Christopher Rowland of the Boston Globe, a left-wing daily – an assistant editor who mostly writes about the healthcare – just published a hit piece on Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at Harvard-Smithsonian and a well-known climate skeptic. The title and subtitle are rather intimidating:
Researcher helps sow climate-change doubt (click)And so is the rest of the article.
Industry-funded Cambridge astrophysicist adds to partisan divide
My country has gone through 50 years of the Nazi and communist propaganda so articles such as the article above are nothing new for me. I've seen tons of them. The inkspillers behind similar junk are morally reprehensible jerks. Their clearly visible desire is to hurt ideologically inconvenient people personally.
I could tell you about so many similar articles about the Czechoslovak patriots during the Nazi era, about Havel (and alcohol, his family, and Nazis) during communism, and about lots of similar articles about people whom you don't know but who still suffered.
If I had stayed in Cambridge, odds would be rather high that a similar hit piece would be written about me, too. It shouldn't be necessary to explain how much it hurts a person's social status in a city (I mean Cambridge, MA) where a higher percentage of people believe in hardcore left-wing delusions than the highest percentage ever recorded in the Soviet bloc, where the fringe nutcase Ralph Nader got more votes than George W. Bush in the 2000 elections.
Let's think what it does to the person's environment: If one is teaching at Harvard (and I hope it's not Willie's case), I estimate that about 1/3 of his or her students finally learn about such an article. Now, 90% of those people take similar papers seriously so the image of the person assaulted by the propaganda according to these people deteriorates.
Most of the students (and probably adult colleagues, too) tend to agree with the hardcore left-wing attitudes represented by the Boston Globe. Even those who prefer to call themselves "neutral" are mostly cowards and they sort of respect the "rule of the Left" in their environment. In effect, the assaulted person becomes significantly more ostracized than before. His or her bosses and various potential foes become more hostile, and so on. It's not an unfortunate side effect of similar hit pieces; it's their very main purpose.
The people who publish and endorse similar hit pieces usually tend to think that they're better than the Nazis and than the communists, too. And better than the Inquisition. Except that the differences only affect the details. The point in all these cases is that whoever becomes a "heretic" who questions some ideological theses worshiped by the group in charge has to be hurt personally. The debate or research that would pose a threat for the basic ideology has to be fought against.
Needless to say, the text is a composed of one lie after another. For example, the title says
Researcher helps sow climate-change doubt.This is just bullshit. Willie Soon is working hard to clarify things and make them clear so that no one who reads his work has any doubt that the climate is behaving properly and the natural factors are decisive and they have always been decisive. It's completely different people who try to sow doubt about these basic scientific facts.
The same comment applies to claims that he is contributing to a "gridlock" in the U.S. Congress. Again, that's just untrue. He wants to learn how the climate works and he also wants everyone in the Congress to understand the results. The subtitle contains a favorite, would-be pejorative, hardcore left-wing adjective:
Industry-funded Cambridge astrophysicist adds to partisan divide.So Willie is "industry-funded". That's nice but the alarmists are mostly industry-funded, too. A difference is that in their case, much of the industry money is first stolen by the government (the laymen usually use the word "taxes" for these stolen funds) and then used to fund the alarmists. But that funding – and its at least equal potential to corrupt – isn't ever mentioned, is it? When some money is first stolen before it is used to corrupt, it's OK, isn't it?
The same bias exists when some researchers are being politicized:
Across a number of climate-related subjects, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center astrophysicist has established himself as a front-line combatant — part scientist, part activist — working in close coordination with conservative groups to debunk the established scientific view of global warming...He's a "part activist", something that the Boston Globe would never write about the alarmist "part scientists, part activists".
And the groups like the libertarian think tanks are "conservative groups". It's partly true, partly false, but it's equally true as the claim that the institutions working hard to promote the climate panic are left-wing groups. Some of them are extreme ones, like the Union of Concerned Scientists. Even the non-extreme, nominally purely scientific ones (including most of the national academies) have a clear left-wing agenda. But those things aren't ever mentioned by the Boston Globe, are they? It is probably "normal" to be a member of left-wing groups so that it doesn't even have to be mentioned.
Also, the journalist demonizes Willie because he said "Those people are so out of their minds!" during his talk – it's so unscientific to talk about the lunacy of some visible people – but the Boston Globe would never question similar (and usually much worse) attacks against climate skeptics that may be heard every day.
There are just so many fundamentally wrong things about the integrity and morality of the likes of Christopher Rowland that it is impossible to negotiate with them. They have to be treated as what they are, the enemies of science and the human civilization. Scum.