Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (770974)	2/24/2014 12:14:47 PM
From: joseffy	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB i-node Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575047

Climate change advocates try to silence Krauthammer ..................................................................................................... February 24, 2014 foxnews.com Heating up: Climate change advocates try to silence Krauthammer Charles Krauthammer says it right up front in his Washington Post column: “I’m not a global warming believer. I’m not a global warming denier.” He does, however, challenge the notion that the science on climate change is settled and says those who insist otherwise are engaged in “a crude attempt to silence critics and delegitimize debate.” How ironic, then, that some environmental activists launched a petition urging the Post not to publish Krauthammer’s column on Friday. Their response to opinions they disagree with is to suppress the speech. Brad Johnson (@ClimateBrad), the editor of HillHeat.com and a former Think Progress staffer, boasted on Twitter that 110,000 people had urged the newspaper “to stop publishing climate lies” like the Krauthammer piece. I understand that many people are passionate about global warming and consider skeptics to be flat-earthers. Those who don’t like the arguments by Krauthammer, a Fox News contributor, should by all means criticize, dispute, denounce and otherwise go at him. That’s how debate takes place in a country with a vibrant media culture. Instead, these folks believe that censorship is preferable. Why engage Krauthammer when they might just be able to employ pressure tactics to silence him? And what’s the difference between this and shouting down a speaker at a town hall? Krauthammer told me the petition-signers “showed up just in time to make precisely the point I made in the column.” When it comes to free speech, he says, “they don’t even hide it anymore. Now they proudly want certain arguments banished from discourse. The next step is book burning. “Is there anything more anti-scientific than scientific truths being determined by petition and demonstration?” Maybe this reflects a broader trend in which people want to wall themselves off from contrary information — and wall off others as well. Debating a complicated subject like climate change — and, equally important, what to do about it — is difficult. Attempting to silence the other side is the easy way out. Of course, most climate-change proponents are perfectly willing to argue their case on the merits. Unfortunately, that doesn’t apply to everyone.

To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (770974)	2/24/2014 1:32:34 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1575047

Carol Costello Doubles Down on CNN Declaration of No Climate Change Debate By P.J. Gladnick[/url] \| February 24, 2014 newsbusters.org It appears that CNN is now going all in on its assertion that there is no climate change debate. Despite the absurdity of a news organization openly declaring that it is closed to any arguments to the contrary, the CNN Newsroom anchor Carol Costello has proudly declared her mind closed on this topic. In an opinion piece published at CNN.Com, Costello boldly took pride in her refusal to consider facts contrary to her belief in the very first sentence: "There is no debate." Got that? Cased closed and so is her mind as she went on to prove: Climate change is real. And, yes, we are, in part, to blame. There is a 97% consensus among scientific experts that humans are causing global warming. Ninety-seven percent! Yet some very vocal Americans continue to debate what is surely fact. The question is, why? GASP! Imagine that. Americans still want to debate this topic. Oh, the horror. The horror! BTW, Carol, you slipped a bit there when you used the term "global warming." Since the earth has not warmed as predicted, the new operative phrase is now "climate change" so as to try to avoid the embarrassment of the failed predictions. To help bolster her case to shut down debate, Costello interviewed the director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, Anthony Leiserowitz, who describes himself as "a geographer trained in the cognitive and social psychology of risk perception and decision making." Here is how the cognitively trained geographer classified the social psychology of those involved in global warming, oops, I mean climate change debate that Costello insists must not take place because "there is no debate": "We've found there are six very (specific) categories that respond to this issue in different ways," he said. He calls these categories "Global Warming's Six Americas." The first group, "The Alarmed," is made up 16% of the public. They believe climate change is an urgent problem but have no clear idea of how to fix it. The second group (27%) is "The Concerned." They believe climate change is a problem but think it's more about polar bears and tiny islands than a problem that directly affects them. The third group, "The Cautious" (23%), are people on the fence. They haven't made up their minds whether global warming is real or if it's a man-made problem. The fourth group, "The Disengaged" (5%), doesn't know anything about climate change. The fifth group, "The Doubtful" (12%), do not think climate change is man-made. They think it's natural and poses no long-term risk. Leiserowitz says it's the sixth group, "The Dismissives," that is the most problematic, even though it comprises just 15% of the public. "They say it's a hoax, scientists are making up data, it's a U.N. conspiracy (or) Al Gore and his friends want to get rich." Leiserowitz goes on to say, "It's a really loud 15%. ... (It's a) pretty well-organized 15%." How about "The Dogmatics?" That would include most of CNN and many in the MSM who continue to refuse to even listen to contrary views that might contradict their strict global warming belief because "there is no debate." Since Costello and guest had no time to actually discuss anything to do with climate science, she took a shot at the funding of those who did not blindly accept the One True Faith of global warming: Meanwhile, the climate change "counter movement" has been helped along by an infusion of cash from, among others, some in the powerful fossil fuel industry. A recent study by Drexel University found that conservative foundations and others have bankrolled climate denial to the tune of $558 million between 2003 and 2010. Left unsaid are the huge government and liberal grants given to organizations and people subscribing to the global warming faith including Anthony Leiserowitz's Yale Project On Climate Change Communication. Here is a page listing the breathtaking array of deep pocket organizations funding a project designed to smear skeptics. These are some of the sponsors of the climate change propaganda project: National Science Foundation: An independent federal agency with a yearly budget (as of 2010) of $6.9 to spread the wealth among the like minded which means no bucks to the skeptics. NOAA The 11th Hour Project Climate Works And many others. So how much of a haul does Tony's outfit take in each year? And is there any chance that Carol Costello will take a break from her "no debate" shtick to give us those details?