Over at Climate Depot, Marc Morano wonders why Andrew Revkin is calling attention to an article linking Holocaust denial to “climate denial”. He writes:
What’s up with NYT’s Revkin? He touts essay: ‘A look at denial, from Holocaust to climate fight’ by a survivor of Bergen-Belsen & a warmist physics prof. at Brooklyn College Read the Full Article
Is featuring an essay linking Holocaust denial to climate ‘denial’, worthy of a shout out on Revkin’s blog? Excerpt: ‘Denying the Holocaust today, with all the available factual information, requires denying of all of history… But most of our history is based on flimsier evidence, and climate change deniers like to say that using scientific ‘theories’ to explain climate change is not really ‘proof.’
In an email exchange prior to Morano’s post, I wrote:
It seems to me that Mr. Revkin is cementing his approval of comparisons between holocaust deniers, and “climate deniers”. That will be the topic of my post on the issue, unless Andy has an alternate credible explanation. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt until I hear from him.
Revkin “on the run in Asia” as he put it, responded:
I thought it worth noting this post because the writer is a rare breed — a physicist and environmental studies professor and also a survivor of the Holocaust. That gives him the right to explore this terrain, whatever you or I think of his conclusion.
Tumblr is an efficient means of posting the equivalent of a Tweet. I did not endorse his views.
In fact, I agree that most such comparisons are flawed. Back in 2007, before I switched to the Op-Ed side of The Times, I wrote Climate, Coal and Crematoria on Dot Earth to question one such effort by James Hansen.
Tomkiewicz also illustrates the normal nature of the deep divisions among physicists — even Nobelists in physics — on evidence for disruptive greenhouse-driven climate change. Feel free to debate him on the merits of his thesis.
I also mentioned in the email exchange that Mr. Revkin had made some prior reference to Nazi Germany, which I asked him about some months back, but never posted about it. Today seemed like a good time to do so.
By policy, I don’t normally allow Nazi photos/discussion on my blog, being very proactive about Godwin’s Law, but this requires an exception. Screen cap below.
Revkin gives a Tumblr repost (akin to a Twitter re-tweet):*
Ordinary people. The courage to say no.
The photo was taken in Hamburg in 1936, during the celebrations for the launch of a ship. In the crowd, one person refuses to raise his arm to give the Nazi salute. The man was August Landmesser. He had already been in trouble with the authorities, having been sentenced to two years hard labor for marrying a Jewish woman.
We know little else about August Landmesser, except that he had two children. By pure chance, one of his children recognized her father in this photo when it was published in a German newspaper in 1991. How proud she must have been in that moment.
(via inspirement)
And writes: I enjoy things like this immensely.*
(*Both of these sentences were clarified from the original post I made to separate Revkin’s words from the Tumblr repost – Anthony)
Yet, Mr. Revkin, in his capacity as journalist, was quite possibly the first reporter to “confirm” authenticity of the Heartland Leak Documents, including the faked one, seems to not grasp how this world view of his is ironic in the context of his daily reporting.
I asked Revkin on Feb 17th what he thought about that photo:
Do you see any irony in your position?
And he replied:
Irony in relation to my position on climate science as it relates to my position on someone standing up to political terror and tyranny?
I said “yes” and he replied:
To you, who’s the climate equivalent of the guy standing with his hands down?
If you’re going to propose/imply that I’m an apologist for alarmism, I’d have to reject that and ask you to point to a pattern in my coverage of the science that shows this.
I’ve been pretty quick to question anyone trying to cast climate science as a “party loyalty” kind of issue.
This may be relevant. Here’s my response on the fairness question (climategate v. denialgate) and the Dan Rather issue.
As for the “…who’s the climate equivalent of the guy standing with his hands down? ” question posed by Revkin, I see it this way: I think climate change skeptics see themselves as that man, I see myself as that man. Likewise, many AGW advocates see themselves as that man, standing up for the Earth and thus is borne the clash of ideals.
Like August Landmesser’s brave stance, I believe climate skeptics are “Ordinary people. [with] the courage to say no.” and by saying no, we are being trashed, reviled, and libeled in the media and paid propaganda blogs (like DeSmog, Romm’s Climate Progress, and Grist) for doing so.
The mindless regurgitation of the fabrications in the Heartland faked document without even checking authenticity first, showed just what sort of mindset we are fighting in the media, and it seems to me that what Mr. Revkin “enjoys” seeing as being a brave person in one historical venue, he views as a nuisance in others. Here’s why. He tweeted this a week later, just after DeSmog blog launched their assault on the Heartland Institute and climate skeptics worldwide.
My irony meter pegged, the needle broke off, flew out, and embedded itself into the wall of my office when I read that, because of Revkin’s post about August Landmesser just a week earlier.
The be absolutely clear, so that opportunists don’t try to spin this around, I don’t view pro AGW people as “Nazi’s” and nobody should ascribe any such opinion to me.
Quite the contrary, I simply view them as people with a rigid worldview that I and millions of others (according to recent polls) disagree with based on our review of the available science.
But, since Mr. Revkin opened this door in the context of recent events, I felt it important to bring it to light. It is also important to review who brought the comparisons of holocaust denial and climate skepticism together, a mainstream journalist, columnist Ellen Goodman, is credited with popularizing the usage in 2007. Here, she makes a clear unambiguous connection:
I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future. – Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, February 9, 2007 “No change in political climate” on the Wayback Machine here
There’s more than enough climate ugliness to go around on both sides, and what is it doing? Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. said this of it last May, describing the tactics of his opponent Joe Romm:
…[it is] making enemies out of friends and opponents out of fellow travelers.
In my view, the same can be said about the recent billboard fiasco.
I also want to reiterate that Heartland made a huge misstep and blunder with their recent billboard campaign, and that while it is technically true that “unabomber” Ted Kaczynski did in fact write about his concerns about greenhouse gases in his manifesto (I checked), the method of messaging chosen by Heartland was just plain dumb, ugly, and counterproductive in my view. From what I gather, their intent was to use the same tactics that have been employed by alarmists against skeptics, to illustrate how these ugly tactics are used. But, when you sink to using the same tactics as your opponent, you give away any moral advantage you might have, and I think Heartland did that. I’ve made some mistakes like that myself. The best you can do is to apologize, learn from them, and never repeat them. When you are bombarded with hateful messaging almost 24/7, sometimes you make a mistake in your reply. Heartland made a mistake, a big one. I think Vaclav Klaus summed it up pretty well. From the Guardian:
Václav Klaus, the Czech president and prominent climate sceptic, has condemned a controversial billboard campaign used by a rightwing US thinktank to advertise the forthcoming conference at which he is scheduled to give the keynote speech. However, his spokesman said Klaus will not join other speakers who have pulled out in protest and says he still intends to proceed with the engagement.
I agree with his position in condemning the billboard campaign, as well as his decision to go to the conference. After careful consideration, I will attend as well.
As we witnessed yesterday with the Romm/Pielke Jr. blowup, the tactic they are employing now is to “divide and conquer”, using the disgust many have over the billboard fiasco as a wedge issue.
Solidarity is therefore needed more than ever, which is part of why I’ve decided to attend the conference. But, in my opinion, we also need an alternate venue, because trying to give the science discussions and the political rhetoric some degree of separation is impossible in such a convention environment. As Ross McKitrick demonstrated in his rebuttal so well, scientists don’t like mixing with ugly political rhetoric, and political activists often don’t like the logic and restraint that scientists have. There was bound to be a clash of ideals at some point.
Some folks have suggested that this episode marks “the end of climate skepticsm if Heartland fails”. What they don’t realize is that Heartland was never the “headquarters” for climate skepticism, only an occasional facilitator for a bringing together a widely diverse set of people. Even if Heartland were to disappear tomorrow, climate skepticism is now a mainstream issue, it will continue. As confirmed by many polls, there are millions of people who are skeptical of the issue like we are here on WUWT. That isn’t going away any time soon.
Note to commenters: This thread will have an exceptionally low tolerance level for off color or attack commentary. Be on your very best behavior.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Caleb says:
May 10, 2012 at 7:31 pm
RE: otsar says:
May 10, 2012 at 5:58 pm “….I was talking to my Mother on the phone the other day about those times. We both concluded the present situation has the smell and feel of the 1930′s.”
Well said. I wasn’t alive back then but do study history, and I have the same discomfort.
=========================================================================
If I remember correctly, Hitler was first ELECTED to office in 1933 with 33% of the vote. (I could have looked up the details but I don’t think that’s far off.) From that office, he kept grabbing more and more power until …. we know the rest. When he was running for office he preached that he was going to cleanse Germany of non-Aryan influence. Today, the “gospel” is to cleanse the Earth of Man’s influence. CAGW is just the leading bandwagon.
On another note:
“Denier”, why the objections to the label? It’s the implication that there is some irrefutable “truth” that is being intentionally ignored (for whatever motive they want to plug in). That’s why the “warmist” and their enabelers use it so much.
A reverse example of labeling.
Here in the US we have “Entitlement” programs. Those are programs where the government gives individuals money. Such things used to be called “Welfare”. The generation it was presented as “welare” to was a generation where The Contitution was still used in the classroom. it was an attempt to tie it into the preamble explaining the purpose of The Constitution, …to promote the general welfare…”, implying it was the governments job to hand out the cash. Later, welfare reform became ahot political issue. Around then they started to call them “entitlements”, implying they entitled to the handouts, it was was something owed to them.
“Denier” is a label used to imply those who don’t go along with the CAGW hype are denying the obvious.
Paul in Sweden says:
May 10, 2012 at 3:09 pm
Real or not, the policies implemented in the name of CAGW is literally killing people.
The law of unintended consequences. The Buddha taught that good and bad are always in balance. In trying to do good, we will also accomplish bad. It is inevitable. If you look at human history you will find this to be true. Everything has side effects. Newton said much the same: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Most people ignore this very simple teaching. They believe that action is one-sided, that if they intend to do good, only good will follow. Eating vegetables may be good at saving animals, but look at it from the vegetables point of view.
I believe a convincing argument can be made that the global warming cult and its chief theologians constitute a clear and present danger to modern civilization. It is the climate realists (i.e. skeptics) who should be applauded for exposing the fraudulent science underpinning the AGW theory. They are heroes in every sense of the word.
ferd berple says:
May 11, 2012 at 8:10 am
Eating vegetables may be good at saving animals, but look at it from the vegetables point of view.
======================================
Or just look at the dinosaurs. 😎
Nerd says:
I’ve never quite understood over left vs right thing. I tend to view totalitarianism vs personal freedom. Both Nazi and Communism are two totalitarianism yet liberals seem to be fixated on using Nazi on the other side as an example why “right wing people” are bad but “left wing people” also worship communism which killed far more people than Nazis ever did.
“Left” vs. “Right” is just a convenient way for the oligarchs to keep the rabble fighting each other so much that they can’t see what’s really happening. Seems to be working.
Do they teach any history in school these days?
Based on my daughter’s high school “social studies”, no.
Many people tend to exaggerate.
It seems especially common among those with a Marxist-based view of humans, which most CAGW activists have.
(They view humans as inherently untrustworthy, they fail to understand that rational actions are life-sustaining thus people will tend to use them, they ignore objective law and the justice system which work to stop those who initiate force against others. Environmentalist activists are so wrapped up in their negative view of humans that they refuse to appreciate the meaning of the abundant gardens, replanted forests, clean water, sewage disposal systems, and even the secure roof over their head. (Which on the central west coast is typically entirely made of harvested tree parts.) I think there is a deep psychological problem.
I disagree with “quidsapio” about Marxism – while their methods and self-serving desires are common to other ideologues, CAGW activists are particularly prone to Marxist economic beliefs. Consider David Suzuki’s public support of the Occupy Wall Street mob, for example, in which he blamed environmental ills on capitalists. In my experience most CAGW activists are environmental activists, most environmental activists believe Marxist economic presumptions and the “drive to the bottom” view of humans that in our society most commonly comes from Marxism.
I believe it important to identify the roots of thinking of CAGW activists, to help people understand where their error comes from. Of course the science is essential, but since CAGW activists deny real science that puts their theories in at least serious doubt, and even arrogantly refuse to debate the science, they effectively invite the question of why they take those approaches to the subject. I say it is faith, and that Marxism can only be accepted on faith because it is logically contradictory and has been disproven in reality. (Doesn’t even achieve the end used to justify its oppressive means: feed people.)
continued re the nature of CAGW alarmist…..
But some politically “right-wing” people also have a very negative view, some well known US preachers among them (claiming bad thing X is God’s punishment for sin). Same roots in history – Plato’s denial of the mind, just different branches (Saint Augustine versus Kant). (Trying to understand human use of concepts in thinking, Plato theorized that Aristotle’s answer was much better, it is the foundation of much human progress.)
Both types will use whatever subjects they can to advance their anti-human agenda. (Yes, there are sincere people who follow neo-Marxist notions but question the CAGW crowd, and some scientists who may support CAGW but want to science done properly (perhaps Judith Curry) but either they are in the minority or there is a silent majority.)
Since the CAGW types are so sure of catastrophe, any method of preventing it is moral in their view. Since their underlying ideology teaches emotions as a means of knowledge, some branches of it teach that words themselves are causal, and in general rejects the mind thus reasoning, they tend to use “over-the-top” rhetoric, and “try harder” instead of validating their position.
And logic doesn’t matter to them.
(It does not make sense to compare climate problems with targeted extermination of a particular ethnic group, which “The Holocaust” refers to in contrast with general use of the term. Actually, the National Socialist Party attempt to exterminate Jews in Germany seems to better fit the term “genocide”, as often seen in Africa when one tribe tries to wipe out another. CAGW people are concerned about the whole earth ecosystem, preferably without humans in it.)
At the same time, there are terms that people might switch with others. The term “facism” is IMO correct for the method CAGW proponents envision – control people under the guise of still allowing things like private ownership, different from “communism” which does not use such a pretense. (Time to reread Leonard Peikoff’s book “The Ominous Parallels: Nazism and Contemporary America”?)
And sadly, there are people who have survived tyranny but don’t grasp its underlying cause. Some of them are peaceniks – somehow thinking like Neville Chamberlain did with Hitler. They searched for answers, but like Plato chose a false one.
TRM says on May 10, 2012 at 4:27 pm, quoting a standard claim about mass murders by Nazis: “Maybe they deserved it.”
Anyone who uses that line should immediately be firmly challenged on their morality. It is a nonsense claim, but reveals an underlying morality of acceptability of murder of persons based on their religion or genetics or some other common attribute.
In my modest experience it is a standard neo-Marxist line, because they hate economically successful people, which Jews have a reputation of being. (They hate the US for the same reason.) Stalin’s starvation of Ukraine farmers is a general example of that and the control-freak mentality of suppressing any objection.
More recent versions of the line are the tribal genocides in Africa and the Islamic Totalitarian attacks on infidels.
majormike1 says: @ur momisugly May 10, 2012 at 5:48 pm
It’s quite simple, really, If a certain type of tree once grew 100 meters above where they now grow, it was warmer then than now. If a certain type of tree once grew 200 to 400 kilometers north of where they grow now, it was warmer then than now. The evidence of the trees’ former habitat is easily determined by stumps and other woody artifacts, which then leads to the comparative ease of determining when they were there through carbon dating. If trees can no longer live somewhere because of changing conditions, they won’t, and have no choice in the matter.”
__________________________
Eric Adler says: @ur momisugly May 10, 2012 at 6:39 pm
It’s not quite so simple. It takes a long time for tree habitat to develop. The increase in temperature that has taken place since 1975 is so rapid that the treeline has not had sufficient time to move.
_________________________
Are you kidding???? A tree line will move in a year or two. That is what seeds are for and that is why plants have developed very good seed dispersal methods.
Trees are not “Pioneer species” like lichens who literally break down stone to form soil. They move into territory already with developed soil and drive out “Pioneer species” by shading the area.
Steve from Rockwood says:
May 10, 2012 at 1:53 pm
The man in the photo had courage that we can only pretend to understand. Comparing a person unwilling to yield to Nazi rule in 1936 to anything in climate science is insulting. Why people bring up Nazis and the Holocaust for anything – other than perhaps another holocaust – is beyond me. We just shouldn’t be blogging about it. Period.
Right.
Keith Battye says: @ur momisugly May 11, 2012 at 2:51 am
……They believe that he consequences of reducing man made CO2 will be a cleaner, safer happier planet populated by lots of charismatic mega fauna. They are happy to accept that CO2 may be a BS story but cutting it out or back will lead to an environmental Nirvana…..
__________________________
I call it the Bambi Syndrome. City types view animals as people inside furry suits. On occasion this leads to them receiving the Darwin Award.
Given the following:
1) tyrants and psychopaths tout AGW-like positions because they offer blanket justification for population and economic controls, wielded by themselves and their followers, not otherwise easily sold as moral;
2) AGW and Agenda 21 supporters brazenly tout the efficacy of using climate alarmism to leverage popular acquiescence to economic and rights and population rollbacks that would otherwise be totally unacceptable, and carefully position themselves to be the ones implementing said rollbacks
how would you communicate that parallel in strategy, tactics and motivation to the public — effectively?
The biggest problem with the Heartland Billboard is “guilt by association”. If the implication is that those who believe in CAGW are psycopathic terrorists because one psycopathic terrorist believes it, then the same could be said of Christians, Muslims, etc. due to the actions of a few in the name of God (Crusades, Inquisition, 9/11). Such a logical fallacy should have been really obvious to HI.
“Solidarity is therefore needed more than ever”
You don’t need that Anthony. Dumb mistakes are dumb mistakes and the pursuit of facts doesn’t rise or fall on that basis. If the Heartland conference is diminished by this boneheaded billboard it won’t change the science (or the weather) one whit. The scientific facts discussed at this conference should (and will) stand on their own.
The trouble with basing your decisions on “moral advantage” is that it presumes there is a moral compass on both sides and that it is attuned to the same “north”. I’ve seen no evidence of that.
So, for me, I found nothing really “wrong” with the Heartland billboard. It simply reflected at “them” the same behaviours they manifest.
Now, two things need to be made explicit.
1) There is a “moral asymmetry” exploited by “the left” (God I hate that term…) in that the “right” are held to a moral compass while the “left” are not. (Left and right being based on modern USA usage. They change dramatically over time and space so have no broad meaning, only having meaning in the context that “right” is anything the current “left” doesn’t like…) To give your opponent the advantage of defining what is to be vilified as being only “anything in which you believe”, is a greater error than to use that “moral flexibility” of theirs equally against them.
“Good for the goose, good for the gander” in essence.
2) I have a long standing philosophy of “Be the mirror. -E.M.Smith”. It developed out of dealing with bullies and worse as a teen. It basically holds that you can only communicate with someone at their level and in a language they understand. It has worked extraordinarily well for me over the years. If someone is a violent person, they understand violence. To respond to them with “Please stop hitting me, it isn’t nice.” just gets you hit more. ( I know this from extensive personal experience, so don’t even bother…) However, to respond “in kind” ends the attacks. ( I also know this from personal experience, so again, don’t even bother. BOTH are “existence proofs”.)
Now think about it. You are accepting that “attack ads” are just fine from “them”, but you can not respond “in kind”. This violates the “communicate in the language they understand” rule and it violates the “at the same level” rule. It is doomed to fail.
Appeal to “morals” only works if the other side values them. To allow them to not be held to a moral standard, while you are, is a fool’s errand. (Of interest is that this same ‘symmetry rule’ is codified in the Geneva Conventions, where they are applied to signatories but not to others; as inducement to agree to the terms… If you are fighting someone not bound by The Convention, you too are not bound… despite bleating about it.)
So while I strongly endorse the emotion of “we are better than that” and really don’t at all like the idea of a world that sinks to the lowest common denominator:
“Reality just is. -E.M.Smith”
and the best way to get an opponent to agree to polite rules of engagement is to assure them that if they are not bound, neither are you.
Through a great many unpleasant experiences (that will only be shared in person, with a good red wine in attendance) I have learned that such asymmetry, while noble and well intentioned, fails.
Yes. Fails. 100% of the time.
I don’t like it. But “Reality just is. -E.M.Smith”…
For those reasons, I find nothing really “bad” about the original Heartland billboard.
Frankly, were I faced with the phoney “moral outrage” of the opponents claiming it was somehow over the edge, I’d simply look at them and ask if they would like to retract the {long list of bad propaganda ops they have done} and unless they said yes, simply ask “What do you think about symmetry of the moral compass and level ethics for goose and gander?”
Again: I do not like a world such as that. I also don’t like that a lot of good Americans had to die in W.W.I and W.W.II for the stupidity of those European conflicts. But you do what you must and “liking things” does not matter. And “reality just is”, so get over it. Then set about trying to build a place more to your liking.
Or, to put it very curtly:
I knew symmetry, symmetry was a friend of mine; moral outrage at the Heartland billboard from “them”, sir, is no symmetry.
Per “deniers” and “the holocaust”:
My father landed on Utah Beach as a combat Engineer. My wife’s Dad went in as part of the 101st Airborne on “D Day” and liberated the concentration camps, then ended up in Bastogne . I listened to their first hand stories. My New Jersey Uncle (married to my Mom’s sister prior to D Day) was a Russian Jew who lost most of his liver to German shrapnel in W.W.II on his way to relieve Bastogne, then recovered despite being told he would die. To say “we have history” with the Holocaust is to understate dramatically. I find the comparisons of AGW skeptics to Holocaust denial incredibly offensive. Beyond words. So for me, this is not a ‘light’ issue.
And that is what brings me back to the “symmetry” issue.
Folks in the “Warmers” side want to leverage that “Moral outrage” and use it. That, alone, for ANY cause, is offensive. It denigrates the rather singular nature of that moment in history.
To look at those same AGW folks, and show them as acting rather like others who had a similarly broken moral compass (the Unibomber), and to do it in language THEY have chosen as the level they understand; that, to me, is simply to “be the mirror”…
“Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” is pretty good advice… though generally I’ve found “two eyes for an eye” works better… and if someone takes a tooth, well, I figure “stopping when they can’t move any more” is a pretty good guideline.
Oddly, Israel has ended up at a similar conclusion, if their actions be observed…
I suppose an ever shorter form would be to point out that a “Gentleman’s Duel” requires gentlemen. Since those facts are not in evidence, “no holds barred” prevails. Having been on the wrong side of an asymmetric application of a moral compass (many times), I can assure you that it is a broken strategy.
“Be the mirror. -E.M.Smith” works much better.
Gail Combs says:
May 11, 2012 at 2:13 pm
@ur momisugly Eric Adler, May 10, 2012 at 6:39 pm
_________________________
Are you kidding???? A tree line will move in a year or two. That is what seeds are for and that is why plants have developed very good seed dispersal methods.
And it’ll move a lot farther than just a hundred meters, too. I’ve seen a three acre fallow field almost completely filled with maple saplings within two years.
Never underestimate the assist that wind, birds, and rodents give to seed dispersal.
The operative word is “Denial,” not “Holocaust.”
The reaction to using the word “Holocaust” in the same paragraph that climate denier or climate denial appears always causes outrage and the assumption that climate change skeptics are being associated directly with Holocaust Deniers. But that is inaccurate and gets the point backwards.
“Denialism” is the point. Denialism describes methodology, logical fallacies, tactics, and political motivation. It is a description that applies equally to moon-landing denial, round-earth denial, Creationism, HIV denial, tobacco-causes-cancer denial, homeopathy, Holocaust Denial, 9/11 denial, and yes, AGW denial. It has nothing to do with the Holocaust and everything to do with “denialism.” Climate change “deniers” are no more associated with the Holocaust than they are with round-earth denial but “denier” is the operative descriptor for all of them.
“Climate change denial” arose as descriptor in exactly the same way that “9/11 Denier” arose: dismissal of inconvenient evidence contrary to a preconceived political worldview. That 9/11 deniers still exist and still repeat the same debunked claims, still deny physics, structural engineering, aeronautical engineering, chemistry – is denialism. It’s political.
The climate “debate” is political. It has less to do with science and everything to do with politics. It should be easy to see how “climate change denier” arose as a term, and how “denier” accurately describes those who deny inconvenient scientific evidence for political reasons. It should be easy to understand how “climate change” has always been in the political sphere (thanks to Al Gore) and how the politics shapes the “debate” rather than the science. Just look at some of the descriptors used by “skeptics” in the comments section:
“Warmists”, “Marxist”, “alarmist”, “climate-realist”, “totalitarian Malthusian Marxists”, “warmist scientists”, “warmist PR attack”, “corporate warmistas”, “Church of Global Warming movement”.
Now where did those terms come from? Do you actually know what led you to use them as factual?
As long as politics is conflated with the actual science and the importance in understanding the range of uncertainty and the consequences thereof, policy prescriptions will not happen. How are you going to get beyond the politics to dealing with the science?
http://brooklyn-cuny.campusreform.org/group/blog/college-professor-climate-change-genocide-will-be-worse-than-holocaust