The author tells of a behind-the-scenes effort to intimidate a writer to change his article which gave too much encouragement to global warming skeptics. Jo Abbess, global warming activist, attempted to get Roger Harrabin to tone down his piece.
She bragged to her fellows:
Remember to challenge any piece of media that seems like it's been subject to spin or scepticism.
Here's my go for today. The BBC actually changed an article I requested a correction for, but I'm not really sure if the result is that much better.
Judge for yourselves...
The main article mentioned above points out that Jo Abbess did not like this article written by Roger Harrabin which reported a dropping of the world wide temperature. Jo didn’t like its message so attempted to get it changed. The editor and author explain the controversy here.
When Abbess threatened to discredit and expose Harrabin as someone who has been influenced by the global warming skeptics, she is avoiding data and evidence and making a personal attack to stifle that evidence. Evidence of cooling in the face of the ardently held view of warming unhinges these people. Refutation of fact cannot be accomplished so they resort to public embarrassment of the one propounding the evidence. This is a form of blackmail in which the activist threatened to deprive the reporter and/or commentator of his reputation.
Global warming has been sold to us without evidence and even contrary to evidence. It is popularly held among the elite to the point that politicians such as President George Bush cave to it to some degree and Senator John McCain talks the line, thinking he needs to in order to be elected.
Americans like to perceive themselves to be devoutly scientifically oriented. In reality, a large number of Americans are scientific dolts. They have no clue how to think within the guidelines of the scientific method and postulate a theory based on testable, repeatable evidence. Rather, they buy into a philosophy without any evidence. They believe in global warming on blind faith.
These same people condemn the religious for doing that. By their own practice, they are the new religionists, clinging to blind faith. Watch out for religionists because anything can be justified in the name of religion. Data and hard core evidence will not stand in their way to protect their goddess, Gaia. Ultimately, their ardently held religious view is dangerous to scientific investigation into true cause and effect because it also tends to forms of blackmail.