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.
Send Patrick the IPCC projections with subsequent observations. Add a horizontal line from the top of the 1990 error bar to the 2012 observations (they deliberately left error bars off 2012 for this reason, I’m convinced) and add the 2013 observation and let him see, that despite the sequential “correcting” of raw data of the past 20 years ever upwards (and the 1930s-40s ever downwards) by the keepers of the numbers, the last two years are still within the error bar of 1990!! and the real record high for the US (and much of the world) is 1936. Ask him what he makes of this. Also, inform him that the ‘consensus’ scientists – with over 16 years of no statistically significant warming (half the CO2 warming period) are bringing in gradual declines in the climate sensitivity and a view of lesser and lesser serious warming predictions. Falsification in this science is a gradual manipulation, too.
‘Utilitarian’ refers to an ethical tradition (Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill as founders, Peter Singer as a modern exponent) which says that we should act in such ways that we cause ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’; historically, it served as a driver for various reforms, including the abolition of slavery, and in principle is extended to other sentient beings; ‘humanist’ refers to a focus on the importance of humans (often in contrast to religious ideas focussed on a deity). Unfortunately, IMHO, utilitarianism fails because it does not recognise rights, and because the calculation of ‘the greatest good …’ is practically impossible, because of limited knowledge and our own limited processing capacities. Humanism may be OK, but it often excludes concern for other beings (other animals, plants, ecosystems, etc.); if you start from a mistaken philosophy, the chances are you’ll continue to err.
MattS says:
February 3, 2013 at 9:44 am
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.
Or as Spock put it; ‘The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.’
Mike M says:
February 3, 2013 at 9:12 am
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~##
I have not encountered a single weather event that is inconsistent with a warmists belief in cagw.
Patrick Newman is evidently one of those gullible people who accept the slanderous claims of Mooney and others that global warming skeptics are driven by economic interests, not by an objective assessment of the science. Assuming he means it when he says that it is “impossible to have too many conversations on the subject,” I would be glad to disabuse him of his misperceptions about skeptics. He reminds me of a good childhood friend of mine who is in the same boat. I would enjoy talking to him about the science that the CO2-phobic “consensus” has been systematically hiding from the public. Email me Patrick, alec-at-rawls-dot-org, and we can arrange a discussion.
@Patrick
> We always have 20-20 hindsight where morality
> is concerned. We’d all like to believe that we would
> have been in the trenches with the abolitionists.
So you’re saying you want to be on the right side of morality conflicts?
Hindsight is not attained until many years after these conflicts. During the 1850’s most people apparently didn’t protest slavery. There were relatively few aboliitionists (“slavehood deniers”?) at the time, and they were mostly looked upon with suspicon and disdain, i.e., trouble-makers. Certainly a lot of the majority “consensus” were racists. But many also just wanted to be on the right side of the issue and so just went along with the “conensus view”, which they assumed must be correct because it was the consensus.
So you want to support the official consensus view on global warming? Because history shows the Consensus View is always right? In looking back at all the great morality conflicts in history, how many have shown that the Consensus View during that conflict was ultimately correct?
There is only one thing you need to know, to be aware of, to bear in mind when responding to the ethical dimension of Environmentalism. It is summarised thus:
In the 1950’s a programme existed to eradicate the insect vectors of Malaria. It used DDT. It was so rapidly effective that had it continued Malaria would have been eradicated by the early sixties.
However, Rachel Carson wrote “Silent Spring” an attach on DDT, not even on the basis of human harm but merely that killing insects was wrong. This initiated the Environmentalist movement with its first focus on banning DDT.
The campaign was so succesful that DDT was regulated to the point of near non-use.
Malaria thrived. At least five million people each year have died from it in the last fifty years since the time by which it would have been eradicated but for Environmentalism.
This means that, even disregarding indirect deaths due to effects on family and community of direct effects, and disregarding the collossalsuffering resulting directly and indirectly from Malaria among those not killed by it, Environmentalism has in fact been responsible for the deathjs of at least 250 million people.
It can therefore be stated as a modestly factual assertion, that Envoronmentalism has already caused death and suffering far in excess of NAZIsm, Stalinism, Maoism and every other totalitarian movement that ever existed. We could probably throw in all the plagues of history as well with numbers to spare.
There is a movie and web-site about this, wherein the death-toll is estimated to be very considerably higher than my figures:http://3billionandcounting.wordpress.com/
There is only one thing you need to know, to be aware of, to bear in mind when responding to the ethical dimension of Environmentalism. It is summarised thus:
In the 1950’s a programme existed to eradicate the insect vectors of Malaria. It used DDT. It was so rapidly effective that had it continued Malaria would have been eradicated by the early sixties.
However, Rachel Carson wrote “Silent Spring” an attack on DDT, not even on the basis of human harm but merely that killing insects was wrong. This initiated the Environmentalist movement with its first focus on banning DDT.
The campaign was so succesful that DDT was regulated to the point of near non-use.
Malaria thrived. At least five million people each year have died from it in the last fifty years since the time by which it would have been eradicated but for Environmentalism.
This means that, even disregarding indirect deaths due to effects on family and community of direct effects, and disregarding the collossal suffering resulting directly and indirectly from Malaria among those not killed by it, Environmentalism has in fact been responsible for the deaths of at least 250 million people.
It can therefore be stated as a modestly factual assertion, that Envoronmentalism has already caused death and suffering far in excess of NAZIsm, Stalinism, Maoism and every other totalitarian movement that ever existed. We could probably throw in all the plagues of history as well with numbers to spare.
There is a movie and web-site about this, wherein the death-toll is estimated to be very considerably higher than my figures:http://3billionandcounting.wordpress.com/
Mike M,
I found it ironic that this remark was preceded by the following Twain quote.
“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they’ve been fooled.”
Hence I won’t waste any effort disabusing you of your delusion.
Bloke down the pub says:
February 3, 2013 at 10:31 am
I have not encountered a single weather event that is inconsistent with a warmists belief in cagw.
—-
Excuse me???
What is your frame of reference, yesterday?
Do you have any context to imagine a 100 year storm or a 200 year storm to design a levee system or other flood control system. These are events mined from data that occur with such frequency. Speaking of which are you aware of the glaciation cycles of the current ice age? Or perhaps you are skeptical of this pattern of recurring periods of glaciation that last for about 100,000 years and interglacial periods (such as the one we are in) that last 15,000 to 20,000 years?
Wake up and do some research of paleoclimatology. There is a massive amount of peer reviewed information available should you ever be tempted to undertake an effort to educate yourself to support your opinions with actual information. Reading your clear attitude that appears to be an unlikely event. Enjoy your pub.
I’m sure Patrick drives a car, uses trains, planes, buses, heats and/or cools his home, uses electricity, uses plastic, etc. etc. etc. So to carry his analogy with the Slave act further, he’d be the guy in 1850 that had two dozen slaved attending to his every need while publicly decrying slavery (kind of like Jefferson)
Hey Patrick, just start living your holy “green” life and show us how it’s done. Go ahead, lead by example, don’t make an impact on your environment.
quote from below the original article
“One person recommends this.”
Kind of sad…don’t you think. /sarc
Maybe Patrick Newman is reading this thread. If he is I want to ask him whether he ‘denies’ the global temperature standstill? Even the IPCC appears for now to acknowledge it and so has the Met Office and Dr. James Hansen of NASA (a global warming activists, arrested a couple of times).
Now Mr. Newman look, keep the graph in mind and look closely. I don’t deny that global warming has stopped. Neither does the climate scientist Dr. Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit.
Bloke down the pub says:
February 3, 2013 at 10:31
…
I have not encountered a single weather event that is inconsistent with a warmists belief in cagw.
______________________
Sir,
You have demonstrated complete and perfect observation of truth.
May the road rise to meet you…
The “pollution” that letter writer mentions is vital food for plants. It was a smart move by the warmists to attach the label “pollution” to CO2.
This way, they might also convince the populace to enter the next war; when the goal is to exterminate a few million polluters (humans that breath out pollution), which utilitarian humanist could resist?
Warmism is a movement of vile scumbags.
Lancifer says: Hence I won’t waste any effort disabusing you of your delusion.
I’d call that a personal attack but to humor you, why don’t you name one scientific fact or law, etc that you ~feel~ somehow disproves the existence of God? I might as well warn you in advance that I fully accept the likely truth of evolution and big bang theories and that my belief is bolstered greatly by mathematical realities that describe this limited universe we the living can experience.
That started years ago, framing it as a moral issue because AGW evidence was/is lacking. I would love to look in to the life of Patrick Newman, see how much he drives a car and uses electricity and air conditioning and eats food, etc., and show him to be a big hypocrite, just like Al Gore.
Anthony, it would be great if Patrick and others with little detailed knowledge come to your site but I suspect they may not know what FAR, SAR, TAR, AR4 and perhaps IPCC even mean. For the benefit of newcomers you might want to define some of the acronyms and leave some links to some of the great posts that can walk someone through a basic understanding of the terms and the science.
A while back, Al Gore tried to equate us to “racists”. I didn’t think it had gotten any traction, but apparently someone was listening. Brace yourselves!
Morality can only exist when there’s a surplus. Only two means have ever been proven to produce a surplus – capitalism and slavery. Socialism and communism do not produce a surplus so there can be only “moral relativism”, a rationalization by those who have stolen all the food as to why they should eat and others should starve.
“As for Science & Religion, I have not encountered a single scientific truth that is inconsistent with my belief in God.”
Science can describe Facts.
Facts comprise Reality.
Reality brings us nearer Truth.
Truth, rigorous and demanding, can be beautiful.
My Faith seeks and celebrates the Beauty of this created cosmos.
Accurate descriptions of reality increase both my wonder and my faith.
……………………
George W Bush had no need to describe this connection: when he called for faith-based civic involvement, the faith-full knew he spoke of Reality.
I guess it was a good thing there were people skeptical of slavery being morally acceptable.
@ur momisugly Policy Guy
Dude, I think Bloke was deriding the unfalsifiable nature of the CAGW supposition.
@Policy Guy:
I suspect that Bloke down the pub forgot to delete the “in” in front of “consistent with”…
But nice rant though!
Few things drive my blood pressure through the roof as quickly as self righteous stupidity of this nature. Why is ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ a path that leads greater numbers to starve, freeze, suffer, and die needlessly based on a theory which is plainly not supported by the weight of the evidence?
Why is it that whenever I’m about to hear some new example of vicious and almost comically self contradictory idiocy, it always seems to flagged by the phrase ‘greatest good for the greatest number’ or some similar sentiment. I’m to the point where I have to grit my teeth and force myself to listen to the rest of the statement.
I always find it ironic that, although I don’t accept ‘greatest good for the greatest number’ as a basis for my philosophical system, somehow things work out better for greater numbers of those living in nations which embrace my ideals than they do in nations which justify their actions by invoking this magical slogan.