Something very interesting struck me on the comments blog of a local politician concerning the Clameur de Haro blog. There was a comment which was totally off topic which criticised CdeH for being a "denier" of global warming. But the person that had submitted the comment also went on to post again to express thanks for the comment being posted but more chillingly to ask "Thanks Senator! Any idea who CdeH is?". Why would he want to know. If someone wishes to be anonymous let them be so.
The gist of the comment was "Increasing numbers"? Ha ha HA HA HA Hardy har Har ha!!!!!!! If you're going to tell a lie, I suppose it helps to make it a big one (wasn't it Goebbels who said something like that?)". The comment then went on to say "One of the most irritating aspects about deniers is the way they get all uppity when they are described as such - it sure demonstrates how out of touch with reality they are. Excuse me....etc".
Of course it is very easy to turn that argument on its head and refer to the global warming theorists.
The trouble is, everyone is entitled to an opinion, and in our society, to freedom of speech. Why do the green element get so uppity when someone doesn't agree with them. More so, if you have already stood for election, and been soundly rejected on your platform, does it not tell you that not everyone agrees with you. Clearly the element of freedom of speech to the green lobby is an irritant to be ridiculed and ruled out. Even better to find out the true identity of the author. Why?
Police Conflicts of Interest in a Small Island
-
An extremely serious email correspondence has emerged on Stuart Syvret's
blog, which relates to the 1996 investigation into Andrew Jervis-Dykes at
Victoria...
20 hours ago
Posts
6 comments:
Thanks 24/7 - much appreciated.
Nice to see we're getting under their skins.
I'll be delighted to return the favour when the need arises
The 'greens' I know who get uppity do so on one of two counts. Some are recent converts to the cause and are brimming over with zeal for the newly discovered 'truth' as converts often do. The others are long in the tooth environmentalists jaded by years of being derided by mainstream politicians who now preach the eco-message themselves.
There are some perfectly sane green types. I can think of two. Both run blogs and have stood for elections in Jersey. Neither has indulged in denigrating those of a differing political view.
Finally, is there an acceptable term to use when referring to people that refute/deny/dispute climate change? Is there a similar term for the enthusiastic supporters?
Tell me oh wise green one - why is there such a reluctance to house the entire population of Jersey humans?
I've heard all about agile frogs and squirrels and methane producing cows and much much more - but if the people are already here and yet more are planned to be here - what is the green answer. No evasive diversions please like they should go away - they are here - what is the green fair answer please?
I imagine that wanting to know who Clameur de Haro is by Nick Palmer is less to do with targetting the individual, and more to do with curiosity - sheer nosiness - which is a partilcular strong Jersey trait (I'm a Jerseyman so I can deal with our own steriotypes!)
I do wonder if the climate change arguments are served by descinding to a personal level; ad hominem arguments are not as good as reasoned ones.
I think that lumping all those who think climate change is likely as "greenist fundamentalist" is not that helpful, any more than to call sceptics "climate change holocaust deniers", with all the baggage that carries.
I have received a comment from Nick Palmer. Unfortunately it names another person who doesn't believe in global warming. As I can't find their website or contact them I am not publishing their name.
Again one can turn the argument on it's head and argue that the "deniers" are being vilified. It cut's both ways.
What strikes me is that my child come home from school and say what about global warming but then cannot back it yet every day in school global warming is being supplanted into young minds.
It is those that ask for more facts that are in the minority and are expected to believe or be branded as idiots.
Here is the edited (name omitted) post and also a paragraph about the second world war.
but more chillingly to ask
Crikey! Please turn down the paranoia level on your internal graphic equaliser - your inferences will be so much more realistic afterwards.
The trouble is, everyone is entitled to an opinion, and in our society, to freedom of speech. Why do the green element get so uppity when someone doesn't agree with them.
Simples! Because if you don't "agree" with basic logic, knowledge and science then you are an irresponsible idiot. Idiots are at liberty to endanger themselves but not everybody else as well.
One thing that a lot of people don't seem to understand is that the validity of green ideas and science in general have very little to do with unsupported opinion and belief. The validity of physics, biology, mathematics, chemistry, logic, observation, ecology etc are not matters of opinion.
Those who say they don't believe in AGW climate change, environmental destruction etc are dangerously ignorant, not to say arrogant, in their self-belief and misplaced faith in their own knowledge and judgement. They are free to hold any damn opinion they like as long as the consequences of those opinions will only affect them. If those opinions are likely to affect others, then they need to develop a sense of responsibility by assessing whether it is a sane move to continue holding stupid and pathological beliefs in the face of overwhelmingly contrary authoritative scientific opinion.
These "denier/delayer/inactivist" beliefs, that get greens and climate scientists so "uppity", have been manipulated by professional spin doctors and propagandists who deliberately set out to fool the gullible for their own selfish ends.
[ paragraph deleted ]
I asked Senator Syvret to publish that comment on his blog (re-read it) because CdeH claims to have a liberal comments policy but in fact does not publish comments he/she/it does not like. In short, censorship. Stuart, as we all know will publish just about anything whether it is friendly or hostile because he does not like cover-ups.
Probably the reason why CdeH will not publish the numerous comments they have had is because they cannot stand their pernicious nonsense being criticised.
Another person (maybe it's CdeH's slightly better twin) who is in denial about climate change is [ name deleted ] who had a letter published in the JEP a couple of days ago in which, apart from a whole load of other fallacious, ignorant and illogical rubbish claimed yet again that the alleged currently high output of the sun somehow disproves the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. What a laugh! All it proves is that [ name deleted ]is impervious to information he doesn't like. Why? Because he has been claiming this on his website for many months and I sent him links to scientific papers which conclusively demolish this common, stupid, dangerous piece of denier propaganda. He still chose to repeat a long disproved piece of junk in public merely to sway simple minds. How would you describe someone who deliberately does that?
Post a Comment