Dissenting voices must be squashed! That is the Democratic way.
After the news conference, and as diplomats gathered for the climate conference president’s assessment of how close countries are to agreement, Monckton quietly slipped into the seat reserved for the delegation of Myanmar and clicked the button to speak.
“In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming,” Monckton said as confused murmurs filled the hall and then turned into a chorus of boos.
The stunt infuriated negotiators and activists here who gather every year to address what they believe is one of the world’s top threats, the steady rise of man-made global warming.
The truth must not be told. Only the high priests are permitted to give climate mass and absolution.
By giving Morano a platform to claim that average temperatures have not warmed in nearly 20 years, Morgan enabled him to familiarize CNN’s audience with climate myths.
CNN Gives Climate Change Denial A Platform | Blog | Media Matters for America
Steve: I just had a look at the second link you posted (CNN Gives Climate Change Denial …). The second sentence of the article mentions, “CNN failed to disclose that he has no scientific training”, (referring to Marc Morano). The irony is that the author of the article (Shauna Theel) has a degree in … wait for it … Political Science. I wonder what her scientific training is, considering she only graduated 2 years ago?
Bill McKibben, Bette Midler and Barbara Boxer are top scientists.
All highly qualified, no doubt.
Morano did very well in a hostile venue.
Censorship has always been the choice weapon of dictatorships. The climate “denier” label is another such censorship tool.
The fact they were censoring information was one of the key factors causing me to delve into “climate science”. I couldn’t imagine anybody with a solid theory trying to “protect” it by not allowing any criticism. That’s politics not science.
When one criticizes the Creationist pseudoscience, the more important thing is not the scientific errors but the underlying agenda. One can criticize the science until you are blue in the face and get nowhere until you address the ideology. Monckton may have done better by skipping the science. AGW has never been science. One can only defeat it by treating it purely as ideology.