Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Greens are inventing elaborate fantasies of shadowy right wing conspiracies to explain President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Treaty – but still refuse to consider the possibility they are wrong about global warming.
Trump’s Paris exit: climate science denial industry has just had its greatest victory
Graham Readfearn
Trump’s confirmed withdrawal from the United Nation’s Paris climate deal shows it’s time to get to grips with the climate science denial industry.
Moments before the US president, Donald Trump, strode into the Rose Garden, TV cameras pictured his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, shaking hands and looking generally pleased with himself.
Bannon once called global warming a “manufactured crisis”.
Bannon, with Trump’s head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, were among the loudest and most forceful voices in Trump’s ear, imploring the president to pull out of the Paris climate change agreement.
During his speech, Trump claimed the Paris deal was bad for America. The themes were economic, but the speech was laced with jingoistic protectionism.
“Our withdrawal represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty,” he said.
The foundation for Trump’s dismissal of the Paris deal – and for the people who pushed him the hardest to do it – is the rejection of the science linking fossil-fuel burning to dangerous climate change.
…
So what comes next? Hopefully, one realisation will be this.
Now is the time to learn about the methods, the tactics, the personnel, the structure and the reach of the global climate science denial industry.
They just convinced the leader of the United States to pull the plug on a historic deal signed by almost 200 countries, and instead join Nicaragua and Syria as the only countries not signed up.
It is time to take that climate science denial industry seriously.
Why do Greens feel compelled to invent elaborate conspiracy theories to explain their failure to convert people to their cause? My guess is the reality is simply too hard for greens to swallow.
The climate alarmist cause is failing because it is based on a false premise. The idea that the Earth currently faces a manmade climate crisis is quite simply nonsense.
No amount of green money, psychological “inoculations”, propaganda and tub thumping can hide this simple fact from ordinary people who have access to the evidence.
Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.
Can it be since their entire climate change campaign is based on collusion and conspiracy, this is the only way to view any resistance to it?
The Obama ‘Fundamental Transformation of America’ was mortally injured on June 1, 2017.
God bless President Donald J. Trump, The United States of America, and all who love Her!
“mud4fun
I have no idea if the numbers you quote are accurate or not, but the next logic step is to legalise all kind of drugs from ‘recreational’ to hard stuff and tax them extra heavily.”
@Vukcevic, no the next logical thing is to tax junk food. For years smokers have been paying 80% plus duty on fags in the name of taxing an unhealthy habit to cover the cost of their NHS care. As obesity now costs the NHS more than smoking it seems logical to tax obese people for their unhealthy habit. Start by putting 80% duty on a McDonalds or Fish&Chips and have branding banned and replaced with black packaging showing death warnings and pictures of heart disease. The general non-smoking public seemed happy enough to have that imposed on smokers when their habit was the biggest NHS expense yet seem unwilling to suffer the same fate on their own unhealthy habits now that obesity is the biggest killer.
I’m a smoker if you hadn’t guessed 🙂 🙂
Does anyone know where I can put money on the globe NOT warming as per IPCC projections or even much lower numbers? I think a graduated bet would pay off nicely if anyone is offering decent odds.
C’mon folks. Let’s not swallow our own Kool-Aid. The notion that Trump pulling out of the Paris deal had much to do with the alarmists failing to be convincing with their “science” is nonsense. “Science” has little to do with the political decisions being made. In the political arena, very little is being decided based on science.
Being right for wrong reasons? I’ll take it, this time.
James, imagine what is needed to validate your choice:
You wish us to assume a conclusion in advance of understanding the issue well enough to even know what the reasons are.
How can problems be solved in such a manner?
Claim: X=Y for unknown reasons.
Someone points out by deduction that X is not equal to Y. You assert in reply that X=Y for unknown reasons, that it is still true and you will hold to the claim regardless of proofs.
This is superstition. Superstition is well-defined as holding to that which has been proven scientifically to be untrue. CO2 from human activities is not going to create catastrophic global warming; there is too little and the governing mechanisms are too strong to be overcome.
We have no need for climate bogeymen in order to clean up this planet, to be wise and united in our global endeavours, to overcome prejudices and to create a fair and just society. To do that in fear of a fabricated bogeyman will undermine the spirit of the whole enterprise. Justice and progress is not obtained by cunning and lies.
What also surprises me is the fact that the temperature has only risen .5 degrees c in the last 100 years??!!! The sea levels are not rising, just ask the people in Tuvalu . That’s a South Pacific island. The climate changes naturally. We have no effect on it. Btw, hurricanes, tornadoes and other extreme weather is happening less than it used to.
Dear Graham Readfearn, don’t worry, your fellow True Believers John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky have figured out how to pre-innoculate us all from climate denialism. Report to them immediately for an update, and report back to us.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
“Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.”
There is nothing weaker than an idea whose time is past, or never was.
” Now is the time to learn about the methods, the tactics, the personnel, the structure and the reach of the global climate science denial industry.”
Methods : Independent , critical thinking blogs
Tactics : Pursuit of truth
Personnel : non-salaried, non-NSF funded , independent scientists & engineers
Structure : De-centralized, detached from government
Reach : Worldwide via the web
So, what have you learned ? If you learned anything, you would be one of us. I hope you do learn (finally) and bring your lunacy to an end.
Structure: Diaspora of distributed independent human processors communicating via the Internet.
I am really enjoying the frothing of the warmists and the hyperventilation of the MSM.
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Max Planck
When the leftists are in a bad mood, they even dump their Sandinista friends and their friend in Syria, who runs the attack-dog shelter.
This Graham Readfearn and fellow alarmist, Professor Barry Brook once debated Lord Monckton and Professor Plimer and from all accounts lost heavily.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/monckton-takes-brisbane/news-story/e8675f8e727b2c6997089ac63c965502
Sometime they got something right-
“Obama Administration Prepares to Push Biofuels – Scientific American ”
‘Poverty: 260m driven into hunger by push for biofuel – ActionAid …
https://www.theguardian.com › Environment › Biofuels”
Now is the time to learn about the methods, the tactics, the personnel, the structure and the reach of the global climate pseudo-science alarmism industry.
Bring it on, a##holes!
It is truly disgusting to see what the unquestioning adherence to the uninformed, lazy and one-sided pushing of climate crisis hysteria has reduced the once great newspaper that the Guardian was. Whatever your politics, that newspaper once had superb foreign news coverage and correspondents. I used to buy and read it nearly everyday for about thirty years. Today I wouldn’t cross the road to pick up a free copy if it came with a free coffee and bagel – it shames the once great editors and independent minded writers who used to work for it.
What is inexcusable is that its current Guardian staff writers are either incapable of doing their homework to discover the harm that climate alarmism is doing to the world’s poor and disadvantaged or that they no longer care. I expect with some of their senior staffers, who surely can’t be that uninformed, it is sadly the later. Well if you are going to sell out you may as well choose to do so on an issue that will make you look virtuous and “right on” politically.
Frankly I suspect that the Guardian’s loss of respect and readership is that many others have found its obscene support of eco-terrorism and climate colonialism as unacceptable as I have.
The Guardian’s and UK broadcasting media’s continuing vilification of President Trump and his supporters and those who dare challenge the misspending of billions on a non-existing climate crisis which is stuffing money into the pockets of already over wealthy millionaires is unforgivable.
I can only protest by never buying another copy. But I hope that people in the USA understand that many people in the UK are appalled by the treatment and abuse leveled at your President and the ordinary people who voted for him in the hope of a better future.
Yes, we no longer watch the BBC as it is so extremely biased to the left wing/liberal global warming/mass immigration mantra.
We watch Sky news now. It is far less biased than BBC and as a bonus the presenters are generally better too. Been watching it for a few months now and my blood pressure has not risen anywhere near as much as when watching the BBC! They tend to always have representatives from both the right and left when discussing political issues.
Of course Sky still go on about global warming and climate change without any real knowledge of facts and I had to laugh at their Paris Accord coverage when they failed to understand that China gave not agreed to reduce emissions until 2030 so their saying they still stand by the agreement is largely nonsensical.
Hasn’t China only agreed to review it’s position by 2030, I didn’t think that they had agreed to reduce emissions then IIRC.
SteveT
But what happens when ordinary people no longer have access to the evidence? Currently access is only via the Internet. Even Fox news is hedging, under left-moving management, and Fox has never devoted air time on this issue anyway. “Doubling down” fighting climate science “denialism” means the gloves come off. Free speech and freedom of information access will be the main targets, believe it.
The Guardian quite often assembles fantasies from bits of this and bits of that and of course ignores any and all bits that in any way disturbs their confirmation bias.
Speaking of confirmation bias, many studies have shown the social sciences are made up of scientists of which over 90% self-identify as left wing, with a smattering identifying as libertarian and a bare handful conservative. So it becomes especially humorous when climate science uses social sciences to “scientifically” prove consensus.
Graham Readfearn is at the Guardian’s summit of climate alarmism along with Dana Nutti’, John Abrahams and Damian Carrington. They’re absolutely poisonous and no amount of logic, rationale or contrary evidence will suffice. Just point and laugh.
The danger I see with a world government whose remit is to control ‘carbon’ emissions is that if anyone comes up with a new form cheap and plentiful zero-carbon energy, then like Galileo they will find themself under house arrest as an enemy of the State, and their work banned from publication. The continued existence of such a government will, after all, depend on energy being expensive and carbon-based, so -like the Church wanting to maintain that the Earth is at the center of everything- those in power will not want to see any change in that situation.
In the end Galileo’s world-view prevailed anyway, and surprisingly it had little impact on Church attendances so the Pope need not have worried. With a world government based on energy control I think it would be a different situation though. Once the need to control CO2 emissions vanished, there would be calls for that government to be disbanded. \which those in power would fiercely resist.
Ian MacDonald writes: “In the end Galileo’s world-view prevailed anyway, and surprisingly it had little impact on Church attendances so the Pope need not have worried.”
There is no “end” and the pope worries about many things. Galileo was unable to prove, using the science available in his day, that he was correct and all then-existing scientists and astronomers were wrong although he tended to proclaim it and thus made enemies.
“When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered, and placed it in the mouth of his character Simplicio. Galileo, perhaps inadvertently, made fun of the pope, a result that could only have disastrous consequences. Urban felt mocked and could not believe how his friend could disgrace him publicly. Galileo had mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor. He also alienated his long-time supporters, the Jesuits, with attacks on one of their astronomers. The result was the infamous trial, which is still heralded as the final separation of science and religion.”
[https]://www.catholic.com/tract/the-galileo-controversy
“Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move — it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.”
From the wiki:
Galileo writes: “My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? ”
[https]://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
Being rude to opponents is hardly a modern invention.
Believing that they are the smartest persons in any room is so core to the self identity of most leftists, that they will never be able to admit that they are wrong.
About anything.
In what way do you differ? This comment section is a “room” and you make a grand pronouncement. As it happens, leftists often *are* smart, by usual measures, what it takes to admit to being wrong is *humility* after being presented with credible evidence of something more correct.
But if that admission means you lose your job, it takes more than humility; it also takes courage and a particular (and uncommon) moral code. It might not even be “smart”.
The reason why they don’t debate (but do love their denouncements) all boils down to cult philosophy that’s been poured down our collective throats, it goes by the name of post-modernism.