Here is a fascinating New York Times story about the gap between climatologists and meteorologists with respect to global warming. The former are more likely to believe that the globe is warming and that the cause of the warming is humanity. Climatologists are concerned about the gap, because they have less contact with ordinary people than do meteorologists, and therefore less ability to manipulate people. If you read to the end of the story, you will see that climatologists are twisting the arms of meteorologists to get them to perpetuate the climate hoax. This is how progressives work. They have a blueprint for society and will stoop at nothing to implement it. Anyone who refuses to go along with the progressive program is delegitimized, abused, and vilified. (Remember how I was treated by a certain thuggish law professor.) I expect protests against media organizations who employ global-warming "skeptics." No dissenting voices are allowed!
By the way, don't you love the pejorative term "skeptic" here? A skeptic is a doubter. How many of these same people think that the proper position to take with respect to the existence of God is skepticism? Skepticism is good (apparently) when what one doubts is the existence of God. It is bad when what one doubts is the existence of anthropogenic (i.e., human-caused) global warming. Perhaps we should call global warmists "fundamentalists," for they have much in common with religious fundamentalists. One thing they have in common is a powerful desire to excommunicate and persecute heretics.
Addendum: This paragraph is rich:
The dissent has been heightened by recent challenges to climate
science, including the discovery of a handful of errors in the landmark
2007 report on global warming by the United
Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change and the unauthorized release of hundreds of
e-mail messages from a British climate research center last fall that
skeptics claim show that climate scientists tried to suppress data.
The bias in this single paragraph is astonishing. First, it is said that there is only a "handful" of errors in the United Nations report. Why should we tolerate even one error, much less a handful? Second, what does the word "unauthorized" add? If the reporters think there is reason to doubt that scientists tried to suppress data, they should explain why. Instead, they try to shift attention from the duplicity of the scientists to the behavior of those who obtained the e-mails. That's called a red herring. Third, what's with "skeptics claim"? Do the reporters deny, or even doubt, that the e-mails show that climate scientists tried to suppress data? The reporters are bending over backward to protect the unscrupulous "scientists" from criticism. This is a paradigm of biased reportage, and it appears in our "best" newspaper.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 