If There Is Nothing To Hide, Why Cut Off Debate?
by Big Dog on Dec 14, 2009 at 20:17 Political
The global warming crowd stands by its assertions that the science is settled and that we no longer need to debate the issue. This despite growing concern about the shenanigans that have taken place with manipulated and hidden data. Science should not need to have tricks and should not allow the conclusion to dictate the “facts.” The facts should lead to the conclusion.
When the conclusion is in doubt or when there is disagreement then scientists should continue to do research to discover a truth. When the truth is invented, or if it looks like the truth was invented, then people are naturally skeptical.
Thus is the case with global warming and the people like Al Gore who spout about disasters of apocalyptic proportions. We are all going to die as the world melts. Yeah, right.
What is more likely is that Al Gore and many others stand to get very rich by hyping up this “crisis.” It sort of reminds me of all the Swine Flu hysteria which now turns out to be not so bad. When all is said and done the Swine Flu will likely not be any worse than the regular seasonal flu, just like I said when the hype first started.
One question people need to ask is, if this is settled and the science is sound why are people who are seeking answers cut off? Security guards in Copenhagen stopped a reporter from asking questions about Climategate and the issue of global warming. The guard threatened to take camera equipment and throw the reporter out.
This is how the settled science is debated. If you disagree, jackbooted Nazis storm in and remove you. Al Gore says he will debate the issue but he rejects requests to debate it and always says the science is settled.
At one time the science was settled that the Earth was flat. At one time the science was settled that heavier than air flight was impossible. At one time the science was settled that smoking was OK and doctors even hawked cigarette brands.
Science changes as new information becomes available. The only time an issue is cut off from debate is when people have something to hide.
Video (Big Government)
Iowahawk discusses the Hockey Stick (Thanks to Ace)
Violent Lefties riot at Copenhagen (such a peaceful group. Probably despise war these folks…)
One global warming nut thinks we should restrict the number of kids people have to ONE. She has two, which one will she want to kill off?
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: copenhagen, flat earth, global warming, hoax, lies, settled science
“If you disagree, jackbooted Nazis storm in and remove you.”
Let me just say that there is nothing more jackbooted and nazi like than security guards removing a man for interrupting and refusing to follow requests of the staff at the conference. At this rate you probably call traffic cops nazis for giving out speeding tickets.
“One question people need to ask is, if this is settled and the science is sound why are people who are seeking answers cut off?”
Or maybe you can ask yourself why the accounts of a man asking a question and then refusing to give up the microphone or follow the requests of the staff until he has to be removed by security is considered a conspiracy to hide the truth about global warming data.
That article is filled with kooky commenters and conspiracy nuts. Here’s a good sample.
Your kind of people? Gotta love the nuts…
Adam, the guy is a reporter, he asked a question that was not answered. The guy danced around it. They do not take microphones away from people praising their work.
Regardless of what you think about whether the guy should have given up the mic, the guard had no cause to tell the person to shut off the camera or he would take it away.
If you think that was OK then you have issues.
As for the commenters, you find them everywhere. You want me to go over to Kos and find you a bunch of moonbats who think 9/11 was an inside job or what.
If you want to make your case then trying to disparage the issue by pointing to commenters is a poor way to do it. You and I both know all kinds of nuts comment from all ends of the political spectrum.
“You want me to go over to Kos and find you a bunch of moonbats who think 9/11 was an inside job or what.”
Those aren’t my kind of people though. I just find a lot of parallels between the nuttiness on Big Government and your own ideas. I’m not sure what site you’d need to go to in order to find my people.
Any popular site draws all kind sof people. I would not be surprised if they were Obamabots who were doing this on purpose to disparage dissent. We already know the WH employs people to do this.
You find parallels between what i believe and the nuts on the web? Funny, my ideals have to do with self sufficiency, public service, responsibility and taking care of my family. Now if those are the ideals you mean then you are right. If they are not then you are way off base.
I am where I am because I worked hard to get here and not because government gave me a handout. If that is not something to be emulated then you need some help.
So should I go to meathead’s and find some of your folks?
Besides, you claim that Kos is not your peeps, but I might say they are. You took the liberty to assign me to those commenting at BG so I should have the same luxury with regard to you.
When is the last time I cited a Kos article to back up an argument? I read Kos maybe 3 times a year. How often do you read and cite BG?
It does not matter if you cite them or not. I can equate you to them as you did with me.
I read them when they are linked at Drudge and cite them when i like th estory.
Funny how that whole ACORN mess is being swept under the rug except by BG. Wait until the election when he drops a bunch of bombs.
I can’t remember the last time I read Kos, much less cited it in an argument, but you’re still going to equate me with them why? Because I equate you with people who say similar things as you on a site you read often and cite every few weeks on this site? Doesn’t make sense…
Adam, your quotes;
“I can’t remember …”
“I’m not sure what …”
“Gotta love the nuts…”
“traffic cops (are)nazis for giving out speeding tickets.”
“maybe you can ask yourself (because I don’t know)”
“It could have been…(but doesn’t know)”
“I’d hate…”
None of these are argument winners.
If this was a liberal at a Sarah Palin event refusing to give up the mic or follow the request of those in charge of the event then I’m sure you would be OK with it. No matter your political views, when you go to an event to upset the process (and that’s what this guy was doing) you’re going to get tossed out, end of story. I’ve seen it many times and so have you. That does not mean the people who did it are Nazis or fascists.
First of all Palin would answer the question. Second of all I would not be fine with people being told to turn off cameras and to sit down and shut up. They are reporters. No one who agrees has the mic taken away.
And I find it funny that when i say if Bush had done this etc, you say no not so. But then you use the same argument with regard to Palin.
You assume that this guy was there to upset the process. NO. The jackasses who were breaking windows and rioting were there to disrupt the process. They are the left you know.
For a group of people who say they will debate the issue, are willing toi discuss it and have nothing to hide they sure quiet opposing opinions very quickly.
And this is not the first time we have seen this. Town hall meetings that opposed Obamacare saw the same thing. Only at those the left and its goons in SEIU attacked people.
The right has yet to cause any of the violence Pelosi is so afraid of. It is the left doing it. One day the right is going to fight back and it will be ugly.
The right went to meetings to peacefully protest and the left showed up with goons and threated and assaulted people. Then the right started showing up with their legally owned and legally authorized to carry firearms and the violence stopped.
“And I find it funny that when i say if Bush had done this etc, you say no not so. But then you use the same argument with regard to Palin.”
It’s not the structure of the argument I disagree with. It’s the instances you cite.
“For a group of people who say they will debate the issue, are willing to discuss it and have nothing to hide they sure quiet opposing opinions very quickly.”
I would love to see a full video of what took place instead of a little over a minute of it cut to make it look bad for the event and not the “journalist” involved.
Perhaps you could see a whole video if the guards had not shut them down. Though it appears as if another journalist was recording.
The video is chopped up. It could have been boring footage or it could have shown the “journalist” causing a ruckus and being a jerk. It would be helpful to know before calling this part of a grand conspiracy to silence questioning of global warming.
Not chopped up enough to hear a guard tell a journalist to turn off the camera or it will be taken away. I did not know Copenhagen was a Communist country.
So Adam, is this video chopped up as well? A reporter (same guy) is asking Gore questions. Gore refuses to correct the record on his lie about the emails being 10 years old. The one of Gore’s people grabs the guys mic (I would have beat his ass) and then a guard rips the cord from the mic.
So is it too chopped up to see the Nazis stifling dissent? Is it too chopped up to see Gore refusing to answer, oh he who says he will debate the issue?
They are all cowards. This is a farce and a hoax and they should be boiled in oil, crude oil that emits lots of Carbon.
I don’t get it. This was not a question and answer session. This was not a debate. That guy is a pest with his own agenda who is confronting (or ambushing in the 2nd case) people and not following the orders of the security in both videos. Then when he gets a negative reaction he presents it as something bizarre and outrageous so that you and others like on free republic can freak out and call this some sort of fascism. I think you’ve lost all sense of what that would actually be like. If this were anything related to Nazis he would not even be allowed to be there.
No, the Nazis controlled the media. Why was this guard allowed to make the man turn off the camera.
Regardless of the agenda (and his is as valid as Gore’s) he has press credentials and he asked a question that was not answered.
But wait until tomorrow morning. I have another Nazi guard video for you.
Again my thoughts are that if you think those security guards are Nazis I’d hate to see you pulled over for speeding.
If Gore was secure in his “knowledge”, he would welcome all questions, for he would have the answers for them, instead of silencing critics by denying them the opportunity to ask questions. In this case, the questioner was not allowed to even finish the question before the guard did his bit for the Goracle.
But this was not a Sarah Palin event. It concerns huge amounts of money, and if allowed to press forward, will negatively impoach the lives of every human on the planet.
And yes, it does mean these people are as bad, or worse than run-of-the millstone Nazis and fascists. What makes you say they are different?
Communists also said they were murding millions and collapsing entire nations’ economies for the “good of the people.”
So in fact Sarah is much preferable.
“One day the right is going to fight back and it will be ugly.”
Compare this to “will be a hellva a war one day over fake science”, a quote from the people you wanted to distance yourself from.
You assume fight back and ugly pertain to violence. There are plenty of ways to fight and for it to be ugly without violence. Just showing up with guns stopped the violence without further escalation.
Just for the record. If I ever get attacked by one of these goons I am going to hurt him.
“If that POS UN security guard tried to do that to me in the US, he’d get a rude awakening on the 2nd amendment.”
vs.
“If I ever get attacked by one of these goons I am going to hurt him.”
See, these are your people.
I have no problem with people defending themselves. I would even defend you should some SEIU goons decide to beat you up.
I like too that you can’t refer to SEIU without saying thug or goon at the same time as if every member of SEIU is running around assaulting people.
It is a fact that one can’t refer to SEIU without saying thug or goon at the same time because every member of SEIU is running around assaulting people.
That is because in SEIU, there are plenty of thugs and goons, as well as illegal immigrants, whose money the thugs and goons will gladly take.
I have never seen a positive thing unions have done for anyone in the last fifty years- except disappear Hoffa, and dat mebbe waddnt de unions, ya know wat I mean?
I have been pulled over for speeding and I am respectful to the police officer and I expect the same from him. If he decides not to be respectful of me, his employer, then I remind him of such and let him know that his job is to write the ticket and be professional.
BTW, I received a warning…Being professional is a smart move.
All the ones I see are at political rallies intimidating people and beating them up.
They are there with their SEIU shirts on for a reason, to intimidate people.
They are thugs and goons because that is how they act.
If I saw SEIU workers (which I have seen many in the health care field) then they are workers. Unless they are intimidating people…