Libraries define intellectual freedom as the public’s right to examine all points-of-view. These outspoken climate scientists are trying to block your access to alternative perspectives. Part 2 of 3.
Asking a random group of climate scientists to comment on policy measures (as opposed to scientific questions) leads to some disturbing answers.
Is it any wonder that young climate scientists behave badly? Their elders set the example – by hurling insults at dissenters.
A powerful lobby group supplied their meeting space, helped with their travel documents & subsidized their meals. Top IPCC scientists went along for the ride.
A person who “played no role whatsoever” in an IPCC chapter nevertheless signed a statement that claimed otherwise.
The scientific community expects us to trust its judgment on the question of whether global warming is the fault of human beings. But its response to the Chris Landsea affair demonstrates that that judgment is impaired.
There’s a link between hurricane expert Chris Landsea, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. That link is James J. McCarthy.
Why did a Canadian expert fly 2,500 miles across three time zones to testify in Washington, DC this week when there are plenty of US experts? And who footed the bill?
According to some people, only a “climatologist” can be a credible scientific voice in the climate debate. Why do we spend so much time trying to disqualify people – rather than addressing their ideas?
Should AGW proponents acknowledge critics? Or should they avert their eyes and block their ears?
Emails sent at work are not private. Climategate scientists who say they “personally feel violated” now that their e-mails have become public need to remember that their salaries are paid with taxpayer dollars.