Bjorn Lomborg writes:
Al Gore recently had a telling altercation with a journalist. The Spectator’s Ross Clark wanted to ask him about Miami sea-level rises suggested in the new film, “An Inconvenient Sequel.” The reporter started to explain that he had consulted Florida International University sea-level-rise expert Shimon Wdowinski. Gore’s response: “Never heard of him — is he a denier?” Then he asked the journalist, “Are you a denier?”
When Clark responded that he was sure climate change is a problem but didn’t know how big, Gore declared, “You are a denier.”
I was recently on the receiving end of a similar rebuff from Chile’s environment minister. I’d written an op-ed for a Chilean newspaper that, among other things, quoted UN findings on how little the Paris climate treaty would achieve and argued that vast investment in green energy research and development is a better policy. Marcelo Mena proclaimed, “There is no room for your climate-denying rhetoric in Chile.”
Something odd — and dangerous — is happening when even people who accept the reality of man-made climate change are labeled “deniers.” The unwillingness to discuss which policies work best means we end up with worse choices.
Consider the case of Roger Pielke, Jr, a political scientist who worked extensively on climate change. He believes that climate change is real, human emissions of greenhouse gases justify action and there should be a carbon tax.
But he drew the ire of climate campaigners because his research has shown that the increasing costs from hurricane damage is not caused by storms made more intense by climate-change but by more and pricier property built in vulnerable areas. He took issue with the UN’s influential International Panel for Climate Change over a chart in its 2007 report that seemed to imply causation when there was only circumstantial evidence.
Pielke was proven right, and the IPCC’s subsequent outputs mostly accepted his arguments. Yet, he was the target of a years-long campaign, including a massive but baseless takedown that later turned out to have been coordinated by a climate-campaigning think tank funded by a green billionaire, alongside an investigation launched by a congressman.
Pielke left climate change for other fields where “no one is trying to get me fired.” And sidelining him has made it easier for climate-campaigners to use hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria to argue for carbon-cut policies, even though these will do very little to prevent future hurricane damage.
Pielke finds that we should make relatively cheap investments to reduce vulnerability, like limiting floodplain construction and increasing porous surfaces. Ignoring this means more harm.
Leaving out dissention echoes the worst of the leaked “ClimateGate” e-mails. In 2004, the head of a leading climate-research organization wrote about two inconvenient papers: “Kevin and I will keep them out [of the IPCC report] somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Journalists also ensure debate “purity.” In Scientific American, climate writer and former CNN producer Peter Dykstra stated baldly that “climate denial extends beyond rejecting climate science,” comparing policy questioners to Holocaust deniers and dismissing my own decade of advocacy for a green energy R&D fund as “minimization.”
This intolerance for discussion is alarming. Believe in climate change but wonder how bad it will be? You’re a “denier,” says Gore. Believe, but argue that today’s policies aren’t the best response? You’re a denier, says Chile’s environment minister. Believe, but point out problematic findings or media reporting? There’s no room for you, say the self-appointed gatekeepers of debate.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
‘Something odd — and dangerous — is happening when even people who accept the reality of man-made climate change are labeled “deniers.” ‘
Sounds like Hitler in his bunker during his last days .
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/11/the-greens-versus-big-oil/comment-page-1/#comment-2633112
Excerpt:
What is it about the far-left that enables them to simply fabricate huge lies and then repeat them so often that gullible fools believe them and idiot politicians act on them?
Joseph Goebbels would be proud of his successors.
http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html
AlGore both sounds like and argues like a Scientologist. Say something they disagree with or paint the church in a negative light and they give you a derogatory label and attack you rather than refute your information.
“What is it about the far-left …”
People generally fall into two categories depending on which hemisphere of their brain dominates. If the left hemisphere dominates, then logic drives extrapolation and you are more likely to be a Republican. If the right hemisphere dominates, then emotion drives extrapolation and you are more likely to be a Democrat. If both hemispheres can effectively negotiate with each other, then you are more likely to be in the center and driven towards Libertarianism. To be absolutely clear, there are always exceptions.
In a way, this modifies the threshold for the fight or flight response. Left brained people are more likely to fight if logic tells them they will win while right brained people are more likely to run away and hide if they are afraid enough. To be clear once more, broken logic and misplaced fear are also quite common as they affect decision making by both types of brains.
Read 1984 lately?
It is the result of controlling 90%of the message board Allan. AP, UPI, Reuters, NYTimes, WaPo, ABNBCBS, CNN, MSNBC, Comcast, MSN, Google, HuffPo, Real Climate, Politico, Media Matters…From the gathering to the dissemination and the aggregation the left controls the message
It is easy to drown out reality with propaganda when you can control the news narrative so loudly and for so long that subterranean rock dwellers in northern Nevada receive the propaganda.
Alinsky’s 13 Rules for Radicals comes to mind, too.
Hitler would have been proud of Roe V. Wade, but then again 55,000,000 more souls in the US would have created more global warming, so maybe not.
“AlGore both sounds like and argues like a Scientologist. ”
Nah. I know some Scientologists who are perfectly wonderful people. To me, all religion is wacko…including the Church of Climate. If you insult the Goddess Mother Earth, you shall be stoned to death.
I don’t believe in anything…except data. And a lot of that is bogus these days.
Dinesh D’Souza may have some answers for you : https://youtu.be/bRdxyVkzwbM
Substitute far right in place of far left. This explains Trump.
Kirk,
If you think Trump is far right, you haven’t been paying attention. It only seems that way because the left has gone so far off the rails the Communists felt no need to field a candidate in the last election (they endorsed Sanders). Of the presidential candidates from all sides, Trump was the closest to the center and this is why he won.
Trump could have been a polka dotted porpoise that spoke in limericks and gave birth to unicorns and he would have won.
He didn’t win because of HIS political stances…he won because of HILLARY’S. The American public CHOSE the risk over what Trump might, or might not, do… rather than accept what they KNEW Hillary would/wouldn’t do. It wasn’t “we want Trump”…it was “Hillary??? Oh HAYELL NO!!!
Gore’s science is only skin deep, and therefore it can’t stand a scratch.
(With apologies to Rex Stout).
Any questioning of the gravy train is intolerable, because for many, the gravy train is the whole point.
It is called following the money. If global warming is not an existential threat, these “scientists” and third world dictators will not get much money bled from USA and EU and UK.
They are losing and they know it.
Anthony
One of the reasons I don’t visit here very much is the constant reference to Hitler and the Nazis by people who have no real idea what they are talking about.
Literally the first comment on this well thought out article by Bjorn Lomborg is a reference to Hitler. Then it carries on with yet more references to Hitler and approving right-wing nutjobs.
This blog is far too taken up with political ratcheting of comparing anyone and everything they don’t agree with with Hitler and the policies of the Third Reich
Only when you’ve stood in a concentration camp, talked to survivors and seen the reality of the Holocaust with your own eyes, you would never use such terminology about anyone talking about climate science or the weather ever, even if you vehemently disagree with them.
Your commenters are toxic right now.
Yes, I agree, I think we’ll have to initiate a Godwin’s Law policy.
John A,
“Constant”??? Wow. While the spirit of your post has merit, it’s filled with flawed logic, and in the end, it’s an OPINION. And as far as I know, personal opinions are still accepted here at WUWT.
You might have missed this from the “well thought out article by Lomborg”:
“Journalists also ensure debate “purity.” In Scientific American, climate writer and former CNN producer Peter Dykstra stated baldly that “climate denial extends beyond rejecting climate science,” comparing policy questioners to Holocaust deniers and dismissing my own decade of advocacy for a green energy R&D fund as “minimization.”
Are you oblivious to Lomborg’s euphemism about “purity” and being compared to “Holocaust deniers” or did you just ignore those because they were part of an article you found “thoughtful”, while condemning all of “Anthony’s commenters” to the category of TOXIC (due to the behavior of few) …an incredible irony considering that Lomborg’s entire article was about “the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion.”
If you don’t come here because of the behavior of a few, you miss all of the other amazing truths and things that can be learned through the debates here. Lomborg said that too.
‘This blog is far too taken up with political ratcheting of comparing anyone and everything they don’t agree with with Hitler and the policies of the Third Reich’
Only when appropriate, John – when the mechanics of the Holocaust are being repeated as if with an instruction manual by people who have actually been the ones making all the references to Nazism or the Holocaust – or are unfamiliar with the origin of the term denier? Or calls for modern Nuremberg trials for people they ‘don’t agree with’.
There are a lot of people I disagree with who aren’t mimicking fascism, but your attack is typical among people who don’t seem able to see the stones they throw, or are being thrown at others, and only seem bothered when a few rocks get tossed back in their direction.
Near as I can tell, my generation was the last that was taught the Holocaust in any kind of personal way – and to suggest that I don’t get it, is just posturing snobbery.
I’ve said many times, fascist methods produce fascist results, no matter where you start. They didn’t throw the Jews (or other ‘undesirables’) into the camps on the first day – they spent about ten years justifying it first.
Your perception of ‘toxic’ seems strictly one way. Also typical.
Hear,hear, Well spoken John A. More science, less vitriol.
Sounds like the beginning of the end.
Beware that driven into a corner they even could become more dangerous. 10 : 10 no pressure.
The end has already started for the believers.
Its okay that they are cornered, so much easier to round them up and jail them.
Like rats
When you see just how quickly the dam holding back society from the total creep that is Winestain, you can but hope that Bore’s come-uppance is not too far away. The domino effect of his fall will be a joy to behold, not unlike the emotions that must have been felt by those sitting on a collapsing wall in November 1989.
Speaking of Weinstein, What about David Suzuki?
Unfortunately that collapse released something far worse in the shape of Angela Merkel.
I like Winestain, but the translation of Weinstein is Winestone. I don’t know the symbology of that, if any.
The Goracle is even chubby enough to take on the part of an oversized Humptey Dumptey emulator, don’t you think?
This situation is not really very funny, but what else can you do about such idiocy other than laugh at them and their idiotic dogma?
@John M Ware: “I like Winestain”. Indeed, but the first name that came to my mind was not suitable, I thought for such a family-oriented blog. If I say ‘W***stain’, you may get the idea. 🙂
Harry Passfield, my thought too, like you, I am a bad person!
“I like Winestain, but the translation of Weinstein is Winestone. I don’t know the symbology of that, if any.”
Everyone mispronounces it anyway.
John: You don’t know from what’s a stein?
It sounds to me like the social justice warriors (SJWs) now have enough support that they are emboldened. They will go after anyone who deviates even slightly from the party line, even their supporters.
Harvey Weinstein is probably a criminal. Going after him is fair game. The trouble is the SJWs are going after the victims like Gwyneth Paltrow because they didn’t raise their voices in complaint when the incidents happened.
We now have the Law Society of Upper Canada wants to compel Ontario lawyers to acknowledge systematic racism. Freedom of speech is one of the cornerstones of our society and compelled speech is supposed to be its opposite.
The SJWs are forcing universities to deal with sexual assault on campus. Sexual assault is a police matter but the SJWs don’t like the way the police handle it. The result is kangaroo courts in our schools.
The reason I post anonymously is that I fear SJWs. Once they take control we will look back at the Puritans as being pretty liberal. China was able to squelch the Red Guard. I fear that we will have a harder time getting rid of the SJWs.
Well said, CommieBob! AGW is a political war. The enemy is an unholy alliance of Socialists and eco-loony religionist/absolutists. Neither places the well being of humans anywhere on their scale of importance. The choice we have is that we win this fight and progress to something else ( hopefully better), or we lose- in which case we either go through a dark age for humanity or possibly we fall back into ignorance and poverty so profound that we never again rise out of it.
I think humanity is in a race between progress on one hand and poverty and ignorance on the other. It is not out of the question that we don’t make it.
commieBob, take heart. We know it will be simple. It’s been demonstrated to us by the master twitter troll who plays chess in 3-D while everybody else is playing checkers.
We merely have to reframe the debate. We simply title SJWs as Low Energy SJWs. Or, they become Crooked SJWs. Or, they become Lyin’ SJWs. Or, my favorite; Little SJWs. Or, perhaps, for Grand Master Trolling we reframe them as Little Rocketman SJWs.
Speaking of which…
http://people.com/celebrity/al-gore-accused-of-sexual-assault/
CommieBob
SJW, WTF?
The real name is fascists. Call it what it is. Words matter.
So called Social Justice Warriors are just the foot soldiers of the far left leadership. Stalin called them “useful idiots” and “fellow travelers”. I don’t know what Fat Albert’s goals are, probably just to be in the public limelight and to keep getting rich. We know that he wanted power and being the poster child for CAGW apparently does give him that. However the political left in the west wants nothing more than the destruction of the USA. One reason is it represents capitalism. Some SJW attack the basic foundations of the USA, the founding documents, founding fathers, founding princples, etc. Other attack historically held morals, pushing us to accept relativistic morality. The SJW environmentalists are the stranger of the bunch. They attack and want to bring down the USA, the most environmental country in history by any measure. Of course all segments of the left believe we should be severely punished for all past mistakes. Still what is truly bizarre is to play in their game you need the latest program. If you are a club member and dare deviate from the orthodoxy you are to be shunned and if they ever come to power sent to a re-education farm or worse.
I sense a spiralling out of control. Societies are crumbling, people in what are regarded as civilised societies don’t have enough to eat and can’t afford to heat their homes- let alone the poor buggers who live in third world countries. Money is being sucked up by the new lords of the manor at an alarming rate in pursuit of a computer based model that has been roundly proved to be wrong- I doubt they give s**t anyway since the gravy train is in full swing, don’t want to disturb that income stream. On one level we seem to be living in a hand wringing society where things like political correctness, compliance and personal bubbles are pursued to the detriment of what is really important. People seem to be forgetting Maslows hierarchy of needs, a very dangerous path……
commieBob
“Harvey Weinstein is probably a criminal.”
I haven’t followed the Weinstein case. I believe he has admitted some offences. However, trial by media is never a good thing, and that’s what Weinstein is enduring. Evidently, it’s a ‘just’ crusade as it emboldens other victims to come forward. I’m not so sure.
However, it does strike me as strange, that women allegedly submitted to his demands to promote their careers, yet it seems successful women, free from his influence, didn’t come forward earlier, and the unsuccessful victims didn’t also come forward earlier. In fact Weinstein’s victims with failed careers, arguably, had an even better reason to expose him following the alleged offences, as they had nothing more to lose, and he hadn’t kept up his end of the ‘bargain’ to make them successful.
I’m not defending Weinstein in any way. We had our own sexual predator, Jimmy Savile, in the UK. His case was only revealed following his death, at which point, there was an awful lot of people who came forward with tales of gruesome abuse, including serial child molestation, and more!
We have another post mortem inquiry ongoing with a deceased MP, Cyril Smith, also alleged a serial child molester. His guilt has also already been ‘established’, now it’s a matter of finding the smoking guns. The important thing in their cases is that their ‘trials’ have been conducted with no defence. Their guilt was established as soon as accusations hit the media. The trouble with that is that none of us can ever be confident of their guilt, because they had no right of reply. Except if one is a slave to the media.
Weinstein is being tried in the same manner, the difference is, he’s likely to bite back.
The SJW’s frequently use and manipulate the media because, judged on their own merits in a court of law, their cases would usually never be heard.
I have no time for sexual predators. My solution to their future is probably as distasteful to some as the crimes they committed. But the West’s acceptance of pre trial judgement, with the inevitable media pronouncement of miscarriages of justice by the SJW’s should the accused be acquitted, is an abuse of the criminal justice system. It’s a medieval lynch mob presenting a witch for trial. There is no innocent option.
Once again the media stands front and centre of the debate. And I welcome Trumps threat to the US media on their presentation of his nuclear position. It’s one thing reporting a story, it’s another thing entirely making a story up.
So do we imagine the press are more, or less likely, to target a celebrity, than they are the President with embellished, innuendo strewn accounts, of things said, or done?
I don’t know. But I do know that Weinstein is the least of the problems the Western world faces. But suddenly, he’s front page news.
Should we, perhaps, be examining our own moral and judgemental positions before condemning people presented as guilty by the media.
Bill
Never lose sight of the fact that the world is, right now, a more peaceful and prosperous place than it has ever been in its entire history.
The confusion of Capitalism, despite the intervention of socialism, has ensured substantially fewer people endure poverty than ever before, more people enjoy sophisticated healthcare, more people live outside war zones than ever before, more people have access to clean air and water, agriculture, communications and welfare than in any time in history. And not just by a small margin, by a massive margin.
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/free-markets-and-free-trade/
A friend of mine calls them SJW howler monkeys because they try to make so much noise that they think they are drowning out the opposition. Not so.
I’m with you Bob. Those things remind me of the mutants in I Am Legend or Tolkien’s Nazgûl. They don’t appear to be human or react to stimuli in any kind of rational way that an animal would recognise. The extremist ideology inherent in the movement appears to be highly contagious and although it’s tempting to think that it’s just so insane it must implode some time soon there are no signs of that actually happening. In fact it appears to be still gaining momentum.
Desperate times call for eating your own.
Help! Help! Micro-aggression!!
Call the ACLU!
I self identify as a skeptic!! And Al Gore says I’m a minority member!
Then he offended me!!
Skeptic lives matter!!
I need a safe space!
Someone get me an SUV and some endangered cocoa!
WHAT do I want? Lawsuit!
When do I want it? Now!!!
Come on over to our place, Aphan. We’ll drive the diesel 4X4 down to STL and demonstrate alongside the rest of the oppressed deplorables.
After we get out on bail (or treated & released at Barnes-Jewish) we can hightail it back to Holler-back Ranch (safe zone) to catch and grill some catfish before they quit biting for this year.
Gore declared, “You are a denier.”
To which my reply would be …
“Mr. Gore I am no more a denier than you are a money-grubbing con-artist!”
Adding after a pause…
“And by the way I know there is no such thing as AGW “
My response would have been,
“What law of physics to you think I’m denying?”
Gore will never evah understand the intellectual challenge disguised in that question.
Why does no one snarl back at him “Who died and made you God, Al?” Why?
I’m hoping for a pleasant and relatively normal winter here in the upper Midwest. I do not mind staying all night shoveling snow. Learned that lesson the hard way. I need the exercise. My biggest concern is that the snows of winter stay longer and fall later in the Spring than they should for my area, and the water temperatures of the Great Lakes are not rising as quickly at winter’s end as they used to.
If there’s another blizzard like 2011, i’ll you guys pictures.
Al Gore has the freedom to his own political views, but seems reluctant to grant the same freedom to others.
“reluctant” is about 10 orders of magnitude too mild.
Of course not – you might have the effrontery to disagree with him. Can’t have that.
The First Amendment gives us the freedom to say what we want, but this does not extend to falsely yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater and this is exactly what Gore, the eco-nuts and the ideologically driven media are doing.
Free speech for me, but not for thee, seems to be the credo of Al Gore and his supporters.
Maybe, but as I said, who died and made him God?
Bjorn is being far too kind to these people. When the advocates of a theory or ideology try to shut down any criticism of the ideology and demonise those making the criticism, it invariably means the theory is fundamentally flawed and incapable of dealing with criticism.
Indeed, but there is now an army of ideologues, even my small backwater town has a meeting soon about how to “Combat Climate Change”, complete with discussions about how to deal with “deniers”, and that huge growth industry: climate communication (aka propaganda and brainwashing).
Perhaps Bjorn should draw the logical conclusion of his own observations and stop believing in man-made climate change.
Ed, I totally agree, but it is fun to watch the high priests of the climate faith turn on their own. It shows the depth of stupidity in their extreme positions. Bjorn’s book ‘The skeptical enironmentalist’ was brilliant and clever because it demonstrated a new (to me at least) way of counteracting this idiocy and I thank him for that. So I’ll forgive him his ‘belief’ in this or that which is not based on any logical or rational thought as we all make mistakesand hold views from time to time that are irrational.
That Bjorn believes in manmade climate change is not the point. He draws the right conclusions of the data, and proposes the right answers. No matter what is the cause of global warming if there is any. in my opinion there is a variance in every regional climate, and there is natural variation of global climate.
Gore has ALWAYS been scientifically unhinged.
He just figured out how to SUCK money from the system.
After all, he has spent his whole worthless life doing it. !
Not his whole life.
There were a couple hours in a massage parlor that whats-her-name (his ex-wife) got pretty excited about…
Whats-his-name got rich off of the Scientology religion and Gore, a failed Theology student, took note and decided to form his own religion.
If Al Gore admitted even the slightest fallibility, he’d soon have to admit that he’s not the messiah, he’s just a naughty boy.
It seems the entire political class in the West are only ego driven opportunists. Parasites on the back of our society. Democracy needs some serious reform.It’s attarcting the wrong crowd.
The problem is that the voters have got it into their heads that it’s OK to use government to take money from other people in order to spend it on themselves.
And not only ‘the entire political class in the West’. There’s the UN and all its spawn for a start, there’s the World Bank and all its spawn, there’s NATO, an organisation whose justification for existence ended a quarter of a century ago when the Iron Curtain fell …
We need to jump on politicians who refer to any of these parasites as ‘supranational’ (a word which falsely implies that these entities are above national governments) and insist that they are merely extranational (outside national governments) and have no authority over us.
Those most enthused to lead often prove the least able.
term limits
Bjorn,
Given that oppression and smears are what passes for ‘evidence’ in the climate science world, why do you keep ‘believing’?
It seems obvious to me that the original evidence which seemed fairly compelling should be re-examined in the light of the undoubted fraudulent nature of later climate science activities. And that the inability of climate scientists to show that climatic variation is in any way different from natural variation means that believing in man-made climate change is an act of faith rather than science.
That is why you and all the other scientists are being attacked. Climate Change is about faith. And to question any aspect of the faith is heresy…
Dodgy,
That is an interesting question. I have asked myself that many times. I really like Bjørn’s approach. He escapes the “denier” category because he doesn’t attack the science. He goes after the low hanging fruit, the rank stupidity of some of the “Green” movement’s spokesmen and other published nonsense, pointing out economic fallacy and more.
Nowhere is it more obvious than the bogus “Paris” agreement. Bjørn goes after the provable futility of it all rather than the apparent axiomatic underlying premise, suggesting that we should save our trillions in lost GDP, and use it on something useful – and he has plenty of big-win/low cost suggestions with big positive outcomes and few (no) downsides.
We have plenty of people, incl. a lot of top tier scientists, regularly bringing the entire thesis of CO2 induced Global Climate Change into question. And doing a sterling job at that, to the point where IMHO one needs to be irrational (or politically bent) to think that it is a problem at all.
The cool thing about Bjørn’s approach is that more or less everything he advocates, makes economic and social sense even in the absence of CAGW.
I remain a fan of his approach, because I think in the long run, his insights will be valuable and many of them acted upon.
Here in the UK the Government (for want of a better term) is going to commit the UK to be a zero ‘carbon’ emitter by 2050. No more gas heating; no more gas cookers; and electric transport everywhere (except on haulage and mass transport – or a government minister’s limmo).
This got me thinking, especially in the context of the famous North/South Korean satellite photo of the peninsular at night:
If the UK (and many other western democracies are trying to be ‘carbon-free’ within 35 years, what would be the effect on the planet if North Korea were to become the equal of South Korea in the same time-frame? And wouldn’t any paper written on that subject would be worthy of a few million $/£s in funding from the climate lobby, bearing in mind that climate change would be in the title somewhere?
No more wood pellets?
And think of all the loggers put out of work in the Carolinas.
The UK can get there if they are willing to let their GDP drop to zero …
If the UK wants to get down to zero emissions, all they have to do is copy the way countries like Ethiopia do it. No industry, vanishingly small economic activity, and abject poverty.
Back to the future? The intended redistribution of wealth will make Ethiopia a nice place to live in in 35 years…
Harry,
The problem with being in the socialist political vanguard is that one either has to slam on the political brakes, which socialist politicians never do, or continue with the deception until the brakes are slammed on for them.
Having said that, I don’t see any of our socialist governments (including our current ‘conservative’ government) having any option but to back out of climate support in the next five or ten years.
The scientific case continues with the ‘inconvenient pause’ and the political case is growing with Trump and Abbott, amongst others.
I have said before, and I’ll say again, when the next UK election rolls round, the climate change debate will figure large because ambitious young politicians are sensing the political winds of change and they see the gross sums of money sloshing around in the green coffers. What better a platform to be elected on than saving voters vast amounts of money when there is no evidence of climate change.
That’s the ultimate sin in the eyes of sociopaths!
A different opinion is “bad” and they call you a denier. Being able to proof your point causes them to freak out, really really hate you and justifies to destroy you!
But Al Gore invented the Internet didn’t he? And got a Nobel Prize. /s
A Nobel PISS Prize !!
The astonishing thing is that he really did get half a Nobel peace prize (unlike Michael E. Mann). But then so did these guys; European Union (Ukraine!), Yasser Arafat, UN Peacekeeping Forces, Henry A. Kissinger.
He qualifies for the Goebbels price.
Mitigation costs money, it doesn’t produce tax revenue.
“Mitigation costs money”
Mitigation
noun: “the act of mitigating, or lessening the force or intensity of something unpleasant, as wrath, pain, grief, or extreme circumstances: ”
What are we mitigating?
“What are we mitigating?”
Stupidity, insanity and misinformation.
The term “denier” is weaponized syntax. Allowing opponents to use such weapons unchallenged enables them to frame the discussion/interchange and put you at great disadvantage. Once you try to justify or defend yourself from this kind of attack you’ve lost the fight because you’ve implicitly agreed with the attacker that you are a moral reprobate (because you’ve agreed that his framing of the argument is acceptable).
A way to fight this kind of character assault is to nullify the weaponized syntax by re-framing it and turning it back on the aggressor. This does two things: it nullifies the weaponized syntax and puts the aggressor on the defensive. For example,
Gore: “Is he a denier?”
Reporter: “You’ll have to ask him. I’m a denier in the sense that I deny public figures like yourself the right to make unsubstantiated claims. So let me repeat – your claim contradicts a reputable climate scientist’s research. Whether you know of him or nor is irrelevant. You’re a non-scientist, correct?” [see what I did there? – snicker]
Here’s a fast response to “denier”: “Wolf-Crier”
Or: YOU are a denier! You even deny that you are a denier!
The word “denier” lands me in moderation even on this denier thread.
It has been said before by other commenters, but deserves to be said yet again. To place this in a context many will be able to understand, simply replace “denier” with “heretic”, and it will be much clearer.
IMHO this is the beginning of the Pharisees internecine conflict, and it cannot happen fast enough.
I Came I Saw I Left
Unfortunately, Gore always ensures he is in control of the stage. Therefore, when he proclaims someone as a denier, he then ignores any response and moves on to the next person.
His statement ‘denier’ hangs in the air, never to be denied.
The guy ain’t clever, he couldn’t argue his way out a child’s sand pit, but he is well stage managed.
Why not, “Sir, actions speak louder than words. By your actions you are denying climate change regardless of what your words are. You consume more electricity than a small town. You needlessly fly all around the world. You buy properties along the seacoast. And you consume enough food, including meat, to feed a family of four. Your ‘carbon footprint’ is larger than any other denier.”
You are going far beyond is intellectual capacities.
oops, typo: “his” intellectual capacities
Wow! If Roger Pielke Jr. is a “denier” then what am I? Oh sure, I have made a lot of money practicing science (like drill here, based on a scientific review of the data, and hitting the target more than most), but I keep saying that Sequence Stratigraphy says there is no anthropogenic climate change signal detectable against the variance of a naturally variable background. I’m somewhere below the level of “denier” and apparently sinking fast! Look at the time, I think I will go and play golf becuase the course is unusually green as of late. Just Saying.
The way human societies work is that you are either required to agree, or shut up. This link provides a historical parallel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_gadfly
Al Gore unhinged? It’s broader than that. Climate Change is just a part of the whole.
EU will decided not to allow debate on the issue. at least if our green party is listened to.
Bans all paticipation if it is not agreeing with the Paris decision or if it is from oil or coal money.
https://www.aktuellhallbarhet.se/dags-att-fossilindustrin-slutar-fororena-klimatpolitiken
How ironic that proportional representation, which is intended to allow all voices to be heard, gives “greens” the ability to be in coalition govts (such as the one with Mutti Merkel, and possibly a new one in NZ), allowing them to shut down voices they don’t like.
Justice Holmes’s Free-Speech Lesson
The more certain you are, the more you should resist the temptation to silence those who disagree.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-holmess-free-speech-lesson-1507847318
That’s a wonderful quote and one I had not seen before. Thank you.
It is the way “debate” is now conducted whether it is about immigration (racist), welfare (heartless and cruel), free markets (capitalist shill), Brexit (racist, ignorant and old) and so on. I cannot think of a serious area in politics where a sensible and rational discussion can be had with much of the Progressive Left. Everything is black and white, and everything they want to do is unconditionally good and will [not] just work but work without any negative effects whatsoever. Until it doesn’t (Venezuela) when it is because evil Right-wingers (see Hillary Clinton’s new book) deliberately sabotaged it.
This is what it must have been like in late Medieval times with the Catholic church and the Inquisition.
There’s no point debating the left. They refuse to change their position, because they know they’re right, and all they can do is point and shriek.
Faith is so often a mountain balanced on a pinpoint. Any threat to that tenuous balance causes terror that the whole thing will crash down. Faith is usually far too fragile to withstand that kind of damage, and it cannot be rebuilt once it is broken.
“they know they’re right”
No. They know, or at least strongly suspect, that they are wrong. Why else would they be so opposed to debate? To admit how wrong they are about CO2 would put the rest of the progressive agenda at risk. If they can be so wrong about something so important, people will definitely question the motives behind the rest of their agenda.
Phoenix44,
One of the things that strikes me about progressives is that they are never happy with the way that things are and want change everything to the way they think they should be. They do this without evidence from historical context that their changes will be an improvement. They do this without benefit of scientific experiment. They may give lip service to the Precautionary Principle with respect to technology, but it never occurs to them to require that their demands for social changes be proven to be without significant unintended consequences. They have the hubris to think that because they can find fault with current circumstances and cultural values, that they are wiser than those who have come before them. They want perfection in an imperfect world.
I’m reminded of the remark by Winston Churchill’s on Democracy: “Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.”
Phoenix44 and Clyde Spencer
Two of the most profoundly intuitive statements I have seen on Anthony’s blog.
Hot Scot,
Thank you! Some of us do acquire wisdom with age, although most just seem to get wrinkled!
Or in John Calvin,s Geneva. Tyranny knows no bounds,it is endemic
Al Gore is an AGW religion finatic. He is in no way a scientist.
Algore even had a poor record at Vanderbil’s divinity school!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2000/mar/25/20000325-011032-8259r/
Gore made a fortune by betting all his assets on a future world where crazy projects got billions in subsidies and governments listened to him and spent their citizens money on projects in which he was fully invested. Now his entire fortune is leveraged and at risk and he is reacting as you would expect: hateful, vicious, and insane. He will get worse as margin calls or loan payments come due. Watch for a bankruptcy announcement soon.
He’s a fan of the San Jose Sharks?
“Nice people made the best Nazis. My mom grew up next to them. They got along, refused to make waves, looked the other way when things got ugly and focused on happier things than “politics.” They were lovely people who turned their heads as their neighbors were dragged away. You know who weren’t nice people? Resisters.”
Naomi Shulman
Way too much B.S. in the world to be nice about it. It is dangerous at certain levels.
“They cry “Peace, peace!” when there is no peace.”
Patrick Henry
I think that Patrick Henry wad quoting something said far earlier. Try Jeremiah 6:14
There is no such thing as peace on earth.
We are a global, tribal community, its in our DNA.
Without conflict there is no progress.
That’s why humans are, currently, the dominant species on our planet, because we defend our turf better than any other species.
Aviation has become one of the safest forms of transport in large part by the application of knowledge gained through the study of how humans behave in what is a potentially dangerous environment. That has required a shift from looking for fault in pilots to trying to understand how and why accidents happen. Some well know accidents, such as the 1990 Avianca crash outside New York, were caused by the inability of those other than the captain to speak up and question what is happening and equally the captains inability to listen to the ‘lower ranks’. This is not different to ‘the discussions over’. Then there are accidents such as KAL007 where continuously checking that you are on track did not happen at all. In other words good safety is about maintaining a healthy level of skepticism about any of the decisions made and no matter the seniority.
An analogy which would apply to any business.
barryjo October 13, 2017 at 7:49 am
An analogy which would apply to any business.
…and religion and education and life generally.
and politics, but that’s probably impossible
Just your basic, standard, thought police on patrol.
In a nutshell, it’s the extremist mindset.
Climate change on earth is natural. If you want to remove pollution and co2 then each country can do it with its own money and according to its own rules. We don’t have to send our money to this bul….it Paris Accord. The Paris Accord is nothing other than a propaganda and money stealing bunch of elites.