How to Cure a Climate Change Denier

81B3RbTSszL._SL1500_[1]Here is a book with a twist – an eco gone rogue and self modified into a climate change “denier”. His experience parallels many, actually, including some of mine (though I’d never join Greenpeace, UPDATE: and now after having read his Kindle book, I’ll point out that I believe that CO2 has some effect, but far less than has been claimed, especially where feedbacks operate) – Anthony

From the description:

Paul Caruso once lived in an off-grid eco-community, grew much of his own food and was an active member of Greenpeace. However, over the past few years he has lost his faith in human induced climate change and become a denier!

He doesn’t really deny that the climate is changing – he has just come to the conclusion that it is natural variation.

It seems that increasing numbers of people are becoming sceptical about the human induced part of global warming and this book attempts to show climate scientists why and, perhaps more importantly, what they can do about it.

There are certain specific points that climate scientists are not currently answering and which they urgently need to answer if they want to convince people.

==============================================================

“…specific points that climate scientists are not currently answering.”

Gosh, ya think?

Here is a further description:

im_a_denier

You can get the book on Amazon here

h/t to reader Paul M

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Oldseadog

A pity it is only available through Amazon and only on Kindle.
I would buy a paper copy if it was available from somewhere.

Chris @NJSnowFan

I would of put a broken Hockey Stick on the front cover.
Mann is the only climate scientist that adds #denier to almost every tweet.

mycroft

WOW! gamekeeper turned poacher,he’ll be as popular as a fart in a space suit with the lentil brigade.
Wonder if he believes the moon landings were faked?LOL (sarc off)

North of 43 and south of 44

Oldseadog,
Take a look here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?docId=1000493771
The link is to Amazon’s free kindle reader software for various systems.

North of 43 and south of 44

Sorry but for whatever reason that link isn’t working.

Well done Mr Caruso. No reviews on Amazon yet – just wait until the Alarmists notice and pile in.

North of 43 and south of 44

It must have been a hiccup on amazon’s end when I test the link after posting it appears to be work correctly.

Jquip

“I genuinely would like to be persuaded again that CO2 is causing, or even could cause, us a problem” — Book Author
That right there is a fellow suffering withdrawal symptoms of his apocalypse addiction. It can be fatal without replacement therapy at a misanthropy clinic.

Bruce Cobb

Unfortunately for the Alarmist crowd, knowledge is the antidote to Belief. You can’t un-bite the apple.

Darren Potter

Why would anyone be so eager to be convinced that CO2 is causing AGW after realizing they were scammed the first time around by Gore, Mann, Hansen, Jones, IPCC, Liberal agenda, and Green lobby?
Don’t sheep ever learn? Are they just looking for something to have faith in? Are these people prime for another scam, even another dictator to follow?

Oldseadog

N 43 S 44
The link is working but I still can’t find a paper copy.
Thanks all the same.

Gary Pearse

Paul, why would you genuinely want to be convinced? I guess you invested many years in belief and would like to not think it was wasted. You didn’t study engineering or non-environmental science or you would have asked the questions at the beginning. The terminally corrupted “humanities” are induction centres for creating robotic tools for Greenpeace and other doctrinaire groups. Good on ya for making your escape, but not only are you not going to get empirical evidence from these cults, but you must already have been ostracized for asking. All skeptics had to do was ask for evidence and this engendered hate and threats. Even the much beloved Greenpeace warned us!!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/damage-control-greenpeace-removes-threats/

JimS

This problem could be well served by governments establishing a new interior department, and perhaps calling it the Ministry of Love. I received this inspiration from George Orwell’s 1984.

A cry for help from an enlightened person wanting to lose knowledge.

mycroft says:
October 30, 2013 at 7:31 am
WOW! gamekeeper turned poacher,
__________________________________
Fixed your post… WOW! Poacher turned gamekeeper,

John West

Why didn’t I think of that! (The standard reaction when a good idea is presented.)
The sneak peek on amazon shows the contents and the first couple sections. Looks intriguing, I may have to commandeer my wife’s kindle.
The contents suggest he’s laid it out logically and covered much of the issue, although this from the contents is a bit troubling:
”Part 4: Is it realistic that CO2 could cause runaway global warming?
Yea, the hyper-alarmists claim this kind of thing, but your average mitigation advocating climate scientist doesn’t claim CO2 can cause runaway global warming.
This line from the first section more than makes up for it though:
”I can suggest a much simpler solution to the problem of ’sceptics’ and ‘deniers’ – publish some verifiable empirical evidence that supports your argument.”
Yes! Don’t bother going around chasing the ice in an effort to convince me that immediate mitigation action is required dude, evidence of warming is not evidence of anthropogenic global warming and certainly isn’t evidence of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

Evidence? He expected to get evidence from a bunch of people who thinks its beneath them to even debate their opponents on a scientific question? How naive. AGW is a religion.

KevinM

Re: “climate change denier”
The latest parlance is “Climate Denier”.
There is no sun, there is no rain, there is no temperature, there are only Koch brothers and bucktoothed illiterates..

CRS, DrPH

Welcome to the club, Mr. Caruso! Anthony hosts 12-Step meetings for former CAGW believers.

Robert W Turner

I like how the title implies that the book is nothing but a cultist diatribe bashing CAGW skeptics. It’s a good thing there isn’t much going on upstairs in a cultist’s head or it would explode after the first page.

TinyCO2

Sounds like a sensible read. It’s interesting to see someone who has walked the walk and not just talked it, turn into a sceptic. This sort of person is exactly who is needed to stand before the authorities and talk because they can’t be accused of trying to cling greedily to a bloated lifestyle. They know what the ‘good life’ is like. It’s very easy for wealthy people to agree with cutting CO2 because it would never be them who actually suffers a cut in lifestyle. When you can buy an island and live like a king (eg Branson), paying for your emissions rather an actually cutting them, why wouldn’t you casually condemn the rest of us to CO2 penury? Far harder to make the cuts and still agree that climate science is good enough to justify that life.

R. de Haan

Better late than never.

Colin

mycroft says:
October 30, 2013 at 7:31 am
You mean the moon landings were real? /do I really need the sarc?

BF

I believe past global warming from CO2 raised sea levels to the extent that the continent of Atlantis was inundated and sunk.

davidmhoffer

So a guy who admits that he wants to believe a catastrophe is impending has published a book explaining how to convince him and is charging money for it. Skeptics beware, this guy isn’t trying to convince anyone of anything, he’s trying to make a buck by fleecing skeptics.

temp

Darren Potter says:
October 30, 2013 at 7:45 am
“Why would anyone be so eager to be convinced that CO2 is causing AGW after realizing they were scammed the first time around by Gore, Mann, Hansen, Jones, IPCC, Liberal agenda, and Green lobby?
Don’t sheep ever learn? Are they just looking for something to have faith in? Are these people prime for another scam, even another dictator to follow?”
For the exact reason for say, it pushes a socialist/”liberal” agenda. Global warming will be stopped by socialism praise be to the socialist religion. The problem is that since his faith in global warming is shaken now he is starting to question his faith in socialism. If he chooses to research that next he will quickly dump that insane ideology as well.
Collectivist are closed minded fools. Facing reality for them is like dividing zero for a robot, they simply can’t process the result because it goes against the very thought process they hold as a universal truth. This is why they must attack anyone who challenges them, refuse to debate anyone and slaughter the non-believers the first chance they get.

Leonard Weinstein

Oldseadog says:
Oldseadog, I do not have a Kindle reader. However, the App to read books for Kindle readers is free for PC’s including Macs. If you get the App and buy the e-book from Amazon, you can directly read it on your computer.

Bruce Cobb

The only real “cure” they’ve been able to come up with so far involves a red button. A bit messy.

Psalmon

I came originally to this site for the same reason, to find data, understand what is really going on.
In addition to data I’ve also seen and encountered the methods of advocates on both sides of the issue, as important as data like the quality of a witness versus the testimony itself. I’ve found almost consistently four steps of argument by AGW supporters:
1. Call names: They label everyone a Denier and often worse. Association (Koch Bros, Big Oil, etc.) is also part of this. Character assassination, funding cancellation, terminating employment, all these bullying tactics fall into this effectively. Diminish the person and intimidate.
2. Diminish data with no data: It never snows. It snowed yesterday. Well, that’s just one example. The heat hiding in places you can’t measure is part of this. Avoid data, cause opponent to chase tail and serve up more data softballs to be smacked out of the park, ignored.
3. Invoke Moral Authority: This is the 97% game – everyone agrees with me, so you’re wrong. This is also the award winning scientist thing.
4. Declare victory without ever debating: I think I proved my point.
It’s important to notice these stages and deal with them. It’s also important not to fall into the same practice. Counter these without practicing these and the facts will eventually win out. Practice these, and the result is like Congress, two sides, no different, no winners.

Mickey Reno

Excellent premise, except for the idea that you’d appreciate being convinced of the impending catastrophe once again. Wouldn’t it be much better to wish for all your smug and certain friends becoming more circumspect and that they should exhibit some humility and skepticism on this issue?
Unlike you, I started out as a stauch critic of CAGW. The whole field was presented in the same alarmist way as were Paul Erlich’s idiotic over-population predictions. This made me take the position that I was never going to believe these people until they could show concrete, casual linkages that are easy to comprehend and unambiguous. This doesn’t mean I want 4 digits of decimal precision on statistical averages. It means that PCA statistics, post-modern correlation BS, by itself, will never convince me of anything in a complex climate system with many variables, and a long and well-established history of massive natural variability.
The climate of our atmosphere is based mainly on water. If the first word in a comprehensive scientific hypotheses are about CO2 and not water, I have no use for them. I have no problem with the physics of CO2 behaving as a mechanism to transmit some energy into the atmospheric gases from upwelling infrared radiation. My question is, if there was zero CO2 in the atmosphere, but there still existed all the same process of water-based energy transport, though reflection, UV and IR reflection, absorption and emission, convection (ocean and atmospheric, cloud formation and effects, conduction, and energy expended in H2O state changes (evapo-transpiration, ice melt, subliming, atmospheric freezing and deposition, etc) , how much different would our climate now be (ignoring as trivial, the fact that zero CO2 would end the land-based biosphere, of course)? I suspect that our climate would be almost exactly the same, and that it’s variability would be almost exactly the same. I’m aware of no scientific treatise that tests THIS hypothesis and shows it to be incorrect. If anyone knows of any attempts, I’ appreciate a pointer, please.

Manfred

I understand Mr Caruso; you’ve lost your faith, your friends and your spiritual home. You’re at sea without compass. Fortunately you have a rudder. Keep steering toward the light of knowledge. It’s probably your best bet in this uncertain, faith riven sea of catastrophe.

temp

“Mickey Reno says:
October 30, 2013 at 10:37 am
I suspect that our climate would be almost exactly the same, and that it’s variability would be almost exactly the same. I’m aware of no scientific treatise that tests THIS hypothesis and shows it to be incorrect. If anyone knows of any attempts, I’ appreciate a pointer, please.”
The IPCC has tried to bury that line of thought because its dangerous to them. I believe it was AR4 in which they showed to graphs one which temps without doomsday CO2 and one with temps if doomsday co2 had stayed steady.
Of course those graphs were simply a current temp graph created by a model and then twisted to match current real temps. Then they simply subtracted the “proven” doomsday gas effects and claimed this is what the temps would/should be.
Circular logic at its finest but when your carter to stupid people its more then good enough.

Frank K.

“Paul Caruso once lived in an off-grid eco-community, grew much of his own food…”
Actually, I have respect for CAGW types like Mr. Caruso who actually are NOT your typical eco-hypocrites and in fact live off the grid and farm their own food (unlike most CAGW climate scientists who burn fossil fuel energy like there’s no tomorrow…).

Nick in Vancouver

Darren Potter – Bazinga – why indeed?, Caruso is happy to entertain the untimely death of thousands, through fuel poverty in the North and through hunger in the South. In the UK alone
some 7,800 people die during winter because they can’t afford to heat their homes properly, says fuel poverty expert Professor Christine Liddell of the University of Ulster. That works out at 65 deaths a day. Extrapolate that trend climate scientists. For shame.

Nik

He filled his car with petrol once and so can be ignored as he’s associated with the fossil fuel industry.

Jquip

Manfred: “Fortunately you have a rudder. Keep steering toward the light of knowledge.”
But there be dragons there at the edge of the world.

rogerknights

davidmhoffer says:
October 30, 2013 at 9:48 am
So a guy who admits that he wants to believe a catastrophe is impending has published a book explaining how to convince him and is charging money for it. Skeptics beware, this guy isn’t trying to convince anyone of anything, he’s trying to make a buck by fleecing skeptics.

I think that, by disclaiming that he’s trying to convince warmists, and asking them to convince him, he’s being clever tactically, by raising the bar they must get over.

Old Hoya

Reminds me of the poster in in the office of Agent Fox Mulder: “I Want to Believe”
The sheer moral satisfaction of making Exxon and SUV owners the locus of all evil … the transfer of all economic planning to academically credentialed folk instead of relying on grubby, tacky markets and having to envy the grubby, tacky types who tend to succeed in them ….
Instead of telling the attractive woman at the bar one is a physics nerd who studies weather patterns one could say that he is deputized by a UN agency to save the planet before it is too late–greatly upping the chances of getting laid…. the drama of floods, hurricanes and the knowledge that you had the knowledge to stop them if they had only listened… the surge of self-righteous dudgeon …. CAGW just has to be true. It just has to.

rogerknights

The book is the equivalent of 71 pages and costs $4.

1klem1

I’d sure like to know just how many of the regular visitors to WUWT were once climate alarmists themselves. I’ll bet the percentage is high.

For Naomi Klein, sadly, and for others at the New Statesmen who wish project all their dislike of ordinary folk onto evil capitalism, “science is telling us all to revolt”.
Yep, science—not activists with a misanthracist grudge and a delightfully profitable cause, but science itself—would tell us, by way of its licensed hierophants, that “carbon reduction must be managed carefully through what Anderson and Bows describe as ‘radical and immediate de-growth strategies in the US, EU and other wealthy nations’.”
Namoi Klein’s level of authority, however, can be demonstrated by her bizarre assertion that Prof. Clive Hamilton, a loony misanthropist and “professor of public ethics”, who advocates suspending democracy and tattooing anyone who disagrees with his drivel, is named as a “climate expert”.

Maybe Amazon will go the route of Popular Science, to “preserve the sacredness (yes, just heard that used locally) of “science”…and just ELIMINATE reader comments.
HAHAHA! What a way to “win the argument”. Just tell folks, YOU CAN’T PARTICIPATE IN OUR VENUE.
Max
PS: Actually I think Amazon is made of sterner stuff that Popular Shill Science…

John F. Hultquist

born and raised
converted to a green type
off-grid and active member of GP
changed views
searched for years for evidence of CO2 link
written a book
Seems Paul is both quite old and a slow learner.

I’m one of those who find it disturbing that this guy wants to believe and wants CO2 to be a problem. He’s found the lie but he wants that lie to be true? That’s a bit like “Tell me there are real monsters, mommy, so I can sleep at night.”
His whole approach is over-innocent. If what he has said is true, then he’s come to understand something, he’s done the research and found facts that clash with the meme, he’s gone to the climate priests and he’s simply not getting the answers he wants from them. Most people trying to get honest answers out of the climate priests – and face their wrath for daring to ask questions – would be angry by now or the very least frustrated. Yet this guy comes across still doe-eyed innocent? I’m sorry, I’m not buying it. Something is not true here.
Yes, he might be being clever, but which way? Is he a once-believer trying to raise his questions publicly to force the climate priests into giving him the evidence he wants? Why? If he’s tried asking them and hasn’t gotten anywhere, he will know by now that the climate priests won’t be forced. In fact the climate priests get very angry. He would have been clubbed into submission by now under burden of guilt. He doesn’t sound as though he has been roughed up in the slightest.
Or is he a skeptic pretending to be a once-believer trying to get other believers to ask for evidence?
I find it strange, too, that he daren’t raise the issue with his friends for fear of getting into “pointless” arguments. We’re not talking about what your favourite flower is here – how is a debate about CAGW pointless when so much is at stake when it comes to policies and controls? If you’ve found the truth, convincing your friends is something you want to do.
So, he doesn’t like talking to his friends, yet he is willing to poke the climate priests big time with a big stick and go public with his questions?
It doesn’t add up.
He might well be legit in his basic intention, but not everything here is honest. I think there’s another game underneath.

Txomin

You don’t need to be convinced, Mr Caruso. You need to be silenced. Good luck, you are going to need it.

The only cure for climate change denial is exorcism.

Liontooth

“I’m one of those who find it disturbing that this guy wants to believe and wants CO2 to be a problem. He’s found the lie but he wants that lie to be true? ”
He’s changing the debate and framing the argument differently. If he said there’s no proof then he’s a denier they ignore him. He’s putting it on them to please prove it’s true because so far you haven’t. He wants to believe and ALL he wants is proof of it, so the high priests of global warming have a duty to listen to his request and show him the proof. He sounds reasonable and he’s making a reasonable request.
It’s aimed at the true believers especially the ones that are having doubts. He can’t be called a denier because he wants to believe it.

Gunga Din

I’ll reserve judgement on his motives. I haven’t read the book.
But his comment about wanting to believe CO2 is a problem may be no more than wanting to be shown that his previous efforts to reduced his own “carbon footprint” weren’t a complete waste of effort.

While the author has packaged his argument in a novel and counterintuitive manner, it does change the fact that the burden of proof remains on the cAGW crowd to demonstrate the veracity of their theorem.

EthicallyCivil

“losing my religion” is hard, even when the religion is an anti-human Baalist Cult where we sacrifice human lives appease a fiery god of Thermageddon. (c.f. US refusing to fund coal powered energy in developing nations — lack of energy kills)
This guy has lost all his fellow travelers because he’s found his way. The road less traveled is lonely, but it makes “all the difference.”