How to Cure a Climate Change Denier

81B3RbTSszL._SL1500_[1]Here is a book with a twist – an eco gone rogue and self modified into a climate change “denier”. His experience parallels many, actually, including some of mine (though I’d never join Greenpeace, UPDATE: and now after having read his Kindle book, I’ll point out that I believe that CO2 has some effect, but far less than has been claimed, especially where feedbacks operate) – Anthony

From the description:

Paul Caruso once lived in an off-grid eco-community, grew much of his own food and was an active member of Greenpeace. However, over the past few years he has lost his faith in human induced climate change and become a denier!

He doesn’t really deny that the climate is changing – he has just come to the conclusion that it is natural variation.

It seems that increasing numbers of people are becoming sceptical about the human induced part of global warming and this book attempts to show climate scientists why and, perhaps more importantly, what they can do about it.

There are certain specific points that climate scientists are not currently answering and which they urgently need to answer if they want to convince people.

==============================================================

“…specific points that climate scientists are not currently answering.”

Gosh, ya think?

Here is a further description:

im_a_denier

You can get the book on Amazon here

h/t to reader Paul M

About these ads
This entry was posted in Book Review. Bookmark the permalink.

98 Responses to How to Cure a Climate Change Denier

  1. Oldseadog says:

    A pity it is only available through Amazon and only on Kindle.
    I would buy a paper copy if it was available from somewhere.

  2. Chris @NJSnowFan says:

    I would of put a broken Hockey Stick on the front cover.
    Mann is the only climate scientist that adds #denier to almost every tweet.

  3. mycroft says:

    WOW! gamekeeper turned poacher,he’ll be as popular as a fart in a space suit with the lentil brigade.
    Wonder if he believes the moon landings were faked?LOL (sarc off)

  4. North of 43 and south of 44 says:

    Oldseadog,

    Take a look here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?docId=1000493771

    The link is to Amazon’s free kindle reader software for various systems.

  5. North of 43 and south of 44 says:

    Sorry but for whatever reason that link isn’t working.

  6. Well done Mr Caruso. No reviews on Amazon yet – just wait until the Alarmists notice and pile in.

  7. North of 43 and south of 44 says:

    It must have been a hiccup on amazon’s end when I test the link after posting it appears to be work correctly.

  8. Jquip says:

    “I genuinely would like to be persuaded again that CO2 is causing, or even could cause, us a problem” — Book Author

    That right there is a fellow suffering withdrawal symptoms of his apocalypse addiction. It can be fatal without replacement therapy at a misanthropy clinic.

  9. Bruce Cobb says:

    Unfortunately for the Alarmist crowd, knowledge is the antidote to Belief. You can’t un-bite the apple.

  10. Darren Potter says:

    Why would anyone be so eager to be convinced that CO2 is causing AGW after realizing they were scammed the first time around by Gore, Mann, Hansen, Jones, IPCC, Liberal agenda, and Green lobby?
    Don’t sheep ever learn? Are they just looking for something to have faith in? Are these people prime for another scam, even another dictator to follow?

  11. Oldseadog says:

    N 43 S 44
    The link is working but I still can’t find a paper copy.
    Thanks all the same.

  12. Gary Pearse says:

    Paul, why would you genuinely want to be convinced? I guess you invested many years in belief and would like to not think it was wasted. You didn’t study engineering or non-environmental science or you would have asked the questions at the beginning. The terminally corrupted “humanities” are induction centres for creating robotic tools for Greenpeace and other doctrinaire groups. Good on ya for making your escape, but not only are you not going to get empirical evidence from these cults, but you must already have been ostracized for asking. All skeptics had to do was ask for evidence and this engendered hate and threats. Even the much beloved Greenpeace warned us!!

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/damage-control-greenpeace-removes-threats/

  13. JimS says:

    This problem could be well served by governments establishing a new interior department, and perhaps calling it the Ministry of Love. I received this inspiration from George Orwell’s 1984.

  14. philjourdan says:

    A cry for help from an enlightened person wanting to lose knowledge.

  15. mycroft says:
    October 30, 2013 at 7:31 am

    WOW! gamekeeper turned poacher,
    __________________________________
    Fixed your post… WOW! Poacher turned gamekeeper,

  16. John West says:

    Why didn’t I think of that! (The standard reaction when a good idea is presented.)

    The sneak peek on amazon shows the contents and the first couple sections. Looks intriguing, I may have to commandeer my wife’s kindle.

    The contents suggest he’s laid it out logically and covered much of the issue, although this from the contents is a bit troubling:

    ”Part 4: Is it realistic that CO2 could cause runaway global warming?

    Yea, the hyper-alarmists claim this kind of thing, but your average mitigation advocating climate scientist doesn’t claim CO2 can cause runaway global warming.

    This line from the first section more than makes up for it though:

    ”I can suggest a much simpler solution to the problem of ’sceptics’ and ‘deniers’ – publish some verifiable empirical evidence that supports your argument.”

    Yes! Don’t bother going around chasing the ice in an effort to convince me that immediate mitigation action is required dude, evidence of warming is not evidence of anthropogenic global warming and certainly isn’t evidence of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

  17. Evidence? He expected to get evidence from a bunch of people who thinks its beneath them to even debate their opponents on a scientific question? How naive. AGW is a religion.

  18. KevinM says:

    Re: “climate change denier”

    The latest parlance is “Climate Denier”.

    There is no sun, there is no rain, there is no temperature, there are only Koch brothers and bucktoothed illiterates..

  19. CRS, DrPH says:

    Welcome to the club, Mr. Caruso! Anthony hosts 12-Step meetings for former CAGW believers.

  20. Robert W Turner says:

    I like how the title implies that the book is nothing but a cultist diatribe bashing CAGW skeptics. It’s a good thing there isn’t much going on upstairs in a cultist’s head or it would explode after the first page.

  21. TinyCO2 says:

    Sounds like a sensible read. It’s interesting to see someone who has walked the walk and not just talked it, turn into a sceptic. This sort of person is exactly who is needed to stand before the authorities and talk because they can’t be accused of trying to cling greedily to a bloated lifestyle. They know what the ‘good life’ is like. It’s very easy for wealthy people to agree with cutting CO2 because it would never be them who actually suffers a cut in lifestyle. When you can buy an island and live like a king (eg Branson), paying for your emissions rather an actually cutting them, why wouldn’t you casually condemn the rest of us to CO2 penury? Far harder to make the cuts and still agree that climate science is good enough to justify that life.

  22. R. de Haan says:

    Better late than never.

  23. Colin says:

    mycroft says:
    October 30, 2013 at 7:31 am

    You mean the moon landings were real? /do I really need the sarc?

  24. BF says:

    I believe past global warming from CO2 raised sea levels to the extent that the continent of Atlantis was inundated and sunk.

  25. davidmhoffer says:

    So a guy who admits that he wants to believe a catastrophe is impending has published a book explaining how to convince him and is charging money for it. Skeptics beware, this guy isn’t trying to convince anyone of anything, he’s trying to make a buck by fleecing skeptics.

  26. temp says:

    Darren Potter says:
    October 30, 2013 at 7:45 am

    “Why would anyone be so eager to be convinced that CO2 is causing AGW after realizing they were scammed the first time around by Gore, Mann, Hansen, Jones, IPCC, Liberal agenda, and Green lobby?
    Don’t sheep ever learn? Are they just looking for something to have faith in? Are these people prime for another scam, even another dictator to follow?”

    For the exact reason for say, it pushes a socialist/”liberal” agenda. Global warming will be stopped by socialism praise be to the socialist religion. The problem is that since his faith in global warming is shaken now he is starting to question his faith in socialism. If he chooses to research that next he will quickly dump that insane ideology as well.

    Collectivist are closed minded fools. Facing reality for them is like dividing zero for a robot, they simply can’t process the result because it goes against the very thought process they hold as a universal truth. This is why they must attack anyone who challenges them, refuse to debate anyone and slaughter the non-believers the first chance they get.

  27. Leonard Weinstein says:

    Oldseadog says:
    Oldseadog, I do not have a Kindle reader. However, the App to read books for Kindle readers is free for PC’s including Macs. If you get the App and buy the e-book from Amazon, you can directly read it on your computer.

  28. Bruce Cobb says:

    The only real “cure” they’ve been able to come up with so far involves a red button. A bit messy.

  29. Psalmon says:

    I came originally to this site for the same reason, to find data, understand what is really going on.

    In addition to data I’ve also seen and encountered the methods of advocates on both sides of the issue, as important as data like the quality of a witness versus the testimony itself. I’ve found almost consistently four steps of argument by AGW supporters:

    1. Call names: They label everyone a Denier and often worse. Association (Koch Bros, Big Oil, etc.) is also part of this. Character assassination, funding cancellation, terminating employment, all these bullying tactics fall into this effectively. Diminish the person and intimidate.
    2. Diminish data with no data: It never snows. It snowed yesterday. Well, that’s just one example. The heat hiding in places you can’t measure is part of this. Avoid data, cause opponent to chase tail and serve up more data softballs to be smacked out of the park, ignored.
    3. Invoke Moral Authority: This is the 97% game – everyone agrees with me, so you’re wrong. This is also the award winning scientist thing.
    4. Declare victory without ever debating: I think I proved my point.

    It’s important to notice these stages and deal with them. It’s also important not to fall into the same practice. Counter these without practicing these and the facts will eventually win out. Practice these, and the result is like Congress, two sides, no different, no winners.

  30. Mickey Reno says:

    Excellent premise, except for the idea that you’d appreciate being convinced of the impending catastrophe once again. Wouldn’t it be much better to wish for all your smug and certain friends becoming more circumspect and that they should exhibit some humility and skepticism on this issue?

    Unlike you, I started out as a stauch critic of CAGW. The whole field was presented in the same alarmist way as were Paul Erlich’s idiotic over-population predictions. This made me take the position that I was never going to believe these people until they could show concrete, casual linkages that are easy to comprehend and unambiguous. This doesn’t mean I want 4 digits of decimal precision on statistical averages. It means that PCA statistics, post-modern correlation BS, by itself, will never convince me of anything in a complex climate system with many variables, and a long and well-established history of massive natural variability.

    The climate of our atmosphere is based mainly on water. If the first word in a comprehensive scientific hypotheses are about CO2 and not water, I have no use for them. I have no problem with the physics of CO2 behaving as a mechanism to transmit some energy into the atmospheric gases from upwelling infrared radiation. My question is, if there was zero CO2 in the atmosphere, but there still existed all the same process of water-based energy transport, though reflection, UV and IR reflection, absorption and emission, convection (ocean and atmospheric, cloud formation and effects, conduction, and energy expended in H2O state changes (evapo-transpiration, ice melt, subliming, atmospheric freezing and deposition, etc) , how much different would our climate now be (ignoring as trivial, the fact that zero CO2 would end the land-based biosphere, of course)? I suspect that our climate would be almost exactly the same, and that it’s variability would be almost exactly the same. I’m aware of no scientific treatise that tests THIS hypothesis and shows it to be incorrect. If anyone knows of any attempts, I’ appreciate a pointer, please.

  31. Manfred says:

    I understand Mr Caruso; you’ve lost your faith, your friends and your spiritual home. You’re at sea without compass. Fortunately you have a rudder. Keep steering toward the light of knowledge. It’s probably your best bet in this uncertain, faith riven sea of catastrophe.

  32. temp says:

    “Mickey Reno says:
    October 30, 2013 at 10:37 am
    I suspect that our climate would be almost exactly the same, and that it’s variability would be almost exactly the same. I’m aware of no scientific treatise that tests THIS hypothesis and shows it to be incorrect. If anyone knows of any attempts, I’ appreciate a pointer, please.”

    The IPCC has tried to bury that line of thought because its dangerous to them. I believe it was AR4 in which they showed to graphs one which temps without doomsday CO2 and one with temps if doomsday co2 had stayed steady.

    Of course those graphs were simply a current temp graph created by a model and then twisted to match current real temps. Then they simply subtracted the “proven” doomsday gas effects and claimed this is what the temps would/should be.

    Circular logic at its finest but when your carter to stupid people its more then good enough.

  33. Frank K. says:

    “Paul Caruso once lived in an off-grid eco-community, grew much of his own food…”

    Actually, I have respect for CAGW types like Mr. Caruso who actually are NOT your typical eco-hypocrites and in fact live off the grid and farm their own food (unlike most CAGW climate scientists who burn fossil fuel energy like there’s no tomorrow…).

  34. Nick in Vancouver says:

    Darren Potter – Bazinga – why indeed?, Caruso is happy to entertain the untimely death of thousands, through fuel poverty in the North and through hunger in the South. In the UK alone
    some 7,800 people die during winter because they can’t afford to heat their homes properly, says fuel poverty expert Professor Christine Liddell of the University of Ulster. That works out at 65 deaths a day. Extrapolate that trend climate scientists. For shame.

  35. Nik says:

    He filled his car with petrol once and so can be ignored as he’s associated with the fossil fuel industry.

  36. Jquip says:

    Manfred: “Fortunately you have a rudder. Keep steering toward the light of knowledge.”

    But there be dragons there at the edge of the world.

  37. rogerknights says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    October 30, 2013 at 9:48 am

    So a guy who admits that he wants to believe a catastrophe is impending has published a book explaining how to convince him and is charging money for it. Skeptics beware, this guy isn’t trying to convince anyone of anything, he’s trying to make a buck by fleecing skeptics.

    I think that, by disclaiming that he’s trying to convince warmists, and asking them to convince him, he’s being clever tactically, by raising the bar they must get over.

  38. Old Hoya says:

    Reminds me of the poster in in the office of Agent Fox Mulder: “I Want to Believe”

    The sheer moral satisfaction of making Exxon and SUV owners the locus of all evil … the transfer of all economic planning to academically credentialed folk instead of relying on grubby, tacky markets and having to envy the grubby, tacky types who tend to succeed in them ….

    Instead of telling the attractive woman at the bar one is a physics nerd who studies weather patterns one could say that he is deputized by a UN agency to save the planet before it is too late–greatly upping the chances of getting laid…. the drama of floods, hurricanes and the knowledge that you had the knowledge to stop them if they had only listened… the surge of self-righteous dudgeon …. CAGW just has to be true. It just has to.

  39. rogerknights says:

    The book is the equivalent of 71 pages and costs $4.

  40. 1klem1 says:

    I’d sure like to know just how many of the regular visitors to WUWT were once climate alarmists themselves. I’ll bet the percentage is high.

  41. Deadman says:

    For Naomi Klein, sadly, and for others at the New Statesmen who wish project all their dislike of ordinary folk onto evil capitalism, “science is telling us all to revolt”.
    Yep, science—not activists with a misanthracist grudge and a delightfully profitable cause, but science itself—would tell us, by way of its licensed hierophants, that “carbon reduction must be managed carefully through what Anderson and Bows describe as ‘radical and immediate de-growth strategies in the US, EU and other wealthy nations’.”
    Namoi Klein’s level of authority, however, can be demonstrated by her bizarre assertion that Prof. Clive Hamilton, a loony misanthropist and “professor of public ethics”, who advocates suspending democracy and tattooing anyone who disagrees with his drivel, is named as a “climate expert”.

  42. Max Hugoson says:

    Maybe Amazon will go the route of Popular Science, to “preserve the sacredness (yes, just heard that used locally) of “science”…and just ELIMINATE reader comments.

    HAHAHA! What a way to “win the argument”. Just tell folks, YOU CAN’T PARTICIPATE IN OUR VENUE.

    Max

    PS: Actually I think Amazon is made of sterner stuff that Popular Shill Science…

  43. John F. Hultquist says:

    born and raised
    converted to a green type
    off-grid and active member of GP
    changed views
    searched for years for evidence of CO2 link
    written a book

    Seems Paul is both quite old and a slow learner.

  44. A.D. Everard says:

    I’m one of those who find it disturbing that this guy wants to believe and wants CO2 to be a problem. He’s found the lie but he wants that lie to be true? That’s a bit like “Tell me there are real monsters, mommy, so I can sleep at night.”

    His whole approach is over-innocent. If what he has said is true, then he’s come to understand something, he’s done the research and found facts that clash with the meme, he’s gone to the climate priests and he’s simply not getting the answers he wants from them. Most people trying to get honest answers out of the climate priests – and face their wrath for daring to ask questions – would be angry by now or the very least frustrated. Yet this guy comes across still doe-eyed innocent? I’m sorry, I’m not buying it. Something is not true here.

    Yes, he might be being clever, but which way? Is he a once-believer trying to raise his questions publicly to force the climate priests into giving him the evidence he wants? Why? If he’s tried asking them and hasn’t gotten anywhere, he will know by now that the climate priests won’t be forced. In fact the climate priests get very angry. He would have been clubbed into submission by now under burden of guilt. He doesn’t sound as though he has been roughed up in the slightest.

    Or is he a skeptic pretending to be a once-believer trying to get other believers to ask for evidence?

    I find it strange, too, that he daren’t raise the issue with his friends for fear of getting into “pointless” arguments. We’re not talking about what your favourite flower is here – how is a debate about CAGW pointless when so much is at stake when it comes to policies and controls? If you’ve found the truth, convincing your friends is something you want to do.

    So, he doesn’t like talking to his friends, yet he is willing to poke the climate priests big time with a big stick and go public with his questions?

    It doesn’t add up.

    He might well be legit in his basic intention, but not everything here is honest. I think there’s another game underneath.

  45. Txomin says:

    You don’t need to be convinced, Mr Caruso. You need to be silenced. Good luck, you are going to need it.

  46. The only cure for climate change denial is exorcism.

  47. Liontooth says:

    “I’m one of those who find it disturbing that this guy wants to believe and wants CO2 to be a problem. He’s found the lie but he wants that lie to be true? ”

    He’s changing the debate and framing the argument differently. If he said there’s no proof then he’s a denier they ignore him. He’s putting it on them to please prove it’s true because so far you haven’t. He wants to believe and ALL he wants is proof of it, so the high priests of global warming have a duty to listen to his request and show him the proof. He sounds reasonable and he’s making a reasonable request.

    It’s aimed at the true believers especially the ones that are having doubts. He can’t be called a denier because he wants to believe it.

  48. Gunga Din says:

    I’ll reserve judgement on his motives. I haven’t read the book.
    But his comment about wanting to believe CO2 is a problem may be no more than wanting to be shown that his previous efforts to reduced his own “carbon footprint” weren’t a complete waste of effort.

  49. colonel1961 says:

    While the author has packaged his argument in a novel and counterintuitive manner, it does change the fact that the burden of proof remains on the cAGW crowd to demonstrate the veracity of their theorem.

  50. EthicallyCivil says:

    “losing my religion” is hard, even when the religion is an anti-human Baalist Cult where we sacrifice human lives appease a fiery god of Thermageddon. (c.f. US refusing to fund coal powered energy in developing nations — lack of energy kills)

    This guy has lost all his fellow travelers because he’s found his way. The road less traveled is lonely, but it makes “all the difference.”

  51. James Ard says:

    I’m pretty sure claiming to want to be convinced it’s true is just an argument tactic, like Roger said. Caruso is showing himself to not just be a new found climate denier, he seems to have become quite the capitalist. $4 for 71 virtual pages?

  52. Chip Javert says:

    Paul Caruso’s “conversion” demonstrates some people can only hold their breath and believe in the tooth fairy for so long. Fortunately, many people reach this point by about 6-7 years of age…

  53. Quinn says:

    Re: ” (though I’d never join Greenpeace)”

    I joined Greenpeace for a couple of years in the late 1970s, when their primary mission was to get Japan and the USSR to stop hunting whales. When mission creep set in, they lost me. The straw that broke the camel’s back was when they sent me an appeal letter with a return envelope with an actual USPS first class stamp on it, rather than no postage or permit reply mail. I figured any caritable non-profit that can waste that much money doesn’t need mine.

  54. Colin says:

    Quinn says:
    October 30, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    Interesting that you were a member of Greenpeace about the same time as I was – when they seemed tp have an actual environmental focus. They also lost me when their focus turned to activism with no science background. They became a business. They went from a local organization started in a basement in Vancouver to an organization that can spend multi-millions on protest ships. And they scream about the Koch brothers.

  55. Duster says:

    Mickey Reno says:
    October 30, 2013 at 10:37 am

    … I’m aware of no scientific treatise that tests THIS hypothesis and shows it to be incorrect. If anyone knows of any attempts, I’ appreciate a pointer, please.

    That’s because among other issues, “our climate” could not exist in the absence of life. The atmosphere we breath is not in chemical equilibrium. Free oxygen for example could exist in the amounts present in the earth’s atmosphere without life. We’ld look a good deal more like Mars, very likely nearly as cold for longish terms as well. At present the planet is near the coldest it has been in the entire Phanerozoic. More serious than either “believing” or “disbelieving” in any given hypothesis, the “geoengineering” ideas being bruited to reverse global warming as a precaution are worrisome, very.

  56. johnbuk says:

    Caruso needs to see our chum Lewandowsky pretty quick – the diagnosis should be interesting!

  57. Deadman said @ October 30, 2013 at 11:43 am

    For Naomi Klein, sadly, and for others at the New Statesmen who wish project all their dislike of ordinary folk onto evil capitalism, “science is telling us all to revolt”.
    Yep, science—not activists with a misanthracist grudge…

    You made that up you neologist :-)))

  58. John Whitman says:

    I am still looking for a bio / CV on the book’s author Paul Caruso. I tried locating his bio on Google and I tried to locate both a FB and Twitter contact for Paul Caruso. No luck.

    Anyone else have info?

    John

  59. TinyCO2 said @ October 30, 2013 at 9:11 am

    Sounds like a sensible read. It’s interesting to see someone who has walked the walk and not just talked it, turn into a sceptic. This sort of person is exactly who is needed to stand before the authorities and talk because they can’t be accused of trying to cling greedily to a bloated lifestyle. They know what the ‘good life’ is like.

    The Git once visited one of those websites that enable you to calculate your “carbon footprint”. Much to his surprise, he discovered that his was rather larger than he thought. The Git grows his own organic food rather than buying it. He grows his own trees rather than paying someone else to do so. He purchase new clothes rather than second-hand from the op shop. Have you ever seen second-hand overalls in an op shop?

    While his scepticism on-line has often enough aroused the ire of CAGWers, only rarely has this been so among his friends and acquaintances. Mostly I guess that this is because I’m not evangelical about my beliefs. A fully paid-up CAGWer and scientist who is a particular friend, when invited to debate the issue, declined on the basis that The Git knew far more about climatology than he did.

    BTW, the “Good Life” is the good life for those of us living it. It’s why we chose to live it. A survey conducted back in the 70s showed 32% of the population preferred rural life, and only 16% preferred big city life.

  60. Bob said @ October 30, 2013 at 2:47 pm

    I got a song for Caruso.

    This is Paul Caruso:

    …though he’s rather dead I’m afraid.

  61. High Treason says:

    Almost all of us were believers of CAGW at some stage, but have seen the light. We have seen through the sea of lies and the further we all look, the deeper the sea of deception(so that is where the missing heat magically disappeared to.) Our mission is to spread the word and get others to see through the tactics so eloquently spelled out by PSalmon. These are the tactics of the Left as well as habitual liars, who know that the truth is their mortal enemy. Hitler realized this too.The cost is outrageously high to read just one person’s path to enlightenment. We all have a story to tell. Perhaps we need a separate thread so we can write in our moments of enlightenment. With luck, someone smarter than myself can use this collection of triggers to come up with a good strategy to get in to the thick heads of those in la-la land.

  62. DirkH says:

    John F. Hultquist says:
    October 30, 2013 at 12:18 pm
    “born and raised
    converted to a green type
    off-grid and active member of GP
    changed views
    searched for years for evidence of CO2 link
    written a book

    Seems Paul is both quite old and a slow learner.”

    It’s the Ganja that does that. Blocks transmission of contents from short term to long term memory.

    Hmm, California’s future will be interesting… They’ll be excited over each new iPhone, forgetting that it’s the same thing as the last time…

  63. DirkH says:

    Deadman says:
    October 30, 2013 at 11:43 am
    “For Naomi Klein, sadly, and for others at the New Statesmen who wish project all their dislike of ordinary folk onto evil capitalism, “science is telling us all to revolt”.
    Yep, science—not activists with a misanthracist grudge and a delightfully profitable cause, but science itself—would tell us, by way of its licensed hierophants, that “carbon reduction must be managed carefully through what Anderson and Bows describe as ‘radical and immediate de-growth strategies in the US, EU and other wealthy nations’.””

    Luckily for Naomi, US and EU do pursue rather effictive anti-growth strategies. Why isn’t she dancing in the streets? Oh and Global Warming stopped and she climbs on that bandwagon now?
    Is she giving her books away for free, being the anti capitalist that she is?
    Does she refuse to market her products, being against the Shock Doctrin of marketing?
    No and No? Dang, she’s stupid, bitter and a liar, I’m so disappointed.
    Hope she at least gets Franny “exploding schoolkids” Armstrong to direct her mockumentary.
    Return Of No Pressure; could make The Wheel Of The Worst!
    ( http://www.redlettermedia.com for those who don’t know. )

  64. knr says:

    How to Cure a Climate Change Denier
    Setting aside the stupid insult of ‘denier ‘ the answer is easy , practice good science, stick to the scientific method , let the data speak for itself and stop the sdo-relgions BS .

    However , that would mean the AGW gravy train coming right off the rails to the carnage of some but to the joy of many. So the chances of these turkeys voting for Christmas is ?

  65. DirkH said @ October 30, 2013 at 3:22 pm

    John F. Hultquist says:
    October 30, 2013 at 12:18 pm
    [snip]
    Seems Paul is both quite old and a slow learner.”

    It’s the Ganja that does that. Blocks transmission of contents from short term to long term memory.

    And the NSAIDs some of us old folks take for arthritic pain cause heart attacks. Which would you prefer?

  66. Niff says:

    The UN has already started up another franchise to scare us to global government….. meteor impacts Read about it in the LA Time…and elsewhere.

  67. Brian Davis says:

    Downloaded it to my Kindle and read it this evening – it’s quite short, more an extended pamphlet – about 70 pages if it were a printed book. I didn’t get the impression that he really wanted to be (re-)convinced that AGW has a scientific basis – I think that’s just a rhetorical flourish. Apart from some rather superficial points and a few unconvincing analogies that I cringed at (like a group of naked people in a greenhouse after dark trying to create a sauna by breathing out CO2), overall the book’s on the money – he makes the same points that most of us here are making day and daily. He includes a link to WUWT, which he commends as a good source of information. Maybe a book to recommend to a warmist who’s beginning to have doubts.

  68. JamesS says:

    I believe the usual explanation is, “CO2 causes the earth’s temperature to rise because SHUT UP!”

  69. John Whitman says:

    Brian Davis on October 30, 2013 at 4:30 pm said,

    Downloaded it to my Kindle and read it this evening – it’s quite short, more an extended pamphlet – about 70 pages if it were a printed book. I didn’t get the impression that he really wanted to be (re-)convinced that AGW has a scientific basis – I think that’s just a rhetorical flourish. Apart from some rather superficial points and a few unconvincing analogies that I cringed at (like a group of naked people in a greenhouse after dark trying to create a sauna by breathing out CO2), overall the book’s on the money – he makes the same points that most of us here are making day and daily. He includes a link to WUWT, which he commends as a good source of information. Maybe a book to recommend to a warmist who’s beginning to have doubts.

    – – – – – – – –

    Brian Davis,

    Thank you for the book review.

    Was any additional biographic info on Paul Caruso provided in the book other than being formerly a member of Greenprace?

    Personally, I would like get a more clear understanding of his level of sincerity in his story of being a newly skeptical and enlightened pilgrim from CAGW land. Therefore I am trying to get corroboration of his sincerity from any contemporaneous blog postings of his?

    John

  70. bobl says:

    Its possible to lament knowledge, I am taken back to a time when my son first learned that santa claus was not real and said to me, but daddy I want to believe in Santa. Of course he could never really do that, the spell was broken forever, but it shows that the child in you wants to believe and one must become an adult to advance to scepticism.

  71. Brian Davis says:

    John, I’m afraid he says nothing more in the book about himself than you already know. I’m sure you’re right to be a little suspicious of exactly who he is and what he was doing previously.

  72. Jeff Alberts says:

    Darren Potter says:
    October 30, 2013 at 7:45 am


    Don’t sheep ever learn? Are they just looking for something to have faith in?…

    Considering the billions of people on Earth who believe in complete nonsense, I’d say yes, they are just apparently looking for something to believe in.

  73. A.D. Everard says:

    Brian Davis says:
    October 30, 2013 at 4:30 pm

    Downloaded it to my Kindle and read it this evening – it’s quite short, more an extended pamphlet – about 70 pages if it were a printed book. I didn’t get the impression that he really wanted to be (re-)convinced that AGW has a scientific basis – I think that’s just a rhetorical flourish. Apart from some rather superficial points and a few unconvincing analogies that I cringed at (like a group of naked people in a greenhouse after dark trying to create a sauna by breathing out CO2), overall the book’s on the money – he makes the same points that most of us here are making day and daily. He includes a link to WUWT, which he commends as a good source of information. Maybe a book to recommend to a warmist who’s beginning to have doubts.

    *

    Fair enough and good luck to him – I just get twitchy when reactions don’t feel right to me, but of course everyone is different. Call me jaded. :)

  74. Theo Goodwin says:

    temp says:
    October 30, 2013 at 9:49 am

    I like your analogy. Yes, Greens recognizing reality is like a computer dividing by zero. Apparently, some of the Lefties are getting therapy and making adjustments. I was listening to Diane Rehm on NPR (temporarily stuck on campus) and she introduced her next topic as follows: How will the monarchy of Saudi Arabia adjust to Saudi women demanding the right to drive and the cold diplomatic winds that are now blowing from the US?

    Quite a solution, huh? You just switch between topics as you watch the bouncing memes.

  75. James says:

    You just have to give them the clear facts about climate change like here http://climal.com/climate-change-facts.php

  76. Steve Garcia says:

    “Of course climate change is happening it’s been going on for billions of years so why would it stop now?”

    It sounds like he might be channeling Richard Lindzen…

    I wouldn’t doubt that many of the skeptics have a similar story to tell. I’ve mentioned my similar story here before, though I wasn’t in Greenpeace.

    The bottom line is – as he found – that the science just isn’t there. He is right: Arming oneself with the data doesn’t do any good. The believers don’t want to know any facts; they learn everything they know from popular news media 2nd-hand reports, and that is enough for them.

    When you argue with them, their last – and weakest – defense is this:

    “Well, what if it’s true?”

    What a weak-kneed reason to do ANYTHING… especially when it is possible to go out and find FACTS.

    So when someone asks, “Well what if it’s true?” the comeback is probably,

    There are enough facts out there for you to find out if it is true or not. So, get off your lazy behind and go look into the facts. If you don’t lift a finger to find out the facts, then you don’t qualify to express an opinion. Now get out of my face and quit wasting my time.

  77. Steve Garcia says:

    @Jquip at 7:43 am:

    “I genuinely would like to be persuaded again that CO2 is causing, or even could cause, us a problem” — Book Author

    That right there is a fellow suffering withdrawal symptoms of his apocalypse addiction. It can be fatal without replacement therapy at a misanthropy clinic.

    Jeez, dude, cut the guy some SLACK. There is a true open and independent mind, and you are badmouthing him. Not cool.

    The guy has seen the error of his ways – which was to uncritically accept what they told him. And, when he went out to find out what was behind it, he discovered the Man Behind the Curtain.

    Isn’t THAT why we are ALL here? Or did some of us just deny warming because our friends were doing it? Gullible on either side is DUMB.

    The more informed people get, the more the warmists will lose numbers. Why? Not because it is “our side” but because the facts support us.

    Look at Climategate. What was the lesson to the world? It wasn’t that our side is right. It was that their side was stacking the deck and colluding to defraud people and governments. And what was the reaction – from governments and journalists/news people? A MUCH reduced enthusiasm (read a higher skepticism) for global warming as an issue.

    And THAT is all our side wanted to do, was to get people to finally start thinking for themselves.

    So we should rejoice when someone goes to the effort of writing a book saying, “Hey guys, you lost me as a supporter, because you HAD NOTHING – now either put up or shut up!”

  78. I would say: Asking how much of climate change in the past 50 years or so has been from human causes, and how much has been from natural variations?

    It appears to me that both exist. So, the manmade factor’s significance is much more zero, and much less than claimed by those saying recent-decades climate change is to be blamed on humans.

  79. Steve Garcia says:

    @Robert W Turner at 8:33 am:
    “I like how the title implies that the book is nothing but a cultist diatribe bashing CAGW skeptics. It’s a good thing there isn’t much going on upstairs in a cultist’s head or it would explode after the first page.”

    I see this as a GOOD thing. With the title, most of the readers will be warmists. And when they start seeing his questioning, SOME of them will keep reading, and begin to doubt, too.

    Those here who read this guy’s thing as him wanting to be re-convinced are missing the whole point, and the point is:

    They have lost a died-in-the-wool supporter, someone who had EVERY reason to keep on believing in it, but he saw that the Emperor was not wearing any clothes.

    And if they can lose HIM, Dudes! if they lost HIM, their cause is goin’ DOWN. And his book will hook a few more who will realize that they haven’t been critiquing the warmist stuff enough.

    One more has swung to the middle.

    Remember #1: A defense lawyer only has to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury.

    Remember #2: THEY are the ones who have made extraordinary claims, not us! We don’t have to prove OUR side – we only have to point out, “HEY! Where is your proof?”

    And this guy is saying he is asking the same question. And he is not going back.

    Why not? Because he will never be that gullible again, not on this subject. He has crossed the Rubicon.

    THIS IS A GOOD SIGN.

  80. jb frodsham says:

    I downloaded it to my kindle. Good short book for the layman . A great book to send to any friends/family who are of the warmist type. I am surprised that it is not available as printed matter. On that point, go to your local bookstore, you will be hard pressed to find ANY books on the skeptical side, but tons on the warmist/alarmist side. I wonder why?

  81. Mario Lento says:

    Jquip says:
    October 30, 2013 at 7:43 am
    “I genuinely would like to be persuaded again that CO2 is causing, or even could cause, us a problem” — Book Author
    +++++++++
    The Book Author is like Cypher who chooses to reinsert himself into the Matrix…

  82. James Sexton says:

    The Pompous Git says:
    October 30, 2013 at 4:02 pm
    DirkH said @ October 30, 2013 at 3:22 pm
    John F. Hultquist says:
    October 30, 2013 at 12:18 pm
    [snip]
    Seems Paul is both quite old and a slow learner.”
    It’s the Ganja that does that. Blocks transmission of contents from short term to long term memory.

    And the NSAIDs some of us old folks take for arthritic pain cause heart attacks. Which would you prefer?
    =======================================
    Pain helps you know that you’re actually alive……. beer helps to thin the blood as well as remedy other infirmities. ;)

  83. Mario Lento says:

    Steve Garcia says:
    October 30, 2013 at 9:13 pm
    “Of course climate change is happening it’s been going on for billions of years so why would it stop now?”

    It sounds like he might be channeling Richard Lindzen…

    I wouldn’t doubt that many of the skeptics have a similar story to tell. I’ve mentioned my similar story here before, though I wasn’t in Greenpeace.

    The bottom line is – as he found – that the science just isn’t there. He is right: Arming oneself with the data doesn’t do any good. The believers don’t want to know any facts; they learn everything they know from popular news media 2nd-hand reports, and that is enough for them.

    When you argue with them, their last – and weakest – defense is this:

    “Well, what if it’s true?”

    What a weak-kneed reason to do ANYTHING… especially when it is possible to go out and find FACTS.

    So when someone asks, “Well what if it’s true?” the comeback is probably,

    “There are enough facts out there for you to find out if it is true or not. So, get off your lazy behind and go look into the facts. If you don’t lift a finger to find out the facts, then you don’t qualify to express an opinion. Now get out of my face and quit wasting my time.“
    ++++++++++++
    Great post Steve!!! You have the argument down to a science!

    And please remind them that if they think reading the media is actual research, then they are in fact having other people tell them what to think and say… first step towards becoming a useful idiot. But say it nicer than I say it:)

  84. leon0112 says:

    I bought and read the booklet today. It is a nice layman’s book on why people become skeptics. Next time you get in an argument with a layman alarmist, just walk away and give them a copy of the book. It will be a better day for you and for your friend.

  85. Always worth remembering this:

    When I launched the TalkClimateChange forums last year, I was initially worried as to where I would find people who didn’t believe in global warming. I had planned to create a furious debate, but in my experience global warming was such a universally accepted issue that I expected to have to dredge the slums of the internet in order to find a couple of deniers who could keep the argument thriving.

    The first few days were slow going, but following a brief write-up of my site by Junk Science I was swamped by climate skeptics who did a good job of frightening off the few brave Greens who slogged out the debate with. Whilst there was a lot of rubbish written, the truth was that they didn’t so much frighten the Greens away – they comprehensively demolished them with a more in depth understanding of the science, cleverly thought out arguments, and some very smart answers. If you want to learn about the physics of convection currents, gas chromatography, or any number of climate science topics then read some of the early debates on TalkClimateChange. I didn’t believe a word of it, but I had to admit that these guys were good.

    http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/green-advocates-failing-in-climate-debate/

  86. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    Having popularized solar panels since ever, having manufactured solar food dryers, having promoted energy efficient cookers, having entered a BBQ contest with a solar cooker, having walked the decks of the Rainbow Warrior II, I still remain utterly unconvinced that CO2 poses an immediate or future or even far future risk to the human race, or anything else.

    We have much larger problems. The prime one is the lack of unity at the international level that would allow the human race to deal with ill-defined national borders, economic exploitation of the local workforce to promote exports to the detriment of the country of destination, slavery and human trafficking, gross inequality of income and opportunity, the systematic oppression and denial of rights for women and ‘lower classes’, the promotion of toxic forms of nationalism… the list is quite long and cannot be solved without some form of a formal international forum with teeth. The UN was not formed as a governmental organization, though there are those who would like to use it as such. A world without a UN would soon go to war again or larger scales. We need a ‘real UN’ where I get a vote. No taxation without representation.

    It is interesting to read here so many times that ‘the UN wants to rule the world’. There is no doubt that various political movements ‘want to rule the world’ but those opposing collaborative methods are no better than those who advocate them if ‘everything’ falls into their hands. UN opponents just want to rule it ‘differently’ with their ideas enforced. Does living in economic chaos, interminable conflict and perched on the edge of war appeal to people who do not accept CAGW? You gotta oppose non-scientific nonsense and therefore must also accept political naiveté? The alternative to CAGW is not loose cannons and lousy canons.

  87. jb frodsham says:

    James: Re: http://climal.com/climate-change-facts.php

    Your link contains no empirical evidence that CO2 is the dial to the worlds temperature. The reason there is no empirical evidence is because there is none and that is after spending 70 billion dollars. Epic fail eh? A quick look at your link says “As the Pew Center on Global Climate Change explains, “The Earth’s average surface temperature has increased by 1.4°F (0.8°C) since the early years of the 20th century. The 11 warmest years on record (since 1850) have all occurred in the past 13 years. The five warmest years to date are 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2007.” Really? Tell me how is it possible to measure the average temperature of the earth in 1850. And even if were really proven that those dates were the hottest. it does not mean that the increase in temperature was caused by man released CO2. I note that there is no mention that prior to 1850 the earth was coming out of the LIA. They also fail to mention that the empirical evidence that they think they have is really just a model on a computer screen. Also show me the evidence that even if the world warmed further 0.8 Deg c that is would not be an improvement?

  88. Stephen Richards says:

    3.59€ e-book

  89. DirkH says:

    The Pompous Git says:
    October 30, 2013 at 4:02 pm
    “”DirkH said @ October 30, 2013 at 3:22 pm
    It’s the Ganja that does that. Blocks transmission of contents from short term to long term memory.”
    And the NSAIDs some of us old folks take for arthritic pain cause heart attacks. Which would you prefer?”

    Git, what I actually did try when I had an arthritic inflammation in my knees as a teenager was autogenic training, and (non-spiritual) Yoga exercises. It worked for me at the time until the inflammation went away. Do what works for you but be aware of the side effects.

  90. James Griffin says:

    The planet moves from an Inter-Glacial Holocene to an Ice Age and back. We live in a Holocene and the peak temperature in a Holocene is referred to as the Holocene Climatic Optimum……our was 10,000 years ago. Therefore we have been cooling for 10,000 years but there are peaks and troughs in line with solar maximums and minimums and it is this that the AGW crowd fail to understand. On top of that sea levels drop in an Ice Age and rise in a Holocene. There has been no evidence of any warming of the Troposphere, a key factor missing from the AGW argument and Negative Feedback is ignored or denied so that the climate play stations always predict warming. But the bottom line is that it is impossible for Carbon Dioxide to overheat the planet due to it’s heat creation being logarithmic….thus us you stack it up the effect tails off around 300ppm…and we are at around 390ppm. Any more warming from this very beneficial trace gas will be in the order of 1C for a doubling of current levels and even less for any further doubling.

  91. hannuko says:

    I read the book. It would be understatement to say I agreed with it. In almost every way it could have been written by me. Even his attitude towards the dialogue (“please, prove me wrong”) was identical to mine.

    Weird.

  92. G. Karst says:

    Motivations are like smoke. My Mother taught me early that when listening to others expound their epiphanies, to always say “fascinating” instead of “bullsh*t”. It is a fail-safe default. GK

  93. Bernie Hutchins says:

    This book is, in my evaluation, a very good document. I don’t have a hardware Kindle but have had the free software version for a number of years. About 90 seconds and you can be reading. It’s short enough that reading it on screen (1-2 hours) is not tiring. And I certainly don’t object to paying a small fee for this. It reads very easily and enjoyably.

    I really didn’t learn anything really new, and there was virtually nothing to quibble with from my understanding. Indeed, at most points likely, WUWT readers will be imagining themselves saying the same things – perhaps not as well as Caruso does. It’s kind of like after having hiked over a large region and seen most of it, someone hands you a complete map. A complete, well reasoned, battle guide in fact.

    I assume the somewhat enigmatic “curve-ball” title and supposed posturing were the author’s intent. I don’t object that he says he would not mind being convinced he is now wrong, as even while he says this, he sets the bar against converting BACK to an alarmist position very very high. Facts and reasoning.

  94. Bugs Man says:

    Real scientists never say “you’re wrong”. They propose a better theory. The vast majority of my fellow commentatators fall into the first group.

  95. DirkH said @ October 31, 2013 at 4:59 am

    Git, what I actually did try when I had an arthritic inflammation in my knees as a teenager was autogenic training, and (non-spiritual) Yoga exercises. It worked for me at the time until the inflammation went away. Do what works for you but be aware of the side effects.

    To the best of my knowledge, osteaoarthritis does not go away. There is no cure. A close friend was advised by his GP to take a drug called Vioxx. My friend subsequently had five heart attacks in fairly rapid succession. Maybe ganja does cause short term memory loss, but that sounds a lot less drastic than losing a huge slice of the quality of life.

  96. philjourdan says:

    @G. Karst – your mother must have been a fine southern lady. I am sure she also said “Well, bless your heart…..” often as well. ;-)

  97. John West says:

    Well, I finally got around to downloading and reading the book last night. There’s some really good logical and defendable points made, unfortunately they’re interspersed with misunderstanding of the science, arguments that could get the SkS seal of approval for skeptical arguments (i.e.: strawmans), and contradictions.

    This book could really have used a scientifically literate editor!

    I just don’t see recommending this book as is, although I absolutely love the premise, the general order, most of the material covered, and a lot of the arguments. There are just too many departures from technical accuracy.

Comments are closed.