the rhetoric they use can be alarming, particularly in light of the national conversation on civility in public affairs spawned in the wake of the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) earlier this month in Tuscon. In general, there is a strong undercurrent of conspiracy theory present on many climate skeptic blogs, which tend to portray climate scientists as cooking the books to prove that manmade climate change is occurring, in order to justify certain government policies or obtain more research funding.
Blogs like Watts Up With That (known in climate circles as WUWT), which is run by former TV meteorologist Anthony Watts, helped propel the climategate story onto front pages in late 2009 and early 2010.
A brief search of the comments section below one WUWT post regarding Trenberth’s AMS presentation turned up several comments that raise some concerns – a couple of them border on making direct threats of physical violence against Trenberth.
For example, reader John Kehr wrote in to say, “Trenberth is a bad guy. No one should be surprised by anything that this consummate liar does or says. He keeps digging the hole deeper and deeper. He will be buried when it all collapses. I look forward to that day.”
Trenberth laments the hate-filled emails directed his way, but says they aren’t going to change the focus of his climate research. “There are some threats and obvious attempts to bully me into various actions, most don’t work. But some do have side effects. Mostly I recognize that this is ‘politics’ and is not me personally – although it has been getting a lot more personal with some name calling and abuse,” he says.
No climate researcher has more experience dealing with harsh criticism and threats than Ben Santer, a climate researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. Santer was a lead author of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Second Assessment Report in 1995, which concluded for the first time that human activities were having a “discernible influence on the climate system.” Several years ago, he experienced an alarming incident at his home.
“In my case someone did cross the line between email threats and actually doing something,” he says. Santer says someone knocked on his door late one evening, and when he answered it, there was a dead rat on his doorstep, with “some fellow driving off at high speed in a yellow hummer shouting curses at me.” The experience was jarring, and left Santer convinced that he and his loved ones are at risk of violence and intimidation due to his climate science work.
Like Trenberth, Santer has been on the receiving end of more recent criticisms from Morano’s Climate Depot website. “[Morano] attacked me in a very unjust way on his website and posted my email address, and in my view such behavior is basically an incitement to hatred,” Santer says.
“Those [emails] are of concern,” Santer says, “particularly when you have loved ones and it’s clear that some of these people out there are not very rational.”
Santer points to Morano’s work as a major source of worry. “If something were to happen I would hold people like Mr. Morano personally responsible.” As a general practice, Morano prominently posts the email addresses of those he takes issue with, as if to incite the masses into writing hate mail. He even copies his opponents on blast emails he sends out criticizing them, as if to taunt and intimidate them.
“There is this incredible asymmetry here in what is occurring,” Santer notes. “[Climate scientists] are being subject to really intolerable nonscientific interference in their work simply because of what they’re doing and what they’ve learned.”
“If you do certain research and come up with results unpalatable to these forces of unreason they are sending the message that they will come down on you like a ton of bricks,” Santer says.
Morano, for his part, says his criticisms of mainstream climate scientists are within bounds.
“I am amused about how the insane actions of a lone nut gunman in Arizona is generating so much flowery pabulum from many quarters about the sudden need to tone down language,” Morano told me in an email message. “When climate con men like Michael Oppenheimer, James Hansen, Ben Santer, Michael Mann, Paul Ehrlich and Kevin Trenberth squelch debate and use the media to promote their insular views on climate, responding in toned down language should not be a top concern. We have scientists claiming the ‘debate is over’ and actively promoting regulations on every aspect of our lives to fight the phantom menace of man-made global warming. Public outcry against these scientists and their tactics is a very healthy and welcome development.”
Watts, who, unlike Morano, has a background in atmospheric science and writes long and detailed posts discussing various climate science concepts or debunking certain climate science studies, defends his work as well. In an email conversation, he noted several times that Trenberth had ample opportunities to alter his AMS presentation and take out the term “denier,” but he chose not to.
“I did ask Dr. Trenberth, who is at the top of the climate food chain, to stop using a derisive term. He clearly refused. I also sent him an email offering my forum for rebuttal should he wish. No answer. This speaks poorly for his leadership, it speaks equally poorly for the rest of the climate science community that they haven’t asked for him to publicly stop using a term,” Watts wrote. “In the climate science debate, the scientists are the leaders, yet they have embraced this word, ‘denier’ with all of its holocaust connotations. Dr. Trenberth’s AMS address using that word six times is the pinnacle of abuse of that word so far.”
Aside from the small, but very real, possibility that someone will cross the line and physically harm a climate scientist, excessive criticism of mainstream climate scientists may also have other detrimental impacts by jeopardizing scientific recruitment and research funding.
As Trenberth says: “The side effects come from when I submit a proposal and it has multiple anonymous reviews that are polarized with several excellents and very goods and then 2 poors. There are several emails to me about people working to make sure I can’t get funding and to go back to New Zealand. The funding issue is a delicate one because it means that my organization, NCAR, may be reluctant to step up and defend scientists if they feel it will jeopardize funding from NSF [the National Science Foundation] or elsewhere to the whole organization.”
Of course, the skeptics aren’t the only ones who are crossing, or at least blurring, the line. Blogs like Climate Progress harshly criticize the skeptics, using over-the-top language. For example, in criticizing AccuWeather meteorologist Joe Bastardi, Climate Progress’s Joe Romm called him, “probably the worst professional long-range forecaster on Earth” noting that this judgement was “based purely on the objective evidence.”
Simply put, the rhetoric on all sides has been out of hand for far too long, and it needs to be reined in, not only to avoid something horrific – a climate science equivalent to the Arizona shootings – but also because of the damage it’s doing to the public dialogue on climate change. At the end of the day, when climate scientists are fearful of engaging with the media or the public, it’s the American public that loses out on potentially critical insights into what is happening to the climate system and what would best be done about it.
As Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences, explained to a House committee last year: “I worry about this type of intimidation,” particularly concerning its potential to stifle recruitment of talented scientists. “An atmosphere of civility and of encouraging scientists to seek the truth and to share their findings is always needed.”
Fortunately, there are some efforts springing up to foster a more civil dialogue on climate science, as exemplified by a recent conference in Lisbon, Portugal, which may be the start of an ongoing effort towards nonviolent conflict resolution in the climate arena.