
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Guardian environment editor Damian Carrington wants to pin nasty labels on people who disagree with his views on climate change. But in my opinion Carrington is doing a disservice to his readers, by leaving out a few inconvenient truths.
The four types of climate denier, and why you should ignore them all
Damian Carrington @dpcarrington
Thu 30 Jul 2020 21.10 AESTThe shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool: each distorts the urgent global debate in their own way.
Anew book, described as “deeply and fatally flawed” by an expert reviewer, recently reached the top of Amazon’s bestseller list for environmental science and made it into a weekly top 10 list for all nonfiction titles.
How did this happen? Because, as Brendan Behan put it, “there’s no such thing as bad publicity”. In an article promoting his book, Michael Shellenberger – with jaw-dropping hubris – apologises on behalf of all environmentalists for the “climate scare we created over the last 30 years”.
…
But the deniers are not all the same. They tend to fit into one of four different categories: the shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool.
The shill is the easiest to understand. He, and it almost always is he, is paid by vested interests to emit clouds of confusion about the science or economics of climate action. This uncertainty creates a smokescreen behind which polluters can lobby against measures that cut their profits.
A sadder case is that of the grifters. They have found themselves earning a living by grinding out contrarian articles for rightwing media outlets. Do they actually believe the guff they write? It doesn’t matter: they just warm their hands on the outrage, count the clicks and wait for the pay cheque.
The egomaniacs are also tragic figures. They are disappointed, frustrated people whose careers have stalled and who can’t understand why the world refuses to give full reverence to their brilliance. They are desperate for recognition, and, when it stubbornly refuses to arrive, they are drawn to make increasingly extreme pronouncements, in the hope of finally being proved a dogma-busting, 21st-century Galileo.
The ideological fool is the fourth type of climate denier, and they can be intelligent. But they are utterly blinded by their inane, no-limits version of the free-market creed. The climate emergency requires coordinated global action, they observe, and that looks horribly like communism in disguise.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/30/climate-denier-shill-global-debate
Guardian Environment Editor Damian Carrington likely hopes if you accept his caricatures, you will ignore what climate skeptics have to say. Because there are climate skeptics who make alarmists really uncomfortable;
The scientists – people like solar physicist Dr. Willie Soon, award winning meteorologist Dr. Fred Singer, Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy, who received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites, Freeman Dyson, a polymath and giant of the Quantum Physics world, and Edward Teller, father of the Hydrogen Bomb, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, all of whom dismiss the assertion we face any kind of imminent climate crisis.
The geologists – scientists like Ian Plimer, who reveal that rather than facing a CO2 crisis, the Earth is currently in a state of CO2 starvation, as we endure the ongoing Quaternary Ice Age, a period comparable to the Karoo (360–260 Ma), Andean-Saharan (450–420 Ma), Cryogenian (720–635 Ma) and Huronian (2,400–2,100 Ma) ice ages of the distant past.
The engineers – the people who demolish innumerate claims that renewable energy is any kind of answer to the world’s energy needs. Even a top engineering team from über alarmist Google concluded renewables simply won’t work.
And its not just skeptics who criticise the push for renewables; Former NASA GISS Director James Hansen, whose 1988 testimony before Congress pretty much started the modern climate movement, claims renewables cannot solve the world’s energy problems fast enough to avert a climate crisis.
The ecologists – people who are slowly waking up that any serious attempt to switch the world to renewable energy will devastate what remains of the world’s wildernesses.
The film producers – people like Michael Moore, who shocked political fellow travellers with his ground breaking expose of the failures of renewable energy.
The economists – people like Bjørn Lomborg who accept global warming claims, but point out efforts to address the alleged climate crisis would do more damage than the projected harm from unchecked global warming.
The alarmist climate scientists themselves, with their nature tricks and bullying of editors who allowed critical papers to be published, who ignored substantial evidence given to them by colleagues that the past was warmer than today, all revealed in Climategate.
Guardian editor Damian Carrington could have mentioned all these people and many others, and tried to build a reasoned case for why you should ignore them all – an exceptionally difficult case.
But even listing these skeptic groups, let along describing their work, might have raised doubts in the minds of Carrington’s readers. In an age when British Academics demand critics of climate action be silenced, perhaps Carrington feels justified in his own mind only telling his side of the story.
Update (EW): Added geologists (h/t John Karajas).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Total projection.
Exactly, and he forgot number 5 – the seasoned, mature scientist who knows how to interpret actual real-world data.
Here are 4 types of Guardian editor:
1) Lying w@nker
2) Elitist Pr!ck
3) Phony elitist Pr!ck
4) Person whose political development never progressed from the 19-year old UK university student level
I’m sure there are more.
What about the one who’s emotional level never managed to graduate Kindergarten?
I comment regularly at The Hill (Donkey Hill) and often accuse the Warmists of have failed Remedial Kindergarten….
Four kinds of climate alarmist: the shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool: each distorts the “urgent” global debate in their own way. Like pretending it is urgent or that there ever was a debate.
There is often some cross-over between those categories. For example, M.E. Mann is both a grifter and and egomaniac.
All four groups can be found at the Guardian’s enviro team. Thanks for a classic example of psychological projection Damien.
The definition of a narcissist.
Seriously it’s an epidemic.
I think he would be better at describing assholes, i.e., the kind of people he interacts with every day, especially when he combs his hair.
“The shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool: each distorts the” (utterly non-) “urgent global debate in their own way.”
You mean people like these?
I did expect to see “Voice of the British Communist Party and Workers International.” They have never hidden their politics. Surely then it is not a stretch for someone to imagine that what they print is in service of the agendas of those groups. It is they who said so, not my observation. There is nothing wrong with being a communist visionary. They make interesting dinner guests. Just don’t give them power. They tend to turn into commun-ISISts.
“What about the workers!?” Well, what about them? If you take all their money to fund renewables and destroy capitalism they will be sitting hungry in the dark for a century. Perhaps with his imagination’n’all, Carrington can come up with a third way forward.
I think we’ve had enough of the Caps and the Comms talking about acceptable levels of M.A.D. in their earnestness to take over the planet. How’s this: Defund the Guardian until they study metrology and learn the meaning of “balance”.
Judging by it’s readership and constant begging for help to fund their ‘unbiased, impartial’ journalism, I suspect it is already pretty much defunded…
Isn’t the free market a wonderful thing? No one wants to read the Grauniad, so it’s going out of business, to the outrage of the w@ankers who write for it.
An interesting one – ‘how is the Guardian funded’? Certainly not by the readership as nobody reads it. They are a huge loss making concern (meaning company not that anyone is concerned).
Some of the comrades have been let go as charity can go only so far and the Trust that funds them must be creaking at the seams however, trying to generate sufficient returns to keep them limping along.
The Scott Trust who own this paper, are helped by being based ‘off shore’ making use of the very same ‘tax management’ it’s own journalist have attached others for using. Oddly they have nothing at all to say about the Guardian doing the exact same thing.
Nice game. Let’s add a few descriptions of climate alarmist journos. I suggest: Sociologist graduates who hate people who make more money than they do; People who pass every exam and hate the world for not rewarding their brilliance; Failed priests; People who can write well but lack all other skills; Those who cannot read a y-x graph; Those who believe any graph; Those who think computers are infallible;Those who don’t know the difference between weather and climate; those with private incomes but want to be like everyone else.
And the catch-all: the Crypto-fascist-neo-Puritan fundamentalists.
I think Carrington should look in a mirror, as he could be classified as a shill, grifter, egomaniac and ideological cool in his utterances.
And don’t forget the poorly-paid-but-promised-limitless-career-potential apparatchik pr!ck. Tirelessly willing to repeat-and-creatively-expound-upon whatever buckets of intellectual tripe is sent sliding down the bar. Indeed: would it be overreach to posit that this brand of fool is perhaps the largest resource upon which climate hysteria taps its energies from? Sorry about the sad grammar. GoatGuy
Come come Philip, you ate being very hard on a newspaper establishloshed by slave trade money, that earned its recent financing via the sale of a fossil fuel car trading magazine and begs its dwindling band of readers for more money every time they visit, to stave off bankruptcy. They obviously own the moral high ground, as you can see.
Tonyb
Well, funnily enough, despite my california handle, I was born and raised about 25 miles from Manchester, the birthplace of this, what has now become an anachronistic cartoon. Me, Harold Wilson country to be more precise. Back then there really was a need for blue collar worker protection and I was actually a trade union member at the age of 16, working in a factory, which eventually helped me pay my way through university, etc etc. I wouldn’t trade it for a thing.
Tonyb: Yes, most comments here don’t give Carrington credit for writing about people he has never met, in fact he refuses to meet them, or listen to them, or read anything they may write, never mind “debate” them. And he writes an article about their (our) thoughts and motivations. You can’t make that up, but he can!! It does help when you know your editor (or any of the famed fact-checkers beloved of tr*lls everywhere) won’t be doing any fact checking.
There are 4 basic types of climate true believers
1.) The renewable nutcase who needs the story to be true to solidify their support and often grind out a living in the industry.
2.) The eco warrior who wants a return to the good old days which were always better than the current. Humanity is a stain on the natural world and anything humans do can only be bad. Usually a member of greens/greenpeace or both.
3.) The socialist/marxist who hates capitalism and wants the redistribution of world wealth. They love the idea of climate justice as a mechanism to bring about the change.
4.) The snout in the trough charlatans. Often refugee scientists from other fields or activist who are attracted to the money splashed around on climate change research and activist groups. They have no job prospects in any real and meaningful field or work but in climate science they can eek out a living.
All four can be found at the Guardian. Also at the BBC who are weak in the science area as most of them seem to be poets – they are also very weak at maths, simple proportions are beyond them . They seem to think that the US has the worst Covid record but simple proportions reveals that UK is far worse.
Add to the list those that still believe in Santa Claus and never recognised that childhood fables such as the emperor’s new clothes, the boy that cried wolf , the pied Piper and the man the boy and the donkey are parables to warn children of the dangers of mass hysteria and propaganda that have been a plague on humanity for Millenia.
These people need to be put back in diapers and taken back to preschool to repeat the basic life lessons they failed as children.
Ha ha ha Guardian Editors warning: adult language
6) Tosser
Monumental tosser. You missed the first bit.
Agreed Jimmy:
The shill is the easiest to understand paid by vested interests
The grifters have found themselves earning a living by grinding out alarmist articles
The egomaniacs are disappointed, frustrated people whose careers have stalled
The ideological fool can be intelligent, but they are utterly blinded by their inane, no-limits belief in climate models or other alarmists without examining comprehensive data.
How about this, Damian, you dormouse: I don’t really give a flying frack in space what you think of me or my independent mind.
Oh, lest I forget, since you sit on your own brain most of the time, you should occasionally let it outside for a little fresh air. I’m sure it will be glad of the chance to escape your melon.
Toodles!!!
What? Too ornery? Oh, well….. 😉
Exactly right. Are they so deluded that they truly believe that the money is to be made on the sceptical side? Shills and grifters make up 100% of the renewable energy and climate change academia industry. These people are so used to their unquestioning PC bubble that they can’t imagine any reasonable person disagreeing with them. It’s the direct result of the cancel culture: viewing disagreement as an excuse for violence and destroying lives. I sadly don’t see a way forward, the leftists/anarchists seem to have won the day.
@ur momisugly Jimmy Haigh,
Guardian environment editor Damian Carrington has just written one of the most glaring examples of projection ever penned. They walk among themselves.
‘The shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool’
It always amazes me how progresses unerringly broadcast what they actually are by trying to hang the label on their opponents.
This guy seems to literally be ALL those at once.
Isn’t he a denier? A reality denier!
“a journalist for 20 years and previously worked on staff at the Financial Times, New Scientist and BBC News Online. He has a PhD in geology”
Why….would anyone with an PhD in something then have to go work in another sector?
Just asking, because as a health sector analyst…the last few months have worn me down and I’d like to write badly for a living as well.
Frost on Mt Bromo, Java. Temp? -3C. Ref: https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/07/30/frost-appears-on-mount-bromo-as-temperature-drops.html. Don’t deny that the climate is changing!
Frost on Indonesian peaks is not that uncommon in fact. Farmers don’t like it one bit, as one can imagine.
The “Guardian”guards fanatic liberal views. Worthless rag.
Silly Michael Moore knows more than them.
What Guardian Science looks like
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/07/29/climate-moonies/
+many…
There are also the geologists who can present tomes and tomes of scientific data that show that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels had almost nil effect on whether Earth had global warming or major glaciations in the geological past. But then a humanities training is so much better to equip you to understand the right political context of your restricted, car-dominated, urban environment, right? /sarc.
Very good point – I’ll add Plimer. Thanks.
You can also add Dave Middleton 🙂
Eric Worrall
July 30, 2020 at 6:21 pm
Good, but please don’t forget the late great Bob Carter! Such a great communicator of the climate truth.
I loved his video presentations. They are the catalyst for my interest in (not) CAGW. sadly missed.
The 4 types of alarmist:
1) the useful idiot (90% of total)
2) the profiteer
3) the fraud
4) the true believer
Add 5) The data manipulator.
That falls under #3
If you read the Guardian (article), and adjust your thinking or lifestyle to meld with the information found within the Guardian article … you might just be a Useful Idiot.
The shills for vested interests, the grifters for a pay-cheque, the egomaniacs whose careers have stalled, and the ideological fools are also prominent categories of Climate Alarmists.
On the Climate Realist side, the scientists of Climate, the engineers of energy, the ecologists, the film producers, and the economists are making the Climate alarmists very uncomfortable as they turn up the heat on the Climate lies and distortions.
He’s in the category ‘egomaniac’.
ideological fool
So, if you are none of those 4 types, you are not a Climate Denier.
No-one on WUWT could be classed a climate denier under those headings.
(except perhaps Mosh: types 1,2,3 and Nick, type 3,4).
Maybe you are a Climate REALIST, that actually follows the real science and data. !
+1000
There is so much psychic satisfaction that comes from classifying people and then dismissing them. Seems a bit like a waste of time….
Mr. kilty: From his pov, less of a waste than reading what we think, much quicker if you just make it up, even easier if you project.
Your dry conclusion made me laugh out loud, thx.
I’m very upset.
I’ve published dozens of articles on climate change, in multiple forums, and no one has paid me a dime. WTF? I was supposed to get PAID!? Why am I just finding out about this now?
Anth_ny, could you please advise what your going rate it and how many articles you owe me money for? 12? 15? Been a while, I’ve forgotten. What’s that? The going rate is $0.00? I’m in Canada so we need to do a currency conversion… d*mn, still $0.00. How’s THAT work? Sorry, but I think I’m going to have to call the Guardian and find out how much you owe me. I’m certain they will take my call….
I don’t know where they get this idea that skeptics are paid to be skeptical.
Skeptics come by it naturally. They don’t need to get paid. Although it would be nice if skeptics were paid, it’s just that this doesn’t happen because there are too many volunteers.
Notice how skeptics are never motivated by the facts, according to Alarmists, it’s always money. Maybe they just can’t believe that skeptics would look at things the way they do (not accept the “consensus”), so it must be something else than belief, it must be money.
No, there’s no money involved on the skeptic side. Next time an alarmist makes this claim someone ought to challenge them to provide some evidence that skeptics are paid to be skeptical. It will be “crickets” just like it is when requests are made for Alarmists to provide evidence showing Human-caused climate change is real.
Skeptics arent paid, they just have a natural antipathy to being robbed.
“I don’t know where they get this idea that skeptics are paid to be skeptical.”
It’s another example of projection. They are adjust their opinions based on what they can get for it, so they assume everyone else does as well.
Sorry, but they all have been furnished with the ready reply which they believe is a discussion stopper:
Willie Soon paid by Exxon (or whomever), and
Fred Singer, paid by a tobacco company for a review of a study of 2nd hand smoke. If he takes money from Big Tobacco, why wouldn’t he accept it Big Oil?).
Drop the Mike! Walk away.
Of course I know why those examples are bogus, so let’s not “miller” the thread with defenses of Drs Soon and Singer.
There is a lot of cross-over between the way Climate Alarmist fanatics talk about non-fanatics, and the way anti-Semites talk about Jews. About 80% of it is projection, 10% is unadulterated malice and 10% is a lack of imagination. I knew a number of progressives at university, and they had a terrible time getting to grips with the arguments of their interlocutors, even properly understanding them. I suspect they feel (and they are completely ‘feeling’ oriented) that if they study and spend time understanding the arguments of their opponents, their faith in their own rightness might be damaged. That’s a terrible way to go through life.
Yes, but his ‘opinion’ will be published and disseminated among the populace. Dissenters will be ignored by those that publish.
“Dissenters will be ignored by those that publish.”
Not just ignored.
All evidence to their very existence will be erased. !
Cancelled
Maybe, but its in the Guardian so not many people will see it.;-)
It’s only the Guardian, never knowingly sensible.
JF
mark,
Being published in the Guardian is in no the same as saying it will be distributed/disseminated among the public. Virtually no one buys the Guardian. If it wasn’t for the free issues given to hotels and such like, the Guardian would not have any reason to be printed publish because it does not have a customer base worth the effort.
Exon Mobil just announced some new break through in CO2 sequestration. The company already brags that it is one of the biggest in the world in putting away that evil CO2. The Guardian is of course no guardian at all and the Left is entirely consistent in accusing others of what the Left is guilty of…..Al Gore for instance is all 4 in one ….he is a shill and grifter and egomaniac and apparently an ideologue fool except – maybe if you woke Al up in the middle of the night and demanded to know if man is really heating the environment – he would reply no before he realized he betrayed his act.
One mistake in the article.
The word “denier” should be replaced with “alarmist”
And “right”, replaced with “left/marxist”
The shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool …
This pretty much applies to Climate Alarmists as well. Al Gore is all four of them.
This describes the climate communists very well one of their techniques is to take their own failures an attribute that to others. It is the climate communists that cannot face reality.
Agree. My point well said!! I argue the Left simply looks in a mirror and calls others what they see. It is a very good offensive tactic. As realists, we await information on real data which puts us on the defence.
Indentitarian to the core, the Guardian and progressives just cannot help but putting things into pigeon-holes of relative evilness.
Indentitarian? Is that a thing?
Like always insisting on unnecessarily indenting their paragraphs?
Never mind me, I’m just an egomaniacal ideological fool.
I’m happiest when the temperature is under 70°F. Today our little device said 99.1°. Not unusual for central Washington USA, but not welcome either. We call it summer. There is a picture of a sign that says: August, be cool!
Thus, this Damian Carrington bloke — bless his little heart — provided a good chuckle as I contemplate going out to do a few chores.
I wonder if one can be paid to be as dense as a rock, or whether one has to be born with the trait?
The Guardian’s catchphrase tells us everything we need. “Opinion is free. Facts are sacred.” Isn’t it free on line? Or, as mate from the UK says: “My dad says lotteries are tax on idiots, as he opens The Guardian, at £3.24 a day.
“If you can’t answer a man’s argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.” – Elbert Hubbard
”The shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool: each distorts the urgent global debate in their own way.”
Ha ha ha ha. What a delusional moron.
The shill is the easiest to understand. He, and it almost always is he, is paid by vested interests to emit clouds of confusion about the false science and economic disasters associated with climate inaction. This uncertainty creates a smokescreen behind which ecomaniacs can lobby against measures that cut their potential funding.
A sadder case is that of the grifters. They have found themselves earning a living by grinding out eco-doom articles for leftwing/socialist media outlets. Do they actually believe the guff they write? It doesn’t matter: they just warm their hands on the fear they foster, count the clicks and wait for the pay cheque.
The ecomaniacs are also tragic figures. They are disappointed, frustrated people who fear their careers will stall and who can’t understand why the world refuses to give full reverence to their brilliance and stop using fossil energy. They are desperate for recognition, and, when it stubbornly refuses to arrive, they are drawn to make increasingly dire climate doom pronouncements, in the hope of finally being proved a dogma-reaffirming, 21st-century Jim Jones.
The ideological fool is the fourth type of climate doomer, and they can be pseudo-intelligent. But they are utterly blinded by their insane, no-limits version of the Carbon cost-market creedo. Their preconceived notions regarding their believed climate emergency requires coordinated global action, they observe, and that looks horribly like what it actually is…communism in disguise.
There, fixed it
+1 top job
Talk about ideological fools!
I wanna BE that denier.
The Guardian trumpeted that in their battle against AGW skepticism, the Guardian wants to be more scientifically accurate–see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/16/guardian-language-changes-climate-environment. Below is an example of their “scientific accuracy.”
“3.) Use “global heating” not “global warming”
‘Global heating’ is more scientifically accurate. Greenhouse gases form an atmospheric blanket that stops the sun’s heat escaping back to space.”
If the Guardian’s claim that “greenhouse gases stop the sun’s heat [from] escaping back to space,” solar accumulated heat within the earth/earth-atmosphere system must forever reside within the earth/earth-atmosphere system. This logically implies (1) if the sun stopped providing heat to the earth, the earth would retain whatever solar heat it had accumulated up to the cessation of solar heat input–with the result that although the earth’s temperature might decrease because the claim does not logically preclude the loss of heat not supplied by the sun (radioactive decay, collisions with other solar system objects, tidal friction, etc.), the earth would eventually settle at a temperature consisted with the heat accumulated from the sun up to the cessation of solar heat input; and (2) as long as the rate the sun supplies heat to the earth does not asymptotically approach zero, the heat content of the earth will increase without bound–with the result that the earth’s temperature will increase without bound. Neither (1) nor (2) is true. Thus, the statement “greenhouse gases stop the sun’s heat [from] escaping back to space,” may be “scientific,” but it is neither precise nor accurate. IT IS WRONG.
So much for conflating “precision/accuracy/scientific” with anything the Guardian publishes.
“Greenhouse gases form an atmospheric blanket that stops the sun’s heat escaping back to space.” — The Guardian
Everyplace that I’ve ever been on Earth has nighttime temperatures that are noticeably cooler than daytime temperatures, excluding the transient passages of weather fronts and storms. I’m just wondering where that trapped heat goes during the night.
” I’m just wondering where that trapped heat goes during the night.”
Like the rest of us it goes to bed for a sleep !!
Didn’t you learn nufink @ur momisugly skool fizziks (;-))