“The 4 Species of Climate-Change Denial”

Some late morning amusement from another Warmist, Forbes’ Todd Essig

The 4 Species of Climate-Change Denial: Lessons From Comparing Republican Decision-Making Cowardice To Angelina Jolie

Starts out with name calling. Check

But before describing what I saw I want to be clear about something; there is a strong consensus among climate scientists about human-caused climate change. That is fact, not opinion. Furthermore, the fact is that events like Hurricane Sandy and the Moore tornado are more likely and likely more severe, and will be increasingly so. And finally, the fact is that facts don’t change minds.

That “97%” consensus “study” has already been beaten like a rented mule. Consensus is not science, and the study is based exactly on opinion, in other words, of the roughly 32% of the papers which took an opinion, 97% mentioned anthropogenic causation. Hell, my stuff, were they papers, would be in that category, as I believe Man plays a small role, mostly through agriculture, landfills (global) and through the land use/urban heat island effect.

The tornado meme has been beaten up, too. And calling it climate change shows a predilection for politics, not science. Anyhow

1. Lost in the scientific weeds

They grab a fact, a factoid, or an isolated data point consistent with their group identity and then categorically assert that this scientifically proves—it absolutely proves!—that human-caused climate is the greatest hoax ever perpetuated. They ignore all those pesky peer reviews and concerns with methodological rigor. They know best. I mean, really, why bother with the actual science with which you,  your group, and your political leaders disagree?

That’s funny, because it is the Warmist side which has taken to saying that cold, snow, ice, no spring in Europe, etc, are caused by too much warming. Oh, and that the warming is hiding in the deep oceans.

2. Trashing scientists

They move up a level of abstraction. Instead of trashing the science they trash the community of scientists. Consensus is irrelevant because scientists are weak, craven, and dishonest. For them, scientists are just a bunch of liars and cheats who will say anything to get a grant. This group cites evidence of scientific wrongdoing that never happened and ignores the results of any contrary investigation.

Oh, we trash the “science”, but this is interesting considering Essig started out with the “denier” crap. Warmists constanly start out by saying anyone who doesn’t agree with their notions are in the pay of Big Oil and Big Coal, and want to kill granny and kids and all life…you know the hit parade.

3. Backwards policy prescriptions

This species requires both significant imagination and a radical suspension of logic. They start by pointing to dire, horrific, civilization altering consequences of policies that take climate-change seriously. And then, with a startling display of illogic, turn around to say that because the policy is unacceptable all this talk about climate-change must be nothing more than total crap.

Huh what? Warmists are the ones calling for doom and gloom somewhere in the far future when their pronouncements will not be remembered.

4. Name calling

Don’t mean to shock you but there are people who think name calling moves things forward. Among other things, I was accused of huffing glue and of being a pagan believer in “ecotheism.” Let me assure you that neither is true. The former would unacceptably interfere with running and biking while the latter implies a religious commitment beyond the grasp of my secular soul.

Says the guy, again, who started out by calling us deniers.

He ends thusly

The only question is on the basis of what will you act: cowardly leadership or scientific consensus? Just like Jolie had to make choices based on probabilities so too do our policy makers. It remains to be seen whether they will have the courage to make data-based decisions or continue hiding in the cowardice of science-denial. And as the leaders go, so too will many followers.

Right. So politics, not science.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to ““The 4 Species of Climate-Change Denial””

  1. john says:

    The US Navy. Teach what you are saying is that when it comes to science YOU are smarter than the US Navy.

  2. gitarcarver says:

    The US Navy may believe in climate change john, which is not the same thing as man made climate change.

    We keep pointing that out to you and you keep ignoring it.

  3. david7134 says:

    I have no problem describing myself as smarter than the US Navy, or the Army or basically any group you wish to name. This defines what your problem is, you can not understand critical analysis and critical thinking. Start with this, people are using the term “believe” to describe those that accept (a better term) AGW. Scientist do not “believe”, they analyse data and accept a point. In this case, we have no data. There has not been any reference that I can find to data points from which you can make your own analysis. I have found this to be extremely important as I have to read a number of medical articles. If the data is not there, then you are generally certain that someone is lying. People, expecially scientist, will do this without problem for whatever reason. A good example in the medical world is cholesterol. Most doctors think that it is associated with disease, but it is not. The same is happening with AGW. I really don’t care if the weather is changing. I know that the world will do that. But my problem is that I don’t want the government taxing me for stupid reasons. Or using carbon units to control me or other nations. That will not happen.

  4. Gumballs_of_DOOM says:

    FU! Todd Essig

    To proudly proclaim that man is in any way involved in the production of the F5 tornado that killed 7 kids in one elementary school and 24 people overall, plus 2 more the night before, and then to proclaim it as a political attack on a group of people…?!??!

    FU Todd. FU!!

    Go back to the cave you crawled out of.

    F5 tornados have occurred, have always occurred, and will occur in the future. They are rare and dangerous events. Just like hurricanes.

    Can we blame global warming on the decrease in >F3 tornados? Can we blame global warming on the lack of major hurricanes? I say we blame global warming on the slow start to spring. I say we blame global warming on the waning phases of the moon. Heck, I bet there is a way that man could be responsible for the global warming on Jupiter.

  5. mojo says:

    The take-away:

    More climate scientists need to have radical boob jobs.

  6. klem says:

    Many people do not understand that there is a difference between terragenic climate change and anthropogenic climate change. The UN IPCC intentionally uses the terms interchangeably, all climate change is merely assumed to be anthropogenic. Part of the reason the IPCC has no credibility anymore.


  7. Gumballs_of_DOOM says:

    … and the IPCC is unable to distinguish the function and purpose of the Greenhouse Effect.

    It also is incapable of recognizing that its tarot card reading of the past has turned out completely false and mathematically wrong. And despite mountainous evidence to the contrary, they still insist the world as a whole is warming up at calculable rates of hundredths of degrees.

  8. klem says:

    “they still insist the world as a whole is warming up at calculable rates of hundredths of degrees.”

    Exactly and ever notice that temperature records using voodoo proxies, such as tree rings and swamp gas, are believed to be accurate down to the tenth of a degree? If you want to test their accuracy using modern tree rings, for some convenient reason tree rings younger than 1960 are not considered reliable. And the IPCC finds this all just fine and completely acceptable. Wow.

    How is it greenies don’t smell a rat in all this?

Pirate's Cove