<< CUTEST STORY EVER TOLD ~ MAIN ~ DELUSIONAL SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS >>
DISSENT IS THE LOWEST FORM OF ENVIRONMENTALISM
Accused by John Kerry (among others) of attempting to “bribe scientists” with - cue Dr Evil voice, place pinky to mouth - ten thousand dollars so they’ll oppose global warming, American Enterprise Institute president Chris DeMuth replies:
I find it worrisome that four powerful political leaders would object to scientific dissent per se. Although you later give a formulaic nod to the right of dissent, you object to being paid a “significant” sum for dissenting research, which rather limits your conception of permissible dissent.
There was a time when Kerry supported dissent, even to the extent that he dissented with historical records on who said what about dissent.
(via Garth G.)
Has green Kerry sold the “family” SUV’s yet?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 02 10 at 01:07 PM • permalinkLet’s see.
Statists who seek more control over industry and economic activity, and academics with an overwhelming preference for statist political parties.
Grant-addicted universities and scientists with a vested interest in producing ‘science’ which confirms the need for more government interference with industry and economic activity—and, just coincidentally, secures more money from their patrons to produce politically-compromised ‘science’.
Gee, no potential for conflicts of interest there. None at all. No, not one bit.
I’m just curious about how folks feel about (for example) the Sierra Club paying people to write books about global warming.
If it’s wrong for AEI to pay people for articles on the impact of GW, then it must be really, really wrong for a biased environmental organization to have someone write a book about it, then sell it for a profit.
Well, the Democrats wouldn’t let Kerry run for president again because he was such a disaster. I speculate that they’ve steered him toward the environmentalist global warming movement because they figure he can’t do any more damage than the clowns who are already there. But this is Kerry we’re talking about.
Don’t Bogart that Midget, Comrade!, I always point out that Jesus would have driven what every other carpenter drives. V-8, 4x4, 4000lb towing capacity other-cheek turners.
And I really think the AEI has cause for a defamation suit against the fantasy four.
Posted by Some0Seppo on 2007 02 10 at 02:00 PM • permalinkRead the editorial in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal:
One can only conclude from this episode that the environmental left and their political and media supporters now believe it is legitimate to quash debate on climate change and its consequences. This is known as orthodoxy, and, until now, science accepted the legitimacy of challenging it.
I especially like the dig that the WSJ makes at The Guardian’s expense:
Last week the London Guardian published a story headlined, “Scientists Offer Cash to Dispute Climate Study.” ... Another newspaper, the British Independent, picked up on the story and claimed ... It would be easy to dismiss all this as propaganda from British tabloids ...
Posted by wronwright on 2007 02 10 at 02:26 PM • permalinkOh sorry. The editorial can be found here.
Posted by wronwright on 2007 02 10 at 02:29 PM • permalinkRebeccaH —Kerry is just waiting for the People’s Call. Read John Gabriel Borkman by Ibsen…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 02 10 at 02:49 PM • permalinkWell, as we keep hearing, everybody agrees that humans are causing the planet to heat up.
And anyone who doesn’t agree is, well, a wrecker or counterrevolutionary or a kulak. And therefore not worthy of respect. And once we deal with them, Comrades, then everybody will agree on global warming!
Posted by Steve Skubinna on 2007 02 10 at 03:55 PM • permalinkYesterday Senators Bernard Sanders, Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein and John Kerry sent a letter to Mr. DeMuth complaining that “should these reports be accurate,” then “it would highlight the extent to which moneyed interests distort honest scientific and public policy discussions. . . . Does your donors’ self-interest trump an honest discussion over the well-being of the planet?”
Hooray! They finally get it. Oh, wait a minute….never mind. Sigh.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2007 02 10 at 07:24 PM • permalinkAs TCSDaily point out the AEI didn’t even ask for a hatchet job on the IPCC. Instead the brief, which sounds pretty reasonable, was: “The purpose of this project is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change.”
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
“Dissent” is good. Therefore, since whatever lefties believe must be good, it must also be “dissent”. I admire this, because they manage to cram more than one fallacy into such a small space.
This is the same kind of thinking as the vegans who claim that Jesus must have been a vegetarian, because after all, He was supposed to be perfectly virtuous, right? So, when you think about it, that can only mean He was just like them.