Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Psychology Today author Patricia Prijatel thinks the silence of Germans oppressed by the NAZIs is comparable to not talking about the alleged dangers of anthropogenic climate change.
Can We Break the Spiral of Silence on Climate Change?
There’s only one way to find out: Talk about it
Posted Mar 30, 2018
Patricia Prijatel
What can ordinary people do to combat the extraordinary problem of climate change? Talk, and keep on talking. Yet, that’s a step some of us are reluctant to take.
According to a report by the Yale Program on Climate Change(link is external), 69 percent of respondents in the United States believe global warming is happening, and 56 percent are worried about it. But (link is external)fewer than a third of those (link is external)ever talk about it to family or friends. Why not? Often because nobody else is talking about it.
The Spiral of Silence
Researchers call this the spiral of silence, a term coined by researcher Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann(link is external) to explain why Germans did not talk about the rise of Hitler and his related atrocities before and during World War II. They echoed the silence around them. Meanwhile, those in support of the Third Reich spoke loud and clear. In so doing, they controlled the discussion, no matter how many people might have disagreed with their opinions. Because the pro-Hitler voices were heard most, they were accepted as public opinion. Early in Hitler’s rise to power, when talking could have done the most to change history, those who broke the silence were faced with social isolation. Later, of course, breaking the silence could be deadly.
This has clear application in our current political climate, although fortunately the risks of speaking out don’t include concentration camps. Those who talk loudest now deny climate change, or at least the human involvement in it, calling it a natural progression of eon’s old environmental change. This makes it appear that climate change denial is a more popular sentiment than climate change acceptance. It is not. According to the Yale program, only 34 percent of those surveyed (link is external)in the U.S. deny the role of humans in global warming. Yet, those who have both the science and public opinion on their side remain astonishingly quiet.
…
What a bizarre conflation of ideas.
Scientists who criticise climate dogma sometimes face serious risks to their careers. For example, Peter Ridd is facing a lawsuit because he defied a gag order from James Cook University in Australia, after he criticised climate hype.
Outside academia, where there are real penalties for criticising the scientific claims of colleagues, I suspect the reason most people don’t discuss climate change is most people find it boring.
I don’t fear skeptics, I’m scared spitless of the antidemocratic, anti-free.speech, authoritarian, biased, power-grabbing elitists who want to take away my property rights, my human rights and my future.
Once you invoke Hitler into your …………..thesis, including the term “denial” just moves it out of science and right back into mob rule.
WWII was fought by gentleman, are there even any left ?
I think she may just possibly have things farce about ace. Easy enough to measure, count the number of mainstream media speaking on either point of view. Work out the percentages. Given that open debate requires both points of view to be presented in more-or-less equal proportions, If one or the other has a substantively smaller proportion, then that side (at least from the media point of view – which is where ‘noise is made and public opinion affected) is being subjected to her ‘spiral’.
Yes! By all means, keep harping (harpying?) on glob…, er, climate change. And force political candidates in the US to run on two planks – climate change and gun banning. You go, girl!
calling it a natural progression of eon’s old environmental change. Because it is and they are right to do say. The denial hear seems to be theirs and in a ironically twist it’s climate denial.
The silence of Germans before and during WW2 is much easier to explain as a feeling of guilt about attacking small neighbouring nations just because they were militarily weak. Guilt makes one crouch down and hide if there is still some remnant of a conscience. I don’t deny that present-day Germans may still have a hard time living all that history down, but hey still understand science, and right now it’s not going their way. As for Patricia’s opinion on German guilt feelings, they didn’t seem to be too affected as long as they were winning.
I remember. I was there.
Hitler brought work and pride to a Germany humiliated by the resolution of WWI and devastated by the weak world economy. I knew one German who lived during the war, and she was damn proud to have been a Nazi.
Dr Prijatel thinks Germans had her attitude and beliefs of the Nazis. They didn’t. Projection, I reckon.
I would also say that when your city is rubble, talk of distant atrocities doesn’t register. Westerners have little comprehension of the Eastern War.
“Break the Spiral of Silence on Leprechauns” too. They are just as likely to exist as meaningful man made climate change outside of urban heat islands.
So glad someone brought up my theory on the Fairy Folk’s influence on climate. It’s an old theory, but has as much observational data as AGW, from what I can tell. Quote from source article:
“And others again blamed the fairies; their notion was that the English fairies had invaded Ireland and that our indigenous Little People had to raise a ferocious wind to blow them out again.”
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/a-night-to-remember-1.121348
If there is “silence” about “Climate Change” it’s because its promoters have plugged their ears with Green.
(Of course, there are some who aren’t in it for the money. They are in it for “The Cause”.)
“Of course, there are some who aren’t in it for the money. They are in it for “The Cause”.”
Of course, that doesn’t mean they will refuse to take the money if it is offered to them.
This woman is totally out of touch. Totally.
I just wrote a very politely worded comment to her article over on Psychology Today on the irony of speaking about the “spiral of silence” regarding a topic we are daily berated on. It’ll be interesting to see what response, if any, that I get.
Liberals say the darnedest things!
You people are supposed to be skeptics, but 97% of you will believe anything that fits with your predispositions. It’s very disappointing to us skeptics.
What happened to Windy.com selections? Carbon Monoxide elective is gone. I pulled it up often to see China smothered in red, with 1600 ppm. The area of Gabon, DRC, Angola were also blanketed with carbon monoxide. I kept checking to see this reduced, if it was just crop reside burning to prep the soil but I think there was another reason. Gas well flaring? Huge new gas, oil and hydrogen fields are now being developed in this area even tho the largest ever in the world peat bog with conserved CO2 is there also.
This is the type of real news that is being eliminated by the twitter and nonsense news of the Trump administration. Wholly engineered by the old goats in Congress expecting corporate vice presidential appointments when they retire. And it all began with the Bush administration’s new handouts of forever jobs with HomeLandSecurity. After co-opting FEMA funding, the octopus is now strangling the FBI and the CIA and busy creating new agencies right and left. Whose running the country?
Certainly the MSM aren’t silent on the issue. And 97% of it is one-sided. (For evidence, check out and analyze the list of articles pro vs. con in any issue of the Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature.) Compare the media situation in Germany back then.
Also check out The Conversation to see who is being drowned out.
“…those in support of the Third Reich (Climate Dogma) spoke loud and clear. In so doing, they controlled the discussion, no matter how many people might have disagreed with their opinions. Because the pro-Hitler (Climate Mafia)voices were heard most, they were accepted as public opinion. Early in Hitler’s (AGW’s) rise to power, when talking could have done the most to change history, those who broke the silence were faced with social isolation.”
There; fixed it for you.
A ” Spiral of Silence on Climate Change”?
Oh puleeeze. In my dreams. What merciful release that would be.
+1000
Broken spirals? Serve me up some with chicken and tomato sauce, please
http://kriskamarie.webs.com/Recipes/Chicken%20Fusilli.jpg
Better that than the interminable bellyaching from the green blob.
Just bizarre! There are two relatively simple reasons people do not talk about AGW. First is that if they believe it is happening they do not believe anything can be done about. If they know anything about the Paris agreement they know it cannot work. They also know that Paris was going to cost the USA a whole lot of taxpayers dollars. Second reason people don’t talk about it is they just don’t by the hype any more and certainly not the AGW orthodoxy. If they know any history they know the world has been warmer and colder than today and no matter what humans do or don’t do it will be warmer and colder again. Some people I talk who understand of how expensive the proposed solution will be think like the Chinese. It is better to be rich and prepare for catastrophe than to be poor from spending trillions on totally unproven so called theories. Why the AGW priests, and most leftists, continue to go down the road of comparing anything they don’t like or that doesn’t go their way to Nazism is bizarre and demonstrates how little they know of history. They fail to understand or have any clue what National Socialism was all about. The Obama Administration was based on National Socialism concepts and eight more years would have taken the USA there.
Edwin,
“They also know that Paris was going to cost the USA a whole lot of taxpayers dollars. Second reason people don’t talk about it is they just don’t by the hype any more and certainly not the AGW orthodoxy.”
It would have cost less than $6/pp to stay in the Paris Accord. Swedes are spending overr $60/pp.
It’s so funny hearing all the moaning about trillions of dollars. We are already transitioning to renewables, and the economy is fine. It created jobs. PV panels are being made so cheaply that in some areas solar electricity is rivaling coal at auction, and it’s generally getting closing the gap on coal. FF and renewables should go hand-in-hand, I think, but we can still move toward renewables – of course, Trump has made solar more expensive in perhaps the most bizarre tariff ever unless you consider the fact that it helps the FF industry.
“Second reason people don’t talk about it is they just don’t by the hype any more and certainly not the AGW orthodoxy.”
No, they are simply so convinced that there is no reason to discuss it. They don’t need to struggle to find excuses for their beliefs because the evidence and the theory all fits, giving a nice, detailed, harmonious explanation for climate change. They simply can’t understand why deniers struggle against this…except for this fact: it has become clear from original documents that millions of dollars were spent in a propaganda campaign to manipulate conservative ideas of climate change. And that was brilliant: make it partisan. Divide and conquer. Shameless! Reprehensible! Destructive to society, because it is anti-science.
The evidence is there. Climatefiles.com. Somehow I suspect that few will explore them.
“Some people I talk who understand of how expensive the proposed solution will be think like the Chinese. It is better to be rich and prepare for catastrophe than to be poor from spending trillions on totally unproven so called theories.”
The Chinese lead the world in renewable energy. They allocated $320 b toward renewables by 2020. This is not an insignificant leadership role; the U.S. looks ridiculous in comparison, resting on our laurels and refusing responsibility.
“They fail to understand or have any clue what National Socialism was all about. The Obama Administration was based on National Socialism concepts and eight more years would have taken the USA there.” I see. That’s a sure demonstration of your knowledge of National Socialism. Spot on, really.
I’m curious about these cost claims. I’ve read the Paris Accord in it’s entirety and, as far as I can see, it contains no ‘commitment’ for either cost or CO2 reduction by any country. Can you enlighten me as to where these commitments are in the document?
Near as I can tell, the only obligation any signatory has is to submit a report every 5 years detailing their progress towards meeting their voluntary goals, which are not stated in the Accord.
Kristi Silber said
“They don’t need to struggle to find excuses for their beliefs because the evidence and the theory all fits, giving a nice, detailed, harmonious explanation for climate change.”
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR GLOBAL WARMING. Even the IPCC has stated only 0.75C in last 100 years and that is based on inflated ground temperatures. Satellite temps show less. Even if the whole Arctic ocean melted it wouldnt raise sea level because the ice is sitting on water. Greenland is melting from underground because of volcanic ridges that extend all the way to Iceland. So no global warming there. NOAA and Goddard Institute of NASA constantly talk about how the Antarctica peninsula is warming but neglect to mention the rest of the continent. The Antarctica peninsula is only 1% of Antarctica but it has 3 of the 13 weather stations in Antarctica. If you examine the other 10 stations for the last 50 years you will see there is no warming . The Dutch meteorological Institute which is one of the most trustworthy Institutes in the world have stopped reporting on the other 10 stations since 2015. Those stations are operated by various countries, The probable reason that the Dutch have stopped reporting is the pressure they are getting from the alarmist community including NOAA and the Goddard Institute to suppress the information. See for yourself for the information. I couldn’t find it directly now on the DUTCH site. You will have to go to the site below. There are a few other sites that have copied the info.
http://members.westnet.com.au/brigun/antarctica-temps.html
Worldwide There are no increases in tornados , hurricanes, volcanos , floods nor any other extreme weather event. Mankind keeps very good records of these. Sea levels have been rising for the last 8000 years and there is no change there nor any acceleration. Global warming is not causing the corals to bleach. They have bleached off and on for millions of years. There is no tropical hotspot predicted by the models. Dr. Pat Frank has proved in a statistical paper which should soon be published that the cloud error is so huge that the models are worthless for any projection. He duplicated the models projections using a handheld calculator. Cloud equations are parameterized by models themselves because the cloud scientists do not have the money to send airplanes all over the world to get real cloud saturation data. Yes you read that right. The models themselves are producing raw data to fudge the equations. Even if they had the money to get real life raw cloud saturation data, they still cant model any cloud smaller than 100 meters and never will. Crucial to the AGW theory is water vapour (H2O) forcing which requires permament increases in H2O so that their theory will work. Jim Hansen when he was director of the Goddard Space Institute started a H2O measuring project in 1989. After 20 years of measuring they couldn’t find any increase so Hansen shut the project down under the guise of budget cuts. The climategate emails showed an extreme bias of all the scientists who work on climate even to the point of cherry picking data and questionable data adjustment. There has never been a debate on clmate science or global warming because the alarmists have always refused to debate. Any person who questions global warming is called a denier by the alarmists. Any scientist who dares to question global warming or ANY ASPECT OF IT is subject to censure firing or career stagnation including difficulty in getting grants. It is almost impossible to get anything published against global warming because all the alarmist scientists sit on the publishing and peer review committees. If you are going for your PhD in atmospheric physics or any faculty that has anything to do with environment or climate, you will not be granted your PhD unless you toe the global warming line. As soon as a climate scientist retires many of them become anti global warming because they have nothing to lose. There never hasbeen a 97% consensus on global warming. The media refuse to interview any skeptic. All skeptics are attacked verbally by the climate establishment instead of the science being debated..
Christopher Monckton has found a fatal flaw in the alarmist basic theory. You can find his discovery in another recent article on this site. Even if you accept the the theory of greenhouse gases which I dont by the way ( See the following site)
https://principia-scientific.org/industry-radiation-experts-greenhouse-gas-theory-debunked/
however after reading that if you still accept the theory then go to this site
The http://www.calqlata.com/ and click on Useful stuff and then click on earths atmosphere The web site has discovered 95 % of the reason why warming can never be more than the 1.5C which is the low end of the IPCC projections. I can supply the other 5% of their argument which their site didnt go far enough to explain.
The Paris climate agreement was a joke. There are no enforcement provisions with only promises Ex: the Chinese promised to try to limit their INCREASE in emissions by 2030. They already are at 30% of the CO2 emmissions.
The world needs more CO2 not less. Optimum plant growth is 1000- 1200 ppm. The danger level for humans is 8000ppm. The climate has always changed and mankind will never really have anything to do with it. The earth is just too big and complex.
Kristi Silber said
“They don’t need to struggle to find excuses for their beliefs because the evidence and the theory all fits, giving a nice, detailed, harmonious explanation for climate change.”
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR GLOBAL WARMING. Even the IPCC has stated only 0.75C in last 100 years and that is based on inflated ground temperatures. Satellite temps show less. Even if the whole Arctic ocean melted it wouldnt raise sea level because the ice is sitting on water. Greenland is melting from underground because of volcanic ridges that extend all the way to Iceland. So no global warming there. NOAA and Goddard Institute of NASA constantly talk about how the Antarctica peninsula is warming but neglect to mention the rest of the continent. The Antarctica peninsula is only 1% of Antarctica but it has 3 of the 13 weather stations in Antarctica. If you examine the other 10 stations for the last 50 years you will see there is no warming . The Dutch meteorological Institute which is one of the most trustworthy Institutes in the world have stopped reporting on the other 10 stations since 2015. Those stations are operated by various countries, The probable reason that the Dutch have stopped reporting is the pressure they are getting from the alarmist community including NOAA and the Goddard Institute to suppress the information. See for yourself for the information. I couldn’t find it directly now on the DUTCH site. You will have to go to the site below. There are a few other sites that have copied the info.
http://members.westnet.com.au/brigun/antarctica-temps.html
Worldwide There are no increases in tornados , hurricanes, volcanos , floods nor any other extreme weather event. Mankind keeps very good records of these. Sea levels have been rising for the last 8000 years and there is no change there nor any acceleration. Global warming is not causing the corals to bleach. They have bleached off and on for millions of years. There is no tropical hotspot predicted by the models. Dr. Pat Frank has proved in a statistical paper which should soon be published that the cloud error is so huge that the models are worthless for any projection. He duplicated the models projections using a handheld calculator. Cloud equations are parameterized by models themselves because the cloud scientists do not have the money to send airplanes all over the world to get real cloud saturation data. Yes you read that right. The models themselves are producing raw data to fudge the equations. Even if they had the money to get real life raw cloud saturation data, they still cant model any cloud smaller than 100 meters and never will. Crucial to the AGW theory is water vapour (H2O) forcing which requires permament increases in H2O so that their theory will work. Jim Hansen when he was director of the Goddard Space Institute started a H2O measuring project in 1989. After 20 years of measuring they couldn’t find any increase so Hansen shut the project down under the guise of budget cuts. The climategate emails showed an extreme bias of all the scientists who work on climate even to the point of cherry picking data and questionable data adjustment. There has never been a debate on clmate science or global warming because the alarmists have always refused to debate. Any person who questions global warming is called a denier by the alarmists. Any scientist who dares to question global warming or ANY ASPECT OF IT is subject to censure firing or career stagnation including difficulty in getting grants. It is almost impossible to get anything published against global warming because all the alarmist scientists sit on the publishing and peer review committees. If you are going for your PhD in atmospheric physics or any faculty that has anything to do with environment or climate, you will not be granted your PhD unless you toe the global warming line. As soon as a climate scientist retires many of them become anti global warming because they have nothing to lose. There never hasbeen a 97% consensus on global warming. The media refuse to interview any skeptic. All skeptics are attacked verbally by the climate establishment instead of the science being debated..
Christopher Monckton has found a fatal flaw in the alarmist basic theory. You can find his discovery in another recent article on this site. Even if you accept the the theory of greenhouse gases which I dont by the way ( See the following site)
https://principia-scientific.org/industry-radiation-experts-greenhouse-gas-theory-debunked/
however after reading that if you still accept the theory then go to this site
The http://www.calqlata.com/ and click on Useful stuff and then click on earths atmosphere The web site has discovered 95 % of the reason why warming can never be more than the 1.5C which is the low end of the IPCC projections. I can supply the other 5% of their argument which their site didnt go far enough to explain.
The Paris climate agreement was a joke. There are no enforcement provisions with only promises Ex: the Chinese promised to try to limit their INCREASE in emissions by 2030. They already are at 30% of the CO2 emmissions.
The world needs more CO2 not less. Optimum plant growth is 1000- 1200 ppm. The danger level for humans is 8000ppm. The climate has always changed and mankind will never really have anything to do with it. The earth is just too big and complex.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR GLOBAL WARMING. Even the IPCC has stated only 0.75C in last 100 years and that is based on inflated ground temperatures. Satellite temps show less. Even if the whole Arctic ocean melted it wouldnt raise sea level because the ice is sitting on water. Greenland is melting from underground because of volcanic ridges that extend all the way to Iceland. So no global warming there. NOAA and Goddard Institute of NASA constantly talk about how the Antarctica peninsula is warming but neglect to mention the rest of the continent. The Antarctica peninsula is only 1% of Antarctica but it has 3 of the 13 weather stations in Antarctica. If you examine the other 10 stations for the last 50 years you will see there is no warming . The Dutch meteorological Institute which is one of the most trustworthy Institutes in the world have stopped reporting on the other 10 stations since 2015. Those stations are operated by various countries, The probable reason that the Dutch have stopped reporting is the pressure they are getting from the alarmist community including NOAA and the Goddard Institute to suppress the information. See for yourself for the information. I couldn’t find it directly now on the DUTCH site. You will have to go to the site below. There are a few other sites that have copied the info.
http://members.westnet.com.au/brigun/antarctica-temps.html
Worldwide There are no increases in tornados , hurricanes, volcanos , floods nor any other extreme weather event. Mankind keeps very good records of these. Sea levels have been rising for the last 8000 years and there is no change there nor any acceleration. Global warming is not causing the corals to bleach. They have bleached off and on for millions of years. There is no tropical hotspot predicted by the models. Dr. Pat Frank has proved in a statistical paper which should soon be published that the cloud error is so huge that the models are worthless for any projection. He duplicated the models projections using a handheld calculator. Cloud equations are parameterized by models themselves because the cloud scientists do not have the money to send airplanes all over the world to get real cloud saturation data. Yes you read that right. The models themselves are producing raw data to fudge the equations. Even if they had the money to get real life raw cloud saturation data, they still cant model any cloud smaller than 100 meters and never will. Crucial to the AGW theory is water vapour (H2O) forcing which requires permament increases in H2O so that their theory will work. Jim Hansen when he was director of the Goddard Space Institute started a H2O measuring project in 1989. After 20 years of measuring they couldn’t find any increase so Hansen shut the project down under the guise of budget cuts. The climategate emails showed an extreme bias of all the scientists who work on climate even to the point of cherry picking data and questionable data adjustment. There has never been a debate on clmate science or global warming because the alarmists have always refused to debate. Any person who questions global warming is called a denier by the alarmists. Any scientist who dares to question global warming or ANY ASPECT OF IT is subject to censure firing or career stagnation including difficulty in getting grants. It is almost impossible to get anything published against global warming because all the alarmist scientists sit on the publishing and peer review committees. If you are going for your PhD in atmospheric physics or any faculty that has anything to do with environment or climate, you will not be granted your PhD unless you toe the global warming line. As soon as a climate scientist retires many of them become anti global warming because they have nothing to lose. There never hasbeen a 97% consensus on global warming. The media refuse to interview any skeptic. All skeptics are attacked verbally by the climate establishment instead of the science being debated..
Ms Silber, you miss the point of Obama et al and the Paris Accord. While Paris has no actual requirements on the US, what Obama tried was a bit more subtle.
Paris was defacto a treaty, but Obama did not follow constitutional procedure and submit it to the Senate for the two-thirds majority required, as he knew quite well the votes were not there. So it remained an executive agreement.
The next step was to make the Clean Power Plan the US means of meeting the promises under the Paris Accords, which was another executive branch plan, not an actual law.
Then, the plan was to enforce the CPP by means of pet judges and lawsuits, because of the Paris Accords.
Thus, the Obama administration was bypassing Congress at several points to ensconce their “renewables” plan.
Given the current actual cost of such systems, and their reliability, the US would have South Australian prices and reliability.
Your citing of nameplate peak production costs on solar are precious. Just how many hours a day is that rated power actually produced again?
We are not transitioning to renewables.
Government subsidies and mandates are forcing some to use them.
The minute the subsidies and mandates disappear, so will the renewables.
Kristi, where is the evidence of which you are so confident.
The only thing you got is the fact that over the last 100 years, the temperatures have increased, and so has CO2. That’s not proof.
If you actually bother to chart the temperature over the last 100 years vs. CO2, you will see that there is no correlation.
Temperatures go up while CO2 stays flat.
While CO2 levels have risen, temperatures have gone up, gone down and stayed the same.
Over geological time, there is no correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures. In fact CO2 levels have been between 10 and 20 times current levels with no noticeable change in temperatures. Puts the big scare over a mere doubling in context.
Finally over the last 10,000 years, over 90% of the time temperatures have been warmer, to much warmer than they are presently.
Do you live under a rock? Do you ever talk to real people? Do you understand that Sweden’s population is about 9 million, while the USA’s is over 300 million? No one would bat an eye or care if Sweden bailed because that was never the point of Paris. Do you understand what Paris does and how little it doesn’t do even if fully implemented? Yes, the climate is warming as it generally has since the last glaciation and the Little Ice Age. The question, which you don’t seem to be able to comprehend, is that the debate is over whether or not CO2 has accelerated such warming. You definitely do not understand the Chinese at all. The Chinese lead the world in building coal fired power plants. At the present GDP growth rate they will require all the energy they can muster. Their greenhouse gas production today greatly exceeds the USA and is still increasing dramatically and will for the foreseeable future. They make NO apologies for such increases. Why? because they know that they have lived through climate change in the past several thousand years. When they have been rich they adapted easily, when they have been poor things did not go well. If you have the ability to actually review the model outputs the USA could reduce its greenhouse gas output to zero and it would make no difference in the rate of warming. NONE! NADA! And your last paragraph CLEARLY indicates you are ignorant of history. Do you have a clue what National Socialism was/ is? Go read a little Goebbels. Take the time to actually educate yourself. Learn how to really critically think instead of allowing yourself to be indoctrinated. For analysis of what happened in the 20th try reading Robert Conquest.
I get to lecture elite groups regarding empiricism and scientific hypothesis testing. Climate is out of our domain of expertise. So, to use an outside illustration, I used the hypothesis that hurricanes are getting more frequent, and or more severe, across time, and showed how the data were posted in Wikipedia for all to see for the recent 60+ years, and ran some statistical analysis. All right in front of them.
I got the worst ratings evar.
I dropped this idea for the following year. Ratings back in place.
The reason nobody talks about it is because you can lose friends if you state that the whole thing is a sham, as I have believed/noticed since the beginning. I just look at the facts vs the models…
I’ve lost a lot of “friends”, including one guy who is a physical chemist who introduced me to Popper’s work many years ago. When I brought up that subject, he seemed to have conveniently forgotten about it.
Don’t miss him and them at all. In fact, my life is now more enjoyable. I don’t have a problem making new friends.
I don’t want any friends who cant think for themselves. Come to think of it I dont have too many friends.
Not just friends. At family gatherings, unless all are singing from the Warmunist hymn book, and ready to recite chapter and verse about how we are “destroying the planet with our carbon pollution”, blah-blah-blah, then it’s not going to happen. The subject is taboo, because it is pure poison socially.
Eric:
“Psychology Today author Patricia Prijatel thinks the silence of Germans oppressed by the NAZIs is comparable to not talking about the alleged dangers of anthropogenic climate change.”
This is an irresponsible, intentional misinterpretation of her words. She is not saying they are comparable, she’s talking about a sociological mechanism. The term has a history and it illustrates the process.
I agree that it’s not justified; it is too suggestive. On the other hand, the whole game is dirty, and you are no better with your misinterpretations, ridicule and dismissal. If you weren’t so biased, and so ready to spread that bias and manipulate others, I might say you have reason to gripe.
Have a nice weekend.
Where does the Carbon in organic material come from?
Who is it exactly who is pressuring you warmists to stay quiet?
“According to a report by the Yale Program on Climate Change(link is external), 69 percent of respondents in the United States believe global warming is happening, and 56 percent are worried about it. But (link is external)fewer than a third of those (link is external)ever talk about it to family or friends. Why not?”
Because talk is cheap and nobody wants to put their money where their mouth is other than to stick the latter in the taxpayer trough.
Don’t you see? To mushy-skulled warmistas, her warmly smiling “tilt of concern” trumps everything!
The last resort of a losing argument . Nazi’s . Here’s a discussion . Climate changes , and thankfully it will continue to warm until the next ice age begins . Enjoy it . If it’s too warm for you move or shed a layer .
The earth has much bigger issues and humans might actually be able to do something about some of them .
The earth has a fever propaganda campaign is a distraction and a particularly stupid waste of limited resources . Spoken like a true deplorable eh ?
The Alarmists think they are losing this argument, and they can’t figure out why. Thus, articles like this are written, looking for answers.