Are you now or have you ever been a global warming denier?
Guest post by David Ross
Some have suggested that the Fakegate affair has been discussed enough. They are wrong. Peter Gleick is a minor figure in climate science and his actions are of little account. But the reaction of all the global warming alarmists, who see nothing wrong with what he did, is much more significant.
More important still: this is an aspect of the climate debate that everybody can understand. It is much simpler to grasp than the issues raised by Climategate. You don’t need to be a climatologist or scientist or statistician. There’s no need to draw a graph or drill an ice core. All the information you need is straightforward and laid bare.
The fact that, despite all this, those alarmists still can’t distinguish right from wrong, tells many of us more about the climate debate than anything else. Until Gleick and his supporters admit that what they both did is wrong, we shouldn’t let them off the hook.
Others don’t want to see the science content of Watts Up With That diluted. I agree. But would also argue that we humans are part of the biosphere and examining what forcing mechanisms are operating on us and how we react is a scientific issue. I suspect that what many of the alarmists really want is not geo-engineering to “fix” the planet; it is to conduct a large scale controlled experiment in social engineering. Unfortunately for them, they are discovering that people do not behave as predictably as CO2 molecules.
The alarmists main concern seems to be the possibility that their monopoly might be broken and that “contrary” views might be heard in the classroom. As they regard Gleick as a “hero” and heroes are tend to be taken as role-models. I wondered what kind of stuff they do want taught to our kids. So I dumbed-down Fakegate (for the benefit of the ethically challenged) to an analogy that could be used as a classroom assignment.
***************
School Assignment 1: Citizenship and Ethics
Someone hacks your Facebook account and posts all your personal stuff online. They also insert a page with stuff you didn’t write that makes you look like a horrible person. The hacker emails 15 of his friends and says he got all the stuff, including the nasty bits, from your account. His friends show all this stuff to everyone at school and they tell them it all came from your account.
Almost everyone at school, even the teachers, now hates you and tells you so. You tell everyone that the nasty bits are fake and that you didn’t write them. But the teachers don’t believe you. They say that because most of the stuff is true the nasty bits must be as well. They post some of the pages on the school website highlighting the nasty bits and tell everyone not to talk to you.
Some of your friends speak up for you and point out some flaws in the faked parts that prove they are forgeries. The flaws are substantial enough to actually identify the hacker. The hacker then confesses but only to hacking your account. He says he got the page with the nasty bits anonymously in the mail and that he only hacked your files to find out if they were true. You’re shocked because at the same time he was hacking your files you had invited him to come and talk to your friends.
The teachers ignore the evidence of forgery and then try to justify the hacker’s actions, saying that although document phishing and impersonation is wrong, the hacker is a “hero” because they always thought you were a horrible person; horrible persons are increasing and the school is heading towards a horrible person catastrophe.
Q: Discuss the ethical implications of what just happened. There are bonus marks if you can work in a reference to polar bears.
***************
As for junk science, the movies “The Day After Tomorrow” and “An Inconvenient Truth” are both used in our schools to “teach” kids about climate science. But they deserve an article of their own.
One meme currently being propagated by alarmists, that has all the appearance of a coordinated PR campaign, is that skeptics arguments and tactics are no different from creationists who want to “teach the controversy” in schools. I am not religious and don’t want to see creationism taught in schools, other than perhaps a single paragraph mentioning that such views exist. My belief in the theory of evolution has not changed. However, because of the climate debate, I am no longer as contemptuous of creationists as I once was.
It is regrettable that the alarmists are inserting religion into the “debate” (but it is part of a pattern of caricaturing skeptics). They also don’t seem to realize that, as the extent to which they are wrong about the climate becomes increasingly revealed, they will strengthen the hand of those who want creationism taught in schools.
It is however wrong to assert that studying religion cannot teach us anything useful.
***************
School Assignment 2: History
The Medieval Alarm Period
In the Middle Ages, cathedrals could take centuries to build. Three or even six hundred years was not uncommon. Throughout Medieval Europe there were always many cathedrals in various stages of construction. Except that in the decades leading up to the year 1000, very few significant building projects were started and many existing ones were abandoned.
Most of Christendom had convinced themselves that Jesus would reappear on, what they believed to be, the 1000th anniversary of his birth. Nobody saw any point in starting projects or continuing existing ones that would not be finished before the end of the world. We can only assume that this millenarian malaise affected all areas of life, not just church-building. People gave themselves over to fervent prayer and further demonstrated their fervour by roasting heretics. It must have been a grim time. If there had been a Vatican newsletter back then, perhaps it might have sounded like this:
“God’s wrath continued to worsen during 988 – a year in which unprecedented combinations of extreme weather events killed people and damaged property all over Christendom. The clerical evidence for the accelerating influence of human sinfulness further strengthened, as it has for decades now.” [1]
When Jesus failed to appear, the Vatican (or perhaps we should call it the Infallible Panel on Christ’s Coming), assured their flock that the fire and brimstone would definitely start raining down on the anniversary of his crucifixion, instead of that of his birth.
Another three more decades of prayer and malaise followed. When it eventually became obvious to all that Christ wasn’t coming any time soon, the clergy told the people to rejoice, because all their prayers and piety had worked, and God, in all His mercy, had postponed Doomsday. There was then a boom in cathedral building, financed off the backs of the long-suffering peasants as they strove to show their gratitude. And the power and authority of the clergy was stronger than ever.
The church maintained its grip for centuries and became ever more corrupt, as institutions with absolute authority always do. On top of all the taxes and tithes, it eventually introduced a system of carbon credits called indulgences where people could avoid being carbonized in hell by paying a fee to offset their sins. When even the dumbest of village idiots, in the dumbest village, of the dumbest province, saw through this scam, there was a rebellion. Centuries of bloodshed ensued before the people of Europe began to realize that perhaps it would be better to keep church and state separate.
Q: Discuss how crises, either real or imagined, can be used to seize or hold onto power. Bonus marks for making any valid comparisons to current events.
***************
I didn’t mean to offend anyone’s religious sensibilities. We all have our bad epochs. There are many different interpretations of history, but there does seem to be a consensus that it tends to repeat.
Let’s use some material so beloved of left-leaning teachers that it is almost as mandatory in their classrooms as a Koran in a madrassa.
***************
School Assignment 3: English Literature
The 1952 play, The Crucible, by Arthur Miller, portrays the Salem witch trials and popularized the phrase “witch hunt”.
Q: Discuss the language used by the protagonists. Demonstrate how the choice of particular words or appeals to authority can be used to exclude or dismiss counter evidence or opposing points of view. The following excerpts may be useful.
HALE: This is a strange time, Mister. No man may longer doubt the powers of the dark are gathered in monstrous attack upon this village. There is too much evidence now to deny it. You will agree, sir?
HATHORNE: Now, Martha Corey, there is abundant evidence in our hands to show that you have given yourself to the reading of fortunes. Do you deny it?
DANFORTH: What are you! You are combined with anti-Christ, are you not? I have seen your power, Mister, you will not deny it!
Bonus marks for illustrating your answer with current real world examples.
***************
Science is based on observation, religion on authority. The more the global warming alarmists ignore observation and appeal to authority, the more like a religion they become.
***************
School Assignment 3: Citizenship and Ethics
Tick whichever is applicable. People who do not believe in man-made catastrophic global warming should be…
1. branded as deniers.
2. harassed in their homes and workplaces.
3. forcibly tattooed on their bodies.
4. gassed with carbon monoxide.
5. obliterated with explosives.
If you ticked all of the above, full Marx.
References:
1. (inspired by) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/climate-change-denial-_b_1185309.html
2. “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.”
Greenpeace
3. “Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.”
Richard Glover, radio talk-show host and 20 year columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald
4. “I’m prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics – put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas – say, carbon monoxide.
You wouldn’t see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing.
Jill Singer, writer for the Melbourne Herald Sun
5. 10:10 video -has to be seen to be believed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Mw5_EBk0g
***************
Final Assignment: Question for everybody
There used to be a time when junk science was not taught in our schools and our kids were not indoctrinated. There used to be a time when scientists and everybody could debate in a climate of free enquiry, free of censorship and intimidation. Has the climate changed?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Like others, I think it would have been better to quit before going for the history and religious examples, which don’t hold water.
The issue is both practical and ethical. You have someone who, for all his continuing denials, seems to have invented a document. He saw nothing wrong with creating a totally false piece of evidence for the ‘Cause’. Others say that inventing evidence for the ‘Cause’ is a fine and heroic thing to do.
Now, with this established, how much do you trust anything these people say, or have ever written? This includes their ‘peer-reviewed’ scientific papers, and the data used in them. How much has been invented for the ‘Cause’?
—–
ali says (March 18, 2012 at 3:32 am)
“As a global warmin alaramist, I am glad for what Gleick did,”
—
Really? The net effect is to cast doubt on many of AGWs “hard-core” leading lights and apologists. They really cannot tell truth from invention. So, spot the similarities:
1) Used car salesmen
2) Politicians running for office (or just politicians, period)
3) Cold-callers for timeshare
4) AGW scientists?
From some of the comments here, rushing to defend religious beliefs, which are not supported by actual historical evidence (sorry but I’m a bit unusual, after finsihed by degree in science I went off and did another one in history, mainly on the Reformation period in Europe hence my interest here). It is easy to see how AGW has become a religion with its own acolytes who cry heresy as soon as anyone dares to debate it. They should put up the evidence and leave the conjecture (models) for the story tellers or admit it is just a belief, not founded upon scientific grounds but those of faith. Which would be fine, as then we could all treat it as such, each to our own ontological viewpoint.
Maybe, just maybe, we are starting to see the re-emergence of an animist Green-Faith based around Gaia, in which Mann et al are certainly taking upon the trappings and actions of high priests. Maybe they are not scientists after all but Druids of the Heat!
“Once these very basic principles of Western democracies have been forever breached then the future is indeed unknown regardless of whether humans are changing the climate or not.”
In this circumstance, the future is not unknown at all. It currently is exhibited all over the planet at the present time. Man will and does, revert to his biologically ordained fundamental social paradigm – the sanctity of tribalism. Man’s social construct is based on two biological phenomena, from which all else has derived evolutionarily and derivatively: reproduction and its derivative sociology that has evolved from the needs of its altricial progeny ( simpler terms – “infants”), and fear.. The large scale base of cultural norms is a highly evolved outcome of the biological imperative to reproduce, safely. We create it to facilitate the former and assuage the latter. When it disadvantages individual members to a large enough degree, and, especially when the fear component reaches a threshold, the members re-align their tribal associations and re-group in new tribal hierarchies. This isn’t sociology, this is a fundamental mammalian paradigm, exibited by many species.
It means, in the long haul, that cooler heads will not likely prevail. It means that baser concepts of survival may well become the norm, again, for a time. And yes, climate will be the least of our concerns, except that, if the collapse is complete enough that the immense infrastructure that we’ve built is unsustainable, the sub-tropics will get crowded, and you won’t likely be able to hold on to that timeshare in the Carribean..
“Paradigm shift” was a popular buzzword in the early ’70s. It’s ba-a-a-c-k….
Consider, if we may, that an climate scientist were found to be the author of the fake Heartlands document. What would we expect to be the response of his/her colleagues on the anti-sceptic side? We can find hints of how they might respond even in the peer review literature.
Consider the extract below from Naomi Oreskes in Environmental Science & Policy 2004. Under the heading ‘Science and public policy: what’s proof got to do with it?’ she seems to be saying that Carson’s did the right thing by going beyond the science, and that this was ok precisely because her goal was to persuade the public:
After summarising the criticisms and the authority of the critics, Oreskes then says: ‘In some respects the critics were correct.’ She continues:
Is Oreskes condoning the deception of the public about science for a worthy cause? For such views Oreskes is celebrated and not condemned. This seems to confirm that Nobel Cause Corruption has been acceptable in environmental science long before fakegate — and that sceptics who trace it back to Carson are on the money.
Finally consider: anyone who condones such misrepresentation of the science to the public…how can we trust what they say about to the public about science? Indeed, Oreskes has a lot to say about it. Around the time this article was published, Oreskes was caught out with a critical error in the presentation of her evidence for the level of scientific consensus — against media and policymaker perceptions of uncertainty. By this time sceptics were starting to question all sorts of claims — and this sometimes surprised those making them. And sure enought those who repeated her simple experiment got nothing like her results. Yet they were quoted in the Royal Society’s layman’s guide to missleading arguments. When she was caught, Science journal had to issue an embarrassing correction. After what she said about Carson, would we be forgiven for thinking that this was more purposful than an error?
[snip – as above]
[snip]
This comment strays too far into ‘discussion of religion’ see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/policy/ ~jove, mod
Brilliantly put, thanks David.
There used to be a time when junk science was not taught in our schools and our kids were not indoctrinated. There used to be a time when scientists and everybody could debate in a climate of free enquiry, free of censorship and intimidation.
I’m not sure about that bit. Every generation has had its own entrenched beliefs and prejudices, which were viewed at the time as gospel – in other words, there was a consensus. Then comes the paradigm shift.
Plate tectonics is a brilliant parallel to today’s ideas of natural climate variability through cycles. Both are based on observation. Who could look at a world map and not see the jigsaw pieces flying apart? Well, lots of pre-1950s eminent scientists, that’s who!
Get a grip, people.
It seems pretty obvious that the Catholic Church was picked for the analogy because most educated Americans, Brits, and Aussies are at least passingly familiar the history there. Western Civ anyone??? Picking a Japanese analogy might work if WUWT had primarily Asian readers but would not resonate with most others.
And to deny that Cathedrals took centuries to build is ridiculous. You can argue that a PORTION of a cathedral was finished in mere decades but a portion does not a cathedral make.
And finally, as a Christian and a Catholic I can see where the anolgies of ultimate power corrupting the Church speaks to the possibility of ultimate power corrupting ANY governing body. “Indulgences” and carbon credits are a very appropriate comparison. It’s not like he tried to say institutional racism still exists and requiring voter ID is equivelant to Jim Crow laws like some people who can’t live in the present. He made a point of using a period in time that has been documented, repented, and is a cautionary tale.
Meanwhile, back at the science…
[Thank you for attempting to bring it back to the science! ~jove, mod]
Your analogies have put a sharp edge on the Fakegate affair in particular, and alarmists efforts in general. Thank you for bringing this issue into sharp focus for me.
Now I need to share your article with as many people as I can.
“I believe the key is that some people have a psychological feature that prevents them from admitting making mistakes. I learned about this in psychology and I’ve met people with this curious disability. If you have to work closely with this type of person eventually it’s a maddening experience; you simply can’t get them to admit any mistake, no matter the size or importance.”
This is why people vote their entire lives for the same political party and will never admit that they got it wrong, nor that the party of their choice is corrupt and incompetent to a fatal extent. It’s the biggest problem for democracy, and the main reason why it doesn’t work very well. People are too emotionally invested in their previous choices.
And politicians themselves are particularly prone to this fatal disability, which is why so many are refusing to acknowledge the science, and the sceptics’ arguments, on this topic. This is why we on the sceptic side of the AGW argument still have so much work to do. If it weren’t so, we’d be home and dry by now
What about the idea that ‘MARXISM(the rich taking care of you, yeah, right?) MANIFESTO” itself that MANDATES LYING? JUST SAYING…
Christianity is not unique is this respect. Every religion that has ever existed was founded for the express purpose of attaining and maintaining political power, and used the same means. After all what higher authority is there than a god or gods? Zeus made me do it. Thor will strike you down, Quetzalcoatl demands your blood. Allah will give you 72 virgins. Al Gore’s Carbon god will drown your grandchildren if you don’t buy carbon credits. Ad nauseum.
Read up a little on cultural anthropology.
Laurent Duval says:March 18, 2012 at 3:58 am
[…] the dynamics of large institutions (the roman church in 1000 AD or the ‘scientific community’ today) are far more chaotic than we allow ourselves to admit. We tend to see them as monolithic, stable and powerful, following “logical” paths, etc.
Some may so believe, but the existence of this site proves the opposite, at least as regards this community.
I think it is important to find analogies that strike a chord. If I were trying to make a point to a Christian I would quote the Bible and if it were trying to convince a Marxist I would use Das Kapital. Better still to point out that their actions are most like that which they dislike most.
There is no point preaching to the converted. We need to find arguments that bring the other side round, not just amuse other like-minded people.
The climate debate is polarizing society. There is a general perception that the skeptics are right-wing and religious and that the alarmists are left-wing and atheist.
That dichotomy is only partially true. I wanted to demonstrate to the alarmists, some of which I hope will read this blog, that there are such things as atheist climate-skeptics. We are in fact a diverse bunch.
I specifically wanted to use analogies that would work best on the alarmists. If the majority of them are left-wing and atheist then the best comparison is to religious zealotry.
The Crucible, is treated like scripture in some schools. The “progressives” will not like realizing that they are part of a new McCarthyism. The choice of that play and the quotes was very deliberate.
To address Laurent Duval’s point: these are the “clichés” and “popular culture and myths” of American “progressives”. Why not use their own mythology against them?
Hopefully, it might give some pause for thought. Then they might even take a closer look at the science being peddled to them by the IPCC.
************************************
Another comparison (perhaps a positive one this time) between modern environmentalism and Christianity is that they are both based on guilt. Carbon emissions are the new sin.
************************************
David L made an important point on people’s reluctance to back down from mistakes. I think that is a major factor in the current situation. Not just scientists who have committed their life’s work and reputation to a flawed premise. It is also the politicians who fear what the backlash will be when the game is finally up.
This was another point I was trying to make. What happens when a prophecy is not fulfilled? The alarmists are looking for a get out. If they succeed with their plans to transform the world and blanket it with windmills and no or very little warming ensues, then they will claim that it was their actions that saved the world and that we should offer our eternal thanks and obedience.
************************************
neill wrote: “this wasn’t happenstance”
No it wasn’t and it is what I am researching right now.
************************************
Cui Bono wrote:
“Like others, I think it would have been better to quit before going for the history and religious examples, which don’t hold water.”
The jury’s still out. I’m getting a mixed response.
The important part of Fakegate is not Gleick but the reaction of the alarmists to what he did. That’s why I moved on from his tawdry doings.
It also is written that “a person convinced against their will, is of the same opinion still!” Be it ignorance or just denial—Just saying…
That second item in the references about the threat just blew me away. I thought people were exaggerating about things like that. Good article and yet again WUWT delivers, thank you Peter Gleick because without you I would never have found this cool and informative site.
“Tick whichever is applicable. People who do not believe in man-made catastrophic global warming should be…
1. branded as deniers.
2. harassed in their homes and workplaces.
3. forcibly tattooed on their bodies.
4. gassed with carbon monoxide.
5. obliterated with explosives.
If you ticked all of the above, full Marx.”
not so much Marx as someone else, no? “he who cannot be named.” But no point godwining the thing, even though in the case of men like Susuki and Gleick it’s perfectly appropriate.
berniel says:
March 18, 2012 at 4:59 am
Something along this line happened with my sister several years ago.
She’s a green, in CA enviro govt, and was in briefly on govt business. As I prepared dinner, I put on ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ for her to view. After it was over, not disputing the video’s thesis, she said in effect, “Regardless, whether global warming is happening or not, it will move us in the direction we need to move.” As it was a somewhat rare family occasion, I didn’t press the moral implications of misleading the public. Since then, we’ve had an intensive web debate re CAGW, now over at her request, where I alone presented an overwhelming lode of evidence. Yet, last time I saw her, she almost immediately piped up about rising sea levels.
It’s like dealing with zombies. You think they’re finally dealt with — and they pop right up again.
Cologne Cathedral was commenced in 1248 and left unfinished in 1473. Work recommenced in the 19th century and was completed, to the original plan, in 1880. (wiki)
Cologne Cathedral is awe-inspiring. You should go.
Some views:
http://www.koelner-dom.de/
An interesting point to ponder on and forgive me for using warmist rhetoric. But what will be the tipping point that causes the paradigm shift? From Warmist alarmism to climate realism.
Another batch of emails, the Arctic not spiralling away, a cold Summer in Europe or the USA, more rain in Australia, cooling oceans and atmosphere, falling sea levels? Or will it be a prolonged death rattle? With each of the major warmist players retiring into obscurity and carbon laws quitely being superceded by environmental sustainable ones.
Giordano Bruno. Look him up. See what the Church did to him because he was not a believer.
“Giordano Bruno, original name Filippo Bruno, byname Il Nolano (born 1548, Nola, near Naples—died Feb. 17, 1600, Rome), Italian philosopher, astronomer, mathematician, and occultist whose theories anticipated modern science. The most notable of these were his theories of the infinite universe and the multiplicity of worlds, in which he rejected the traditional geocentric (or Earth-centred) astronomy and intuitively went beyond the Copernican heliocentric (Sun-centred) theory, which still maintained a finite universe with a sphere of fixed stars. Bruno is, perhaps, chiefly remembered for the tragic death he suffered at the stake because of the tenacity with which he maintained his unorthodox ideas at a time when both the Roman Catholic and the Reformed churches were reaffirming rigid Aristotelian and Scholastic principles in their struggle for the evangelization of Europe.”
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/82258/Giordano-Bruno
@David Ross
> The alarmists main concern seems to be the
> possibility that their monopoly might be broken
> and that “contrary” views might be heard …
> …. they regard Gleick as a “hero” …
Yes, quite a dilemma for the lefties, who seek a fascist-like control of social opinion. But in this case, with Gleick facing serious felony charges, they will likely throw him under the bus, and choose a new hero.
In fact, it would not surprise me if the Obama crowd starts to call for his indictment, thus trying to gain some political favor with the conservative voting block in the upcoming election.
Great comment and a little scary!
Satire has become reality.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/28/the-gleick-tragedy/#more-57881
“The Law of Warmist BS”
“You can save yourselves a lot of time, and generally be correct, by simply assuming that EVERY SCARY PREDICTION the global warming alarmists express is FALSE.”
Agreed. The alarmists are behaving as the religious zealots. The alarmists are trying to unite religion with the state under the guise of scientific consensus, an appeal to authority. Thanks for the article.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
I agree to much to not reglog it. Good stuff.
Gleick destroyed his own credibility and anybody that would align themselves with him in the wake of the affair suffers the same fate. It comes as no surprise that the the likes of Joe Romm, the Guardian, and Richard Littlemore are defending Gleick’s actions. It is convenient, however, that they have done so. The Gleick affair provides a litmus test to identify the Believers.
Some notable people and organizations have written strongly worded condemnations of Gleick’s actions.
Gavin Schmidt, “Gleick’s actions were completely irresponsible and while the information uncovered was interesting (if unsurprising), it in no way justified his actions.”
James Annan, “His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives….especially those who are desperately clinging on to the faint hope that his “confession” was actually honest.”
The AGU, “AGU is disappointed that Dr. Gleick acted in a way that is inconsistent with our organization’s values. AGU expects its members to adhere to the highest standards of scientific integrity in their research and in their interactions with colleagues and the public.”
Andrew Revkin, “One way or the other, Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed* his credibility and harmed others.”
“I am not religious and don’t want to see creationism taught in schools, other than perhaps a single paragraph mentioning that such views exist. My belief in the theory of evolution has not changed. ” Well, spoken like a true atheist as if science and God don’t mix. Sure, Evolution is a theory with major gaps in it but there is NO OTHER ANSWER SO SHUT UP. This attitude is very dismaying and sounds much like the green screamers. In fact, exactly like the green screamers which you’ve obviously figured out when you say you aren’t as bigoted towards “creationists” as you once were. Yes you are.
The fact that we are here proves “creation” and why can’t evolution be “designed”, which it obviously is?
I watched a show about Hubble. After showing one incredibly beautiful picture after another the host ends the show saying something like “And given gravity and the raw materials, you don’t need a higher power to explain the wonders of the universe”. Seriously. Given a planet and all natural laws then life will evolve until sentient beings walk the world. Not much of gap there. Better keep that to one dismissive sentence in the text book.
However, you are right to keep up the pressure on those who accept the actions of people like Gleick. The same goes for educators who hide-the-decline. Supporters of fraudulent science must be held to account, particularly in the schools.
“berniel says:
March 18, 2012 at 4:59 am”
My sister in-law works for a credit union involved with many green initiatives, and of course gets fed a lot of misinformation. Whenever I would talk about all the misinformation on the alarmist side, she wouldn’t say very much. Except for once when she told me about The Doran survey of 97% of climate scientists, that had just come out. I had never heard of it and investigated it myself.
After I found out it was 75 out of 77 scientists, I showed her how misleading that 97% was.
She was quite surprised and agreed. She seldom talks about “global warming” anymore and has
actually given me some skeptical information as well as a book. I think that incident forced her to
look deeper into the alarmist claims, rather than taking all the “Alarming” headlines at face value.