Destroying the careers of those who defy the climate diktat

Image: Climate Change – the REAL inconvenient truth: Scientist claims global warming is NATURAL (2017)

By Gregory Fegel

Professionals and academics who disagree with the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) have been ostracized for their contrary views, resulting in termination of their employment, or in forced retirement.

A similar fate has happened to many professionals and academics who have defied the diktat of the AGW “consensus”. The punishments meted out to Taylor and other skeptics by the professional and academic establishment have had a chilling effect on dissent, and the result is that today, few professionals and academics will question the AGW theory, for fear of losing their jobs and their careers. In academia, and in public forums, the AGW theorists continually and consistently refuse to debate the subject of AGW with qualified skeptics.Polar bear expert Mitchell Taylor, Ph.D., says that the polar bear population has been increasing for the past 40 years, and that polar bears are not currently threatened by warming.

Because of his contrary opinion, Taylor was not invited to the 2009 meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group, although he had participated in every PBSG meeting from 1981 to 2018. This shunning by the PBSG effectively ended Taylor’s career in polar bear research, and it forced him to retire.

From the Oregonian: “In 2011 the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever resigned from the American Physical Society after the group stated, “the evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring.” Giaever’s response: “Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science.”

As a result, the 87-year-old Giaever has become one of the highest profile climate-change deniers. … He argues that the global temperature since 1800 has been remarkably stable and that carbon dioxide is not a “major climate gas.” He insists that global-warming data from NASA and other respected sources is wrong and explains why he believes that. He says there is no way to accurately measure the average temperature of the globe. (NASA, to be clear, states unequivocally that there is a “scientific consensus”: Earth’s climate is heating up.)”

From the Oregonian: “The Oregon Museum of Science and Industry has pulled the plug on a presentation from three scientists critical of the theory of man-made global warming, saying the panel wasn’t balanced. Oregon’s chapter of the American Meteorological Society had scheduled the scientists to speak Tuesday at OMSI, which has long provided free space to the group for meetings. … Gordon Fulks, a local physicist, was one of the scheduled speakers. He said the society tried to round up speakers with opposing viewpoints to join the panel, but they refused.”

The AGW skeptics want to debate the subject of AGW, and the AGW alarmists refuse to engage in a debate. The AGW skeptics dispute the government and establishment position, while the AGW alarmists loyally support the government and establishment position. So yes, there is a psychological, attitudinal, and behavioral difference between the AGW skeptics and the AGW alarmists,

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age (2009), by Gregory Fegel

See more here:

See also:

“The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years — evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology.” – Gregory Fegel


The Nazi-left (independent of color) is also behind the smear campaign against Kavanaugh, it’s a leftist-thing, 1. Because they can’t win arguments based on logic, common sense, facts or science, and 2. Because the Republicans are too weak to end the abuse.

Kavanaugh Accuser Refuses to Appear Monday, ‘Prepared to Testify’

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, will not appear at the Monday hearing Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) set to address her claims, her attorneys wrote Thursday.

The New York Times published portions of an email from Ford’s lawyers to Judiciary Committee staff claiming it “is not possible” for her to appear Monday and that the “Committee’s insistence that it occur then is arbitrary in any event.” Ford “would be prepared to testify next week,” but only on “terms that are fair and which ensure her safety.”

The Monday hearing was set to discuss, under oath, Ford’s accusation that more than 35 years ago, a 17-year-old Kavanaugh had pulled her into a room at a high school party with another teenager and groped her. The email made clear she would not appear at the Monday hearing at which Kavanaugh has already agreed to testify.

Grassley had set a Friday morning deadline for Ford to let the Judiciary Committee know if she would appear. He has also stated that the hearing may be cancelled if Ford refuses to testify.

Grassley, who first suggested Ford and Kavanaugh address the accusation in a bipartisan conference call, then offered a full, open-door hearing under oath and set a date for Monday. Other Republican senators, like Susan Collins (R-ME), also made clear that Ford would have an option to testify in private with or without Kavanaugh’s presence if she so preferred:

Ford’s camp and the Democrats opposed to Kavanaugh’s confirmation quickly balked, demanding an “FBI investigation” despite the Department of Justice’s repeated assertionthat the accusation, as it involves no potential federal crime, is not under the Bureau’s general investigative jurisdiction and that their role in background investigations for nominees does not include credibility determinations.

“The FBI make any judgment about the credibility or significance of any allegation. The purpose of a background investigation is to determine whether the nominee could pose a risk to the national security of the United States,” a Justice Department spokesman said in a statement.

“It is important to remember that an FBI background investigation is entirely different from an FBI criminal investigation,” a former federal prosecutor further explained to Breitbart News Thursday. “The letter referred by Feinstein has already been added to Kavanaugh’s file, so the normal background element is complete.”

“What Ford is now asking for with a full investigation would be a criminal investigation,” the prosecutor went on. “The FBI does not do that when there is no federal crime being alleged.”

Ford’s lawyers’ email appears to drop this demand for an FBI investigation after Ford’s lead attorney, Democratic donor Debroah Katz, claimed Tuesday that her client would not testify without such an investigation. The letter states a “strong preference” for “a full investigation” but reportedly does not mention the FBI.

The New York Times’s report notes no specific reasons for further delay, but notes that Katz hopes to set up a call Thursday evening to “discuss the conditions” for her client’s testimony. The scheduling of the Monday hearing was already a delay on Kavanaugh’s confirmation process, which included four days of public hearings at which Ford’s allegations were never mentioned and was set for a committee vote Thursday. A letter detailing Ford’s claims was in Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) possession during the entirety of Kavanaugh’s original hearing and for several weeks before.

The email also makes notes of “death threats” and Ford an her family being “forced out of their home,” and implied her “safety” was one of the conditions for her appearing in on Capitol Hill.


LEVIN 09/20/2018 FULL SHOW // Democrats are talking about impeaching Kavanaugh if he gets confirmed


100% Data Tampering