Christine Stewart has been described as a "non-scientist, so is she banned from discussing AGW?

Question

Christine Stewart has been described as a "non-scientist, so is she banned from discussing AGW?
She is the former Canadian Environment Minister and her quote was:
“No matter if the science is all phoney.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
The head of the IPCC s a railway engineer by trade, is he to be banned also.
Seems very Fascist if it's just "scientists" who agree with the myth of AGW, don't you agree?
Especially when this chap is allowed and indeed even paid to talk about it.
Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
Who then is allowed to talk about AGW?
Pray do tell.

Answer 1

Anyone's allowed to talk about AGW. However, scientists (or those repeating the conclusions of scientists) are the only ones who should be listened to about *whether* AGW is happening.



Lemme make a non-AGW analogy. If you wanted to build a building, you might accept anyone's advice about what would be aesthetically pleasing, how much you should spend on building it, where would be a good place to put it, and so on. But you should pretty much only listen to engineers and architects about what, structurally speaking, *can* be built, and you should pretty much only listen to lawyers about what is *legal* to build. Because both of those are fields with a lot of technical knowledge not necessarily shared by the general public.



So, we should listen to non-scientists when they are talking about whether or not we should make AGW a priority (so long as their views about whether or not it's happening match those of scientists), or *what* approach we should use (taxes vs regulations vs incentives vs geoengineering vs something else), or things like that, but on matters of what is actually, physically, going to happen? We should listen to the experts...

Answer 2

Flossie, I have looked for that "quote" and I can't find any source for it other then third hand claims on denier sites. Do you have a link to a reputable site that shows she made that statement?





As for discussing AGW, any one can join in as far as I am concerned and I don't limit that to AGW either. I just don't pay much attention to "flat earthers"





Edit



I asked for a reputable site, none of the three links do not even provide a link to the interview where she is alleged to have made that comment. Also you should have known that the quote is a "Selectively edited misrepresentation" at best, as you were told that three years ago, you even selected the answer as a best answer and acknowledged that you were better informed.



However your continued posting of this falsehood is actually quite rude. It is like saying flossie said "Sagebrush is a Fascist" (You used all four words, I just put them in a different order to suit my agenda)



Please post a link to the actual interview, so we can look at the context in which those words were said. If you can't maybe you could hang your head in shame instead?



Edit



Your letter to the editors in the Edmonton Journal is just that there are no links to the claim she even made that comment. http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/letters/story.html?id=7e448825-939d-4d04-9082-b6a806e57108 The person who wrote that letter is showing to be unreliable by that same paper http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=7af8ec25-2f33-4172-b6f1-cbeb6d92ca1d



The wikipedia entry is DIFFERENT from your claim and the link to the editorial is dead. And therefor it is third hand at best (It reads "No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits")



Let me show you how to do quotes the right way. Note how I quoted him verbatim, the date (this week) and provided a link to show the complete context in which he wrote the comments.



Quote by Sagebrush, (a top AGW denier) on 2012-11-17 "Execute all those who voted for OBAMA." https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20121122031857AAwMY3Q.



Make sure those people you quote actually said or wrote those words and provide the context. Now are you ready to hang your head in shame, or will you keep looking?

Answer 3

What is wrong with what she said. She didn't claim that AGW was phony; only that fighting global warming has other benefit. Aren't new, inexhaustible sources of energy good? Isn't being able to meet all of our energy needs without having to buy from the middle east good?

Answer 4

When you have a supposed predictive science that all to often relies on unverified data and is blatantly attached to political, economic and ideological interests it should come as no surprise that the discussion is summarily limited to the chorus.



Why anyone should listen to the the "little boy who once cried: 'ice age, ice age'" is an excellent question.



Furthermore, there are cases of 'mistakes' such as not compensating for the growth of urban heat islands to encompass temperature recording stations. You can excuse some high-schoolers on something like that. Professionals? Not so much. That's when you figure you cannot rely on any measurement not made for oneself and verified by people you personally trust.



Of course, AGW wins all debates if only the people who's income depends on supporting AGW are allowed to debate.

Answer 5

The people in charge decide who's allowed to talk about climate change. And that would be the PNAS in the US. Here are the guidelines: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html



These guidelines have been applied to compile a list of specific people who are not allowed to talk about AGW: http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/skeptic_authors_table.html



This is an obvious application of the free and open government policy of the US: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment



Oh, and let's not forget the head of the EPA Lisa Jackson using an email alias for internal email. I suppose it's completely normal in the new era of transparency to have her use the name Richard Windsor instead of Lisa Jackson: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/20/epa-says-jackson-has-an-internal-use-email-complia/



So don't be too hard on the YA members around here who simply parrot their leaders to maintain a lock step.

Answer 6

The only qualification to discuss AGW is if you agree with the greenies. There is a list of over 31,000 accredited scientists who disagree with AGW and have signed a document stating thus. This is not good enough for those who push the AGW agenda. Then they gleefully trot out their 2000+ scientists and claim they represent all qualified scientists and that 99 or 97% of all scientists agree with AGW.



These same intellectuals will then follow Paul Ehrlich who has no educational pedigree in Climatology. By training he is an entomologist specializing in Lepidoptera (butterflies), but he is also a prominent ecologist and demographer. Ha! Ha! What low standards these greenies have for their accomplices and what high standards they have for those who disagree with them.



In order to be believed in AGW you must spout opinions which never come true.



Quote by Noel Brown, UN official: "Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos."



But also you never can tell the truth.



Quote by Will Harper, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”



In direct response to your question, we are all going to be affected by this subject so we should all have an input.Here is what the AGW proponents have in store for us.



Quote from the UN's Own "Agenda 21": "Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."



Don't you think we all should have some say whether or not we want 'reorientation'? I certainly don't want to be 'reorientated' over a lie, so my input is just as valid as any communist taught climatologist.

Answer 7

I don't know how she could be banned. I knew Canada does not have as free of speach as US but I didn't know it was that restrictive.

Answer 8

Excellent question and good points!