It is a sign of our times, however, that the one topic of conversation once reliably safe and boring—the weather—is now more treacherous than an abandoned mine field.
Why I Deny Big Climate Alarmism
Opinion by Walter Donway
What leads an objective non-scientist, examining the arguments, to reject “global warming,” a.k.a., “Big Climate alarmism”?
A couple weeks ago, my wife and I had dinner with a long-time friend of hers and her boyfriend. My wife had been friends with this woman for years, but never introduced me. Now, it seems, the woman wanted to meet me and to bring along her boyfriend. My wife warned me that they were “very Left,” “big Sanders supporters, now Hillary supporters,” and “politically correct.” I hoped that the restaurant’s cuisine would be endlessly fascinating material for conversation, but, just in case, I boned up on Jane Austen’s novels.
It is a sign of our times, however, that the one topic of conversation once reliably safe and boring—the weather—is now more treacherous than an abandoned mine field. (Let’s not get into that.) The global warming/climate change Gestapo (just kidding, will explain) sought out the ugliest epithet of modern times—Holocaust denier—and tailored it to fit their intellectual adversaries. It reflects, I suppose, their scientific temperament of openness to challenge and maintaining an atmosphere of objective discourse. About as much as if I, observing their bully boy tactics toward all opponents, referred to them as the Gestapo of global warming. But I don’t.
I don’t recall how global warming infiltrated into our dinner conversation. But consider: Global warming/climate change activists now view the threat as of the same magnitude as the rise of National Socialist (Nazi) aggression in the late 1930s—the basis for an article recently emblazoned across the pages The New Republic by William McKibben, one of the leading global warming/climate change activists in the world. Therefore, they believe that its implications are overwhelming in science, politics, economics, the 2016 election, health, education, agriculture, urban planning, discussion of any extreme weather, travel, population migration…
I knew that Jane Austen would be a winner!
No such luck, we were onto global warming. “Oh, so you’re a denier?”
“Well, there are no deniers…”
With infinite weariness, a look of oh-God-it’s-one-of-them: “Which means?
“I agree that the Earth’s mean global surface temperature was slowly increasing from about 1880 to 1998. I agree that the climate is constantly changing and requires vigilance and preventive measures based upon real threats such as cold snaps, drought or flooding, hurricanes… I agree that carbon dioxide and certain trace gases in the atmosphere contribute to a greenhouse effect, trapping heat from the sun within our atmosphere. I agree that since the Industrial Revolution, around 1740, average mean Earth surface temperatures may have increased as much as .7 of a degree Celsius and this contributes to the greenhouse effect.
“Did you know that when they say 97 percent of scientists agree with global warming, they mean only that they responded ‘yes’ to those statements? So do I.”
How have the global warming/climate change alarmists convinced much of the public—and of course the mainstream media, but that’s a given—that this multi-decade, sometimes multi-century prediction of the Earth’s weather, down to a degree or two, is as irrefutable, as undeniable, as the most studied and described event of the 20th Century?
My wife, kicking me under the table: “Walter, give someone else a chance to speak.”
My wife’s friend, no dummy, just looking at me, waiting, thinking: What the HELL scam is this?
I say: “But I don’t see any cause for alarm. Science and its predictions are all about how much, how fast, compared withwhat? The scientific ‘consensus’ is not about that.”
The latest “weather predictions” have moved from telling us we should bring an umbrella, when we go out, to telling us we should moth-ball industrial civilization’s dominant sources of power—of all economic production, transportation, heating and cooling, and everything else—on the basis of a long-term weather prediction.
My wife’s friend says, eyes closed, “I don’t want to discuss it, anymore.”
Who would? Would you want to lend an ear to a guy who denied the Holocaust—an historical event proven in court (at Nuremberg), attested by thousands of victims, documented by literally thousands of historians, and with known and visited sites of its hideous crimes against humanity?
How have the global warming/climate change alarmists convinced much of the public—and of course the mainstream media, but that’s a given—that this multi-decade, sometimes multi-century prediction of the Earth’s weather, down to a degree or two, is as irrefutable, as undeniable, as the most studied and described event of the 20th Century? And in doing so, deliberately envenomed a debate over the predictions of climate science—the weather?
Read the entire thing here: http://www.thesavvystreet.com/why-i-deny-big-climate-alarmism/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Global warming advocacy is a part of the green movement, a stereotypical mass movement that acts in a quasi-religious manner. Arguing with a green is like arguing with a Jehovah’s Witness, or a Communist, or a vegan.
…Actually, Global warming advocacy is part of the U.N. “Agenda 21” protocol to reduce the Human population….not including them ( liberal elites) , of course…
Thank you Marcus! Bullseye!
But who will remain to do all the ‘menial’ work for these liberal elites? Will they preserve some Betas and Epsilons as part of the overall plan?
“””””….. “I agree that the Earth’s mean global surface temperature was slowly increasing from about 1880 to 1998. …..”””””
BUT !! NOT Monotonically.
It went up, it went down. Based on the numbers so far it maybe has gone up more than it has gone down over those years under consideration.
BUT ! The CO2; the root cause of it all, has NEVER gone down year to year; at least as gauged by the Mauna Loa record, since IGY.
Ergo, global warming and CO2 are very loosely linked; if at all !
And there is more evidence that says that Temperature is the horse, and CO2 is the cart; than there is that says verse vicea.
And all the hellabelloo is over whether it is one deg. F warmer today than it was in 1852.
Well that is out of the possible extreme range of Temperature on any given day that may be as much as 150 deg. C
And I won’t even mention that the daily weather Temperature regularly varies over a greater range than has the global climate Temperature at any time in the last 600 million years.
As they say: ” A pimple on a wrinkle on a sand fly’s A^^^ ! ”
Whoopee !
G
And it is quite conceivable that it is no warmer today than it was in the 1930s/1940s.
Back in the 1970s NASA/NOAA were suggesting that the world had cooled between 1940 and mid 1970s by up to about 0.5degC. Satellite data suggests that the globe may have warmed by about 0.4degC since 1979.
If those figures are true and representative, we are today broadly speaking at the same temperature as the late 1930s/mid 1940s. this is notwithstanding that almost all manmade CO2 has been emitted since the late 1930s!!
This would put Climate Sensitivity to CO2 based upon observational data at around zero.
“And it is quite conceivable that it is no warmer today than it was in the 1930s/1940s. ”
It was hotter in the 1930’s according to the Climate Change Gurus.
And if you go by the weather then and now, this year’s very mild weather is nowhere near as hot as the 1930’s. It was so bad back in the 1930’s that some climate scientists were suggesting the central U.S. be evacuated. Anybody suggesting evacuating the central U.S. this year? This decade? Answer: Don’t make me laugh.
The environment and climate is just used as another victim group by the leftist? Adorno and co called it the domination of nature idea. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaBpVzOohs
your rejection of the science – like that of the author of this piece – is political, not based on the science…
I can’t help you with that, but the climate is neither red nor blue.
“I agree that the Earth’s mean global surface temperature was slowly increasing from about 1880 to 1998. I agree that the climate is constantly changing and requires vigilance and preventive measures based upon real threats such as cold snaps, drought or flooding, hurricanes… I agree that carbon dioxide and certain trace gases in the atmosphere contribute to a greenhouse effect, trapping heat from the sun within our atmosphere. I agree that since the Industrial Revolution, around 1740, average mean Earth surface temperatures may have increased as much as .7 of a degree Celsius and this contributes to the greenhouse effect.
“Did you know that when they say 97 percent of scientists agree with global warming, they mean only that they responded ‘yes’ to those statements? So do I.”
That’s one Hell of a ‘rejection,’ griffy.
Griff, the two are not mutually exclusive. I have political differences with the green left, based on their 40 years of wild-ass predictions of doom that just never happened, and I have investigated the science allegedly behind their claims enough to conclude to a moral certainty the best the greens do is vast overstatement of their case.
Tom you make a good point, but so many comments here start with ‘lefty’ ‘alarmist’ etc.
The debate is better conducted without label, don’t you think?
I’ll agree that the name calling is a problem. The number of “Agenda 21s” and “lefty” here is almost as bad as “denier” elsewhere.
I’ll just assume your coffee was wearing off, given the timestamp on your post. We’re all grouchy at 1:00 AM, and WordPress doesn’t allow correections. Thanks for sticking out, Griff. While I don’t alway (or even often) agree with you, the counterpoint is welcome to stop the echo chamber.
Griff,
Not political, just curious. what is “the” science?
What science was rejected,Griss? The ones filled with far into the future climate models,to year 2100 and even 3100 (yes it is in the IPCC report) Those untestable climate models you love so dearly?
Broken models aren’t science.
No matter how many times you whine that they are.
The fact that “the science” flatly dismisses the substantial evidence that both warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels have beneficial effects is alone sufficient to reject it as politically driven pseudo-science.
Ah, that’s one of my hobbies.
The first requisite is a good knowledge of other religions. Don’t even bother trying if you don’t have this.
The second requisite is to treat the Jehovah’s Witnesses with respect. Act like you are genuinely interested in a dialog (which I actually am).
The third requisite is not to accept any of their basic tenets. Whether you believe it or not, if you want to successfully argue with a Jehovah’s Witness, you can not accept that the Bible is the ultimate font of all truth. You cannot accept their version of God or even accept that God is necessary to religion. Your Jehovah’s Witness has to be in the position of having to prove everything.
One possible line of discussion involves revelation. The experts on that are the Zen Buddhists. Their whole schtick is about achieving revelation through meditation. What they will tell you is that the vast majority of epiphanies are wrong, sometimes disasterously so. People should not trust that they have achieved satori until they check it out with their roshi. At that point you can enter a discussion about how we can test the revelations of the Bible.
The most entertaining result is that your Jehovah’s Witness will run away screaming.
The best result may be that the Jehovah’s Witness may realize that: “There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
We stand little chance of converting greenies. We can, at least, convince them that skepticism is a valid position.
I just used to come to the door naked. Sends them screaming every time, never to return.
When the discussion turned to science it was like one hand clapping. No possibility of further dialog, finding common ground, debunking falsehoods… You took away the glamour of concern projecting and did so over dinner. So boorish; shame on you!
“the glamour of concern projecting”
I like that.
http://oi67.tinypic.com/28amcdh.jpg
Virtue signalling is the modern version of holier-than-thou religious piety. Carbon offsets are indulgencies. I call it the Toyota Pious.
Thank you for that.
The climatists insist we prove our case. But they’re the ones who want to use the muscle of government to force their position on the rest of us. By traditional American jurisprudence they should have to carry the burden of proof. But they deflect that burden by arguing, falsely, that we’re forcing our position on them. They accuse oil companies of “going on the attack” spending money on lobbyists, lawyers, and ads, when what the oil companies are doing is trying to defend themselves from the climatists.
The Warmistas must prove
1) That the current variations of “global temperature” are not natural.
2) That said variations are dangerous
3) That the CO2 increase is not due to those variations,
I would approach it differently, just ask “Do you still drive a car? Still heat/cool your home? Use electricity? Fly?” That always shuts them down, get them to admit to being climate hypocrites, embarrass them.
And the always popular, “Do you still breathe?”
Nice point 🙂
All life depends upon combustion and CO2 is fundamental to life on this planet.
The Warmistas are opposed to combustion, opposed to life.
I point out the window – or, if outside I just point at a tree. I ask, “can you tell me the primary constituents of that plant?” That nearly inevitably engenders a blank look. “OK,” I ask, “can you tell just what the results of burning it are?” Disturbingly, well over 50% don’t know. They think that putting a tree or wheat field on a reduced-carbon “diet” will be good for the planet. It is like asking a vegan how many non-animal sources of Vitamin D are known. Don’t know, don’t care, and can’t understand why they have health problems.
Add Vitamin B12 to that list.
Prof Brian Cox is appearing on BBC’s Newsnight prog tonight, talking about how people aren’t listening to what scientists are telling them. I doubt that he’s revised his views since his Australian debacle.
“without doubting every single word he says.”
Or the Guardian, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, WaPo, NYT, Politifarse, Atlantic, HuffPoo,,,,,,,,,,
my problem is dealing with irrational quasi religious advocacy, what is the apropriate response? In Australia and in many countries it is the rejection of the current political structures and the installation of populist advocates who articulate the frustration we all feel.
My problem isn’t dealing with the irrational quasi religious advocacy, it is the blatant and menacing ignorance and absolutely closed minds regarding their religious beliefs.
Indeed. Have a look here.
New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/sep/19/new-study-undercuts-favorite-climate-myth-more-co2-is-good-for-plants
The comment section is full of people that need to see a shrink!
Looks like frutticake Dana Nuttiestcello has gone off the deep end again.
Shame he didn’t ask all of the big greenhouse growers first.
Instead Danaloon glommed onto a very poor paper that masturbates a model results into alarmist fantasy.
From the paper’s abstract conclusion:
Suggest? “large year to year variability”? Where do they these wonderful ideas?
Further into the paper:
And
And
And
Who would of thought that? It’s all based on models. Models that look to have terrible fit to observations.
I suppose if one run out of 300+ climate models has a brief echo of similarity to observations, why fifty percent range must seem wonderful.
Now we can expect the trolls to come through harping about CO2 allegedly being bad for plants.
I guess that means trolls will swear off all hothouse tomatoes, peppers, salad greens, herbs, flowers, started plants for the garden, etc…
I confess that I am neither a climate change alarmist nor a climate change denier. Frankly, I am interested in an intellectual discussion of the science, climatology and economics of the global environmental debate. Yes, you can call me a lukewarmer , if you need a label.
In response to a Sept 13 “Climate etc.” comment, Climategrog, pointed out that “the key parts of the climate are basically unknown,” I would suggest “I don’t know” is an appropriate label.
Well Humpty Dumpty got his shell cracked by following your example.
We really need more fence sitters.
G
One of the truest of Axioms says:
” If you aren’t a part of the solution; then you are a part of the problem. ”
G
george e. smith September 19, 2016 at 7:11 pm
…
” If you aren’t a part of the solution; then you are a part of the problem. ”
I have detested this “Axiom” since I first heard it. It is motivational-poster dreck. Actually, in a great many cases, one may be a victim of the problem, and/or a victim of the solution, without being either a part of the problem or of the solution. In many other cases, one may be entirely outside the dynamic, with no incentive to participate.
which is a reasonable point of view…
but not the one shared by many commenters here, who reject climate science simply because it is accepted by those of another political persuasion.
If this blog is to be about discussing climate and climate science (my interests and reason for coming here) then we could do without the denunciations of any political viewpoint. The science stands or fails on data and methodology – not whether a Republican rejects it or Democrat accepts it.
Nor does accepting the science automatically invalidate all other scientific opinion and research from a scientist. Cox is completely wrong about everything because he engaged in debate with a man who thinks it is all fake data and a UN plot? come on!
‘then we could do without the denunciations of any political viewpoint. ‘ – he says, immediately after denouncing those of ‘another political persuasion.’
“The science stands or fails on data and methodology – not whether a Republican rejects it or Democrat accepts it.”
I agree. Now we just have to agree on the science, or lack thereof. As for the data, well, that is a problem. It’s hard to agree on the science when you don’t trust the data being used.
“science” is a misleading term. Some things we know very well such as energy, mechanics etc. But other subjects are very complicated so science only means here that investigation, quantification is possible but results are uncertain. That’s why every 10 years other diets are suggested. The same with the climate: too many even unknown variables. Real science is continuous doubt and debate. Quacks sell false hope and false certaincies. We have fallen victim of false prophets.
Griff, how is the climate supposedly changing that has you so concerned?
Kamikazedave – come on, you know the orthodox science viewpoint on that…
and all the evidence to the contrary on this website hasn’t yet convinced me its wrong.
so lets not have that conversation here, eh?
“accepting the science…”
Griffmeister,
Do not accept the science. You can go to a revival and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, if you would like, but please please do not accept the science. Science is never ACCEPTED!!! It is studied, understood, debated, and endlessly changing, but never Accepted.
Spare us. Do you understand anything about the science? Do you know that CO2 saturates within three meters of the Earth’s surface, and that the increase in CO2 is most important at the TOA, where no one can calculate anything? “Logarithmic” not really, Earth has never ever been in Energy Balance, and every major parameter varies daily. No one can even measure Earth’s albedo to more than one significant digit. Is it .30, .36, larger, smaller? No one really knows.
What was the temperature in Bialystok in 1915? Do you know? Does anyone?
Spare us. If you didn’t know, most “Climate Scientists” are advocates, such as yourself, who adopted this profession as an opportunity to effect political agendas.
Goodness…
Come on, y’all. We can have a civil discussion. You are only proving Griff’s point. I can’t recall the number of times that I or anyone else has been attacked or insulted because the peson thought I wasn’t toing the line enough.
It’s better here than in other locations on the internet, which is unfortunately not saying much. However, that does not mean that it cannot be improved.
That being said, Griff. I don’t reject climate science. I reject biased interpretations of it. I know you know the difference. Don’t join them in just a series of insults, please.
Griff,
Not trying to be pushy or challenging, but you keep referring to “THE science.” it’s hard to have a science discussion with out knowing what you consider “THE science” to be. below (I think, not always sure where a comment ends up), you blow it off by referring to the “orthodox science viewpoint.”
You try to avoid any political conversation, but unfortunately almost all global warming/climate change “science” anymore is political/ideological, with one side trying to shut up and marginalize the other (I’ll let you decide which is which).
Look at Kerry and Obama calling “climate change” the biggest threat to our national security while avoiding any discussion of the threat of terrorism. No rhetorical scare tactics there, all objective “science.” Look at HRC putting anybody who disagrees with her in a basket of deplorables. I don’t think it is too much of a leap of logic to assume that also means anyone who disagrees with her position on climate change. I think the comments of many of the world leaders (IMF, EU, etc.) stating that it’s not about the science, it’s about economics, wealth redistribution and global governance have been summarized here too many times to count.
Most people wouldn’t really care about global warming if it WAS just a scientific/ academic discussion, but it’s having a real affect on millions of people, with higher energy bills, higher taxes, higher food costs because of insane biofuels policies, etc.
It has NOTHING to do with “THE science” anymore, It is ALL politics.
Griff sees
‘many commenters here, who reject climate science.’
__________________________
So Griff is a honorable man:
accepting climate science.
Anyone else notice how leftists in general, and leftwing environmentalists in particular insist on believing that there is no such thing as an honest disagreement.
Anyone who disagrees with them does so from dishonest motives. At best.
“Kamikazedave – come on, you know the orthodox science viewpoint on that…and all the evidence to the contrary on this website hasn’t yet convinced me its wrong.
so lets not have that conversation here, eh?”
Pretty simple question if the climate is in half the crisis state you appear to think it is in. Not surprised you nor any other alarmist I converse with can’t answer it.
I don’t reject climate science. But there are a lot of things being floated out there in the name of science that are not. That’s what I reject. My favorite three, and also the central to the CAGW theory:
1.) Thinking that we can currently measure the average global temperature to within a hundredth or even tenth of a degree.
2.) Believing that we can “recreate” the pre-measurement temperature record using proxies such as tree rings within any useful error envelope.
3.) Believing that woefully incomplete process models (written by non software professionals) can tell us what the global temperature will be 100 years, let alone 10 years, in the future.
Not that any of those areas is unworthy of further study, but making any conclusions at this point is NOT science. And making public policy based on them is idiocy.
Stephen, the thing to really understand is that the alarmist is basing his position on computer modeling, while the opposition – there are no climate change deniers – base their positions on observations and data.
If you have ever played the game Sim City or Sim Farm, then you recognize that they “simulate” what running a city or a farm is like, but they won’t give you the ability to run a city or a farm. They can simulate perhaps thousands of aspects about these simple things, but they can’t “model” running either.
Consider the stock market- there are probably 100s of thousands of factors involved in attempting to predict the stock market, and no one has written a program that successfully models it.
The climate has an unknown number of factors that no one really knows exactly how they will interact although they have a rough idea of how some of them can and do. You can “simulate” the climate, based on that, just as you could the stock market, but you cannot “model” what you do not know. And when the “simulations” they call models run, they cannot duplicate reality any better than Sim City does.
The alarmist is willing to change the life potential of every person on Earth, to limit their hopes and dreams, based on the output of simulations that do not agree with reality. Those of us that oppose them feel that there is no proof that their claims hold water because it flies in the face of the reality of the data. We don’t “deny” climate changes because it always has, but we do oppose being forced to give up life and its potential “because a poor simulation” predicts that something bad will happen 200 years from now if we don’t kill off half or more of the people on the planet, That is what stopping the use of carbon based energy would do. Other than God, do you know who has the right to choose to kill that many people?
Sounds like loads of fun responding to ill informed, manipulated minds and opinions. When I observe such behavior, the only thing that interests me is their information sources and how they got to where they are now. A number of years ago I heard several people talking about how Ireland’s educational system accounted for that countries economic success (before the Great Recession). I knew there was a lot more to the story than education (e.g. corporate tax system and EU entry point) but I was fascinated at how effective the misinformation line had spread a story along social interest lines like education spending. (The same story applies to Switzerland and its global tax cheating.) And when you try to give a short version of the real story to catch them up or a broader view, it comes across as hopeless as trying to tell someone the age of the earth compared to evangelical notions. None of them are really interested in anything beyond their own shaped opinions. So next time turn it into an interesting search of how people fall into intellectual ruts…..and order something easy on the menu to get out fast.
“I knew there was a lot more to the story than education (e.g. corporate tax system and EU entry point) but I was fascinated at how effective the misinformation line had spread a story along social interest lines like education spending.”
It is also disturbing to see just how long some of these propaganda lies can continue to thrive, even in the face of factual evidence to the contrary.
It is true that if you repeat a lie often enough, the lie will become the “truth”, especially if those repeating the lies are those who have influence and authority in the society. The Leftwing Media fits this bill in the United States. The Left has taken over the Media and use it to spread their propaganda and lies, and it has been very effective for them.
But things seem to be changing. The Leftwing Media’s approval ratings are the lowest they have ever been, and their obvious partisan attacks on Trump going forward, will only alienate them further from the American people. Let’s hope enough of them are alienated to put Trump into Office. If I was a betting man, I would say there are already enough.
Have you seen Trump’s rallies? Have you seen Hillary’s? Like Day and Night. Trump can’t find a venue big enough to hold his crowds, and Hillary has to use visual tricks to hide how few people attend her rallies.
Expect an all-out, frenetic attack on Trump from the Left from now until the election. They have run out of distortions to use, so now they are creating outright lies in their efforts to harm Trump.
Think of the ramifications for the CAGW theory if Trump is elected! It will be a whole new ballgame then. Maybe we can get a little sanity back in our lives. 49 days.
…399 Gold Stars for you Ta, my fellow “Deplorable” !! LOL
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/19/photo-donald-trump-draws-massive-crowd-far-more-than-hillary-clinton-in-florida/
PHOTO: Donald Trump Packs Arena, Hillary Draws 200 at Dueling Events
“Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump packed an Estero, Florida arena with thousands inside and more outside for a Monday rally.
The News-Press estimated the crowd at more than 8,000 people and the heat at over 90 degrees outside the arena where attendees stood before gaining entrance to the event.
Meanwhile Hillary Clinton spoke at Temple University the same day in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It was reportedly attended by less than 200 people.”
Ignorant left wingers belieive in the fairies and leprecauns with respect to economic relations. Why do you think these self proclaimed idiot-fools would listen to actual Scientists instead of left wing non-scientific fools? they would much rather agree with Castro and Chavez who took the highest per capita income Latin American societies and turned them into basket cases just like Haiti?
“Global warming/climate change activists now view the threat as of the same magnitude as the rise of National Socialist (Nazi) aggression in the late 1930s”
Talk about pot-kettle-black.’
The fact that these fascists deride anyone whi even looks lik ethey might gainsay their ravings as ‘deniers’ is just particulaly vicious irony.
I suffered almost exactly the same fate when I went for coffee with my wife’s swimming group on the Friday morning after the UK’s EU referendum. When I said that I thought that leaving the EU might free the UK from some of the crazy EU climate anxiety driven energy policies, one lady piped up “Oh, yes, you’re a climate denier!” and made it clear that the topic was not up for discussion. I wasn’t even allowed to find out what she meant by the term. Out of politeness I desisted. Maybe we’ll have them round for dinner so I can’t be told to shut up.
I got an even more spectacular response at a meal with other friends once when the topic of renewables etc was being chewed over. I mentioned that I couldn’t see what was wrong with nuclear power for low CO2 electricty generation. The poor lady at whom the remark was directed went red and nearly choked on her food. She clearly wasn’t used to hearing opinions that she didn’t agree with.
Well, the reaction is because so many people with similar views also have a batch of weird reasons to go with them.
If saying that its all a UN plot is as valid a reason for opposing the science of climate change as doubts over historic sea ice figures, then the skeptic side will lose out. Skeptics need to actively weed out – how can I say this? – the loonies if the (skeptic) science is to stand. Steve Goddard for example is not a releiable source.
It doesn’t help that so much effort on the skeptic side goes to repeating things which plainly and objectively aren’t true – thee is not more CO2 from volcanoes than human activity.
And when a skeptic paid for piece of research shows that no, the surface temperature record is not rigged, you would do well to accept the evidence.
I’m not impressed either by the cherry picking either… the one arctic sea ice chart which shows the most thick ice – why always pick that one to illustrate the article?
Skeptics aren’t”repeating” that volcanos emit more CO2 than man.
Some are, Roger. Remember how Anthony had to permanently ban that group he called the “Sky Dragons” for claiming that the greenhouse effect didn’t exist? There are all sorts of fools, even on this site, and the reasonable voices often get drowned out.
I confess that I get a twinge every time someone says “Agenda 21” because it devolves into a conspiracy theory. That sort of thing undermines everything we are trying to do.
roger, you have to remember how the mind of a leftist works.
If one skeptic says something ludicrous, it immediately becomes something that all skeptics believe.
On the other hand, anyone on their side that says something ludicrous instantly becomes a non-entity. Even if that person had been quoted in almost every journal and article up to that point.
You appear to be a bigot on this, Griff since many warmists sites don’t even allow skeptical comments at all,not even civil ones which is the common type.
You whine about Steven Goddard so much, but when you have posted there,you get taken to the school on the many things you leave out. Meanwhile you are able to post there without trouble despite it. Tony has proved beyond doubt using ONLY GISS own data sets,Charts and their own postings.
Then you say skeptics get paid to produce papers to fit a narrow view (a stupid claim long debunked years ago),meanwhile huge environmentalists sites gets hundred millions to BILLION a year, to push all kinds of scaremongering crap.
Grow up Griff!
..In reality, the only ” Climate Change Deniers” are liberals, who some how believe that the climate has never changed until Big Bad Humans came along…I am proud to be a Climate Change believer………and a ” Deplorable ” !!
Marcus, what was all the flap about “deplorables”? (i haven’t found it within myself to care enough about it to look it up… ☺)
“what was all the flap about “deplorables”?”
In a speech about a week ago, Hillary said that she thought about half of Trump’s supporters could be put into a “bowl of deplorables” such as racists, homophobes, Islamophobes, xenophobes, etc. Basically, Hillary was calling Trump and his supporters a bunch of Nazis. This is a standard attack by the Left on the Right. They do it all the time, and will do it a whole lot over the next 49 days.
Hillary’s “deplorables” comment caused a backlash, which caused Hillary to try to walk back her statement a little by saying she should not have said “half”. She did not say whether she really meant more or less than half.
So some of Trump’s supporters are wearing the “Deplorables” like a badge of honor.
Thanx, TA… i guess it’s kind of like “les miserables” (only different)
You should just take it on. Ridiculing the ridiculous is one of life’s little pleasures.
My wife’s friend says, eyes closed, “I don’t want to discuss it, anymore.”
That, right there, is where I always wind up. No matter how carefully you construct your side of the argument, once you get them backed into a corner from which there is no escape, they just want to change the subject. Changing their minds apparently isn’t an option.
Such behavior is a sign of trauma. Brains get rewired by angst and experience, so that almost literally, the traumatized person cannot entertain a contradictory thought. Doing so causes too much psychological pain.
The only cure, typically, is some sort of shock therapy — not electrical shock, but some experiential shock that is so strong as to cause the prior traumatic wiring to come undone.
“The only cure, typically, is some sort of shock therapy — not electrical shock, but some experiential shock that is so strong as to cause the prior traumatic wiring to come undone.”
Trump ought to be some good shock therapy for the Left. 🙂 They are already in a frenzy, and he hasn’t even been elected yet.
A good shock therapy is a long national power failure . Public opinion will change overnight in this case.
In reply to David- We had that problem in California under Governor Grey Davis. After that experience, I’m surprised that not all Californians are CAGW cynics.
Hey, mods, how come y’all ain’t “snipping” all the d-words? (☺)
i think the idea is to not be antagonistic with those in the agw crowd. You’ve got to remember that very few supporters of agw know all that much about it. It only seems like they do because we are climate change junkies and most of those we engage with in the blogosphere actually do know a thing or two about it. So, one might want to be empathetic with those on the left, engaging them in a way to make them feel better about climate change. Maybe explaining “the pause” would be a good idea. Or, explaining how the pause has confirmed the “jesus cycle” of 30 year periods of natural warming/cooling that go back to the beginnings of the global temperature record (and the implications of said cycle). Or, my personal favorite, tell them how the atmospheric carbon dioxide growth rate has been tracking with temperature for over half a century of record keeping. (the implication here being that, at the very least, small reductions in emissions aren’t the answer anyway) If the people you’re discussing with are genuinely concerned about the environment, then they should welcome these easy to present paradigms with open arms. AND, it will help allay their concerns about climate change at the same time…
There you go – you assume all people accepting AGW are of the left.
They aren’t. Its not a left/right issue.
I’m not of the left.
The problem with your statement is that many on the left are SO far left they often seem to think anyone slightly to Their right is automatically Hard Right. I see that with people claiming Shrillary is a conservative!
and the extreme on the right is no different, my aquatic friend!
You are correct, not all AGW’ers are leftist. Merely 90% or so.
A lot depends on your environment.
I’ve seen socialists in environments dominated by full blown communists, declare, without a hint of embarrassment that they were conservative.
Yes, griff, but it’s generally not people on the right who get all up tight about it. (at least that’s been my experience) So discussing with a moderate or conservative agw believer is a non issue…
Griff-san:
CAGW has always been a POLITICAL phenomenon and not a physical one.
Until Leftist ideology is abandoned, political hacks will always implement various scare tactics to control, oppress and steal from its citizens.
CAGW is already a disconfirmed hypothesis.
I think Leftist hacks will soon switch to promoting Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global COOLING (CAGC), since they already have a gigantic government/academic bureaucracy established to extort money and power from taxpayers with climactic scare tactics…
That’s one of the reasons Leftist hacks seldom use the word “Global Warming”, and now call it “Climate Change”….
It’s become a joke to any thinking and rational adult..
Those who Believe can not be reached intellectually. Talking or reasoning with them is pointless and just wasted breath.
That’s because climate alarmism has developed into a cult
…..and the believers don’t understand the differences between science and a cult/religion. They don’t undestand how scientific discourse is supposed to work (i.e., the scientific method).
I’m not even a scientist, and I believe I understand them fairly well.
In the Olden Days, the advice for dinner-party etiquette was: “*Never* discuss Sex, Religion & Politics!” to which ‘Weather’ should be added, lest it be conflated with ‘Climate’, and away we go!
Weather and climate have become hopelessly intertwined these days.
I had a discussion like that with my sister…..she’s almost exactly like that woman…….
All she said was what you normally hear
97% percent meme
I trust what NASA says
I don’t want to talk about it
Didn’t know anything about the subject really
The come back with the 97% meme is easy… just say, oh, you mean like spencer, christy, curry, and lindzen (among others) who are all part of the 97%?
Trying to reason with cultists is of course futile but I like the approach already mentioned by asking that if they genuinely believe in something as, well catastrophic, as CAGW, why do they continue to use fossil fuels (usually more-so than the general population particularly jet fuel)?
Another approach is to adopt the caricature used by John Kerry and others and ask why they believe that the Earth is not flat, is it because 97% of scientists say it’s an oblate spheroid?
Or is it because of multiple strands of evidence including the dwindling cohort who have seen it with their own eyes from 384,000 km away.
What are the corresponding lines of evidence that the CO2 concentration over 350 ppm has or will cause a catastrophic outcome that justifies the predictable catastrophic social outcomes of eliminating fossil fuels?
The fall-back position is always the insurance (false) analogy and so-called precautionary principle.
http://legal-planet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/climate_science_opinion3.png
Toneb — If we look at IPCC AR5 on definition of climate change, it consists of natural variability and trend. it is clear that global warming is different from human effect in trend component. More than half after 1951 is due to greenhouse effect that includes global warming caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase and volcanic aerosols, etc. Less than half is due to non-greenhouse effect — this is highly local and regional component. That is changes in land & water use & change expressed by urban heat-island effect and rural cold island effect. If we look at historical met network, they are heavily concentrated in urban areas — most of the coastal cities are urban in nature. The density in rural areas is sparse.
That means, trend is caused by human action but all is not global warming component.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
There you go with that lie again.
The survey asked about significant, which to a statistician could mean as little as 5%. They said nothing about “most” or “largely”.
PS: Caused by humans includes many, many things not called CO2.
Toneb: This is the bait and switch tactic we see so frequently among the politicized alarmists that folks have been discussing with Griff and it is a truly despicable tactic in my opinion. It doesn’t at all improve the debate and is probably best classified as simple mud slinging.
There are no scientists I know personally or who I respect professionally that are skeptical Earth’s climate has warmed during the Holocene. It’s remarkable your chart shows as high a fraction as it appears to, and that of course leads me to suspect the survey used to collect the responses was seriously flawed.
It’s downright intentionally misleading to conflate the term “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” with anthropogenic versions of either one. Doing so doesn’t add any support at all to the science and makes you appear ignorant of the issue.
Toneb: Whoops.
I see your chart is qualified with “Caused by humans”. My criticism of other such surveys not so qualified remains.
“Largely” isn’t much of a measure, certainly subjective. “Caused by humans” is vague. Actuall attribution of cause hasn’t been verified by observation. So even though you’ve presented a survey that at least differentiates warming from anthropogenic warming, it’s still nothing more than an opinion poll.
Toneb: I truly am sorry about my confusion there. As you may be able to tell, it’s a bit of a “hot button” for me.
Did you ask her how many scientists that 97% percent actually reflected. I have a neighbor who has become converted to “neutral” on climate because I send him real data, papers, and methodology to quarrel with. He remains “neutral” because he has other friends who really are worried about the climate. Anyone who actually makes a practice of thinking critically, asking questions of and about the information they have been offered can close their eyes, and then open them, sigh and tackle the hard part. The “meme” seeks out the impressionable, trusting, uncritical, and slow of thought.
“Anyone who actually makes a practice of thinking critically, asking questions of and about the information they have been offered can close their eyes, and then open them, sigh and tackle the hard part. ”
Interesting:
So you are essentially saying that the consensus science as published by the IPCC is not the real consensus (in which case why isn’t the real consensus drowning out the IPCC … and, no, they’re not + the IPCC is therefor acting fraudulently – which leads us straight to conspiracy).
Or else the consensus science is done by scientists who don’t make “a practice of thinking critically”.
As so often, down the rabbit-hole logic.
Clue:
a) The majority of the worlds Earth scientists (not just in climate), are incompetent.
b) They are acting fraudulently ( fill in for reason(s) ).
c) They know more than you.
The answer (above ground) is blatantly obvious ….. to people who “make a practise of thinking critically”
” Anyone who actually makes a practice of thinking critically, asking questions of and about the information they have been offered can close their eyes, and then open them, sigh and tackle the hard part. The “meme” seeks out the impressionable, trusting, uncritical, and slow of thought.”
Ok, essentially you are saying with the above that:
Either….
a) Most Earth scientists (not just climatologists) are incompetent.
b) Most of the above are dishonest.
c) They know more than you.
So you dismiss (c) as the blatantly obvious answer to your question and that “practice of thinking critically” that you use as the argument against consensus science is actually the logical flaw in your own.
That you do not *get* the illogical hubris of your conclusion is the staggering lack of “thinking critically” of it my friend.
“scientists” produce papers but the media do not show their conclusions and doubts but summaries made by bureaucrats. Science is no longer independent because of state subsidies.
Toneb. Just because someone knows more than you doesn’t mean you cannot disagree with their conclusions. Napoleon could forget more strategy than I will even learn over breakfast. However, Even my 7-year old could see that invading Russia in fall is a bad idea. (“Daddy, isn’t it really cold up there”). I’m not a doctor, but I can see that using chiropractic massage to correct calcium deficiencies doesn’t add up. I cannot measure the distance between here and the moon, it’s weight, or certianly it’s density. However, if you told me that the moon had a density of 5 g/m^3, I would tell you that you are an idiot.
Similarly, if you tell me that doubling CO2 will cause 4.5C of warming and at 400 ppm from 260 ppm, we have less than 1C of warming, high school level algebra can tell you that you are off by a factor of two or more. Much less try and tell me that absorption is exponential, in direct contradiction to Beer’s law, which any chemist, physicist, or engineer, should be at least marginally familiar with.
When anyone push the consensus crap,then I know the person doesn’t know much of anything about what drives good science.
consensus in fact is a “religious” type of argument. Religious thesis become true by threats and endless repetition, providing that heretics are silenced. Science becomes true by observation and quantification.
As science progressed, earthquakes become geology, plagues became biology, thunder and lightning became physics. However the climate being hardly understood may very well serve as divine speaking tube.
Climate alarmism = religion.
With only a few minutes of research you can find dozens of instances in which a “consensus” in science was over turned as new evidence was examined.
Tommy: It’s important I think to remember there really is a correct and useful definition of scientific consensus before dismissing it completely. As I understand it, a scientific consensus is formed by advancing a hypothesis, creating an experiment that can be tested against the null hypothesis, performing that experiment and ruling out the null hypothesis (e.g. Human generated CO2 has no effect on global enthalpy), then having that experiment repeated and independently verified. I believe that’s a “scientific consensus”.
That differs from a social consensus; an opinion poll that asks “Do you think human activity is the principal cause of Global Warming on Earth?”, which doesn’t form a scientific consensus.
I think it’s important to make those terms clear to people involved in the conversation. It avoids a lot of needless heat and light.
Here’s the plan. Initiate the carbon tax during El Nino years and then wait and raise it again during the next El Nino. They won’t know any better and using portions of the revenue to buy votes with unrelated spending allocations works too.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
The sense and rationale that underpins Walters’ essay is catastrophically frightening and his measured reasoning against imminent climate armageddon should scoffed at and banned under the RICO act.
Perhaps the answer is to evoke a 12 step program to allow the alarmists back into society. They clearly subscribe to the mantra “Stop the world – I want to get off!” It could be named “Climate Change Anonymous”
I always find it strange that given the ‘science is settled’, alarmists seem to produce a ‘new study’ on a regular basis that always seems to show X, Y or Z is ‘worse than previously thought’. If correct then by definition that means the previous ‘settled science’ 1. wasn’t settled and 2. was wrong!
Surely that’s defining the details?
We know there were dinosaurs – no need to publish any more papers on that?
Griff,
you missed the obvious point,Cheshire was making.
He didn’t miss it. He was trying to change the subject.
U don;t want to nitpick Walter but warming did not start in 1880 as they tell us. Cooling started in that year and lasted until 1910, well into the beginning of the twentieth century. People publishing these data are so arrogant that they take the liberty to draw a straight line through real temperature changes that go up and down. This is not the only such instance – their variations on this theme continue when their straight line ignores the warming between 1910 and 1940. From 1880 to 1940 is sixty years of global temperature data ignored by their supposed average temperature curve. If you ask them why, they tell you that such differences are only random deviations from a true warming curve. That means that first a thirty-year cooling is thrown out and next a thirty-year warming is lowered. What comes next you might want to know. What comes next is a precipitous temperature drop in 1940 that brought us the bone-chilling cold of World War II. There have been complaints about the way the temperature curve is used with the result that some big shots now admit that anthropogenic global warming first becomes observable in 1950. But what about their previous claim that global warming started at the beginning of the industrial age, in 1850? Oh, that is easy to explain away. Global warming signs are part of the temperature record even though we can’t see them because they are too weak to see. That technically still leaves their earlier claim that warming started with the beginning of the industrial age intact. Except that you and I can’t see it.. To me they simply don’t exist. But if there is such a thing as anthropogenic global warming we must advance its starting point by 100 years, from 1850 to 1950, to bring it in line with observations, if any.
When you argue with a fool, two fools are arguing
+ many!
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=xkcd+something+is+wrong+on+the+internet&biw=1146&bih=639&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwj92ar8wZ3PAhVGLhoKHagHDCAQsAQIKA#imgrc=0JDOjcPPBYzZXM%3A
🙂
I love the way Griff steps to the plate to prove a point.
I don’t think it is worthwhile arguing global warming with friends or acquaintances that believe in it. You can make your point on discussion boards etc. where you get to present the evidence. But with friends, you just expend too much rapport and they never change their mind anyway.
“13,000 years ago, there was a mile of ice above us (or just north of us)” and that is usually enough to get to think about climate change more critically without giving away your position or losing that rapport.
After all, what you really want is for them to start thinking for themselves or to simply to ask themselves, “maybe this is not true”. You are not going to get them to change their opinion on the spot.
Maybe 6 months from now is what you should be thinking about. “I remember when you said X and I have thought about it a lot more …” would be the absolute best impact that a skeptic can have on a believer. This is the way to approach it.
I have come to favour the stupid questions approach. Stupid questions are questions I already know the answer to, but prompt research on the part of the other party. Sadly, the same experience, you can lead them to water but you can’t make them drink for the most part. But you don’t piss anyone off (or not as much) and you sometimes get them to an aha! moment:
blah blah blah blah the people who put the man on the moon
Yeah, pretty silly to argue with those guys. Hey, wasn’t there a letter from a bunch of the Apollo and ISS scientists to Holdren complaining about something that whatshisname, Hansen said?
blah blah blah blah 97%
Yeah, the Cook et al study right? (They don’t actually know, so they walk face first into this one with a “yes” every time) Didn’t one of the IPCC authors… Richard Tol or someone, publish something about that study?
blah blah blah blah models
Yeah, they’ve got some serious compute power. I’m all confused though because the IPCC decided to replace their output with expert opinion. I don’t get it, why run the models if they are just going to use someone’s opinion instead? Something about the models being too hot, I should look that up sometime, see what it is about.
Using a question approach is a generically goid way of arguing as its not you having to defend your statements but your friends acquaintances having to explain themselves which usually they cant
Some good leading questions include
1Have you heard of the IPCC
2 Do you know how many reports they have made
3 Do you know what temperature increaded the IPCC made in its first report compared with its most recent
4 Do you know what their modt recent report said about frequency and severity of droughts and hurricanes under climate change
Changing tack
5 can you name 3 greenhouse gases?
6 can you state what percent of the atmosphere they constitute?
7 which is the strongest green house gas and why?
And the $64000 clincher
8 can you give a summary of how the theory of enhanced global warming is claimed to operate
Pretty much none of them will be able to answer the last one while few will get many of the prior ones either
Then suggest (politely ) that possibly they may not know or understand the very idea they profess to believe in
One lefty I ran some of the above past said he had never read that water vapour was a greenhouse gas( so of course if he had not read it then it was of course simply not true!)
Ah, but when they ask you what you think should be done about climate change, what do you say? I tell them the truth; I’m not worried about. They then ask but why not? Better to have an explanation locked and loaded. Then if they send you a media link to “help” you understand, you respond with a link to a professional paper or a pdf of one that shoots the media interpretation out of the water. A particularly nice touch is to use the original paper and show your interlocutor how “the media” either completely misunderstood or lied.
Ah, but when they ask you what you think should be done about climate change, what do you say?
I love that question!
Well, I don’t really know. I just don’t think we should be denying a billion people access to clean drinking water, sewage treatment and electricity. Do you?
Careful where you go with that line of reasoning, things can get heated fast. But there are a ton of variants on that. It is an opening that you can drive a lot of points through.
Duster, that doesn’t work if they start with the Lewandosky paper saying that you are an insane conspiracy theorist.
Just had a similar argument on LinkedIN with an engineer.
I got down to, with a limited bucket money you can choose, how many people die to today of preventable causes or green power. You can’t do both.
Please tell me how many people is OK to die per year of preventable diseases. Me – none.
SILENCE.
Since CAGW is now a political not scientific oddity I take a similar approach, if the UN were serious about eliminating poverty it would be building and operating power infrastructure right across the third world. Until poverty, crime/terrorism and war are eliminated and all disease conquered, and rolled out to all the peoples of earth, I am not prepared to put a single cent into reducing the temperature in 100 years by 0.1 degrees.
Instead warmers (like yourself implied) want to reduce CO2 and therefore temperature both of which will reduce food availability – reducing CO2 levels is a crime against humanity.
+++++++ X 10,000 ..! :o)
Yes, but nobody at all is dying because of renewable energy, are they?
I’m dying inside.
It could be argued that “renewables” are killing millions, if one includes those choking to death on the smoke generated by burning cow dung etc on an interior fire. Not to mention all the pensioners who freeze to death in their own homes because they cannot afford the energy bills. Energy bills that went fantastically higher due to renewables.
No just a few thousand birds, and the people without fresh water and food because resources are wasted on fantasy energy production that could be put to good use. Oh, and the taxes on ‘carbon’, another waste.
Quite a few died in Briton this last winter because they couldn’t afford to heat their homes anymore.
Yes. They. Are.