By Donna Laframboise, from her Facebook page
This photo is making the rounds at the moment. People I love and admire have posted it. Good people. Kind people. So I’m going to try to explain why it’s counter productive.
As a journalist I have followed the climate debate closely for a decade. When I research a topic, I dig deep. I assure you, it has never been the position of skeptics that ‘climate change isn’t real.’ That is a fundamental misrepresentation.
The climate has always changed. The last Ice Age was a mere 12,000 years ago. From this perspective, the claim that climate change is ‘caused by humans’ strikes skeptics as profoundly scientifically illiterate, a case of puny humanity exaggerating its importance on a planet whose climate was doing its own thing *billions* of years before humans even appeared.
The real question is: What portion of current climate change is caused by humanity?
Despite research costing billions, science cannot answer this question. The UN’s climate body can only say it’s the *opinion* of its experts that humanity is responsible for an unspecified *majority* of change since 1950.
I’ve written 2 books about that UN climate body. Its purpose is to play midwife to UN climate treaties, therefore it would love to phrase things more concretely. It cannot. Hard evidence just isn’t there.
There is now a long history of environmental doom mongering, of dire predictions pre-dating even the 1960s and 1970s, that have *always* failed to materialize. From that perspective, climate skeptics know their history & have learned from it.
How many failed predictions of eco-apocalypse are necessary before those who approach climate change with healthy skepticism are no longer dismissed as morons?
Belittling people, distorting their position so that they look stupid, gets us nowhere. It doesn’t change anyone’s mind. It doesn’t promote mutual respect. Instead it wounds, it insults, it polarizes.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Where’s the moment when your grandchildren of old age.
This fits the alarmists so well!
“Climate change isn’t real” – is literally what we got with the hockey stick graphs which said that known periods of climate change in the past didn’t happen.
“Climate change is real, but we’re not convinced it’s caused by humans” is still the position of most people and particularly academics who ignore the cooling effect of large scale pollution that reached its peak in the 1970s – and probably was the cause of the global cooling scare. And if you clean up pollution that is cooling large chunks of the world – why is anyone surprised we got warming during that clean up (~1970 to ~2000)
“oops” – that’ll be the point when several things happen:
1. Alarmists realise that the necessary feedbacks to make their CO2 scare work just aren’t present
2. Alarmists finally realise that a whole range of other things can and do change the climate, from human caused cooling pollution to solar.
3. The money runs out.
[SNIP] will be the point that everyone has to admit that we just can’t predict future climate with any certainty. And that far from knowing it will warm (or as some sceptics now believe … it will cool), the reality is that we know so little about how the climate works that we have no idea what it will do.
And far from seeing all these pathetic dishonest money grabbing academics kicked out of their positions as many of us would like, far from cutting the grants as will happen to start with … we actually have to spend a lot more money measuring our present climate in order to have any hope of trying to predict the future climate and have some hope of preparing for remote but possible scenarios (like sudden cooling) that make the dire predictions of alarmists look like a day at the fun fair.
It’s all right, they’re only memeing. Let them have fun. I don’t think this is belittling. And it is easily answered in a hundred ways. Here’s my reply for instance:
CLIMATE CHANGE: A TIMELINE
t<A
WE HAVE UNTIL YEAR A TO SAVE THE WORLD!
A<t<B
WE HAVE UNTIL YEAR B TO SAVE THE WORLD!
B<t<C
WE HAVE UNTIL YEAR C TO SAVE THE WORLD!
C<t<D
SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!
You can intersperse warnings such as “All the glaciers are melting… never mind.” The Statue of Liberty will be drowned… never mind. The coral reefs are dying… never mind. Corn will stop growing… never mind.
Maybe you can also add: “Al Gore makes another $50 million” in a few places.
And, “Invest in Solyndra… write off investment in Solyndra.”
“Our children just won’t know what beer is … … … “
The PP is bet illustrated by the Dutch. They know that they have a problem in their low lying land, so even if not threatened at the moment they are building even better defenses
against what history clearly tells them is coming.
MJE
Michael
The Dutch building sea defences is hardly the same as the futile, grossly expensive waste of time and money spent on renewable energy.
wonder if those defenses will stand an icewall incoming?
An ice wall would be easy – the seas will be 10s to 100s of miles away from the defenses then due to sea level fall, and glaciers move slowly enough that even the old and feeble should be able to shuffle off ahead!
Michael November 29, 2018 at 1:49 am
Where the Dutch the first to put free energy to good use ?? No fossil fuels or electricity in the fourteenth century.
https://www.holland.com/global/tourism/discover-holland/traditional/functions-of-windmills-in-holland.htm
The real question is: What portion of current climate change is caused by humanity?
‘Despite research costing billions, science cannot answer this question.”
huh
Of course science can answer this and has.
you might not like the answer
you might disagree with the methods
you might find that there is some uncertainty
but science has answered this question.
Sorry Steven. Too simplistic. Science has answered some of the questions; but has failed miserably to answer the CO2 bit.
Authors claim
“The real question is: What portion of current climate change is caused by humanity?
‘Despite research costing billions, science cannot answer this question.”
This claim is wrong. Science has answered this question.
Stick to the argument.
Your argument
” but has failed miserably to answer the CO2 bit.”
This is an assertion, not an argument. A false assertion to boot
Really Steven, do you “cross your heart and hope to die”; I doubt it.
I don’t like the answer and I don’t agree with your methods and you certainly have “answered” the question uncertainly!
How does your averaging scheme actually work?* What assumptions do you make about correlation decay between station data points? I honestly believe you could make your datasets say anything you like if you ignore or rather, assume the coherence of climate variables.
*I have tried to duplicate your methods but it is not at all clear what you have actually done. I’m open to be shown otherwise. How do you average spatial data, are you using a decay constant and do you assume that the covariance of temperature is isotropic? And if you are averaging point data directly, how do you do that and keep a straight face?
“How does your averaging scheme actually work?* What assumptions do you make about correlation decay between station data points? I honestly believe you could make your datasets say anything you like if you ignore or rather, assume the coherence of climate variables.”
*I have tried to duplicate your methods but it is not at all clear what you have actually done. I’m open to be shown otherwise. How do you average spatial data, are you using a decay constant and do you assume that the covariance of temperature is isotropic? And if you are averaging point data directly, how do you do that and keep a straight face?”
1. the code is available, has been for 8 years. I note no recent access to the site to get the source code.
2. Kriging with drift.
3. See page 17 and 18
4. Not averaging directly. I guess you dondt read
Nice try in avoiding the issue I raised.
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Methods-Appendix-GIGS-13-103a.pdf
“Of course science can answer this and has.”
Says Steven without providing any evidence. Argument by assertion. That’s all we ever get around here from Alarmists.
Next thing you know, Steven will be posting a Hockey Stick chart as “evidence”. And that ought to just about empty out his quiver.
That’s if you are lucky. He isn’t known as Drive-by mosh for nothing.
Yea, get out the shovels, Steve’s BS is getting deep !
The Author makes an assertion with no evidence, that science CANNOT answer this.
Strangely you did not see fit to label this an argument by assertion.
It seems fitting to counter an argument by assertion with a counter argument by assertion.
However, Providing evidence is easy.
1. The claim ‘SCIENCE cannot answer this” Now this is a strange claim to make about
science in general that it cannot provide an anwser. Its ALSO strange because skeptics
are found of saying that man CANNOT be the cause of warming or that man has only
contributed slightly. This of course is odd from a logical standpoint, because if science
CANNOT answer the question of how much warming man has caused, how does a skeptic
argue that man has caused none or the warming or at most a little bit. Hmm must
be telepathy.
2. Science can of course answer this question its called attribution.
http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anth
Some Q and A
http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/esubmissions/Questions.Answers.17.4.14.pdf
And this question has been covered multiple times
start with the TAR
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-12.PDF
Then the 4th
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-3-3.html
And you could go look at AR5
No the science definately CAN and definately HAS answered this question
Even silly skeptics think they can answer this question by arguing humans have zero effect.
Your next step will be to argue that this is not science, or that the answers are not what you like
Be careful as that would include folks who argue that man has no effect or a small effect.
attribution without evidence is not an answer it’s an assertion. One not based in reality.
So since you insist science has answered the question why have you still failed to provide that answer. I repeat what I said before which I notice you did not reply to:
Great than you should have no problem providing the exact percentage number of the current climate change that is caused by humanity and the proof that that number is valid.
Your word salad above dances around the question but does not provide the answer. No one here is surprised.
It’s called the null hypothesis. It’s natural (IE *not* man’s doing) until proven otherwise. It has never been proven otherwise (despite all the money wasted claiming it is so), certainly not to the degree that one can put man in control of the climate. You are smart enough to know that. judging by your posts , however, you are not honest enough to admit it.
Sure enough, it looks like Steven *did* use the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart as his “evidence” of human-caused Global Warming/Climate Change. His quiver of evidence is now empty.
http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/esubmissions/Questions.Answers.17.4.14.pdf
An excerpt from the above link:
“This figure visually shows the strong linear relation between the radiative forcing and the global temperature responses.
end excerpt
So Steven wants us to believe that the similarity between the CO2 levels and a bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart is evidece that CO2 is causing the Earth’s atmosphere to heat up. Btw, your first link is dead.
Steven wrote: “The Author makes an assertion with no evidence, that science CANNOT answer this. Strangely you did not see fit to label this an argument by assertion.”
I don’t see anywhere in the article where the author says science cannot answer the question. He says the question of CO2’s effects on the Earth’s atmosphere has not been answered satisfactorily to date. That would be correct.
After rereading the article a third time I see the author *did* write: “The real question is: What portion of current climate change is caused by humanity?
Despite research costing billions, science cannot answer this question.”
I don’t interpret this as the author saying it is impossible to know the answer, but rather that the alarmist cannot answer this question at the present time.
Indeed, the author is claiming that science (at this moment in time) cannot answer the question after spending all those billions trying to show it’s man’s fault. All it has managed to do is continue to assert without evidence that its mostly all man’s fault (and it only manages to do that by ignoring the null hypothesis). the authors statement says nothing about what science might be able to do in the future.
Great than you should have no problem providing the exact percentage number of the current climate change that is caused by humanity and the proof that that number is valid.
Several days later and I see Steven still hasn’t provided the exact percentage number of the current climate change that is caused by humanity or any proof that that number is valid. Could it be because science has not come up with the answer (contrary to his baseless assertion that it has).
“You might not like the answer”
There is no *the* answer, even when reduced to the question of CO2 alone. IPCC reports have the range of ECS to doubling between 1.5C and 4.5C and hasn’t reduced that range in decades. That’s a factor of three between the low value and the high value, even if we assumed the boundaries of the range were hard limits (Lewis & Curry’s approach certainly allows the possibility of ECS being below 1.5C).
Science has “answered the question” of whether we would expect warming from increased CO2 atmospheric concentration — we would. It hasn’t “answered the question” of *how much* warming will happen in a manner suitable for policy purposes, and given the wide ECS range (and failure to reduce it), it’s clear that the true answer is not known and may never be known.
If physicists claimed the average gravitational pull on earth was somewhere between 10 and 30 meters per second squared, and had failed to reduce that range in decades of research, would you claim science has “answered this question”? (To complete the analogy, we could have some physicists condemn anyone believing an observational estimate below 10 as anti-science deniers.)
“you might not like the answer” – I don’t like non-scientific gibberish such as appeals to authority and assertions of things not in evidence.
“you might disagree with the methods” – I definitely don’t agree with non-scientific methods. computer games that have zero ability to predict are not scientific (science is predictive).
“you might find that there is some uncertainty” – That’s the understatement of the year
“but science has answered this question.” – No it has not. If the methods can not be agreed upon and the uncertainty is too large than it’s not really an answer unless you are claiming the answer is “there is no answer because it’s the uncertainty is too great”.
John Endicott
Yes, I think that Mosher would have been more accurate had he said that scientists have looked at the problem, and have attempted to provide answers. However, they have not been satisfactory because of issues such as unstated uncertainty or uncertainty that is too large (e.g. 1 SD 10-70%), unstated assumptions, cherry picking, ‘novel’ mathematics/statistics that are wrong, and a host of other problems that open the ‘answers’ to easy criticism. One doesn’t even have to be a specialist to find things that are wrong with most of the climatology research — or work on temperature databases for that matter!
I should have remarked that among the other problems with science answering The Question, there is a perfect example of the fable about the King’s New Clothes. The Media and other alarmist scientists were congratulating Hansen on the 30th anniversary of his 1988 predictions. They fawned over him as being prescient. Yet, I demonstrated that a simple naive linear extrapolation performed better than his predictions. And, had it not been for him assuming a volcanic eruption in 2014, which didn’t happen, his predictions would have been even worse, thus, being ‘right’ for the wrong reason. In reality, about the most generous thing that one could say about Hansen’s predictions was that he got the sign of the slopes correct. Therefore, one cannot really have much faith in the ‘answers’ for the ‘science’ of climatology, when the practitioners are afraid to tell the ‘king’ when he is naked.
Steven
Science is not a disembodied god what answers questions. Science has answered nothing. People try to do so.
“There is some uncertainty”? Some? There is zero certainty, literally, because their uncertainty band includes zero. All they have is some guesses, and bad guesses made using bath math, and yet they attribute things. Who? Scientists do. Attribution is an exercise that can be done without even a sliver of correlation. You just declare it to be so. Science by declaration. That is less logical than religion by Revelation.
AGW is still in the realm of attribution. There is nearly no correlation and absence of correlation is proof of a lack of causation. However even a total lack of correlation is not a proof of a lack of attribution, because attribution is arbitrary.
“Science” is a method and a vocabulary and an agreed analytical process. Scientists using it well or improperly are making an attribution about AG CO2 in which they can have no confidence because the AG contribution to the rise or fall of the global average temperature is indeterminate. “Opinion” is not “confidence”.
I think they are hoping to see more correlation, eventually, and are holding thumbs it will show up sooner than later. In the meantime they want the rest of us to accept their attribution and vague correlation as maybe “the truth”. Bah, humbug.
Simple common sense says we should use the only climate model that seems to work, and run it forward a few decades.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS000143381004002X
We should under no circumstances base any actions on climate models that have a) not been validated, or b) been invalidated. We do not have to roll with a punch that turns out to be one stroke with a wet noodle.
Models are not and never will be “science”.
If science has answered the question, why is the range on Climate Sensitivity the same today as it was 30 years ago?
As always Steve, you say what whatever you need to say in order to protect your paycheck.
Steve, does this mean their modeling prediction/Projection failures can answer the question too?
Good point, the failures at prediction/projection provide the *only* real answer science has given: that they don’t know the answer and that, therefore, their assumptions/assertions/attributions are incorrect.
“…. it has never been the position of skeptics that ‘climate change isn’t real.’ That is a fundamental misrepresentation.”
Actually from my experience of discussing ‘Climate Change’ with family, friends and colleagues rather than a ‘fundamental misrepresentation’ it is simply a semantic or interpretive error. When discussing climate change skeptical people do not interpret the words ‘Climate Change’ literally, what they actually hear is ‘catastrophic climate change’ or ‘human caused catastrophic climate change’ or similar. Often you will hear responses to “What do you think of Climate Change?” such as, “It’s a load of rubbish, it doesn’t exist, the climate is changing all the time anyway, it’s natural ……” There is a huge difference between ‘climate change’ and ‘Climate Change’ to ordinary folk that don’t have any personal skin in the game as it were and when they see official or news reports of ‘climate change’ they respond to ‘Climate Change’. They are not denying climate changes, only that those changes are most likely natural, cyclical and while humans do have an effect on climate, it is most likely minor and transient.
History tends to repeat itself. These CAGW enthusiasts are merely selling “Indulgencies” as per the Catholic Church in days of yore. And very successful they are at the moment; particularly when you consider the darker side of their methods. Fortunately these methods tend to be economic rather than outright brutality these days.
Mind you I must admit to bias here as I was brought up in the protestant persuasion. Heretics then and heretics now it seems.
“The real question is: What portion of current climate change is caused by humanity?”
No the real question is whether any of the climate change we are seeing is BAD whether its man caused or not. Is there really a catastrophic scenario? The answer is most assuredly NO, so in fact it doesn’t matter what amount of it is man made and what amount is natural. This is what drives me nuts about the IPCC apologist Nick Stokes and Steven Mosher who both spend their time defending and explaining the climate craziness, whether or not they both actually believe the data both of them absolutely know that there is no Catastrophic scenario, but neither of them will ever cop to it because both of them swim in circles that would eat them alive if they did. Same with most of the casual supporters, yet both will stand by and watch people’s lives get destroyed by the zealots. This is why I have lost all respect for both of them. Mosher most of all because he claims to be a Libertarian which I share with him, but no Libertarian would stand by and watch the mob take control of the state ever.
This is the real nub of it. The original 2C of warming threshold was pulled out of a politician (posing as a scientist)’s nether regions as a scare goal. The science has never shown a biological threshold event on temperature and historical and migratory data would suggest it doesn’t exist. To support this idea, some scientists have perverted the definition of “extinction” to include the movement of plants and animals out of margin environments to more conducive locales for survival. Local extinction is a meaningless term used to reinforce the disaster porn meme.
Geology tells us the world has been 15K or more higher in temperature, and paleontology tells us there was a large diversity of life in that temperature range. The 2C (now 1.5C since evidence indicated we may not reach 2C) limit is a farce!
Okay, so the meme IS a bit funny. And it makes its point. What is needed is a counter meme. Perhaps someone with access to Microsoft Paint can draw up a timeline a “We have 5 years left to save the planet.”
yeah, one with
1980,1985,1990, and so on, on the left side of the x-axisFrom the article: “The real question is: What portion of current climate change is caused by humanity?
Despite research costing billions, science cannot answer this question. The UN’s climate body can only say it’s the *opinion* of its experts that humanity is responsible for an unspecified *majority* of change since 1950.”
That’s the long and short of it. The Alarmists should come back and ask for money *after* they answer this question.
Come on, now. Answer it right here, right now, and then we can all move on to other things.
For those new to this subject, there won’t be any answer from the Alarmists because they don’t have the answer. Just ask them. Like I’m doing now.
“The real question is: What portion of current climate change is caused by humanity?”
— Actually, the real question is whether or not any plan of action we can take can be expected to result in a net benefit. If warming is dangerous or expensive AND we can do something about such that the expected benefits exceed the expected costs, then we should take action. It doesn’t matter if the warming is caused my mankind or is natural.
The only reason to distinguish between the two sources of warming is that it strikes people as incomprehensibly dumb that humans can effectively and economically override the natural global climate cycle. It’s blatantly obvious that we can’t mitigate that warming. It’s not quite as obvious that we also have only a limited ability to mitigate our own contribution to warming.
People have images of campers leaving trash behind at a campsite and we’re used to seeing mankind’s impact on nature as negative. Mankind’s impact on climate bad. Nature impact on climate good.
I have to slightly disagree here. It matters if the warming is caused by man or is natural because there’s nothing man can do if it is natural (and it is futile for man to try). Man does not control nature, man can only, at best, mitigate the effects of nature.
I have to disagree that “good people … kind people” have supported this insulting picture of a false premise. Good and kind people are aware of the tyrannical tendency in humans, and of thoughts and actions that express it.
“doesn’t change anyone’s mind. It doesn’t promote mutual respect. Instead it wounds, it insults, it polarizes.”
“it polarizes” That is exactly what the image is meant to do. It is meant to divide us. It is a ploy progressives socialist have always use to get votes. It’s not aimed to change anyone’s mind it’s aimed to keep the politicians they vote for inline.
My response cartoon.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6461242545627369472
Simple but logical…Awesome..
Wait – we aren’t supposed to have sex until the climate changes dramatically!
Yikes!
Is this another attempt at population control?
They never define “climate change”
“That is a fundamental misrepresentation.”
Well, not all of us. Some of are still true to science and won’t be browbeaten or peer pressured into silence.
Referring to the Dutton/Brune Penn State METEO 300 chapter 7.2: These two professors quite clearly assume/state that the earth’s current 0.3 albedo would remain even if the atmosphere were gone or if the atmosphere were 100 % nitrogen and at an average power flux& temperature of 240 W/m^2 & 255 K.
That is just flat ridiculous.
Without the atmosphere or with 100% nitrogen there would be no liquid water or water vapor, no vegetation, no clouds, no snow, no ice, no oceans and no longer a 0.3 albedo.
The sans atmosphere albedo would be similar to the moon’s as listed in NASA’s planetary data lists, a lunarific 0.14, 390 K on the lit side, 100 K on the dark.
And the naked, barren, zero water w/o atmosphere earth would receive 25% to 40% more kJ/h of solar energy and as a result would be 20 to 30 C hotter not 33 C colder, a direct refutation of the greenhouse effect theory and most certainly NOT a near absolute zero frozen ball of ice.
Nick S.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6466699347852611584
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6457980707988922368
I’m not sure if it makes any sense to comment o/t, but I think the Moon is rather cold on average, isn’t it?
Hugs,
OK, I’ll plow this ground again as have others.
Averages don’t mean squat and can be misleading – and for a used car salesman – confusion is the point.
Suppose the lit side’s high temp. is 308 K, 35 C, 95 F and the dark side’s low temp is 268 K, -20 C, -4 F. The average is 288 K, 15 C, 59 F, the range 40 C. Habitable.
Suppose the lit side’s high temp. is 388 K, 115 C, 239 F and the dark side’s low temp is 188 K, -85 C, -121 F. The average is the same 288 K, 15 C, 59 F, but the range is 200 C. Not habitable.
Identical averages, entirely different worlds.
Without an atmosphere the earth would get baked for twelve hours by a 394 K, 121 C, 250 F solar wind. Nothing is surviving that. That it drops to 100 K on the dark side is irrelevant or that the “average” is below zero. It’s a barren rock, no water, ice, clouds or 0.3 albedo.
NOAA says the earth would be frozen ice ball at -436 F, 24 Rankine. Complete crap!!! https://sos.noaa.gov/Education/script_docs/SCRIPTWhat-makes-Earth-habitable.pdf
1) 288 K – 255 K = 33C warmer is rubbish. 288 K is a WAG by WMO. 255 K is a S-B calculation based on an average ToA of 240 W/m^2 that assumes the albedo remains 0.3 without an atmosphere. The two numbers aren’t even in the same galaxy and there is not legitimate reason to subtract one for them other.
2) The up/down/”back” LWIR GHG energy loop is a thermodynamic travesty.
3) BB radiation of 396 W/m^2 from the surface that powers 1& 2 is a theoretical “what if” S-B calculation with zero physical reality.
1 + 2 + 3 = zero RGHE
“Instead it wounds, it insults, it polarizes.”… That is its design. It is deliberate.
….as for the science. Their hypothesis is Anthropogenic Global Warming caused by Human sources of CO2… Not Climate Change. Climate Change is OUR hypothesis. Climate Change is natural and any anthropogenic signal is lost in the noise of natural variation….
This is just the beginning of a new full court press to pass a Carbon Tax in Congress. The new carbon tax proposals include everything from weaponizing the IRS to estimate individual and corporate carbon output, to taxes on the number of children parents bear. Always follow the money.
I can’t wait to see Josh’s version of that cartoon…I bet it will be priceless..
Get with the program. It’s extreme weather doom nowadays-
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/technology/why-our-weather-events-will-only-get-worse/news-story/9f1d563c0226afa5d9fc7830eec0601f
‘Jim McLennan is a bushfire safety researcher and adjunct professor at La Trobe University and he’s seriously worried.
He said to date the worst Queensland bushfire, in terms of fatalities, took place on October 30, 1918, on a cattle station at Saltern Creek, when five male employees died when a wind change trapped them as they attempted to extinguish a blaze.’
Oops Fcuk!
It’s a real struggle Down Under folks-
“Our research shows that many Australians struggle to understand that we live in a country where natural perils exist and that the actions required to increase our safety are sometimes inconvenient and threaten the very things we value.”
Although a 15 year old schoolgirl got it over a hundred years ago-
http://www.dorotheamackellar.com.au/archive/mycountry.htm
” it polarizes.”
I’m pretty sure that’s a feature, not a bug.
Alternative climate change timeline:
“This global warming is caused by human CO2, stop cars, industry and electricity, join our cause”
“Climate change in general is caused by human CO2, stop cars, industry and electricity, join our cause”
“Flood or drought, more or less hurricanes, wetter or dryer, it’s all us, so let’s make electricity unreliable and expensive”
“It’s colder where you live maybe but still warming at the poles and in the oceans”
“It’s only fake ice that’s increasing – the earth is still warming according to our models…”
“All those millions unemployed and homeless due to electricity grid collapse are just indigent deniers, have only themselves to blame …”
“Get your hands off me!” You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used as evidence against you …
Climate Believers have this self-delusional fantasy about skeptics/climate realists, that we are coming around to their fantasy way of thinking about climate, and when we do eventually realize how “wrong” we were, we will be like, shocked and dismayed. Dream on, snowflakes, dream on. The reality, of course, is just the opposite.
Indeed. I’d say it’s the believers who are more likely to switch to skepticism (once exposed to the facts) than it is for skeptics to become believers (when exposed to messaging that is packaged in the “right’ way). Anecdotally, I can think of several prominent skeptics who were former believers whereas I can’t think of a single prominent believer who was a former skeptic. Does anyone here know of any?