Even ad engines see the religious connection to global warming
Lately there’s been an ongoing series of rants in my local newspaper, the Chico Enterprise Record, from global warming activists posing as moralists with holier-than-thou views about how noble their world view is, and how terrible that of others who aren’t jumping on the bandwagon is. I’ve stayed out of the argument, because in this case, the levels of the arguments are not generally worth wasting time on, and I often think about the quote attributed to Mark Twain about “never argue with a fool, onlookers might not be able to tell the difference“.
Today though, that changed, with a letter so ridiculous, so repulsive, so condescending, and at the same time so hilarious, I thought it worth bringing to attention here. The screencap below made me laugh out loud today, not so much because of the ugly content, but because of the advertisement the ad engine decided to place next to the letter was delicious irony.
Heh. Priceless juxtaposition.
The citation of the Fugitive Slave Act is a nice touch don’t you think? /sarc As we’ve seen, if some people had their way, similar laws might be enacted for anyone who aids and abets a climate skeptic.
I would say that Patrick Newman’s letter to the editor suggests he is one of those “low information voters” we hear so much about. He appears to get his information from “approved” outlets, where he doesn’t get much more than talking points and platitudes for regurgitation elsewhere with a dash of faux moral outrage thrown in for good measure.
I wonder what Mr. Newman would say about Climate scientist James Annan’s new position on the issue where he says “the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade, all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable.“. Would Dr. Annan be a “denier” too? Annan has come to realize that global warming has stalled, putting the theory to the test, while new papers being published point to lower climate sensitivity.
The break from consensus by Annan is notable and courageous, but also pragmatic. Data trumps theory every day of the week and twice on Sunday, and as even the IPCC seems to suggest with their graph of model projections versus actual data, the future doesn’t look so gloomy and doomy.
You can read the letter from Patrick Newman in full here. Anyone that wishes to respond, here’s the way to do so:
The Chico Enterprise-Record encourages letters to the print editor. They must be 250 words or fewer and should include an address and home telephone number for verification. Letters may be edited for length, taste, libel, and clarity. The Chico Enterprise-Record reserves the right to edit or reject any letters.
Send letters to letters@chicoer.com.
I’ll admit that about 1990, right after James Hansen’s famous 1988 address before congress (where they turned off the air conditioning in the room for “dramatic effect”, fearing their science was so weak) that I once saw the issue much as Mr. Newman did, less the angry condescension. Then I looked deeper, leaving my “comfort zone” then, and found the argument wanting.
My reply: “Gee, what an eloquent tome…guaranteed to make us defect from ‘denial’ in droves!”
I would love to think that any letters that they recieve they would post, but it has been my experience that they will refuse to post/print it. I have had several civil conversations with my local paper (AZ Daily Sun) editor on particular opinion pieces and the lack of competing viewpoints or factual information, but he never publishes anything that I have to say.
REPLY: I know the editor, David Little, personally, he’s pretty good about giving space to both sides. Though, despite my private protestations, he seems to think that the word “denier” is an acceptable label to use, even though he admitted privately to me that he wouldn’t print other slur labels commonly applied to people that are of a lineage, country, or cause. – Anthony
The the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act means that the Federal Government supported slavery. It was the northern churches that acted against slavery and the birth of the Republican Party that finally brought an end to slavery with the loss of 600,000 American lives.
-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (“My Struggle”), Vol. I
Open Letter to Mr. Patrick Newman:
Sir, You are invited to comment and join a discussion over your views here at WUWT.
The truth will set you free.
What the heck is a “utilitarian humanist”? Is that a euphemism for something?
Another good Mark Twain-ism comes to mind in regard to CAGW –
“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they’ve been fooled.”
As for Science & Religion, I have not encountered a single scientific truth that is inconsistent with my belief in God.
Maybe Patrick should exam how “his” policy of biofuels has harmed poor folks in the world. Fix the log in your own eye.
The juxtaposition is probably due to a high frequency of co-occurrence of “religious” and “moral”. I can’t really recall “moral” used in normal speech or in any texts I read ordinarily. It was probably invented as a hate-word without a specific meaning by religious people. Or schoolteachers. I remember angry notes my school sent to my parents: “His behaviour is amoral. He puts his needs above those of society.”
Patrick Newman typifies today’s degraded pop-cult, “all wheeze and no bellows.” Disguised as moralizing, PN’s supremely arrogant yet ill-informed assertions betray willful ignorance of rational discourse. Answer as you will, his response will always be: “It’s true because I say so, and who are you to dispute the Great PN?”
Substituting for any reasoned argument, this attitude prevails in nine-of-ten “soft fascist” cases, likely to “harden” as frustrated ideologues confront reality. Asking PN to state a falsifiable hypothesis is like depriving a squirrel of its cache. Beware… even small, furry rodentia may have rabid bites.
Coud you provide a reference for the draft IPCC graph? Thanks
REPLY: Sure, the IPC AR5 leak, right here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/
Anthony
PaulH,
See here for a good definition of humanism http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2009/10/what-is-humanism.html.
Utilitarianism is a moral system where all moral judgments are made on the basis of maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering. “The greatest good for the greatest number” is a utilitarian type statement.
Combining these two philosophies can produce some truly barbaric behavior. If you believe that doing x will prevent 1 million deaths then killing a few hundred thousand to achieve x is easy to justify for the utilitarian humanist.
I guess the fact that the evils of slavery were real and evils of global warming are a projection based on models has been lost on Mr Newman.
I wonder what Ute Hum Newman thinks of the huge loss of California’s best farmland to solar developers? The solar fields can’t go in the desert because the desert is reserved for “endangered” animals, so they replace farmland instead. Two of Ute Hum Newman’s favorite idiot causes, directly combining to cause starvation. I suppose this is a utilitarian way to get rid of humanity.
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/technology&id=8970685
Hillary Clinton’s apology to the Chinese for America’s sins of consumption, beseeching them to shun the US path of error, her reassurance that “deniers” were primarily religious fundamentalists who could be appealed to with the biblical “stewardship of the earth duty” , make clear that we are engaged with an essentially religious movement.
The decline of traditional religious institutions leaves a void for all those drives and rewards that the new Church of Sustainablility (eternal life, at least for Mother Earth!) provides.
A visitor to an Evangelist Al Gore training, who witnesses the altar call where 12 year olds come forward to dedicate their lives to saving the planet, will recognize the drill….even before the collection plate is passed.
Beware of atheists proselytizing morality.
I am reminded that nearly all politicians and AGW extremists, as (knowingly) wayward as many of them are, still consider themselves “Christians” and attend church regularly (though perhaps only for a “What If” guarantee). Once again religious hypocrisy is unbounded. When religion is used to justify ANY issue, I just logically tune out and am usually disposed to automatically take the opposite side, because if religion is needed to further that cause, logic (and probably empathy and morality) has already sailed.
“Data trumps theory every day of the week and twice on Sunday, and as even the IPCC seems to suggest with their graph of model projections versus actual data, the future doesn’t look so gloomy and doomy.”
I was under the impression that the “observed” values in the above AR5 graphic were “adjusted” temperatures, rather than DATA.
Claiming to be the 21st century moral equivalent of the abolitionists apparently is now all the rage with people who do not wish to debate. This is the second time this week I’ve seen it used. The other being by people who wish to ban guns in civilian hands. In both cases, all it conveys to me is their need for moral preening and their unwillingness to do the hard work required in order to advance fact based arguments.
Mr. Newman’s letter demonstrates an astounding lack of logic. He cites the Fugitive Slave Act 1850, as the reaction of Congress and thus the mass of then current American opinion as being in favour of slavery. This is wrong in that it was simply an extension of the Law of Property Acts then on the books, lobbied for by the slave owners. Only poor, brave little Wisconsin failed to ratify the Act.
He, then,seeks to draw a parallel with the over riding boredom shown these days to ever more bloated claims from the AGW ‘Consensus’.
Let me redraw the map for him:
for slave owners substitute ‘the Gang’, those who stand to lose funding if AGW finally turns out to be a turkey,
for brave little Wisconsin, substitute unfunded, but healthy, scepticism.
So now what we have is the consensus in the wrong and brave little sceptics in the right.
The warmers need to lead by example instead of just whining all the time.
They need to cut their energy usage by 50%. 50% less electricity, 50% less vehicle travel, 50% less consumption of goods, even something silly like 50% less use of cement since it is a high GHG producer.
And the US GHG emissions are already falling a lot. The warmers need to start supporting fracking because it is clearly leading to lower emissions already and its implementation is just getting started.
Instead, they just whine and use even more energy and protest against something which is already showing results.
Having a past resident of your fair city (the 80’s), it is my recollection is that the local paper was known as the Enterprise Wretched.
Morality is a subjective concept it certainly isn’t absolute. I read in todays Sunday Telegraph, that here in the UK the planned offshore windfarms are going to cost £120 Billion in subsidies alone over the next 20 years! What is moral about forcing the elderly into fuel poverty, where the choice is be hungry or shiver? I then moved on and read Christopher Bookers excellent column where he wrote that someone on the TV stated that mankind contributes 7 times more CO2 to the atmosphere than all the other sources put together. He says the actual figure is 3% ,with the oceans contributing 57% and animals 38%. Now I don’t believe everything I read,, but if he is wrong by a factor of 4 that is still only 12%!
Is it moral to deliberately mislead people, or to be blunt; lie to them?
I think not!
In a role reversal to Mr Newman’s posited slavery connection, WUWT is an underground railroad of truth.
But I suppose he would term it a Hansenesque “death train”.
I have a great uncle who lies beneath a civil war battle field. I am disgusted with this mealy-mouthed writer who dares to make such comparisons between the gravity of civil war and the gravity of a warm summer’s night. However, he has the freedom to make such a ludicrous claim because of such battles.