Posted on 02/09/2007 12:09:05 PM PST by EternalVigilance
On the day that the latest report on global warming was released, I went out and bought a light bulb. OK, an environmentally friendly, compact fluorescent light bulb.
*snip*
By every measure, the U N 's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change raises the level of alarm. The fact of global warming is "unequivocal." The certainty of the human role is now somewhere over 90 percent. Which is about as certain as scientists ever get.
I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.
*snip*
Ellen Goodman's e-mail address is goodman@globe.com.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
I would think (even) libs would be embarassed to have someone as stupid as Ellen Goodman mindlessly repeating their lies.
In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (197).
source: Wikipedia
*grin*
Liberals have a very high immunity to shame.
I did my part. I bought one of those light bulbs. That ought to fix it.
I will bet a dollar that Goodman has never read the evidence. Her's is simply another argument by intimidation.
If I were Jewish, I'd likely be offended by that statement.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009648
Denying the Future
BY JAMES TARANTO
Friday, February 9, 2007 3:26 p.m. EST
The Boston Globe's Ellen Goodman starts off a column about global warming on a loopy note:
On the day that the latest report on global warming was released, I went out and bought a light bulb. OK, an environmentally friendly, compact fluorescent light bulb.
Wow, Ellen, thanks for sharing! But a few paragraphs later she tries to make a serious point and ends up making a serious moral and intellectual error:
I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.
No, Ellen. Let's not "just say" it. Before we make a truly invidious comparison, let's think a bit, shall we?
On our shelf sits a book called "The House That Hitler Built." It is a 380-page study of Nazi Germany, written by Stephen H. Roberts, a professor of modern history at the University of Sydney. Roberts spent 16 months in Germany and neighboring countries between 1935 and 1937. "My main aim," he explains in the preface, "was to sum up the New Germany without any prejudice (except that my general approach was that of a democratic individualist)."
The substance of the book is alarming, although the tone is calm and detached--so much so that it is eerie to read with the knowledge of what happened in the years after October 1937, when it was published. One 10-page chapter is devoted to "The Present Place of the Jews." At the time Roberts wrote, the persecution of Jewish Germans was well under way:
At present, the German Jew has no civil rights. He is not a citizen; he cannot vote or attend any political meeting; he has no liberty of speech and cannot defend himself in print; he cannot become a civil servant or a judge; he cannot be a writer or a publisher or a journalist; he cannot speak over the radio; he cannot become a screen actor or an actor before Aryan audiences; he cannot teach in any educational institution; he cannot enter the service of the railway, the Reichsbank, and many other banks; he cannot exhibit paintings or give concerts; he cannot work in any public hospital; he cannot enter the Labour Front or any of the professional organizations, although membership of many callings is restricted to members of these groups; he cannot even sell books or antiques. . . . In addition to these, there are many other restrictions applying in certain localities. The upshot of them all is that the Jew is deprived of all opportunity for advancement and is lucky if he contrives to scrape a bare living unmolested by Black Guards or Gestapo. It is a campaign of annihilation--a pogrom of the crudest form, supported by every State instrument.
When Roberts published his book, Kristallnacht was more than a year away; the ghettoes and death camps were further still in the future. Roberts described what he witnessed as "a campaign of annihilation," but he did not foretell the multiplication of its brutality in the ensuing years. Had he somehow managed to do so, he would be a prophet today, but he might well have looked like a crank at the time.
Which brings us back to Ellen Goodman. Imagine if someone in 1937 had foreknowledge of the Holocaust and began sounding the alarms, describing in detail what was going to happen just a few years later. Most people probably wouldn't believe him. They would be, to use Goodman's phrase, denying the future. But would they be "on par" with people who deny the Holocaust after it has happened?
That seems a stretch. There's an enormous difference between doubting an outlandish prediction (even one that comes true) and denying the grotesque facts of history. Because we are ignorant of the future, we can innocently misjudge it. Holocaust deniers are neither ignorant nor innocent (though extremely ignorant people may innocently accept their claims). They are falsifying history for evil purposes.
This columnist is skeptical of global warming. We don't have enough scientific knowledge to have anything like an authoritative opinion--but neither does Ellen Goodman, who bases her entire argument on an appeal to authority, namely the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We lack the time, the inclination and possibly the intellect to delve deeply into the science. No doubt the same is true of Goodman.
Our skepticism rests largely on intuition. The global-warmists speak with a certainty that is more reminiscent of religious zeal than scientific inquiry. Their demands to cast out all doubt seem antithetical to science, which is founded on doubt. The theory of global warming fits too conveniently with their pre-existing political ideologies. (Granted, we too are vulnerable to that last criticism.)
Above all, we can't stand to be bullied. And what is it but an act of bullying to deny that there is any room for honest disagreement, to insist that those of us who are unpersuaded are the equivalent of Holocaust deniers, that we are not merely mistaken but evil?
Her twenty watt lightbulb went out years ago.
Story from the San Francisco Chronicle, Feb 9, 2007:
"In a bizarre attack, a well-known author and Holocaust scholar was dragged out of a San Francisco hotel elevator by an apparent Holocaust denier who reportedly had been trailing him for weeks."
Dear Ellen: Would you REALLY like for us to be like Holocaust deniers?
Looks like the global warming scammers are getting really desperate!
I wonder how many scientists there are who are skeptics of AGW but are afraid to speak out of fear of being compared the the KKK and Nazi`s. Science is no longer science when attempts are made to shut down opposing points of view through vilification, fear, and intimidation. Whats next. Burning skeptics on stakes?
Do they still carry "Impeach Nixon" banners in Harvard Square?
Re: No change in political climate
Ms Goodman,
If there is manmade global warming, and it has been proven to the point that those who disagree are “deniers,” how come countries around the world are spending BILLIONS of dollars to prove manmade global warming? I mean we spend no money on proving that the earth is round.
So since there is BILLIONS of dollars being spent to PROVE a manmade connection, then obviously it is not proven. Which means that science has not and may not ever prove a connection. If that is the case then why should be cut off all discussion?
Is this not a Stalinist tactic of quieting all those that may question your beliefs?
As a reporter do you not agree with the First Amendment and freedom of speech. Or is some speech more free than others?
Does not Science expand and grow by discussion and dissent? If as Hillary says that it is the responsibility of a Free people to disagree with the government, should than also not apply to Government Scientist so that is actually good to disagree with them?
So when you write “I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” Are you not being a hypocrite or a Stalinists?
Also before we spend trillions of dollars to stop something as questionable as manmade global warming which you are promoting, can you, Al Gore, or any environmentalist answerer the following questions?
1. What gas is responsible for approximately 95% of the "greenhouse effect" on planet Earth?
2. Are the United States a net A) Emitter, or B) Absorber of carbon dioxide?
3. Is the global climate now A) Warmer, or B) Cooler than it was approximately 1,000 to 1,100 years ago?
4. Can you name any other things that can affect the Earths temperature besides mankind.
Are you aware of the Scientific method?
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
6. Can you explain how the amount of carbon put in the atmosphere by mankind has any affect when it is less than the natural fluctuations of carbon put in the atmosphere naturally.
When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.
The environmentalists pushing the 'global warming' myth have never gotten past Step # 2!
I like this statement in the Opinion Journal in the Global Warming Smear thread.
"One can only conclude from this episode that the environmental left and their political and media supporters now believe it is legitimate to quash debate on climate change and its consequences. This is known as orthodoxy, and, until now, science accepted the legitimacy of challenging it."
It's a talking point. She's not the first one to say it by a long shot. Her column is full of trendy, liberal know it all buzzwords. The holocaust denial bit is one of them. She is a pig, has been one forever.
Very cute post devolve.
The "Overlay" worked great
No "jumping"
I need to refine this theme further -
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.