You just have to laugh when you see articles like this.
Excerpts from an article by Mike Sandler:
Humans have put too many heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, and now the Earth is running a fever. But there’s also an increasingly toxic atmosphere in the blogosphere, where climate deniers strategically confuse the issue, delay meaningful government action, and harass scientists and authors.
For decades, the media presented the climate “debate” as two sides that were evenly or closely matched. Then a few years ago, around the time Hurricane Katrina struck and Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth won an Oscar and he and the IPCC were awarded a Nobel Prize, the media began to realize that climate science is real and has consequences, and the “other side” is almost all empty rhetoric.
…
More sophisticated denier methods often appeal to:
- Free speech (as if achieving consensus on climate science somehow takes away their Constitutional rights) or
- The nature of scientific inquiry means always questioning your assumptions (ironically, the people who question the science of climate change, are likely those who question all science).
Gosh, excercising free speech and questioning assumptions, why, why, they’re TERRIBLE!
You can read the whole thing here. but I wouldn’t count on being able to leave comments:
Climate Deniers are Polluting the Blogosphere
Of course the thought hasn’t occurred to Mr. Sandler that the bulk of opinion has shifted.
All those nasty, evil deniers, causing Australia to drop its Carbon Tax (by any other name would rip me off as much).
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/27/2883282.htm
I keep waiting and waiting on some politician or media outlet to finally see the light regarding this while issue but it’s interesting how they have only seemed to redouble their efforts at convincing people of the certainty of climate change despite the mounting evidence to the contrary.
The comments on this HuffPo site are laughable. This is their defense against those of us who want to understand the science? Really?
I have read this turkey before. Gobble, gobble, gobble and not a word worth reading. But if you can’t attack the message then attack the messenger. This and much else we find in the “press” is uninformed, propaganda and sophistry. All these people seem to be good at is repeating press releases. I guess I should direct him to my essays on the philosophy of science. Maybe not to many big words I’m afraid. This kind of baffle gab unfortunately happens on both sides of the question. I have nothing better to say about blind deniers either.
Gosh shucks, haven’t y’all heard? The science is settled. Al Gore said so. That’s enough for me. He’s won awards and he gets a lot of applause.
Seriously, am I the only one who hears the sneering patronizing tone in these sorts of articles? Can the pro-AGW readers not notice this? I mean, really, Mike Sandler sounds like he’s addressing elementary students. His argument is overly simplistic besides being inaccurate. I do not remember the media ever giving an “evenly matched” debate. Then one hurricane and one documentary later… well… it’s all settled.
Thanks, WUWT, for polluting the blogosphere. It’s my favorite blog and no whiny little patron is gonna change that. Blog on.
One man’s pollution is a plant’s food.
Of course it wouldn’t occur to them (Mike Sandler, alarmists, et. al.) that the facts in the objective reality of Nature just don’t support the alleged AGW hypothesis.
Could it be that people are just not dumb enough to keep swallowing the blue pill of Political Agenda Bias?
Could it be that more and more people are taking the red pill and seeing the matrix of deception for that it is, Political Agenda Bias?
It’s a neo world out there now where facts based upon hard evidence are required.
I’m biased towards hard evidence.
These are tough time for folks who think that freedom of speech should be limited.
I love the belivers who scream “ad hominem” when you call them names like the fancy latin word for name calling is going to impress someone. Yet it’s perfectly OK for them to call deniers whatever they like. Typical libtard, greentard, [snip] (oops I used ad homenems I’ll surely go to greentard hell!)
I love how those idiots never mention that it was a damn Peace prize – it had nothing to do with examining the science. It was the same prize that Obama won for “error 404, file not found.”
The Russians — even the Russians — can see that Cap & Trade is an outright scam: click
I’ve known plenty of Russians from my business in Sacramento, California. They are extremely wise to the ways of the world, and they make alarmist Americans look like fools.
“now the Earth is running a fever”
The only prescription is more cowbell.
http://www.funnyhub.com/videos/pages/snl-more-cowbell.html
around the time Hurricane Katrina
Ya, that was the most powerful Cat 3 hurricane ever.
😉
The average AGW skeptic produces 1,400 BTU’s (Balanced Theory Units) per blog view, while this seems high, its far below the 2000 AGW’s units (Agressive Green Wash) produced by toxic AGW/Reality reactions.
Fortunately the ratio is not 1:1 BTU/AGW – its estimated that the ratio is around 10,000:1 in favour of BTU.
Naturally the BTUs have a remedial effect on the AGW’s pollution, reducing the MRE impact “Medieaval Reductionist Effect”, whereby anyone disagreeing with AGW is denounced as a witch, and burnt at the stake.
AGW is unsustainable, requiring the use of hundreds of Fossil Fools to stack the Post Normal Peer Reviewed papers around the feet of genuine scientists,… much of this was outsourced to China, – who forwarded it to India, – who subleased it to the E.U, – who created a Pivate/Public partnership with the U.N corporation, – who created a derivative market rule called the “Retardin’ Tradin’ Bill”.
However, Experiments in High Integrity Particle experiments promise a unification of the Weak Intellect Force (AGW) with the Strong Intellect Force (BTU), producing a sustainable Fusion reaction – in which scientific enquiry goes ‘Post’ – Post Normal, ushering in a new era of transparency and progress.
The eco fascists are spewin’….. That makes me feel good. 🙂
Shoulda been the Nobel prize in Economics. For one that one isn’t a “true” Nobel prize, and for another Gore has proven to be one of the biggest Rent Seekers in history, and has certainly skimmed his share. If not the Nobel he should win some kind of prize…
He is correct that alarmist climate science has consequences.
It keeps government from taking care of real environmental problems.
Every so often, for entertainment, I used to check out the ‘green’ articles in HuffPo. It was fun. They post every extreme story imaginable, as long as it fits their hopeless bias.
But posting a comment there was another adventure. First, one must get past their thought police. As far as I could tell, the mere mention of the word ‘Climategate’ was verbotten. So were any links that could lead to inconvenient thoughts. That limited what one can bring to the table.
It was OK to say that the parrot was dead but not OK to attempt to substantiate that point… except to say yes the parrot is dead.
But if you dared to suggest that the parrot was dead, that ‘community’ were like piranhas, and not nice piranhas either. An incredible display of herd behavior, mostly based on nothing but black-white, us and them, simplistic thinking. If you questioned Al Gore’s scientific prowess or any detail of the Green Bible, you must love Palin and, of course, be a ‘Tea Bagger.’ And, now, a racist. It was insane.
Huffpo made me realize just how screwed up the good old USA is now.
Does anyone else hear the music from the Twighlight Zone? The banjo from Deliverance? It is kind of sad to see an hypothesis twitch so much during the throes of death.
More famous last words; “I’ve had eighteen whiskies, I think thats a record !!!”- Dylan Thomas
Ahhh, that must be what caused the Labor party in Australia to take the Emissions Trading Scheme off the agenda.
I’m not clogging up the blogosphere !! I’ve been at WUWT? the whole time. I’ve got witnesses!!
Nor has it occured to Mr. Sandler to really study the science. Mr. Sandler come to WUWT and read. You just might learn something.
The catch is, you have to be willing to question your beliefs.
Because you used the word, “consequences” plural with an s yet only listed Katrina as anything which could be interpreted as an actual consequence of climate science.
Unless of course you meant that Oscars and Nobel Prizes are consequences of climate science.
“For decades, the media presented the climate “debate” as two sides that were evenly or closely matched.”
Huh? When was that, exactly? The only time I knew there was a ‘debate’ was when mainstream journalists about ten years ago suddenly all started screaming in unison “the debate is over, the science is settled”.