UBuffalo Prof: Skeptics a ‘moral outrage’, ‘undermine society’

“By misrepresenting the science of climate change, the disinformation campaign is complicit in putting social stability at risk, with the attendant moral consequences; they are complicit in increasing the probability and extent of widespread human misery.”

Courtesy of Penn State climate ‘ethicist’ Donald Brown, University of Buffalo associated professor Kenneth Shockley writes:

Those who deny the reality, importance, or magnitude of climate change warrant our collective outrage. Whether by action or inaction, their denial blinds us to the risks, vulnerabilities, and threats to our well-being posed by climate change. Insofar as claims of ignorance are becoming increasingly implausible, those who support or propagate the disinformation campaign about climate change are guilty of more than deception. They are guilty of exacerbating risks to our collective well-being and of undermining society…

Read the screed.

15 thoughts on “UBuffalo Prof: Skeptics a ‘moral outrage’, ‘undermine society’”

  1. The inquisition is starting—heretics will be held accountable and burned at the stake if they repent not!!

  2. “Those who deny the reality, importance, or magnitude of climate change warrant our collective outrage.”

    What’s actually being said. “DO AS WE SAY, NOT AS WE DO!”

  3. Notice these are not arguments. Skeptics/real scientists say, “The temperature
    has been static for 15 years.” They say, “Those who deny the reality, importance, or magnitude of climate change warrant our collective outrage. Whether by action or inaction, their denial blinds us to the risks, vulnerabilities, and threats to our well-being posed by climate change.”

    Non sequitur.

  4. At some point the rest of science will dissociate from the climate mob. They have no choice. Either stay with the sinking ship, or get off onto the life rafts.

    Climate science is going to cause a huge amount of collateral damage.

    People will insist on scape goats, and a good example is the banking mess.

    1. Some bankers have made errors or committed fraud so all bankers are guilty. Try substituting the word banker for black, and you will see the real thinking behind those statements.

    2. Now look at the mess with government debts. That’s the current issue but politicians are desperate trying to blame the banks. If we take the UK, where a large part of the banking mess was caused by the government, its cost 70 bn. The total government debt when you include the off the books debts, is 7,000 bn.

    So if they blame the bankers when its a paltry amount compared with their mess, think what they will do with the scientists when the cost is in the trillions.

  5. The “collective outrage” works both way comrade. Do you think the American people might want to prosecute the perpetrators of this hoax? Being a useful idiot is one thing Mr. Shockly, being a threatening useful idiot conspiring to defraud is another. Let’s use your standard.
    “…those who support or propagate the disinformation campaign about climate change are guilty of more than deception.”

  6. Its absolutely astounding these people think this way. Have you or any or your ilk explanation for the kind of temp drops we are seeing in the mid troposphere, or do you have any tolerance for a simple test measuring temps objectively via satellite over the next 30 years since we are in the cold cycle of the pdo, and the pdo/amo correlation to temperature is twice that of co2. Here to enlighten you, read:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/30/amopdo-temperature-variation-one-graph-says-it-all/

    Do you have any way to explain how a gas occupying .04% of the atmosphere, that gets a yearly contribution from man of .00000012 of the atmosphere, that has a specific gravity of 1.5 to airs 1.0 and heats and cools faster than air, can possibly warm the atmosphere.. at all? Here. so we take away the bonds of your ignorance, read:
    http://co2insanity.com/tag/professor-nasif-nahle/
    The deceptive reference to the US winter or other events as climate change, when the opposite is happening elsewhere ( over 75% of N hemisphere was colder than normal this winter between the arctic circle and the equator) or blaming global warming for tornadoes, when in similar years with rapid mid level drops in temperatures produced high amounts. meaning cooling not warming, was the reason, shows the levels you will stoop to in deception, or perhaps just plain ignorance of the facts.

    And while we are at it, how is it Chinese studies show no “hockey stick” in their tree ring observations. Why are they wrong?

    The misery, economic and in real life terms that this agenda has caused will go down on par with what happened in Europe in the 1930s, or the DDT banning that was a death sentence via malaria to millions of helpless people in Africa. It is you and your ilk, that should look in the mirror and understand what you are doing to society, not people who in the spirit of freedom and a desire to advance, have an honest disagreement based on hard evidence contrary to whatever Utopian control model you worship

    It is you, not us, that is deserving of moral outrage and undermining of a free society where people would have a chance to prosper, but see it taken away by those that wallow in ignorance by not actually looking beyond their own closed minds. These people are not free thinking or progressive, and they prove it by word and deed each day. They insult the very idea of progress by seeking an enslaving control.

  7. typical leftist rant… when the wheels start coming off they get all fascist on ya because ‘the science is SETTLED!’ and if you don’t believe it we have a campground for you just down the road; we’ll let your family know that you’ll be cured when and if you return

  8. The UN IPCC report that he mentions says this:

    (p9) “Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame”
    Which explicitly seems to be saying that climate change has not happened yet.
    (h/t http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/why-everybody-seeing-climate-changes-now-is-uninformed-or-a-liar/ )

  9. The comments attached to this buzz-word laden screed are as nutty as the commentary itself. The absolutism – the moral certitude that is somehow attached to its hysterical view of ‘science’ – is Stalinist in its tone and absolutism.

    Don’t agree with them? You are for destroying society. And therefore … What?

    Recent history is stacked high with the bodies of ‘what’. To dissent is to be so dangerous that coercion and re-education (of ones self and children?) Is obviously needed. I can’t wait for class to begin – can you?

    This nutjob is a tenured professor of ethics – yet is blind to where his ethics lead. He is at best a useful idiot, and his acolytes are enablers of the new inquisition. But I suspect he coifs fine wine with his deadbeat pals and dreams of the frictional loss of his ideological inferiors. Err, I mean murder.

    My advice? Beware of what you wish for… Liberty allows for idiots. Tyranny does not give a whit about them. And you, prof penn state ethics dude – you are an idiot standing in line for your turn in the dock.

  10. Try this litmus test. It works! Read the first three sentences of an essay on climate change. If they are rude or derogatory, you will find the whole thing is written by a warmist. So much for their ‘effective public outreach’ program they think is ‘sadly missing’.

  11. A lot in common with the ethicist Gleick. It’s unethical to oppose them. It’s unethical to question a well-intentioned hypothesis. They decide what’s well-intentioned. It’s unethical to to question policies claiming to do something about the aforesaid good intentions of an hypothesis. That about right?

  12. “By misrepresenting the science of climate change, the disinformation campaign is complicit in putting social stability at risk, with the attendant moral consequences; they are complicit in increasing the probability and extent of widespread human misery.”

    Considering the content of this quote, he must be talking about Gleick, Mann, Jones, Trenberth, Gore, etc.. After all, they are the ones that seem to be “misrepresenting the science of climate change” by trying to mislead the public, and their policies regarding this issue would make them “complicit in increasing the probability and extent of widespread human misery”. The thought that any of the material in the quote above can be applied to skeptics is laughable indeed.

Comments are closed.