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).
A bit depressing to skim through some 600 posts about this article on the Guardian website. A lot of vituperative name calling which I do hope the rationalists won’t descend to. And there’s a strong leftward bias, a hatred of President Trump and his views of the 2015
Paris Agreement (which turn out to be more and more justified as the years of inaction go by). A characteristic of left-leaning alarmists is that they never ‘read around the subject’ as I was taught to do at Uni. In fact most of them know no science and do no reading of any sort. Easy victims of the ‘consensus’.
Hey, they started it. Besides, I am of the strong opinion that when the Enemy hands you a weapon, you should use it.
“The Four Types of Climate Denier…”
How about the Four Types of Climate Alarmist
1. The honest one… Michael Shellenberger, Patrick Moore, Michael Moore
2. The dishonest one… Michael Mann, Al Gore, Peter Gleick
3. The delusional one… Paul Ehrlich, Peter Wadhams, Bill Mckibben
4. The honorable one… fill this space
Commentators like Carrington come only in one variety: the deluded idiot.
He has forgotten the most important category in his list: number 5, the knowledgeable.
I’ve never understood why Greens give a pass to type 5) The “Hypocrite” , i.e. the person who denies through their actions while simultaneously proclaiming loudly that they believe and that everybody must change (except them). This of course would include all the private-jeterati and coastal mansion dwellers. Greens should be after these “deniers by action” because the common masses see how they act and correctly infer that they really don’t believe and thus neither should they. I think this class of “denier” is more dangerous to the Green cause than any of the others, after all, when we see our “betters” starting to act like they believe it we may actually be convinced to start to worry.
Good grief – is The Guardian still in existence..?
Denier is a term used in religous arguments.
It means “you don’t share our **(religious) belief …”
It is invariably used by people who either know the science does not support them, or more commonly by those who have absolutely no idea what the science says.
**group-thinkers never have their own views.
The four types of climate denier, and why you should ignore them all […] The shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool
Well, I agree about ignoring shills, grifters, egomaniacs and ideological fools. Now, how about all those people reasonably skeptic and which are capable of justifying their positions with actual scientific data?
The Guardian is extra-political entity masquerading as free press. It has a membership paying a supscription to, “support” it. It campaigns on a wide range of issues advocating left wing, big government, socially liberal policy.
The Guardian however, lacks the strength of moral character to test it’s beliefs in the democratic field. Unlike say, the Co-operative Society who put up candidates affiliated to the Labours socialist party. The Guardian may say its journalism holds government to account. But by the measure of that constituency, it is failing as copy sold falls.
A number of posts above point out accurately the Guardian has diminishing circulation and influence, is a minority interest of a certain political viewpoint.
so given its so unimportant and set in its ways: stop reading it! Ignore it!
you’ll all be a lot happier!
Or do you want to deliberately raise your blood pressure?
Au contraire, we’re all just having a laugh at this Alarmist in particular, but in all you Alarmists in general. And laughter, as they say, is the best medicine. It is in fact the Climate Caterwaulers such as yourself who need to check their BP.
One of the “tricks” the Left employs is to get just one media entity to publish a story with limited or even no basis, that supports their narrative.
Then all other media can republish the story with no responsibility for fact checking simply by saying “the Guardian reported…..”.
Note this is similar to the tactic Christopher Steele and the Democrats used to get the false dossier in front of the American public. (Steele also leaked it simultaneously to TWO papers so the FBI could claim “multiple sources”.)
It sure as hell doesn’t raise my blood pressure. I just read that shiite to know what’s not the truth. I go to articles that have titles like “fact check” and “fact checker” because it’s the fastest way to know what aren’t the facts.
Who could have predicted that this would become a profession?
Unfortunately, the failing Grauniad has influence on the BBC, education sphere, and local government far beyond its tiny circulation.
Based on the Guardian article, at least we don’t have “Useful Idiots” like they have on the alarmist side. Lots and lots and lots and lots of useful idiots.
The climate emergency requires coordinated global action, they observe, and that looks horribly like communism in disguise.
They used reverse psychology to trick people into accepting communism.
The main type of alarmist whine like crybabies who can’t get their way.
At every turn either in the UK, US, or Australia the governments, media and leftists are in concert to take away every single pillar of self-defense against their agenda, including the right to speech, dissent, and assembly.
If the US changes hands this election they won’t just be talking about silencing their opposition.
Communists revolutions end after they’ve eliminated their opposition.
If you like your life being micromanaged just go along with them – or be ‘reeducated’ or eliminated.
A critique of people who think for themselves vs. “scientists” and “leaders” who lie about climate and whatever else might suit their cause – which is control and power over others – nothing else. Full stop!
As a free thinker I find these useful idiots and their leaders a particularly despicable brand of person.
This is particularly tragic when one can freely read of the real truth behind their fabrications and use of any plot to create instability and doubt among people.
We should become CLIMATE REALISTS, ALSO ENERGY REALISTS
1. POSITIONING: Why do we simply accept the deceivers and media shills calling us denier’s, to assume the position of being the teller’s of truth these priests of deceit are provably not?
Why accept the deceivers deciding the language when they can only respond with ad hom attacks when confronted by factual reality we provide. We are the realists, and know reality that most of them are wholly unqualified to opine on. They are the deniers.
WE SHOULD RE BRAND OURSELVES AS CLIMATE/SCIENCE REALISTS, FREEDOM FIGHTERS VS THEIR CORRUPT DECEIT TO GAIN POWER FOR A FAST BUCK.
2. THE WRONG ARGUMENT: We are also allowing the enemy to control the science that is discussed, so in fact having a fatuous argument about an insignificant effect and one of Feynman’s “Vague Propositions” built arounf vagueness to avoid proof or disproof. Except , once we got stallite records, JOhn CHristy produce the disproof. But the scam still requires belief in the models over the observations.
WE should stop arguing the side effect of lapse rate/GHE in which which CO2 is a small effect in a small effect, as distinct from the natural lapse rate insulation effect on any planet in the solar system.
Surely it is MUCH BETTER to point out the small change in GHE and hence SST is a small effect easily controlled by the dominant and massive negative feedback in response to SST change of the oceans that really controls the climate, of changing evaporation and hence latent heat transport to space, plus the formation of clouds that reflect the sun, that is the dominant control of our climate. Currently at 150W/m^2 and highly responsive to change in the tropics where SST is c.300 degrees.
The small effect of CO2 on GHE, dominantly varied by water vapour, is all easily compensated for by these simple controls, that have taken on all comers since there were oceans and kept Earth within a few degrees of 300 degs above the surrounding space. Where is any evidence for a delicate balance and tipping points, compared to serial evidence of resilience to te massive perturbations of ice age interglacials, super volcanoes, asteroid strikes, short and long term effects are equally managed, etc. There is clearly no significant effect possible from a small change in GHE. CO2 and lapse rate is not a control of climate, its a small part of the overall system that can perturb SST, but that perturbation is easily controlled and equalised by the dominant control.
Nobody ever explains this simple to understand fact, and seem to prefer to argue the false premise about CO2 and GHE as the dominant control of SST, as if the real dominant control didn’t exist.
Yet it can easily be explained, roughly at 150W/m^2 currently per NASA, 100 times the claimed effect of AGW per models, and very sensitive to any change in SST.
WHY ISN”T IT?
what is a climate denier?
I certainly believe there is a climate.
“what is a climate denier?
They are actually calling you a denier of Human-caused Climate Change. You have to add “Human-caused” to it each time in order to understand what they are really saying.
They are playing with words. They don’t add the “Human-caused” part, because they assume all climate change is human-caused, and they want everyone else to make that same assumption, even though there is no evidence supporting the claim that humans are changing the climate. Mind games. Propaganda. Brainwashing.
Four ad hominem attacks illustrates succinctly the non-science basis of Damian Carrington’s climate change beliefs.
Reminds me of a Rodney Dangerfield joke:
I went to the doctor the other day. The doctor said “Rodney, You’re fat!” I said “Doc, I want a second opinion.” He said “OK, You’re ugly too!” I tell ya, I get no respect!
Hasn’t Al Gore already chowed down on the name “climate realists”?
that’s exactly proves there is no scientific debate about climate anymore , but only a form of religious conflict without rational discussions ! Reporters are not able to understand the word “uncertainties” which describes the best all provided models from which any conclusion can be deduced .
just wait and see …
The Guardian is a loss making, very left wing publication. It has made climate change alarmism a mission. It issues reporting guidelines to its journalists to ratchet up the alarmist nature of the rhetoric. It used to employ a number of global warming supporting academics and authors but has had to retreat from that, probably due to poor funding.
My guess is that this is a cheap (literally) way of kicking the enemy and rallying the troops. No doubt the BBC will pick up the story and run with it. Someone once said, “The BBC and the Guardian are two cheeks of the same a**e.” What a marvellous description, please let us know if you know the source.
Yes, “a marvelous description”.
In Canada it would be the CBC and the Toronto Star side by side
In the USA?..perhaps CNN and the New York Times.
Right idea-Wrong Target
Activists are not all the same. They tend to fit into one of four categories:
The shill is paid by vested interests to produce propaganda to advance the agenda of their employer.
The grifter earns a living by exploiting an issue with no real interest in solving the problem their livelihood depends on.
The egomaniacs are desperate to be noticed and can’t understand why the world refuses to recognize their brilliance.
The ideological fool can be intelligent but is utterly blinded by an inane vision of a future utopia just beyond the horizon.
When you are confronted with evidence that global warming isn’t happening, or isn’t man-made:
1) say it’s not true; it’s all “denier talking points”. Talking points you can’t refute.
2) tell everyone that it’s been “debunked” – when it hasn’t, and you couldn’t if you wanted to.
3) pretend that the person isn’t a “scientist”, or if they are…somehow aren’t a “real scientist”.
4) pretend that the source of the truth must be tainted by “fossil fuel money”, the Heartland Institute, the Koch brothers, or some other shadowy, suspicious entity.
5) Load up the discussion with extraneous “facts” from the IPCC and Greenpeace, no matter how discredited, irrelevant, or unverified.
6) call the person challenging you stupid, a denier, or a “flat-earther”.
7) pretend that the only opposition to you is “religious”.
That’s the entire playbook, right there.
The giants of the climate crusades will be viewed as the Ozymandias of our time. The court jesters and court scribes will be forgotten long before that.
Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Um, how about the scientist like me? Who has looked very carefully at the data, especially all the contributing variables. And who found most of the warming during the IPCC’s chosen century of 1906-2005 was due to the Sun, plus a bit of chicanery with timings causing the ~60 year cycle to be booked as warming – which anyone can see is an artefact.
The reason that climate scientists don’t debate sceptics anymore is because they always lose – the data supports the sceptics. No amount of name calling will change this – the data is what it is.
It is sad to see this once respected radical paper descend into a loony religious mania. It bleats about human rights and reports every ‘progressive’ cause it can find It does not extend those right to anyone who disagrees with either climate change/AGW science, or the severity of the supposed threat, or the solutions to this ‘crisis’.
This disgusting piece of journalism is so hateful and derogatory it must compare to the propaganda from Nazi Germany.
The Guardian editorial staff wrote underneath:
96 days to save the Earth …
… we’re all in. Are you? On November 4, a day after the presidential election, the US will formally withdraw from the Paris agreement on constraining global heating. It’s urgent that we tell the world what this means, and the Guardian is pulling out all the stops to do so. …
Right. So this (and the whole newspaper) is a Democratic election pamphlet. A real guarantee of objectivity.