EPA funded Sociologist Sabrina McCormick has some advice for city officials trying to push their climate projects past the legislature;
The best way to fight climate change? Don’t call it climate change.
American cities from Boston to Baton Rouge are getting hammered by hurricanes, torrential downpours, and blizzards amped up by climate change. Maybe that’s why Americans are coming around to the idea that the climate is actually changing. But are all the floods, heat waves, and other disasters spurring cities to prepare for our overheated future?
Sabrina McCormick, a sociologist at George Washington University who once investigated how cities cope with disasters for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, set out earlier this year to find out. Her study, recently published in the journal Climatic Change, breaks down 65 in-depth interviews with city officials and experts in six cities — Portland, Boston, Los Angeles, Raleigh, Tucson, and Tampa. It seeks to answer the etiquette question from hell: How does a city go about preparing for something that its residents would rather not think about, or even believe in?
In a recent interview, McCormick said she learned that many city officials believe the key to getting everybody on board to battle climate change is to avoid uttering the words “climate change.” It’s “a poisonous term to use,” one said. …
Read more: http://grist.org/cities/the-best-way-to-fight-climate-change-dont-call-it-climate-change/
The study referenced by the Grist article;
Localized vulnerability assessments are critical to effective climate adaptation. However, the differences between how local decision-makers and experts see vulnerability have not yet been fully explored, especially in the United States. Seeing possible distinctions between these approaches is critical since it is necessary to ensure a comprehensive, accountable approach. This research explores the distinct approach of local stakeholders to conceptualizing climate vulnerability in six American cities. Sixty-five interviews of cross-sectoral local stakeholders were conducted in: Boston (MA), Los Angeles (CA), Portland (OR), Raleigh (NC), and Tampa (FL). Findings demonstrate that conceptualizations of vulnerability are affected by intellectual frameworks that tend to orient around infrastructure and human health; that retrospective and prospective thinking are inter-related and affect one another; and that institutionalized forms and biases are critical. These factors shape the way that vulnerability is conceived differently than traditional expert frameworks.
Read more (paywalled): http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-016-1757-3
I’m not sure how McCormick reconciles “an accountable approach” with not mentioning that proposed public works projects are part of a climate agenda. Perhaps accountability means something different to sociologists.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In the last sentence you misspelled “sociopath”.
+ a bunch
See
https://publichealthonline.gwu.edu/academics/faculty/profile/sabrina-mccormick/
She claims Nobel Prize association for her IPCC work. Another Nobel Prize winner wannabe.
Charles
+ a bunch
Ditto; + a bunch
Auto
NB – no Moderator, me, but a real gen-you-whine, authentic joint-co-winner of the Nobel Prize for – Ahh – Whatever, Thingy, when the EU, of which I was a – not stunningly willing – citizen, when the EU won, possibly the Peace Prize for tramadol-laced wine-gums, maybe [???] [Note – I am pretty 7200% sure it wasn’t Economics . . . . . . . (Does that surprise you?)].
My memory might be a nano-tad hazy on this, as we probably had a party lasting some femto-hours.
She’s obviously a manipulator, but don’t twist facts. Her CV is honest, unlike some others-“She recently served as a Lead Author on the Special Assessment of the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change entitled Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation.” The sentence is designed to mislead, but the grammar is honest- Nobel Peace Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, not something like Nobel Prize winning author of…something.
Amen
Does this mean she is open to planning for cooling to be as likely as warming?
She claims that storms are being amped up by global warming, yet measurements of the real world can find no increase in storm size or frequency.
They lie. The obfuscate. They’re idiots.
“Poisonous” could also mean the jig is up on organized bad public policy.
Poisonous simply means the terminology has been exhausted. Without any data, they simply need to reboot with new terminology and definitions.
Remember “global warming”.
I’ve read this a dozen times and have no idea what she is saying. What is wrong with me?
You can find similarly meaningless pretentious drivel at this automatically generated internet page.
The page is re-generated each time it is visited or refreshed. http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
I don’t normally leave replies that are not about science, but that link is extremely funny – and unfortunately, it looks like the text in this article could have been made by that. A postmodern random text paper generator. Incredible.
More seriously, it is disturbing how deeply entrenched the environmental religion has become in the academic world. Literally, the alarmist elements are taken as a gospel truth, hence the goal of this paper to achieve a “good” outcome using subterfuge.
I gave up a probable career as an atmospheric science academic because of this nonsense almost 20 years ago. But the level of nonsense in the “soft” sciences has gotten truly insane – I could not survive in academia now whatsoever.
Perfect. Makes my brain hurt, but sounds so much like the above it is uncanny.
The Chomskybot produces similarly entertaining nonsense from a famous-linguist point of view.
I’ll take a crack at explaining the over use of crap here.
“Findings demonstrate that conceptualizations of vulnerability are affected by intellectual frameworks that tend to orient around infrastructure and human health;”
finding demonstrate that the way people view each others vulnerability(‘s) are affected by biases and indoctrination that are oriented around infrastructure(aka colleges indoctrinating people) and human health;
“that retrospective and prospective thinking are inter-related and affect one another;”
not really sure anything needs to be done to explain that line.
“and that institutionalized forms and biases are critical.”
and that colleges promote biases through propaganda are critical.”
“These factors shape the way that vulnerability is conceived differently than traditional expert frameworks.
These factors(propaganda through colleges/indoctrination) change how people view vulnerability(aka white man evil, darky god) is conceived differently, traditional appeals to authority of experts from colleges/degree holders/mainstream news shows experts/etc, are not working anymore.
Basically her argument is its time to rebrand again. Maybe take up the global cooling banner or invent something new like they did with climate weirding.
Ah now it makes sense thanks a heap mate
Thanks for fisking. BTW, what language is that?
It’s very simple!
America has no climate history, it has been blown away!
Looks like something a lawyer would write, she is obviously in the wrong field.
1) The findings show that how people think about vulnerability centers on health issues and infrastructure.
2) That thinking about the past and the future are related and affect each other;
3) That standardized/common beliefs and biases are critical in how vulnerability is perceived.
4) Rather than frame the arguments in terms of experts proclaiming something, they need to talk in terms of how people perceive or conceive of vulnerabilites.(presumably, a personalized threat or how they will be personally affected).
Why couldn’t she have written that?
She is saying ignore the data, stay on message, brass it out.
“You need to be able to lie about stuff in order to push your agenda”
That is what I translated it out as.
You obviously do not have an up to date jargon buster on hand.
Hmm. Here’s my attempted translation. “When we think about risk we worry about getting sick and basic things failing. Thinking about the future requires thinking about the past. People tend to go along with what other people around them thing. If you want to think about people thinking about risk, think about these things and ignore those boring people who want numbers.”
Her recommendation seems to be “LIE!” which would make a more cynical person than me wonder if she had followed her own advice.
Oddly enough I’m reminded of Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, who (transparently honest) relentlessly pushes the idea that we are all Meat Robots and our reasoning all post hoc rationalization for being pushed around by desires and persuaders. She says that the people SHOULD be manipulated; he says that they ARE.
It means the author is vastly over compensated.
You are lacking in conceptualisations so just pass the bong along if you’re not going to use it.
Translation; Blah . . . Blah Blah . . . Blah Blah Blah . . . . . . BLAH!!!!
Studies find that people base their thoughts on vulnerability to climactic events around concerns for infrastructure and human health. They look at both the past and future, and the vision of both colors the other. The opinions and politics of the listener play a critical role in how they interpret evidence. Interpretations and plans that ignore these factors will not succeed.
When translated into legible English, you can see that there is a cogent point in there, though a rather banal one. Probably it’s expanded on in later paragraphs. I truly have no desire to read more.
It’s not that hard to write legibly. This is supposed to be a paper made to be read and interpreted, not an art book from James Joyce.
Ben,
Easier for some (you) than others (me)
JW
I worked with a gentleman who at one time filed grant requests with the state for various school funding projects. He explained to me that the requests were to be 20 pages long, have a written goal of the project on the first page and a breakdown of how the funds were to be sent on the last page.
He also explained that they (almost) never read the 18 pages in between. He had a staple set of 18 pages that he used for every submission to fill those middle pages. They read much like the stuff (above) that you claim you can’t understand.
By the way, it took over 2 years before anybody questioned their content.
This is government contract consultant filler language….and probably a connection to an agency higher up.
@Smart Rock:
I’ll translate (as a youth, I afflicted myself with a sociology class once…)
“I think fear of damage centers on structures and people; that how we think about the past and future is connected; and our institutions influence what we do. These things cause us to see problems based on experience instead of buying-in to new ‘concensus’ theories.”
Or as a more free translation: “Those SOBs value knowledge and experience for planning more than our unfounded fantasies, the nerve!”
she can’t be a real sociologist because she uses verbs.
Re: the key to getting everybody on board to battle climate change is to avoid uttering the words “climate change.”
We could also note that the key to getting everybody on board a cattle-truck to a death camp is to avoid uttering the words “death camp.”
At risk of invoking Godwin’s Law, in my first comment. But – the similarities are clear to see.
Excellent analogy.
+++++
“Re: the key to getting everybody on board to battle climate change is to avoid uttering the words “climate change”.”
Oh my, my, ….. and recent history repeats itself.
The wacko “warminists” were told to quit using the term “global warming” and refer to it as “climate change”.
And now Sabrina McCormick is instructing the wacko “warminists” to quit using the term “climate change” …… but she didn’t tell them what it should now be called.
How about ‘weather’?
Well, if they can make an argument for a change that is sufficient without relying on the boogeyman, then it’s probably a good project. After all, a sea wall will protect from the next 100 year storm whether or not CO2 is the cause of anything, and efficiency projects typically pay off eventually.
The problem only comes when the CO2 reductions are the only benefit.
Come on, silver lining, y’all?
Cost benefit analysis.
If the cost of the wall exceeds the expected savings from reduced storm damage, then it’s not worth it to build the wall.
A lot of the time they have to use these exaggerated storms sometime in the future to justify what are little more than make work projects being handed out to friends of the mayor.
“Findings demonstrate that conceptualizations of vulnerability are affected by intellectual frameworks … that retrospective and prospective thinking are inter-related … that vulnerability is conceived differently than traditional expert frameworks.”
OK, don’t call yourself “grist”, and print crap like that
do these alarmists have any self-awareness at all?
Call it a pig or a pork chop, it is what it is.
“It’s a poisonous term to use”
=========
Give it a decade, it will also ruin your reputation.
So really she is just saying “I’ll tell you how to BS people for a while and hopefully when they’re on to the ruse it’ll be too late. It’s like fooling your dog into going for a ride and then taking him to the vet. It’s for his own good, after all.”
Reminds me of a classic Far Side ™ cartoon, dog in the back of the car yelling out the window to his fellow dogs; “Hey, I’m going to the vet to get tutored….”
Har har har….
Cheers, KevinK
Yep, but it was a truck.
============
Is this sociology or sophistry? She seems to not find any difference.
Sociology – the study of a group of people that don’t need studying by a group of people who do.
Wait a minute, the reason the term “climate change” is used is because of bad PR associated with CAGW: it’s not warming everywhere, and it’s not causing anything catastrophic anywhere. Are we now to believe that the PC term is also not true? What next “warm giggles?”
If you’re a leftist, and one meme-phrase stops working, float a new, more-fear-inducing meme-phrase. How about, “Capitalist-caused complete climate destruction”?
How about,”$h1t happens”! And that’s never good.
Actually it is good. The alternative is to have zero input or 100% retention. The better phrase is accidents are caused. Sh– happens was never a reflection of reality.
You could probably get that one to catch on: CCCCD.
Or 4CD pronounced Forced, which is what the left wants us all to be when it comes to accepting their policies.
Maybe ……. “climatic capitalism”, …… a destructive human instigated force that is destroying the natural world.
I believe the “climate” of society is taking shape: what we have is a post-industrial economy that now has time enough (and wealth enough) to employ folks to mince words and guide thoughts.
When I was young my father worked on roads and dams, my mother was a farmer’s daughter. He aspired to become a certified engineer and work in aerospace, she aspired to be the perfect mother and homemaker (June Cleaver meets John Glenn). To that end he got himself a BS in Electrical Engineering and she a BA in Home Economics. They thrived and had children, of which I was one.
Before that her father was a construction worker, former Seabee in the Korean War and his father was home schooled, self taught, civil engineer. Neither had aspirations other than to survive well and raise kids. They didn’t achieve “self-actualization” as Abraham Mazlow might have said.
Now we actually have the leisure to provide Sociologists who specialize in Environment and Occupational Health. My neighbor (a former SDS member in the 60’s) worked for WHO and eventually got herself a job doing county level public health administration. Her first husband was a Chicago School PhD economist. You could see even then they die was cast.
And it’s bound to get even more interesting as we employ more and more people to tell us exactly how to think. Good luck to all of you, I’ll be leaving soon. Thanks for all the fish. 🙂
There must be a name for the phenomenon you describe.
Everybody wants to become a coordinator, a controller, a master of others.
But, finally we will recognize that the mass of people resent excessive control of their lives.
The peasants are revolting. They don’t want to be controlled or mastered by babbling bureaucrats.
And in most cases, they don’t need it, or stand to benefit from it.
The fight back is beginning. Trust in experts is vapourising.
A person might watch the neighbours vacuous and lazy daughter sale through a psychology degree with first class honours. Now she is an expert. But an attempt at normal conversation reveals that she is still the same vacuous and lazy empty-headed fool who left home.
So step by step, the world is beginning to realize that there is a rot eating away at the core of the system.
The experts often seem to have no insight or intelligence or even, expertise.
Nobody wants to be ruled over by people who they suspect are stupider and less well informed than themselves. That’s what we saw in the Brexit vote. The mass of people voted against the experts.
@indefatigablefrog:
I can’t, off the top of my head, come up with a recognized classification for it. It’s embodied in “The Peter Principal” I think, but that’s about as close as I can get.
In my life I’ve never sought control over others and I’ve actively avoided being in control of them. The idea that advice is a very expensive gift is something I took to heart at an early age, I suppose I’ll have to credit Tolkien for that. Independence and taking care of my own garden have always been my goals and I think I’ve done well by them.
I hope you’re right the tide is turning but I have my doubts. My son graduated 8 years ago with a BS in bio-engineering at the top of his class of over 600; 4 were bio-engineers. It was very depressing for me. The vast majority were anthropologists and sociologists who likely went on to become WalMart employees. Those were kids who might have become fine mechanics, electricians and carpenters but they ended up wasting four years and hundreds of thousands for a useless “expertise” that, in their mind, granted them privilege to direct others. And you’re right observing they were the same vacuous fools who left home to start.
My daughter wanted to be a clothing retailer but I insisted she at the least get an AA in business beforehand, so even though I talk the talk, when it came right down to it I didn’t walk the walk. I have no idea how we’ll change and maybe I shouldn’t; it will happen in its own time.
I’m also currently tending my over-grown garden, also. This autumn, felling sizeable trees, piece by piece.
I am also not personally walking the walk. I dropped out of a physics degree, years ago, due to ill health and stress.
But, I strongly advised my two step-daughters to spend their time in education on learning what was practical and useful.
If they chose, on some occasions, to ignore my advice, then the reponsibility for that was not mine.
At least neither of them took any sociology, psychology or the various stupidifying “studies” subjects at A level.
Some subjects appear to have a permanently devastating effect upon the developing intellect.
I’m grateful for my solid grounding in the rational tradition, even if all that I am doing now is hiding from the world and amusing myself with home renovation and hobby engineering!!
Sorry I can’t reply directly Master Frog, a limitation of WordPress.
I did some silly things in my first college year, planning to take my A levels in British Constitutional Law, English Lit and Sociology. I ran for (and won), the VP seat at my Student Union (Farnborough Tech.) and got into the Drama program. It was fun, no doubt, but didn’t lead to much in the way of a career unless I wanted to be a bartender (which I did for awhile).
It took me 3 more years to discover I was paying fees to sit in classes I was passing without even studying the books. I switched to Physics, the Electrical Engineering. I never looked back.
I think she must have helped Australia push through those desalination plants so that they now have water to drink in spite of their unprecedented permanent forever and ever drought. “Don’t say Global Warming because it’s not really warming much but don’t say Climate Change cause it’s not really changing much. Just tell them ‘The scientists say it’s like Godzilla but invisible’. Let’s try that with these deplorable hicks. “
Dark Matter. ‘Nuff said.
and ‘Dark Energy’.
Dark Elves
Mysteriously Dark Chocolate.
Missed the first time…
I’m actually going to speak out for the desalination plants. While they might have been been built on a bad prediction, the basic idea of them is sound, and should they be maintained until the next swing comes around, they will prove useful when Australia switches to a dry spell again.
The bet on the desalination plant was lost. However, that’s far better than the “not-even-wrong” projects that are being thrown around, such as power plants that won’t ever produce energy equal to their construction, subsidized electric sports cars for the ultra-wealthy, or converting coal plants to biomass that decrease production while increasing both pollution and direct environmental effects.
From an economic stand point, now that they are built, how much they cost doesn’t matter.
What matters is, does the cost of maintenance exceed the expected future benefit?
Deferred maintenance is the bane of all constructed items. You can spend a few thousands or tens of thousands per year, or do a total replacement for tens or hundreds of millions in 10 – 15 years. Like the commercial said, “Pay me now or pay me later.”
I tend to agree about the desal plants. I think California should have done something like this with all the money they’ve blown. That being said, it costs about $400M/yr to keep one nonfunctioning plant maintained. The cost of living where long droughts occur, I suppose.
Mysteriously Dark Chocolate.
PS: I think this is why God invented grad students; you fill them full of the nonsense you wouldn’t dare say in public then turn them loose to see what happens.
How about kids in general ?
No, I wouldn’t (and haven’t) done that to mine. There’s something perverse about grad students, though I also wouldn’t do it to one of them. Maybe it’s just the sort of person that’s attracted to becoming a Professor of Sociology?
Why is it that these negative connotations exist toward climate change? Because fear-mongering has raised a largely disproven theory to the pedestal of “consensus”.
Climate change is like seasonal weather change in slow motion. Our society has always been able to cope with “climate change” on a month-by-month basis, planning for the extremes. Why should there be any “vulnerability” due to climate changing?
Oh yeah, climate change only goes one way for folks like her… so maybe she should go back to saying catastrophic global warming and not abuse the term “climate change”.
I recall when “liberals” started calling themselves “progressives” because too many people sneered when talking about “f-ing liberals.” I would note that this change has one thing in common with banning the term “climate change” and that is this: people who now call themselves “progressive” stole the term “liberal” from people who must now call themselves “classical liberals”. The later group were people who championed personal freedom, rule of law, discipline, rational thought and giving deference to the opinions of others.
As for progressive use of the term “climate change”, it is no more truthful than the progressive term “assault weapon”. In the case of the former, past repeated cycles of glaciation on a vast scale prove that the climate is *always* changing, so this term is nonsense. As for the later, it is a progressive term for something that is defined by nebulous cosmetic criteria, not having anything to do with meaningful function.
The last insult of progressives is that they claim to be the guardians of moral truth when in fact they are hostile to the truth when it conflicts with their ideology.
Your discussion of the way the Marxists seized “liberal” then morphed into “progressives” is particularly poignant, I’ve been fighting that fight awhile myself.
And let’s face it, if you’re using a weapon against another person or group of people you don’t call it “hunting”; it’s either a defense or an assault. Apparently progressives would prefer not to be the subjects of assault and don’t like the idea someone might defend themselves either. Oh well. The rules weren’t expressly written for them. At least not yet.
“American cities from Boston to Baton Rouge are getting hammered by hurricanes, torrential downpours, and blizzards amped up by climate change.”
Says who?
A sociologist.
…Environmental sociologists, also known as …… pathological liars….
Sociology – the study of a group of people that don’t need studying by a group of people who do.
TA, That’s the one that has left me speechless (so far)
There has not been one real hurricane for years and the one that just “inundated” Florida and the rest of the SE States was nothing but a large albeit wet tropical storm, it barely reached ( if it did in fact) # 1 hurricane status. But hey the MSM had a “field” day.
Leaning into gusts of 35 mph standing next to waves and so on. I feel terrible for the people that were flooded and so on but they have been lured into a false situation for years by these same MSM people!
It is simply a “Sudden Historic Intentional Thermal-warming theory” or a “SHI_T theory” for short.
Just tell people that the scientists pushing this SHI_T theory are making $400K per year and they will understand quick enough.
Or let’s say that there are 100,000 scientists pushing this SHI_T theory (about right) each making $400,000 per year (about right) and the total works out to $40.0 Billion per year. NOW, people should really understand what this is all about. It is simply corrup_tion.
+10
Too bad that IPCC’s 2013 AR5 Report (Chapter 2, pages 150~285) states that global severe weather incidence/severity trends have been flat/falling for the past 60~100+ years for: hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, droughts, floods, tornadoes, tropical storms, sub-tropical storms, thunderstorms, hail, etc…. Whoops…
Yes, any fool that still uses the term “Climate Change” will find the term poisonous to their careers and their credibility in about 5~7 years.
People around the world are realizing that Leftists cannot effectively control their societies and economies without destroying their lives, and are beginning to realize that Leftists’ “Climate Change” policies are further ruining their economies for no reason whatsoever.
CAGW is already a disconfirmed hypothesis under the rules of the scientific method:
Over the past 166 years, global temp trends have ALWAYS fallen when PDO/AMO cycles are in their 30-year cool cycles. This phenomenon will occur again in about 2 years and global cooling will likely be enhanced when the weakest solar cycle since 1790 starts in 2022.
When CAGW alarmists start trying to blame global cooling on global warming (excuse me, “Climate Change”), that WILL be “a poisonous term to use”….
And so it goes…. until it doesn’t…
I have been looking for a copy of the above graph with error bars for the CMIP5 portion of the graph. I am sure that I have seen it. Any help?
Any ‘error bars’ aren’t. RGBatDuke has explained that many times. The 5-95% envelope of the model run spreads is just that, an envelope of simulation results. It is in no way a statistcal comfidence level around the ensemble average, just like the ensemble average is not a statistical mean. Don’t let warmunist doublespeak confuse you.
Would you care to provide a link to the peer-reviewed paper yor graph comes from. It’s from Christy I believe.
“I have been looking for a copy of the above graph with error bars for the CMIP5 portion of the graph. I am sure that I have seen it. Any help?”
Is this graph designed to show that any fool can adjust temperatures to match a basket of random models?
The massive El Niño of 1998 has been, to all intents and purposes, disappeared in the above graph – just like the 1940’s ‘blip’. I detect an anthropogenic cause.
Toneb, when was that published? 2005, correct? If I recall, the above graph was produced based on the 1995 predictions. If my guesses at dates are correct, then the models in your graph predict precisely nothing during that time. After all, we could be in the onset of an ice age and not have the cooling needed to drop out the bottom.
Finally, 95% spread of models is an incorrect analysis. You can’t treat models like independent datasets and average them. Models just don’t work that way. They are either accurate or inaccurate, and they definitely aren’t independent since they share code, assumptions, calculations, and data.
As for peer review. It has been reviewed by many peers over the past decade. Given the furious pace of updates on RetractionWatch, I think we can say that being published in a journal gives no guarantee of accuracy.
OK: Here the complete IPCC range of projections…..
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/files/2016/02/WGI_AR5_Fig1-4_UPDATE.jpg
From: http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/
“As for peer review. It has been reviewed by many peers over the past decade. Given the furious pace of updates on RetractionWatch, I think we can say that being published in a journal gives no guarantee of accuracy.”
I asked for a link for it in a peer-reviewed paper… Very different.
Indeed a paper is no guarantee of accuracy but it is a measure of the author’s confidence in it.
Then again we still have no paper about Spencer & Christy’s latest UAH6 changes and that seems to be the “Gold standard”, well since RSS went “warmest” anyway.
From: http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/
How did a blog get a .ac.uk domain?
https://community.jisc.ac.uk/library/janet-services-documentation/eligibility-policy
It’s a mistake to fight propaganda with facts. Completely missing the target.
Propaganda is an emotional argument. Anything that looks like a fact in it is just window dressing, read the emotion. That’s what people retain. Trying to counter the facts in this sort of propaganda is actually missing the real message.
There is a Wikipedia page on counterpropaganda, which has some useful info…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterpropaganda
The important part is at the bottom: exposing the propagandists, attacking reasoning errors, exposing the deceits.
It’s a case of “crying wolf” too many times. People tune “climate change” out because it is not affecting their lives. They don’t see what all the fuss is about. So they ignore all the warnings more and more.
This makes the alarmists deperate because they are certain they hold the truth and cannot understand why everyone else can’t see what they see. This causes them to double-down on their efforts, and question their own methods in hopes of getting through the thick skulls of all the little people who don’t see the danger. If they can’t convince them intellectually, then they try to figure out how to fool them into going along.
The thermometer is not cooperating with the Alarmists. And there is not much they can do about that. Doctored temperature charts will only get one so far, especially when the chart does not mirror the weather people experience.
Here are a couple of other choice articles Ms McCormick has written; “Transforming Oil Activism: From Legal Restraints to Evidenciary Opportunity”, also “Democratizing Science Movements: A New Framework for Contestation”. She makes documentaries too. The Climate Change dogma will be with us for a long time. It has PR firms, sociologist, governments, and its own brand of scientists all pushing the envelope.
Democratizing Science?
Is that another way of saying science by consensus?
I note the gobbledygook paragraph that several others have zeroed in on and ponder:
Should the term ‘sociology’ be redefined to mean the study OF sociologists? Now there’s a field with limitless horizons.
P.S. Shhhh… don’t use the poisonous word ‘sociologist.’ People will think you are studying them.
Sociology – the study of a group of people that don’t need studying by a group of people who do.
The more verbiage from government officials I read concerning climate change, the clearer it becomes that “climate change” is a Trojan horse for ecototalitarian dictatorship.
Now the layers of deceit are multiplying, it’s becoming – to mix metaphors – a Trojan matrioshka doll. Inane concerned-sounding blablabla concealing climate change concealing ecototalitarianism.
If “climate change” has become poisonous it is probably time for yet another change of name. I suggest calling it “Climate Related Anomalous Predictions”. It has such an appropriate acronym.