I’ve been following the online global warming climate change climate disruption debate of late, and I thought it might be helpful to diagram common pro-AGW responses to skeptics.
So: here’s a flowchart I created. It summarizes what I often see while reading pro-AGW/ACC and skeptic blogs, and the often amusing “comment debates” contained therein.
Source at Scribd
Have I left anything out?
Feel free to leave a comment suggesting additions or improvements. Or telling me just what kind of fool I am.
Equal time
Note to flamers: it’s a humor piece. Feel free to create your own ‘Man-made climate change skeptic’ flowchart if you like, leave a comment on this post and I’ll gladly add a link to relevant responses here.
Have I left anything out?
Feel free to leave a comment suggesting additions or improvements. Or telling me just what kind of fool I am.
Equal time
Note to flamers: it’s a humor piece. Feel free to create your own ‘Man-made climate change skeptic’ flowchart if you like, leave a comment on this post and I’ll gladly add a link to relevant responses here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
bsfootprint
Good beginning, but you left out the obligatory foul language and threats of violence by warmists when they can’t validate their arguments in a discussion, also
I’d suggest adding an action – ‘Announcing that any pro-consensus claim that has been shown to be dubious or incorrect (particularly when you have been grimly and loudly defending at’s absolute truth and purity) is “not very important”, “not really my field, so I don’t follow it much or know much about it” or “only a small part of the huge body of evidence for immediate action” and of course “makes no difference to the truth of our coming apocalypse.”
Another ending that is common is stark silence. I regularly got this when I used to be fond of triumphantly posting my plot of actual thermometer records that go back much further than people are usually aware of: http://oi49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg.
BSFootprint;
good beginning and it made me smile, but you have left out the foul language and threats of violence that warmists deem obligatory when they cannot validate their arguments without convincing their protagonists that linking to mad Warmist internet sites will provide essential and final truths. I would think it impossible to depict in any kind of flow chart the sheer frustration of finding one is engaged in a discussion with a person who is not rational but parroting religious dogma which he or she shrieks is scientifically proven fact and peer-revued up the wazoo and back.
Excellent, it’s this sort of humour that we need to take on the Warmists billion (tax) dollar funded propaganda.
I was pondering on this area of the great debate while walking around my local frozen landscape. What we also need is some of those thought provoking photos that the Warmists have used, in their case polar bears on ice floes etc.
But instead, ones that convey the real climate. That it’s actually pretty cold out there in some places, snow on Palm Trees, or that the sea isn’t rising, ancient harbours with modern kids fishing in them and that cold kills more than heat. Ones that show climate does change, naturally. Why it’s called Greenland and not Iceland for example.
Lew Skannen says December 4, 2010 at 11:53 pm
Also needs the unrestrained recursive elements that eventually lead to stack overflow, memory exception and an inevitable crash. Hope Anthony doesn’t intend running this on a wind powered box with no UPS 🙂
I have started reading Dr. Thomas Sowell’s 2009 book “Intellectuals and Society”. It explains a lot about the AGW crowd and it is well worth reading.
http://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Society-Thomas-Sowell/dp/046501948X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291567661&sr=1-2
Dr. Sowell outlines the terrible damage caused by these so called ‘intellectuals”: literally tens of millions are dead because of them. Of special interest in this context are the details of their techniques. And it begs the question: Are these people just self-important, arrogant, deluded fools? Or are they really truly evil?
If you take issue with this, please read the book before you comment.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
Anthony,
Nice to see your continued good humor. It is lightening or rather it is lightning.
Both are good. : )
John
I’d replace “Holocaust deniers” with “Flat Earthers.” Even though the Flat Earth Society takes themselves seriously (last I heard), there’s more humor in that than the Holocaust.
I like the “other bad people” phrase. I’m not a humorist, but I’ve used this “appeal to the reader’s imagination” to good effect myself.
Good job!
“…..Lazy Teen is a 30 something basement troll …..” dwright (2:53 am)
‘LazyTeenager’ exposed:
http://www.sivacracy.net/080211_cartoon_k_a13063_p465.gif
Stemaboat Jack – you asked-
“Are these people just self-important, arrogant, deluded fools? Or are they really truly evil?”
From my contact with a few of them, I would answer “none of the above”.
The AGW believers whom I have corresponded with seem to me to be thoughtful, intelligent, knowledgeable (at least in some areas), socially aware and egalitarian minded, good intentioned people.
In fact, they want to save the world, no less, from our thoughtless, selfish, shortsighted actions.
I suspect they are all too aware that their (relatively) comfortable lifestyles fit uncomfortably with their wish to see good to be done to all the earth and its inhabitants.
Latching onto AGW is to them a masterstroke.
How to save the world in one bold, (apparently) costless, masterstroke.
I suspect that few of them are practicing accountants, who know too well that nothing costs nothing.
That those millions of new green jobs will be required to replace a mere handful of jobs producing power efficiently.
And that the more people employed to produce the same bundle of goodies means the less is available for distribution to the poor.
Deluded – yes I concede that they are deluded, but very well intentioned.
But then you remember what the road to hell is paved with, do you not?
Steamboat Jack says:
And it begs the question: Are these people just self-important, arrogant, deluded fools? Or are they really truly evil?
Thanks for the link, I’ll give it a read. I think it’s an inevitable artifact of the size of the government and all the folks getting money from it.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/tyranny-of-stupid/
The second-best laugh, today.
First: http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/cablegate-governments-aware-of-failure-before-talks/
Mike, Aussie blog host, ¨More like climate cowards. / They hide behind the disinformation of right-wing think tanks, con-men like “Lord” Monckton and bloggers like Anthony Watts and Jo Nova.¨
AusieDan says: December 5, 2010 at 5:21 pm
“Deluded – yes I concede that they are deluded, but very well intentioned.
But then you remember what the road to hell is paved with, do you not?”
Ausie Dan,
Good and Evil: a subject that I have come to ponder in my advanced years. (65) As Dr. Sowell points out in his book, Intellectuals always have the very best of intentions and those intentions often end in disaster. Not for them but for countless others.
Let’s look at just one item and through the prism of that one item, examine these Intellectuals. (Excuse me if I get wordy-the Love of My Life says I tend to do that.)
This topic isn’t original with me; it has been posted on this site before and Lord Monckton briefly mentioned it in one of his speeches that was also linked here. There are plenty of references about this if you care to look.
Malaria was a world-wide disease (not just tropical). There was a malaria epidemic in the Soviet Union that killed tens of thousands in the ‘20s. The Netherlands weren’t declared Malaria free until the late 60’s or early 70’s. That’s 1960’s/70’s. By that time, the world wide Malaria death rate had been reduced to some 50K a year.
It was thought that malaria was going to be eliminated from the planet. That’s when well-meaning Intellectuals were able to end the use of DDT. Since DDT is the most effective weapon against malaria, the death rate has gone from 50K to around one million deaths each year. Slow, painful deaths of mostly poor, mostly black, and mostly women and children in Africa.
George W. Bush started an anti-malaria program in Africa that included the judicious use of DDT. Everyone knows that HE isn’t an Intellectual! His initiative was able to reduce the malaria infection rate by some 90%. GW was hailed by African leaders as the one person that had done the most to help Africans. I believe that the current administration is letting the program lapse. Those well-meaning Intellectuals know that DDT is evil. Everybody knows that.
I don’t know if you are married or not. But suppose that your wife and child have died because these well-meaning Intellectuals withheld technology that could have saved them. How would you consider them under those conditions? Lovable fools or evil?
Would you consider the slow agonizing death of hundreds of thousands, millions of women and children a suitable sacrifice for those women and children to make so that Intellectuals can feel good about doing something for the environment?
A real quandary: Just stupid or evil. And there are many more similar issues, like the Shining Path in Peru. Dr. Sowell does a much better job that I in exploring this subject. Although, I haven’t noticed him asking: “Good or Evil”? Maybe I haven’t read far enough.
E.M.Smith says: December 5, 2010 at 5:53 pm
“Thanks for the link”
E.M.
I hope you enjoy the book. I am just a simple Red Neck and I find his books to be a real treasure. I would recommend all of them. Although, as an ex-Marxist his prose can get a little turgid. But for the most part, his books are suitable for College Fresh-persons.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
I clicked on the link provided by JohnRT and found Watching the Deniers a bit strong for my taste and not funny at all. I may be getting a tad cowardly since getting my 3 score and 10 in. I found the reading there distasteful in the extreme and more than a little scary. Where does all the anger come from?