Former Grist writer and marine biologist Stephen Hale writes in the Providence Journal:
Click to enlarge.
8 thoughts on “Warmist says skeptic views shouldn’t be published”
Comments are closed.
Former Grist writer and marine biologist Stephen Hale writes in the Providence Journal:
Click to enlarge.
Comments are closed.
If the NOAA example wasn’t blatantly false (NOAA is anything but impartial), then he would be demonstrating his own position’s weakness. IF NOAA were indeed just reporting what was happening without bias, there would be no “anthropomorphic” in global warming. Currently, there would not even be any “warming”.
this Flat Earth meme is not what they mean…there is no censorship of Flat Earth views because there’s no need to.
By invoking the analogy they’re simply admitting that there’s a debate going on. A debate where censorship confirms the skeptics are right.
Historically, has demands for censorship ever came from those with the truth on their side? I can’t think of an example where censorship was ever a tactic of anything other than tyrants and oppressors.
“The left implements speech and mind control because they cannot persuade on the issues. Silencing the opposition becomes their only recourse.” Tammy Bruce, “The New Thought Police”
If I wanted advice from a marine biologist I would rather seek the wisdom of George Costanza.
Censorship, the new in thing to do in science
Considering the monopoly the climate hysteric community has on the media I’m surprised anything is printed that is contrary to the dogma of the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Or the other question is why Mr. Hale is either willfully blind or knowingly lying. His own letter contains statements that are false to fact.
There are generally two reasons to block, or try to block, the statements of others. One is that they are demonstrably false and that does not apply to skeptics’ views. The other is that your own position is too weak to stand in the face of opposing views. That seems to be the case with CAGW.