Tuesday, March 24, 2015

The Left hates free speech, a continuing series

Federalist: "Reporters Explain Why Balance Isn’t Needed On Global Warming - Elite journalists explain why they have no need for ‘balance’ on the global warming issue. So much for scientific and reportorial inquiry."

If the AGW crowd has the facts on its side, why the need to censor those who disagree?  Oh, right, the facts.  Shut up, they explained.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V3CfD8TPac said...

Oh, right, the facts.

Open Journal of Statistics? Not THE Open Journal of Statistics!?

Well, when a vanity press pay-to-publish paper farm with an impact factor of literally zero receives its $300 Paypal fee to let someone say global warming isn’t happening, THAT is a game-changer.


Current impact factor: 0.00

5-year impact 0.00
Cited half-life 0.00
Immediacy index 0.00
Eigenfactor 0.00
Article influence 0.00

Roger Bournival said...

Does this mean I can now light my farts, guilt free?

Cooler heads prevail said...

This appears like progress to me.

At least they're not calling for criminal prosecution of those who disagree with them.

Eric said...

The pause/hiatus/plateau has been reported widely, including this "it's hiding in the oceans!" article in the Left wing's favorite broadsheet:


But, hey, when the facts are against you attack the messenger, right? Thanks for proving my point.

Now shut up, Koch Brothers shill.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V3CfD8TPac said...

Sorry, you’re right. The Open Journal of Statistics is a respected peer of the National Academy of Sciences, the World Meteoroloical Organisation, the American Physical Society, NASA, the UK Royal Society, and the other groups which are also studying the hiatus.

All of those institutions have found that the hiatus does not negate the evidence for global warming. But, the Open Journal of Statistics has changed that. It’s going to cost NASA $600 via Paypal to publish TWO studies in the OHS, to trump the Journal’s current findings.

Nice link to the New York Times’ report on the subject. It certainly proves your point that the left hates free speech and censors those who disagree, as well as the Federalist’s point that the biased media refuses to acknowledge “contrary” climate data.

It’s also nice of you to stand up for the vanity press outlet, because there’s nothing weaker than attacking the messenger. Also, tell us more about why we can’t trust “The Left.”

I wonder how much the writer had to pay the New York Times to publish his article.

Eric said...

Yeah, I heard you the first time. The climate data - which is accurate - was reported by a pay site.

And yet with all the combined forces of the mainstream media, only one side feels it is necessary to censor the other point of view.

Why is that?

Hiatal Hernia said...

Apparently the Open Journal of Statistic's influence is greater than some had assumed.

Take a look at the graph in this article that shows the decline in concern by the American public about all matters of environmental fear-mongering, including global warming. Notice especially the sharp drop in alarmist sentiment towards the very end of the graph.

Could this increased "cooling" momentum be a result of the pay journal article? Was the campaign to stifle all non-conforming thought somehow just not complete enough?

Seriously though, who can imagine what it must do to professional alarmists to look at that graph, after all the hard work they've put into their propaganda and their acts of repression and intimidation over recent decades, to see the ineluctable downtrend in every aspect of that graph. And to see global warming, their crown jewel, still in last place among all the alarmisms!

It's not fair! After they've worked so hard!

Anonymous said...

Ooh, now we're conducting science via polls. The idea that the 9/11 attacks were deliberately planned by the U.S. government has 5 times as much polling support within America than the worldwide consensus among scientists that global warming is NOT happening.

And yet with all the combined forces of the mainstream media, only one side feels it is necessary to censor the other point of view. Why is that?

A censorship campaign that includes articles in the New York Times (and the BBC, and the Times of India, and Yahoo News, and Reuters, etc. etc.) is a poorly-designed censorship campaign. "I do not think 'censor' means what you think it means."

The anti-warming counterview IS soundly rejected and often scorned by the experts in the field. Problem is, the hiatus data don’t disprove the theory that climate change is occurring. They are in fact largely compatible with it, then and now.


The hiatus is currently being analyzed throughout the climate science world, from the National Center for Atmospheric Research to NASA to Science Magazine to the Royal Meterological Society. New hiatus data and findings are constantly being incorporated into the updated climate change models. You know, censorship.

The hiatus hit us hard said...

Ooh, now we're conducting science via polls.

I know you hope that's an effective way to brush off my point. I just wish you could understand how stupid that statement makes you look.

Pollster bears said...

Your point isn't a point at all: “Ha, ha, scientific observation, suck on these polls!”

And it ain’t just global warming. Vaccines... the age of the Earth... the theory of evolution... all the best poll numbers say “Whoa, not so fast, science!”

These biased climatologists should get out of Whole Foods, follow the public's lead, and stop censoring the effects of angels' wings on our troposphere.


Your dad must have been a hoot on CB radio, citing the Harris polling numbers about test tube Frankenbabies. Your grandpa probably never got over the menace of fluoridated water.

Hiatus now, love us later said...

Never change, man of La Mancha.

The windmills of your mindlessness said...

Saying "never change" to the climate hasn't worked for you either.

You've got to work harder, and choose better troll analogies. Don Quixote was the original conservative ideologue who didn't believe in wind power.