An a-scientific paper, poor contribution of NGS to the enlightenment of its members.
Story submitted by Michel de Rougemont
I just finished reading the article « The age of disbelief » in the March edition of the National Geographic.
It is one of the most a-scientific articles about science that I ever could read.
Joel Achenbach, the author, pretends that sceptics have no place in the scientific debates because of their incompetence, their prejudices, their doubts in science, and, last but not least, their alienation to powerful lobbies, as for example the fossil fuel industry in climate matters.
First he makes a nice amalgam between deniers, as for example opponents to vaccine or flat earth believers, and sceptics. He may not have ever tried to learn what a sceptic is looking for, what are the motives of not being satisfied with generally accepted beliefs.
Then he looks for an authority, which we should all obey, that settles the scientific truth, or at least the correct way toward this truth. Here he demonstrates his inability to conceive that such authority cannot exist. Scientific societies can laugh about such pretension, well knowing how chaotic their progresses are. Only IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, not a scientific but a governmental institution created in 1988) and its followers have that arrogance.
Amazingly he affirms: “In this bewildering world we have to decide on what to believe and how to act on that”. I agree with this statement. But for him a sceptic who forged his opinion on contradictory evidences is just making the wrong decision. And since he wants to believe in approximate theories such as the anthropogenic nature of climate change, this is a settled “consensus” that no one dares question.
When he will have looked at disturbing facts that IPCC never explains, as for example that the glaciers began to melt long before the industrial age, that the rate of rise of the seas was already quite spectacular at the end of the 18th century, that two periods of warm have alternated with two cold ones over the past two millennia without having anything to do with the burning of fossil fuels, and that the rates at which temperature or sea level are varying show no correlation with the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, then he may ask why anthropowarmism has installed itself as indisputable dogma within the past thirty years.
He would like science to stay in the realm of rationality, but he is advocating dogmatic views. This article was a poor contribution of the National Geographic Society to the enlightenment of its members.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I read the article. It was easy since I have read most of the sentences before, many times, in innumerable places. Sadly, the article was replete with factual errors.
When you throw stones, you better be sure that you don’t live in a glass house.
Sooo…I am ignoring the National Geographic propaganda magazine on this one. I am not sure who they are speaking to, or about.
Factual errors? Yep.
Hurricane (sic) Sandy pic caption: “damage it did . . . was exacerbated by sea-level rise – which is caused in part by climate change.”
Really? An august institution like NGS declaring what is false on its face.
“The total water level rise during Hurricane Sandy was caused by a combination of two independent factors: astronomical tides and storm surge.” – weather.com (not exactly Deniers)
TS Sandy brought a storm surge of about 13-feet. Sea level has risen no more than a few inches, even by corrupt NASA figures, over the last few decades. So Sandy should have had a storm surge of only 12.5 feet. What a difference that would have made. Duh.
This is verifiable fact about Sandy only being a tropical storm, and not a hurricane, as it landed – I was watching the data from the coastal weather buoys at the Cape May NJ area for the peak wind intensities as Sandy went ashore – a hurricane never struck the east coast.
Sadly, instead of taking the opportunity to cover a decent little handful of educational topics, the alarmist-weather stations went for obviously wrong propaganda/hyperbole.
This is not to discount the terrible impact of TS Sandy.
A decade ago, Allison, in Texas, also did extensive damage, even though it was not a hurricane for most of the time it was causing this havoc.
The CAGW thought police are the most il-liberal group that has existed in my memory. And as usual their justification is that they are really just smarter and more ethical than those who disagree with them. So add arrogance and hubris to the il-liberal mix. There are those who gravitate toward “science” because they believe that it makes them look smarter. Until they look dumber, which will hopefully be yet in my lifetime.
If climate science is “settled”, as if science is ever settled, then I propose all state and federal governments terminate every computer gamer (“scientist”) on the government dole practicing climate astrology … because if the science is settled, their work would be as useless — everything that could possibly be known about the climate would already be known (i.e.; settled), including the average temperature of Earth 100 years in the future!
.
The “settled science” of climate change is brought to us by the same low-quality-of-thinking-left-wing extremists who brought us the “settled science” of DDT in the 1960’s, and pushed for a ban that killed millions of people from insect-spread diseases, and I’m still waiting for their apology for being so wrong about DDT that their own kind lifted the ban decades later !
.
In fact, whenever a leftist declares the “science is settled”, just assume they are wrong, because they have been wrong about every environmental boogeyman they have publicized, starting with DDT in the 1960’s — all were going to end life on Earth as we know it … and we are still here.
.
And I bet every environmental boogeyman got a big story in National Geographic (NG) that scared the readers … and every prediction was wrong … not that NG would ever publish a review of past predictions and how inaccurate they were.
.
NG is ng (no good), except for lining birdcages — the birds like the nature pictures.
And my cat likes the bird pictures..
NFG
See
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31872460
NGS still makes amazing wildlife films that my family enjoys watching on their cable channel.
However, when we watch, we wager on when they will drop the CAGW hammer into the story.
It happens in every case. It would be humorous, if not so sad.
fhsiv…
Stop feeding the machine, please! Watching them is feeding them. Please stop now.
Enviro-whack-jobs are great at creating boycotts and bullying. Maybe that’s what is needed to stop this–boycotting and bullying on a national basis. Why can’t skeptics do that?
I guess you’re right. Direct TV knows when the box is tuned to NGC.
Kids are older now and don’t watch as much of the that type of programming.
Boycott already in progress…
Sounds so much like CBC radio programs. Just one example was on the Thursday As It Happens program when they were reporting on the Indian government banning travel for a Greenpeace activist. At the end they let out how she was against coal mines in India because burning coal caused CO2 which changed the climate…..
Ian M
“we wager on when they will drop the CAGW hammer into the story. It happens in every case. ”
I like to imagine how unsalable those videos will be in ten years, or even five, if the climate fails to warm.
National Geographic, the Doomsday Machine, George H. Kaub, ©The Journal of Irreproducible Results, vol. 20, #3, March 1974, pages 22-23.
“According to current subscription figures, more than 6,869,797 issues of the National Geographic magazine are sent to subscribers monthly throughout the world. However, it would be safe to say that the bulk of these magazines reach subscribers in the United States and Canada, and it is, and never has been, thrown away! It is saved like a monthly edition of the Bible. The magazine has been published for over 141 years continuously, and countless millions if not billions of copies have been innocently yet relentlessly accumulating in basements, attics, garages, public and private institutions of learning, the Library of Congress, Smithsonian Institution, Good Will, and Salvation Army stores, and heaven knows where else. Never discarded, always saved. No recycling, just the horrible and relentless accumulation of this static vehicle of our doom!”
Now that’s commendable carbon sequestration.
For those who do not know.
“Fake Tectonics and the Theory of Continental Drip”, as I recall. It was a great read.
My favorite, Death As An Inherited Characteristic.
That made Guam tip over, right?!
My father was a “Member” from the early 30’s till his death. I was raised on the magazine and wrote many reports for junior/senior HS from what I read. Once I was married and had kids in school I also subscribed until about 2000 or so and could no longer stand the propaganda. About 5 years ago I saw an article about the effects of CO2 on coral, complete with pictures. I read it twice trying to find out if it really was as bad as they depicted and how certain they were of the cause. On the third reading I noticed a caption on one of the photos that this was ALL from CO2 venting from an active volcano vent! What does that have to do with Manmade CO2? On the next visit to the dentist There was another article on the Blue Hole of the Caribbean. Although they clearly stated how these holes were formed and that the level of water in them had been much lower and even much deeper (shown by the obvious stalagmites/stalactites) the last 1/4 of the article was about the fact that this will disappear due to – wait – Global Warming!
Question re:
“Joel Achenbach, the author, pretends that sceptics have no place in the scientific debates because of their incompetence, their prejudices, their doubts in science, and, last but not least, their alienation to powerful lobbies, as for example the fossil fuel industry in climate matters.”
Is there any scientific truth, theory, law that wasn’t first voiced by a skeptic?
Just wonderin’.
Robert Boyle , early member of the Royal Society , author of part of the Perfect Gas equation used in the climate textbooks and of “The Sceptical Chymist” , an attack on the prevailing Aristotlean consensus , would agree with you .
However he did not have a BA degree in politics , so his views on the science of his day are of course worthless.
The warmist propaganda marching orders must have been sent out, to all of their followers. PBS ran a ‘news’ segment a couple of weeks ago where two reporters and Gwen Ifill discussed poll results of the number people who believe the climate is changing Vs the number of people of believe children should get vaccinations, and lastly the number of people of believe whether evolution occur. Gwen ends the piece by making her cute puzzled face and states who can keep up with all of the issues.
The warmists should hurry up with their mindless ad hominem campaigns. Observations continue to support the assertion the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted (it appears the sun will be anomalously spotless sometime in 2015) and there is now observational evidence that appears to show the start of planetary cooling.
There were a number of mechanisms that were inhibiting the solar modulation of planetary clouds and planetary temperature. One interesting factor was noted by Roy Spencer, a temporary, anomalous reduction in wind speed over the oceans. Lower wind speed reduces evaporation and latent heat transfer which results in high ocean temperatures. There is now both direct (wind speed is higher) and indirect (large regions of ocean are colder which is due to more cloud cover and/or increased wind speed) observational evidence of an increase in wind speed over the oceans.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/is-the-current-global-warming-a-natural-cycle/
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
If Shaviv’s analysis is correct we could see planetary cooling of roughly 0.5C due to the solar cycle 24 abrupt magnetic cycle slowdown.
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Shaviv.pdf
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2015/anomnight.3.12.2015.gif
BillAstley
Observations continue to support the assertion the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted (it appears the sun will be anomalously spotless sometime in 2015) and there is now observational evidence that appears to show the start of planetary cooling.
. . .
If Shaviv’s analysis is correct we could see planetary cooling of roughly 0.5C due to the solar cycle 24 abrupt magnetic cycle slowdown.
If you have been here for more than a few years you will know that these claims of “impending cooling” or “coming ice age” have been thrown around pretty much continuously, but especially from skeptic “authorities” like Easterbrook. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-who-got-it-right-predicts-20-more-years-global
“Climate Scientist Who Got It Right Predicts 20 More Years of Global Cooling”
However, the actual temperatures are still bouncing around right at the very peak of what they were over the last decade and this year we have only now moved into a weak El Nino phase.
So, when the temperatures continue to warm, and they will, will you then consider that you and all the other’s here have been wrong all along? I mean, really, increased cooling effects from the solar cycle and no El Nino, we should have seen all that cooling by NOW. .. RIGHT???
jai mitchell says:
“So, when the temperatures continue to warm, and they will…”
jai, I’m glad I don’t have your ‘predictive’ abilities.
But keep in mind that if your prediction here actually happens, it will be the very first prediction you’ve ever gotten right. Something to think about…
Also, global T is not “continuing to warm”. Wishful thinking on your part. Global warming stopped many years ago.
DB,
I am not sure how you post an image in this new format but here it is, As you can see, there were successive la nina years right after the devastating 1998 El Nino event when Nat Geo had a cover story about the unrelenting peat fires in Indonesia and how the toxic smog was choking out Malaysia and all the way north to Mandarin China.
Those smoky fires caused regional pacific ocean cooling, this effect is being seen still today.
I am sure you know just as well as I that the warming is commencing again, or else, why would you be changing your talking points from “pause” to “its always been changing”?
anywhoo, here is the graphic.
Cheers!
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20140121/gistemp_nino_100.
mitchell,
As always, you’re changing the subject.
I pointed out that:
1. You made a specific prediction, and
2. Every prediction you ever made has failed.
Instead, you falsely claim that global warming “is starting again”.
Wrong. Just add that one to all your other always-wrong statements.
well you know DB
A true skeptic would have to go to every possible prediction that I have made and show the counterfactual. I assume that you are willing to do such a feat? or should I just remain “skeptical” of your assertions.
there is little doubt that the massive amounts of Chinese air pollutions have contributed substantially to a cooling effect by shielding the sun’s energy on this planet these last 10 years.
Wrong as always, mitchell. Wrong as always.
Just post a link to a specific, alarming prediction like the one you made above, that has turned out to be correct. You know, like: disappearing Arctic ice, or Manhattan submerged, of vanishing Polar bears. Or “the warming is commencing again”, etc. Just post an alarming prediction you’ve made that came true.
You still don’t understand that it is not the job of skeptics to prove a negative. As usual, you are trying to paint me into that corner. But you’re not smart enough to do that [sorry if I sound like Konrad].
The problem that climate alarmists have is the one I keep pointing out: you are wrong about the basics. CO2 has not done as predicted, and that is about the most basic conjecture of all.
Your particular motivation is religion. Eco-religion. I would be willing to bet that you’re not a church-going member of any traditional religion. But you still have that same hole to fill, and for you environmentalism punches your ticket. MMGW is your religion.
But that’s not science. It is faith. There is only a thin veneer of pretend science in your comments, which fails under scrutiny.
I know you mean well. But that’s not enough. You have to be a true scientific skeptic to get anywhere near the truth, and you’re no skeptic.
jai mitchell, are you ever curious? PS I too want you to provide ONE prediction from the IPCC that came true? I say the IPCC because there have been alarmists that claimed less winter snow and now some predict more winter snow as a result of ‘climate change’. One could easily cherrypick as you can see.
DB
This is one of my first posts, while the projections are for 2035 or so, we can clearly see evidence of these patterns appearing today. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/03/hot-weather-and-climate-change-a-mountain-from-a-molehill/#comment-1353714
At 2 degrees I expect that the arctic will begin to experience spring ice flow cover loss and an ice free condition around mid June. This will produce an additional average arctic warming of 4-6C, and possibly a peak of 8C higher than normal. This will cause a catastrophic melt of permafrost and the release of stored carbon.
at the same time, the weakening of the jet stream will cause significant changes in the weather patterns, leading to prolonged droughts in the west and southwest and monsoonal floods and atmospheric rivers similar to the Great tennessee flood of 2010.
The most significant effect will be in the loss of Lake powell and the colorado river in the west, the loss of maize and soybean crops and the increase in global food prices. in addition, by 2070 sea level rise will reduce the rice production in low-level valleys in south east asia, leading to extreme food shortages.
1: Increased southwest drought attributed to weakening jet stream – http://climatenexus.org/learn/planetary-systems/jet-stream
2. atmospheric rivers – http://www.climatecentral.org/news/global-warming-atmospheric-rivers-18645
3. Loss of the Colorado – http://www.adventure-journal.com/2014/08/lake-mead-drops-to-critical-levels/
Jimbo
this is from 2009
http://www.wwfblogs.org/climate/sites/default/files/14-Southwest-pg-130.gif
your cherry picking is getting tiring. I bet you would just LOVE it if we weren’t going into an El Nino this year wouldn’t you?
jai mitchell says:
… while the projections are for 2035 or so…
I asked for a prediction that has already happened.
You refuse to ever admit that your original conjecture was wrong. That is arguing in bad faith.
I keep asking [without getting any response]: “What would it take to convince you that your MMGW conjecture is either wrong, or so insignificant that it can be disregarded?
But we never get answers, only prevarication, moving the goal posts, and “Yes, but…” replies.
Even if you don’t realize you’re arguing in bad faith, we do.
You provide a graphic with some unreadable text. I can’t tell if it’s from the IPCC as the url is not. Try harder.
You talk of cherry picking. What cherry picking? I showed you ALL the FAILED IPCC temperature projections. I cherry picked them ALL!
As all can see jai mitchell has failed to provide ONE IPCC prediction / projection that has been observed. In his response to DB he points to 2035 and 2070 and mentions “At 2 degrees”….”arctic warming of 4-6C, and possibly a peak of 8C higher than normal”…… In other words jai responds to the question with MORE PREDICTIONS! From himself! What part of prediction and observation does jai mitchell not understand???
You must try harder jai. NULL POINT! As they say at the Eurovision Song Contest. 😉
What a mess, as someone neatly put it (here I think) climate alarmism consists of a pile of logical fallacies stacked on top of one another.
For a start the equivalents to the anti-fluoride and anti-GM crowds are the CO2 phobics.
Hierarchical and individualistic are not synonyms but, if anything, opposites; it’s the “communitarian” mind-set which craves authority.
Rash generalisations, exaggerations, false analogies, appeals to authority, extensions and diversions, the writer seems incapable of putting a cogent argument.
Fluoride is industrial waste
Achenbach, on p. 45, tells us that deniers of science are just trying to fit in. It is rather obvious to skeptics that Achenbach and other climatastrophists are just fitting in with the rest of their clique.
Anyone with a B.A. in “Politics, defined as the ART of influencing people,” is sure to know a lot about science, kinda like Al G., and his divinity degree from a school that many people consider “elite,” except for the fact that their science and math programs rank right up there with such luminary institutions of science as UNLV or maybe even Cal State S.F.
From this day forward the N.G. is to be banned in my home!
Al flunked the divinity course. He had to settle for journalism.
He accuses skeptics of doing exactly what he is doing…..
At least skeptics are so immaterial they rate an entire article
The spirit of Lysenko live on
Michael, thank you, thank you, thank you for writing this. It’s like unstopping the plugged public toilet that no one wants to get near.
I attempted to do the same, but I was so disturbed and disgusted by the NGS article that I had to cut and run because of the stench.
The hit piece is actually a brilliant tangle of logical fallacies — it is weapon-grade psychological warfare.
The jerk who wrote it is a brain-blender.
He brings up moon-landing denial, but only in the context of a movie, and then uses that to tar climate skeptics.
He trashes people who are against mass fluoridation of water. Has he never heard of the universal basis of medical ethics: informed consent?
He says that fluoride is a “naturally occurring.” So, by that logic, should we also put lithium salt in the drinking water? Why not? It’s “safe” in low doses, right?
He trashes people who are skeptical of vaccines. Again, has he never heard of informed consent? The issue is not whether vaccines are “safe” or not. The issue is that informed consent requires that people be allowed to refuse medical treatment, for whatever $%#@ur momisugly! reason they want.
I could go on, but why bother.
I despise National Geographic after reading that POS.
What’s worse, I had a local guy — an engineer! — plagiarizer the article, acting like he had been doing some ‘serious thinking’ on his own. He said to me, “I’ve been wondering … what is it about these anti-science Tea Party conspiracy nuts who deny the moon landing, fluoride, vaccines, and settled science like climate change.” So he stole the article and then wrapped it up with a Tea Party slander to boot.
My respect for him and NGS is now the same: zero.
Ditto
Oddly I was ranting about this too and having trouble cutting the rant I was more repulsed by previous issue – http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150202-climate-science-public-opinion-evidence-global-warming/
this was the sicko punch line for me (although I was disgusted throughout):
\
Trust me. I believe, I believe. utter crap
If scientists want people to “believe” (what a laugh), then they might consider showing up with some science.
It’s getting so creepy.
Liz Neeley is recommending the use of emotional blackmail. Never mind “Let’s look into the facts together,” it’s straight to “Do you believe them or me,” and “If you think I’m wrong, then you’re telling me you don’t trust me.” As though truth is based on personality.
And of course, no one must examine.
I was going to write that the use of emotional blackmail is shocking, except that such manipulation is exactly what the alarmist crowd is so good at.
What surprises me is that with so many readers disappearing from what used to be top quality science mags, you’d think management would realize something was seriously wrong with their coverage. Yeah, I know, they don’t care, their aim is for “higher” things. But those lowering numbers must be gnawing away on bean-counters somewhere.
Yeah, and she’s using emotional blackmail on her father!
What a sweet daughter. He’s a lucky guy.
Daddy’s little judas goat.
It’s the language of religion, where you “convert” those who are “non-believers”. This is not science.
“If you think I’m wrong,” she said, “then you’re telling me that you don’t trust me.” Already had that conversation: guess how that turned out but so be it….
He probably doesn’t understand that vaccines (and homeopathy) are not, unlike pretty much anything else, required to show proof of effective benefits (real endpoint, not “proxy” like serology) in randomised tests. (Proxy can be acceptable if patients are informed that no direct benefit is demonstrated but only an effect in a biological endpoint.)
Do vaxxers even understand these difference?
The flu vaccine performs decently in cohort studies (self selection of test vs. random controls), but poorly in randomised tests, showing the effect results mostly from self selection: people getting the flu vaccine are simply less likely to get a cold, or influenza, or flu-like stuff.
Do vaxxers even understand these difference?
The very name “flu vaccine” is a travesty, as the flu vaccine shouldn’t protect against the common cold (“flu”).
Do vaxxers even understand these difference?
That rational people blindly trust untested treatments (in randomised tests) when they aren’t even sick, and might well never get any personal benefit from them, but take a very real risk of abominable diseases, is beyond me.
Of course the “authorities” (FDA, WHO…) and the doctors are the necessary accomplices in this travesty, as they insist on collective benefits, betraying the principle “first do no harm” which implies no harm or potential harm on an individual can be excused by an hypothetical collective benefit.
There is no much in common between climato and vaccino I haven’t even scratched the surface. In particular, “you never lose”: hot, cold, you were always right.
Less infections? Vaccine works!
More infections? More vaccines are needed! “antivaxxer” got in the way! It isn’t our fault!
Vaxxers even use the direct consequences of vaccination (less natural child infectious disease) as an argument for vaccines (your child won’t get the natural disease as we stopped it). Vaccines for mostly harmless diseases created a risk, which make vaccines necessary!
Vaxxers probably don’t even get simple logic. Nor proba, stats (most doctors are often math impaired) nor epidemiology nor biology. They mistake correlation and causation, but refuse the fact that some correlation are highly unlikely to be spurious. They accept the (poor) proofs of some vaccines effectiveness and refuse the (much stronger) proofs of dangers.
They also insist on all or nothing, buy or trash, on all vaccines. They probably don’t understand that “vaccines” are an homogenous group. Some vaccines can make you sick, and some vaccine must make you sick to protect you. Some simply never make you seek (unless an accident happens). Some vaccines are made from living organisms, some are artificial. But all can get accidentally contaminated.
A debate with a vaxxer is often hopeless. French vaxxers are effectively saying the Hep B vaccine caused a great increase in the number of Hep B contamination. (It is supposed to be an argument for vaccines.) They don’t even know they are saying that! Cause they have zero idea what they are saying. (Not talking about, just saying.) They hear pure BS and repeat pure BS even when it’s painfully obvious it’s BS.
I believe vaxxism (or antivaxxers-phobia) is a mental disease.
What on earth are you going on about?
My favorite is “you irresponsible, selfish person; your unvaccinated kid is endangering my vaccinated kid”.
– – He says that fluoride is a “naturally occurring.” So, by that logic, should we also put lithium salt in the drinking water? Why not? It’s “safe” in low doses, right? – –
Well if you were into healthy doses of trace minerals, you would order the ultimate trace mineral source:
Trace Mineral Maintenance (360 tabs), Stock No. 4205-1 @ur momisugly
http://www.naturessunshine.com/us/product/trace-mineral-maintenance-360-tabs/4205/
Ingredients:
Aluminum, antimony, barium, beryllium, bismuth, boron, bromine, cadmium, calcium, cerium, cesium, chlorine, chromium, cobalt, copper, dysprosium, erbium, europium, fluorine, gadolinium, gallium, germanium, gold, hafnium, holmium, indium, iodine, iridium, iron, lanthanum, lithium, lutetium, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, neodymium, nickel, niobium, osmium, palladium, phosphorus, platinum, potassium, praseodymium, rhenium, rhodium, rubidium, ruthenium, samarium, scandium, selenium, silicon, silver, sodium, sulfur, tantalum, tellurium, terbium, thallium, thorium, thulium, tin, titanium, tungsten, uranium, vanadium, ytterbium, yttrium, zinc and zirconium.
What, no arsenic?
Nature’s Sunshine … as opposed to the other kind of sunshine …
He’s not a railroad engineer is he Max? If he is, I understand these guys have a tendency to molest nubile coworkers.
Nope. He’s a ‘gripper’, (aka ‘ticket checker’ or ‘conductor’).
http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-Graphics/IndiaCrowdedTrain.jpg
Look Mom, no hands! … or train!
Surprised he didn’t bring up anti-evolution/intelligent design in his irrational diatribe. Articles like this would be laughable if people were not so gullible to this kind of folly.
What is psychologically interesting is that alarmists (like Michael de Little-Brain) ascribe their own flawed thoughts, attitudes and behaviors onto skeptics, demonstrating an extreme case of projection. The most egregious of their behavior shows they have little respect or understanding (if any) between advocacy and science or faith and evidence. Too bad for them, but worse for those they mislead.
Parallel – “extremism” is being used as the rhetorical devivce to connect Americans who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law with the Beheading-type Jihadists.
This is why you keep hearing “extremists” and “extremism” everywhere.
Herd immunity , Fluoridation ( mass medication) and linking CO2 to climate are all unsettled science . I guess i am considered a denier. I am always skeptical of government programs that are forced on the public. It does make me seem odd to the average person. To my benefit , there have been quite a few times when i have gone against the herd ( low fat foods), and people will later say” how did you know that”? I Am usually correct on these things.
Max, the photo above, is that what they now call a vibrant community?
Coming to a city near you.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
–
Hear, Hear!
I happened upon the subject article via some secondhand link reference, and I happened to have a young man reading over my shoulder as I was assaulted by the author of the article. This young man is sharp, but no more mature than would be expected of his years. While he is science-and-technology oriented, his focus is music.
He seems to accept the consensus view regarding warming alarm, but I believe I’ve made some progress, at least planted seeds of learning and healthy scepticism.
While reading, only so much is available on the screen, so we had to read together, and I couldn’t help but point out problematic statements in the articles, and correct its falsities. I even pulled up a link or two to show this bright lad backing for my assertions.
Anyway, it was quite frustrating, and I had not the time to follow up, and never got back to it. Thanks to Michel de Rougemont and Anthony for posting this note pointing out how atrocious the National Geographic article was.
Sadly, the general argument of the alarmist believers is the same general argument I’ve been standing against with young-earth-creationists for nearly four decades. It does get old, but it never slows down.
In two decades hence, while most people will not even remember what global warming meant, the true-believer alarmist will still be going strong. It is the nature of religious fundamentalism.
I cancelled my long standing subscription to NG 3 years ago. I first started reading it in amazement over 50 years ago at grandma’s house. Their forte is describing the wonders of nature and the world we live in, not commenting on scientific or political matters.
“The idea that hundreds of scientists from all over the world would collaborate on such a vast hoax is laughable”
No it isn’t!!!
Much more people told that the Soviet Union was doing well, at a time it was obvious for any curious visitor that it was catastrophic. (It was a catastrophe since the beginning, and curious people knew that way before WW II.)
The French scientists are particularly guilty of Soviet love.
It doesn’t take that manny only a few dozen, the rest just fall in line, because they don’t really do independent research themselves.
That is true, but the question is how, how does one decide on what to believe? It could be based on dogma, faith, ideology or political affiliation or it can be based on evidence.
Michel de Rougemont wouldn’t recognize evidence if it was the size of Jupiter and landed on his head. It is unfortunate that the National Geographic editors are equally inept at recognizing and assessing evidence.
Here is but a partial list of the logical fallacies in that payload:
Ad hominem
Straw man
Appeal to nature
Bandwagon
Appeal to authority
Shifting the burden of proof
Slippery slope
Special pleading
Black-or-white
Begging the question
Appeal to emotion
Personal incredulity
Tu quoque
False cause
Oh never mind … just dump the entire list of known fallacies here. It would be simpler.
And don’t forget Godwin! (Denier is a code word for Nazi, as in holocaust deniers).
Walt D.,
Yes, ‘denier’ is a code word for ‘Nazi’.
It’s just more psychological projection coming from the alarmist camp:
Considering that “holocaust denial” is a non issue in the U.S. , I associate “denier” with religion. I picture divinity student Al Gore saying
“… He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22 king james version)
Substitue “global warming” for “the Father and the Sun” and you have their religion to a T.
dbstealey notes what may be most important. Projection. The warmist clique assumes skeptics behave like warmists.
Typical Global Warming Alarmist – smug, cocky, condescending, and wrong to boot.
National Geographic is a magazine with nice pictures and articles that patronize. Look at how they describe cultures of the underdeveloped world! A scientific publication it ain’t
It’s impossible to express how much I loved National Geographic magazines when I was a kid.
🙁
I didn’t pay attention to it, i was having too much fun with my microscope and chemistry set . Back in the 70s you could also buy dissection kits.
I used to love National Geographic when I was a kid, and I got my own subscription as a young adult. But it began to seem as if virtually every article needed to say something about how humans were destroying the planet and species were going extinct because habitat was being destroyed. Global warming was the culprit the articles would repeat, over and over, and over, and over, and over until I got sick of it and finally cancelled my subscription. It was obvious that National Geographic had become someone’s propaganda tool. I miss the old National Geographic. Even if I believed in global warming, I would not subscribe to a magazine that evidently has nothing else to say.
Anyone with a brain that watches NatGeo Wild should figure out they have an agenda within a short time. Last night was watching a program they had on Glacier National Park and the steady drum beat of warming pervaded the whole program until I couldn’t take it any more.