21 thoughts on “Nice guy: Skeptics should be barred from media, says ‘Merchants of Doubt’ producer”

  1. Given that the Democrat Party Audiovisual Club (used to be called “the mainstream media”) is already completely in the bag for the gaudy man-made global warming fraud, what possible effect could be had by way of a concerted effort to keep “deniers” from speaking their criticism of this preposterous crapfest?

    The deck’s already stacked against scientific skepticism in the consideration of “climate change.” Why are these bloated toads whimpering about the possibility that somebody might be allowed to cut the cards?

  2. Anyone who claims “the science is settled,” regarding climate change or any other aspect of science, is either an accomplished ignoramus (by choice) or a liar with an agenda.

  3. I recently came across the following excerpt:
    “to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it… to abandon completely… the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.
    —The Inquisition’s injunction against Galileo, 1616.
    Replace the heliocentric model of the solar system with the AGW model of the atmosphere, and it sound all too familiar.

  4. If we slightly modify his first sentence, I think it’s one I might actually agree with, “People who _intentionally_ mislead the public on climate change should not be on TV.” However, he and I would completely disagree on which people fall in that group.

  5. “Intent” is one of the most difficult things to prove in court. Unless there is a smoking gun such as the Climategate emails, when they say ‘we need to hide’ such-and-such, or something to that effect, proving ‘intent’ comes down to mind-reading.
    Even then the courts and juries will distinguish between malicious intent based on selfish motives and well-meaning intent based on acceptance of something incredibly stupid. It is like the distinction between ‘pre-meditated murder’ and ‘negligent manslaughter’. Either way, person A did wrong to person B, who died from it.

  6. Sure would be nice if someone poked into the funding of this nice guy. Food Inc was funded by Participant Media who received funding from Suja Life LLC and TheAudience among others. Theaudience is just a stealth celeb funding source…ok. But Suja Life LLC owns companies producing things like “organic, raw, and cold processed” juices…ala, the exact opposite of corporate farming. So it is ironic that he uses the fossil-fuel funded strawman when describing scientific views counter to his own without acknowledging that he is promoting the views economically profitable by his own funding sources.

  7. In the US we have (or are supposed to have) Freedom of Speech.
    It seems that some have found a loophole in that. They would allow people to say what they want but only based on their information.
    They want “We The People” to think that “the science is settled” and not that it is being censored.

  8. This is so inefficient! Concentration camps, gas chambers and crematoria won’t build themselves, you know, so let’s get down to business. The sword of righteousness will smite the deniers where they stand. Rule, power, order will rid the world of the capitalist running dogs, and the glories of world socialism under Gaia will shine forever!
    I get first dibs on their ipads!

  9. Your argument carries no weight. You need to remember the difference between profiting from a greedy nature (Bad) and making a profit while saving the world (Good). By definition fossil fuel companies fall into the first category while state-sponsored windmill subsidy suckers fall in the second. Obviously, normal farming (which just happens to feed the world) is in the Bad category, while crunchy feel good granola and “organic” juice–as compared to obviously “synthetic” juice–fall into the Good class.

    In short, my funding sources are Holy, and the more cash they put up the better. Yours are payments from the Devil himself, so the most minute amount is evil and marks you as a pariah.

  10. When you blame the CO2 danger industry on the left you’re missing the target which is the GOP Establishment. Democrats will never stop this. The only thing that can stop it is the GOP E though they’ve long since made clear they have no intention of doing so. US politicians of both parties have been behind this from day one and it exists today because both parties want it to. George Bush #1 named CO2 a pollutant in his 1990 Global change mandate in which he tasked 14 federal agencies with urgent climate change matters. He put the criminal UN IPCC on the map–with bills to be paid by US taxpayers–by flying to Rio for Maurice Strong’s UN climate meeting in 1992. Did you know George Bush #1’s EPA chief, Wm. Reilly, had been pres. of WWF when Bush hand picked him for the job? McConnell has sat for 3 decades and made sure nothing stopped this $2 billion a day scam that’s based on demonizing Americans. Boehner has done so for two decades. All they say is, “I’m not a scientist.” They know even if it exists China controls it and the US can do nothing to change global CO2. They may throw a snowball in the Senate or talk about lawsuits, but that’s it. If you want this stopped, the entire focus must be on the GOP E. You’re letting them off the hook by portraying the left as the problem.

  11. “Director Robert Kenner” forecastthefacts.org
    forecastthefacts.org ………. In other words foretell, predict, presage, prognosticate, prophesy, portend, promise, anticipate, divine, foreknow, announce, declare, herald, proclaim our facts as manipulated.

    It’s not “disclosingthescienceofmanmadeglobalwarming(change)(cooling).org” for good reason.

    Those who deny the facts of man-made climate change would like the media to call them “skeptics” — but (our) scientists think the media should know better.

    No. Those who deny the facts of man-made climate change would like the media to call them “scientists” – the media is knowingly calling those scientists “skeptics” to marginalize and discredit them.

    The GWA lie is Indefensible in an open scientific debate and exactly why they attack doubters in the media.

  12. This is a sign of total panic on the part of the far-left. Their computer projections have been shown to be junk, and they have only fascism and suppression remaining.

  13. I have to agree. It is the same in the UK, where the “Conservatives” in general support the AGW meme. They are attracted by globalisation and the rewards to be had by going along with the global financiers chasing global taxation and global markets in a virtual commodity. UK Conservative (UK GOP), PM Cameron is on-side with WWF and FoE and there is a revolving door between green groups and government as there is in the US with, for example, NRDC and the EPA.

    Check out “United (Socialist) Nations”
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/un_progress_governance_via_climate_change.html

  14. Freedom of Speech has always been about Speech Control(by the left) for at least the last 50+ years.

  15. So if your claim is true that both the Republicans and Democrats support the idea of global warming how is it that much more legislation hasn’t passed like cap and trade and the Kyoto Treaty? Most all of the rules and regulations have come from cabinet level organizations like EPA for the simple reason that they haven’t been able to pass them in both the house and senate. Of course you are wrong.

  16. Dear Mr. Kenner,
    The truth will always come out no matter how hard you try to suppress it.

  17. Heinlein observed: “Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.”
    The only difference is which of your pockets get picked to fund their power grabs.

  18. They didn’t “find” a loophole, they are creating whatever rationales the wish to forcibly impose themselves on you, me and everyone.

    Your statement that we are “supposed to have freedom of speech in the USA” reflects the already massive and growing gulf between those who understand the country as it was – and believe they still live in that country – and the libcult Fabulist Brigades who feel they are now in large enough numbers to let their inner totalitarians come out bleat their false assertions and empty pieties without worrying their journOlista brethren will call them on any of it. They are the beneficiaries of “libcult privilege”.

    The whole traditional basket of notions about all Amendment protected rights in the USA are now in the cross hairs of the libcultists, and they are determined to utterly destroy the existing culture and all Amendment protected rights (as you understand them anyway) and they will furiously rage against everything you hold dear in their blind hatred of all that they hold to be “imperfect”.

Comments are closed.