Today on Blogcritics
Home » Tolerating Holocaust Deniers and Global Warming Skeptics

Tolerating Holocaust Deniers and Global Warming Skeptics

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

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.

I am certainly no fan of Irving and his warped view of history, but I find it disquieting one can still be jailed in a liberal democracy like Austria for being a prisoner of conscience. It appears that some countries find it necessary to ban the freedom to deny.

Irving may be using his credentials as an historian (whatever those 'credentials' may be) to propagate disinformation, but he is within his rights to do so. Our society does not enforce the integrity of the memesphere through coercion. Moreover, Irving clearly subscribes to a certain belief structure. In a free society, we have no choice but to tolerate this sort of bullshit.

That doesn't mean, of course, that we can't rail against it. Even Deborah Lipstadt, an outspoken critic of Irving, was opposed to his imprisonment, noting, "I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don't believe in winning battles via censorship… The way of fighting Holocaust deniers is with history and with truth." 

Denying Climate Change

It's all too easy to throw a fit and hurl people in jail when their views oppose your own, but this is exactly what is happening with Holocaust deniers. And disturbingly, it appears that the right to deny global warming is also in jeopardy. Like the war against Holocaust revisionists, there are those who would like to permanently silence the global warming skeptics. The fear and dread surrounding the climate change crisis had led to a religious-like fervor and the emergence of a new political correctness. Even more bizarre is that global warming skeptics are actually being compared to Holocaust deniers.

Take for example the recent outburst from journalist Ellen Goodman. "I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny," she proclaims, "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future." Goodman and others would like to see this sort of memetic linkage stick, which would cause brains to automatically switch off while emotion swells to a boiling point.

Climate change is such a serious social issue that entire careers and reputations are at stake. Recently, Heidi Cullen of The Weather Channel suggested that the American Meteorological Society revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television meteorologist who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe. "Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," she says, "It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement…it's just an incorrect statement."

And just last week a dispute erupted in Oregon, where Gov. Ted Kulongoski has considered firing the state's climatologist George Taylor, who has said human activity isn't the chief cause of global climate change. "It seems if scientists don't express the views of the political establishment, they will be threatened and that is a discomforting thought," said Alabama state climatologist John Christie, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Indeed, the notion that certain lines of scientific inquiry be prohibited is unacceptable and runs against the spirit of academic due diligence. Part of the problem here is that bona fide research is often conflated with the malevolent work of the denial industry; there is a growing network of fake citizens' groups, extremists, and bogus scientific bodies who are claiming that the science of global warming is inconclusive. These groups, to no one's surprise, are the sorry spawn of corporations who have the most to lose in the struggle against greenhouse gas emissions. Exxon is one company that certainly comes to mind. 

Exposing Disinformation

Again, like the Holocaust deniers, these groups are shielded by freedom-of-speech laws. At the same time these disinformation engines need to be exposed, and it is our responsibility as concerned citizens, writers and activists to make that happen. Scientists and highly influential figures also need to wade into the fray — and they have. Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth has been tremendously influential, and groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists are working to reveal scientific abuses and interference.

Meanwhile, scientists and academics deserve to be protected from the perils of groupthink and "consensus science." Jeff Kueter, president of the George C. Marshall Institute (GMI), warns that "rational and open" discussion of climate change science that includes dissenting voices is in danger of being short-circuited at the expense of sound science and free speech. "It smacks to me of McCarthyism and big-brotherism and is completely antithetical to the scientific process and the American political philosophy of free speech," he says.

Attacking researchers who seek to challenge the status quo, aside from it being a witch hunt, may also work to the detriment of those concerned about the environment. If there are other factors and circumstances contributing to global warming we most certainly need to know about it.

The war against climate change is at risk of becoming a new religion where “climate contrarians” have been pegged as the new blasphemers. At its extreme, global warming skeptics may be at risk of being accused of crimes against humanity.

And it is here I will close by making an important distinction. It is one thing for a scientist to continue to gather evidence, pose theories and work towards verification. It is another thing altogether for unscrupulous groups like Exxon and corrupt politicians to add unwarranted noise and obstacles to the discussion. Politicians do not have the luxury of experimentation. Instead, they need to act and forge policy.

Consequently, politicians are by necessity held to a different standard. They have an obligation to parse through the noise and act in the public's best interest. For them to do so, they must be informed by the best that science can offer.

And in order for there to be “the best science” we have to give the scientific establishment the benefit of the doubt and the freedom to conduct sound and unhindered scientific investigations.

Powered by

About George Dvorsky

  • Doug Hunter

    The billions spent to bolster global warming claims and hysteria and the trillions the corrupt politicians stand to gain by fighting it are much more influential than the few million spent by it’s skeptics. Exxon got tons of bad publicity for offering a meager $10K to a scientist to wrote a critique of the UN report while people like Branson are praised and worshipped in the media for offering $25 million to fuel the hysteria.

    The media has helped turn any ‘debate’ over global warming into an emotional hysteria. When arguments become emotional rather than logical the left always wins. Skeptical types are talking alternative theories and wasting time researching logical arguments to why the planet will survive through this relatively minor change while alarmists are screaming about their kids and the end of the planet.

    My advice to skeptics.

    1) Drop the logic and theories (you probably aren’t a scientist anyway) and concentrate on emotional appeals. Millions died from mesquito borne diseases becuase DDT was banned, ethanol will result in starvation of people who can’t afford increased staple prices. Focus on the suffering and millions that will die here and now because of the strain put on the global economy from fighting a useless war on something that is inevitable (change). How many lives could be saved by the same money thrown at CO2 emissions if it was focused on eradication of disease, nutrition, and education? These problems exist here and now rather than in some computer created scenario.

    2) Do anything you can to ensure that US carbon tax stays in the US. The left wants to use Global Warming as a pretext for wealth redistribution through a global trading scheme. Skeptics and alarmists should agree that sending the money to US researchers and universities to come up with a solution will actually be of more benefit than sending money to Guatamala or Kenya. It’s an issue where both sides can come together and make a stand. The US will do it’s part to work on CO2 emissions but we’re not going to pay it in tribute to the UN, we’re going to keep it right here in the hands of out best and brightest and come up with the technology that will save the planet just as we always have.

  • Joe

    Very good comments Doug, once you take a step back it’s hard not to see how politicized the topic has become, it’s like a cult. Global warming has been a back-burner issue for many years now, but since the mid-term elections the media and the pols have given it a new coat of hype and urgency and put it to work full time. If the Dems get the presidency in ’08 and put their “science” into law we’re going to have another Dark Age.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    it appears that the right to deny global warming is also in jeopardy.

    I’m afraid this is a massive understatement. It’s not the right to ‘deny’ global warming which is under attack, but the right to even question aspects of the theory. Denial implies a decision based more on belief than on science, but in the context of global warming the people who are being attacked are not deniers of fact like the holocaust deniers, but merely scientists who feel that the scientific method has not been fully applied in developing this particular theory. Attacking scientists who are acting in the spirit of the scientific tradition of questioning assumptions and testing the limits of a theory is FAR worse than attacking those who deny historical reality. By equating the two as you do in this article you trivialize the real concerns of those who question aspects of global warming theory.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    Excellent comment, Doug, particularly as to the carbon tax.

    Using the Global Warming phenomenon as an excuse for redistribution of US wealth is far more dangerous to US than any possible meteorological effect could be.

    The time to speak out is now, because as the author of the article discusses, the day may be near when speaking out may no longer be possible.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    ethanol will result in starvation of people who can’t afford increased staple prices

    Except that as D’Oh might point out, this wouldn’t be an issue if we were sensibly making our ethanol from sugar rather than from corn.

    dave

  • Aku

    Nice article. The the global warming camp has an inquisition-like atmosphere is a surprise coming from scientists on others, some of which decry the what they see as a loss of freedom of speech following 9/11 (then again, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!).

    “Except that as D’Oh might point out, this wouldn’t be an issue if we were sensibly making our ethanol from sugar rather than from corn.”

    Yes, but that would most likely mean the dropping of the import tariff on Sugar so the US price can float at the world price. While I sincerely hope this will happen, I doubt it will.

  • Emry

    “The US will do it’s part to work on CO2 emissions but we’re not going to pay it in tribute to the UN, we’re going to keep it right here in the hands of out best and brightest and come up with the technology that will save the planet just as we always have.”

    The best and brightest have known about Acid Rain for decades and we’re still stuck with it.

    Rivers and lakes in the US are polluted and the best and the brightest can’t fix the problem.

    The antiquated internal combustion engine is still fouling the air we breath.

    Save the planet???

    You’re joking!

  • http://www.thehinessight.com Brian

    It’s not true that Oregon governor Kulongoski wants to fire George Taylor, the so-called “state climatologist.”

    This is a misconception that is being promulgated by those who don’t know the facts about the Taylor controversy. Which are, that the state climatologist position was abolished in Oregon, and that Taylor uses that title just because he performs some of the duties of the previous (genuine) state climatologist.

    So the governor is entirely justified in asking that Taylor not use a title to which he isn’t, well, entitled. There’s been no talk of firing Taylor, none at all. I know, since I live in Oregon and have been following this story closely.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Interestingly, almost exactly the same situation exists in Virginia. In both cases the offices seem to have been abolished when the long-term office holder became an ’embarassment’ because they didn’t back global warming theory.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    The best and brightest have known about Acid Rain for decades and we’re still stuck with it.

    If you think today’s acid rain problem is even a shadow of what it was in the 1970s, you’re sadly confused. We’ve made enormous progress here. What are you, like 12 or something?

    Rivers and lakes in the US are polluted and the best and the brightest can’t fix the problem.

    When I was a kid you couldn’t eat fish you got out of most rivers, or even find them. The Charles River in Boston used to CATCH FIRE because of the volatile waste that was in it. Now almost any river is fishable and swimmable. Again, we’ve made incredible progress in the last 30 years. Where have you been?

    The antiquated internal combustion engine is still fouling the air we breath.

    Again, do you live in a different reality? The output of pollutants from modern car engines is negligible compared to even 10 years ago. Have you not noticed that the constant clouds of smog have disappeared from most of our cities? Do you not remember what it was like even 20 years ago when the skies were black with soot and it was hard to breathe outdoors? We’re approaching the point where the majority of cars on the road are classified as ‘Ultra Low Emission Vehicles’, and pretty soon Super ULEVs will dominate and everything else will be ULEVs.

    You’re fighting a battle we’ve already won. It’s not 1977, it’s 2007.

    Dave

  • JustOneMan

    Editor…

    How come no edits on DAVE NAlLE’s name calling…

    “What are you, like 12 or something?”

    Hmmm..I guess some have more rights of free speech in here than others!!!

    JOM

  • tommyd

    The peaceful and brilliant man Ernst Zundel was sentenced to 5 years prison in a German court for “holocaust denial”. An abomination of justice if there ever was one. A disgraceful sentence.
    Most people will find Zundel’s observations deplorable, but Zundel’s writings are opinions and obscure opinions at that. In my opinion Germany, Austria, France, etc are no different than Cuba or China. These countries cannot be considered free. BTW, the USA and Canada both participated in the prosecuction of Ernst Zundel.

    As for Global Warming, no matter what one believes about the validity of the research, 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 $$$$$.

  • JustOneMan

    Where is the usual ranting and raving from the radical jewish community about the erosion of their “holocaust” franchise?

    JOM

  • Jenn

    Firstly, Austria isn’t our society, secondly the reason Austria and Germany take the issue of Holocaust denial seriously, is because it’s harder for them to ignore the past.. the reminders are there to this day.

    Add to that the neo-nazi movements, and the anti-semetism of Islamic extremists.. it’s something Austrians and Germans feel viscerally opposed to allowing. I don’t blame them. The leftist extremes around the world might not blink an eye over such atrocities, but then again, the leftist extreme doesn’t have much of a record on human rights.. also, lest you believe the Nazi movement was solely a right wing phenomenon, think again, it, like fascism had it’s roots in an exteme left.

    Face it, whether it’s the extreme right or extreme left, they are both wrong.. and willing to impose suffering and horror on the most powerless.

  • Baronius

    Dave, you brought back an old memory of mine. I lived in Erie back in the 70’s. I was in elementary school. The national authorities talked about how Lake Erie was dead. We used to hang out at the beach all summer. For those who don’t know, the Great Lakes are like oceans, extending to the horizon, with waves generated by weather systems you can’t even see. It’s beautiful.

    The environmental movement is smart in that they target kids. I’m not going to make a Nazi Youth comparison as some anti-enviros do, because a lot of groups understand the importance of raising a new generation of supporters. It’s those lessons learned in youth that stick with you. For me, the lesson was that environmentlists (they were ecologists back then) lie.

    I heard Dennis Miller talk about growing up with the threat of global cooling. I’ve read similar things on BC. I don’t think there’s anything the enviros could say to Dennis or me that would convince us of global warming. And if global warming doesn’t pan out, the next generation will be so distrustful that they could sit in lava and pretend they don’t notice it.

  • Paul2

    The Ernst Zundel case is a very rare and specific case and not open to a generalization for press freedom in a country. Germany guarantees freedom of speech like many other nations. It is for historic reasons that a denial of the holocaust can be prosecuted under very specific circumstances.

    Media Freedom Index 2006:
    1-Finnland
    23-Germany
    53-USA (domestic)
    114-USA (international)

  • http://www.booklinker.blogspot.com Deano

    “The peaceful and brilliant man Ernst Zundel ”

    Good Lord, what color is the sky on your world?

    I don’t object to citing the Zundel case as an example in freedom of speech issues but to describe him as “peaceful and brilliant” is a whopper!

  • Paul2

    sorry, its even worse

    Media Freedom Index 2006

    1-Finland
    23-Germany
    53-USA (domestic)
    119-USA (international)

  • Baronius

    Paul, that makes us sound awful. The Media Freedom Index gives us a “Satisfactory” rating; let’s call it a B. We’re in the same range as Japan, Australia, and France.

    The report cites our imprisonment of journalists who are protecting sources. And that’s bad; I’m not denying it. But when you get into the C’s (India, Brazil, Turkey), you start to see beatings and killings.

  • Clavos

    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 $$$$$.

    And you’re not alone, tommyd; so do the movers and shakers in the political and business worlds.

    Right now, the $$$$ are going to the climatologists and other scientists who are sounding the alarm.

    Once everyone’s on board with the idea, and new environmental laws are passed identifying goals to be met, etc., contracts will begin to be awarded, and companies in on the “ground floor” (among them, I bet, the oil companies, who won’t give up their pre-eminence in the energy business; they will simply adapt to the new paradigm) will begin (or continue) to prosper enormously.

  • Paul2

    I think it is rather a C+ than a B.

    I was just trying to point out that the USA is not “top notch”, as many here often imply.

    And that putting Austria, France and Germany on the same level as China and Cuba is quite far-fetched (#12 tommyd).

  • http://www.booklinker.blogspot.com Deano

    Right now, the $$$$ are going to the climatologists and other scientists who are sounding the alarm.

    Oh yeah. Those millionaire climatologists are just raking it in….Bastards.

  • Emry

    #10…”If you think today’s acid rain problem is even a shadow of what it was in the 1970s, you’re sadly confused. We’ve made enormous progress here. What are you, like 12 or something?”… Dave Vox Populi Nalle.

    Learn to read, Vox Nalle. We’re still producing acid rain. Where did I say anything about the volume being produced?

    “…we’ve made incredible progress in the last 30 years. Where have you been?”

    Close to a radio in the last few years when the ill health of rivers and lakes in the US is reported annually. While you were too busy writing messages as your other identity, Vox Populi, to your other identity, Dave nalle.

    “The output of pollutants from modern car engines is negligible compared to even 10 years ago.”

    Which doesn’t alter the fact that the antiquated internal combustion engine is still fouling the air we breath. New cars are cleaner running until they rack up the miles and start to pollute. When they fail clean air requirements, where those exist, they can be driven where they aren’t required to pass clean air standards.

    Lock yourself in a garage with an average 1996 car and let it idle for an hour. Then get back to us. Hell, you can even try it with a new internal combustion engine if you prefer.

  • MBD

    German prosecutors asked a court Friday to give a man the maximum sentence of five years in prison for persistently denying the sun rises in the east. The man was given an additional sentence of five years for claiming the earth is flat.

    In his closing argument, the prosecutor called the man a “geopolitical con man” from whom the German people must be protected, widely quoting from his writings, which argue that there are no more stars in the universe than what he counts, which he says is less than two hundred.

  • Clavos

    Oh yeah. Those millionaire climatologists are just raking it in….Bastards.

    I don’t think I said that, Deano.

    A hell of a lot of them are making a good living on it, though.

  • http://www.diablog.us 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

  • http://www.diablog.us 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

  • http://www.booklinker.blogspot.com 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.

  • 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.

  • http://www.diablog.us 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • http://www.diablog.us 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

  • 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

  • http://www.diablog.us 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 ?

  • Paul2

    Actually a holocaust denial is also illegal in Canada… poor Canadians

  • 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”.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • http://www.booklinker.blogspot.com 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.

  • Paul2

    yes, i don’t feel sorry for him either.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • http://www.booklinker.blogspot.com 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.

  • JustOneMan

    Staying with the Global Warming Propaganda analogy doesnt that make Al Gore a canker?

  • http://www.google.com 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?

  • 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.

  • http://www.icecap.us 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.

  • James

    It’s now official – there’s been no actual shortage of Holocaust survivors: ‘The Israeli Prime Minister’s office recently put the number of “living Holocaust survivors” at nearly a million’ (extract from The Holocaust Industry by Norman G. Finkelstein of the City University of New York, published by Verso, London and New York, 2000, p.83).

    [Googling “holocaust survivor” supplies 1,710,000 items]

    And see Wikipedia article: List of Holocaust survivors – quote: “There are many famous Holocaust survivors who survived the Nazi genocides in Europe and went on to achievements of great fame and notability. Those listed here were, at the very least, residents of the parts of Europe occupied by the Axis powers during World War II who survived until the end of the Holocaust (and the war). The majority of these people survived incarceration in the Nazi concentration camps, but that is not strictly necessary for the purposes of this list…”

    Statement by Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus
    University of Ulster, December 5, 2005:
    “I’ve checked out the six volumes of Churchill’s Second World War and the statement is quite correct – not a single mention of Nazi ‘gas chambers,’ a ‘genocide’ of the Jews, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war.
    Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; Churchill’s Second World War totals 4,448 pages; and De Gaulle’s three-volume Mémoires de guerre is 2,054 pages.
    In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi ‘gas chambers,’ a ‘genocide’ of the Jews, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war.”

  • James

    Interesting Arithmetic – the astronomical numbers

    Have a look at a typical account by one of the seemingly endless number of survivors: Olga Lengyel’s Five Chimneys: a woman survivor’s true story of Auschwitz (Granada/ Ziff-Davis, 1947, 1972).

    The blurb on the cover of the book quotes the New York Herald-Tribune: “Passionate, tormenting”. Albert Einstein, the promoter of the US construction of the bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is quoted as offering “You have done a real service by letting the ones who are now silent and most forgotten speak.”

    According to Lengyel, ‘After June, 1943, the gas chamber was reserved exclusively for Jews and Gypsies.. Three hundred and sixty corpses every half-hour, which was all the time it took to reduce human flesh to ashes, made 720 per hour, or 17,280 corpses per twenty-four hour shift. And the ovens, with murderous efficiency, functioned day and night. However, one must also reckon the death pits, which could destroy another 8,000 cadavers a day. In round numbers, about 24,000 corpses were handled each day. An admirable production record, one that speaks well for German industry.’ (Paperback edition, pp80-81). [No trace of any remains of or in ‘death pits’ has been found.]

    This implies almost 100,000 corpses per four working days, or a million in 40 days, or six million in 240 days (eight months).

    Could this claim be a misprint?

    Kitty Hart, in spite of her name a Jewish survivor born in Poland, fully confirms these figures:

    ‘Working around the clock, the four units together could dispose of about 18,000 bodies every twenty-four hours, while the open pits coped with a further 8,000 in the same period.’ (p 118; Return to Auschwitz – paperback edition by Granada (1981, 1983).

    According to the cover blurb, ‘The subject of the award-winning Yorkshire television documentary of the same name.’ ‘Both engaging and harrowing…an important addition to the growing holocaust literature, very little of which conveys so courageously both the daily torment and the will to survive’ – Martin Gilbert, The Times.

    Martin Gilbert, indefatigable Jewish campaigner on behalf of the ‘Holocaust’ and biographer of Winston Churchill, adds to the rich flavour and makes his own numerical claims, certainly not without chutzpah:

    In his book Auschwitz and the Allies (1981) he states

    ‘The deliberate attempt to destroy systematically all of Europe’s Jews was unsuspected in the spring and early summer of 1942: the very period during which it was at its most intense, and during which hundreds of thousands of Jews were being gassed every day at Belzec, Chelmo, Sobibor and Treblinka.’ (p.26).

    If we assume a minimum figure of 200,000 per day, this amounts to say a million a five-day working week, or 6 million in six weeks, and this does not include the truly awe-inspiring claims for Auschwitz put forward by Hart and Lengyel with Gilbert’s blessing.