SWIFTBOATING THE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS

climatedenial.org ^ | 11/22/2009 | George Marshal

[AndyTheBear]

"What is truth?"

--Pontius Pilate, around 34 AD

[AdaGray]

Mr. Marshall is pissing against the wind.

[AmericanVictory]

We note that, like the lamestream, he fails to point out a single thing that the swiftboaters said that was not true, whereas Kerry was a compulsive “embellisher” as Mark Hill aptly putit at the time, and these global warming advocates are exactly the same; they have yet to show any devootion truth that anyone can establish. We note this author gives not one example of anythng that was taken so “out of context” as he puts it that it is untrue.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Swiftboating

From my May '08 article, The Right to Know

We see the process of the creation of a new word - a neologism - out of whole cloth springing out of the Democratic reaction to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign of 2004. In that case, the SBVT organization counted among its members the entire chain of command in Vietnam above John Kerry, and all his fellow officers on the other Swift Boats in Kerry's naval unit. If you wanted to ask anyone else but John Kerry and his subordinates on his boat, on the one hand, and the SBVT on the other, you would be embarrassed for want of anyone who could speak of about Kerry's performance on the basis of direct knowledge.

You have to either believe one side or the other, and the SBVT group is far more numerous, and was more highly credentialed at the time and place in question, than Lt. John Kerry and his subordinates were. And their story was more consistent over time, and internally, than Kerry's story was - considering how certain Kerry was that he had been sent on a mission into Cambodia by a president who hadn't been inaugurated yet! Nevertheless, AP journalism and the rest of the Democratic smear machine has created, and imposed on the national dialog, the term "swiftboating" defined as the irresponsible and unjustified criticism of a Democrat.

[seton89]

Here’s a windy reply I rec’d from George
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear contributor to Climate Denial,

I appreciate the time and trouble you have taken in writing to my blog and so I therefore feel it is only fair that I explain why I have decided not to accept your comments.

I have had a lot of skeptic replies to my post about the UEA hacking. Some I have allowed because they raise a legitimate point that this may be an ‘inside’ job not a hacking or that the behaviour of the scientists might not be acceptable. Fair enough. Some of you made valid comments which I would have accepted but then could not resist going into a little rant about climate change itself which disallowed your comment- I did not think it was ethical to edit your comment, except in one or two cases. And some went off an a tangent about the details of the Swift Boat smear which has little to do with this issue.

So I do not mind having debate from people, but the central premise is this: the blog is concerned with the challenges of communicating and accepting climate change. It is not about the existence of climate change, which I consider to be strongly supported and evidenced by of over 20 years of intensive analysis.

In essence the UEA e-mails may raise legitimate issues about the way that the scientists talk and manage information and dissent. However the personal conversations of a few scientists do not change the scientific basis behind climate change which has been conducted in full view, publicly accessible documents and through a thorough review process.

I am therefore not prepared to accept postings from people who do not accept the reality of climate change. I am fervently in favour of free speech and open debate, which is why I would always defend the openness of the internet as a whole and the expression of a full range of views on climate change- including your own.
As you know there are many many sites representing your point of view to which you are free to contribute.

However. a personal blog is not a debating forum: it is an unpaid personal project based around a personal point of view - just as a newspaper has its own editorial line. I am not happy with my site being used as a sounding board for people with whom I fundamentally disagree. This policy extends to people who do agree about human induced climate change but who I regard as being extremist in their views or who express themselves rudely or aggressively.

You are very welcome to start your own blog if you wish to share your views with a wider public. And, for those who carp about censorship I would point out that no skeptic site has ever accepted my comments either. Nor would I expect it to.

Can I also say that I am deeply concerned that there are still a substantial number of intelligent and thoughtful people, like yourself, who wish to put time and energy into arguing against the overwheming evidence. I am not going to argue any of the evidence here - it is constantly being published - but I would urge you to extend your healthy scepticism to all sides.

On the Royal Society’s website http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278
you will find not only innumerable well referenced reports about climate change, but cogent counter-arguments against the main denial arguments. This is not my view- frankly, I would not expect you to accept what I might say- it is the official consensus position of one of the most respected scientific bodies in the world. The Royal Society position is regularly supported and endorsed in joint statements by the national scientific academies of every major nation in the world. Can I just rephrase that: every single major national scientific institution in the world agrees on this. I am staggered that you can disregard this level of combined authority.

I should add on this point that the term ‘climate denial’ is appropriate. Denial is a recognised psychological process by which we manage information that challenges us but we are not prepared to accept. I am aware of the resonance with the term ‘Holocaust Deniers’ but do not wish to draw a strong comparison: Holocaust Denial is the refutation of an established historical fact and deeply insulting to millions of people (myself included). Climate Change Denial is the refutation of a scientific theory which is very well supported by data. These are not the same thing, nor is the intent behind them.

In particular I would like to ask you, as someone who is interested in contributing to a debate , one key question: what do you think would be required for you to accept that greenhouse gas emissions are creating dangerous changes in global climate? If we are to be open minded, we always have some point at which. however reluctantly, we change our minds.

If you asked me that question: what would be required for me to accept that greenhouse gas emissions are not creating dangerous changes in global climate I would answer this- if any leading scientific institution (I do not mean an individual academic, individual piece of research, or some report from a US think tank- I want a conclusion from a recognised specialist body such as the Royal Society above) came out and argued, with well prepared supporting evidence, that climate change was not being caused by fossil fuels then I would be prepared to change my mind.

I must confess that I would find it challenging to change my position: I have invested a great deal of time and energy into this field, but I would also be delighted to know that there was one less problem in the world. Let’s face it: there are plenty of other worthwhile things to do in life.

You are very welcome to send me anything that meets these criteria and I will fully reconsider my position. At present though there is not one - I repeat not one- leading scientific institution that agrees with what you wrote to the blog. However, I am reasonable- I don’t want them all to shift, just one.

To date I have been sending this challenge out for two years and no one has been able to respond.

So, as things stand, I prefer to follow expertise and judgement in my decisions. A similar evaluation of the respected expert judgement has been my basis for decisions whether to give my children the MMR jab (I did), whether to smoke (I don’t), whether to join a local campaign against mobile phone masts (I didn’t), whether to eat fresh food and get exercise (I do), whether to get smoke detectors fitted in my house (I did), whether to drink in moderation (I do) On any of these issues I am quite open to changing my mind by the same criteria.

So again, I ask you. what is your personal tipping point at which you might change you mind? Is it some degree of extreme weather, a new scientific conclusion, the views of someone whose judgement you respect for being impartial and well grounded? All I am asking is that you keep an open mind, which means recognising that your views could change, just as I do.

You have already shown that you are a bold and independent thinker by holding a view that is contrary to the large majority of other people- so I have every confidence that you can take the brave step of changing your mind if you see a good argument for doing so.

I regret that I will not be able to continue any correspondence, but thank you for reading this letter.

Yours

George Marshall,
Director of Projects
Climate Outreach Information Network
COIN is a charitable trust, registration number 1102225. It supports
initiatives and organisations that increase public
understanding and awareness of climate change.

[listenhillary]

Seems unrelated

Swiftboating Sarah Palin AFTER she had lost an election? WTH?

The ethics charges became torrential after she had lost. Now why would they do that?

[pogo101]

Short version: Just because a cabal at CSU — one of only a few “legs” on which the IPCC’s conclusions stand — was faking data and covering up PAST fakings of data, doesn’t mean ANYthing about whether there’s catastrophic, manmade global warming! Not a thing! That’s why they had to ... fake it ... hey, wait a minute.

[4woodenboats]

“Swiftboating” means: private citizens who are continuing the example set in 2004 by many of our most decorated Vietnam Veterans- with nothing to gain - stand together to tell the truth against powerful politicians who are lying...

Great statement, hope you don't mind me adding a bit to it..... ;~)

[Interesting Times]

"I am therefore not prepared to accept postings from people who do not accept the reality of climate change. I am fervently in favour of free speech and open debate..."

...as long as the speakers and debaters agree with me.

Thus speaks the fascist.

[GOPJ]

I like it - the addition’s a keeper.

[Lurker]

That would be the PHD version of “Nanananana I can’t hear you!”

[BFM]

swift-boat - Pronunciation [swift'-boht]

–verb (transitive verb)
1. To tell or defend the truth.
2. To provide factual information about another person when that information is found to be factually incorrect or a lie.
3. To present evidence of a politician’s lies.
4. To identify false statements of military service or combat injuries.
5. To document accurately.
6. To serve proudly in the US military.

–noun
7. A small watercraft used by the US Navy in the mid 20th Century.

[Boiling Pots]

Well said.