Four Guardian articles:
"Diageo to end funding of Heartland Institute after climate change outburst"
"Scientist who lied to obtain Heartland documents faces fight to save job"
"Heartland associate taught 'biased' climate course at Ottawa University"
"Cancel Lord Monckton's university lecture, say academics"
As is the way with the internet, one link leads to another. In the first article, it's not surprising that a corporation stops funding a group if doing so will be perceived as controversial, as is the case with the Heartland Institute's latest ad campaign. What I find disturbing is this quote from its spokesman:
The second article is more interesting if you imagine the reverse situation to the one discussed: i.e. a journalist working for the Heartland Institute using dishonest means to get information out of one of the propaganda production units of the global warming industry. I'm imagining; shock! outrage! demands for the long arm of the law and exemplary punishment.
With the third and fourth articles (the latter from last year) we descend further into a hellish pit of scientologistical jacobinism, where 'academics' attempt to stifle debate and ban contrary voices, so hysterically fearful are they that the edifice of half-truths and assertions they call 'the consensus' will come crashing down as soon as someone pokes it with a pencil. Thus:
"Diageo to end funding of Heartland Institute after climate change outburst"
"Scientist who lied to obtain Heartland documents faces fight to save job"
"Heartland associate taught 'biased' climate course at Ottawa University"
"Cancel Lord Monckton's university lecture, say academics"
As is the way with the internet, one link leads to another. In the first article, it's not surprising that a corporation stops funding a group if doing so will be perceived as controversial, as is the case with the Heartland Institute's latest ad campaign. What I find disturbing is this quote from its spokesman:
"Diageo vigorously opposes climate scepticism and our actions are proof of this."Huh? Why would a drinks company 'vigorously oppose' one side in a scientific argument? I could understand a company saying: 'we take climate change seriously and are doing what we can to love the planet for our children ... and our children's children', but 'vigorously opposing' a widely held view in an on-going scientific debate? What else, I wonder? What is the corporate position on String Theory? Sadly, Diageo owns Guinness, a favourite tipple of mine. Perhaps I should take my custom elsewhere.
The second article is more interesting if you imagine the reverse situation to the one discussed: i.e. a journalist working for the Heartland Institute using dishonest means to get information out of one of the propaganda production units of the global warming industry. I'm imagining; shock! outrage! demands for the long arm of the law and exemplary punishment.
With the third and fourth articles (the latter from last year) we descend further into a hellish pit of scientologistical jacobinism, where 'academics' attempt to stifle debate and ban contrary voices, so hysterically fearful are they that the edifice of half-truths and assertions they call 'the consensus' will come crashing down as soon as someone pokes it with a pencil. Thus:
The letter, which is addressed "from the Australian academic community" to Notre Dame, a Catholic university in Western Australia, was originally drafted by Natalie Latter, a political science postgraduate student at the University of Western Australia. The letter says Monckton's lecture is particularly unwelcome in light of recent death threats made against Australian climate scientists.D-D-D-D-Death threats? What, these death threats? The ones you made up and got caught lying about by the Aussie Info Commissioner?
No comments:
Post a Comment