From MasterResource
By Robert Bradley Jr. — October 25, 2022
“The superior case for dense mineral energies economically and environmentally should inspire a rethink. And climate policy is in shambles heading into COP 27.”
“What is really fishy is that those that admit to ‘climate anxiety’ do not have any appetite to seriously entertain the case for CO2/climate optimism, aka energy freedom for the masses. And they see no evil in the eco-sins of wind, solar, and batteries….”
I actively engage in (and occasionally share) debates on LinkedIn against climate alarmists/forced energy transformationists. I sometimes feel like a teacher presenting a suite of arguments that have been cursorily dismissed. The good news is that there are a lot of readers in the middle who see what is going on. A number now join me in what is a two-sided debate at LinkedIn.
I have had to block some hateful opponents, but overall I have learned much from ‘dropping behind enemy lines’. Here are some major takeaways from my nearly one-year experience.
- The large majority of opponents ignore rather than engage. They follow Michael Mann’s advice of “Report, block. Don’t engage.”
- Those who do engage are convinced that the “deniers” do not have an intellectual case and are just “shills for Big Oil” (see exchange below).
- Exposed to non-alarmism, the activists fall back on the IPCC and other chosen authorities (“argument from authority”).
- After rebuttal to #3 (like with Climategate), ad hominem comes along the lines of #2.
- After #3 and #4, they disengage.
Some adversaries have been polite and actually admit to some weaknesses in their case. But they are the exception behind the green curtain; most debate with religious fervor and argue as if there is not a Green Energy Crisis around the world, from Texas and California to the UK and the EU.
Overall, there is really little movement by the alarmists/forced energy transformationists, whether as the result of deep ecology, not understanding economics (tradeoffs and opportunity cost), or being mad at the system, the status quo, the establishment (in which case I wish they would rebel against the true elites).
What is really fishy is that those that admit to “climate anxiety” do not have any appetite to seriously entertain the case for CO2/climate optimism, aka energy freedom for the masses. And they see no evil in the eco-sins of wind, solar, and batteries, nor do they comprehend the energy density/intermittency argument that was recognized 150 years ago.
———————————-
Here is a recent exchange at LinkedIn that is typical:
Robert Bradley Jr.: Time to rebel against the intellectual/climate elite. Mass mineral energies for real people.
Brian Scott: Or for lobbyist like yourself that are paid to misinform right Rob?
RB: Wrong on all counts …. We have gone through this before. The superior case for dense mineral energies economically and environmentally should inspire a rethink. And climate policy is in shambles heading into COP 27.
BS: Your organization is funded by the industry its well documented. Climate policy investments are at an all time high
RB: Been through this before. We have several thousand classical liberal supporters. Do you know what classical liberalism is? End the ad hominem and focus on the arguments–yours are anti-economics and anti-environmental.
BS: Mine are anti environmental?
RB: Yes … duplicating the grid and the transportation system require a whole new level of industrialization and a huge ramp-up of mining. “Big shovels” as Daniel Yergin says.
And machining up the landscape with wind and solar and transmission that operate a third of the time is violating nature in a way that dense mineral energies avoid. And what do you have against Global Greening from CO2?
BS: Duplicating is nonsense. Mining for mineral for the purpose of reducing climate change impacts while recycling those minerals for use over and over again.. landscape isn’t an issue rooftop covers more than enough of demand and solar farms on marginal farm land helps farmers pay their bills. Co2 for greening? I would say if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you but I realize you are paid to sell that narrative. The idea of greening by increasing droughts amd flooding is hilarious.
RB: Duplicating it is … wind, solar, batteries that are not needed by the energy economy. Talking about industrial wind and industrial solar, not micro and off-the-grid. Big eco-revolt at the grassroots.
CO2 greening–that’s settled science. Climate model predictions–unsettled science.
On the ad hominem, “I realize you are paid to sell that narrative.” that is simply incorrect. I argue the correct, classical liberal worldview that you do not seem to understand.
Increasing droughts and flooding? Fallacies if you want to examine the long term data. The ‘energy transition’ is bad economics and bad ‘environmentalism.’ Global greening and energy density are pro environment. Dilute, intermittent technologies are eco-disruptive.
Elitism vs. energy for the masses, as chosen by the masses.
BS: lol More propaganda, not settled by scientists but a paid web developer. I’m curious if Mr Koch edits these for you or if you have artistic freedom
RB: Wrong again on the ad hominem. Just deal with arguments: dense mineral energies are better for the environment and pocketbook than dilute, intermittent, parasitic, crony energies.
And energy consumers worldwide have had enough of an intellectual/political elite alarming and robbing them.
COP27 charade coming.
BS: I would be glad if we could deal with the argument. As you destroy the world with Emissions you have no solution. I have a lot of friends in the oil and gas industry with varying opinions, none of them believe this co2 to save the earth nonsense.
RB: “Destroy the world with Emissions” … “you have no solution.” … ” co2 to save the earth nonsense”
Three strikes. First, emissions of real air pollutants have gone down, way down, and this is expected to continue. CO2 is not a pollutant destroying the world.
Second, the solution is 1) do no harm 2) anticipate and adapt with weather extremes, which is not ‘climate change’ 3) thrive with enhanced CO2 and the best energies.
Third, CO2 does not ‘save the earth’ but enriches it. This is part of the debate that is settled science.
BS: Money will make people believe anything won’t it. Where specifically has ipcc gone I wonder. Should you get them a check?
RB: Wrong again on your ad hominem. I am just arguing a strong, superior argument. I would not have it any other way.
Final Comment
Always be polite and keep it scholarly. For example, I had a similar exchange with a fellow from a distant country that was a … professional clown. The fellow above has bad initials for such an exchange. Openings for cheap shots. There are many, many other people reading the exchanges, and they are in the middle and persuadable. Keep the high ground.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You are a better man than me! My tolerance is extemely low for these people.
One of my close friends as a child was a Jehovah’s Witness, so I was quite familiar with their theology. Reminding the current crop of door-to-door preachers that Jesus did not come back in the early 1970’s is nearly cheating, as they have never heard of that prediction.
Apocalyptic climate change zealots tend to have the same mixture of ignorance and zeal. Snark that I cannot actually be talking to them, as I died of pollution, or famine, or trace chemicals some forty years ago if their faith was true draws the same sort of slack jawed reaction.
Interesting piece. I’m frequently disheartened that so many people are either brainwashed or lack knowledge and discernment. However, much of our division seem to be purposely created.
In any case, as a scientist, I do not like the term “settled science” as very little ever is.
Recently Democrats have been complaining about all the divisive language coming from Republicans.
When pointed to Democrats calling Republicans, Nazis, fascists, xenophobes, islamophobes, homophobes and a whole host of other insults, they replied. That’s different, we’re telling the truth.
These days, leftists aren’t even smart enough to recognize how hypocritical and uninformed they are. They are comfortable in a world in which they are the good guys, everyone else is evil, and they never have to think for themselves.
The islamophobe one always makes me snigger. I’m no more afraid of islamists than I am of Muslims.
They are, of course, one and the same but when referring to a violent even, so as not to implicate Muslims, perpetrators are referred to as islamist extremist’s.
No one has a name for ‘extreme’ Christians going around beheading people, they are just Christians.
But then I can’t think of a Christian of recent memory who has beheaded someone because the Bible instructs them to, so I guess the argument is redundant.
A phobia is an irrational fear. There is nothing irrational about fearing islam.
Is there a psychological diagnosis of people who in their defensiveness when being challenged with clarity, always see themselves as the “good guys, everyone else as evil” and choose to “never have to think for themselves” . Is this a form of mass formation as the result of brainwashing?
Oh, it’s settled sometimes — for a few years.
If it were settled, there could be no science.
Science is the search for understanding of how stuff works. If we already know all the answers, then why keep searching?
The ‘Ad Hominem’ response is very common in blog discussions about AGW. People on both sides on the argument seem to engage in it, although I tend to think that the climate alarmists use the Ad Hominem response more often.
Many years ago, I accepted the narrative that CO2 emissions from the accelerating use of fossil fuels might have catastrophic consequences, because I knew very little about climate and its changes in the past. I’d never heard of the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age, for example.
However, when I heard an interview on the radio, of Professor Ian Plimer discussing his new book “Heave and Earth”, which delved into the geological history of climate and its changes, and presented alternative causes of climate change, my interest was sparked.
When I began searching the internet for reviews and comments on Ian Plimer’s book, I was shocked to read such vitriol and Ad Hominem attacks against Plimer. Istead of addressing Plimer’s arguments, the ‘Alarmists’ called him a ‘crackpot’, and claimed he had no scientific evidence to support his views.
Reading such ‘Ad Hominem’ responses actually encouraged me to begin researching for myself the ‘known’ or ‘estimated’ past history of climate, its changes, and its effect on past civilizations.
The Ad Hominem response to an argument should be a clue that the person using this response is fearful that he might be wrong and is trying to protect himself from discovering that he might be wrong, by projecting his fear, annoyance and anger onto the other person.
Ian Plimer has a new book out which I picked up at the recent CPAC conference in Sydney. It’s called “Green Murder. A life sentence of net zero with no parole”
Ian Plimer writes well researched books heavily punctuated by references. He does turn some people off with a continuous flow of sarcasm mixed in with his excellent arguments. Being a rabid sceptic I enjoy the sarcasm, but a lot of people consider his works to be one big rant. He would gain broader readership with a good editor.
Yes, I thought Robert’s summary points 3 & 4 nailed it precisely!
When an appeal to authority fails, straight to ad-hom.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis(.)com/ can be indispensable in these situations.
In my experience,leftists in general are not comfortable thinking for themselves. They would much rather be told what to believe, appeals to authority and ad-hom are pretty much the only argumentative techniques that they have mastered.
at its (leftisms) core is conceit …. negation, destruction, resentment and conceit
You’re leaving out strawman.
An effective strawman argument requires more intellectual horsepower than most leftists have.
“Even with today’s technology, demand for solar is expected to double and double again in the next ten years.”
https://theconversation.com/you-might-think-solar-panels-have-been-perfected-but-we-can-still-make-them-even-better-and-cheaper-191755
That’s 4 times the silicon.
Where is your claimed lack of silicon? Silicon is the second most abundant element in the earth’s crust.
Are you suggesting that the earth is short of sand?
Ooh – don’t let the Greenies hear you say that, they’ll demand you stop immediately with the mining for sand. Don’tcha know it’s what stops sea levels from washing the coasts away! sarc (but not by much).
It is actually silicon dioxide (SiO2) that is in sand (and glass). However, it is too impure to use in solar panels and is melted to purify it, an energy intensive process. The issue is the shortage of purified silicon, not sand.
That may be true but that’s not what Lee wrote that I questioned. There is no lack of silicon or the energy to refine it into glass or solar panels or all the electronics that exist today.
Show us where I said there was a shortage. Show us where they refine the silicon using renewable energy.
BTW, the Earth is actually short of sand – cement sand. Sand for cement should have a certain grain size, and a certain roughness so the cement can adhere to it – and being properly cleaned is also a big deal as if the sand is dusty, the cement will adhere to the dust instead of the sand, weakening the resulting concrete. Most known deposits of suitable cement sand are well-known and depleted or nearly so; it’s becoming a big problem as megalithic engineering and “Mussolini-modern” buildings proliferate.
Regionally you are correct. However simple solutions like blending with manufactured/crushed sand is a viable alternative and in some cases preferable. Angular particles in the top end of the concrete sand fraction #4 (4,75mm) to #30 (0.6 mm) aid in flexural and compressive strength. Albeit with a slight potential increase in w/c ratio.
in some markets, good concrete sand is deposited back into the ground/ water as there is more than can be utilized or transported economically.
There is no sand crisis – that’s gotta be the dumbest argument ever published on WUWT …. seriously!
First of all you are full of shit, there is zero lack of sand in the world for concrete, and concrete has zero to do with solar cells. Give it up your argument is stupid.
You do realise only some sands are viable for silicon?
Really? And what do you think the wast number of rows of solar panels are sitting on? But never mind solar panels. Have you ever tried to find out just how much concrete is used for wind turbine’s foundation? So for your info, an average wind turbine uses 500 plus metric tons of concrete. Now let’s see who’s argument is stupid…
“demand for solar”
Do you know anybody who demands solar?
Who demands solar? For the most part, people who have no intention of using it themselves.
Crony “capitalists” and their Democrat funders, note the 870 BILLION dollars for the Democrat’s cronies and to pass through to the Dems for the 2024 election.
Have you seen the obscene Camp Lejeune add for the US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT funded trial lawyers enrichment fund also designed to fund the Dem’s 2024 campaigns?
EVERYTHING the Democrats do is to increase the wealth of their donors. Ensure full employment of their liberal supporters. Increase the pay of liberal consultants, for example, requiring retraining for CRT or any other fantasy “problem”, always by liberals and always overpaid.
The major reason for the spiraling demand is probably the replacement of old panels.
Quadrupling of demand supply for solar probably isn’t even factoring in replacement.
You can’t fight religion.
It’s more like cult and the advice “Always be polite and keep it scholarly” is the only way to engage. You can only break down someones belief system and get them to consider new information if you get them engaged. Whilst the exchange in the post shows the AGW cult member is completely indoctrinated, but his responses of ad hominem attacks and avoiding the topic does a lot of damage to his cause. Anyone with a modicum of critical thinking would question, what are they hiding?
It has also been said that you can’t move someone from a position using logic and reason who didn’t get there using logic and reason. Some people’s minds are just too twisted and delusional to understand. A former work acquaintance was in this category. An absolute lost cause if ever there was one.
Problem is, too many seem incapable, or at the very least refuse to employ, critical thinking.
Critical thinking skills, once absolutely necessary, have stopped being taught in schools, coincidentally with the rise of leftwing propaganda being taught as ‘fact’. I don’t think it’s a coincidence.
Worse, the teachers have lessons they call “critical thinking” that wind up being exercises in parroting authority. Worse: the teachers actually can’t tell the difference!
The Brandon DOJ sure can. They are continuing to arrest peaceful prolife protesters who pray and sing hymns outside of abortion clinics and charge them with felonies.
Look at MANY Democrat state governors who closed churches during the plandemic.
Look at the actions in Canada against churches, recently, after the damage was done, overturned by the courts.
AND the EU court overturning a criminal conviction of a woman why pissed on a Catholic alter while partially nude because it was a “free speech” issue but upholding speech only convictions of “anti Muslim” speech that had NO physical violations of laws.
Religious persecution is alive and well in the new world order, that is persecution of religions and the religious, not by religions.
I’m going to speculate that deep down inside, everyone wishes they could be a super hero. What better way to earn your ‘green badge of courage’ than to not just “Save the Whales,” but to save the Earth. Along comes someone who says things aren’t as bad as they seem. That translates to, “There isn’t much chance to save the world because it doesn’t need saving. Ergo, there isn’t any chance to be a super hero.” That is a real downer for someone whose only life is a fantasy.
The truth has to be told and the truth at is that CO2 is the gas of life .
This planet would have little life without CO2 at 300ppm + .
All plants need CO2 to grow and yes CO2 has warmed the world but the effect of CO2 is logarithmic and at 410 ppm very little if any more warming will be caused from future increases.
I have a brother who was a leading geothermal scientist and worked in most countries around the world investigating geothermal resources .
We have had many debates about global warming as he believes that CO2 is affecting the weather .
He is slowly coming round to see things from my perspective.
The last time I talked to him he said “Why are countries around the world not fast tracking Nuclear power plants” as he can now see that the world needs affordable energy which is a disappearing mirage as countries shut down coal and gas fired power plants and replace them with unreliable wind and solar .
If the alarmists really believed their own rhetoric, they would be going gung-ho for nuclear power. Even if the world was facing a “climate catastrophe” or whatever we’re calling it now, wind and solar would not be the right answer.
An argument I’ve put forward time and again.
If climate activists (with particular reference to XR and their pestiferous offshoots!) were genuinely concerned at the extent to which we used fossil fuels then they would be, as you say, gung-ho for nuclear.
The fact that they cannot end their love affair with superglue and all things plastic, not to mention the carbon footprint of their protests, is all the evidence you need that oil, CO2 and climate change are not what their agenda is all about.
They are inveterate liars and their behaviour is well described as “hypocrisy in stilts”!
Graham, I have seen how intelligent and well educated adult brothers can take opposite positions where sibling rivalry and not careful logic determines a response. Perhaps age and life experience will help lessen this.
For anyone interested in strategies to discuss difficult issues with people who may be heavily indoctrinated, Peter Boghossian’s book: How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide is a good resource.
Those are some decent arguments to use against alarmists, especially to try and maintain a civil conversation.
I’ve never really done much debating with anyone on this issue, save for some brief exchanges with commenters on blogs and news stories. I have a different tack that I base my arguments on, which include things like loss of freedom, destitution and all of the misery those things bring.
Basically if someone says they want to go net zero and sharply curtail or end fossil fuels, my response to them is basically I ask them if they want to starve and freeze to death!
Very simply and to the point, though sometimes I do throw in things like climate history (much warmer than today with much less CO2 and no human influence to be found).
IMO some people might be more receptive to being informed that they will lose most all of their “creature comforts” if this green expansion and fossil fuel contraction continues. For many, the prospect of not being able to heat their homes and put food on the table (or having to choose between those expenses) can really dampen the ardor of the most fervent followers of alarmism.
Yes it is good to continue to make the scientific arguments, but also it is helpful to show these green believers what will very likely become of them and their lifestyle if they continue to follow alarmist false prophets of environmental doom.
Unfortunately, these greenies will have to experience some deprivation in their comfortable lives before they are forced to think about the climate/energy issues, and others’ opinions.
There is nothing like life threatening issues-bushfires, floods, blackouts, lockdown depression etc, to stimulate reassessment of one’s life and what is causing problems so they can be sorted, for the common good.
Must people’s limited understanding of science and the scientific method, makes it hard for them to follow logical climate science discussions and understand the basic issues of climate variability and uncertainties, never mind the GCM- model inputs and predictions that are the basis for the unethical climate alarmism today.
We must keep plugging away with logic and compassion, to get a proper response from these people, and the general public who are sceptical about climate change but know none of the facts due to rampant media alarmism and appeals to authority such as the IPCC cult.
I am going to say that you are doing this the wrong way. You can not argue someone out of a firmly held emotional opinion. That is what these are.
Instead, you have to control the conversation by asking questions and always asking questions. There are several steps to this. First, you start by saying something like, I’m curious, what do you . . . ?
They may or may not answer the question. Regardless, you acknowledge what they say. “Hmmm, that’s interesting.” Or “That’s not what I understand.” Or even acknowledging something positive about what they said. Then you can say something in return but keep it really short and then finish with a question. If they didn’t answer the question, come back to the same question. Or slightly different. The point of the questions are to make them explain their position. You can even say something like, “I notice you are not answering my question, why is that?”
The only way you can get someone to reconsider their positions is by forcing them to explain their positions to someone who is polite but continues to ask difficult questions. If their positions can’t stand the light of day then they will often get angry and go away. But ideas have been planted and may ultimately make them reconsider.
It is a tricky strategy in this context. It would take practice to get good at it. But it is used quite successfully by the best sales people.
I thought of an example. To the issue of being in the pay of the oil and gas industry, you could answer like this.
It is interesting that you keep bringing that up. In my case, it’s not true but you probably aren’t going to believe that. But I am curious, even if I was being paid by them, how would that change the facts of my argument. Would that make my points wrong?
Again, this would need to be practiced and tested, but this would be the right approach.
Enjoyed reading your dialectic strategy in discussing this controversial issue with Climate Change True Believers, the idea of asking pertinent questions and staying in control, and keeping your cool.
Using a dialectic form as you suggest presents a constant underlying tension between conflicting ideas, forces or elements during the dispute, but the purpose of which is to discover the truth through discussion, the back and forth, in the respectful exchange of ideas.
Perhaps the ultimate objective of the discussion should also be pointed out to the other party at some point. Plus both parties should keep in mind that a resolution to the dialectic should create a psychological sense of relief and the reward of enlightenment once the tension is even partially resolved or after establishing the value of either side of the dispute in the participants’ minds.
When you introduce people to new information that contradicts their firm beliefs it triggers a cognitive dissonance response as they cannot reconcile the contradictions. Normal people can work through the issues where 2 opposites both seem to be true and adjust their beliefs. People who are true believers may simply avoid any further information that contradicts their beliefs, or just blindly go on believing whatever they like. It’s hard to get people out of a cult, AGW believers are no different.
“…you have to control the conversation by asking questions and always asking questions.”
Exactly, and I would reiterate that one’s goal is not to “win” but to sow doubt.
To sow doubt is a very useful first step and questions are often the easiest way to do this.
I remember something I read years ago, about doing evangelism. The claim was that it took something like 7 conversations about Jesus to bring a person to Christ, and when doing evangelism, you never know if you are the first or the seventh.
I think there is something similar in play here.
Socrates had something to say about questioning as a method of teaching. Ever hear of the Socratic Method?
One needs to stay on one and only one particular aspect of the debate. You will never get anywhere by allowing a “shotgunning” of issues where you bounce from topic to topic.
And then quit talking instead of browbeating someone that is not listening to your brilliance. You need to pay attention to verbal and nonverbal signals from the person you are trying to convince.
I like the question approach too.
Currently when wind is raised as a solution,
You do know don’t you that the energy in wind is related to the cube of the velocity? That is if you have half the optimum velocity you get an eighth of the electricity. The optimum wind speed for a wind turbine is around 28mph?
When an oil is bad argument is raised
“Can you name something in your life which wasn’t made from or using Fossil Fuel?”
We need clean energy
“You do know you can’t make anything FROM electricity only by USING it? You need minerals and oil/gas to make things”
“Name just one thing in your life not made from or using FF?”
Possibly too aggressive?
no, not aggressive at all. now, a bitch slap after each question…
The wind argument is too theoretical for my taste. Actual production numbers would carry more weight.
I would say it is too aggressive. When you ask a question like, “Name just one thing . . .” It feels like it is attacking. A better way is more roundabout. Something like, “I’m not sure I see how that would work, how would you replace all the things that we make from from fossil fuels, like . . .”
I learned long ago when I took a summer job selling encyclopedias that you never say “You are not making sense” rather you say, “I am not following you.” The difference is that in the first phrase you are placing the blame on the other person. In the second phrase you are accepting the blame. That doesn’t make the other person feel threatened and puts them more at ease. This is how you plant seeds, whether it is to sell encyclopedias (or vacuum cleaners) or change a mindset.
It can be a fun game too. As the saying goes, “if it can’t be grown, it has to be mined”.
if you know your minerals you can ask them to point to anything in the room or the are using and tell them what minerals are used to make it. Great fun with kids.
Global warming is an unfalsifiable theory – it cannot be proved or disproved in the mind of an individual within the timespan of a human life. It is something that one accepts only on the basis of faith in institutional authority, not on personal experience (“I learned as a child not to touch a hot stove when it burned me”).
It is just the same with religion and politics
Anytime they bring up some weather “disaster” as proof of global warming, point out the worse events have happened in the past, well before the big rise in CO2.
Mark, the point I’ve been arguing is that you can’t point something out to someone to change their opinions. I’ve learned that people are infinitely capable of rationalizing anything.
For example, when discussing bad hurricanes increase due to CO2 rise, you could ask something like, “Something I don’t understand, we’ve had bad hurricanes in the past when CO2 levels were lower but then we went through a long period (15 years or so) without a major hurricane just recently, even while CO2 levels were going up. Why would there be a long pause in hurricanes when the CO2 levels were rising dramatically?”
I totally agree that it is unfalsifiable. But that doesn’t mean that people can’t change their ideas. (People do change religions and politics).
The change isn’t going to come from telling them what they think is wrong (the equivalent of pushing them) but from leading them to a point where they realize that what they think is true maybe isn’t. That is why questions work so well. But it takes time.
I also wonder how they would react to certain facts such as XR, just stop oil, climate research and many climate activist ‘scientists’ being paid by ‘Big Oil’ Rockefeller and Getty money?
Or that Koch family money funds climate change research and EV battery development?
Indeed.
I warn anyone clicking on the link below to keep a bucket handy…
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/06/fossil-fuels-made-our-families-rich-now-we-want-this-industry-to-end
I would challenge them to prove that being reliant on government grants does not put pressure on scientists to produce the results that the politicians are paying for.
Good point, thank you ….
I was engaged in a conversation with an organic chemistry Phd candidate. The subject got to CAGW / CCC. About two sentences inti that part of the discussion, she put her hands together on the table and said that she would stick with the settled science. Being a nice guy, I didn’t burst out laughing, or try to argue with the budding young scientist. I just got up and walked away.
You can always tell a zealot, you just can’t tell them very much.
You might have replied that a true scientist would abhor the words “settled science”. Then follow with the quote of Feynman on the “ignorance of experts”.
Would she stick to the “settled science” in organic chemistry?
What’s the point of getting into the field if so?
Our quite recently elected Federal Labor government here in Australia has just brought down the Budget. Amongst the money being handed out is 10 million dollars to fund climate alarmists/protestors. They also intend to increase our already bloated government by 9,000 people. This of course amounts to green bureaucrats to reinforce the troops.
Even as countries in the Northern Hemisphere are withdrawing their support of wind and solar and exposing its failure, the fools running this country are doubling down on the push for renewables here. What hope do we have?
Let them hang themselves the public is waking up their echo chamber is not
Why would any government with even one sane minister spend 10 million dollars to fund people to lobby itself to do something it plans to do anyway because if it didn’t so plan it would hardly spend taxpayers’ money on lobbying ………….
Somebody needs to sit down and think this through.
Because they will need the brownshirts to suppress the proles when the serious protest against the lack of resources begin in earnest. They are just planning ahead.
It’s like the sue and settle strategy that the US EPA has been using.
They fund a group that then sues the government over an issue. The EPA then settles the suit and gets the court blessing on the settlement.
The result of the settlement is that the EPA has a court order requiring it to do something that it has always wanted to do, but couldn’t get congress to approve.
I suspect this is something similar. There is something the government wants to do, but they need more public pressure in order to convince the legislature to go along. So they start funding groups in order to create the image of a vast public outcry.
Mark you are absolutely correct. The ‘nearly’ $10 million is being split between two non government groups. The Environmental Defenders Office and Environmental Justice Australia. The latter have brought a case to the UN on behalf of children and teens claiming that the government (I assume the recently deposed government) inaction on Climate Change is a violation of their human rights.
The new leftist government is pushing hard for wind and solar and clearly the idea is to discredit the previous government and gain support from the UN and ‘the people’ through climate action groups.
Really, this is no different to the groups like Extinction Rebellion, BLM, Antifa etc that have different names globally but are all paid by the global elite. Essentially those who stand to part us all from our money through renewables.
Love your stuff
What I always do on LinkedIn and elsewhere is express pity for them, I point out that it’s not really their fault and there is help out there.
The extinction rebellion types truly have mental health issues and if it wasn’t this they would be waiting for the ufo to come take them away, or drinking koolaid in a Guyana compound.
They really do need help
Be like Jesus, help the sinner
Mr Bradley: I wish to thank you for your website and the latest idea to engage others in the debate.
What you said in the exchange with BS was amiable, accurate, and admirable in its politeness and restraint in dealing with a dogmatic, purblind, climate change alarmist jackass who not only only lost the argument but had no real argument to make.
You kept rejecting his fallacious reasoning and false premises. Your opponent might make Michael Mann proud, but likely for the rest of the world of independent and disinterested readers, he made them nauseous to the point of throwing up.
Many years ago I attended an after-dinner talk by Prof Hal Lewis (concerning anti-nuclear extremists). He said it is pointless to argue with extremists as they will never change their closed minds. You have to talk to the normal open-minded majority of people whio are unaware of the facts.
You have to remember too that for every person who comments there will be many who only red the comments and never contribute. One of those convinced by the facts, or encourage to question dogma is a good thing.
I avoid getting involved on LinkedIn as most of my potential leads come from the Woke
I do engage on other platforms using the same handle and I recently had a conversation with a colleague who is a true believer.
After showing a few charts from government sources, he was speechless and conceded I knew a lot more about the subject than he did. Hopefully, he’ll do some of his own research after I told him not to take my word for it.
Robert, next time some indoctrinated wormist is going to accuse you of making up the story about CO2 induced Earth greening, refer him/her to this https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth NASA’s website. And yes, NASA is fraudulently altering temperature graphs, by repeatedly cooling the past and warming the present to make it look like the temperature of Earth is rising in lockstep with Keeling curve, so it is a bit difficult today to trust NASA. This study was, however, conducted over some 35 years and it was a joint exercise between many experts from 24 institutions. The other argument you can use is the reconstruction of CO2 concentrations and temperatures over the last 600 million years found here https://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html. It completely demolishes the nonsense claim that CO2 is warming the atmosphere, and it makes total mockery of this Net Zero stupidity. CO2 was back then measured in thousands of parts per million, temperature was for most of the 600 million years at 25°C, yet the planet and more importantly the life survived, while today, they claim, if CO2 is going to increase, or God forbid double, we are all going to die? Pay attention especially to 450 million years ago, when it was an ice age lasting more than 100000 years, all the while CO2 was at 4000ppm! Brian Scott was even contradicting himself. He was quoting IPCC to back his arguments, then he said that extreme weather is getting worse because of Climate Change, yet the very IPCC he trusts so much admitted in one of their reports that there is no scientific evidence linking Climate Change to worsening weather. These are but a few of the facts one can use while debating the warmists, and I could go on for much longer but I do not want to stretch it too much.
Who was it that talked about ‘Cheap energy, children and machine guns‘
To all intents that’s what has now happened, children have been handed something very powerful and dangerous.
Except the ‘energy’ is now (what passes for news, information & science on) The Internet
And they really are children.
Because under the (literal) influence ## of drugs (sugar, booze, cannabis, trash TV) – almost all semblance of Adult Behaviour and Thinking has been switched off in well over 80% of The Entire Western World
One really rather not-so-slight problem is that the behaviour and thinking of ‘BS’ as described above, is now becoming normalised = the process of Homeostasis or maybe ‘Adaptation’
But step right back, step out of it (go T-total and quit eating sugar) and you will recognise and witness the behaviours and thinkings of drunks.
But you cannot can you?
You yourself are in the trap. (aka Addiction)
We know that from the routine celebration of ever rising yields of sugar, in the form of wheat, rice, corn etc etc
No. We really should celebrate rising yields of saturated fat and animal protein- but are those things even ‘on the scale’ any more?
## As recommended by Government, Doctors and Scientists.
Because and as Mencken said, Governments need Hobgoblins. And if you cannot continue making, or run out of, Real Scary Ones, make the people susceptible to crappy little ones.
Or simply trash the 2nd Law and the tell them how clever they are.
Tell them that clouds make you warm.
Tell them that an invisible gas in an inaccessible place operating on invisible energy “Controls The Weather” And if you cannot see it, you are stupid.
Or make the people into children, send them off to count faeries and play with Unicorns & hi-tech toys.
But even sugar and booze were losing their effect, hence why Cannabis needed to be legalised.
Geddit now? There be hobgoblins, inside each and every spliff.
And when homeostasis kicks in on that shyte, what next?
We really are in sooooo much shit here
This morning’s coffee took a few moments longer than normal to work….
What is the behaviour of XR and especially the ‘Glue Yourself To The Road’ muppets if not the behaviour of Little Children throwing a tantrum?
It gets even worse if you take that to what autistic children are prone to do – they throw what’s often called ‘A Meltdown’
i.e. They fall to the floor, sobbing and crying and every attempt to move or recover them is met with kicking and screaming.
Just like The Road Gluers do, and more oft than not, the gluers glean sympathy for their actions.
Note ‘sympathy’ and not Empathy.
But what would happen if you actually employed Empathy (honesty) and told them what I’ve just said?
Cue: Meltdown
(Recognise Trump Derangement Syndrome here?)
scary huh, The End is maybe closer than anyone thought..
That would be the idiot who started all this, Paul Ehrlich.
Is the Internet dangerous?
There is a story about a French abbe, who published the first dictionary of the French language. At a big dinner, a noble lady told him “What a feat! But you should not have included indecent words”. The abbe threatened with a finger: “Madame, you were looking for them!”
Peta – I regularly indulge in alcohol and, to a limited extent, sugar but be assured that it doesn’t stop me from seeing the falsity of the claims of the climate worriers…
One can have intelligent and interesting discussions with educated people on various subjects. However, with certain other subjects, these same people refuse to apply the same natural rules of discourse and logical analysis.
Why do they do this? Probably because their usual pattern of reasoning would lead them to unacceptable conclusions. Presenting these people with a carefully crafted argument, clear and concise and cogent, works on many topics but not on climate alarmism. Perhaps they do not want to or cannot afford to be honest.
How can we “trick” these people into rationally and quietly discussing climate and energy sources only for them to discover afterwards what it is all about?
MR. BARNARD: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
CUSTOMER: But it isn’t just saying, “no it isn’t.”
MR. BARNARD: Yes it is!
CUSTOMER: No it isn’t! [Audience Laughter.] Argument’s an intellectual process. Contradiction’s just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
MR. BARNARD: No it isn’t.
Same skit, different subject.
I have had many similar exchanges with Alarmists when I was allowed to comment on the Daily Telegraph. Their style of engagement is exactly the same, dismiss your position as the ranting of a ‘denier’ followed by their appeal to authority usually the IPCC or in more desperate cases the BBC and David Attenborough!?? Followed by the claim they are in the majority so therefor their opinion is clearly correct?
My opposition to the main stream media position on Climate Change has resulted in me being banned from commenting on the Daily Telegraph. They refuse to restore my subscription rights i.e. having a point of view and presenting it hoping others may find it of interest.
I would also say the days of the Climate Alarmists being in the self identified ‘majority’ are also long gone.
I had an interesting exchange yesterday with a wind turbine consultant in a cafe among friends. He came up with a reason to expand ‘renewables’ that I thought was true but bizarre.
He suggested we need lots more renewables (he is a consultant, remember) because it will reduce our gas usage which will enable gas to be around for longer as a back up…..You can’t argue with that. We did not get onto social costs of flawed energy policies a get together in a pub is needed for that level of discussion. 🙂
You should have pointed out to the consultant that more wind and solar do not actually reduce the amount of natural gas being used. Being unreliable (IE they can cut out on a moments notice) you have to keep natural gas power plants on warm, if not hot, standby. The more wind and solar you have, the more back up you need for when (not if) they cut out.
You can also point to the amount of energy needed to create two sources of power in the first place.
Well, Mark you are now into the social cost of flawed energy policies, as I say that requires a longer session and at least two pints in the pub.:)
No, you are refuting his claim that more wind power results in less natural gas being burned.
During my career as a trial lawyer I was required to attempt to convince a jury of the merits of my client’s case. Fortunately, more often than not I succeeded. However, as opposed to arguing climate science, the jury was forced to listen and consider the actual evidence as opposed to invalidated theories. When arguing climate science I simply reference peer reviewed literature and writings of well known physicists. Otherwise you are beating your head against the wall.
Such argumentation does no earthly good. It is like arguing politics or religion – nobody is ever convinced to change their mind by a contrary argument.
People can and do change their minds when forced to confront actual circumstances that clearly conflict with their beliefs. For instance, it is extremely easy to be a global warmunist when you are residing inside a comfortable home with controlled temperature and humidity, and when you have all the electrical energy to power all your devices, to do your laundry, to preserve your food, to clean the floors and do all the daily jobs around the home, and to heat the water for your bath or shower … and you can travel where and when you like with no restrictions … and you can afford to pay the bills for all of the above because the economy is not in the tank.
But if one is forced to start doing without some or all of those comforts of a fossil fueled life, then attitudes are guaranteed to change in a hurry.
Remember that the middle is reading too ….
Maybe they are waiting for the Climate Rapture were all the true CAWG will be the only ones that go to climate heaven?