Sunday, January 17, 2010

Suppressing the politics and science of ClimateGate

While Lawrence Solomon was writing "Better off with Bing"...

 (see National Post, Jan.17, 2010, here - a sequel to Solomon's earlier column "Wikipedia's climate doctor" (National Post, Dec.19, 2009, here [a commentary on Solomon's article, Wikipedia's "Wikibullies", can be seen at Watts Up With That here]; and a sequel to Solomon's Dec.24, 2009 National Post column "Climategate at Wikipedia", here)

... we can thank Gaia that in Niagara, the St. Catharines Standard's Green Teamsters have treated us to in-depth coverage of how people rinse plastic bags to, apparently, save a "planet in peril" !! Now there's some good reportin', eh?!

The GreenFear-based meme, that the planet was "in peril", appeared at least twice this month alone in the St.Catharines Standard, in the Jan.11, 2010 story "The goal: 10 garbage bags, one year" and here!!

We were all (apparently) already "in peril", even back on Oct.28, 2007, as David Suzuki fear-mongered during his GreenFear TM ScareNiagara TM tour...
(see  "Survival in peril without action: Suzuki" - another sadly pathetic Don Fraser story!)
...that "efforts to reduce carbon emissions have been scuttled by political leaders with other priorities and oil companies insisting global warming was “junk science,” said Suzuki, adding that inaction has set us back alarmingly."
[...and, no: the St.Catharines Standard's "reporter" Don Fraser did not provide any challenge or perspective to Suzuki's above climate fear spreading!! Climate change was... umm... 'all settled'... after all, doncha know!! Whaddaya expect from the Standard??!!]

Too bad Suzuki's alarmist crap is now tempered by the, um... unsettling... ClimateGate revelations of late 2009!

Suzuki's rhetoric sounded just like Ontario Liberal Kyodiot MPP Jim Bradley's paranoid, ignorant bullshit ["Kyoto Protocol will succeed", Brock Press, (St.Catharines, Ontario) Nov.19, 2002, by Susan Kirwin, link was here, later removed] where Bradley infamously used the term "rogue scientists" to discredit dissenters who questioned Bradley's global warming orthodoxy; Bradley also disparagingly, and without evidence, ominously linked them as being funded by the oil industry!

Naturally, Jim Bradley deftly NEVER REVEALED in 2002 which scientists were supposedly being paid off by the oil companies!

And, since Jim Bradley NEVER REVEALED which "scientists" he was basing his Liberal Kyodiot political science upon - the discredited Mann-made hockey stick perhaps?! - Bradley conveniently also NEVER REVEALED who was funding Bradley's mysteriously un-named "scientists"!

In 2010, Ontarians are still waiting for a secretive Bradley to answer those questions!!

Too bad the Brock Press story at the time didn't report anyone bothering to ask Bradley for the specific sources of his Liberal political climatalarmism TM. [aka GREENFEAR TM]

Did reporter Susan Kerwin actually bother asking  Bradley to specifically name who he was talking about?

Why didn't Kerwin ask:

'Mr. Bradley, can you elaborate for us specifically which "rogue scientists" you say are being paid off by the oil companies?
Could you, as a sitting Liberal Ontario MPP, elaborate which scientists you say are "rogue", and, which ones are not?
Which scientists, and which specific studies did you rely upon to decide that AGW was a threat, a peril, to mankind, and subsequently, that Kyoto was any kind of cure?'

Then, as today, it seems that when a scumbag Liberal politician says anything, it passes through the media as the pure, unchallengeable, unassailable, undisputable gospel of Gaia.

Just trust Bradley, just trust McGuinty; just believe in Smitherman; don't ask them bothersome questions: just trust them - these Liberals can't possibly be liars.

Was Bradley ignorantly spouting paranoid politicized science in 2002? Or was Jim Bradley purposefully spouting only selective portions of "science" that were tenuous enough to fit his own Liberal political ideologies?

Is science politicized? Should it be? Should certain "science" be politically correct, while other science dismissed as heresy?

Peter Foster touched on these issues in "James Hansen and mob rule" (National Post, Dec.17, 2009, here), as did Ronald L. Doering in "Don't be fooled. Science is always politicized" (National Post, Jan.15, 2010, here)

No comments: