Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Greens are inventing elaborate fantasies of shadowy right wing conspiracies to explain President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Treaty – but still refuse to consider the possibility they are wrong about global warming.
Trump’s Paris exit: climate science denial industry has just had its greatest victory
Graham Readfearn
Trump’s confirmed withdrawal from the United Nation’s Paris climate deal shows it’s time to get to grips with the climate science denial industry.
Moments before the US president, Donald Trump, strode into the Rose Garden, TV cameras pictured his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, shaking hands and looking generally pleased with himself.
Bannon once called global warming a “manufactured crisis”.
Bannon, with Trump’s head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, were among the loudest and most forceful voices in Trump’s ear, imploring the president to pull out of the Paris climate change agreement.
During his speech, Trump claimed the Paris deal was bad for America. The themes were economic, but the speech was laced with jingoistic protectionism.
“Our withdrawal represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty,” he said.
The foundation for Trump’s dismissal of the Paris deal – and for the people who pushed him the hardest to do it – is the rejection of the science linking fossil-fuel burning to dangerous climate change.
…
So what comes next? Hopefully, one realisation will be this.
Now is the time to learn about the methods, the tactics, the personnel, the structure and the reach of the global climate science denial industry.
They just convinced the leader of the United States to pull the plug on a historic deal signed by almost 200 countries, and instead join Nicaragua and Syria as the only countries not signed up.
It is time to take that climate science denial industry seriously.
Why do Greens feel compelled to invent elaborate conspiracy theories to explain their failure to convert people to their cause? My guess is the reality is simply too hard for greens to swallow.
The climate alarmist cause is failing because it is based on a false premise. The idea that the Earth currently faces a manmade climate crisis is quite simply nonsense.
No amount of green money, psychological “inoculations”, propaganda and tub thumping can hide this simple fact from ordinary people who have access to the evidence.
Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.
So, climate science denial is an industry. Who knew?
Is climate science alarmist propaganda an industry too?
One good conspiracy theory deserves another.
Looks like my comment counts as a “0 thought”. (^_^) [in moderation cue, maybe? — that’s okay, I’ve been called worse than a “0”.
Up ! … spoke too soon. Delayed counter.
Some filters might choke on the word ‘ den1@l ‘.
Alarmists capability for projection knows no limits.
They are the ones who have been “denying” the scientific method, inverting the null hypothesis and running a multi-billion dollar bogus science industry for the last three decades.
M.E. Mann lies before congressional committee in similar attempt to accuse others of exactly what he has been doing himself.
HYPOCRITES , the lot of ’em.
there never was a debate because they refused to have one. See Gavin Schmitt childishly walking of set and refusing to debate Roy Spencer.
Mann refuses to debate with anyone.
What they are loosing is a propaganda war, not a scientific debate.
Chalk this up as yet more proof that what we’re dealing with here is a cult.
I’m serious.
This is a cult brainwashing tactic. They aren’t telling their followers to learn the science or the truth, they are telling them to be wary and be ready to reject any information that does not conform to the inside groups (cult) beliefs.
“Isolation – Cults cut off members from the outside world (and even each other) to produce intense introspection, confusion, loss of perspective and a distorted sense of reality. The members of the cult become the person’s only social contact and feedback mechanism.
Cults may keep new recruits from talking to other new recruits. They may only be allowed to speak with long-committed members for a period of time.
Cults may not allow unsupervised contact with the “outside world.” In this way, there is no chance for a “reality check” or validation of a new member’s concerns regarding the group.
Cults typically instill the belief that “outsiders” (non-cult members) are dangerous and wrong.”
http://people.howstuffworks.com/cult4.htm
Robert W Turner….
Don’t forget cults also employ low protein diets (vegetarianism), repetitive chanting (the planet has a fever… the planet has a fever…), and sleep deprivation through in this case… fear.
If it looks like a duck and it qwacks like a duck it’s probably Mann and Gore!
Greg:
“…running a (mostly) taxpayer-funded multi-billion dollar bogus science industry…”
PiperPaul, Bloomberg is going to fix that (there’s a sucker born everyday) just keep me out of it
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/93311102/us-billionaire-michael-bloomberg-gives-us15m-to-un-calls-on-others-to-fulfil-climate-promises
If this is an industry, why am I doing this for free? Let’s unionize!!
Do you suppose we could get back pay for our previous volunteer efforts? sarc/ Seriously, the fact that those who think that opposition is present only because they are being paid is evidence of just how out of touch with reality these alarmists are.
I got a nice feed in the conference hall when I attended Heartland, does that count as pay?
The Climate Science Denial Industry is one of the many industries that should flourish under the Trump administration.
Climate alarmism was a three hundred billion dollar industry till yesterday. Please give them ample time to cry.
Do we get our own initials: CSDI?
The Guardian is only (somewhat) useful as a fish wrapper.
I find it makes the taste odd.
phaedo
You’re supposed to eat the fish, not the wrapper. 🙂
Truthfully, I think somebody at The Guardian is actually quite happy with articles that go full-retard because it brings in more clicks, and the seriously afflicted don’t realize how much other people are laughing at their histrionics. Links from articles such as this will increase site traffic and please the advertisers. There is not a lot to please the advertisers at The Guardian in recent times.
They probably don’t much care if the traffic actually comes from political opponents and people who go there to gawk and gloat. Out of morbid curiosity I might now go there myself for a quick look. It almost feels like there’s been another election and Trump won again.
Illegal these days. You are showing my age. :))
Actually climate “science denial” has always been an industry – that’s why we have billions of dollars worth of bat mincemeat makers, and bird broilers. The only people that have been denying “climate science,” has been the AGW crowd, and they’ve denied “climate science” from the beginning, preferring pre-programmed hysteria models.
Spot on Tom O – my thoughts on the matter as well.
+100
Grammy has it very wrong.
Bannon once called global warming a “manufactured crisis”.
Nope, He said that many times.
The foundation for Trump’s dismissal of the Paris deal – is the lack of science linking fossil-fuel burning to dangerous climate change.
Where can I send a resume. One of my key accomplishments was to get banned from most alarmist blogs for asking questions whose undeniable answers undermine the foundation of the climate alarmist industry.
Now if only you could get banned from one or two of the Anti-AGW blogs as well we might be convinced you are on the right track.
That would only happen if the moderators believed that incremental atmospheric CO2 has no more than a negative effect on the average surface temperature.
This probably won’t happen since the majority of readers and contributors to the anti-AGW blogs are actually anti-CAGW and understand that incremental CO2 has a finite effect on the surface temperature, but the size of this effect is dramatically over-estimated by the IPCC and the self serving consensus surrounding the reports it generates.
Cult behavior.
What alarmist blogs did you get banned from?
I’d like to post some comments there — I find it amusing to annoy the climate parrots and their memorized talking points.
I may be more of a “denier” than you.
I think the climate in 2017 is wonderful.
There has been no problem from climate change in the past 150 years.
Sea level rise is not accelerating.
Night are a little warmer, but that’s good news.
I propose doubling the CO2 level ASAP to further green the Earth.
And if a doubling of CO2 happens to increase the average temperature by one degree C., as suggested in laboratory experiments, that’s even better.
Warming at night in cold climates, the primary claimed effect of greenhouse gases, would be a bonus on top of CO2 greening the earth and accelerating green plant growth.
Can you imagine me going to an alarmist blog and telling them I favor doubling the CO2 level as soon as possible?
It would be similar to walking past the monkey cages at the zoo while banging my steel cup against the bars — they would go berserk — the liberals I mean, not the zoo animals. I hope I didn’t offend the zoo animals by comparing them with liberals?
“What alarmist blogs did you get banned from?”
Real climate, Skeptical science, scienceofdoom, to name a few.
The guardian and the IPCC are all part of the great climate science denial conspiracy.
Why is it that the Left owns nearly ALL the major media? As long as that is the case, we will have climate science nonsense, massive deficits and public policy made by the SJW’s at everyone’s expense.
John: Because the Right refused to believe it was happening and thus did nothing to stop it.
Of course. Look at all those documentaries and movies.
Does anyone know why I haven’t received my paycheck for the last several years of climate denialism? I mean it is a giant industry supported by ???? and clearly paying people to say evil and hateful things. There after all couldn’t possibly be any reason for me to have questions about climate alarmism. Just because I have a solid well educated prior to the attempts to rewrite it grasp of history. And had questions about the medieval warm period. The roman warm period. The end of the little ice age and what impact that had on their numbers…. I mean just because I actually know something about history and don’t blind myself to asking questions.
I love the label of “jingoistic” when he is simply supporting our country and its future health as a viable economy and society. Jingoism is patriotism that leans toward warlike. Short of standing up for our principles in the face of other countries and fighting the forces of Jihadist Islam, he is not warlike. What he is doing is totally adult, which drives the libtards crazy—their emotionally-based ideals and policies are being supplanted by real world policies that will allow them to keep, but not impose, their feel-good thoughts.
“What he is doing is totally adult…” writes Higley7. The German magazine Der Speigel is appalled that Trump is telling NATO partners to pay what they agreed to pay for their own defence. That’s adult. The agreed level is minimum 2% of GDP. Britain and Estonia meet that commitment and the US spends more than 4%. Apart from these the rest of NATO is slacking.
Spiegel reports in outraged tones that he dares point out to Germany and others that “there are large and prosperous countries not living up to their alliance obligations”. I think that your president has said something like “if they won’t pay for their own defence why should America make up the shortfall?” I heard on BBC Radio the Swedish defence minister answer, in response to a journalist making that very point: “Well, we have other things we need to spend our budget on!” Darn cheek!
I encourage people to read the Spiegel article. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/trump-pulls-out-of-climate-deal-western-rift-deepens-a-1150486.html
As a Brit I salute your president’s bold stand on the global warming hoax, and fervently hope that my own government will do the same after next week’s election.
Well for starters the set of persons of genus homo who deny that climate changes, is an empty set containing exactly zero set elements.
So now what was the second complaint.
G
> Now is the time to learn about the methods, the tactics, the personnel, the structure and the reach of the global climate science denial industry.
I gotta tell ya. The Jobs Board at the global climate science denial industry website has exploded with new listings. [snark for the humor deficient]
“Now is the time to learn about the methods, the tactics, the personnel, the structure and the reach of the global climate science denial industry.”
They’ll never figure it out…
From what I can see the sceptics are disinterested people with an interest in the subject. There are no personnel or structure. This is not a James Bond scenario where we all live on a tropical hideaway ( about to be inundated by rising acid sea levels). Sarc off/
Perhaps they should consider it as asymmetric discussion and read “Street without Joy ” before launching their conventional media onslaughts.
It isn’t complicated. It’s called legitimate scientific inquiry unpolluted by politics.
No, they will make it.
Well I was born and raised on a continent that was already under water. So I don’t care if it floods a bit more.
G
Method – Giving out facts
Tactics – When someone brings up Global Warming, we correct them with facts
Personnel – Anyone can do it, facts are facts
Structure – Ground roots
Reach – Anyone that wants the truth can be converted
Oh and the more you call it denial, the more people investigate what it’s all about, then they convert after finding the facts.
How to stop us – One World Gov’t, but Trump just put a big ding in that
I’m not sure that the ding is that big.
It would have been a much bigger ding if he had used false or indeed fake science rather than economics as the reason for withdrawing.
But the global egalitarian economics of spreading wealth from wealthy nations to 3rd world countries (including those who do the spreading) IS the underlying reason. The man-made catastrophic climate meme is just the façade to sell this to those that can’t/won’t use critical thinking skills
Oh, I thought the science of CAGW was about siphoning wealth from the former US middle class into the pockets of otherwise unemployable “academics”. CAGW being the religion promoted by Globalists to get money and power.
Mike, the CAGW folks expanded the agenda to include sending money to totalitarian and socialist dictators and autocrats to “spread the wealth around”. The next step would have been to ask for even more money to build more projects because the first tranche wasn’t big enough- meaning the kleptocrats wanted better furniture and even bigger palaces and armies.
Not even a one world government could stop us.
The thing tyrants fear most is the single slave that refuses to be a slave, and the inevitable revolt where the tyrant ends up against a wall.
The idea that the warmests want to spread wealth from the wealthy nations to the third world never made any sense to me. They don’t care about the Third World. What they want is a One World government, with them at the helm. Carbon tax revenues are simply a clever way to buy allies with the money of your enemy. If they could pull this off, they would gain some power over the west with their taxation, and some power over the Third World with their bribery. Not to mention lining their own pockets for their services as money changers and self proclaimed saviors of the Planet. Its a pretty clever scheme. Evil…but clever!
Trump was absolutely right when he made his decision based on US Sovereignty. After all, if this was about climate science, the issue would have died before it got started. There is simply no compelling reason to be worried about man-made climate change. The science does not support the theory and the theory does not support a crisis. 3 degrees warming over 100 years is nothing for opportunistic, adaptable humans to deal with, and the biosphere would love the warmth like it already loves the increasing atmospheric plant food.
Jared
Personally, I don’t see why people are so worried about world governance. There was a meeting in Paris, they agreed to do just about nothing. Some people agreed to sign on, some didn’t. What’s wrong with that? It is democratic in that sense.
If some US States want to continue in line with the Paris Agreement, nothing prevents them from doing that, even before the announcement. People are free to implement any CO2 reduction schemes they want to pay for. A democratic movement would not permit that option, and it does, so is that a problem?
Countries that want to get gobs of money from the other participants are free to try to get it. Those who want to hand out gobs of money can do so – that is their choice.
The problem comes when those who are in charge of the international process are not accountable to anyone at all. That is taxation without representation, something that has caused “certain problems” in past centuries.
The UN is not accountable to the peoples (the electorate) of the world. That is a problem. Until the UN is a properly constituted and responsible (in the conventional political sense) it should not have taxation powers that are not agreed by the members. The Paris Agreement was a substitute for such a responsible body and a substitute for democratically agreed action.
Bringing hundreds of participants to Paris is not a democratic act – such movements are far to easy to bias through the organising committee. It has a very European Union feel about it where there are a few people who leverage a committee who leverage a large committee who leverage an entire convention to produce a pre-determined outcome that serves the initial small committee of ‘people who think they know better’. How conventional. How dishonest. How unfair is that? “Fasipulation” is not a form of democracy and a poor method of consultation.
We have lots of international governance and failing to recognize that is an error. Law of the Sea, Telegraphic conventions, satellite orbit spaces, allocation of web names – lots and lots of things are decided based on international laws. Nothing wrong with that at all. Ultra-nationalism and isolationism are not the only alternatives to global domination by an unelected elite.
Contributors should not support going off the deep end (“Island America”) just because we need to have some cooperation on major issues. There are numerous global issues and they cannot be settled by worshipping nationalism. If the USA supports democracy, do it, not talk about it for the US alone. The Paris Accord is not democratic and was not democratic in its genesis. It was also not done competently which is, alone, a good reason not to sign it. But it does not mean we should give up all the other international agreements which have served humanity well for over a century in some cases.
Facipulate: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=facipulate
“Personally, I don’t see why people are so worried about world governance.”
World government will be controlled by India and China.
Do you really want to spend the rest of your life being told what to do by India and China?
Oldseadog, you must have been a stoker or engine room mechanic because you obviously didn’t learn anything about the weather, and, consequently, climate, from your time at sea.
Hidden in your response to Jared is the root of the problem – They DON’T want to pay for their schemes, they want OTHER people to pay for their schemes.
Behind their outward intentions lurks their true intention – to bring down capitalism as it currently exists and replace it with a Marxist/communist/socialist/green/progressive system of governance (choose one – they’re all the same). The renaming just tries to hide the fact that previous names have been rumbled. As with global warming – climate change etc.
Never mind that so far all these systems have done is to fail miserably, leading to chaos/revolution/uprising/poverty/deaths etc etc.
SteveT
“World government will be controlled by India and China.
Do you really want to spend the rest of your life being told what to do by India and China?”
Oh please, what will be the mechanism to make that happen? Not the UN – give me examples of laws passed by the UN which were forced on the US, where the US did not want to comply.
Can’t use what you don’t have.
A two year old child can make better traffic control decisions, than all the third world software geniuses living on an H1B visa enslavement.
The ability to write beautiful spaghetti code does not endow one with the ability to solve simple problems.
That same two year old child can identify a tree ; ANY TREE, and distinguish it from the AT&T-Tree ; AKA a telephone pole.
Those third world code writers cannot identify ANY tree, from a telephone pole.
Well it is possible that some of those two year olds might not recognize a Boojum Tree. But there are few two year olds that have ever seen a boojum tree or a picture of one.
G
we can all learn about the “global climate science denial industry” by watching the court case of Mann vs. Steyn (countered by Steyn vs Mann). This is an impending trial of interest and both sides well represented, one to win and one to lose. Mann has tried several times to abandon the suit he filed but Steyn counter-sued and won’t let it stop. Although this is dragging on it will eventually be the new version of Scopes Monkey Trial. Adult beverages and popcorn for sure. see http://www.steynonline.com.
ron long … at 10:16 am
…Mann vs. Steyn (countered by Steyn vs Mann)… will eventually be the new version of Scopes Monkey Trial.
Good one!
If we’re comparing Mann to monkey it is an insult to monkeys!
But it does raise the image of Mann throwing his feces around at the Senate hearings or anywhere else his credibility is questioned.
I’ll be more than happy to perform a study which
willmight support the alarmists’ new conspiracy theory.With past as prologue, there is already a long line of potential authors, applying for the position.
Just whatever you do-don’t look at the science! Avert your eyes, lest ye be enlightened!
Please find my check, or an email address for accounts payable.
cAgw seance
“Definition of anthropomorphic
1
: described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes, anthropomorphic deities, stories involving anthropomorphic animals
2
: ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things, anthropomorphic supernaturalism. anthropomorphic beliefs about nature”
Not sure which of the two fits best. But I’d say, in regards to the CAGW hypothesis, they need emphasis that it “morphs” all the time to fit what that “Anthropo” is the Cause that needs to be controlled.
The way “to learn about the methods, the tactics, the personnel, the structure, and the reach of the global climate science denial industry” is to join it. While you dwell within the CAGW realm you are ever happy there, but once you cross its borders you can never return again.
It’s anthropogenic (well, actually it isn’t, but the word is) …
Gunga 3:11 pm:. Defining “anthropomorphic” reminds me; let’s also look at “anthropogenic.” E.g., if “carcinogenic” and “mutagenic” mean things that can generate cancer and mutations, and “photogenic” means something that emits or generates light or something that can result in a photograph, then “anthropogenic” means something that generates or results in an anthropoid (an ape-like or humanoid creature). A child’s or ape’s parents are anthropogenic. In vitro fertilization is anthropogenic. The word has been misinterpreted to mean something that is caused by humans; it’s actually the other way around. Someone who knows Greek or Latin perhaps could help generate an English word that would correctly have the intended meaning.
So what causes an anthropoid to suddenly get anthropomorphic ??
R Lowland Gorrillas; that’s ” gorreeyas ” anthropomorphic ??
G
“the rejection of the science linking fossil-fuel burning to dangerous climate change”. I’ve been searching for over 10 years, but I’ve still to find the science linking fossil-fuel burning to dangerous climate change. But I am a scientist, so I perhaps look a bit harder than the Grauniad’s Graham Readfearn. He has no qualifications to make any claims about science, being an ex-BBC journalist (no surprise there).
See https://www.readfearn.com/about/
Hi Philip. The Harrabins, Readferns and Shuckmans of this (BBC) world need challenging at every soundbite they utter. Currently, the meme seem to be that solar/wind is cheaper than coal, yet they offer no attribution for their claim. I shall be writing to the BBC to demand that controversial claims are backed up with references – at least on the programme’s website.
Wow !
I had to check it was not a satire .
“offer no attribution for their claim”
Nebulous “externalities”. Fossil fuel “subsidies”. Nameplate output figures quoted for intermittent supply renewables. Omission of water vapor/cloud effects. MWP.
It’s as if everything they (alarmists) say is conditional, with crucial details just omitted for obvious reasons. It’s infuriating, but I suppose that itself is part of the strategy as well (i.e. frustrate “the enemy”).
The gullibility (or is it really masqueraded malfeasance) of otherwise intelligent-appearing people is astounding.
PiperPaul: PT Barnum wasn’t stupid, the “suckers” were.
I mean really what are the actual chances of any of the bad things they predict happening?
Anyone? Chances? Anyone?
Odd how they never ever actually want to answer that question.
Now what are the actual chances something good happens from global warming?
I’d say 50:50. Either they will (do), or the won’t (don’t); only two choices there are.
Probabilities only tell you the expected average frequency of qualified events, given a large number of candidate instances.
Tells you exactly nothing about the very next event that is yet to occur.
There was an occasion back in the 1960s where a University Statistical Mathematical Expert (self appointed no doubt) declared that the outcome of a single lottery event; an event that had never occurred before, was NOT RANDOM.
The (non random) selection that actually occurred, happened to be ONE out of factorial 366 possible selections; every one of them as likely as the one that did occur. Factorial 366 is a number, larger by far than any person ever has a practical need for. No one needs to be able to distinguish between (factorial 366), and (factorial 366 -1).
G
…The Guardian Just Noticed Greens are Losing the Climate Debate…
Yes. They just banned me again from commenting. Looks like they are circling their wagons and pulling up the drawbridge…
They banned me three times. The last time was when I posted a WMO piece about African temps being estimated and the need for 5000 automatic temp stations.
I have been banned too but I went back and re-registred and so kept on going. I have got some good licks in today and the hobgoblins are going nuts. They seem to realize that Trump has done something fatal to their obsession but they can’t figure out how he did it and they are in denial.
None of them can see that there is no link whatsoever between man made CO2 and Global Destruction which is what their cause requires for it to be scary enough to harvest cash for their pursuits. Their day is over and Donald J Trump killed the beast.
Yes, the question is, just WHO is in denial. There is an old saying that when you point a finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing back at yourself. All this time, skeptics have been called “deniers,” when it is the alarmists who have had their heads in the sand.
I just checked. I’m not banned and have not had many recent posts deleted.
Even when I linked to the IPCC AR5 which usually gets a snip.
Maybe the fact that the Guardian has now come out for Corbyn means my other comments are more welcome.
Perhaps the Guardian will come round on the climate issue too.
“Perhaps the Guardian will come round on the climate issue too.”
Not a chance, they have a Moonbat to keep busy.
How can any rational human being think that a paper that supports Corbyn, who supported the IRA, can have any credibility?
Only if they start following his brother Piers Corbyn, see http://www.weatheraction.com/
“… wagons and drawbridge … ”
What an interesting image.
Yes! As a longtime player with words (there must be a name for people like us — apart from ‘idiot’!) I tried mixing the metaphor completely and ended up with “pulling up the wagons and circling the drawbridge”. Passes a dull Saturday morning!
For the average Grauniad reader probably makes about as much sense.
As I recall, some of those wagons actually crossed rivers. So nyet on the effectiveness of drawbridges.
I have a bridge, but it is not withdrawable.
Izzere some reason why this stupid editor doesn’t speak English ??
G
“Now is the time to learn about the methods, the tactics, the personnel, the structure and the reach of the global climate science denial industry.”
Yes, let us do that. Trey Gowdy gets my nomination as chief investigator. Let us have a thorough and penetrating investigation into … well, people just like me,
Ask us, nay, interrogate us, at length. Transcribe and record our sworn statements.
Then force the MSM publish them all, on the front page, without editing, to the world, under penalty of perjury.
Deal?
Gets my vote Hank. It all needs to get out now.
Gets my vote as well, but how do you force the MSM to do something they don’t want to do because if they do it thay will look silly
They not thay.
Grrrr.
Why wait to be interviewed? We can post our own screeds as to “How I Became A ‘Climate Denier” on various blogs, perhaps with a slightly puzzled take, as if to say, “I was a true believer, how did I end up here?”, while at the same time socking it to them with science.
This; http://raconteurreport.blogspot.com.au/
is the best article I’ve ever read (along with Dr. Moore’s) on the Climate debate. As you might expect with Michael Crichton as the author. Written some 15 years ago it sums up the “science” BS perfectly.
Crichton’s fiction book “State of Fear” was also full of links to NOAA websites showing temperature graphs with no trend of warming, etc. It was enough to convince me that most of the global warming alarmism was just a ruse to increase global government power. Probably the links in the book have been removed by now, but I reviewed them as I read the book to verify his claims of temp stability.
It was posted here too: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/09/aliens-cause-global-warming-a-caltech-lecture-by-michael-crichton/
Went to your link, what a great, great article. Now if only it would be published on the front page of the newspaper that prints all the fake climate science that is fit to print, my opinion. Read all of his books. Thank you again for that link.
I am still waiting for my check from the Global Climate Science Denial Industry (GCSDI). I’m sure it’s simply lost in the mail and will arrive any day now. When it does, I’ll be able to retire to a tropical hot-spot in Antarctica.
/snark
There is a nice little spot just around the corner from my secret underground base where I make nefarious plans and drink imported Russian vodka.
It has a great view of my herds of penguins and polar bears.
(I rescued the bears from the Arctic , they said the researchers were beginning to get on their nerves hopefully I didn’t mess with the count up there.)
Any Penguins at Vostok Base, would have to lick their vodka popsicles, and their tongues would likely stick to the popsickle.
G
Not the brightest newspaper.
“U.N. sponsored global poll rates climate change dead last
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/…/climate..”
broken link
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/science-and-policy/Despite-the-urgency-of-Paris-climate-talks-a-UN-sponsored-global-poll-rates-climate-change-dead-last.pdf
A person becomes a liberal (er, now a “progressive”) when they decide, often in their teens, that they can continue to live in the feel-good world of make-believe rather than transitioning to living in the real world. This can be viewed in terms of where a person anchors their reality, in their private thoughts and feelings, or is the outside world the hard reality that they must compare their privates thoughts and feelings against?
When a person decides that what they feel is more “real” than some fact or timeless principle of the outside world, they create a private reality that can be whatever they want. Things they don’t like can be excluded. More important, their failings are never their own fault because it becomes an easy reflex to excuse any failure. In essence their reality is continually malleable and plastic.
You will notice that liberals do not share ideas by appealing to commonly known facts and principles. They convey ideas that “resonate” with others, much like the old high school science experiment with bells or chimes that vibrate in sympathetic resonance even though they are not touching.
So it should not come as any surprise when a hive of liberal finds that people who anchor their reality externally refuse to accept the hive-meme of the day. The “facts” that liberals present for climate change are not solid and consistent. Way too many of their models simply cannot be validated by backtesting. Their demands converge far more to advance socialism than to advance the wellbeing of the biosphere we all depend upon for food. In short, “climate change” has all the hallmarks of being a liberal trojan horse to destroy liberty, prosperity and to justify big and ever bigger government.
‘More important, their failings are never their own fault because it becomes an easy reflex to excuse any failure. In essence their reality is continually malleable and plastic.”
Perhaps this explains Hillary C. and all her reasons for failure. Just never grew up.
The Green/Liberal/Progressive worldview is shaped mainly by emotion. Any rational thinking is secondary and used to support the emotional position rather than challenge it. Those of the G/L/P mindset are upset emotionally by contradiction and cannot bear being found wrong. None of us likes to be found wrong, but with this group it goes to the core of their being, meaning, and worth. Thus they fight with great tenacity and with few moral strictures or understanding of their inconsistencies (claiming a right to free speech will denying it to others, is simple example). They do not know themselves and like very young children cannot see how they behave as anything but noble and good. Feelings replace actions and manifest as virtue-signaling. Anger easily rises to hatred. If they weren’t so dangerous, pity would be enough response to their behavior. Until self-awareness dawns on a G/L/P, there is little hope of him changing.
There is a strong herd mentality to it , too . They consider their echo chamber can overpower reality , eg : that gender is just a social construct rather than grounded in the doublehelix structure of DNA .
For me one of the appeals of mathematical physical science is its humbling requirement that you submit to mapping your mind to tested reality no matter how much of a morph that demands .
“gender is just a social construct rather than grounded in the double helix structure of DNA”
“Science” for progressives is just a prop (an impressive stack of dubious ClimateChange™ research papers, for example) to be used to, uh, ‘prop up’ their non-load-bearing arguments. Sometimes science is used as a stick with which to beat The Bad Evil People (i.e., people who don’t agree with the groupthink– even though the groupthink can change at the drop of a hat, depending on if a Cult Cultural Commander decrees it so) or to be dismissed and ignored entirely (the DNA example above).
+97! Self-delusion is a communicable (and convenient) mental condition for many people and very common amongst hard core progressives.
Well most of them think that WW-II was a video game that resets itself tomorrow. The most noticeable thing about a rainbow, is that it is well on its way to getting around behind your arse.
G
They may be losing the debate, but doesn’t Herr Cook have a vaccine that will provide a solution – a solution that will finally win the war?
Yeah he does! Except that intelligent life forms are immune to the vaccine. He and Lew are embarrassments in the world of psychology. And since psychology has never really been highly respected in the first place, that’s quite the accomplishment.
“This to me is a mystery. Why have scientists, psychologists and others gone along with the damage to the good name of their chosen fields?”
Well, Forest, it seems to me the most logical answer is that the corruption of science in general has proceeded further than one might wish. Which is not to say each and every person is involved in corrupt/unethical practices, but that the organizations/institutions have been infiltrated and co-opted to the point where it’s very costly to speak openly about certain matters, and in particular the mass media has been corrupted to the point where there’s little hope of vindication/support from anyone with a personal reputation/career they don’t want destroyed.
Not dissimilar to the way things work/have worked in many countries, wherein it’s virtual suicide to buck the “ruling elites” . . Just grown up, so to speak.
Well are you equating psychology with ” psychiatry “; which was best described by Ricky Ricardo, as ” Pee-sick-ee-a-tree ” with the accent on the “sick “. ??
You have to be sick to get your jollies listening to the most intimate secrets of your victims, that their partners thought were private between them. And your fetish is carefully protected by secrecy laws, So why would you cure (if you even could) a “problem ” that is actually providing you with a legally protected income stream.
Those witch doctors are the ultimate perverts.
G
“but the speech was laced with jingoistic protectionism.”
He’s just upset because the backers of globalism lost one yesterday. He doesn’t understand that those voted from Trump want jingoistic protectionism from the likes of the globalists. Most of us don’t give a rat’s ass about what he and his cronies think. Let the world try to get along without the U.S.
With the Alarmists’ Climate models now looking more like Mann’s Hockey Stick Graph, I can’t help but believe that Climate Alarmists are incapable of recognizing the Simple fact that all of their “Projections” and “Predictions” continue to diverge from REALITY. We have over 50 years of such Predictions, and not a single Claim has come to pass, yet these imbeciles continue to “accurately predict” what will happen in 10, 20, or 100 years!
“Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.”
And nothing is more desperately defended than an idea whose time is up.
+ a very loud ONE.
Zzzzzzzzzzzz
“Nothing is more ridiculed than an idea whose time has passed”
What would you expect from the Guardian…
It must really suck to spend all that time and money to get a journalism degree and then have to resort to presstitution to pay the bills.
It takes time to earn a journalistic degree? Time for what? This stuff looks easy:
– Learn how to not check sources
– Learn how to not to even use sources
– God forbid you actually name a source
– Learn how to substitute uninformed personal opinion for facts
– Learn how to not quote both sides in a dispute
– Learn how to breathlessly report trivial studies & comments
Hmmmm. maybe this is the tough part:
– Learn how to switch sides when the wind changes
What’s journalistic about a journalism degree ??
Who needs journalists, when most newspapers simply reprint from the AP, or the NYT, or the LAT.
By the time the LAT has cooled enough to actually put on the shelves, I have already erased from my mind the original source of that fake news that they are interpreting, and explaining to me, what I already actually heard somebody say in their own words.
G
“Why do Greens feel compelled to invent elaborate conspiracy theories to explain their failure to convert people to their cause? ”
People devoted to a cause simply can’t see that they may be wrong.
They push nonsense conspiracies about their opponents to cover up their own accidental conspiracy that resulted from group think, confirmation bias and a destructive political ideology. Some may argue that it’s not accidental at all, but I would prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Does a devout Christian believe it when told there is no scientific proof of God?
They would say that faith alone is enough. While this is fine for something completely subjective like religion when all you’re really concerned about is what happens after you die, faith is insufficient as a justification for the objective scientific principles guiding the living world.
Faith alone is not just enough, it’s essential. Were there scientific evidence for the God hypothesis, then the value of faith would be diminished. If there mathematical proof certain of God, faith would have no value at all.
Ben Dover
June 2, 2017 at 12:12 pm
The Trinity, the Christian main way forward to salvation,,,,, repent, confess, accept fault and failure….and be back again in the beautiful “game” of life…..A new chance to “parley” again:)
just trying a be funny…..honestly confessing..:)
“Does a devout Christian believe it when told there is no scientific proof of God?”
No, because science is incapable of proving the existence of a non-physical being.
“Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: “I refuse to prove that I exist,’” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
“But,” says Man, “The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.”
“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
“Oh, that was easy,” says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
“Does a devout Christian believe it when told there is no scientific proof of God?”
Yes. The claim or question itself is something of a tautology. That thing for which no proof can exist is “God”. Those things for which proof exists is not “God”. It is *defined* that way for many instances of religion.
People are looking in the wrong places for the wrong thing. God might be sitting next to you in McDonald’s right now. How can you know that he is, or is not, God? You cannot.
What is God? If you define God, you have just created a straw-God; maybe it/he/she exists but probably not. If you do not define God, then it will be very difficult to prove or disprove that *something* exists, or does not exist, with unspecified properties! In fact, one can presume the existence of a thing whose properties are not known: “Is there a thing existing whose properties I do not define?” Indeed there is. Pick anything.
Stern wants 4 trillion $ per year, and the best they can promise is avoiding a 0.2C increase in temperature in 80 years? They wonder why people won’t buy it? (except those that think the government should actually have all the money and distribute it as they see fit)
Stern is a loon and Jeremy Grantham who funds him is one too. Jeremy means well but is nto scientifically literate.
W O W,
Those guys are such poor losers that they need to invent an entire #Conspiracy-Industry to wrap their heads around the fallacy of their shortcomings.
“Now is the time to learn about the methods, the tactics, the personnel, the structure and the reach of the global climate science denial industry.”
So they are going to learn proper scientific procedures, math based statistical analysis, proper scoping of variables, the difference between empirical and inferential evidence, how to set up testable hypothesis, how to properly verify or eliminate said hypothesis, etc.? Sounds like a lot of work. . .
Yup…..And even more work when you consider how many of them likely either never took high school physics or if they did, they flunked the course. Words are their specialty, the more meaningless the better, just as long as whatever it is is easily memorized, recalled and regurgitated. Analytical thought processes are a strange and foreign concept.
A crisis is a time when people will accept change. The way it goes is: The old way isn’t working, let’s try this new way.
By manufacturing a climate crisis, the left is trying to create a situation whereby they can abolish capitalism. link, link
“inventing elaborate fantasies of shadowy right wing conspiracies”
Much like what Hillary Clinton is doing right now on her ” I am really the President” tour.
That was the point I was going to make just listen to Hillary’s list of excuses for why she is a loser. It’s not her fault.
+10 for naming the tour. Although I would liken back to Nixon’s “I am not a crook” contention. and call her’s the “I am not a loser tour”
Brad at WendyMcelroy.com has made that list for you. In song, http://wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.8068 and neat, http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.7507.9
rejection of the science linking fossil-fuel burning to dangerous climate change.
Science?
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2873672
Someone should tell them that refusing to debate the science is interpreted by many that you don’t think you can win the debate. And using Bill Nye as a proxy is like sending a rodeo clown into the ring. (No offense to rodeo clowns.)
From the UK political perspective that seems like a Rudd-y good point.
Actually that is a very good comparison. The job of the rodeo clown is to distract the angry bull so he does not gore the star. Bill gets stand center stage and attract the attention while the former personalities slip quietly off stage and pretend they were never there.
Thanks, I had not considered the rehashing and updating of such old terminology of activists from military industrial complex to climate science denial industrial complex. The simpleton mind of libs is both repetitive as it is shallow. Stupid is as stupid does.
To borrow a term from another busted theory, Freudianism, the green blob as exemplified by the Grauniad is indulging in projection–attributing their own faults to others. The green blob does fit the description of a conspiracy or a secular religion, with preachers and an orthodoxy.
Perhaps it resembles an ideology more! The groupthink is more like the ideology of the U.S.S.R. Remember East Germany.
Simple put, CAGW is a manufactured crisis. Full stop.