Everything you need to know about Climate Change
Fired for ‘Diverging’ on Climate: Progressive Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd calling global warming ‘unproved science’
Dr. Caleb Rossiter was “terminated” via email as an “Associate Fellow” from the progressive group Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), following his May 4th, 2014 Wall Street Journal OpEd titled “Sacrificing Africa for Climate Change,” in which he called man-made global warming an “unproved science.” Rossiter also championed the expansion of carbon based energy in Africa. Dr. Rossiter is an adjunct professor at American University. Rossiter, who has taught courses in climate statistics, holds a PhD in policy analysis and a masters degree in mathematics.
In an exclusive interview with Climate Depot, Dr. Rossiter explained: “If people ever say that fears of censorship for ‘climate change’ views are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be allowed the ‘all of the above’ energy strategy we have in the U.S., the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship with them…because my analysis and theirs ‘diverge.’”
This right here is Global Warming “science” in a nutshell. Even fellow travellers (“I’ve spent my life on the foreign-policy left. I opposed the Vietnam War, U.S. intervention in Central America in the 1980s and our invasion of Iraq.”) cannot deny the orthodoxy and remain secure. Merely questioning Global Warming, particularly in regards to the toll in human suffering that the proposed “solutions” would charge, is enough to lose a man his job.
Politicized science is not kind of science at all.
This act shows that all of the Climate Science trotted out by the Greenwash is fruit from a poison tree; it throws all of it into question. If questioning the orthodoxy will get a man fired, than the insidious, indirect effects are going to be ten times more powerful. Selective funding based upon what is going to be studied; the soft political power of silence, where none dare raise their voice, and unanimity of one’s peers is falsely assumed; the dissemination of apparently settled science to students, and scientists in related fields. The list goes on and on
The only possible defense of Dr Rossiter’s termination is that it was an isolated incident; that if you dig deeper the termination was only notionally about science, in reality there was some other cause behind it – perhaps he pulled an Arnold J. Rimmer and mistakenly asked for his Gazpacho soup to be heated up at a conference? If you’ve been paying more than a modicum of attention to Climate Science, however, you’ll know that this was hardly an isolated incident. The political/financial pressure to support the hockey-stick/CO2 model is enormous.
Then you have the issue of the proposed solutions; with rare exceptions they are transparently Marxist initiatives to redistribute income, punish businesses large and small, and are proposed by left-wing activists who are economic illiterates. There’s a reason that the founder of Green Peace quit his organization.
It ain’t about the environment; it’s about the feel-goods and the Benjamins. Useless people doing useless work. I support actual environmental initiatives as much as the next person, but any dollar spent on the modern Environmental/Greenwash Movement will do nothing for the planet, and the cost will be paid in human lives. Opposition to these charlatans is the only sane and moral stance.
All of that said, if you’re actually curious about what’s happening to the planet, I’d like to recommend the following 30 minute video by Suspicious 0bservers. Unlike An Inconvenient Truth (which, ironically, is what led me to start questioning Global Warming with its utter lack of actual information), this video contains reams of information, references the mountains of data out there that it doesn’t have the time to cover, and presents a theory which is plausible, elegant, and has vast explanatory power.
Unlike that other theory…
Lysenko still lives.
Global Warming actually was little more than a far-margins-of-science fear of specific scientists until Margaret Thatcher needed a political reason to oppose the coal mining labor unions in Britain. Then suddenly (within 10 years) it was the most important fear on the planet. It started political, it has always been political, it will die out as a political movement. There’s almost nothing scientific about the temperature conclusions that people draw from their models, their ice-core samples, and their tree-ring studies. Yes, it paid for great advances in how we view the worlds climate system… But if you had re-routed all those funds into human space exploration, we would have missions to Mars by now, and the earth would still be the ~1C warmer that it was going to be anyway.
We as a planet, wasted money on a nameless, baseless fear. So, really, it’s just like any other day on earth, except this one grew legs and has turned into a new inquisition.
I took a class on the history of the Eugenics Movement this Spring. Don’t look at me like that, I needed the credits and it was the only thing that fit into my schedule.
With that background info out of the way, I can say that he pacing of the Global Warming Movement is almost identical to that of the Eugenics Movement: started in the 70s as the product of a new science (meteorology/evolutionary biology), gained steam in the 80s, was popularized in the 00s via a sensational work of “scientific fact” (The Kallikaks/AIT), used by politicians to increase power and control in the 10s. If the pattern holds, we should have a decline in popular acceptance in the 20s, use by a government to justify mass atrocities in the 30s, discredited in the 40s.
Eugenics came under fire for the shoddy evidence presented by its advocates, and the advocates closed ranks and discredited their critics to hold on to the academic and political influence they had amassed. We’re seeing the same exact thing here. Mind you, there’s probably something to eugenics, just as there is probably something to climate change. But right now, it’s just way too political to trust.
@Sean one of the things that really outrages me about eugenics – aside from the obviously unforgivable abuse of individuals – is how, through their overweening pride, they damaged the science itself. “Eugenics” has become a dirty word, and so now any attempt to apply moral, “soft” eugenics – that is, creating policies which encourage responsible breeding behaviour amongst the poor, and extra children amongst the wealthy (along with the recognition that we haven’t figured everything out, and there may be important alleles amongst the poor which are worth preserving in our biodiversity) – are impossible to implement.
With all the shenanigans going on with Global Warming, we might be facing a similar situation there; where Environmentalism becomes such a dirty word that the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater.
On an unrelated note, what do you make of Jack Donovan’s apparent conversion to Heathenry? It certainly fits with the theme of neo-barbarism that he has been working on for the past year or so. The fact that the group he mentioned in his post about the moot he attended- The Wolves of Vinland- are within a couple states of me is exciting. They also seem to hit that sweet spot that I’ve been trying to find with heathen groups: they are unabashedly folkish, but the white nationalist Stormfront types think they are “Jewish litigators” for having problems with other groups using their name without permission.
To paraphrase the immortal Edsger Dijkstra: A scientific discipline is only respectable when it limits itself to what is feasible, and only successful when it is driven by the curiosity of scientists (not necessarily those who have a PhD), rather than the political or business objectives of lay persons.
Science will never solve all our problems, and the scientific method is not a drop-in replacement for our rational intuitive judgements. However, it is still really useful and (for the scientist) intrinsically rewarding.
I personally believe what we are seeing is the rebirth of fascism The mainstreaming of degenerate behaviour such as homosexuality, the shit house science by political hacks, the double standards…to me it all adds up to the foundation work for the 4th Reich.
I prefer worshippers to a living god, than a dead God, any day.
@ Aurini: Elaborate, please. Do you mean that you prefer people who practice a current religion, or do you mean that you prefer people who practice a religion that is informed by their cultural roots?
Dissent is intolerable. Consensus means whatever we want it to mean. We will never relinquish power voluntarily, like the chumps who preceded us did.
I don’t know about “Eugenics”, but it’s becoming pretty clear that “Dysgenics” is a whole lot worse.
More on dysgenics: https://archive.org/details/Dysgenics-Richard-Lynn