Defending the right to be wrong.
Late last year "revisionist" historian David Irving was released from an Austrian prison after serving 13 months of a 3-year sentence. Irving, a notorious Holocaust denier and anti-Semite, had violated Austria's 'Prohibition Statute' which forbids the trivialization of the Nazi Holocaust.…
Article comments
26 - Dave Nalle
How come no edits on DAVE NAlLE's name calling...
The comments editor is taking a couple of days off, plus...
"What are you, like 12 or something?"
This was not 'name calling', it's a relevant question. The person I was responding to seemed to be unfamiliar with what pollution was like more than a decade or so ago, so it was reasonable to ask about his age.
Dave
27 - Dave Nalle
the fact is that American corporations and the US economy NEEDS it's "Nest Big Thing", which is why US corporations (which control the US Government) are going along with the Global Warming thing. I see Global Warming as an opportunity for American research and development, high-tech industry jobs, fueling the economy. Just follow the money to understand why Global Warming is such a hot hot hot issue. It's all about $$$$$.
This is a VERY good point. I think TommyD hit the nail on the head. And it's not necessarily a bad thing at all. Starting a new technological boom in the field of alternative energy can only be good for the nation and help keep us ahead of the curve. Learning to do things in ways which are more efficient and less destructive of the environment is a good thing whether global warming is a real issue or not.
Dave
28 - Deano
Oh Clavos come on!
Do you really think that the vast majority of climatologist and meteorologists have climbed on the global warming gravy train to make money?
Have you met any scientists lately? Like any profession, it has its egomaniacs and it's "rock stars" but the vast majority are work-a-day men and women who followed a personal fascination with a subject, that pride themselves on their professionalism and their scientific acumen...and you guys think they just all pell-mell abandoned their scientific principles to chase the big bucks inherent in supporting global warming?
Guys, the big bucks are on the opposite side, sitting with the oil companies etc. If the scientists are that money-grubbing shouldn't the consensus be that global warming is crap, rather then a growing recognition of it as a serious issue?
I think you are right to be wary of the politicization of the issue, and definitely to be cautious of those who use global warming as a mechanism to further other interests but the demonization and political hysteria that the deniers are currently engaged in is laughable. Where was all this concern over the politicization of the science when it was being actively surpressed by the energy industry and their political allies?
My brother is an astronomer and an astrophysicist. He is, for lack of a better description, a fairly average scientist. In our few discussions on global warming I have to tell you that he has nothing but sheer contempt now for the people who have relentlessly politicized and obstructed the scientific data for years. He regularly attends scientific conferences with planetary climatologists who frankly are almost all flabbergasted that, after all of the studies, work and evidence, people walk around claiming there is no proof.
29 - MBD
We should have nothing but contempt for those who relentlessly politicize and obstruct scientific data. The penalty for politicization of global warming should be five years in prison.
30 - Dave Nalle
We should have nothing but contempt for those who relentlessly politicize and obstruct scientific data. The penalty for politicization of global warming should be five years in prison.
Damned straight. The catch is that this would include a hell of a lot of people on both sides of the issue.
Dave
31 - Clavos
Deano #29,
No, I don't think the vast majority are complicit, but I do think that some of the "rock stars" are grinding axes.
I myself (and I freely admit I'm not a scientist) am not saying that there isn't a lot of evidence that the climate is changing, I don't question that; what I question (and only in the sense of degree) is how much and how fast, and especially, what is causing it.
I've done some reading on the subject, and some of it's pretty compelling; for example, Bjorn Lomborg's book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, whose main point (because Lomborg is a statistician) is the data. He questions methodology of collection and especially, interpretation and presentation of much (not all) of the data on which many of the key environmentalists' points are based, and does so, as I said, convincingly. Although he does question, he agrees that we should be taking what reasonable steps we can to ameliorate any damage mankind may be doing to the environment. This seems to me a much more reasoned approach than most of the alarmist positions I'm seeing. The book is not an easy read (he's a statistician!), but if you make the effort, it generates a healthy amount of skepticism.
Another book which raises a lot of issues is Wifred Beckerman's "A Poverty Of Reason". This book, along with Jack M. Hollander's "The Real Environmental Crisis," make the point that elimination of poverty worldwide would do far more to reduce anthropogenic damage to the environment than reducing carbon and other emissions.
I'm impressed that, in addition to Lomborg, there are quite a few very respectable scientists questioning the headlong rush to judgment.
I'm also impressed by the way so much of the hype sounds anything but scientific; I realize that much of this is the fault of the media, not the scientific community, but nevertheless, it's there. An example is the current hoopla about melting ice raising the ocean levels: I've read in more than one place that most of the ice melting is in the Arctic, where the ice is already mostly in the water, and therefore won't change the levels much, while ice in the Antarctic is actually increasing in volume, not melting, but you have to dig to find that out.
I have mentioned before on BC that I think we should undertake an all out push to liberate ourselves from reliance on hydrocarbons for fuel. I think such a program would solve a lot of our international political problems as well as environmental ones. The benefit to our economy, both from the program itself, and its results would be enormous.
I also don't believe that the oil companies are behind the skeptics. On the contrary, I believe the oil companies are already positioning themselves to exploit the alternative energy technologies and thus maintain their position as the primary energy providers. At least, if I were running Exxon, that's what I would be doing.
I don't want to write an article in the Comments section, but there are a lot of unanswered questions.
I remain skeptical of the alarmists.
32 - Emry
Stayed tuned to find out if Vox Nalle survives his hour in a locked garage, breathing in toxic fumes from the exhaust of a modern internal combustion engine.
Remember, Populi Dave, it's 2007 not 1977 so if you're using a ULEV you can pull up a chair and warm your feet on the tailpipe while you browse your laptop.
Pleasant dreams.
33 - Dave Nalle
Sorry, Emry. I drive the BigAss Ecotruck, remember. I could breath the fumes from burning biodiesel all day long and at worst I might get a bit giddy from the nitrogen and my clothes would smell like french fries.
Now on to an intelligent comment:
I also don't believe that the oil companies are behind the skeptics. On the contrary, I believe the oil companies are already positioning themselves to exploit the alternative energy technologies and thus maintain their position as the primary energy providers. At least, if I were running Exxon, that's what I would be doing.
I don't know of any evidence that Exxon is doing anything to improve their position - they're one of the worst managed of the oil companies. But BP and Shell are both leading forces in the development of solar technology and Chevron is heavily into alternative fuel research. The smart companies aren't going to miss a step if petroleum falls off in use.
Look at the cigarette companies. The smart ones have diversified, and have taken their wealth from cigarettes and invested it in other businesses so that they are insulated against the problems with the cigarette market.
Dave
34 - Emry
Come now, Dave Vox Populi Nalle, you were raving about technological advances and how, "The output of pollutants from modern car engines is negligible compared to even 10 years ago."
"We're approaching the point where the majority of cars on the road are classified as 'Ultra Low Emission Vehicles',..." said you.
Great,sez I, so you won't have any trouble borrowing one for an hour to inhale its toxic exhaust. If you could be trusted to put your lungs where your mouth is I'd rent you a car for the experiment.
But, sad to say, we know you can never be trusted Vox Nalle.
"I've seen figures similar to the ones Dave quotes."
- Vox Populi
35 - Dave Nalle
Emry, I didn't say we'd reached ultimate nirvana, just that we'd made lots of progress. I'd take your challenge with a SULEV, but ULEVs still produce a bit more CO than I want to breathe.
There's also no need for me to test the theory because it's already been well researched in cases of failed suicides by exhaust inhalation where modern cars just didn't do the job, as detailed in this article from The American Journal of Psychiatry.
Dave
36 - Emry
"I'd take your challenge with a SULEV,but ULEVs still produce a bit more CO than I want to breathe."
If you took the challenge with a SULEV you'd still be a fool, albeit a slightly lesser fool than if you used an average car on the road today.
"There's also no need for me to test the theory because it's already been well researched in cases of failed suicides by exhaust inhalation where modern cars just didn't do the job,..."
Give them a couple of years wear and tear and they won't let you down.
37 - tommyd
Re:#21 Paul
Germany, Austria, France, may not have the same level of repression as China or Cuba, but those European nations are headed that way. The Europeans have set a precedent with the despicable sentencing of Ernst Zundel and that is some speech is ok, some speech isn't....which of course makes the State the arbitrator of what's acceptable or not.
In Europe the media can desecrate Islam, people are free to blaspheme Jesus Christ and Christianity, yet questioning details about the Holocaust is punishable by law? That's almost like in China and Cuba where you're free to speak about mostly anything but if you talk too loudly about the regime you are severely punished.
The Europeans, in particular the Germans, Austrians and French are countries that I've lost all respect for and I'll laugh at them when they're overrun by Muslims. They deserve nothing less than extinction.
Whether the details of the Holocaust are accurate or not is not the question. I have Jewish friends who are not gung-ho Zionists. They claim that Israeli actions in Palestine are dooming all Jews to another Holocaust. I'd have to say that insane laws such as "Holocaust Denial" doesn't do the Jews any good either. Because of the disgraceful conviction and sentence accorded to Ernst Zundel because organized Jews don't like his opinions, millions of more people will start to question the Jews special status because of the publicity of this case.
38 - Paul2
tommyd-
Austrians, Germany and France have a higher degree of freedom of press than the USA according to the Media Freedom Index that I stated.
That shows that there are more factors determining freedom of press than a denial of the holocaust.
But you probably think that the Media Freedom Index is a "muslim conspiracy" huh ?
39 - Paul2
Actually a holocaust denial is also illegal in Canada... poor Canadians
40 - tommyd
This isn't a freedom of the press issue, but freedom of speech, Paul.
Sure, the press in Europe and elswhere is more free to report on many issues and usually has a much more balanced view on things than the disgraceful US media, but the laws against "holocaust denial" extends to individuals and not soley the press.
If Ernst Zundel was an American citizen (he was married to an American woman) he could've written all the books he wanted questioning the official story of the Holocaust and never be bothered. Oh sure, he'd never receive an ounce of mainstream press here in the US, but he wouldn't have been tossed into jail.....at least not yet.
In the US, the ADL and other such groups are seeing to it that the US Constitution be amended to "freedom of speech....except for questioning anything about The Jews".
41 - Paul2
tommyd,
you're right with most of what you just wrote.
I did look it up its actually precisely an issue that bans the incitement of hatred:
§130 "Strafgesetzbuch"
(1) Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace:
1. incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population, shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to five years
I'm with you that I don't think a ban in the USA would be appropriate, but I do think that Austria and Germany are in specific situation that justifies it.
42 - tommyd
Dave Nalle, it's been awhile since I've been on BC!
Anyway, I'm in the high tech industry sector, and to tell you the truth, whether Global Warming is exaggerated or not, the US economy needs it's Next Big Thing. With so many industries moving to China, and the US car mfg's falling apart, the US NEEDS the so-called "green industries". The innovation for the enviro-friendly systems should be done in the US as well as the production of. The sky's the limit for this stuff.
Have you ever watched "2057" on the Science Channel?? The new technologies lurking just under the mainstream radar are mind blowing and ready to breakthrough. It's all very exciting.
43 - tommyd
Paul, thanks for posting that information.
Ernst Zundel, by any strech, wasn't even close to violating numbers 1 & 2.
However, the German media was guilty of #2 when they published the Muhammed cartoons.....no one was ever prosecuted as far as I know.
But, in Europe, there's one standard for 1 group, another standard for another group, or in other words, a huge double standard.
44 - Paul2
tommyd-
you do have a point, although Mr. Zundels work and the cartoons do have a different quality.
Actually there were some cases filed for blasphemy in Denmark and France, but they were dismissed.
45 - Deano
Oh please...Ernest Zundel is a canker who has spent most of the last 20 years spewing utterly hateful drivel and leveraging the court system for as much publicity and visibility as he could.
Yes, there is definitely a freedom of speech issue involved to discuss but to act like Zundel is just innocently strolling along being waylaid by heavy-handed German law is just so much bullshit. He's where he is by intent not by accident.
46 - Paul2
yes, i don't feel sorry for him either.
47 - tommyd
Deano, does it matter to you that Zundel wrote his books on American soil and not in Germany?
Zundel had not been in Germany for 25 years before he was shipped back to Germany for trial.
He was legally an American green card holder because he was married to an American woman.
He was picked up by American Immigration and shipped to Canada who have "holocaust denial" laws and subsequently shipped back to Germany. He was in prison for 4 years already before his trial without any chance at bail and now sentenced to 5 years more prison on top of the 4 years, making 9 years.
Put it this way. Child molesters and some murders get off way easier than a guy who wrote books expressing unpopular opinions.
I don't know where you got your information but Zundel has never, ever called for violence in anything he's ever written. He's never smeared the Jews as a race nor a religion but of Zionist agitators and Zionist cabals who turned the Holocaust into an industry.
The charges, conviction and sentencing of Zundel remains a disgrace of enormous proportions.
48 - Nancy
This is something that I admit I'm not wise enough to judge: where does freedom of speech end & harrassment begin? Where does freedom of belief end & deliberate spreading of mis-/dis-information begin? Part of the problem is that 'deniers' have been smeared by the efforts of such corporations as Exxon or the tobacco companies to present manufactured "information" to discredit those presenting valid & truthful information detrimental to their interests. In so doing, they have rendered just about ALL deniers suspect. BushCo certainly hasn't done anything to help that situation, by notoriously demanding that the FDA & other supposedly scientific agencies or institutions issue findngs only in accord with BushCo's political/religious biases & suppress any adverse information. All these parties have done is make it impossible for those who have a contrary case to make a valid & credible argument without being accused of having some sort of nefarious ulterior motive.
On another level, where do the rights of someone like that loathesome (self-proclaimed) christian fundmentalist anti-gay preacher who shows up at military funerals end, and the rights of the families that are bereaved begin. To quote a USSC justice, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it". Obviously the preacher has no right to disrupt & harrass people who have enough to grieve about already; at the same time, he does have a right to speak his mind. In this sort of situation, it seems to me that the problem is that we keep trying to write laws that blanketly address ALL such situations, when in fact it can't be done without tipping over into Political Correctness & suppression. I suppose it comes down to, I can put a flaming cross on my own lawn (if it isn't in violation of fire/safety laws), but I shouldn't be able to put one on my neighbor's, even if it is visible to him? In the case of the flat-earth guy, he's obviously one can short of a 6-pack; to send him to jail is to validate his beliefs. But it's such a fine line, where does it stop? I could say 'let common sense be the guide', but too many people seem to lack both common sense &/or decency in that regard. I just don't know. I only know what is wrong when I see it.
49 - Deano
Your info is a little bit light on reality.
Zundel immigrated to Canada in 1958, founded Samizdat Publishing in the 1970's and grew to become one of the largest publishers and distributors of Holocaust denial and Neo-Nazi literature in the world. He was in and out of various Canadian courts in various trials before being convicted of "false news" in 1990, a conviction that was struck down in '92 by the Supreme Court. Zundel served a week in jail before being released on bail.
In 1994 Zundel applied for Canadian citizenship which was denied on the basis that he was deemed a security threat by CSIS for his connections to Neo-Nazism. This led to more extended court cases that dragged on until 2000 when the Supreme Court refused to hear any more appeals. In 2001 Zundel moved to the US until he was deported back to Canada in 2003 for visa violations.
Zundel then applied for refugee status to prevent his being deported to Germany and possibly facing prosecution under Germany's laws. CSIS termed him a "lightening rod for white supremicists" and a national security certificate was issued against him. Zundel was subsequently held until his deportation in 2005 (after another set of appeals). Zundel was described by the judge as "a hypocrite who cultivates a pacifist public image while guiding, aiding and supporting neo-Nazi groups around the world, including some that "propagate violent messages of hate" and work to accomplish "the destruction of governments and multicultural societies."
I reiterate: Zundel is a canker.
50 - JustOneMan
Staying with the Global Warming Propaganda analogy doesnt that make Al Gore a canker?
51 - Darwin
Man has adapted and changed to meet new challenges in his environment while evolving from pond scum for the last five billion years. If there was even a threat, which there isn't, couldn't man just as easily adapt to meet that new challenge?
52 - Andy
Are you a natural cycle denier then?
C02 causing global warming is a theory, natural cycles of hot and cold are a fact or are you in denial about this fact?
Are you in denial that C02 levels were far higher thousands of years ago than today with no industry, you would prefer your theories to hard facts and jump on the global warming unproven theory?
Are you in denial that what man C02 man produses is a drop in the ocean to what nature produces.
I have never read so much junk science in all my time as i prefer verifiable facts to convenient theories.
53 - Mike M
There is a 'feeling' among the man-made global warming believers that will be very difficult to overcome now that the lie is now being commercialized and infiltrating our schools. That feeling is one based upon an underlying GUILT that these people all carry around in regard to their lifestyle as compared to the poor masses in the third world. This guilt is VERY similar to the guilt that Germans carried around their necks after losing WW1 and is just as ripe a guilt to exploit because it offers these guilt ridden people a way to atone for their own lifestyle that they were duped into believing will cause a planetary disater - simply join this group of others who all want to HELP IN THIS GOOD CAUSE to make up for their sins of the past. It FEEEEEELS so good to think that you are a contributing member of such a group engages to "DO GOOD"!
So even though there is no detectable scientific evidence to support the claim that 'human CO2 causes global warming' - IT DOES NOT MATTER TO THESE PEOPLE! They are sloganized with this idea of 'Going Green' despite many of them even realizing the fact that green plants want 2X to 4X more CO2 in their diet; despite the clear evidence that NONE of Al Gore's dire predictions are coming true; even despite the knowledge that only 52 scientists at the IPCC were responsible for the AR4 summery while over 800 unfunded world class scientists openly refute this now dead theory.
Joseph Goebbels was a MASTER of understanding and utilizing German guilt to turn it into a NATIONAL MOVEMENT. It made Germans FEEEEL so much better to think they were helping to rebuild their country - to put that rebuilding effort AHEAD of their own personal needs and beliefs.
Al Gore uses more electricity in one week than the entire COUNTRY of Uganda uses in aan entire year - but people follow him anyway because it feeeeels good.