There are three types of climate change denier, and most of us are at least one

From The Conversation

Last week, amid the cacophony of reactions to Greta Thunberg’s appearance before the United Nations Climate Action Summit, a group of self-proclaimed “prominent scientists” sent a registered letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres. The letter, headed “There is no climate emergency”, urged Guterres to follow:

…a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.

The group, supported by 75 Australian business and industry figures, along with others around the world, obviously rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. But this missive displays remarkably different tactics to those previously used to stymie climate action.

The language of climate change denial and inaction has transformed. Outright science denial has been replaced by efforts to reframe climate change as natural, and climate action as unwarranted.

However, this is just another way of rejecting the facts, and their implications for us. Denial can take many forms.

Shades of denial

The twin phenomena of denial and inaction are related to one another, at least in the context of climate change. They are also complex, both in the general sense of “complicated and intricate”, and in the technical psychological sense of “a group of repressed feelings and anxieties which together result in abnormal behaviour”.

In his book States of Denial, the late psychoanalytic sociologist Stanley Cohen described three forms of denial. Although his framework was developed from analysing genocide and other atrocities, it applies just as well to our individual and collective inaction in the face of the overwhelming scientific evidence of human-induced climate change.

The first form of denial is literal denial. It is the simple, conscious, outright rejection that something happened or is happening – that is, lying. One Nation senators Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts, among others, have at one time or another maintained this position – outright denial that climate change is happening (though Senator Hanson now might accept climate change but denies any human contribution to it).

Interestingly, former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull yesterday blamed “climate change deniers” in his own government for blocking any attempt to deal with climate change, resulting paradoxically in higher energy prices today.

It is tempting to attribute outright denial to individual malice or stupidity, and that may occasionally be the case. More worrying and more insidious, though, is the social organisation of literal denial of climate change. There is plenty of evidence of clandestine, orchestrated lying by vested interests in industry. If anyone is looking for a conspiracy in climate change, this is it – not a collusion of thousands of scientists and major science organisations.

The second form of denial is interpretive denial. Here, people do not contest the facts, but interpret them in ways that distort their meaning or importance. For example, one might say climate change is just a natural fluctuation or greenhouse gas accumulation is a consequence, not a cause, of rising temperatures. This is what we saw in last week’s letter to the UN.

The most insidious form of denial

The third and most insidious form is implicatory denial. The facts of climate change are not denied, nor are they interpreted to be something else. What is denied or minimised are the psychological, political, and moral implications of the facts for us. We fail to accept responsibility for responding; we fail to act when the information says we should.

Of course, some are unable to respond, financially or otherwise, but for many, implicatory denial is a kind of dissociation. Ignoring the moral imperative to act is as damning a form of denial as any other, and arguably is much worse.

The treatment of Thunberg, and the vigour with which people push away reminders of that which they would rather not deal with, illustrate implicatory denial. We are almost all guilty, to some extent, of engaging in implicatory denial. In the case of climate change, implicatory denial allows us to use a reusable coffee cup, recycle our plastic or sometimes catch a bus, and thus to pretend to ourselves that we are doing our bit.

Almost none of us individually, or we as a nation, has acted as we ought on the science of climate change. But that does not mean we can’t change how we act in the future. Indeed, there are some recent indications that, as with literal denial, implicatory denial is becoming an increasingly untenable psychological position.

While it is tempting, and even cathartic, to mock the shrill responses to Thunberg from literal and interpretive deniers, we would do well to ponder our own inherent biases and irrational responses to climate change.

For instance, we tend to think we are doing more for the planet than those around us (and we can’t all be right). We also tend to think literal deniers are much more common in our society than they in fact are.


These are just two examples of common strategies we use to deny our own responsibility and culpability. They make us feel better about what little we actually do, or congratulate us for accepting the science. But they are ultimately self-defeating delusions. Instead of congratulating ourselves on agreeing with the basic scientific facts of climate change, we need to push ourselves to action.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

HT/Clyde Spencer

Advertisements

268 thoughts on “There are three types of climate change denier, and most of us are at least one

      • King Cnut was more knowledgeable about environmental change 1,000 years ago, than most of our recent college graduates.

        • Note to Messer Walker and Ms Leviston,
          IF, as you imply, climate science skeptics are amongst a trivial minority then your solution is simple and requires no laws to be passed.
          Simply stop utilizing Fossil Energy Sources and Fossil derived products and services.
          1) Place Solar Panels on your rooftop and yard space sufficient to supply the energy you require daily. (If you don’t source your power from the grid you will not inadvertently utilize fossil sourced power.)
          2) Eliminate your ICE powered vehicles and buy new electric vehicles (the cost doesn’t matter because “Climate Change”)
          3) Install sufficient battery backup at your home to both supply personal needs and recharging however many EVs you add per #2.
          3) Immediately stop using any materials created from or sourced by fossil fuel (Petroleum products include transportation fuels, fuel oils for heating and electricity generation, asphalt and road oil, and feedstocks for making the chemicals, plastics, and synthetic materials that are in nearly everything we use. In 2018, of the approximately 7.5 billion barrels of total U.S. petroleum consumption, 46% was motor gasoline (includes fuel ethanol), 20% was distillate fuel (heating oil and diesel fuel), and 8% was jet fuel. The remaining 26% are used to make things used daily like plastics, roads and car tires and insulation on house wiring)
          4) DIVEST your selves personally from fossil fuels.
          5) No More Flying Anywhere and no Cargo Vessels that aren’t strictly wind powered

          If, as you in tone, the “vast majority” of people believe that
          Climate Change is happening
          It is mostly caused by anthropogenic sourced CO2
          It will be bad (Apocalyptic)
          It needs to be dealt with immediately

          AND the vast majority are believers like yourselves then by having 97% simply voluntarily stopping your/their personal use of fossil fuel sourced energy and petrochemical sourced products will solve the perceived problem without any legislation necessary. Surely if 3% of the populace had continued use of fossil fuels there would be a 97% decrease in anthropogenic sourced CO2 and the problem would cease to exist.

          • I am fairly certain that people of the ilk of these authors have no intention of changing single thing about the way they conduct themselves and live their lives, except to do ever more to try to control other people.

          • Bryan A., YOU ARE RIGHT ON except that the solar panels & e-cars require mass amounts of fossil fuels both for production and operation. But, sadly, REASON has no effect when one BELIEVES!

        • we would do well to ponder our own inherent biases and irrational responses to climate change.

          which of course the left never does.

          He should have read chapter 2 of Psychology for Dummies where it explains how “projection” works.

    • Authors of the above imbecilic screed are:
      Iain Walker, Professor of Psychology, University of Canberra – with zero or negative scientific competence.
      Zoe Leviston, Postdoctoral research fellow, Edith Cowan University – no comment.

      Their analytical approach is to start with a blatant falsehood, then to hypothesize with god-like superiority on the alleged failings of those who state that the falsehood is… false.

      O yes – to clarify for the green-brownshirts, I was asked to sign the petition and I did so – it is well-written and accurate.

      Regards, Allan (aka Allen) MacRae

        • This article is a diabolical form of ad hominem attack. They can’t win the debate with logical argumentation, so they resort to labeling their opponents as mentally defective.

          • They are also condemning their own True Believers, although not quite so vigorously or with the same degree of opprobrium, when they say that simply having the “correct opinion” on the issue is not enough.
            They are subtly raising the stakes for everyone: Whatever it is you are saying or doing, it is no where near enough.

          • they resort to labeling their opponents as mentally defective.

            SOP in the communist dictatorships. They’re just following that playbook.

          • @Nicholas McGinley

            This will inevitably devolve into a Marxist purity spiral, each round will purge those that were not the Truest of True Believers, until there are none left at all. After all, Communism is always one purge away from utopia.

          • Thomas,
            I would bet that they have no actual insight with which to engage in any substantive debate.
            Without reading more of what they believe or know, and just going by this article, there is no evidence that have any factual knowledge at all.
            Just assumptions, the first of which is that they are correct, and any who differ with their beliefs need to be silenced.

          • – And they missed one form of denial – the most important one:

            – Trollic Denial –

            Which is, “Denying just to troll them, spin them up, pi$$ them off, drive them into hypertension and trigger irrational outbursts, thus showing everybody else how unhinged the alarmists really are.”

          • its the conversation
            think of it like an aussie Onion
            though the onions prob saner
            and its pretty much an ABC aus media backdoor
            and theyre rabidly warmist

        • Three minutes? I spent barely 1:30 on it, asking at the end “Is this dingaling serious?”

          Then I realized that it was serious and the author(s) is/are blind to their own deceit.

          • Sara

            I had to read it twice as I couldn’t quite believe what I was reading. I should have quit after 1:30.

      • There are three types of stupid in increasing order of severity- plain stupid, pet hamster stupid, and psychology prof stupid, (Jordan Peterson excepted).

        • What struck me as the inability of the authors to see the arguments presented apply to themselves far better than people who have a clue what climate change is about.

          It reads like an op ed in a political newsletter where facts are malleable and the argument is structured so that none of the base claims should be examined. Full of confidence, sneering, and a heartfelt opinion that even if it were all shown to be false, they could easily construct a second argument that would better fool the mob because “We are just so clever!

          What a fluffy waste of electrons. I agree that describing the matter (climate change) is more like three or four levels of ignorance. Absent any understanding of the way science is conducted would be the first. Look at all the references to a consensus, “overwhelming” and so on. This doesn’t deserve our attention. They don’t even understand psychology.

          • Agree 100%.
            Starting with a lie, and peppered with insults and condescension, their screed is sickening.
            People like this are insufferable fools, who would lord over the world if they had their wish.

      • On climate only engineering graduate or similar votes should be allowed. I do not believe even a scientific training is enough as it clearly does not cover the idea that the donkey work of good data foundation is essential. As a young engineering student I did some data work on the acid rain investigations. When the work was published we did not even get a mention and the what now would be climate scientist researcher bluntly said that is only donkey work and you don’t give a donkey credits.
        That attitude is still widespread in academia so much work rests on poor foundations , more so in some areas than others. The peer review fails to even show any assessment of how many measurement points are necessary for the claimed accuracy now it is regional not global so would fail even the cheapest product QA standards.

  1. “The group, supported by 75 Australian business and industry figures, along with others around the world, obviously rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. But this missive displays remarkably different tactics to those previously used to stymie climate action.”…..

    There is no “scientific consensus“….PERIOD !

    • and what is the difference between “Outright science denial” and “to reframe climate change as natural, and climate action as unwarranted”.

  2. They had 3 times to try to get it right, but missed all three times.
    Climate changes, always has, always will. So there’s that.
    The only thing that is contested is that any perceived climate change is due to the 20 PPM of CO2 that humans emit every year. The other 380 PPM of CO2 is emitted and absorbed by the earth each year.
    THAT is what ‘climate denial’ is about.

    • The annual increase of CO2 is about 2 ppm; I had read somewhere that from worldwide estimates of total fossil fuel consumption humanity emits about 4 ppm of CO2 (this may be an old number, and currently it’s somewhat more). This is a lot smaller that your 20 ppm. But the important fact is the annual increase in the atmosphere is ~ 2 ppm, and the rest of that emitted from fossil fuel consumption is absorbed mostly by the oceans, which lowers the pH by a tiny unmeasurable amount.

        • I believe the amount of CO2 being created is enough to raise the atmospheric concentration by 4ppm/yr. However the actual increase is only 2ppm/yr. The difference is mostly being absorbed by the biosphere.

      • It has been since the Murry Salby videos posted here by our fine host Anthony that I have delved that deeply into the Carbon Cycle.

        The Consensus View is that half of the “missing CO2 emissions” goes into a sink of terrestrial plant life whereas the other half is absorbed into the inorganic carbonate system in the oceans. There is compelling evidence for this division because not only is analytical chemistry accurate enough to track the atmospheric CO2 concentration, there are extremely precise measurements of atmospheric O2.

        The organic, terrestrial photosynthetic sink returns O2 to the atmosphere whereas the inorganic ocean sink does not.

        Of course there is the strong evidence from the Wood for Trees site of temperature-driven CO2 emission, but what I said about the net balance is as reliable as anything about the Carbon Cycle can get.

      • Pouring concrete emits a lot of CO2. Humans pour a LOT of concrete every year. It’s not just the burning of “fossil” fuels. There are other sources caused by human activity.

        Not that I’m suggesting CO2 is a bad thing, as the plants love the stuff, and we could use a lot more of it.

        • Yes it does. Some years ago, emissions from making concrete exceeded emissions from fossil fuels in the UK. The Chinese don’t care, they built a 1400km+ water channel as well as many cities. And the Ethiopians are building the biggest dam in Africa.

        • All the concrete structures in the world reabsorb CO2 on a long term basis, which would more than compensate for the pouring concrete for new structures being built.

      • In 1850 it was 280 ppm, now is around 410 ppm, so average over 170 years is less than 1 ppm per year, though they say it’s about 2 ppm per year now. Whatever the count, I find it difficult to get excited about.

      • We can estimate the increase in CO2 concentration due to human emissions by a mass balance on the atmosphere.

        Average atmospheric pressure at sea level is about 101,300 Newtons/m2. Dividing by the acceleration of gravity (9.807 m/s2) means that the mass of the atmosphere above 1 m2 of the earth’s surface is about 10,330 kg. Estimating the radius of the earth as 6,370 km = 6.37(10^6) m, the surface area of the earth would be 4 * pi * [6.37(10^6)}^2 = 5.1(10^14) m2. Multiplying this by 10,330 kg/m2 gives the mass of the atmosphere as 5.27(10^18) kg.

        Since CO2 concentrations are measured in volume ppm (= mole fraction for gases), the average molecular weight of the atmosphere is about 29 kg/kmol, and the atmosphere would contain 5.27(10^18)/29 = 1.82(10^17) kmol.

        Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are frequently measured in gigatonnes per year, or multiples of 10^12 kg. CO2 has a molecular weight of 44 kg/kmol, so 1 GT/yr is equivalent to (10^12)/44 = 2.27(10^10) kmol/yr. If all the human-emitted CO2 remained in the atmosphere, 1 GT/yr of CO2 emissions would increase the concentration by 2.27(10^10)/1.82(10^17) = 1.25(10^-7) = 0.125 ppm. , or roughly 1 ppm of increase per 8 GT emitted.

        Global anthropogenic CO2 emissions for 2018 were estimated as 37.1 GT/yr, so that if all the emitted CO2 remained in the atmosphere, the CO2 concentration would have risen by 37.1/8 = 4.64 ppm/yr.

        But actual CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa are increasing at a rate of about 2.5 ppm per year, meaning that about 46% of human emissions of CO2 are removed from the atmosphere by natural processes, including absorption by the oceans and photosynthesis.

        Hundreds of experiments have shown that plant growth rates increase when the CO2 concentration increases, so that photosynthesis rates (and CO2 removal rates from the atmosphere) will likely increase in the future due to rising CO2 concentrations. Due to the Henry’s Law relationship between the air and oceans, the absorption rate of CO2 into the oceans will also increase in proportion to CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. When the CO2 removal rate catches up to the CO2 emission rate, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will likely stabilize at a higher concentration than now, but due to the increased plant growth rates, the Earth will be greener and more fertile than it is now.

        Even if there is a slight warming of the atmosphere, it will not be nearly enough to melt the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica (due to the enormous latent heat required to melt ice), but it could lengthen the growing season in temperate climates by a week or two per year, which would also increase agricultural production.

        Contrary to Greta Thunberg and other climate alarmists, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is not a threat, but a promise for a greener and more abundant future.

    • IMO, when they talk about climate change and global warming, what they essentially mean is climate catastrophism. That is the true and essential orthodox faith. As long as we don’t commit the heresy of denying that core doctrine, we can have all kinds of differing opinions on the matter and still be considered orthodox and acceptable by the tribe.

      • Yes!
        They are not just talking about what they assert are “the facts” regarding the climate regimes of the planet, but the entire end of the world doomsday monger ideology that they believe must necessarily go along with it.
        Once again we hear from people who assert to be talking about other people and groups, but what they are saying is exactly and completely true only of themselves and the group with which they identify.

  3. The first form of denial is literal denial

    such as when climate alarmists deny that climate changes naturally and instead claim it’s all man’s fault?

    The second form of denial is interpretive denial

    such as when climate alarmists interpret every “extreme” weather event as a result of man’s CO2 emissions?

    The third and most insidious form is implicatory denial

    such as when climate alarmists implicate a “conspiracy of big oil” for why everybody doesn’t agree with their first two forms of denial?

    Once again, leftist/alarmists project their own behaviors onto the other side.

    • Yes – the first clue is that they call themselves “The Conversation”, while denying opposing opinions, or you know, having a conversation

      • The emergent usage to “have conversation around x” replacing plain spoken “have a talk about” puzzled me at first, until it slowly dawned that “x” was usually some form of wrong thinking as in, “We need to have a conversation, Comrade…”

        • It’s like when leftists say “we need to have a conversation about race!” but what they really mean is white people need to collectively and without talking back admit how bad they are and how bad their ancestors were over and over and over while black people talk about slavery and Jim Crow, things that ended long before most of us were even born.

      • Yup, it’s the “Con” in “conversation”! (like the con in “consensus”)
        Good one Greg61!

        • They do not have a conversation because they are too full of their own SH*T!

          They are the CONSTIPATION 🙂 🙂

    • Projection is the hallmark of the progressives and left. If they are accusing people of some action, you can be certain they are deeply invested in exactly that action. You know, denial of science in areas they don’t like, lying, deceiving, industry corruption. It’s well over that 97% they attribute to consensus. It’s virtually 100%.

      • ‘If they are accusing people of some action, you can be certain they are deeply invested in exactly that action.’

        That’s why they thought of it!

        • Joel Snider

          They are so dishonest they don’t realise they are doing it. Most of them are psychopaths, and most of those without the endearing characteristics of a typical example.

          • Oh, I think there’s a large portion that know very well – mostly in the upper echelons. The trick to being a fair-minded person is deciding who’s who, in order to treat them accordingly. Although stakes are high enough that it’s hard to be patient with the rank and file marching brooms.

            It’s hard to blame people for what they’re taught, but that doesn’t mean we have to tolerate it.

        • It’s all they’ve got, they can’t imagine that there is any other world view.

          In their mind; if they’re doing it, then everybody else is also.

        • Someone posted a Tucker Carlson monologue recently in which he said it quite plainly: Whatever the left is accusing others of, we can be sure of at least one thing: They themselves are doing exactly that thing.

      • Absolutely! One example that stood out to me was this…

        shrill responses to Thunberg

        Greta was the party making faces and pointing fingers in an over the top holier-than-thou performance, complete with “how dare you!”’s.

        We just laughed at her, and anyone who takes her seriously. Nothing shrill. We don’t do shrill. That’s the M.O. of alarmists.

      • Just found out hopping a bus is a Venial (if not Mortal) Sin in the Church of Gaia. ‘Bout time actual scientists stood loud and proud to discredit this moonbat religion.

    • Perfectly stated. Thanks.

      another:
      When communists try to equate carbon / C, a solid, with carbon dioxide / CO2, a gas.

    • Let us not forget Krishna, that the philosophical basis of the Cult of Global Warming/Climate Change is Postmodernism/Postnormal Science. A basic tenet of this cult is that facts do not matter.

  4. I always love when people tell me what I am, based on their own predetermined opinions.

    How exactly have progressives managed to cast themselves as anti-bigotry? Seems to me, they represent a totality of bigotry. Certainly of hypocrisy. Absolute and without fail.

    • I find it had to believe, the 2 authors of this garbage article have received funding from CSIRO.

      See CSIRO.au

  5. Utterly and completely missing the point: the term denier has been used and was coined to associate anyone questions global warming/climate change/climate emergency with those that deny the Holocaust. It’s a pejorative term from the outset and oddly enough is essentially, in my mind at least, an instant “Godwin” violation that renders anyone using it as unwilling to have meaningful discussion. The first thing you do is hurl an insult? Yeah, you’re really rational.

  6. Now, how many types of climate Believers are there?
    Let’s see, we have:
    the bandwagoners
    the brainwashed
    those paid to Believe
    those wanting to act out
    the congenitally stupid

    I’ll stop there. Too many to count.

  7. I’m the CO2 efficacy denier.
    However, climate change could be catastrophic particularly if leads to another long overdue ice age.

    • We know that climate changes with irregular intervals based on historical and physical myths. It may be inferred that there will be monotonic change, certainly; but, there is no evidence that it is a progressive process within an observable frame of reference. I suppose we could indulge the precautionary principle, and preemptively engage in planned population and similar policies to reduce the anthropogenic footprint.

  8. It is interesting that in these kinds of articles (and there have been many), the underlying, unstated assumption, is that CAGW is real. Therefore, those who disagree must be wrong. The best defense that is usually presented is the “consensus” argument. Based on the unsupported belief that skeptics are wrong, these psycho-sleuths then engage in projection and denial to defend their belief. Unfortunately, it is not unlike the behavior of children who have issues of self-esteem and try to make themselves feel better by denigrating others. So, instead of presenting us with facts, they present us with insults. They are really making the case that they are wrong, and have no evidence to support their belief. Strangely, they don’t see how pathetic they are.

    • I especially like how they dismiss the “self-proclaimed” prominent researchers out of hand and then rely on the word of a brainwashed 16 year old.
      They don’t see how pathetic they are because they stay in their echo chamber of dunces and gaslight each other. If only we could drag some media-proclaimed prominent researchers out of those circle jerks for some sort of public debate with the self-proclaimed prominent researchers to settle this.

      • I was thinking that they themselves are self proclaimed experts and deciders of what is true.
        A moment of thought on this makes it obvious why they find this so galling.
        Their own self proclaimed expertise and omniscience is the keystone of their self -granted (and completely and obviously unjustified) authority to pontificate.

    • I can’t let this quoted comment slip by unmodified , …….

      Unfortunately, it is not unlike the behavior of the impeachment ‘arm’ of the Democrat Party who have issues of self-esteem and try to make themselves feel better by denigrating others. So, instead of presenting us with facts, they present us with insults. They are really making the case that they are wrong, and have no evidence to support their belief. Strangely, they don’t see how pathetic they are.

    • Clyde I agree. As I read this article I had to keep reminding myself that it was written by an alarmist because much of it fits quiet nicely with explaining an alarmists irrational denial of observational facts.

    • Actually, it’s also interesting how the underlying, unstated assumption is that deniers believe the climate isn’t changing or don’t believe there’s a change that requires attention and adaptation. Whether or not you think there’s an emergency, no one denies that it’s happening and that we’ll need to adapt.
      The alarmists always manage to make skeptics look stupid by consistently phrasing the question as:
      “Is Climate Change Real?” or “Is there a Climate Emergency?” as if anyone denied the reality of climate change or the necessity of adapting to it.

      • Make no mistake: While the climate has always changed, and sometimes dramatically, most of what they are talking about is weather, and most of the changes shown by their graphs and charts is manufactured via alterations and plain old making crap up.
        There is very little change in recent years and decades, and none once one looks at the true range of natural variability over the past 100-140 years of so.
        We are in a remarkably stable and clement period.
        Obfuscating that happy fact is among their most successful lies.
        And perhaps the second-most necessary prerequisite of alarmist.
        The first-most is the notion that global warming is what is dangerous, and all change is bad…unless it is a return to the disastrous cold of the preindustrial LIA…which would apparently be good.
        After all, any warming which has occurred is relative to the recent past, which is demonstrably the worst cold spell since the onset of the current interglacial period of the ongoing ICE AGE we are in.

      • It is so rare for the believers to mention “adaption”. It’s almost dismissed out of hand. No consideration on if it’s possible or feasible, just non-existent in their minds.

        • At present, I do not see any evidence there is anything to adapt to.
          The entire alarmist/warmista playbook is a pile of lies and false assertions, IMO.
          Whatever is coming, people will be able to make do, as long as we remain prosperous.
          If we are impoverished, people will die in large numbers.

  9. And some of us are in that state of denial, not because of anything to do with the science, but because of the morally bankrupt behaviour of the theory’ proponents. After all, mendacity and hypocrisy leave a bad taste.

  10. The worst thing I’ve read is an article from a psychologist in Germany who as leader of the German Psychiatry Society “diagnosed” such “deniers” as people in urgent need of therapy. He even mentioned that he and his colleagues should be ready to treat these people against their will “for their own good”! I immediately began to think about the Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, author of “The Gulag Archipelago”, who was imprisoned in an asylum. Fortunately, this Psychologist was not supported by his colleagues….

  11. “These are just two examples of common strategies we use to deny our own responsibility and culpability. They make us feel better about what little we actually do, or congratulate us for accepting the science. But they are ultimately self-defeating delusions.”

    Hey even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every once in awhile. But in this case the “squirrel” is literally too dumb to realize it’s an acorn.

  12. Amusing how these folks think they’re diagnosing somebody else while they have no clue they’re looking in the mirror.

  13. “… most insidious form is implicatory denial. What is denied or minimised are the psychological, political, and moral implications of the facts for us. We fail to accept responsibility for responding; we fail to act when the information says we should.”

    If we take this at its intended meaning, then every IPCC author/scientist who flies multiple times to meetings around the world is a denier. They fail to act accordingly when the information (their own information) says they should. Even Shrill Greta failed to take responsibility for the sail boat crewmembers’ carbon footprints from flying between Europe and NYC, so she is denier.

    This hypocrisy (do as I say, not as I do) of course exposes the vacuous nature and intellectual stupidity that underpins the entire global Climate Change alarmist movements. Their climate alarmists near universal rejection of nuclear power exposes the movement for what it is — socialist, anti-capitalist, authoritarian.
    The best policy action is to ignore Climate Change alarmist claims. And then when elections come around, vote out of office any politician who falls under its sway, for they are merely using it for their own power advancement against reason, against individual liberties, and accepting a collectivist movement for their own personal advancement.

    • A “denier” with self injuring behavior: Obama who buys a multimillion dollar ocean front property….
      If these people really believed in CAGW, they wouldn’t do that….

      • The carbon footprint of 0’s private jet travels between his multi-million dollar homes in DC and MV, and the Secret Service personal protection/security detail that goes along, is a billionaire’s level carbon footprint.

        It’s an elitist’s attitude that unequivocally says, “The Climate Change sacrifices demanded are for the little people”. That is, you and me, not thee.

        • One plane for Obama, one for Michelle and the girls, and one more plane to transport the family pet dog.

  14. Sigh.

    “It is the simple, conscious, outright rejection that something happened or is happening”

    The thing that has happened and is happening is the weather.

    I’m repeatedly and perpetually reminded that climate isn’t weather.

    By definition, climate NEVER “happens”! You have to calculate and then imagine it, for God’s sake!

    Andrew

    • And … don’t forget, there is no such thing as a “global” climate. The weather in the tropics is way different that that of the arctic/antarctic. Portland is way different than Florida. No comparison between the Rain Forest and the Sahara. THUS …. not only does Climate never happen … GLOBAL CLIMATE is flat out impossible.

      It’s all B.S.

  15. IMO, most CACA skeptics accept that CO2 is a GHG, but recognize that the global climatic effect of adding a fourth molecule of plant food per 10,000 dry air molecules is negligible. The biological effect however is highly beneficial to plants and other living things.

    Over the vast majority of the planet, H2O swamps the temperature effect of the fourth CO2 molecule, as it would a fifth and sixth, were they to enrich our atmosphere. In the wet tropics, water vapor is 100 times more abundant than CO2, and on average across the whole globe, some 50 times or more. Over the high, dry South Pole, where its effect should be greatest, no warming has been observed since records have been kept there.

    • John
      Just to be the Devil’s Advocate, how do you justify dismissing the effects of CO2 on temperature, while acknowledging the beneficial effect on plants?

      • It is possible to run a very simple experiment and prove the beneficial effects on plants.

        I am unaware of a demonstrable proof of concept (at the correct scale) for atmospheric warming by additional CO2. Further, even if you demonstrate warming, I believe warming is net beneficial at this point.

        • Indeed. He specifically stated an acceptance “that CO2 is a GHG” but that “Over the vast majority of the planet, H2O swamps the temperature effect of the fourth CO2 molecule, as it would a fifth and sixth, were they to enrich our atmosphere” In other words the temperature effect is extremely small and negligible compared to the effect from H2O

      • Clyde, it’s simple plant biology. CO2 is the building block of carbon-based lifeforms.

        You can do a simple experiment to see for yourself. Take two greenhouses regulated at the same temperature. In one greenhouse have a high concentration of CO2 (as most greenhouse operators do) and in the other greenhouse have a lower concentration of CO2. Observe in which green house the plants grow best.

        • More CO2 in the air not only promotes plant growth, but saves water, so vegetation can spread into drier regions. A plant can leave its leaf stomata open for less time and still get the CO2 it needs to make sugar. Thus, it loses less water, the other sugar feedstock, and source of the O2 we animals breath.

          • …. and to add to the above comments, the decline in added radiative activity of CO2 is logarithmic (governed by an approximation of the Beer-Lambert Law), whereas assimilation of CO2 into plants via the Calvin cycle is linear.

      • That’s easy. No-one denies that without CO2 all plants, and therefore all animals die. There is no need to acknowledge that. But quantifying the effect of CO2 on temperature is very much a matter that can ce debated.

        • Warmistas deny it every day.
          Maybe you need to get out more.
          They are being actively taught that the idea that CO2 is any any way beneficial to life, is a lie.
          There are a lot of people who think that CO2 is just pollution, and many more who think there is too much of it, and even some who literally have no idea how photosynthesis works.

      • I don’t dismiss possible temperature effects. Indeed, it’s possible for a fourth CO2 molecule to warm or cool its locale, depending upon location and local conditions. I just don’t think that significant global warming from CO2 enrichment is in evidence.

        Humans also do other things to affect local and regional climate besides adding a bit more trace gas, vital to life, to the air. IMO we can’t state with confidence even the sign of net human influence on global climate. But in any case, it’s not a major factor.

        The beneficial biological effect of more plant food in the air would be enhanced by slight warming, where, when and if that happens.

      • Clyde, I believe we’ve had this very discussion multiple times before on this website.
        Context is everything. As an analogy, How do you dismiss the effect of having a million $ in the bank on a runner’s ability to win the Boston Marathon, while acknowledging the effect that million $ has on his ability to get a date?

        SR

      • Two of CO2’s three absorption peaks overlap water’s, including its major peak at 15 microns. The other that roughly coincides with one of water’s lows is minor.

        Please read Clive Best’s whole article from which you posted the bands comparison to see why the atmosphere is effectively saturated, such that the effect of doubling CO2 would be negligible.

        http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169

  16. … this is just another way of rejecting the facts …

    As far as possible, I try to discern the difference between facts and fallacies. I reject fallacies. I accept facts.

        • To them, the voices in their heads only deal in facts.

          It would be sad, except that it will manifest itself in some other form of denial that normal people will have to deal with. These sociopaths will never accept responsibility for their actions, even if Judges make them pay the reparations, for example to the children whose lives they have massively negatively impacted.

      • “The question is :
        – what facts are they talking about ?”

        It would have to be the fraudulent Hockey Stick they are using as “evidence”. What else is there?

        There’s a greenhouse gas theory but from that, noone can figure out how much, if any, net heat additional CO2 would add to the atmosphere. There is a possiblity that no net heat is added by CO2.. So that can’t be their evidence. The Global Climate Models are way off. And they are not evidence of anything anyway, they are just predictions of the future. So that’s not evidence. No tropical hot spot as predicted by the alarmists. No evidence there. The True Global Temperature profile is the one represented by the unmodified U.S. surface temperature chart where the 1930’s was as warm as today which, in itself, blows up the human-caused climate change speculation, so no evidence there.

        There is no evidence for human-caused climate change/global warming as far as I can see.

        Someone ought to challenge these authors to provide some of this evidence they are so sure exists. They couldn’t prove humans are affecting the Earth’s climate if their lives depended on proving it. Tell them I said so. 🙂 Tell them (or any other alarmist) to prove me wrong. Their certainty is based on nothing but delusional thinking. It’s delusional when you claim there is evidence and there is no evidence.

        • If anyone could prove it, or even give strong evidence, then they would.
          The way they behave is strong evidence they do not really believe it.
          And this apparent lack of belief is evidence of the veracity of what many have been quoted as saying outright: The real agenda has nothing to do with the purported one, which is merely a means to an end.

    • There have been many projections based on climate “settled science” and its climate models.
      I do not deny that what they’ve said should have happened by now, hasn’t happened.
      Therefore, I deny there is any “settled science” to support drastic and economically destructive actions to prevent yet more projections.
      Grrrrreta can scowl and say “How dare you!” all she wants.
      (She should say that to herself in front of mirror every morning.)

      PS Speaking of Grrrreta, remember those “Where’s Waldo?” books? Maybe a Google Maps sidebar for “Where’s Grrrreta?”? 😎

      • “Maybe a Google Maps sidebar for “Where’s Grrrreta?”

        Complete with fossil fuel use tracker of her travels..

  17. The language of climate Belief and proposed action changes so often, no one can keep track, not even the Believers themselves. They are continually falling over themselves. It’s hilarious.

  18. This article illustrates the remarkable advancement the left has made in ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority. There is no actual substance to the article at all, much like the climate change crisis itself. Iain and Zoe could have saved a lot of ink by just writing: “People who disagree with me on climate change are poo-poo heads, because my mommy said so!” That is really what they have written, but with a lot more big words, to hide the fact that they are behaving like ill-mannered 5 year olds.

  19. I took a look at the original article in The Conversation and noted the following advisement”
    “Comments are open for 72 hours but may be closed early if there is a high risk of comments breaching our standards.” That is followed by the first moderator comment: “Comments on this article will be open during business hours. This is to ensure we can actively moderate them in line with our community standards.”

    Now how do they determine “high risk?” I suspect that they make that determination if there is a ground swell of critical comments that they feel compelled to delete. Consider “moderate” to be equivalent to “delete.”

    • Put my comment on Goebbels there and see high risk.
      High risk means not truthy, as Bush used to say, but truthful.

      What makes Goebbels blush in other words.

    • They have constructed a deliberately engineered echo chamber.
      They are scared to death of facts appearing on their pages, because given information, a certain percentage of people will arrive at the truth on a ongoing basis.
      Truth does not need an echo chamber to prevail.
      But lies do.

  20. There is a solution to Global Warming. If the “consensus” is correct, and AGW is real, then CO2 emissions by humanity must be reduced. One way to do this is to convert to modern (Gen IV) and safe Nuclear Power. No CO2 emitted by Nukes. No particulate emission. No danger of meltdown. No intermittence problem as with wind or solar.
    There is a solution to Global Cooling. If the “consensus” is wrong, in fact backwards, then an Ice Age Cometh. Nuclear Power works to provide the needed warmth.
    If the Climate just drifts along, Nuclear Power, is viable. In fact, if, due to the magnetic disruption on Earth, a CME (worse than the Carrington event) were to come, Nuclear Power enables smaller disconnected grids reducing the damage from such an event.
    “In the last 30 years, the rate of distance that the magnetic north pole moves per year has sped up from about 15 kilometers (9.3 miles) per year to around 55 kilometers (34 miles) per year. ” — NOAA.gov
    The last 100 years the pole moved approximately 2000 km. If the current speed doesn’t change, a further 5500 km the next century to northern Russia. If, however, the acceleration were to continue, a century would find it in the Bay of Bengal. The south magnetic pole is moving toward the Bay of Bengal. Go figure.
    Magnetic Reversal? Catastrophic? Dunno.

    • The fact that almost no climate alarmist is insisting on immediate development of Gen IV nuclear is a clear indication that the are not really concerned about a climate crisis.

    • As a lukewarmist, I can agree that AGW is real. But it does not follow that CO2 emissions must be reduced at this time, because the changes are small and net beneficial for the rest of this century. There is no current “climate emergency”; our decedents should reconsider the “net beneficial” aspect at the beginning of the next century if CO2 exceeds 600 ppm by then. A lot of people seem the believe that the world as it is today is as good as can be, and any change will be scary and bad, especially if the change can be attributed to human activity.

    • If history is any guide, we will need the power in any case. I think Gen IV Nuclear is a fine solution, and can be not only portable but deployable incrementally. In a pinch, we could even retrofit some Nuclear submarines, sail them upriver, park ’em, and plug them into the grid infrastructure, perhaps even venting heat in Winter, where it might be beneficial.

      If one really wants to implement the ‘precautionary principle’ with a ‘very ‘ long term view, going all the way up to and including the next glaciation, that would be the ticket. With the right amount of such power, we could make our own HydroCarbons if we needed to.

      • In practice, the application of the Precautionary Principle has lead to a tremendous amount of harm. The harm indicates that the concept is not precautionary, as the attempt to avoid a calculated harm with a blanket idea is often harmful. The concept becomes self-contradictory and consequently does not qualify as a principle.

        The Precautionary Principle is a linear concept derived from linear thinking that has no place in a complex, non-linear world, like the one we live in.

        It would be best if we could remove the horrible idea of the Precautionary Principle from our collective consciousness, and replace it with an appreciation for adaptability, innovation and imagination; three tools that work very well in chaotic, nonlinear systems!

        We humans will eventually develop Gen IV nuclear and beyond, or come up with something completely unexpected and better. The question is how much damage will the linear-thinking, liberal Malthusians do before they get out of the way and let our species do what we do best?

        • Exactly, James.
          The phrase itself is a misnomer.
          The sophistic logic employed by anyone who uses it to argue for one thing, could be just as logically used to argue for the opposite of…whatever is being argued for.

  21. As usual, this entire blather-ridden essay is based on the incorrect assumption that any measurable “Climate Change” is manmade, and something that needs to be corrected…even beyond any of the theoretical amounts caused by mankind.

    It is a load of dung.

  22. I count myself as a Climate Change Denier in as much as nothing in the climate has changed to a condition that hasn’t existed before. I deny that CO2 is at unprecedented or dangerous levels. But I don’t deny the existence of the LIA, Medieval, Roman and Minoan Warm periods. Nor do I deny the existence of the Younger Dryas.

    I terms of outright denial I think I’m denying less about the climate than the 97% concensus, or Medieval Warm Period Deniers as they should be called.

  23. Those whose views are supported by the facts did not need pop-psychology , those whose views are not find great comfort in calling others ‘evil or stupid’ rather than prove how they are wrong .

    • It is a curious feature that every phycology paper that’s been presented at WUWT over the years, universally denigrate everyone who doesn’t agree with them, as being stupid.

      How does that come out of a phycology department? What are they teaching in there?

      • Their first mistake is telling themselves they are doing anything akin to science.
        Their belief that they are smart and well informed has very little evidence backing it.

  24. Typical liberal projection, as usual, they project their own denial on to others to create scapegoats. Chilling.

  25. I deny that we are seeing any unusual weather or climate.

    As others have pointed out, the true deniers are those who “forget” that sea level was much higher during this interglacial. As far as I know, there is no dispute about that.

  26. The longer the scam continues the more chance for skeptics taking hold. Witness the “climate emergency” meme being generated because they know they are losing ground to logic, common sense, and empirical evidence.

  27. The worst denialists are those who deny that all the predictions made by those prophets of doom dressed in lab coats, aka publicly paid climatologists, have gone wrong. That is the worst denial.

    And one definition of madness is: climate scientists tweaking their computer climate models, each time expecting the world to explode.

  28. Charles The Moderator,

    The article you have copied above says,
    “The group, supported by 75 Australian business and industry figures, along with others around the world, obviously rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. But this missive displays remarkably different tactics to those previously used to stymie climate action.

    The language of climate change denial and inaction has transformed. Outright science denial has been replaced by efforts to reframe climate change as natural, and climate action as unwarranted.

    However, this is just another way of rejecting the facts, and their implications for us. Denial can take many forms.”

    NO1 Absolutely not! That is falsehood.

    I am one of the hundreds of signatories who has NOT “reframed” anything, for decades has consistently said climate has always changed, and has consistently pointed out that there is no evidence that human activity is affecting global climate change that has always happened naturally.

    For example, this item I wrote a decade ago states all these matters.
    http://allaboutenergy.net/environment/item/2208-letter-to-senator-james-inhofe-about-relying-on-ipcc-richard-courtney-uk

    Incidentally, nothing in the link has become dated.

    Richard

  29. Thank you, but I’ll pass on the bottom line invitation to read the original article. The above summary alone provided enough fluff to last me for the next year or so.

  30. This is article is a good example of one of my principles of pragmatic environmentalists (http://wp.me/p8hgeb-1v): “The more vociferous or louder the claims made by a stakeholder in any environmental issue, the more likely that the stakeholder is guilty of the same thing. Gary (https://rosebyanyothernameblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/21/reprisals-against-doe-scientists/) also observed this: “My experience is that the things people complain about loudly are so very frequently the same things of which they also are guilty. The inability to see oneself realistically is a fascinating human trait.”

  31. Slightly OT, but confirming hypocrisy.

    A woman in my neighborhood called me to day for advice regarding using her 6HP gasoline generator to charge her mobile phone and iPad. She has no electric connection to her home. A week earlier she lectured me about the good of GT and that we needed to stop using fossil fuels.

    I advised her to sell the generator, buy a solar panel, an AGM battery, a MPPT regulator and eventually an inverter giving genuine sine wave for other appliances.

    Response: It is more practical with the generator.

  32. Denial is simply a lie and propaganda.

    Intended to shut down any actual scientific inquiry and analysis that does not agree with their doomsday ideology.

    Sorry – we reject your “denial” propaganda. We insist on actual science, not pretend science that is just sheep’s clothing designed to obscure the propagandists’ wolf.

    See – we refuse to play your game. You lose.

    • Science is a malleable concept that bends and kneels to sociopolitical constructs and priorities of quasi-religious choice and social justice.

      • Believing that to be true is what will eventually destroy them.

        Regardless of the demands made by pushing sociopolitical constructs, and the priorities of the quasi-religious and social justice warriors, you cannot change natural law. You can issue laws and edicts to your heart’s content giving the elites the right to fly by leaping into the air and flapping their arms, but they will still fall on their asses if they try.

        They can claim climates are changing, but unless real change begins, they are not going to be seated at the table of government for long. The public has a short attention span.

  33. A climate of consensus, models (i.e. hypotheses) lacking skill to hindcast let alone forecast without regular injections of brown matter (“tuning”), and other sociopolitical constructs.

    Denial, huh. Another wicked solution? Very monochromatic. Where is the diversity, the colorful labels? Surely a planned projection.

  34. This article implies that people fall into one of three categories. However, some people fall into all categories and even more. Here are categories of climate change understandings (I refrain from calling them beliefs as that implies faith where in fact there is data available for understanding rather than belief):
    –Climate change is both natural and anthropogenic
    –We don’t know what the optimum temperature of the earth is
    –We understand that it is impossible to reduce fossil fuel emissions without harming the economy and peoples livelihood.
    –We understand that the Wester World cannot cut CO2 emissions sufficient to counter the emissions of 3rd world countries trying to improve their economic situation
    –We understand that intermittent power sources are unreliable and actually may not reduce or may actually increase GHG emissions depending on how you account for all factors involved in their LCA
    –We understand that the climate of the past was warmer than that projected by the worst climate models and we understand that no one really know if this would be bad for mankind at all.

    The list of reasons for not supporting the CAGW viewpoint is long and distinguished.

  35. As I understand it, God’s (of the Bible) will cannot be denied. God has a plan, and that plan will happen, regardless of mankind’s role in it. What we call “Mother Nature” is God’s will for the environment mankind experiences at any given time, including earthquakes, volcanoes, all cyclonic activity, asteroid impacts, etc., etc. God is sovereign in all things. Mankind’s contribution to Mother Nature is dwarfed by Mother Nature, and we can no more change that than we can the orbit of Earth, or save ourselves from death. CAGW is silly talk; but God loves a good laugh, I’m sure. However, I am also confident that He is disappointed that we think it is all about us, when it is all about Jesus.

    • It’s all about something. It is definitely hubris to the nth degree to think that we are affecting climate in any significant way. There are certainly forces at work controling climate that are far more powerful than puny mankind. Cosmic and earthly forces, of which we only have an inkling.

    • The Tower of Babel comes to mind. This time with mankind trying to exceed and knowing better than God.
      It didn’t end well then. And it will not end well this time either.

  36. Which denier type is the Atlantic Ocean?

    https://i2.wp.com/www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20SST-NorthAtlantic%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

    and that fusion ball in the sky?

    https://i0.wp.com/solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif

    and the Pacific Ocean?

    https://i1.wp.com/www.climate4you.com/images/PDO%20MonthlyIndexSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

    and which denier type observes these charts and cycles relative to agenda science and agenda politics?

  37. “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.”
    ~ Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr, Jan 1849 [in Les Guêpes]

    Literally “The more it changes, the more it’s the same thing.”

    • In English, a true translation (as opposed to your correct literal one) is:

      The more things change, the more they stay the same.

  38. One of the many tactics the Climate Liars use is their use of the phrase “climate change”, which for them can mean both natural climate change, which of course is real, and their mythical, made-up “manmade climate change”. They deliberately conflate the two, inferring that they are one and the same. It’s just another in their miriad ways of lying.

    • The alarmists deliberately confuse the meaning of climate change.

      Most of the time when alarmist talk about climate change, they are really talking about human-caused climate change. So, us overworked skeptics have to continually correct them, or require them to spell out exactly what they are talking about.

      Confusion is the alarmists friend. So they sow a lot of it.

      • I think most are so confused they don’t understand it themselves, just point and shriek, Gretins.

  39. Is there even a generally accepted operational definition of what counts as “climate?” Surely it would need to encompass regions and what counts as a region. The climate at the top of the hill I live on is likely a couple of degrees warmer than that at the pond a couple of hundred feet lower. The forest is different than the cornfields, Hawaii than Minnesota, etc.

    How many years of averaged weather does it take to consider a description in a region to be “climate.” 30 you say? Why? Are intervals of climate to be overlapping, that is if 30 years is the agreed length of time to determine climate, shall we count each day, week, month, year, or decade as a new interval to be compared to the previous intervals to determine whether or not their is change?

    What are the determinants of what counts as a “change” in these descriptions? Don’t we run into a problem in that the proxies we must of necessity use back more than even a hundred years in most of the area of the globe are nothing like the measurements we have now? If we don’t know how much variability there was in the past, how do we even decide what counts as change?

    Seems to me that these questions and many more need some answers before one gets on a soap box and makes statements about “climate change.”

  40. They clearly, undeniably, charge their targets with genocide denial, i.e. Hol-o-caust denial. They use a book about that, as the undeniably clearly state.

    When these people are pushing policies to rid the planned of 5 billion people, the optimum as Dr. Schellnhuber CBE often says, that would make Goebbels blush.

    Greta’s handler prefers 500 million worthies. Not known if he was awarded a Commander of the British Empire CBE for that.

    Now take Bank of England Chief Mark Carney with the Green Finance Initiative, GFI, better called the Task force for murder. Appeared twice around the IMF/World-Bank meetings; the subject of both events looks like global digital currency. At the IMF HQ1 at 10:00 Wednesday morning Oct. 16, Carney, Obama advisor Jason
    Furman, and David Marcus (head of Facebook’s “Calibra” investment fund) are speaking on “Big Tech and the Future of Finance.” The second event is at Harvard’s Kennedy School of government: Carney and Larry Summers in “a conversation on the new international order” at 6:00 p.m. Wednesday.

    This kind of bankers dictatorship will cause massive population reduction, for polite company, if tolerated. Of course they need bankers boys and girls to carry it out.

    Mod: ye seemed to have missed the first post…

  41. For the last 3 million years Earth has gone into and out of ice ages. Sheets miles thick covering the northern continents. To warm periods, warmer than today after this so called Anthropogenic Global Warming period of the last 50 years. In fact, the warming of the previous 50 years and the hundred before it, were identical to the most recent. From 1900 through 1945 the warming slope is identical to the 1980 through 2005 slope. After which it flattens.
    Before you can convince me we are causing the warming, you must prove to why 1940 through 1945 and 1980 through 2005 are not caused by the same things happening.

    Looking back through the proxies, CO2 rises after temperatures rise. A lag of a couple hundred years. Proven by the very Ice Cores used to prove global warming. The little Ice age ended a couple hundred years ago and we have been warming ever since. The overturning of the CO2 in the atmosphere, as proven by the Mauna Loa observations, again used to prove Global Warming, show that the cycle of CO2 is far greater than the input of CO2 from human activity.
    Before you can convince me we are the sole cause in increasing CO2, you have to prove that it is not our coming out of the little ice age and the ocean out gassing the CO2 that is causing the bulk of the increase.

    When we look back at historical records, there was a medieval warming period, and before that the Roman Climate optimum, and the Bronze age climate optimum and Holocene Climate Optimum, each one going back in time being warmer that the more recent one.

    Before you can convince me that a bit of warming is going to be a disaster, you have to prove that these human flourishing periods of time where the climate was warmer than today were actually disastrous.

    Anyways. You have a large amount of work to do, and you are starting from a position of weakness. As I have watched over the years as the global warming believers and scammers have cheated, lied and otherwise lowered their credibility.

    Changing past temperatures always in one direction, to show the past cooler than it really was. Changing present temperatures to seem warmer than they really were. Fake warming rate.

  42. Off topic but maybe not.

    The Excommunication of Susan Crockford

    Polar bear expert purged from the University of Victoria.

    “An accomplished scientist and role model for young women has been expelled from the academic community. Like geologist Bob Carter before her, Susan Crockford has been stripped of her Adjunct Professor status by a university with which she has a long history. Why? Because she promotes facts and eschews climate activism.”

    https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2019/10/16/the-excommunication-of-susan-crockford/

  43. “”… blocking any attempt to deal with climate change, resulting paradoxically in higher energy prices today.”

    The above is just the beginning. I imagine that as the real price effects of “renewables” on the costs of energy become more obvious (e.g., California, South Australia, Germany, California, etc.) statements like that above will become more widespread. The radical left will of course attempt to get out ahead of any energy price increases in order to convince people that, as stated above, the increases are due to the ‘climate deniers’ fighting climate change, not due to their own policies of installing more renewable.

    The radical left have learned well. As stated in ‘The crown of a life’ by Isa Blagden (1869): “If a lie is only printed often enough, it becomes a quasi-truth, and it becomes an article of belief, a dogma, and men will die for it.”

  44. Endorsing the heading: “There is no Climate Emergency”

    is a singularly efficient way of shooting ourselves in the foot.

    Departing from the “Climate Change is not Caused by Humans” to say

    “There is no Climate Emergency”

    is, in the minds of people who read headlines fast and rarely get around to thinking about them, like saying:

    “There is no Climate Change”.

    Heating or rapid cooling, of course there’s a more or less of an urgent situation to adapt to depending on where we are on the globe.

    But we fall into semantic traps when we depart from our true message: that climate change is not man-made;

    and embrace a message that seems on the surface to be saying “there is no climate change”.

    This perception management war is Semantic and we need to be extremely precise about exactly what we mean or we’ll continue to be dragged through the proverbial mud, discredited and misrepresented.

    Let’s stop helping alarmists by misrepresenting ourselves!

    • ok ok… let me try that again:

      “Let’s stop helping alarmists by NOT misrepresenting ourselves!”

      (have to settle for better late than never I guess, sigh…)

      • Somehow on first reading I missed how arrogant and wrong this entire comment is.
        Maybe you should speak for yourself, and by that I mean realize that you have not been appointed to speak for others.
        You most certainly do not speak for me.
        I can find reasons large and tiny to disagree with nearly every word.
        Personally, I try to stick to my opinions, which I do my best to make clear are just that, and what I believe to be true, to which I try to attach some degree of certainty to and source for, my own observations, indicated as such, and passing along information from others, trying to keep attribution straight.

        Let’s be clear:
        -There is no climate emergency.
        It is fake, made up crap.
        If you know of one, point to it.

        -Why on Earth do you think thoughtful people ought to give a single tiny rat’s tuchus about people who read headlines and rarely think about them any further?

        -When you say of course there is an urgent situation to adapt to, you identify yourself as a jackass, IMO. A gullible naïf.

        That you are a lefty at least seems to be one thing you got right, and this is revealed by your assertion that “we” have a single “one true message”.

        I think you will find few who are of a conservative bent who will agree to go along with any sort of groupthink BS.
        I think you will find few here who agree with your assertion of any “one true message”, let alone that it is as you say.

        Once again, speak for yourself, and please do not speak for me.
        You are not even good at summarizing what others, with whom you purport to agree, with might think.
        If you can find a few who want you to speak for them, so be it.
        But otherwise, I want you to stop “helping” skeptics by misrepresenting them.
        If it offends you that I would purport to speak for others to say this, think on that.

        • Wow. Methinks you protest too much.

          Lefty just pointed out a semantic trap (that I agree with, but that’s not relevant), and said “let’s…..” with a suggestion on how to avoid the trap described. “let us…” is a suggestion, not an order!

          So lefty points out a significant problem, and suggests a way to avoid it, and you jump down lefty’s throat.

          Chill!

          • He said much more than pointing out a semantic trap and make a suggestion.
            First he said that endorsing the headline that there is no climate emergency is not just a mistake, but a singularly efficient way to defeat one’s own belief?
            And on and on from there.
            Yes, maybe I jumped down his throat a little, but I do not appreciate being told that everyone has to refrain from saying there is no climate emergency.
            Or that everyone has to agree to groupthink in order that we somehow stay on message.
            I do not spend my time trying to stay on message, but pushing back against what I regard as a very dangerous movement that has in mind some very bad outcomes.
            What is the “problem” skeptics must avoid?
            Skeptics are not the problem.
            To me the problem is leftists trying to destroy civilization, and engineer a grab for world political and social domination…forever.
            What really steamed me was starting at the first sentence he wrote, which when you look at it, is a very direct insult.
            Did I need to say anything?
            Maybe not.
            I have no idea who he even is, but I am pretty sure he is nothing like of the same mind as the bulk of the people he is presuming to council.
            Personally, I do not feel compelled to chill, but if you want to, that is fine with me.
            I feel compelled to speak up.

          • Nicolas is providing a clear example of the way ANY attempt to constructively criticize the thoughts and actions of fellow CAGW skeptics is treated here in the comments sections of WUWT posts.

          • “Nicolas is providing a clear example of the way ANY attempt to constructively criticize the thoughts and actions of fellow CAGW skeptics is treated here in the comments sections of WUWT posts.”
            I do not even read many of the articles here at times, and I sometimes going weeks in a row with no more than an occasional or even zero comments.
            No one coordinates the participants here.
            You have added nothing, have pointed out zero specific points of contention that you consider to be constructive criticism of “thoughts and actions”, and have not pointed to any specific thing I said that you are either pleased or offended by.
            I have not provided an example of anything.
            I made very specific points about one and then a few specific comments that were very critical and preachy.
            Why do you not prove you are a troll by giving us some specifics?
            What specific things were constructive?
            I take it from your tone that you are unhappy with my comments, although you passively aggressively did not actually say that, instead trying to make it seem like one person who is a minor part time commenter replying to someone else in one specific instance is representative of the vast amount of material written here at this site every day.
            Personally, I do not recall ever seeing your handle here, and wonder if you are a sock puppet for someone who comments under another name, or maybe you are someone from The Conversation or some other warmistas jackass site, or are one of the authors, or what?
            In any case it is unwarranted aspersion of the site.
            Are you too spineless for outright badmouthing, even under an anonymous handle?
            I made comments to specific people in which I said specific things.
            There was no chorus of people chiming in and slapping my back.
            It is just me.

            So step up, grow up, man up, grow a set…whatever you need to do.
            Say what is on your mind, please.

          • Besides, takebackthegreen, for all else, I do not accept that people are who they say they are automatically, most especially not when they have little or no history to refer to and are not even using a real name.
            Not a problem, I understand completely.
            I did not use mine for years, but everyone oughta be able to understand that someone who says they are a “fellow CAGW skeptic”, but at the same time asserts belief in a climate crisis, or climate emergency, or thinks people fighting back against political power grabs by violent communist morons need to do so with great sensitivity and consideration for how their words will be perceived by low info headline readers…well, I was born during the day, but it was not yesterday.
            You do not sound yourself like someone who is a “fellow” anything, but more like someone with a chip on shoulder, or a grudge, or something.
            I am trying to think of any time I would or ever have read something being discussed by two people, and thought to myself,
            “Self, I am going to make a comment in which I attribute something said by one person on one day to an entire news site for all of forever.
            And I am not gonna be in any way specific.
            And I am gonna do it because I like that site full of people just like me!
            It just makes me mad when someone does not like it when they are told how they should talk, and what they should say, and so they object instead of clamming up and chillin’.
            Nope, when people are told that disagreeing with people they strongly disagree with is the worst thing they could do, they need to say ‘OK Then!’, and then say stuff the way they are told.
            All of ’em.
            Pronto.
            Cause I am a fellow skeptic!
            Who hates it when other skeptics do not agree there is a climate crisis that needs urgent attention and that group think is the answer.
            Yeah!”

            No, I do not think that adds up.
            So solly.

          • Zig Zag and Takeback,

            I appreciate your having afforded me the benefit of the doubt. This WUWT site and its commenters have been invaluable in helping me understand the various aspects of this most crucial issue.

            “Skeptics” are faced with some really dirty business as Susan Crockford’s most appalling demotion attests to. The stakes are high and in this propaganda war every syllable counts.

            Be well.

        • “Let’s be clear:
          -There is no climate emergency.
          It is fake, made up crap.
          If you know of one, point to it.”

          Love it! Short and to the point.

          Yeah, if anyone knows of a climate emergency going on right now please speak up and point it out to those of us who don’t see it. Of course, noone will speak up because there is no climate emergency. Nothing to see here.

          Meanwhile, delusional Western politicians declare a climate emergency based on nothing but rhetoric from self-serving interests.

        • Hey! Nicholas McGinley! Thanks for your heart-felt reply! I genuinely appreciate it! Thanks for speaking up! Probably many others were as indignant and irritated as you were. You’ve offered me a chance to clarify my own heart-felt cry above:

          I have a friend and neighbor who’s a physicist who travels the world over working with researchers on climate. He’s fairly recently distinguished himself in the news for having written an algorithm designed to predict extreme weather events. Needless to say, he’s completely bewildered by my “skeptical” stance and recently berated me saying that if we don’t do something fast we’ll have the deaths of countless drowned and displaced Bangladeshis on our hands. So I conclude that the notion of “emergency” is somewhat subjective. Whether or not we can DO anything to save Bangladeshis from their terrible and longstanding flooding situation by reducing carbon dioxide emissions, however, is quite another story.

          For my friend the emergency is there but so is the cure. As I understand it, it’s the proposed cure, reducing carbon dioxide emissions to reduce climate change that skeptics unanimously question.

          Moreover, “skeptics” are forever misrepresented in the media by such debate titles as “Is Climate Change Real?” implying that “skeptics” don’t believe climate change is real whereas, in reality, most have simply not seen compelling evidence to support the idea that Human-caused climate change is real or to any significant or perceptible extent. People are again and again and again led to believe that so-called “deniers” believe “There is no Climate Change”. I hear it all the time: “oh yea, you don’t believe in Climate Change”. and I can repeat it again and again and again “No I don’t believe Humans are primarily responsible”. It just doesn’t register. My attempts at clarification are no contest to the barrage of media “consensus” science people are awash with.

          So I’m dismayed when I see a photo opportunity go to waste; Specifically that 500 brave scientists have risked putting their name and reputation to a document addressed to the UN whose title “There is no climate emergency” will be read and interpreted, conflated in an off-hand way by the busy, tired, harried populations as “There is no Climate Change” which is what “skeptics” are portrayed to believe, hammered into the subconcious minds of the masses by a bought and paid for media.

          As for the “We and the “Ourselves” I was referring to in my comment above: this was meant to describe all those “skeptics” who don’t believe there’s evidence that man-made CO2 is driving climate change in any perceptible or meaningful way

          and who want the people of the world to be exposed to this message because they believe the prescribed cure for purported man-made climate change, a drastic reduction in CO2 emissions, will itself be catastrophic or at the very least, uncomfortably unnecessary.

          For years now I’ve been watching “skeptics” as they attempt to convince audiences of the untruths, manipulations, cover-ups and other inaccuracies promoted by the champions of catastrophic global warming/climate change/climate disruption due to humanity’s industrial CO2 emissions – using scientific facts – confident that the scientific Truth would prevail; these climate facts being as good as ancient Greek to most laymen and thus easily countered by sophisticated sophistry and fallacious arguments, not the least among them being appeals to emotion and guilt let alone outright manipulation and misrepresentation of the data. The “warmistas” as you call them are perfectly aware that the brain processes emotions many times faster than intellectual concepts, even easily understood concepts which unfortunately is not the case for much of the known science behind climate change, let alone all that remains to be proven and discovered.

          So yes, I believe we are shooting ourselves in the foot by using what little mass media time we have under the banner “There is no climate emergency”, where emergency is subjective, rather than the objective fact that”We can not dial temperatures up or down or change the climate in any impactful way by dialing CO2 emissions up or down” and yes, from a purely marketing point of view, I believe we are, with this title: “There is no climate emergency”, exposing ourselves to the easy conflation and quick interpretation and reinforcement of the notion that “climate skeptics” believe “There is no climate change”.

          But all those who’ve risked their reputations by “speaking up” all have my immense admiration and gratitude. Also, Walter Cunningham explained “our” communication predicament best towards the end of this video I’m sure many here have seen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhW-B2udhQw

          • I am doing other things, but the first thing that really jumps out at me is this person who claims that “we” will have the deaths of Bangladeshis on our hands, if we do not step up.
            This is just bewildering.
            You should first understand that your friend is deluded.
            The ocean (they are all connected) has risen by under a foot over the past hundred years, and there is no trace of any hint of any acceleration.
            Despite warming oceans, melting glaciers and icecaps, and people saying it is so.
            None, nada, zero, zilch.
            It is not happening, plain and simple.
            Bangladesh is a low lying country on a river delta with little elevation above sea level, and they are mostly poor, and it is in a tropical zone which gets occasional huge rains, like most places in the tropics, even ones without a monsoon season, and a large river and right on the ocean at the base of mountains.
            Weather has killed appalling numbers of people in this and other regions with such conditions, forever.
            But a look at history is clear: The numbers are way down.
            So it is arrant nonsense or deliberate lies to say that there is a crisis.
            Or that the fate of people in some far off land is in our hands and depends on to whom we accord political power.
            Any clear eyed look at reality, besides for history, is equally clear on a few points: ——–Climate change caused SLR, if it ever raised oceans faster than now, occurs at a rate which would allow the slowest slug crawling across the ground to outrun even if it only had one day every ten years to do so.
            -Storm surge or river flooding has always been among the disasters with the most ability to kill lots of people. Sea level changes of millimeters per year? Not so much.
            – People that think natural disasters that have always occurred are gonna be from now on either their fault or your and my fault have something wrong with them.
            Seriously wrong. If that was my friends, I would tell him that.
            Send him here and I will tell him if you do not want to.
            I know plenty of physics, but also a lot about Earth and human history, physical geography, meteorology, and climatology and hydrology, among other things.
            I am not guessing, I know.

            You spoke a lot about your observations over the years about how skeptics have conducted themselves and how they have tried to convince people of this or that.
            I have too.
            Nearly everyone here has.
            IMO, too many skeptics have been too hesitant to be confrontational and forceful in denouncing the lies and the BS.

            I have been having discussions/arguing with people preaching global warming malarkey since 1988.
            One thing is clear: People whose job is in an industry which depends on promoting some point of view, will be among the least objective people to be found.
            This is not about messaging.
            It is not about the environment.
            It is not about weather.
            It is not about helping poor people.
            It is not about energy, or even CO2.
            And a more nuanced message is fine, if that is the approach you prefer.
            But being blunt and direct is not a mistake.
            And telling people who know what they are talking about, how they oughta speak and such…this is not a good way to influence people, and least not conservatives.
            Warmistas use emotional arguments, which cannot be counteracted by boring facts.
            But facts must be presented.
            The whole thing is political, and is about power, and money, and control.
            But just saying that over and over is not persuasive either.

            If you have people with a giant megaphone screaming about a crisis or an emergency day after day, they might believe it even if they cannot see it, most especially if they never hear anyone say “Bullshit, that is not true”.
            If every lie is met with a big fat truth bomb, then propaganda, which relies on lying and repetition, will not be as effective.

          • ARML (Can I call you Arml?),
            I just wanted to let you know that earlier I did post what started out as just a short reply to one part of this more recent comment (which I BTW appreciate and thank you for), but I must have used a bad word or two and it is in moderation until it is looked at and posted.
            But now I have ore time and have read your whole comment more carefully.
            I do not really like going line by line when responding to someone, but your comment is long and thoughtful and touches a lot of bases so I think that is what I should do.
            First let me say though, that I do not comment just to vent (very often) or to hear myself talk, but instead try my best to do so in a way that says what I am thinking and feeling. So if something someone says rubs me the wrong way or contains what I consider to be incorrect info, I say so. I try to be clear and concise, which in person sounds different that in written form.
            I do not know how often or for how long you read what is written here, did not know (but now do) where you live, and have only your words to use to determine what it is you believe.
            It would take a comment three meters long to explain why I push back hard against some assertions, for example the suggestion that there is a crisis or emergency, and everything else that goes into my reasons for what I think and how I feel on each and every thing I say and respond to what others say.
            One thing I have found out over time is that there is a slow creep of language and underlying sentiment and such, which over time tends to get overlooked and leads to what some call hypnosis. Ideas get planted. We use the language of those who have obfuscated various aspects and issues. We succumb to gaslighting. We lose track of some basic things that the long term conversation has moved past long since.
            Examples of these are such things as going along with the idea that warming is bad and dangerous, that the Earth is having the hottest years ever, that droughts and floods and storms and all manner of bad weather events are increasing, that we have only a short time left to “tackle climate” as if we are in any way in control of weather(planted ideas); the phrase “climate change” instead of “global warming” which then morphs into “climate crisis”(language creep); that the various graphs and charts presented today represent real trends, when what they are is actually fraudulently altered and made up (gaslighting); the notion that 1.5 or 2.0° of warming is anything more than a randomly selected number with no actual reason to believe it, that CO2 levels regulate the temp of the planet and this is known to be factual, that prior centuries and millennia in the Holocene epoch were static and stable (past arguments forgotten), to name a very few such examples.
            There has been a thirty year blizzard of bullshit which has accumulated on a Gordian knot of lies and false premises.
            Earth history tells us that a world with more CO2 in it is normal, and the amount we have today is frighteningly low.
            It tells us that a warmer world is a wetter world, and a more stable world climatologically and regarding extremes of weather.
            Earth history tells us that the Earth has no tipping points for heating to dangerous levels, but most assuredly does have one for tipping into dramatic and planet altering cold, dry weather with miles of accumulating ice that take hundreds of thousands of years to resolved once it commences.
            Biology tells us that a warm wet world with higher CO2 is hugely and uncompromisingly better for life.
            Biology tells us that life is not fragile and existing on a knifes edge of extinction, but is instead incredibly resilient and adaptable…except when it is very cold and ice covers the land in perpetual accumulations.
            Biology and chemistry tell us that the ocean will not and never has and in fact cannot become acidic, and nor does higher CO2 make ocean life decline.
            It tells us that CO2 makes plants able to grow in dryer places and thus deserts and marginal lands shrink and the whole biosphere is more robust.
            The Oceans are way too cold, not way too hot.
            More CO2 is good, not bad.
            Recent warming, to the extent is has occurred at all, has been almost exclusively less cold nights, winters, and polar regions, and not hotter summer, daytimes, and places where it is already hot. IOW, the Earth is becoming more mild, less extreme, and nothing is burning up.
            The actual hypothesis that alarmism is based on is CO2 caused global warming.
            Climate change was a crafty rebranding which allows any sort of change, or even purported but not in fact real change, to fall under the same all encompassing catchphrase.
            Climate crisis is an extension of what was already a meme more than an observed condition.

            People all over the world are more prosperous than ever. Prior to 20 years ago, huge famines occurred in one place or another nearly every year, and that simply does not happen anymore.
            People are living longer than ever, food production on every continent sets records nearly every single year and does so by every metric: More food in total tonnage, more food grown per acre, and more food for each human on the planet, by far, than ever in human history. And the trends are not slowing in the slightest, despite more people than ever. The primary food caused problem in the world is obesity, and that is true these days even in many poor and formerly poverty mired regions and countries.
            Pacific islands that have been being forecast to disappear beneath the waves are instead found to be larger than they were in past decades.
            There is no increase in droughts, floods, storms, heat waves, or any other adverse weather events, beyond what has been the observed historical norms of variation.
            There is absolutely and categorically no crisis occurring that can be attributed to anything unprecedented with the weather or climate regimes of the planet.
            Glaciers and icecaps are frozen wastelands, not critical habitats. Glaciers do not provide water, they lock it away in a destructive and useless form, when they are growing. Only when they are melting do they give back this water stolen from use by past cold periods.
            The whole planet is greener by over 17% as seen from space than even a few decades ago, not a single natural resource has been depleted, but rather most if not all are in greater supply than ever, in terms of production and in terms of in place reserves to be mined as needed.

            Sea level rise debunked:
            https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1167552581511434241?s=20

            CO2 and temp for the past 140 years with no exaggerated scaling and truncation:
            https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1150593858725695488?s=20

            Hottest place on Earth is has the greenest lushest golf course you ever saw.
            Death Valley:
            https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1149874541965074433?s=20

            Warm is bad, debunked:
            https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1148799952707084289?s=20

            Ocean acidification, debunked:
            https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1147178867905499137?s=20

            Global food production graphs:
            https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1184960844721000452?s=20

            Aus Food production and exports graph and a link to crop report. It does not look too bad.
            “In 2019–20 the volume of farm production and agricultural exports are expected to fall below long term averages, mainly due to ongoing drought in large areas of south-eastern Australia. However, the extent of this fall is likely to be limited by above average crop production in Victoria—where seasonal conditions have been favourable—and close to average crop production in Western Australia and South Australia—where conditions have been mixed.”
            http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/research-topics/agricultural-commodities/sep-2019/agriculture-overview

            https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1184960697102413826?s=20

          • Mods, apparently my subsequent comment has also gone to moderation…too many links I think.
            Thanks.

          • “As Fat Walker, the late great third-base coach of the Pittsburgh Pirates, used to say, ‘Call me anything you want, but don’t call me late for dinner.’

            “…telling people who know what they are talking about, how they oughta speak and such…this is not a good way to influence people, and least not conservatives…”‘

            Probably depends on which conservatives.

            But I was trying to speak to scientists and other climate skeptics who might also be frustrated that their message is quite apparently not being received.

            So we disagree on the efficacy of the banner “There is no Climate Emergency”. Tant pis.

            Thanks for the handy-dandy twitter “graph shots” debunking various climate change myths. Could prove useful.

            And now that you know where I live, I have a confession to make:

            I really am left-handed, unlike all those sharks raised in a warmed up tank.

    • In the minds of many individuals, climate change is now synonymous with bad weather, and adverse events in general, even many having nothing to do with weather and changes in temp and wind and such, and even has begun to be synonymous with any sort of environmental issues at all.
      Pollution and general environmental degradation now fall under the same heading, in the minds and words and writing of an increasing number of groups and individuals.
      This is partly attributable, no doubt, to increasingly loose usage of language and deliberate alterations and broadening of definitions of words and phrases.
      But it is also partly the result of a general decline in the ability to think properly, which is an inevitable result of any sort of psychosis or mental pathology.
      People are deluded, and are also being subjected to intentional psychological manipulation.

      • There you go telling people how think properly.
        I think and know the entire climate circus is revealed when you look at the real clowns, Mark Carney of the Bank of England for example. His GFI, green finance credit, out of any hands of any elected government. There it is all revealed what this is about and it certainly is not about climate, weather, not even finance directly. It is about attempted genocide on a mass scale to make Goebbels blush.
        If these bankers succeed in this insane scam, coal, fossil fuels will never be allowed where they are most needed, and no nuclear either. Genocide is the planned result, get it?

        So put on your thinking cap, you actually have skin in the game!

        • It is impossible to tell people how to think properly, obviously.
          The best anyone can hope to do is pass along info, try to be persuasive, point out when you think someone has something wrong, or is misinforming others, etc.
          As for Carney and the undeveloped countries, I doubt I can do much except what I have been doing.
          No place has ever prospered except by the combined effort of the people in that place.

    • Please tell me WHERE there is an “urgent situation to adapt to” wrt climate.

      Standard question when someone says there has been a climate change: where, and what has changed?

      I have never gotten a response. Never. Why don’t you be the first?

      • The climate is always changing. Ignoring that and refusing to adapt to any potential changes is not sensible.

        If rainfall increases, I would advocate building more drains, as a trivial example.

        I’m seeing a lot of what appears to me to be knee-jerk reactions against fairly reasonable opinions. That is a trait of the alarmists that anyone would do well to avoid. It may be triggered by the commenter’s “lefty” tag, of course.

      • And as for “urgent”, I’d say the current drought in much of Australia is urgent. We need to change how we manage this. It occurs in cycles that we can’t predict very well, and as we require more food for our growing population, we urgently need to do something about it so that our agricultural industry is not mostly destroyed during each dry period (ie change in climate).

        No mention of dreadful CO2 is required to define this urgent problem.

        • A drought is not a climate crisis that the world needs to adapt to, it is a local adverse weather event.
          There is zero reason to think that a drought in Australia is a caused by, or can be solved by, anything people do.
          You are ready to sign onto a portion of alarmist mentality and gaslighting because of a drought in some certain location.
          I am sure that it is a big problem.
          I am also sure that any “solution” to it is a local one.
          Nothing anyone in the world does with regard to energy usage or lifestyle change is gonna end that drought or help people there cope with it in any way.
          Here in the US when droughts occur, people drill wells.

        • BTW…if you think each dry period in Australia is a change in climate, I suggest you rid yourself of this false belief through further education on the topic.
          Getting someone who is in a prominent position in government or academia to declare the drought permanent and a new normal has worked wonders in the past, and not just in Australia.
          I truly cannot imagine how any rational person can believe that the rest of the world changing how they live will end a drought, or cycles thereof, in some particular place.
          It will not, and cannot.
          Ever.
          Not even possible.
          Droughts are normal in arid locations (no to mention, also in moist climate regions)
          There are wet years and dry years.
          And that will never change.

  45. What about happy non-deniers, people who welcome the 1degC warming since Wyatt Earp was sheriff of Dodge City? Hey, the Thames doesn’t freeze over any more and plants are loving the extra food supply.

    • By that definition, we are all non-deniers. But wait, that would mean that the term itself “deniers” is a total lie, just like all of their other lies!

  46. It is amazing but not unexpected to see the amount of verbiage they will devote to ‘denial’ rather than actually addressing the perfectly legitimate objections to their claims of what ‘science’ consists of.

    1) The fact that the variations observed are well within the envelope of natural variation
    2) it has already been hotter than the doom temps they predict, for longer, in the current interglacial and this in and of itself is proof their predictions of disaster for species and ecosystems is flat out wrong (since they all survived, as did humans)
    3) the fact that untestable, hand tuned models are not evidence
    4) the fact that systems with this much positive feedback are not stable and as such, any earlier perturbations would have already ‘railed’ the system hot or cold long ago

    Since they cannot address actual science using standard method without evasions and while using continual logical fallacies by the bushel, it is they who are the deniers..of actual science and valid method

  47. I really don’t understand the Natural Climate Change deniers. The earths multitude of regional and micro climates have always temporally changed… and always will. The plants and animals present today reflect the genetic adaptations and resilience of their ancestors to accommodating those changes. Why deny well established science? Why pretend it is otherwise?

    One year in Wisconsin, I experienced 104F peak summer temps at the end of July followed by -34F temps in late December. There was no ‘climate catastrophe’ associated with the 138F delta T that occurred in that 1 year. It was all natural. All of the plants and animals are naturally adapted to that climate, as are the resident millions of people. Yet the Natural Climate Change deniers insist that a predicted 3-4F temperature change over 100 years is going to cause a ‘catastrophic climate change’, perhaps even an extinction event for mankind! ReGretably, even more strident assertions of “only 12 years to impending doom” are arrogantly claimed by ignorant individuals of low science education and experience.

    The argument pressed by the Natural Climate Change deniers defies credulity. The only reasonable response I can think of at the moment is “How Dare You (!) try to foist that absurd nonscience on me!”

  48. — The most insidious form of denial
    The third and most insidious form is implicatory denial. The facts of climate change are not denied, nor are they interpreted to be something else.
    What is denied or minimised are the psychological, political, and moral implications of the facts for us. We fail to accept responsibility for responding;
    we fail to act when the information says we should. —

    The human species is mutating. And has been mutating for thousands of years. And it’s possible {and likely} that in last few centuries the human species has been mutating faster per century than it has in last few thousand years.
    But by the term, “mutating” I am not suggesting large or dangerous changes, rather, the human species a life form – and all life forms mutate and always do so.
    And as far as I am aware, such mutation which has been occurring {for thousands of years} and probably occurring more recently, faster, and probably and even at a faster rate in the future, should not be a matter of politic policy- other than mutation is probably generally speaking, “a good thing”.
    And should be regarded as “good” until there is some evidence of it being “bad” and a problem which can fixed to make it somehow “better”.

    If we ever get to point of ever determining future mutation should be “fixed”, at minimal, there has to be hellva good reason for governments to take any action, and the public needs to involved in the decision process {OR alternatively, we quickly execute all the government officials who are so arrogant to abuse the public trust}.
    It’s not like any of our representatives are particularly bright {evidence suggests they are corrupt, overly
    self-interested, and roughly as dumb as bricks- and therefore they *need* be aware of serious consequences of any public betrayal- to hinder the constantly demonstrated “stupid” from going too far in terms acting very excessively, stupid}.
    Or briefly speaking, all governments have been evil and probably will continue their tendency to engage in warfare and oppose their own people {as the Chinese government is currently doing in Hong Hong- which is obvious example and not in way implying that only the despotic Chinese government routinely engages in evil/stupid and “self-destructive” behavior}.
    Or any war is massive failure of political leadership, which also applies to public demonstrations or riots.
    {One might need to use governmental force, but one should also realize, this was only needed due to past and present failure of political leadership. Too always oppose war is assuming governing can be perfect- which is very unrealistic. But one could expect that any government should be able to end wars {or riots}.

    So perhaps the most insidious form of denial, is refusing to see the evil nature of all known governments from the beginning of time {with the “famous” despotic governments only being the most blatantly evil] and at minim having the knowledge that all governments, need to be restrained by the public they serve.
    Or anyone who is an adult who imagine “the only problem” is that governments don’t have enough power, are massively uneducated and hopelessly delusional.
    Or they are like Greta Thunberg who has the slight excuse of being a child who has known “mental problems”-
    NOT to be stupidly confused with “mental magical abilities” or unusual saint like qualities.

  49. Am I the only one now hoping for a large and even harmful level of cooling just to shut these people up, once and for all?
    Their trite sophistry and smarmy smugness is way beyond galling.
    But being galled is a personal thing, and this is not about any one person’s or group of people’s feelings or sensibilities, obviously.
    Since coming to the realization, over the past several years, that the entire lives of uncountable numbers of children are being severely impacted, including God only knows how many addictions, overdoses, and suicides but also a general feeling of despair, I am more sure than ever that this is not a disagreement or a discussion, it is in fact a war, and ideological war.
    It has got very little to do with science, although science and the education of entire generations of children are among the early victims.
    It has nothing to do with the environment, although actual stewardship of our planet is being severely and negatively impacted by a senseless and enduring focus on a fake issue which sucks away nearly every bit of attention, funding, and effort, from actual and addressable environmental issues, including ones that have severe and immediate negative impacts on huge numbers of people every single day.

    This infection has now come to a head, and the only questions in my mind regarding that aspect is, when will the boil be lanced, the corruption drained away, and properly disposed of? Will there be the will to endure the pain of making sure every trace of the foul putrescence is squeezed out? And will steps be made to prevent reinfection at some other place and some other time, at the very least by making sure that the ones responsible for this instance cannot do it again?

    • –Nicholas McGinley October 16, 2019 at 1:55 pm
      Am I the only one now hoping for a large and even harmful level of cooling just to shut these people up, once and for all?–

      It will not shut them up.
      They are insane, they think global warming includes global cooling. Nor do give a whit about global average temperatures. Plus they might dust off idea that increasing CO2 levels “actually” cause cooling.

      Anyhow, we are in an Ice Age, and any cooling is bad.
      And warming of past century has been a benefit. Warming periods in past have always been regarded a “better times”.
      And we recovering from the Little Ice Age, it will stop quickly from this warming trend. Or if want it to get as cold as the Little Ice Age it “requires” at least a century, and that is pretty long time to wait.
      But if you mean “returning to the Pause”, that going to happen fairly soon. And doesn’t require prayers to make that happen. And by phrase “Pause” it means over period of say 2 decades there not a significant amount or measurable amount of warming.
      Or alarmist imagine there is “accelerated” warming. There has not been any “accelerated” warming, but
      not being able to even measure accurately the amount warming, is not warming and is definitely not accelerated warming which can related or connected to elevated CO2 levels.

      So you have already had your wish, but you should also get wish again, soon.
      {Or it has to be much sooner than any wish of cooling.}.

      • A sustained period of cooling on anything like the scale of the last multidecade cooling period would make much of what we are hearing from alarmists very difficult for any serious person to be on board with.
        It will falsify the models and the hypothesis behind that.
        So I think it is possible for the actual scientific question to be resolved beyond any reasonable doubt…at the very least to the extent that CO2 effect on global T is small compared to natural variability.

        • At the very least, a prolonged cooling event will lead to the masses giving the political elite a choice: either stop with the nonsense of depriving us cheap, fossil-fuel energy, or we will get warm by burning down government buildings.

          • No nobody, can notice the effects of global warming- the recovery from the Little Ice Age.
            Or one gets long growing seasons on average, so if farmer/gardener one could notice it over years if noted starting grow seasons or simply remembered the dates, but otherwise you not going noticed such small changes because there just too much variability in daily temperatures.
            Plus you have stay in one location for many years- or simply moving across town could have a greater difference.

            But if just want cold weather, you probably get unusually cold weather this winter. Or that something people will feel and cause them problems {lots of snow and or frost- stuff we are not suppose not get because of “global warming”}.
            Or global warming has nothing to do with being warmer or colder- except the “state propaganda” claims it does.
            But most of propaganda about global warming is about “distant lands” and says things like the polar bears are dying- and they aren’t, etc.
            But what going to change people views, is all the craziness to do with electrical production which will quite predictably, result in lots of people being in the dark.

        • A long pause didn’t put a dent in the alarmist narrative, they just spent years denying it was happening while simultaneously coming up with multiple excuses for why it happened. Should a period of cooling arise, expect more of the same.

          • Not as many people were paying attention then, and alarmism was far less shrill.
            And a pause is not the same as a prolonged drop below the long term averages.
            By the 1970s, several decades of cooling has real world impacts that were not just a matter of some cold weather here and there.
            Arctic ice, for one thing, grew to such an extent it decreased for several decades and still covers the Arctic ocean for most of the year.
            Alarmism in it’s present form will not survive even a single decade of cooling, if it happens soon.
            The other part of the mental calculus is that people will disregard anyone who is a demonstrable liar.
            Try it at a poker game some time: Bluff on every hand, and see how long you can get away with it. In fact you will at that point have a hard time ever successfully bluffing anyone again.
            We see this in politics as well.
            Chicken Little and The Boy Who Cried Wolf are stories that have endured the test of time, precisely for this very reason.
            Trust, or the benefit of the doubt, once squandered, is unlikely to ever be regained.

          • One would certainly hope, yet the demonstrable liars have been and continue to “get away with it” because they have a compliant (and often demonstrably lying) media on their side that refuses to call them out on it. And that doesn’t appear likely to change any time soon regardless of what the weather and/or climate actually does.

          • In 2008, the entire thing had nearly evaporated.
            But when Obama was elected, he dusted it off and began larding out money and loading up bureaucracies with compliant ideologues, and issued directives that every single agency and every single fiscal allocation have global warming/climate change worked into the appropriations bills and the mission statements, etc etc.
            He mandated it, at the same time that fiscal stimulus had green lights to the horizon and the money spigot was larger and pumping harder than ever in history.
            Other places around the world either stepped up or began to do likewise.
            Governments, or more precisely the people that live off them and profit from them, love things like money and power and control.
            Opening a buffet and getting people to line up to pig out, is easier than shoving them all out the door and ending the party.

  50. I am not a denier but rather a scientist. Based on their publications, the IPCC does not really know what the climate sensitivity of CO2 really is. All they have provided is a range of guesses. If the IPCC really knew how the climate system worked they would be supporting only one climate model but instead they support a plethora of climate models which provide guesses as to our future climate. Based on science, I have found that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero and that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. AGW is just a conjecture and it is full of holes. The AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere, or on any planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect is nothing but science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well. This is all a mater of science.

    • How dare you suggest that climate change is natural and something “over which mankind has no control.” 🙂

      I remember learning in the fifties about dykes in the Netherlands and how effectively engineers have used them to keep the sea out and prevented flooding – the last devastating flood was in January 1953. How have all our efforts to play God and engineer climate turned out over the past thirty years? However, our efforts to adapt to our circumstances like in the case of the Netherlands has paid off handsomely. If I were a betting man I would put my money on the horse called “adaption” and not on the AGW donkey called “climate alarm.”

  51. Someone ought to inform the physicists of the existence of ‘the conversation’. It lives ckearly in a parallel topsy-turvy universe where everything is the opposite of what it is in ours. They surely must have access to a portal somewhere.

  52. “Outright science denial has been replaced by efforts to reframe climate change as natural…”
    The stupidity of this claim is breathtaking.

    • Oh dear! Now ‘they’ are using SCIENCE in a scientific debate! The absolute horror.
      What next?

      • I am not 100% sure who the “they” is, that you are referring to.
        But it sounds like you are mocking someone, Photios, who made a reasonable observation, Jaap.
        If you are not, disregard the following.
        It only applies if you think the authors of the headline post are using SCIENCE, as you so loudly put it.

        For one thing, the authors reject the notion there is anything to debate.
        And they never once made any mention of anything akin to science, let alone mere evidence.
        You think it is scientific to assert that natural climate change is a non-thing, and anyone invoking it is “reframing” climate change?
        You have it exactly backwards.

      • When continents move (and they do) climate changes.
        When ice ages come and go (and they do) climate changes.
        ‘Efforts to reframe [this] as natural’ would be just plain daft.
        Why? It is natural already.

  53. What really needs to be discovered is “who, or what group of people, above the crowd we hear from constantly”, is driving this lie of tipping points and destruction of Earth unless the proles give up everything humans have ever achieved through creativity, energy and determination in the last few years.
    Who are they? What will they gain? Where are they? Will they even survive?
    Who literally trained “Greta”?

  54. There is a fourth. I deny warming is caused by CO2 because it is true.

    Truth is always a valid defense.

  55. Socialists are famous for using psychiatry as an excuse to lock up those who have the courage to disagree with them.

  56. I love this bit.

    “We are almost all guilty, to some extent, of engaging in implicatory denial. In the case of climate change, implicatory denial allows us to use a reusable coffee cup, recycle our plastic or sometimes catch a bus, and thus to pretend to ourselves that we are doing our bit.”

    I use a reusable porcelain cup and plate and bowl, many times a day. I use reusable steel knives, forks and spoons several times a day. Each time I do so I am engaging in implicatory denial.

    I AM A IMPLICATORY DENIER

    What then is the mental condition of a person who is convinced by the climate emergency but then willingly and voluntarily boards an aircraft, or uses a disposable coffee cup?

    Someone might have a better word than HYPOCRITE but it will do for now.

    So says the implicatory denier reaching for his resuable coffee cup.

  57. Come to think of it, there are at least three types of Space Alien Change deniers. The language of space alien change denial and inaction has transformed. Outright science denial has been replaced by efforts to reframe space alien change as natural, and space alien action as unwarranted.
    However, this is just another way of rejecting the facts, and their implications for us. Denial can take many forms.
    The first form of denial is literal denial that space alien change is happening.
    The second form of denial is interpretive denial. This is where people don’t deny that space alien change is happening but try to pass it off as “oh, there have always been space aliens around, it’s completely natural” or “if they wanted to do something, they would have by now”, or even, “increased UFO sightings are a consequence, not a cause of increased visitations of space aliens”.
    But the worst, and by far the most morally wrong form is, in the face of imminent destruction by space aliens acknowledged by the consensus, that of the refusal to act on that knowledge. And we are all, in one way or another complicit in at least that one insidious form of denial. How dare we.
    Instead of congratulating ourselves on agreeing with the basic scientific facts of space alien change, we need to push ourselves to action. It’s time to roll up our sleeves, and get to work! Together, we can defeat space alien change!

  58. From the article: “The language of climate change denial and inaction has transformed. Outright science denial has been replaced by efforts to reframe climate change as natural, and climate action as unwarranted.”

    Climate change *is* natural, until proven otherwise. There is no evidence humans are causing the Earth’s climate to change. There are no unprecedented weather events. There are no unprecedented high temperatures, other than the ones shown in the fraudulent Hockey Stick charts.

    Anything going on climate-wise today, was going on in the past before CO2 was a possible factor. The global temperatures were just as warm in the 1930’s as they are today, and CO2 was not a factor in the 1930’s.

    So if the 1930’s got just as warm as today without the benefit of CO2, and Mother Nature was in control, then why should we assume that the current warmth, of the same magnitude, is due to CO2 and not Mother Nature? Answer: We should assume it is Mother Nature until proven otherwise, and it hasn’t been proven otherwise as of today.

  59. From the article: “In his book States of Denial, the late psychoanalytic sociologist Stanley Cohen described three forms of denial. Although his framework was developed from analysing genocide and other atrocities, it applies just as well to our individual and collective inaction in the face of the overwhelming scientific evidence of human-induced climate change.”

    There is no scientific evidence for human-caused climate change, much less overwhelming evidence. The authors are assuming something not in evidence.

    I think the human-caused climate change speculation is showing that too many humans have an ability for fooling themselves. These authors think they know the facts and obviously nothing could be further from the truth. They have fooled themselves into believing something that isn’t established. Unless they are outright liars, but I doubt that is the case. Most of these people are just True Believers who never looked at the details of human-caused climate change, they just accept it on faith. There are true climate science liars but I think they are the minority. The rest are just clueless and afraid, because they are clueless.

  60. What’s interesting to note about this screed, written by self-proclaimed scientists, is that they neglect one of the most items in a theory: the null hypothesis. How would knowledgeable people act if, in fact, there were no Anthropogenic Climate Change? It is the height of arrogance that they assume that a certain reaction must be due to malevolence and not to simply being correct.

  61. I’m type four. I wish mankind had the capability to increase CO2 to 800-1200 ppm; and hope that the ECS is such that temperatures rise at least three degrees.

    I’m disappointed that all the money we’ve spent on climatology models seems to have been wasted.

  62. Science denial is a form of mental illness that has been an ugly thorn on the side of the science revolution and the rise of our science based civilization.

    There was the ether theory and ether theory denial and the expanding earth theory and expanding earth theory denial and the race theory of humans and race theory denial and eugenics theory and eugenics theory denial and the population bomb theory and the population bomb theory denial and the limits-to-growth theory and its denial and end oil theory and end oil theory denial and on and on.

    And still by some miracle we are still here. And yet we could have been far more advanced if it weren’t for science deniers. Human civilization needs a cure for science denial.

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/10/14/racism/

  63. OK, I carefully read the entire thing. At no point does he explain what people are denying. Without that statement up front, the whole article is just an exercise in psychological warfare.

  64. Tragic really. They have all these important university trained researchers and they can’t even get their own claims – as misguided as they are – correct.

    Where for example is the Spiteful Faux-Denier? The person who actually accepts the science, but hides the fact in order to deliberately heckle the IPCC Cultists.

    Or the Sexist Children Haters? Who hear the truth of that weird Nordic kids, and then push back because of misogyny, toxic masculinity and deliberately motived cruelty towards mental disorders.

    Sorry, Conversation, but pretty lame effort there.

    The other point of interest is the following extract;

    “Interestingly, former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull yesterday blamed “climate change deniers” in his own government for blocking any attempt to deal with climate change, resulting paradoxically in higher energy prices today.”

    Firstly, Malcolm Turnbull is not remotely interesting. He is a grumpy career loser openly despised by the DelCon movement, championed as their own Useful Idiot by the MSM and those in the left who were never going to vote for him, and liked by no one. When he was PM people listened to him in the same way prisoners listen to the latest findings of the parole board. That was then. Now he is just a grumpy loser still despised by the DelCons and now discarded by the MSM in the same way as Rudd, Gillard, Rudd, and Shorten has just another failed Labor leader who is no longer cool. Long Live Saint Albo!

    The rest of the paragraph is shameful projecting. For a start Turnbull is claiming his own party blocked his dream. So… the party he was LEADER over, blocked him. Yes… He does know what leadership involves I take it?

    Then the article claims that ‘paradoxically’ power is now more expensive because those nasty people FAILED to act.

    Wow.

    Shameless.

    Don’t these people even talk to their fellow tyrants? The hymn sheet is that power NEEDS to be made more expensive to encourage people to use less of it. This was the ENTIRE point of a sodding Carbon(sic) Tax. Force the polluters(sic) to pay more in order to encourage via the profit sheet a transfer to a green economy.

    This was their openly declared intention, yet, during a column about denial, they blame the lack of action on climate being the reason power is now so expensive.

    Wow.

    As has been pointed out elsewhere in these comments, a signature of a Leftie is the shameless ability to project.

  65. “Of course, some are unable to respond, financially or otherwise, but for many, implicatory denial is a kind of dissociation. Ignoring the moral imperative to act is as damning a form of denial as any other, and arguably is much worse.

    The treatment of Thunberg, and the vigour with which people push away reminders of that which they would rather not deal with, illustrate implicatory denial. We are almost all guilty, to some extent, of engaging in implicatory denial. In the case of climate change, implicatory denial allows us to use a reusable coffee cup, recycle our plastic or sometimes catch a bus, and thus to pretend to ourselves that we are doing our bit.”

    I don’t suppose going to confession to Al Gore and saying three Hail Mary’s, three Our Father’s and three Glory be’s for our penance for our grave sins against the Holy Climate is going to cut it for these new Faith Leaders, is it? OK, what about sack cloth, ashes and self-flagellation? Nah?
    OK, I think I’ve got it! Indulgences! If we give them all of our money I bet our climate sins will be forgiven, right? It works for De Caprio, Al Gore and too many others to mention. Whew!

  66. Well I am a fourth and fifth type of denier. I think that so far the evidence of what is happening during the Modern Warn Period is and has been beneficial. We are after all in the middle of the Pleistocene glaciation that started about 2.5 million years ago. I also think that the warmest part of our current inter glacial occurred around 9 to 5 thousand years ago during the Holocene Climate Optimum.

    I also think that the basic solutions currently popular among those who think there is a serious problem are a mixture of totalitarian thought and magic thinking. If you do not want to reduce the standard of living to what it was 200 years ago and the resulting loss of most of the worlds population. At the current level of our technology the only possible way to reduce fossil fuel use is nuclear power. That the same people are opposed to.

    • “There are three types of “believer”.

      1) Liar
      2) Gullible
      3) Scared”

      4) Uneducated.
      In this category we find more than half the population of the world. They have been lead to see teachers as oracles. Teachers tell them what to memorize as true. When they have left their last classroom they know that when a credentialed scientist says it, he or she is teaching them data to memorize. If, perchance, a geologist speaks of climate he is discounted by this ilk because his degree is not in Climate Science. When a professor of computer science says the system is too complicated to model with today’s technology he is discounted because he is not a climate scientist.
      Most folks don’t know what “logarithmic” means. Most folks find calculus mysterious. Most folks get their wisdom from elders of their tribe. This repetition of elder knowledge is exactly what gives humanity an advantage over other primates. It is human, very human, the essence of humanity itself to trust the experts.
      When the experts are wrong to some degree (pun intentional) the public, category 4, are mislead.

  67. I have no denial!
    Climate is natural effect of a whole bunch of natural processes acting in concert. Humans effects are minimal with the largest effect coming from our land use changes.
    HUMANS ARE PART OF NATURE!

    The problem with all these climate worriers is that they wish to use an averaged figure for the earth’s temperature but then use this as an ‘instantaneous value’ or as an unaveraged thermal level, and for it’s effects on the planet.
    The average temperature of the planet does not, can not, give anyone more information about unaveraged temperature effects on the planet’s surface, or unaveraged temperature effects within the atmosphere. It’s an average and as such has lost all specificity on both temporal and regional effects on the planet.
    As I have outlined before —
    In two cases suppose the average temperature was the same but —
    Case 1. the poles warmed slightly as the tropics cooled slightly, – or –
    Case 2. the poles cooled slightly and the tropics warmed slightly
    The climatic effects between the two cases would be RADICALLY different.

    The heat of the sun has a large and direct effect on environment regions and for particular times (diurnally, seasonally, and with changes in orbital parameters), it warms areas nearer the tropics more than the poles.
    So called ‘back radiation’ has no observed effect on anything, it is pure (averaged) hokum.

    Climate has always changed, humans have minimal effects on it outside of our land use changes — PERIOD!

  68. Attached below is the IPCC WG-1 debunking of claims of rising levels of Extreme Weather in AR-5, WG-1.. I’m curious how we label people who deny the IPCC findings.

    “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”

    “In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extra-tropical cyclones since 1900 is low.”

    “In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.”

    “In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems.”

    “Based on updated studies, AR4 [the IPCC 2007 report] conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated.”

    Same finding as the National Climate Assessment: No trends in extreme weather.

  69. “Comments on this article will be open during business hours. This is to ensure we can actively moderate them in line with our community standards.”

    Translation: “We call everyone who doesn’t agree with us deniers. We allow no opinions to the contrary to be published here so we can talk about how terrible it is that everyone denies what we believe and ask each other how they can all deny such a thing and shake our heads sadly without ever hearing an answer that might pop our bubble.”

  70. It would seem to me that anyone why believes that the current climate is changing solely based on man made sources of CO2 are, in fact, the true deniers. It implies that the climate has been stable/stagnant in the past, which we all know not to be the case. Climate alarmists are the true deniers.

  71. I want to know why all the climate “scientists” who are pushing the Man-caused climate change scam, why they ignore the difference between the actual temperatures as recorded by by weather balloons and satellites, and the projected temperatures of most of the climate models – and why they don’t see this as a problem, a BIG problem, to rely on computer models which do not reflect reality.

    This is not science. It’s fantasy. Yes, I was a fan of the magazine Fantasy & Science Fiction for a long time but I did not plan my life around it…

  72. The likes of Stanley Cohen are forever staging displays of self-aggrandizing psycho-babble sans any compelling scientific evidence. The art of passing off such sorry spectacles as “academic rigor, journalistic flair” has become a congenital disease.

  73. “The second form of denial is interpretive denial. Here, people do not contest the facts, but interpret them in ways that distort their meaning or importance. For example, one might say climate change is just a natural fluctuation or greenhouse gas accumulation is a consequence, not a cause, of rising temperatures.”

    OR one might say that climate change was not a natural fluctuation and was caused by humans. Until there is proof of AGW the hypothesis that man has caused the climate to change is a denial of the known facts that climate has been changing long before humans walked the earth.

    Hence, whichever side of the argument, sceptics or warmists, we are all deniers.

Comments are closed.