T W A W K I

The world as we know it

No dissent allowed!

The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.   Archibald Macleish

To question is the right of every human being. To question what we have been told, what we believe and who we think we are. To question is also the standard tenet of science as we ask why! This is how science and understanding advances.

Yet our governments and their increasingly attached NGOs don’t want us to think, dont want us to question – but to simply believe. They want us to believe something that is so at odds with the natural world and history that they will actually bring about that which they try and scare us with by their lies – the destruction of humanity.

This destruction is twofold – firstly as we spend trillions on warming as the ensuing more dangerous cold deepends then we will be ill prepared to mitigate the cold damage – already thousands are dying;

Secondly by refusing dissent, by destroying free thought, freedom of speech and free expressions they kill the human spirit and treat us not as people but simply as objects for their own egos.

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg. Abraham Lincoln

Despite the climate alarmists protestations that CO2 causes warming the evidence is simply not there. To regulate this natural gas as a toxin is a travesty. In effect what those in power are doing is showing that they have no right to rule over us and no right to govern. It is time we were governed by those who cared for humanity rather than hate it.

I refuse to debate ….. Quiggin, why I wont debate Lord Monckton, If the case for CO2 was unassailable no one would have to warn against debating it, Do skeptics DESERVE to be a part of the climate change debate?, Monckton not allowed to debate with Gore, No debate allowed.

Flashbacks – No dissent allowed. Democrats refuse debate and free speech, CNN shuts down debate, Polar bear expert excluded by global warmists, Climate thugs tolerate no dissent, Credibility of modern science at a crossroads, No consensus on IPCC’s level of ignorance, The price of dissent on global warming, No criticism of earth hour allowed, Blind acceptance of the flawed theory, Once upon a time the media believed in the open exchange of opinions, Royal Society demands big business not fund skeptics.

Insurance companies saying climate alarmism is “exceedingly risky” after climategate. There is no room for legitimate dissent!

Filed under: Uncategorized

9 Responses

  1. handjive says:

    Hi Twawki,
    Your hard work does not go un-noticed.
    Again, thank you.
    Im sure you are aware of this article but I will provide the link for any readers.
    It is via climate depot and is relevant to this post:

    Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all ‘conspiracy theorists’
    Presidential adviser wrote about crackdown on expressing opinions

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=121884

    When the ‘leader of the free world’ says, “Denial is no longer an acceptable response”, ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvG2XptIEJk ) , that is when questions must & will be asked.
    Im not sure whose quote it is but, ‘Freedom is not free’.
    Cheers.

    • twawki says:

      Thanks Handjive. That we have to now fight for the freedoms of speech and view that were previously accepted shows how low the climate lobby have sunk. Thanks for the link will have an in depth look.

  2. Ed Darrell says:

    Dissent is fine. In science, dissent is registered in competing data that show a different story, submitted to the science journals. Don’t go all creationist on us and whine about the journals being unfair — that claim never stands up to cross-examination in court.

    Monckton is on his Million Dollar Tour of Australia, and he’s got a captive audience and a format designed to prevent anyone from dissenting from his views.

    Why aren’t you criticizing Monckton, instead of those who refuse to take part in his masquerade?

    You have the gall to complain that a guy was excluded from the polar bear study group, when he was kept on for years past his term, and he had nothing to add? Nuts.

    You don’t want a right to dissent. You’re asking for censorship of the other guy. It ain’t the same thing.

    And then you complain when the other guy just refuses to talk?

    Double nuts.

    • Keith says:

      Ed,
      Take it easy dude. Give those fingers a rest. You’ve been all over the blogosphere denouncing Monckton. To what purpose ? Are you seriously suggesting that one mustn’t listen to Monckton give a speech ? Interestingly, you think that Quiggin is a dissenter ? Is that what you mean ?
      I think Monckton has been offering himself for debate, but no takers, yet. Why don’t you step forward ? You seem to have the wood on him (in your own mind anyway).

    • twawki says:

      Yes those who are skeptical of the climate alarmism base it on rigorous science and recorded facts. It is the alarmist lobby who base their unquestionable hypothesis on unreal computer models in contradiction with reality.

      Why do you complain about Monckton but not about Gore. As I see it Monckton has no anticarbon trading company to profit out of. Monckton calls for freedom of speech, Gore suppresses it. Monckton calls for debate, Gore refuses.

      Polar bear expert kept on for years after his term – if he is the world leader then he should still be employed.

      Where do I ask for censorship – no where – I ask for freedom of speech, rigorous debate and transparent science. If you are going to make such spurios claims at least have the credibility to back them up!

  3. Ed Darrell says:

    By the way, it’s a calf. “How many legs does a calf have,” was Lincoln’s question.

    As usual, a denying article gets the facts just a little wrong. It adds up after a while.

  4. Ed Darrell says:

    You’ve been all over the blogosphere denouncing Monckton. To what purpose ?

    To the point that the man is apart from reality. What he says, and what the facts are, live in two separate universes.

    Monckton won’t debate me. He’s challenging experts in science? Of course they won’t debate him. He refuses to speak the language.

    But someone who does speak his language? He won’t debate.

    Plus, I won’t pay him to travel. He’s most likely doing this for the money, you know, for the speaking fees. Entertainers don’t care what their characters say, so long as the check hits the bank and doesn’t bounce.

    I noticed, with care, that you don’t defend the veracity of anything Monckton said, especially his odd views that John Kennedy came back from the grave to appoint William Ruckelshaus head of EPA.

    If you made up a character like Monckton, you couldn’t sell the story as fiction. It’s just too fantastic.

    Polar bear leaders retire. When they retire, they don’t get to do their old jobs. Plus, if you noticed, there was no complaint from the guy after the Polar Bear Study Group reported its findings. He has no contrary findings to report.

  5. Ed Darrell says:

    Yes those who are skeptical of the climate alarmism base it on rigorous science and recorded facts.

    Just not the rigorous science and recorded facts from Earth. If they’ve got the case, let ’em publish. Those few cases where a critic of warming publishes don’t make the case against warming. Those few who complain they can’t get published aren’t scientists in the traces, but are instead cranks without data.

    There is room for dispute. The calls for criminal prosecutions of scientists go far beyond the pale. The death threats against scientists tell us the case against warming is dominated by political nutcases.

    If you’ve got science, stop stealing e-mails and show us the science. Larceny is rarely an attribute of those who have the truth. “He plagiarized from me?” Woody Guthrie is said to have asked when told another singer was stealing his material. “That’s okay. I steal from everybody.” To which Pete Seeger appends this coda: “Plagiarism is the root of all culture.” So, if there is meat in those stolen e-mails, the critics should be cooking and eating well. But that’s not what we see.

    For all the larceny against climate scientists, we have yet to see anyone make a data-filled argument against warming or human causation. Worse than that, no one has been able to show that any chart, anywhere, was in error.

    It is the alarmist lobby who base their unquestionable hypothesis on unreal computer models in contradiction with reality.

    Thanks, but our compost bins are full.

    Fact is that it’s the hard temperature readings, and hard measurements of CO2, and hard readings of biological indicators that make the case. The computer projections are only looking to what we might expect in the future. The computer reconstructions of the distant past are only to give us clues about what might have happened, and what affected what, and what we might do about it.

    You can’t make a case that the globe isn’t warming. You can’t make a good case that humans aren’t causing the changes. No amount of larceny can conceal the fact that the critics just can’t make their case.

    Why do you complain about Monckton but not about Gore.

    Because Monckton is a bloody liar, or delusional. Gore’s just sticking to the science — and Gore has a fantastic, long track records on these issues, especially in Congress. Monckton, to the best of my ability to research it, is a latecomer to the debate, and then on political grounds alone. Gore’s been in the forefront of environmental protection from his first days as a Congressman. Gore’s been a leader, and he’s been right much, much more than he’s been wrong. Our use of the internet we owe to Al Gore’s saving it when the naysayers in the Reagan administration proposed to kill it (“no commercial prospects; the dominion of a few science professors alone”).

    Why aren’t you saying proper gratitude to Gore?

    What’s Monckton ever done for anyone? When has Monckton ever been right on a technical or science issue?

    As I see it Monckton has no anticarbon trading company to profit out of.

    Which is why he’s making all his for-fee speeches now, you think? As I see it, you don’t have a clue whether Gore could profit from cleaning the environment any more than any other person; as I see it, such complaints are sour grapes and heckling.

    Gore’s firm invests in green technology. That doesn’t mean he wins only if a tax is imposed. It means he’s putting his money on the line.

    And, as you tell it, Monckton is not.

    Monckton calls for freedom of speech, Gore suppresses it. Monckton calls for debate, Gore refuses.

    Gore spent the better part of the last decade speaking to anyone who would listen in all parts of the globe. They made a movie out of it. He’s granted hundreds of interviews, written dozens of articles, testified before Congressional committees, and otherwise utilized freedom of speech as much as possible.

    Your claim that Gore suppresses freedom of speech is a bald and contemptible lie.

    No one has a right to heckle anyone else, by the way. Don’t claim that there is a right of free speech that allows rude people to shut everyone else up. There is no such right in the First Amendment, nor in the unalienable rights of man. That’s usually considered a criminal act of suppression itself.

    Polar bear expert kept on for years after his term – if he is the world leader then he should still be employed.

    He’s allowed to retire, isn’t he? What he’s not allowed to do is try to call the shots after he retires, on his own volition.

    And did you notice? After the Polar Bear Study Group reported last spring, the guy had nothing to add. What’s your gripe, again?

    Where do I ask for censorship – no where – I ask for freedom of speech, rigorous debate and transparent science. If you are going to make such spurios claims at least have the credibility to back them up!

    When you demand the right of the boor to shout down Al Gore, you ask for censorship. When you call for support for Monckton’s non-debates, that’s equivalent to censorship — especially when you then pretend it’s open, and Monckton gets censored (he should be edited, but I’m sure you’d regard that as censorship, too).

    When you demand to be considered science opposition when you lack all data — shutting the other guy up is not a right of speech, nor any other kind of right.

    If you have the case, make it on the science.

    Squishing the crickets doesn’t make anti-science silence, science.

  6. David S says:

    Ed I’m not interested in whether Monckton or Gore is a “good guy” – the climategate emails show very clearly how much a “goodies and baddies” view of the world can corrupt people’s thinking. However I am interested in what constitutes science and what does not.
    As I am sure you know by now, IPCC4 made claims about melting glaciers that were unsupported by any scientific evidence whatsoever. Pachauri (who by the way is not a climate scientist) refused to withdraw them even though he had been presented with clear proof they were erroneous. This makes him a scientific fraud. There is similarly no scientific basis for claims made about rising sea levels, about hurricane damage and about “water stress”. All this is documented fact, or as you would say, “settled science”.
    The information in IPCC about global warming is derived mainly from models constructed by NASA and CRU members, working in close contact as the climategate emails show, using temperature data that was subject to repeated adjustment but for which no viable audit trail appears to exist. Unless such an audit trail can be recovered and subjected to independent scrutiny, we have no hard “scientific” information as to the extent of global warming, let alone how much of this may have been caused by CO2 emissions. As the models were calibrated to fit the adjusted data sets, the fact that they do so tells us nothing about their predictive ability; in the 12 years or so since they were produced, global temperatures so far as we can tell have been significantly cooler that predicted by the models.
    This does not mean that there is no underlying global warming, nor that CO2 has been proven innocent, merely that the models are inadequate to predict global temperatures and we do not know why. Immeasurable damage has been done to real science by the destruction of raw data and the suppression of constructive discussion.
    At the same time critical local ecological interventions have been sidelined by the adoption of the mantra “it’s all down to global warming” – how convenient for those that pollute, log, or build in flood plains or tidal zones. Meanwhile billions of dollars have been stolen (as defined in the UK Theft Act, unlike the emails) through abuse of emissions trading, touted by so many as a virtual solution to the problem.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

We fight not to enslave, but to set a country free, and to make room upon the earth for honest men to live in. Thomas Paine

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. RONALD REAGAN,
.......
My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular. Adlai E. Stevenson Jr
.......
If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other. Carl Schurz
.......
The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech. Justice Anthony Kennedy
.......
Self-reliance is the only road to true freedom, and being one’s own person is its ultimate reward. Patricia Sampson
.......
Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim. Thomas Macaulay
.......
The law will never make men free, it is men that have to make the law free. Henry David Thoreau
.......
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. George Washington

%d bloggers like this: