The Intolerance of Warmists

People who believe in CAGW do not like to be challenged. They are convinced that they have reality on their side and consider dissenters to be blind or shills of the oil industry.

Recent examples of this behaviour include tossing skeptic Christopher Monckton out of CoP 18 and then right out of Qatar for his breach of etiquette when he used the microphone of the absent Myanmar delegation to inform the assembly at CoP18 that there has been no warming for 16 of the 18 years that they have been meeting to discuss global warming and climate change. He further implored them to review the science before deciding on a course of action.

Skeptic Marc Marano was invited to appear with warmist Bill Nye on the Piers Morgan show and CNN was berated by other warmists for giving Morano a platform with which to inform people that there was another opinion on the matter. Warmists like to have a monopoly on the media spin.

Recently the BBC in the UK was exposed for covering up a meeting in which they decided not to give coverage to the skeptic side of the man made climate change debate because the ‘science was settled’. They claimed the meeting included top scientists but it turned out that of the 28 people involved only 3 were scientists and the rest were AGW advocates. When you reserve the pitch for yourself you can claim to have won the contest without playing the game. Is your case so weak that you need to do this or is something else afoot?

What are they afraid of? Why are they afraid that if people hear a contrary opinion that people will stop believing in AGW? Is their case that weak?

They see oil behind every objection. They question motives, credentials, intelligence, funding and anything else they can think of that will discredit anyone offering skepticism of their cherished agenda of global resource control and wealth redistribution. Regardless of the objection they attack the person or group because they regard themselves as the consensus and possessors of the truth. Their arguments are replete with logical fallacies like ad hominems and the introduction of red herrings designed to divert attention away from the veracity of the claims that they are making.

These tactics are dishonest and are not aimed at a dispassionate examination of their claims and theories.

Are they afraid of the truth? Can they not defend their position in public? What are they hiding?