James Hansen’s understudy, eco activist and founder of 350.org Bill McKibben just gave me an endorsement, which I’m surprised about. The article, syndicated in a number of outlets is titled Climate-change deniers on the ropes
McKibben writes of the Heartland billboard, claiming it has put a damper on all things skeptic, and has pretty much driven Heartland’s donors away. Perhaps he missed this report where Heartland says the donors have doubled, despite losing some.
Here’s the money quote though. McKibben writes:
Whatever the final outcome, it’s worth noting that, in a larger sense, Bast is correct: this tiny collection of deniers has actually been incredibly effective over the past years.
The best of them – and that would be Marc Morano, proprietor of the website Climate Depot, and Anthony Watts, of the website Watts Up With That – have fought with remarkable tenacity to stall and delay the inevitable recognition that we’re in serious trouble. They’ve never had much to work with. Only one even remotely serious scientist remains in the denialist camp. That’s MIT’s Richard Lindzen, who has been arguing for years that while global warming is real it won’t be as severe as almost all his colleagues believe. But as a long article in the New York Times detailed last month, the credibility of that sole dissenter is basically shot. Even the peer reviewers he approved for his last paper told the National Academy of Sciences that it didn’t merit publication. (It ended up in a “little-known Korean journal”.)
McKibben goes on to name other skeptics, including Monckton and Luboš Motl, for their roles.
I got quite the kick out of this ending though:
But damn, it’s a hard fight, up against a ton of money and a ton of inertia. Eventually, climate denial will “lose”, because physics and chemistry are not intimidated even by Lord Monckton. But timing is everything – if he and his ilk, a crew of certified planet wreckers, delay action past the point where it can do much good, they’ll be able to claim one of the epic victories in political history – one that will last for geological epochs.
Gosh, “certified planet wreckers”? Where does one get a certificate like that? Is getting one like being a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, where only a valid credit card is needed? If so, maybe I’ll offer them here.
Couple of things Bill, since I know you read WUWT:
1. Where’s the beef?
2. Hansen’s alternate view of cause was swept under the rug, he’s flip-flopped on the causes of global warming back and forth.
3. Climate “Deniers” Winning the War
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
UPDATE: here’s another article, with “planet wreckers” in the title
NOTE: This is an update by Mike Lorrey, added after the fact – Anthony
Bill “the weepster” McKibben is well-deserving of certificates and awards in many fields himself such as;
Fact Fabrication
Confusion of Weather with Climate
Emotion-Laden and Highly Irrational Argument
And many more. In any case, he’s certifiable.
Skimming through this, I see the usual patterns such as:
– Defining “scientist” to exclude anyone who questions alarmist beliefs (part of their tactic is “argument from authority” but they go well beyond that, setting themselves up as priests)
– Suppressing expression
– People get so wrapped up in their view on a particular subject they can’t listen to anyone else
– Some even believe their own lies (the more they repeat them the more they believe them and the more they have invested in them)
– Underlying beliefs drive their conclusions (we know the underlying beliefs of most environmentalists are ideologies that deny the human mind, most often Marxism).
I’ve seen some of that from people with objective beliefs – heated arguments with exaggerated use of language, red herrings, and failure to focus. But it is more likely from those whose underlying beliefs deny the mind, thus have no solid thinking method so end up relying on emotions as a means of knowledge and debate