The Climate Mobilization, a group pushing for a World War II-scale national mobilization to fight global warming, condemned the media for pursuing "objectivity" by giving air time to "climate deniers." Aligned with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), the organization wants the media to silence all voices opposing their climate alarmism.

"Some media outlets are sacrificing the future of our planet for the sake of appearing objective," Margaret Klein Salamon, founder and executive director of The Climate Mobilization, said in a news release Saturday.

"This idea of equating climate deniers with scientific experts is a dangerous practice which frames the threat to our planet, our existence as an ongoing debate," Klein Salamon added. "I don’t think sacrificing the future of our planet in exchange for a look of 'objectivity' is an even exchange. It’s one the coming generation will judge us on, if we don’t move with the urgency necessary to fight back against global warming and win."

Never mind if you are ignoring the First Amendment. But be careful what you wish for!

 In other words, climate alarmists aren't just calling for radical changes to America to stave off some hypothetical climate disaster — they're also calling for opposing voices to be silenced. "Science" can only have one voice, and that voice must be Chicken Little.

The Climate Mobilization seized on a Newsweek article about a study from Nature Communications. The study's authors claimed that the U.S. news media gives "climate change deniers too much prominence by placing people with little understanding of the complexities involved in the same league as top scientists."

"It's time to stop giving these people visibility, which can be easily spun into false authority," University of California Merced Professor Alex Petersen said in a statement. Petersen and his team traced the digital footprints of voices for and against climate alarmism across 100,000 media articles. They found that about half of mainstream outlets seek out "climate denying" experts.

[...]

If the professional world of climate science is dominated by the ideology of climate alarmism, it would make sense that climate alarmists are more heavily cited than climate skeptics. In January 2017, Judith Curry, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, resigned, calling out the alarmist ideology that increasingly dominates her field.

"I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science," Curry wrote. "Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc."

"How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists)," Curry wondered.

In other words, climate science is becoming an ideological echo chamber that rewards alarmism and silences dissenting voices, even when the dissenters are good scientists like Curry.

It's a long article, but has to be -- it covers a lot of ground. Please read the entire article, here: https://pjmedia.com/trending/aoc-aligned-climate-group-demands-media-silence-climate-deniers/

By the way, don't you just love the Left's terminology? "Climate denier," indeed. Who is denying that there's such a thing as climate? Nobody whom I've heard.

A word from Tim:

So, John Christy isn't a "real" scientist? Roy Spencer of UAH? Roger Pielke Sr. and Jr.? Freeman Dyson? William Happer?  Give me a break.

Here is a list of top guys who disagree with global warming alarmism. It can also be found at Wikipedia. And what of the 31000 scientists who signed the Oregon Petition disputing the "consensus"? S. Fred Singer told the National Association of Scholars estimates that at least forty percent of scientists hold some sort of skeptical opinion on the subject. It seems likely that number is low. As of 2012 meteorologists disagreed with AGW theory although a recent study suggests they have flipped on it - hardly a surprise since they are facing loss of employment if they don't toe the line.

This reminds me of a labor union meeting I attended once. We were there to talk about our lost pension, and the president called for a voice vote as to whether to discuss that or move on. We all shouted in unison "discuss" and he announced "move on passes".  Yeah; it's kind of like that.

Posted by: Office.com/Setup at August 23, 2019 08:34 AM (gsGhs)

Hide Comments | Add Comment