Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Marc Morano – who believes the climate never ever changes?
Almost nobody of course – pretty much everyone knows about ice ages, that large climate shifts have occurred in the past and will occur again in the future. People who take an interest in climate change mostly agree that the world is a little warmer today than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age (around 1850).
But some climate advocates persist with strawman misrepresentations, that climate “deniers” think the climate doesn’t change.
Why conservatives keep gaslighting the nation about climate change
Republican climate rhetoric shifts (again), but the goal remains the same.
By David Roberts
Updated Oct 22, 2018, 5:01pm EDTIn recent years, leaders of the Republican Party have become aware that denying the existence of global warming makes them look like idiots. Changes in climate have become obvious, not just to scientists, but to ordinary people — they can be directly measured, with such exotic instruments as a “thermometer.” Majorities of every group except the most conservative Republicans (who will trust their media over their lying eyes) believe it is happening.
Denying visible, tangible reality is a dicey business, even for the modern US right. It makes the party look like a death cult. So Republican climate-communication strategy has undergone something of an adjustment.
Not a large adjustment, mind you. The GOP remains dead set against doing anything about climate change, against any policy that would threaten the profits of fossil fuel companies. That is the non-negotiable baseline, despite a few fringe figures who signal otherwise (until the time comes for votes).
But front-line, hardcore denialism of the “it’s a hoax” variety has largely receded to the base. Republican leaders and spokespeople have moved back to the next line of defense: Yes, the climate is changing, but we don’t know to what extent humans are responsible.
…
When President Trump or other leading Conservatives call climate change a “hoax”, I doubt very much they are claiming that the climate is static. What they are calling a hoax is the wild exaggerations, the continuous demands for government money, the endless claims that the world faces some kind of imminent climate emergency.
Climate advocates who misrepresent the views of their opponents are probably well aware of this.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
AP interviewed Trump and reported he said “EVENLY”! btw Trump tweeted that the headline was FakeNews too:
17 Oct: AP: Trump tells AP he won’t accept blame if GOP loses House
By CATHERINE LUCEY, JONATHAN LEMIRE and ZEKE MILLER
Trump again cast doubt on climate change, suggesting, incorrectly, that the scientific community was EVENLY split on the existence of climate change and its causes. There are “scientists on both sides of the issue,” Trump said…
https://apnews.com/8f4baf7aaddc442dad0a726f3ebe7fff
trust Dana to come up with the following:
22 Oct: Guardian: Trump thinks scientists are split on climate change. So do most Americans
There’s a 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming, but most Americans are unaware
by Dana Nuccitelli
When queried about the most recent IPCC report, Republican lawmakers delivered a consistent, false message – that climate scientists are still debating whether humans are responsible…
Donald Trump articulated the incorrect Republican position in an interview on 60 Minutes:
“We have scientists that disagree with [human-caused global warming] … You’d have to show me the [mainstream] scientists because they have a very big political agenda”
Americans badly underestimate the expert climate consensus
Numerous papers have shown that over 90% of climate science experts agree that humans are the main cause of global warming since 1950, and when considering peer-reviewed papers, the consensus exceeds 97%.
And yet as surveys by Yale and George Mason universities have found, only about 15% of Americans are aware that the expert climate consensus exceeds 90%…
Expertise matters, and people rightly trust experts. But of course, that’s exactly why Donald Trump wants to confuse the public about the 97% expert climate consensus.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/22/trump-thinks-scientists-are-split-on-climate-change-so-do-most-americans
just to show a few examples of how AP’s “EVENLY” ended up in the FakeNewsMSM:
Trump Tells AP He Won’t Accept Blame if GOP Loses House
New York Times – 19h ago
Trump again cast doubt on climate change, suggesting, incorrectly, that the scientific community was EVENLY split on the existence of climate change and its causes.
Trump tells AP he won’t accept blame if GOP loses House
ABC America – 17 Oct 2018
Trump again cast doubt on climate change, suggesting, incorrectly, that the scientific community was EVENLY split on the existence of climate change and its causes.
Trump says he won’t accept blame if GOP loses House
PBS Newshour – 10h ago
Trump again cast doubt on climate change, suggesting, incorrectly, that the scientific community was EVENLY split on the existence of climate…
Trump tells AP he won’t accept blame if GOP loses House
Atlanta Journal Constitution – 19h ago
Trump again cast doubt on climate change, suggesting, incorrectly, that the scientific community was EVENLY split on the existence of climate…
It’s obviously easier to refute a strawman — but it’s also obvious that David Roberts doesn’t know what he’s talking about:
—
Changes in climate have become obvious, not just to scientists, but to ordinary people — they can be directly measured, with such exotic instruments as a “thermometer.”
—
Any “change in climate” that is “obvious” to “ordinary people” isn’t actually anthropogenic global warming, because the increase in anomaly attributed to AGW is *very small* on exotic instruments like a thermometer, and increased over a very long period of time. Warming since not-really-preindustrial times has been about 1C, a change that would be barely visible on a mercury thermometer over the span of hours instead of more than a century. Changes of far greater magnitude happen on an annual, seasonal, and daily basis just about everywhere in the world.
Yeah, the global temperature has cooled by about 0.8C since February 2016, the supposedly, “Hottest Year Evah!”, so the Alarmists ought to be cheering and breathing a sigh of relief that the world is not going to end tomorrow because the temperatures have stopped climbing.
The next question to ask is how cool are the temperatures going to get? All the while, CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere, but the temperatures are cooling. How do the Alarmists explain that? I thought more CO2 in the atmosphere meant higher temperatures, according to the CAGW hypothesis. Temperature and CO2 levels seem to be taking different paths.
Never mentioning what one’s opposition’s real opinion is is a useful debating tactic. So is using ill-defined or undefined terms, such as the “consensus” points in the notorious Cook study. What, pray tell, is “pollution”?
Perhaps best expounded by the words in a famous song {one small change by me}:
“Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend,
Do it in the name of {climate},
You can justify it in the end”
That’s why ‘climate change’ has quotes around it. That ‘climate change’ is different than climate change.
‘ Climate Change ‘ is the version as defined by AGW, the other climate change isn’t.
Any reason they aren’t using ‘global warming’ anymore? Word play. Separating the 2 issues is difficult. The meaning is different. You don’t believe in ‘Climate Change” ? Yes, but not the AGW version. You don’t believe in ‘ global warming ‘? Yes, but not the cause as per AGW.
( and I don’t know how much or any warming there has actually been, perhaps none. It is entirely probable that patterns changed. It’s entirely probable that the record has been altered to fit the agenda)
AGW puts you on the defensive by saying, ” You don’t believe in ‘ climate change’ ?” . How do you respond to that? … If you say, ” No”, you look like an idiot, of course there is climate change. If you agree that there is climate change, then you agree with AGW. Then if you qualify it with, ” Yes, but not your version”, then it’s an appeal to some communist backed board that a so called ‘authority’.
It is well thought out in that regard.
Why do Climate Advocates Sometimes Misrepresent What Skeptics Believe?
The adorants of the church of catastrophic climate evil steady feel at the brink of doom.
ongoing cliffhanging give them the feeling of superiority.
State of nebulous mind.
I’m endlessly having arguments with climate activists that go something like this:
Activist:
Me:
Activist:
I’ve never confused the POLITICAL movement called “Climate Change” with the dodgy science call cAGW, the MSM and general public conflate the politics and science as they are generally clueless about that the climate-change-fear-narrative actual is not about science!
Why do climate activists sometimes misrepresent what skeptics believe?
Well, when they use the phrase, “climate change”, they are using an entirely different definition than skeptics who use this exact same phrase. Thus, by understanding among themselves one definition, they can hijack a skeptic’s use of the exact same phrase, knowing that their own ill conceived definition is the restricted definition, while the climate skeptic’s definition is the proper, broader definition.
For example, I decide that the phrase, “red apples”, means ONLY red apples that are acquired by killing the growers and stealing their apples. Now you tell me that your favorite pie is made from “red apples”, knowing that the phrase, “red apples”, in your usage, has NOTHING to do with killing the growers and stealing.
Thus, I am now able to berate you for enjoying the fruit of dead growers, simply because we are speaking two different languages, many people tuning into our exchange will NOT know that we are talking two different languages, and these many will be captivated by the emotionalism of those using the ill conceived definition that is NOT fully disclosed each time the phrase is used in an alarmist context.
Pretty sneaky, really.
If a person uses the phrase, “climate change”, meaning “human caused climate change”, then this person needs to spell it out every single time. Otherwise, this person is being lazy, overly presumptive, and simply incompetent at using language properly. The correct phrase for climate change believed to be caused exclusively by humans is “human caused climate change”. Do NOT leave out that first part. EVER, or you are being, again, lazy, overly presumptive, and simply incompetent at using language properly.
Choices:
a) They are NPCs and this is what they were programmed to say.
b) They are as bad at mind reading as they are at science.
c) They are disingenuous.
Why do climate (change/ global warming) advocates sometimes misrepresent what skeptics believe? It suits their purpose. Why do climate advocates sometimes misrepresent what climate advocates believe? It suits their purpose.
You keep using that word [sometimes], I do not think it means what you think it means.
Activists/warmists don’t believe in logic they believe in fear and falsified correlation. They have and serve a political agenda equivalent to accusing “teh jewz” of stealing babies to educate them into their satan worshiping religion to then infiltrate the world.
There’s no way to successfully argue with someone who not only doesn’t critically think but also can’t comprehend basic mathematics and physics. You’re wrong because it makes them feel good about themselves to defend their magical lie.
Why do they keep putting the issue in terms of Republican vs Democrat? Do they not know that there is a world outside Washington? Have they ever heard that there is a world outside the United States?
On politicians’ and people into politics, their point of view is competition between these parties with thoughts the party they belong or support could have done better.
The idea that people can ‘see’ a ‘tangible’ climate change is utterly ridiculous. This is a 0.6K average rise in temperature over the last hundred years over the entire planet! In a more enlightened time folk should remark that the Earths temperature was ridiculously stable. What folk actually see is weather doing what it has always done – they just refuse to educate themselves about actual trends.
Far from skeptics not believing in climate change, it is the climate-obsessed who seem to believe that climate and weather would be in a kind of homeostasis without industrial emissions. The responsibility of this lies with the bulk of academia who seem to have grown an outsize anti-industry bias.
Of course this come from Vox. “Death Cult”? Really? That’s the pot calling the kettle black. Talk about projection.
Surprising that none of the comments mention that it isn’t just “climate change” that “skeptics” disagree about with “alarmists”. It’s EVERYTHING. Pick a topic: immigration: conservatives – secure the borders, liberals: open borders. Taxes” conservatives – lower, liberals, higher. National Debt – conservatives, bigger problem than CO2, liberals, CO2 much bigger problem. It’s all about how each of us process information.
Conservatives: Evidence based, analytical, rational. Example: The economic reality is windmills and solar panels will not supply more than 10% of total global energy demand by 2030, and will not reach 30% by 2045..no matter what…it will not happen, that’s not reality. Conservatives: Carefully study Germany’s energy mess. Stop wasting limited capital resources on an unrealistic solution to a non-existent problem. Liberals: Strange combination of willful ignorance and virtue signalling on one hand and devious corruption on the other. Spend more money on renewable’s or we’re all going to die, or even if we’re not it’s still feels like the right thing to do.
Maybe because people think there should be someone to blame. The world as we see it today is due to the revolution of climate as one major factor, some of the human bad habits and activities are boosting.