Stifling of dissent …
Stifling of dissent by the United Nations:

Buenos Aires, Argentina ( – The moderator of a panel discussion at the United Nations climate change conference here shut down questioning by a reporter who asked about disputed scientific claims regarding global warming, calling such questions “silly.”

The panel discussion featured representatives of the Inuit people, who were announcing their intention to seek a ruling from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the United States “for causing global warming and its devastating impacts.”

But when asked by to defend the science behind the group’s legal challenge, the moderator of the event cut off the reporter’s questions and threatened “to put a stop to this.”

And what exactly was this dangerous question? What would cause allegedly open-minded scientists–ones who should be encouraging debate–to smack down a reporter? had asked the panelists about the scientific certainty that any potential warming in the Arctic is the fault of humans and specifically the fault of the United States.

The questions were predicated on temperature charts from a recently released report on Arctic warming and other data showing that surface temperatures in the Arctic in the early half of the 20th century were similar to present-day temperatures. asked Inuit panelists if these warmer Arctic temperatures in the first part of the 20th century had any disastrous impacts on the Arctic people.

“No it wasn’t, [a disaster] no it wasn’t at all,” said Sheila Watt-Cloutier, the chairwoman of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, a United Nations-recognized, quasi-governmental group that is seeking a human rights declaration against the U.S.

Watt-Cloutier said the weather did not impact the Inuit people in any way in the 1930s, and she disputed the notion that today’s Arctic weather is similar to that of the 1930s — even though the data shows that surface temperatures back then were similar to today’s Arctic temperatures.

Also asked by how any potential melt of Greenland’s ice shelf could create devastating climate and sea-level consequences when, according to multiple sources of available climate data, Greenland was warmer and had less ice during the Middle Ages than it currently has.

Watt-Cloutier responded, “I am not a scientist, so I can’t give you any scientific responses to your question.” But earlier in her presentation, Watt-Cloutier did present scientific analysis to bolster her group’s legal complaint against the U.S.

“Melting of glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet can cause catastrophic interference with major ocean currents. Even moderate global warming scenarios are already having devastating impacts on the Inuit in the Arctic,” Watt-Cloutier claimed earlier.

So, armed with scientific data, a reporter asked for details about claims and about contradictory findings. This showed the shortcomings of the presenters, who had to backpedal all of a sudden. asked again whether the panelists would acknowledge scientific reports that Greenland was warmer during the Middle Ages and had less ice cover than it has currently.

But Goldberg interrupted, saying, “This is not a scientific event…as the moderator, I am going to put a stop to this.

“I have already put an end to this discussion, it is silly and it has nothing to do with what we are here to talk about,” he added.

Goldberg then called for more “productive” questions.

So never mind the man behind the curtain, just continue on addressing me as “The Wizard of Oz”.

A woman later took to the microphone and declared that the Inuit people’s complaint against the U.S. was “not about the science, but it’s about what is happening to human beings, and I think the U.S. has to start taking off its blinders.”

Well if it’s not about the science, why are you using science to blame the U.S.? If it’s not about the science, you don’t have a case against anybody.

And then came exposure of the herd mentality among reporters, as well as its liberal bias.

After the panel discussion, several audience members angrily approached this reporter and accused him of acting “disrespectful” to the Inuit people.

Never mind that they were using bad information to make their claims, just don’t disrespect ’em. The conclusion is more important than the means by which you came to that conclusion. How you feel about something is more important that the reasons you feel it.

And that’s the core of liberal “thought”. How you feel about something trumps all. (Well, as long as what you feel fits in with what leftists think you should feel.) And they want to enforce public policy based on these feelings. Sorry, no can do.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!