Proof That Intimidation Works

The Times boldly publishes an article acknowledging the Stalinist intimidation tactics behind the global warming scam, but covers their rear by throwing in a huge picture of a house burning in California, which has absolutely nothing to do with the the story.

ScreenHunter_46 May. 16 03.03

Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view | The Times

Every year for as long as there have been houses, houses have burned down.

ScreenHunter_48 May. 16 03.14

09 Jan 1939 – The Advertiser – p17

The scientific debate about Mann-made climate change is a completely separate story from the one about Mann-made harassment and intimidation of other scientists. The Times editors should be ashamed of themselves for conflating the two. They have proved that intimidation works.

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Proof That Intimidation Works

  1. David A says:

    I live in North San Diego County, and watched that fire from our patio. That fire, and many of the others are suspected to have been set by arsonists. “Terrorist” in my view is a better description.

    http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Possible-Arson-Suspect-Escondido-259451961.html?partner=nbcnews

    The weather this year in Southern Cal has been unusual. Normally we get Santa Anna’s, dry hot inland air from the dessert blowing westward, in late September, October and November. Even in a non drought year, the land is dryer by then, then it is now in May of a drought year. In other words we have had many worse Santa Anna’s in drier conditions, and zero fires resulted.

  2. emsnews says:

    All California fires are started by humans if there are no lightning storms which is the natural cause of fires. The latest fires this year are 100% human caused.

  3. Gail Combs says:

    The freebie from the UK Times:

    Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night.
    In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”.
    Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of the authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published…

    Taking that and looking for more:

    A scientific study which suggests global warming has been exaggerated was rejected by a respected journal because it might fuel climate scepticism, it was claimed last night.

    The alarming intervention, which raises fears of ‘McCarthyist’ pressure for environmental scientists to conform, came after a reviewer said the research was ‘less than helpful’ to the climate cause.

    Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of five authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published.

    ‘The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,’ he told the Times….

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630023/Study-suggesting-global-warming-exaggerated-rejected-publication-respected-journal-helpful-climate-cause-claims-professor.html

    And another five rats desert the sinking ship.

  4. Lennart Bengtsson has gotten the media’s attention better than anyone could have hoped–“forced to resign” from the GWPF, and now his paper rejected for political reasons, not scientific. Remember all those “abused victim” movies, where the police become abettors of the crimes by telling the abused, “We can’t arrest him unless he actually hurts someone.” Well, Bengtsson has demonstrated, twice, that he has a case, against what is obviously a climate science mafia, to arrest them.

    • He just needs a crusading district attorney and a grand jury indictment now, to investigate, and demonstrate to the world, just how high the corruption goes. The happy end result would be Obama averring, through clinched teeth, “I am not a crook”, and then disappearing from politics and the world stage forever, in disgrace.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Lord Monckton is going after them in the UK courts. (his comment in a recent WUWT thread) Here in the USA the government is “protected” in the UK they are not.

  5. Gail Combs says:

    WUWT is also carrying this story and it seems to be going viral.

    pat says: @ May 15, 2014 at 7:00 pm

    Taranto at Wall St. Journal weighs in:
    …..
    BBC has only this so far!
    …..

    Pat has a long excerpt from the WSJ. The article is available with a lot of coments HERE.

    There is a lot about the 97% of scientists agree with CAGW. If anyone can comment on the WSJ you might mention the sleight of had pulled by Doran.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/10/an-oopsie-in-the-doranzimmerman-97-consensus-claim/

    In 2008 Margaret Zimmerman asked two questions of 10,257 Earth Scientists at academic and government institutions. 3146 of them responded. That survey was the original basis for the famous “97% consensus” claim.

    For the calculation of the degree of consensus among experts in the Doran/Zimmerman article, all but 79 of the respondents were excluded.….

    So out of 10,257 scientists asked they hand picked 79 and out of that 79 hand picked people 75 agreed.What is really funny is reading what the respondents to the questionaire said.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

    Here are but just a few of many responses from scientists that actually took part in the survey, taken from the appendi of the MSc thesis:

    “..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”

    “..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..”

    “..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..”

    Feedback: http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html

    No wonder they had to figure out a way to hand pick the “right scientists” to get the “right Consensus numbers”
    Snicker

  6. Sleepalot says:

    “Every year for as long as there have been houses, houses have burned down.”

    1666, the Great Fire of London destroyed 13,200 houses, 87 churches, 1 cathedral and most of the city’s Official buildings.

  7. Sleepalot says:

    “The Times boldly publishes an article acknowledging the Stalinist intimidation tactics behind the global warming scam, but covers their rear by throwing in a huge picture of a house burning in California, which has absolutely nothing to do with the the story.”

    The burning house is a visual metaphor – “a house, divided against itself, cannot stand.” It’s also a cautionary reminder to the establishment as to why ultimate power rests in the people: if you rile the mob, they will burn your house down. (Hence the coming bans on petrol, alcohol, …, – it’s all disarmament.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s