Gleick : “The Debate Is Over… I Just Want An Honest Debate”

in 2001, Gleick told U.S. News & World Report, “The debate is over.”

This is how the global-warming community operates. Activists accuse skeptics of being anti-science and dishonest under the apparent belief that they are honest and analytical. They’re filled with their integrity until they get frustrated. They say that they only want to debate, except the debate is over. Then they wonder why skeptics don’t believe them.

Debra J. Saunders: Global Warming and Earthly Lies


About stevengoddard

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

10 Responses to Gleick : “The Debate Is Over… I Just Want An Honest Debate”

  1. Eric Simpson says:

    A few days before his freaking out, the peacenik Gleick put up a youtube (v=HKIPL-ksU3k). There was a “ndrthrd” who didn’t like what I had to say in a comment, but my reply to him garnered 9 Likes, while ndrthrd got zero:

    “but you climate denial nuts try”

    ndrthrd, while you are quick to insult me, and contradict some of my points, you give no evidence at all to back your positions. It’s not so just because you say it’s so. And this isn’t a game of pushing Like & Dislike buttons. There’s serious & costly consequences to the cap & trade type proposals that the leftists, like the bearded professor here, try to foist upon the rest of us.

    • nerdturd says:

      sorrey took me long time to repli…i wus at hartlan protest….is so cause I says so….i’yum part of kuncensis.

  2. “They say that they only want to debate, except the debate is over.”

    Damn I missed it. When did they have the debate?

  3. cb says:

    The wonders of debate. Ah, but of course ‘talking’ is all that Hitler, Stalin and Mao REALLY needed… just a few words from Mandela, or Obama, or a ‘bright’ like Dawkins, and all would have been roses.

    You might also want to read:

    The great enemy are not the hippies. Yes, they are vile, twisted, lying, murdering scum.

    The great enemy are the ‘friends’ who not only refuse to acknowledge this, but actively work at covering up for the ‘Comrades’.

    Take Bishop Hill:
    He wants to, and make no mistake this is what would happen in practice, empower the politicos to at their discretion fine and imprison people who lie to them. Given the state of things today, it takes a catastrophic fool to not see how this would turn out.

    Then at JunkScience Maurizio wrote:
    Which is nothing more and nothing less than excusing the hippies for their lies. Its all about ‘uncertainties’ and ‘bias’ you see, and everybody everywhere suffers from it. So no harm, no foul. We’re all good. Well, except for those ‘few’, who must say that they are sorry, and then we can all be friends again.

    I started on my journey to giving value to truth the day I decided that being a Satanist was not fun, on the face of it was incredibly stupid (I mean, face off against a Dude who has infinite power, can see through time, and MADE Hell?!) and devils were far too scary to hang out with. So I am quite glad that the Bishop Hills and Morabito’s of the world are going to burn in Hell one day. Such is the fate of those so utterly complicit in the vilest of the evils of the hippies. I’m sorry, but I am not going to pray for the souls of those who knowingly murder CHILDREN using malaria as their tool.

    Yes the Living God DOES have the right to mow down His creations like gnats (only a fool of an ant tries to argue with the human who owns the farm) people like Morabito and Hill do NOT. Why? Because HE said so, and HE owns Hell. End of argument (unless you are a hippie… in which case He will toss your azz into Hell… ending the argument.) That is biblical ‘moralizing’: sweet, short, to the point. No hippie moralizing to legalize the murder of children and babies (does anyone want a MORE concrete example than the present-day ban on DDT?), no legalizing groups like NAMBLA (just wait and see).

    As the emperor said: “Only now, at the end, do you see.” (May have gotten the quote wrong: starwars ep 6.)

    You cannot really chose your enemies, but you certainly CAN chose your friends.

  4. I agree with Gleick (but he is wrong): I also think the debate/war is over, just on my terms (there is no greenhouse effect whatsoever, of increasing temperature with increasing carbon dioxide, and there are no competent climate scientists whatsoever, because they refuse to accept the definitive facts of the Venus/Earth temperatures comparison, which shows that only the ratio of the two planets’ distances from the Sun is needed to precisely explain the Venus/Earth temperature ratio at points of equal pressure in the two atmospheres. Fraudulent “experts” are those who say they will only recognize evidence presented through the peer-review process, even though that has been shown to be merely “pal-review”, and those who say the Venus/Earth comparison result (over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, mind you) is just a “coincidence”. In other words, the “debate”, on both sides, is insane, and everyone knows why–1) the emotional (not scientific) intransigence of the individual ego, multiplied over the millions of individuals who are invested in the consensus, 2) the ideological (not scientific) linking of the idea of “runaway global warming” with a reasonable concern for the environment, and 3) the political (not scientific) assumption of tight control over the people of the world, on the basis of fraudulent, wrong-headed “scientific consensus”.

    • Eric Simpson says:

      Hi Harry. I’ve taken a look at your post on Venus, and I’m impressed. It’s important yeoman work that you are doing, as pointing at Venus is perhaps the main argument of the warmists (really!). Consider an excerpt from a wuwt comment of mine:

      This [a complex article] is all good and great. But at other times remember the layman. We need concise arguments to defeat the warmists when they can convince most of the public in just 10 words: “it’s hot… and look what CO2 did to Venus!”
      We got to get it down to just a few words.
      Don’t bring a treatise or dissertation when 30 words would be better. Indeed, in some cases, the very (long) length of skeptic arguments can be used against it. Why do the skeptics need so many words? What are they hiding? I can’t make heads or tails of what they’re saying…. look at Venus. […]

      So I hope that you will also work, if possible to get what you say about Venus down to succinct layman friendly soundbites. This more concise framing of the Venus issue could be used in selected comments, or situations. Also, a short video, if you had the capability, is “extra-credit.” What you are saying about Venus is important.

  5. philjourdan says:

    Glieck – “These are not the Droids you are looking for”

    His problem is we are not imperial storm troopers.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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