Description:
Dr. Hovind talks about Bill Nye wanting to “jail Climate Change Deniers” who won’t obey science showing the earth’s climate is changing… Bill Nye is openly admitting he is an authoritarian with such inflammatory comments. Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin would be proud of Bill Nye the Science Guy.
If Stupid were Against the Law…..
Oil Giant Exxon-Mobil, and some organizations that have received Exxon funding, are under investigation by several State Attorneys General, following revelations that Exxon scientists understood and warned management of the consequences of continued carbon release, as long ago as the 1960s. The Attorneys General are asking if Exxon’s massive disinformation campaign on climate amounted to lying and deceiving its investors.
The company’s defense strategy is borrowed from Tobacco industry – it claims that disseminating misleading and distorted information and poisoning a national conversation was part of exercising its “Right of Free Speech”.
The meme is getting uptake among the usual target audience. I love it when cartoon stereotypes come to life.
Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American Christian fundamentalist evangelist and tax protester. He is a controversial figure in the Young Earth creationist movement and his ministry focuses on attempting to convince listeners to deny scientific theories including evolution, geophysics, and cosmology in favor of a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative found in the Bible. Hovind’s views, which combine elements of creation science and conspiracy theory, are dismissed by the scientific community as fringe theory and pseudo-scholarship. He has been criticized by Young Earth Creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis for his continued use of discredited arguments that have been abandoned by others in the movement.
Friends don’t let friends discuss climate without seeing my video on What Exxon Knew.
If the Climate Deniers are powerful enough to prevent action to slow down and possibly stop climate change, they should be jailed – it is a crime against humanity, a crime against the whole of life.
This guy was in jail for 9 years for a crime he failed to expain, and he claims jail shouldn’t exist at all, huge surprise there!! Not. Anyway, I agree. Bottom line, climate change has already caused many deaths and that will only increase. So anyone who knowingly blocks action on it is in some sense contributing to murder.
When Morano asked him about jail for deniers, Nye shrugged his shoulders and said ‘Lets see what happens’. He meant that these investigations into ‘what did Exxon know and when did it know it’ are still in their infancy: if they show clear culpability that Exxon knew what was going on but actively worked against anybody else knowing, then, as regards punishment ‘Lets see what happens’.
https://climatecrocks.com/2016/04/14/its-on-war-between-climate-deniers-and-bill-nye/
Morano is implying that the Enron guys (Nye specifically mentions Enron) didn’t deserve jail-time because when they were lying about the value of their investments, they were engaging in ‘free speech’. Likewise the Big Tobacco guys (Nye also mentions tobacco). No surprise that Morano would see things that way.
The complete denial of the source of climate change by this person completely disgraces and discredits his view on climate change forcing factors. How does Hovid explain 409 Ppm carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now over what is shown to be natural variation in the ice cores of the past 800a. Julie BG
Easy. He would just say the Devil made all those proxy records like ice cores to trick you, just like any records that extend back farther than a few thousand years. From previous interviews I have seen with him or his son, playing the “clear all evidence from the table” card is perfectly acceptable.
Off topic greenman. What the hell is happening in Greenland, is the early melt still going on? I’ve seen some reports that it is. In Stuff NZ via Sydney Morning Herald, http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/79474026/greenland-ice-sheet-melting-has-started-early (warning autoplay video)
yes, Greenland melting is no fluke, it’s off to a fast start.
Just talked to J. Box about this – we are seeing some blocking patterns over Greenland that correspond to what one might expect in a big melt year, but still too early to make a firm prediction on what will happen.
I have been rethinking plans and may make an announcement soon on fundraising to get up there with camera, to be in place if events unfold as we think they might. Stay tuned.
In the meantime, anyone that wants to can go to http://darksnowproject.org/support/
and earmark donations for “Peter Sinclair 2016”.
Climate change ties into the “evolution philosophy” in this way:
IT’S SCIENCE.
Why do we waste time listening to this idiot anyway?
You do have a good point, although greenman’s main thing is taking down deniers, so that’s why he listens to these people…
fair question.
I think it’s a good idea to know what deniers are thinking. If you can call it thinking.
Also, I think it’s good and accurate framing to show the depth of ignorance on the climate denial side.
Well … yeah… maybe it’s just me who spend way too many years arguing creationists, before encountering climate deniers and have en equal amount of years of nothing but deja-vue – including the conclusion that some people are just so dogmatic they are beyond reach of reason.
… But as the situation is now, I feel time has left these dogmatic idiots behind. Climate action will happen in spite of them. They managed to delay action for 25 years (something they’ll have to explain their role in to their grand children them selves) … but now the harsh reality has left them as mental dinosaurs. People are starting to see the consequences them selves and realize the deniers lied to them.
… there’s no reason to waste more time entertaining them as if there was a “debate”.
Well, there are still those that are confused on the issue. I don’t think the point is to sway the dogmatic, but to show to those that are unsure or uninformed that the dogmatic are off-the-rails. Peter does that in a succinct way.
Yes he does … However, there’s a lot larger fish than Kent Hovind.
“… it’s good and accurate framing to show the depth of ignorance …”
Hardly. If this guy set up a table at one of the Heartland conferences with his anti-evolution anti-science malarkey, he’d be ridiculed right out of the place. I’m usually good to watch whatever videos Peter puts up here (indebted to him for a recent Oreskes one where she sure seems to contradict one of her own previous narratives), but I bail out this one after the 38 second point. He probably has nothing worthwhile to contribute that hasn’t been said elsewhere by someone who’s not a creation science nut.
Heartland may possibly put someone like Hovind in an out of the way place at a conference, but I don’t think you can be so sure of what you are saying about a removal of the guy. Evolution denial and AGW denial seem to have more of an overlapping set than you let on, and even to the point of teaming up on occasion.
https://climatecrocks.com/2014/07/25/heartland-joins-creationists-takes-aim-at-us-education/
Also, it is likely such contradiction you imagine concerning Oreskes is in your head, not in any rigorous research analysis.
But hey, kudos for disavowing the illogical rhetorical tactics that try to keep evolution denial afloat. Next, just take a step back and observe a similar set of argument forms on the part of AGW denial.
Not having anything to do with decision-making at Heartland or even being privy to it, my educated guess is that a guy like Hovind would be rejected out-of-hand the moment he mentions any literal belief in the Bible. As I’ve said before, anti-evolution belief and what skeptic climate scientists embrace are mutually exclusive. They don’t overlap one inch. You can’t profess rigorous adherence to the Scientific Method in one area and then throw it out the window in another, you’d be branded as an utterly illogical anti-science hypocrite by your pals if you did.
Harrison Schmitt is a geologist, with a bachelor of science degree and a PhD in geology from Harvard. You don’t get as far as he did while believing fossils were arbitrarily put on mountaintops by some deity 6000 years ago. All of his peers would have called him as a lunatic if he had, and you would have readily found such evidence if it existed. As for the rest of your so-called “teaming up” evidence, yeah, right. So tenuous as to be beyond a breaking point. Tell me, if Peter Sinclair, and by default, all of the Crocks people support Van Jones, Ed Asner, Janeane Garofalo, Cynthia McKinney and their green energy / AGW viewpoints, does that mean you endorse 911Trutherism? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/08/glenn-beck/van-jones-truther-glen-beck-thinks-so/ What you need to do is step back and observe why you-all collectively are so desperate to dredge up unsupportable material in order to keep your character assassination attacks alive, rather than debate the actual science points offered by skeptic speakers like Schmitt.
Say what you will about my observation of an apparent narrative contradiction by Oreskes, but when you don’t have the first clue what it is, it isn’t wise to speculate that it isn’t demonstrable research you or I can undertake. I’ve already detailed one heckuva massive contradiction by her at my blog which was corroborated by an outside person having literally no association with me, a contradiction which you fellows could have found out easily enough for yourselves. So, stay tuned to GelbspanFiles on Peter’s inadvertent tip to me, it’ll be up in a few posts once I get some others out of the way first.
I have been sitting back and watching otter do a job on Russell. I have greatly enjoyed how quickly Russell grabbed on to otter’s suggestions about the connection between fossil fuel money support and being a denier—-that the fossil fuel interests are just giving some $$$$ to those who hold positions that agree with their interests and that there is/was NO quid pro quo (or whoring, as I call it) on the part of the deniers—-just friends taking care of friends.
LMAO!!!!! (Repeat 27 times, the same number of times Russell strung together a bunch of “Prove it!(s)” in one blog comment). Crockers may recall the analysis of Russell’s postings that I did that show Russell actually auditioned for his role as a Heartland stooge by writing articles while he was starving, and that his Uncle Fred Singer then put him on the Heartland payroll.
Today I would like to address one of the biggest lies Russell has ever told on Crock—–“Not having anything to do with decision-making at Heartland or even being privy to it”. Lord love a duck, but Russell is shameless when it comes to spewing lying bullshit.
I have pointed all this out before, but it bears repeating since it so clearly illustrates Russell’s deceitfulness and lack of character. From desmogblog
“March, 2015
“Russel Cook is one of several climate change skeptics cc’d on an email from S. Fred Singer in hopes of countering the documentary film “Merchants of Doubt,” which exposes the network of climate change skeptics and deniers trying to delay legislative action on climate change.
“The October, 2014 email was leaked to journalists before the documentary was released. “Can I sue for damages?” Singer asked in the email. “Can we get an injunction against the documentary?”
“InsideClimate News reports in their article “Leaked Email Reveals Who’s Who List of Climate Denialists,” how “Many of those copied on the email thread, such as Singer and communications specialist Steven Milloy, have financial ties to the tobacco, chemical, and oil and gas industries and have worked to defend them since the 1990s.” [10]
“InsideClimate News also documented all those who were cc’d on the email, including the following skeptics and groups:
Timothy Ball
Joseph “Joe” Bast
Joe Bastardi
RUSSELL COOK************************
Judith Curry
James Delingpole
Steve Goddard
Patrick J. Michaels
Steven J. Milloy
Christopher Monckton
Marc Morano
Joanne Nova
S. Fred Singer
Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon
Roy Spencer
James Taylor
Anthony Watts
The list of addressees is nearly twice as long—-I left off some of the minor players.
So, let me say this loudly—-RUSSELL? DO YOU REALLY EXPECT US TO BELIEVE YOU HAVE “NOTHING TO DO WITH DECISION-MAKING AT HEARTLAND AND ARE NOT PRIVY TO IT” when Fred Singer includes YOU on that list and asks your advice just as much as he asks Willie Soon, Monckton, Spencer, or the others? I call bullshit on you, Russell—-yet again!
The rest of Russell’s maunderings here are just more of his usual straw man building and attempts to deflect, distract and turn back arguments on us. Not worth responding to. (Although I must say that “Tell me, if Peter Sinclair, and by default, all of the Crocks people support Van Jones, Ed Asner, Janeane Garofalo, Cynthia McKinney and their green energy / AGW viewpoints, does that mean you endorse 911Trutherism?” may be the wackiest thing Russell has said in a looooong time).
Your guess… isn’t backed up by the statements made at actual Heartland conferences tacitly supporting the creationist tactics, collaborating on an education project with a creation group like Discovery Institute, and providing links to Discovery Institute on its own webpage. I can’t recall Peter’s links page ever including 9/11 trutherism or Garafalo for that matter. So…
Certainly, one wouldn’t have a Discovery Institute representative write a guest article on Heartland’s webpage if there were not some common cause, at least in tactical approach, eh? Look, I don’t think you can readily deny that Heartland and Discovery were both approaching the Next Gen Science Standards for education in a tactically very similar way, and collaborating even to the point of guest publishing. A guy like Hovind sure sounds like he would fit right in at a Heartland conference booth, so long as he is primarily on-message concerning denying the vast majority of scientific evidence. The Heartland “climate conferences” are apparently by-and-large talking about politics anyway, so why not throw in some religious liberty jargon in there as an aside? What the heck, there is no credibility anyway to a climate conference presented by an organization that has no qualms in accepting donations that present appearances of a conflict of interest.
Yes, we are on the edge of our seats awaiting your Oreskes posts, backed up not by published research, but your blog musings.
When Ken Hovind talks about who’s going to jail – sit up and pay attention. The man speaks from experience.
… but ‘does he know he looks dumb?’ (I think not.)
What I found fascinating was the reason he doesn’t believe in jail as punishment: because ‘God didn’t authorize it’ (Apparently, its not in the Bible, except for the jails of ‘the Heathen’). So, what does God authorize as punishment? ‘A fine. A beating. Or Executed. Depending on the crime.’ So, thanks to Bible Literalism, Hovind is proposing that everything meted out to Jesus is Okey Dokey by God, depending on the crime! But incarceration? Hold it right there, buddy, God’s got principles!
Does ridiculing guys like Hovind count as God’s will? Magic 8-Ball sez, “Definitely!”
Hovind cannot even kick off with a coherent statement, ‘…put people in jail if they disagree that there might not be climate change…’. Wow! Russell Cook could not have put it better.
Luv, luv, luv you guys, you’re the gifts that keep on giving. For commenter Lionel Smith to say I’d make such a statement proves he doesn’t have the first clue what I’d say or think. In case anybody hasn’t noticed, I don’t even speak of the issue as “climate change”, I am relentless at calling it what it first set out to be, “global warming”. Re-watch the seminal presentation on the issue, Al Gore’s movie, and count the times he says “global warming”.
But the other reason I luv you guys is your collective and repeated attempts to tie the creation science thing into skeptics’ criticism of AGW. The two are mutually exclusive. Creation science make up stuff out of thin air (e.g. God put fossil animal rocks on top of mountains to test our faith, or something to that effect), while skeptic climate scientists adhere rigidly to the Scientific Method in their observations and analysis. This is why I compare those of you who are into the accusation about big coal & oil funding lies, to conspiracy theory put out by 911Truthers, ChemTrail believers & creation science believers. I more often leave out the latter bunch, but you can see three examples here (the 3rd result is one of my comment stalkers): https://www.google.com/search?q=“911Truthers%2C+ChemTrail+believers+and+creation+science+believers”
Touchy.
I would have no problem whatsoever with people calling me a creation denier. That is an accurate description of my position.
I was pondering on that Dr. Hovind. Wiki describes how that it is from an unaccredited institution, with the Patriot University as being a diploma mill.
Hovind calling someone else authoritarian is really rich. Among the most authoritarian of viewpoints still acceptable in modern society is to insist that another person must obey nonsensical beliefs having no evidence or be punished for eternity.