Free Markets, Free People

Of course he’s an expert – he’s made a movie!

And to the left that certainly suffices for expertise.  I mean, after all he and  Al Gore share that “distinction”.  I’m talking about Avatar’s James Cameron, of course.  It seems he believes that those who don’t blindly follow the false god of pseudo science as presented by Al Gore and his minions are, well, “swine”:

“I think they’re swine,” he said at the American Renewable Energy Day Summit, the Aspen Times reported.

The summit hosts such climate scientists of distinction as T. Boone Pickens, Ted Turner, James Cameron, Bill Ritter, Kristina Johnson and Thomas Friedman.  Yes, it is loaded to the gills with science.

Favorite quotes from the Aspen Times article:

“A lot of really good American people are being lied to,” added Peter Byck, the director of an upcoming climate change documentary called “Carbon Nation.”

Byck stressed that Americans’ hearts are in the right places, but that skeptics of climate change have such a vast infrastructure in getting what he called their false message out, many don’t know whom to believe.

No, don’t laugh – he probably really believes that.  The “vast infrastructure” spoken of are Glen Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.  Not the vast number of grants and huge amount of government money that has, to this point, been wasted on trying to prove what appears to be  the unprovable.  And forget Gore’s movie and massive propaganda campaign, it is the skeptics who, with a few blog sites and facts, have been able to successfully blunt the previous onslaught of activist “science” and the left doesn’t like it.

Oh, and after claiming this vast opposing infrastructure exits our precious crew criticized the media:

They also criticized the media for giving half of its attention to a very small — less than 1 percent, they said — portion of scientists who say global warming is not caused by humans.

Less than 1%?   Vast infrastructure?  Yeah, you reconcile the two.  But the important point to recognize is even if it is only 1%, skeptics have been able, through the use of facts and analysis, to stop the “global warming” farce in its tracks.

That brings me to perhaps my favorite quote of the entire Aspen Times story:

Greene, Cameron and a host of other climate-change activists said there needs to be a broad educational campaign, one aimed at convincing voters and politicians that not being able to prove that fossil fuel-produced carbon is changing the temperature of Earth is not a license for inaction.

Emphasis mine.  If ever the left was distilled into a paragraph, that’s it.  Scientific proof, we don’t need no stinkin’ scientific proof – we feel it in our bones.  And that’s reason enough to take mega drastic action that will ruin economies, cause poverty and, eventually, kill people.  Of course the “broad educational campaign” aimed at “voters” would be based on, well, nothing.  It would be propaganda in its purist form and about as “educational” as a lecture by Gore.

Cameron also apparently challenged the “swine” to a debate at the conference.  They invited skeptics and the news media to watch as, one supposes, Cameron and crew would take the “swine” apart.  Ann McElhinny, who was to be a part of the debate and was privy to the rules to be followed tells the rest of the story:

But then as the debate approached James Cameron’s side started changing the rules.

They wanted to change their team. We agreed.

They wanted to change the format to less of a debate-to "a roundtable". We agreed.

Then they wanted to ban our cameras from the debate. We could have access to their footage. We agreed.

Bizarrely, for a brief while, the worlds [sic] most successful film maker suggested that no cameras should be allowed-that sound only should be recorded. We agreed [sic]

Then finally James Cameron, who so publicly announced that he "wanted to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out," decided to ban the media from the shoot out.

He even wanted to ban the public. The debate/roundtable would only be open to those who attended the conference.

No media would be allowed and there would be no streaming on the internet.  No one would be allowed to record it in any way.

We all agreed to that.

And then, yesterday, just one day before the debate, his representatives sent an email that Mr. "shoot it out " Cameron no longer wanted to take part. The debate was cancelled. 

Marvelous.  So the man who said in a previous interview, “I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads," crumpled like a wet paper box when finally confronted with the reality of doing so.  And then made the “swine” remark. Yes, that’s right, after he had chickend out of a debate he had called for and organized, he called the other side “swine”.

It wasn’t like he was going to be confronted by real, honest to goodness scientists who didn’t believe in global warming.  The “skeptics” he was to confront were Marc Morano of the Climate Depot website and Andrew Breitbart, and film maker McElhinny (“Not Evil Just Wrong”).

However, according to Morano, Cameron decided not to take the stage after being warned off by a coterie of environmentalists that “debate with skeptics … was not in his best interest.”  Among them was Joseph Romm of Climate Progress who had engaged in such a debate previously with Marc Morano and was soundly and obviously trounced.

So, speaking of demigods, just like this movement’s demigod – Al Gore – they refuse to actually engage in debate, preferring name calling, puffery, pseudo science and propaganda as their tools of persuasion. 

And they wonder why fewer and fewer are listening to them.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

[tweetmeme only_single="false"]
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

22 Responses to Of course he’s an expert – he’s made a movie!

  • How do we even mock these people, when their self-mockery is so utter and complete?

  • http://hindenblog1.blogspot.com/2010/04/burn-james-cameron-master-projectionist.html
    Why mock them? Because their dogma and conceit…coupled with BIG GOVERNMENT’S immense power…have threatened our very culture, and the Enlightenment that gave it to us.
    We have come cat’s whiskers to being dragged back into the past in terms of how we live, how long we live, and where we may live, all because of the self-loathing of these madmen we call environmentalists.
    Cameron is a punk-ass-bitch of the first water, and a great poster-boy for the Collective.  He will NEVER live as he  insists others live, just as Gore would NEVER live as he tells us we must.

  •  that not being able to prove that fossil fuel-produced carbon is changing the temperature of Earth is not a license for inaction.

    >>>>  Reminds me of Criswell’s line at the end of Plan Nine from Outer Space:  “Can you prove that it didn’t happen?!”

    Hey, if this is the standard they want to push, imagine how it can be turned around on them?  All sorts of fun constructions can be made using that wording:

    “Not being able to prove Saddam had WMD is not a license for inaction”  — See! Cameron supported the Iraq war!

  • “vast infrastructure” – which now is going to be forced to cut back on generating the false science of skepticism and lies while it funds the hatred of muslims who want to build mosques  at an old coat factory (which just happens to be be close to a spot where we used to have some building or other in New York).
    Obviously it’s very well funded and in place because some many people keep questioning the established consensus of man made global warming, and already somewhere in excess of 60% of the country thinks it’s offensive and intended for ulterior purposes when we all know it’s just a community center, a swimming pool, an arsenal, and study center for American Jihadi’s and a prayer area.  It’s enough to just about completely shut off the flow of energy to a guy’s second Chakra!
     
    Clearly ALL of this needs investigation by Congress!!!!

    • Even if the mosque founders had the most innocent of intention, I fear that radical Islamists will move in and take over the center. That’s not their fault, but its what will most likely happen.
      Also, I want to “trust but verify” where they get their funding.

  • Inbred … mindless … sterile … like Goebbels … deniers … good news, I’m going to stop commenting here … no, I changed my mind … not a lie … you cherry pick data, that makes you post-modernist … consensus here in faculty lounge … I’m left libertarian … always support more government action … no contradiction … no contradiction … no contradiction …

    *** STACK OVERFLOW AT EC71 A02D *** PROBABLE INFINITE LOOP, PLEASE REINITIALIZE PROGRAM BUFFERS — U OF MAINE COMPSCI MAIN EXECUTIVE PROGRAM

    This special edition of Scerb commentary is brought to you by the original Emotionless Robotic Bloviator posting robot, code named ERB-1.

  • How do we even mock these people, when their self-mockery is so utter and complete?

    I’m doing what I can!

  • Who knew?  Scott Erb and James Cameron were separated at birth!

  • I’m just relieved that the anti-science Bush administration and his cronies are out on the street.

    • Bush was too anti-science!!!  He insisted on crap like PROOF for stuff!!!  That is, like, TOTALLY UNscientific!!!  Some things are, like, so TOTALLY important that you can’t wait around for piddly things like proof!!!!  And, anyway, the vast right-wing conspiracy apparatus and Fox News and Beck and Limbaugh just lie all the time, and, like, people are so stupid that they believe those swine instead of all the smart sciencesy scientists around the world who, like, say that global warming is TOTALLY real!!!

      / sarc

      But, seriously, there is a grain of truth here: libs have perverted science into something that it really isn’t.  Consider the parallel with “social justice”: they pervert justice, which is (in principle) an objective process based on facts and pre-existing rules, into “social justice”, which relies on pre-determined outcomes.  Ditto liberal “science”: to hell with facts and proof!  Some things are so important that we can’t wait around for “proof”.  And, anyway, if EVERYBODY KNOWS that a thing is true, then why go through the wasted effort of actually proving it?

  • You claim: ” … the skeptics who, with a few blog sites and facts, have been able to successfully blunt the previous onslaught of activist ‘science'”, implying that global warming and its likely human cause have been disproved.  That is nothing but pathetic nonsense. The global warming thesis has been confirmed by oceanographers, glaciologists, economists. The only way you can continue to believe your nonsense is by refusing to read scientific publications. I’m sure you’re quite successful at boycotting scientific publications. Got lots of practice.

    • Nothing has been “confirmed” by anyone – that’s the point. It hasn’t even gotten to the “theory” stage in the scientific method. The claim is so much hot air as has been shown by any number of qualified and reputable science who dispute the claims. And the global warming crew has been in retreat ever since the skeptics have actually taken them on. Cameron is just another in a long line of warmists who won’t take the other side on, because when they do – as the post notes – they get their ass handed to them.

    • The global warming thesis has been confirmed by oceanographers, glaciologists, economists.

      Economists?!  I assume that’s a typo.  Those people can’t even make accurate predictions about the economy, much lest ecology.
      Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) has not been confirmed.  It’s a theory about future events.  You can’t say that the weather forecast for next week is confirmed until next week when you actually observe the weather.  Similarly, you cannot declare that something decades from now has been confirmed until (duh) decades from now.  (Perhaps you want to add psychics  to your list.  I daresay they would probably give you information as accurate as the average economist.)
      So, let’s assume that you meant to say that the CAGW theory has been “supported” by scientific research.  Except, it really hasn’t.  The data shows that the average global temperature has risen since the “Little Ice Age” a few centuries ago, just like it rose after previous cooling periods (ice ages, etc.) thousands of times before.  Climate is never static.  However, the global temperature has not been steadily increasing the past decade as one would expect from the  “runaway greenhouse effect” hysteria.  Yes, adding CO2 to the atmosphere will increase temperatures, all other factors remaining equal, but it is a logarithmic function, which means you have to keep doubling the CO2 for each degree of temperature increase.
      The CAGW predictions are not based upon the amount of CO2, but upon assumptions of positive feedback, the idea that other factors will multiply the effect of CO2 on warming.  But why assume all feedbacks are positive?  Historical data shows a continuous cycle, up and down, which would indicate that nature has more negative feedbacks to anything which affects climate (in other words, it “corrects” itself).  If you take the alarmist’s predictions, use their positive feedback multipliers as a given, then trace back in time, their equations don’t fit the know observed temperatures.  Somehow, we’re supposed to take on faith that something changed in hundreds of millions of years, so that everything works differently?
      No.  The climate has its ups and downs, without any input from human technology.  Sure, CO2 output will have a warming effect, but the more hysterical predictions of catastrophe are simply not supported.

  • Somehow, we’re supposed to take on faith that something changed in hundreds of millions of years, so that everything works differently?
    Somehow, we’re supposed to take on faith that after hundreds of millions of years of climatic cycles, something fundamental in the chemistry changed so that it all works differently now, not like before?
    (sorry for the sloppy writing)

    • Well, that didn’t work.  I tried to do a strikeout of my original sentence, but it duplicated it without the line.