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.
Been a while since I read JS Mill, and you have to take into account that in his time pretty much all issues were framed in moral terms.
A modern utilitarian would argue utilitarianism is an amoral philosophy, where all decisions are taken on pragmatic grounds, using the greatest good principle.
Humanism is a set of vague and wishy-washy principles. Best described, as a religion with god (or gods) removed. IMO, anyone who describes themselves as a humanist, isn’t a deep thinker, and needs a set of rules to follow, because they aren’t capable of working out the answers themselves.
Thus, utilitarianism and humanism are polar opposites and one can not be both.
“Dave Leeaton” is taking you up on posting there in the comments, doing his best cut and paste advocacy of CAGW.
Slavery and segregation was largely justified by scientific consensus:
“Before the Civil War, scientific findings announced that blacks had less gray matter in
their brains (Thomas, 2).”
http://pat.tamu.edu/journal/vol-1/thompson.pdf
If there’s any parallel here it’s that of skeptics of CAGW are the abolitionists of today.
Why do individuals like Patrick assume that a warmer planet is bad to the biosphere and, therefore, immoral? Plant growth peaks around 1,100 to 1,200 ppm. We are currently around 400 ppm. It is immoral to starve the plant life of plant food (CO2) when we have to knowledge and technology to drill horizontally for “unconventional” oil and gas.
Keep Smiling 🙂
Jeff
Mr. Newman sounds like many Warmists I have heared from before. They are so sure, so certain that the climate scientists are right (not that they themselves are right) that they begin to lecture us cruel denialists while appealing to authority.
One thing that I have found is that if you hit them hard with 5 or more cold hard pieces of peer reviewed evidence they normally remiain silent.
Mr. Newman,
Some of the regular folks here at WUWT have children. I do. Some of us have grandchildren. Many of us, like yourself, believed in Catastrophic Anthropogenic (Runaway) Global Warming. Some of us believed that were were headed for dangerous warming.
All I want Mr. Newman to do is not believe a word I say but spend just 1 week looking at: what is the biggest greenhouse gas? Look at climate sensitivity, IPCC temperature projections V the past 15 years of observations, the missing hotspot, Roman Warm Period etc. Start by looking at both below and continue looking at both sides.
Skeptical
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming
Warmist
http://www.skepticalscience.com
As a negative utilitarian I find it extremely offensive tohave my world view dictated to me by utilitarians. Why shoudl we have to listen to any one point of view only?
Mr. Newman,
I have read scare stories about malaria and global warming. I remain sceptical because of the observed evidence of decreasing malaria. I read the claim, then I looked for observations and the observations went in the opposite direction (global warming since the end of LIA).
Three days ago I went to the pharmacy with my daughter to purchase some anti-malarial medication (she got malaria positive plus). I treat my kids, all told, about 6 times a year for the killer disease malaria. My point is that we too have children and care for them deeply, but it does not mean we are going to be led like sheep into indoctrination.
I have never received fossil fuel money, I am not politically active, I am not right wing, I am just sceptical of scaremongering and headlines.
Oscar Bajner says:
February 3, 2013 at 12:43 pm
“I don’t know who Laurence J Peter is, . . .”
Best known for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle
But such has nothing to do with the quote.
He was Canadian with an education degree from WSU.
GM went bankrupt and would have done so no matter what the government did. That means the stockholders were inevitably going to lose their investment.
Gail Combs says:
February 3, 2013 at 1:02 pm
BobM says:
February 3, 2013 at 11:21 am
And if those sources do not help, try this:
http://www.acronymfinder.com/
PaulH asks- What the heck is a “utilitarian humanist”? Is that a euphemism for something?
Apparently it’s a worried young Patrick in one of these outfits-http://www.newlook.com/shop/teens/jackets-and-coats/teens-green-camouflage-utility-jacket_250522234
It won’t do you any good in denial and trying to hide Pat as those Big Oil slavers and their lookouts are everywhere like CO2.
Mike M says:
February 3, 2013 at 12:20 pm
Nobody holds a gun to his head and says “Consume.”. Newman just wants to impose his will on others. Big ego, small man.
I was about to proffer that well known home spun remedy to calm the voices, namely a sharp blow to forehead with a large block of dry ice and subsequent cold compress application, but in this difficult case perhaps not.
Trying to compare slavery with people who don’t go along with the eco-freaks, is a sign of profound doubt in the face of conflicting information and science. The real villains are the ones trying to impose an Agenda 21 tyranny on a free people. Never give up your guns.
Poor Patrick, he sounds so serious but all the world is now laughing at him!
Utilitarian humanism = Compassionless Pragmatism
I was a lot later to recognize the hype and errors than Anthony was. For me it was the moment I saw the hockey stick graph. I didn’t question the blade at the time. After all, I had been a cross county ski coach among other things, but a lifetime as a weather wonk and occasional student of climate, I knew the shaft of the hockey stick was fraudulent. I knew the H.H. Lamb graph that had been in every climate textbook for years. Fast forward. Ironically, I just now got an email from one of my good friends that says pretty much what Patrick Newman says. My friend’s angry that I’m giving a talk at our UU church later this month. Because he’s a friend, his email upsets me. Here’s the letter-
Doug – As you probably can guess I feel so bad about what you are doing to spread doubt about the greatest challenge the world faces today –climate change. The suffering that is already taking place in the US as well as in the poor countries because of our failure to confront this issue hurts me deeply. Obama. as you know is going to try to take forceful action on the issue (thank God) and the deniers and skeptics are going to try to weaken this effort. That really pains me. I know you are a decent person and you think you are right but think for a moment that you may be wrong. If you are and most relevant scientists of the world think you are, what damage might you be doing? I know this will make you furious but I had to say it.
If you haven’t seen this one, enjoy: How to make the point that climate change deniers should be treated with care..
Doug Allen,
Your friend sounds like an insufferable, holier-than-thou scientific know-nothing. I know the type. There are no verifiable examples of global harm or damage due to the rise in harmless, beneficial CO2. The biosphere needs more CO2, not less. More CO2 is better, unequivocally.
Maybe you could show your friend this chart. It shows beyond any doubt that global warming has stopped for the past sixteen years, and that CO2 has zero effect on temperature.
I wouldn’t get my hopes up, though. Some folks’ minds are made up, and closed air tight. There are no scientific facts you could show them that would make the scales fall from their eyes. They are True Believers, and their belief is emotion-based. But good luck anyway.
@Doug Allen
RE:
Friend – As you probably can guess I feel so bad about what you are doing to condemn millions to suffering now in a vain attempt to reduce possible suffering in the future –climate change mitigation efforts. The suffering that is already taking place in the US as well as in the poor countries because of our failure to put their needs above some supposed future generations inconvenience hurts me deeply. Obama as you know is going to try to take forceful action on the issue and the advocates of such action that completely ignore evidentiary based science are going to try to get this effort instigated with or without authority. That really pains me. I know you are a decent person and you think you are right but think for a moment that you may be wrong. If you are and most relevant scientists (those whose reputations do not depend on acceptance of CAGW) of the world think you are, what damage might you be doing? I know this will make you furious but I had to say it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/03/on-certainty-truth-is-the-daughter-of-time/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/02/the-cost-in-human-energy/
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/01/what-does-it-take-for-a-worldwide-consensus-just-75-opinions/
Your description brought me back instantly to Ursula K. LeGuin’s short story, “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas”. It was a damning illustration of the inherent moral bankruptcy of the concept.
Yes, but the bondholders wouldn’t have, in the normal course of things. Some day, if it hasn’t happened already, someone will write a fascinating book about how the Obama administration basically ignored the law and disenfranchised the secured debt holders.
“…millions denied the evils of slavery.” Point being? Millions deny fairies at the bottom of the garden.
@Gail Combs, I clicked on your Fisher links for the Lenin quote you gave at February 3, 2013 at 1:54 pm. Didn’t find it. Am I to assume that it’s in the book I would need to purchase there? Thank you for any clarification.