Academia, Free Speech

Georgetown Students Shut Down Forum Of Experts Opposed To Climate Change

I have previously written about the toleration shown by colleges and universities in students and faculty disrupting speakers with whom they disagree. This has included protests where students have been prevented from studying as other students accuse them of privilege or racism.  Administrators at schools like Dartmouth have allowed such abusive conduct to occur without disciplinary action, even apologizing to the protesters.  Students at Columbia University library prevented College Republicans from speaking at a meeting while students at Northwestern prevented a class from being held. The latest example occurred last week at Georgetown where the Georgetown University College Republicans were prevented from holding an event critical of climate change theories. It is precisely the type of diversity of opinion that should be welcomed on a campus, but student protesters stopped others from hearing these views. As with the prior incidents, there is no indication of any punishment for the students in stopping the exercise of free speech on the Georgetown campus.

Notably, the article on the event by the college newspaper is titled “College Republicans’ Climate Forum Rebuttal Met With Protests.” In truth, the forum was not “met” by protesters but prevented from being held by protesters.

The students brought together experts and advocates to criticize climate change views. I have long subscribed to the science of climate change, but I still support such a forum as a vital part of our educational mission. Protesters however refused to allow others to hear opposing views, but yelling and blowing whistles. Students were removed but not disciplined. They were threatened with school discipline if they returned. They did not have to. The forum could not continue. In other words, they succeeded in defeating the free speech rights of other students. Georgetown did little beyond an institutional shrug.

There is no indication of discipline even after police had to be called.

The use of the heckler’s veto is now being used to silence those who hold opposing views on issues from abortion to climate change to contemporary politics. By not taking action, universities like Georgetown are enabling this conduct and stripping conservatives students and faculty of the benefits of not just free speech but open intellectual engagement.

220 thoughts on “Georgetown Students Shut Down Forum Of Experts Opposed To Climate Change”

  1. After being offered grade increases for participating. TANSTAAFL even if it is a bribe.

    2. I feel this is a long game, seeing this a lot lately.

      TAVISTOCK and FRANKFURT SCHOOL, come to mind.

      Mind control at its best. Like the British invasion with the Beatles.

      Don’t let your kids watch all that “truth in plain sight” crap. Turn the TV off, or at least point out all the symbolism to them.

      Going for the youth….that is an interesting play alright. 🤔

      1. I forgot to mention…

        “If you want to defeat your enemy, bring up his children.”

        It’s quite insidious, don’t you think?

  5. “She sells sea shells
    By the sea shore.”

    Say that very fast now, repeatedly…

  7. I don’t like the headline. Those aren’t experts, being among the ignorati.

    Look it up in the Urban Dictionary.

  8. OT: This is a 5 minute video where Candace Owens is set up and then in the later half she tells it as it is and makes the left look like fools. No wonder they try to gang up on her. The problem is she is right and they are wrong.

    We all would like to be as good as Candace.

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/09/candace-owens-scorches-the-dems.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+powerlineblog%2Flivefeed+%28Power+Line%29

      2. no one outside your bubble knows who Candace Owens is.

        No one inside my bubble knows who Candace Owens is.

        In case you can’t process that, both statements mean exactly the same thing. Now, unless you fear you’ll burst into flames by watching the very short video of an alternative viewpoint, you’ll get a sense of who she is and what her position is. I can assure you if you don’t agree with her, then you should easily be able to provide a counter-argument. And if you can’t or don’t care to try, then that ignorance is on you.

          1. “she’s nobody. Just a paid model”

            Just a paid model? I didn’t know she was a model. I thought she was a commentator which is what she is. Young and quickly developing a role in society to put men like you in their place. A model? Do you think because she is black and attractive the only thing she can be is a sex object. That is a racist way of thinking.

            Anyone out there who hasn’t heard of her should take a listen. She will be heard from when many of us are dead and buried. She represents an intelligent form of life. She started her career working for liberal publishers that bashed the Tea Party, Trump and conservatives. Like many other blacks she has learned and continues to learn how despotic and racist the leftist movement is and how empty of intellect people like Peter are.

            1. Do you think because she is black and attractive the only thing she can be is a sex object.

              Good point Allan. Hill says, Just a paid model who mouths things… He apparently can’t process the language she speaks; square peg, round hole.

          2. she’s nobody. Just a paid model who mouths things Trumpers want to hear.

            Hmm? You’re a moron. You claimed to not know who she is. Now you claim to know who she is. If you watched the video to come to that conclusion, then not only are you unable to connect with the left half of your brain, the right side functionality is questionable as well.

          3. You guys had me worried for a second. For a ‘second’. Then I checked Owen’s bio on Wikipedia. It turns out her first job out of collge was at “Vogue” Magazine. And for many years Owen’s was your basic young, urban liberal who said derogatory things about both the Tea Party and Donald Trump. Then somewhere along the way, Owen’s became a born-again conservative; all before the age of 30.

            1. Yes, she worked for Vogue you sexist. Not every woman that works for Vogue is a model. Candace is a writer and a thinker. Just because she is black doesn’t mean she can’t think for herself and needs the DNC to help her along.

              It seems, Peter, you have problems with women, independent blacks, families, black babies and a whole host of other problems yet you think you can fix the world.

                1. Tme is a vital factor in many things as you are being forced to learn. Candace started off on the left and moved to the right over time. She is very articulate but the right does not unify itself into one despotic ideology as seen on the left.

                2. Anonymous – once you get past the biased intro, this is a great interview with Candace.

            2. Then somewhere along the way, Owen’s became a born-again conservative; all before the age of 30.

              Good for you Hill. That is the beginning of critical-thinking, not the end of it. What motivated such a transformation in her thinking? Are her public comments something you can argue against and why?

            3. Those kinds of changes can and do happen.
              Just look at your idol and alleged employer, David Brock.

        2. Hey Olly, I know who she is! Love watching her videos!

          But you know how Hill and Benson are. They would prefer to lynch her from the nearest tree for being an uppity black woman who does not know here place on the Democratic Plantation.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

      3. My bubble encompasses intelligent people that are conservative, classical liberal or libertarian. I don’t expect anyone on the left to listen to Candace Owens because they believe she isn’t entitled to know anything about black life. The sad reason for that is she is black and conservative. Therefore according to our plantation leftists she ‘don’t know a thing’.

        PS. She makes mincemeat out of someone like you, Peter.

      4. what’s wrong with being paid? folks gotta eat

        what’s wrong with being a model?

        what’s wrong with being a black Republican?

        oh, thats not allowed. we all know that. so you call her a nobody.

        well: she has 1.7 million twitter followers. I guess that qualifies as a somebody.

        I’m a nobody. You’re a nobody Hill. And actually she is a somebody.

  9. What is stopping every person that believes we have to act now to combat climate change from voluntarily reducing their carbon footprint? Wouldn’t the millions that fall into this group have a positive impact on reducing carbon emissions?

          1. Thanks. Now wouldn’t these individuals, who voluntarily set their personal reduction goals, be a great example for others to follow? They could even take their personal savings they accumulate from their reductions to help their poorer neighbors that can’t afford to make the change. Wouldn’t that make sense regardless of whether other individuals do the same?

              1. Hill,
                Is English your second language or did you eat paint chips as a child?

                I recognize that climate does change and that there are many people that believe humans can impact it in a positive or negative way. I also respect their right to follow through with their view that they need to act now. I’m not of the mind to force them to act, I’m curious to know if there is anything preventing them from acting as individuals.

                Is that clear enough for you?

                1. OLLY – climate change has arrived in the Valley of the Sun. We started with heavy rains yesterday and will continue for the next few days. This is flash flood time.

                    1. OLLY – thanks, I have the weather channel up on one screen watching the rain move across the Valley. I have to make a trip today but it should be safe.

                    2. That would be the climate change channel. Our climate here in San Diego county is affected by that monsoonal flow. I always look forward to some rain this time of year.

                    3. OLLY – sadly, we have gulches that are very prone to flash floods. That is why we have a Stupid Motorist Law.

                    4. Paul, I hope you have flood insurance. Too many people forget about that policy that aren’t in flood zones but it covers more than people think. It is based on location so one’s individual flood insurance represents one’s absolute risk calculated by FEMA. Is your premium much higher than the national average?

          2. well, here’s another reason to actually focus on adaptation besides mitigation. because there isn’t much mitigation that will make a significant difference– short of just shutting it all down and starving to death— if china keeps on keepin on. which it will.

            hence we better be focusing on adaptation while we still can

          3. David,
            If efforts by millions and perhaps billions of individuals voluntarily reducing their carbon footprint won’t be a net positive because of China, then doesn’t it logically flow that the Paris Accord won’t produce a net positive for the same reason? Instead of individuals, we have countries voluntarily committing their citizens to reductions that will have no net benefit without the likes of China and India. There is no enforcement mechanism.

            So if there will be no net positive on the reduction of carbon emissions, then would it not be a violation of our property rights to take our nations wealth and transfer it to an unjustifiable cause?

  10. Of course, rather than just showing off one’s ignorance, one could study some climatology.

    From the Real Climate home page, click on the Start Here in the upper left hand corner.

    But most here would rather just demonstrate all the intelligence of oysters.

  11. https://newmansociety.org/newmans-idea-university-still-relevant-catholic-higher-education/

    Newman’s Idea of a University: Still Relevant to Catholic Higher Education

    Avery Cardinal Dulles

    John Henry Newman, writing in England in the mid-nineteenth century, proposed a vision of Catholic higher education that takes account of major difficulties that were prevalent in his day and are no less prevalent in ours. Although his proposals are for the most part framed in positive terms, I shall summarize them in contrast to four tendencies that Newman found unacceptable. I shall call these tendencies utilitarianism, fragmentation, secularism, and rationalism.

    By utilitarianism, Newman meant the philosophical movement associated with the name of Jeremy Bentham. The editors of the Edinburgh Review, together with influential figures such as Lord Henry Brougham and Sydney Smith, proposed to dethrone the classics from the position of supremacy they held at Oxford and Cambridge and to replace them with “useful” knowledge leading to a trade or profession. Newman contended, on the contrary, that the primary end of education was not the acquisition of useful information or skills needed for a particular occupation in life, but cultivation of the mind. The special fruit of university education, as he saw it, was to produce what he called the “philosophical habit of mind.” The study of the classics, he believed, had proved its capacity to “strengthen, refine, and enrich the intellectual powers” and to enter into the rich heritage that modern Europe had acquired from the providential confluence of biblical revelation and classical civilization.

    Newman was convinced that the mental refinement that comes from literary and philosophical training is something good in itself, quite part from its utility. But he added that, far from being useless, an education of this sort would equip the student to enter many walks of life. Whether one becomes a soldier, a statesman, a lawyer, or a physician, one will need the ability to think clearly, to organize one’s knowledge, and to articulate one’s ideas so as to deal effectively with the questions at hand. A narrowly professional or vocational program of training would therefore fail the test of pragmatic usefulness, not to mention the additional test of liberal knowledge as its own end.

    The second threat was fragmentation. Newman was troubled by the increasing compartmentalization of education. He was not against the multiplication of disciplines. In his Irish University he set up not only a school of arts and sciences but also schools of medicine and engineering. He made provision for a chemical laboratory and an astronomical observatory. All these elements, in his view, had a rightful place in the university as a place of universal learning. But the very multiplicity of disciplines increased the necessity of a principle of order, governing the whole, so that the student would be able to perceive the significance of each particular branch of knowledge in relation to the rest.

    Philosophy, as Newman used the term, was not so much a special discipline as a meta-discipline. Understanding philosophy as the exercise of reason upon knowledge, he maintained that it is unlimited in its horizon. From its own perspective, it embraces truth of every kind and locates every method of attaining it. In this way the study of philosophy overcomes the threat of fragmentation.

    The third danger was secularism: the exclusion of religious knowledge from higher education. A good share of the blame, Newman believed, fell upon the Evangelicals, who depicted religion not as knowledge but as a matter of feeling and emotion. If religion were no more than this, Newman granted, it could not properly claim to merit a chair in the university. But for him religion was a matter of truth. Through reason and revelation, the mind could attain genuine knowledge about God, and the knowledge so attained could be built into a system.

    The university must obviously take account of truths about God that are accessible to all thoughtful persons, such as the articles of natural religion. But it should not omit revealed truth, since Divine Revelation is necessary to keep reason from going astray. The university, as Newman conceived of it, was not a seminary, and for that reason it would not explore in depth questions of dogmatic and sacramental theology, but it would seek to impart what he called “general religious knowledge.” No part of Catholic truth could properly be excluded from the university.

    The absence of theology, Newman contended, would throw the other branches of knowledge out of balance. Eager to fill the void left by that absence, these disciplines would seek to answer by their own methods questions that cannot be rightly answered except by theology. All of us have probably experienced how professors of physics or economics, medicine or psychology—to give a few examples— tend to operate as though their specialization qualified them to give a complete account of reality and of what it means to be human. Theology is needed, therefore, to keep the secular disciplines within their proper limits and to deal with questions that lie beyond their scope.

    Rationalism, in Newman’s view, was the fourth great threat. The university, as a place of intellectual cultivation, tends to treat the human mind as the measure of all things. Absolutizing its own standards and goals, the university aspires to complete autonomy and becomes a rival of the Church even in the Church’s own sphere of competence. To prevent this encroachment, the Church must exercise what Newman calls “a direct and active jurisdiction” over the university. This should not be seen as a hindrance but as a help to the university. Ecclesiastical supervision prevents the university from falling into the kinds of skepticism and unbelief that have plagued seats of learning since the time of Abelard. Because the university cannot fulfill its mission without revealed truth, and because the Church has full authority to teach the contents of Revelation, the university must accept the Church’s guidance.

    Newman was quite aware that the results of science sometimes seemed to conflict with Christian doctrine. He counseled patience and restraint on the part of hierarchical authorities and scientists alike. Both should proceed with the assurance that reconciliation can eventually be attained, for it is impossible that the truth of Revelation could be contrary to that of reason and of science.

    A decade after writing The Idea of a University, Newman had an opportunity to witness a mighty effort of German Catholic university faculties, under the leadership of Ignaz von Döllinger, to assert their autonomy against the Magisterium. Similar struggles arise whenever Catholic universities seek to absolutize their own freedom and their own methods. Newman saw this tendency as a normal but regrettable expression of the inherent dynamism of the university as such. The higher authority of the Church was necessary to rescue freedom of thought from what Newman called its own “suicidal excesses.”

    If Newman were alive today, he would enthusiastically embrace the principles set forth by John Paul II in Ex Corde Ecclesiæ. In that Apostolic Constitution the Holy Father sets forth the same general principles that I have tried to highlight in Newman’s treatise. He teaches that university education should not be content to produce an efficient work force for the factory or the marketplace; it should not exalt the technical over the spiritual. He strongly opposes the multiplication of separate departments and institutes, which he sees as harmful to a rich human formation. He calls for a universal humanism and an organic vision of reality. He likewise holds that Catholic universities have the incomparable advantage of being able to integrate all truth in relation to Christ, the incarnate Logos, Whom Christians recognize as the Way, the Truth, and the Life for the whole world. On these and many other points, the nineteenth-century English cardinal and the present Polish pope may be said to share a common point of view.

    In the United States, Catholic universities have been very apologetic, almost embarrassed, by their obligation to adhere to the Faith of the Church. For Newman and for John Paul II, any university that lacks the guidance of Christian Revelation and the oversight of the Catholic Magisterium is, by that very fact, impeded in its mission to find and transmit truth. It fails to make use of an important resource that God in His Providence has bestowed.

    Surrounded by powerful institutions constructed on principles of metaphysical and religious agnosticism, the Catholic universities of this nation have too long been on the defensive. They have tried too hard to prove that they are not committed to any truth that cannot be established by objective scientific scholarship. While making certain necessary adaptations to the needs of our own day, they should proudly reaffirm the essentials of their own tradition, so brilliantly synthesized by Newman in his classic work. Shifting the burden of proof to their secular counterparts, they should challenge the other universities to defend themselves and to show how they think it possible to cultivate the mind and transmit the fullness of truth if they neglect or marginalize humanistic, philosophical, and theological studies.

    Cardinal Dulles presented this address on November 11, 2001, upon receiving the Cardinal Newman Society’s John Henry Newman Award for distinguished service to Catholic higher education.

    1. more to the point, estovir. the “Catholic” universities have pursued a policy of secularization since Land o Lakes statement decades ago. You obviously know about that.

      I have read a lot about that from my conservative friends. But the thing is: Rome could have stopped them, if they wanted to. Rome didn’t. That means Rome approves.

    2. Thank you for posting this, Estovir.

      “A narrowly professional or vocational program of training would therefore fail the test of pragmatic usefulness, not to mention the additional test of liberal knowledge as its own end.”

      My local school district has forgotten what the best end of education ought to be. They are focused on turning children into worker bees.

      1. Agreed, Prairie Rose. Worker bees have little utility in themselves but rather better to foster beings who can think, love, give of self and point others to God’s Grandeur

        He likewise holds that Catholic universities have the incomparable advantage of being able to integrate all truth in relation to Christ, the incarnate Logos, Whom Christians recognize as the Way, the Truth, and the Life for the whole world. On these and many other points, the nineteenth-century English cardinal and the present Polish pope may be said to share a common point of view.

        Dulles always had a way of synthesizing great truths into succinct points. Many on these forums brag about their “agnosticism” (a cowards way of being neither atheist or theist) or mocking those who embrace Catholicism. Dulles, borrowing from Newman while dovetailing to St Pope John Paul II, reminds us that which the Founding Fathers of these United States sought to remind residents of America: to ignore the ways of God is to invite tragedy.

        Im with Dulles, Newman, JPII sans “twice filter holy water”

        Salut!

        1. Estovir,
          You might enjoy Neil Postman’s The End of Education. It overlaps with this topic at hand.

  12. i recently heard about a literature class at a major university. a 100 level class. it consisted of “american minority voices” or something like that

    i am not against reading anything worth reading, but in my mind it’s not worth reading just because a “minority” wrote it. that’s like some kind of weird AA for content creators or what?

    and this class is being taken by a bunch of white kids who have been paying and listening to black hip hop music their entire lives, without any encouragement whatsoever. they know plenty of black poetry– not maya angelou et al. but “Rap” acts. they probably know a lot more black-authored poetry than they do white, by memory! think about that. and still the academics think there is a need for AA version of first year lit.

    interesting that HIPHOP does not need AA but for some reason “minority voices” in literature does. i wonder how hiphop acts feel about that?

    oh i also found out that the “syllabus” was lacking in any “asian american” voices. for some reason they still don’t qualify for AA!

  15. Georgetown Students Shut Down Forum Of Experts Opposed To Climate Change

    Dear Mr Turley,

    You have the terminology wrong. You do a disservice to the Forum of Experts in your clumsily worded title as he who controls the language/definitions controls the debate.

    The Forum of Experts are not Opposed to Climate Change as any climate expert (ie scientist, physicist, climatologist, etc) worth their weight in CO2 knows climate change on planet Earth has been occurring naturally for billions of years since the beginning of time – all without any human input.

    The Forum of Experts are Opposed to specious claims of human (ie anthropogenic) caused climate change due to human CO2 emissions released into Earth’s atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (ie mid-1800’s).

    It does not matter if the ignoramuses @ Georgetown shut down every climate forum in the universe or choose to live a pious CO2 emissions free life – the natural variability of Earth’s climate compounded with the natural variability of our Sun means the climate change show will go on uninterrupted.

    https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

    1. Person, how many Nobel Prize-Winning Scientists support your assertion that Global Warming is simply a natural, longterm cycle? And is the rapid melting of Greenland part of this ‘natural cycle’?

      1. Richard Lindzen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1977. Last I checked, he was one of about two dozen meteorologists and climatologists so honored.

        1. Tabby, Richard Lindzen never won a Nobel Prize. And his doubting of Climate Change has provoked great controversy among scientific peers. Here’s a passage from Lindzen’s Wikipedia bio:

          “Contrary to the IPCC’s assessment, Lindzen said that climate models are inadequate. Despite accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of clouds, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid. Lindzen has stated that due to the non-linear effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by about 75% 0.6 °C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO2. The IPCC (2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 to be about 3 °C (5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of the Earth’s climate sensitivity to be 0.5 °C based on ERBE data. These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others, and Lindzen accepted that his paper included “some stupid mistakes”.

          When interviewed, Lindzen said “It was just embarrassing”, and added that “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.” Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS. The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication. Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper. Andrew Dessler published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented “are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported.”

          Edited from “Richard Lindzen”: Wikipedia
          ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

          Tabby, it doesn’t sound like Lindzen represents mainstream science. It sounds more like his skepticism is a blot on his career.

          1. There is no Nobel Prize for Meteorology and Climatology, Peter. There is one for physics, but no physics laureate has ever specialized in atmospheric physics.

            1. Tabby, Lindzen didn’t win ‘any’ Nobel Prizes from what I could see. That was my question to Person: ‘How many Nobel Prize winning scientists are Climate doubters?’ You answered with Lindzen’s name like he won the Nobel Prize. He didn’t. It was just another of your bluffs which you pull all the time.

          2. wiki says:

            Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983[1] until his retirement in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[2] He was a lead author of Chapter 7, “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change…..”

            SOUNDS LIKE A DECENT CV TO ME! DID YOU CATCH THAT–physicist– papers– MIT!

            wiki continues:’
            “… He has criticized the scientific consensus about climate change[3] and what he has called “climate alarmism.”[4]”

            oh i get it. DISCREDITED HERETIC!
            “

      2. And is the rapid melting of Greenland part of this ‘natural cycle’?

        The Danes were offered $100 Million by Trump. They were fools not to take it. Let it melt and watch them take $1000 as a counter-offer. It will freeze again like the Ace Ages that have covered the planet, and wipe out all of your Grindr tricks in WeHo, not that they will miss you since they’ve all blocked you

        😉

        2. Estovir, you punk. How tough are you, anyway??? For all I know you’re 5:5 and 130 pounds. That’s the thing about online forums. Any little wimp can be as bold as wants knowing the other guy is hundreds of miles away.

          And by the way, Estovir, you’re wife has told friends that you’re a closet queen.

      3. natural phenomena can be very destructive to human life.

        bacteria are a natural phenomena.

        ice masses have formed and reformed over the geologic eras.

        attacking people for saying the sun is a factor in warming, is almost absurd in itself. of course the sun and its cycles are factors.

        the important question i asked before, which is not settled, is to what extent, as a factor.

        we understand that the dogma is that manmade carbon emissions are the “Dominant” factor in warming

        I still don’t know what that means, “dominant” and I suppose I could turn my brain off and just listen to Greta Thunberg and then I would get a gold star for the day. But unfortunately I keep on trying to keep thinking and asking pesky questions like “what’s dominant mean?”

        But she will never forgive me! So I will sit here and wring my hands over potential heresy

  20. You know, Prof. Turley, a few decades back I would have agreed with you, that opposing viewpoints should be heard. But after learning of the vast scope of knowingly-false information dissemination and behind-the-scenes manipulation of public opinion on climate change that has been standard operating procedure, for decades, by fossil-fuel corporations as well as their many political (and even a few scientific) lackeys, I don’t care anymore how their current speech rights may be impeded. As far as I’m concerned, they are reaping what they have sown.

    1. The US contributes 15% of the world’s carbon-burning generated foot print. China produces about 90% of the plastic pollution.

      If the USA ceased all carbon burning foot print, the world wide amount is only 15% lower.

      1. @Princess Trohar:

        I’m not sure that your figures are correct, but even if they are, it’s because the U.S. has out-sourced and off-shored its manufacturing, and therefore manufacturing-associated pollution, to China. I’ve seen scientific journal articles that, if I remember correctly, said that 40-50% of China’s pollution comes from manufacturing products for export.

      2. Princess, Climate Change and Plastic Waste are ‘2’ different environmental issues. One concerns the atmosphere while the other threatens oceans. But for some reason you seek to blur these issues into one broad problem.

          1. Clarity comes from separating factors, not mixing them together. That is how problems are solved. Plastic waste is not a CO2 problem, though it is a problem.

            1. Yes, it is. How is plastic produced?

              ” The carbon footprint of plastic (LDPE or PET, poyethylene) is about 6 kg CO2 per kg of plastic. If you know the weight of your plastic bags, you can multiply it with the number of plastic bag you are using per year. Then you can easily calculate the carbon dioxide emitted by your own usage of plastic bags”

              https://timeforchange.org/plastic-bags-and-plastic-bottles-CO2-emissions

              Should I tease you and say I’m not your tutor? 😉

    2. Biologist:

      ” I don’t care anymore how their current speech rights may be impeded. As far as I’m concerned, they are reaping what they have sown.”
      ***********************

      Until your rights are trampled that is. Stay in your scientific lane and let lawyers protect your rights.

      1. Mespo,
        While lawyers may be at the front of the battle for free speech in the courts, I’d prefer not to leave it solely to lawyers to protect it. Skirmishes occur daily outside the courts, addressed solely by citizens one to another. Keep up the good fight, though, in those hallowed halls.

        1. when people start saying “I dont care about the other side’s rights—

          SKIRMISHES ARE SURE TO FOLLOW

          and probably not with mere words, either

          1. Mr Kurtz,
            Yes, sadly too true. I was thinking about debates that happen online, at school board meetings, in council meetings of various sorts, etc.

          2. Mr. Kurtz,
            Yes, sadly too true. I was thinking about debates people have online, at school board meetings, and at various council meetings.

            1. Somehow I accidentally posted as an Anonymous. This is the first time this has happened (I am using my husband’s computer and forgot to fill in my email and name). I am NOT any of the other various Anonymous aliases posting here. Only this one at September 23, 2019 at 9:05 PM.

              1. Yes. I post Anonymous too sometimes. It can be an whoops thing or a lazy thing or I don’t care thing.

                I do try to ID myself though.

                So, no worries PR.

                Also, usually ppl can tell who is who from writing style…..

                …..or IP addy, bc apparently that is being had on in-take.

                I guess you could always use Tor and claim you live somewhere else. But again, why bother.

                P.s. your comments are here forever. ::cue the evil laugh::

                Or until Turley takes his page down, but that ain’t happening anytime soon.

                This place is better than Reddit.

      2. he can help curtail global warming by his co2 producting excess speech in the first place

      3. ” let lawyers protect your rights.”

        Do you mean the same lawyers as are in the courts, in Congress and in the law schools that do not react to the abridgement of our rights or actively curtail them? I think I know what you mean but I believe it is up to everyone to understand that the government doesn’t give us our rights. We are born with them and we should restrict governments intervention into our lives and those rights.
        ‘

        1. Allan:

          “Do you mean the same lawyers as are in the courts, in Congress and in the law schools that do not react to the abridgement of our rights or actively curtail them?”
          *****************************
          Well they react when asked. See Kristen Waggoner, Esq. (Colorado baker); Nick Sandmann, ESq. (Covington Catholic School); Owen J. Rarric, Esq (Gibson Bakery v. Oberlin College). There’s oodles more stretching back to John Adams taking on the town after the Boston Massacre.

          We can’t initiate suits without clients.

          1. oh but mespo dont forget about those civil rights agencies., generally, they CAN initiate suits without harmed parties. busybodies can file “complaints” triggering compliance audits and suits even where nobody has alleged any actual harm

          2. “they react when asked.”

            They certainly do Mespo, but too many have little regard for individual liberties especially when they gain power over others. Don’t misinterpret my comments. Lawyers abound in my family.

            We need more lawyers of your persuasion.

        2. Good luck with those rights when you don’t have a government guaranteeing them, They will extend as far as someone who can kick your a.s.

          1. Anon1:
            Good luck with those rights when you don’t have a government guaranteeing them, They will extend as far as someone who can kick your a.s.
            ***********************
            Well, crudely put but you’ve finally stumbled on government’s fundamental role. You could have short-cut the process by reading Hobbes but hey any road to the top of the mountain works.

            The sovereign is “one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their peace and common defence” (17 13 109).

            It’s why the government enjoys the status of “sovereignty by institution.”

    3. Yeah while I feel bad about the mob mentality behind silencing the forum of “experts” I don’t see any reason for a college campus to promote information that is just plain false and in most cases is presented by people who know it’s false.

      1. Thanks for your input. But, what you wrote was false and you’re too ignorant to write anything true.

    4. I don’t care anymore how their current speech rights may be impeded.

      The leaders of China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, as well as ideologically divergent, but equally harsh despotic regimes, such as Turkmenistan, Belarus, Iran, Syria, Sudan, and others. approve your message.
      https://imrussia.org/en/nation/763-totalitarianism-and-freedom-of-speech

      In the meantime, (from the same article):

      States that lean towards totalitarian methods of governance need to create a strong propaganda machine designed to replace reliable information, policy analysis and a free exchange of views. Intrusive government propaganda is able to create an image of an external or internal enemy, drastically distort the real picture of the world and the course of current events, awaken feelings of xenophobia and racial or national exclusiveness, and manipulate people’s minds.

    5. I think you have got that backward.

      Lots and lots of data manipulation and hockey stick graphs on the “climate science” side and surprise, surprise, half of them wouldn’t have jobs if they weren’t creating an environmental panic.

      Should CO2 emissions be reduced? Probably, but so far everything proposed would only move them and coincidentally cripple the US economy. In the meantime, the US actually has reduced CO2 emissions more than any other country I’m aware of.

      Why don’t you ask China to reduce CO2 emissions and see how far you get?

      If “climate scientists” started making sense and workable proposals or actually listening to the objections of industries being crushed for no reason, I would take them more seriously.

      As it stands “climate scientists” are a joke.

      1. you know how they do A/C in china? room by room. the little ones that hang on the wall, not central air.

        you know where they make those units? yeah, of course: china

        just the amount of a/c units that china is making and selling around the world would probably zoom up the CO2 emissions from formerly “carbon efficient’ megacities like Jakarta– as more people can afford to buy a/c which makes life more livable in the tropics

        what’s the UN plan to fix that? where’s greta thunberg to harangue the third world buyers of a/c units with her threats, to harangue the Chicom industrialists who make them?

        this piece of the puzzle is very missing

        this morning on NPR: talk about “solar and wind” which are not among the top 3 most carbon efficient energy sources which are: gas, hydro, and nuclear

        why’s that? still wondering

        https://www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpolicy/2014/05/20/why-the-best-path-to-a-low-carbon-future-is-not-wind-or-solar-power/

        it comes down to a simple equation: Hollywood imaginations crossed with Democrat party alliances = the direction of the American mass media propaganda machine

        i did agree with one thing on NPR: that Republicans need to begin to get more facile and active on the climate warming issue. not to subscribe to any sort of dogma, but simply to get better informed and active.

Comments are closed.