Awesome: The Climate Change Deniers Have Won

Paul Homewood asks “What is it, precisely, that we are supposed to be denying?” Good question, because Warmists seem to be denying their own beliefs, since they rarely ever go beyond token measures, like changing one lightbulb to a CFL, in their own lives. Here’s the UK Guardian. I’m going to snag the picture from Paul at Not A Lot Of People Know that, click it for the story

I find the accompanying photo and caption interesting. What, exactly, does that have to do with “climate change”? While I personally find it despicable, from an environmental POV, that the Amazon is being clearcut, where is the link to “climate change”? Anyhow

All of which is a long way of saying that the global warming deniers have won. And please, can I have no emails from bed-wetting kidults blubbing that you can’t call us “global warming deniers ” because “denier” makes us sound like “Holocaust deniers”, and that means you are comparing us to Nazis? The evidence for man-made global warming is as final as the evidence of Auschwitz. No other word will do.

Strange, because Warmists cannot provide said evidence. All they can provide is a nebulous casual link, along with lots of deeply scientific words like “may”, “might”, and “could”. And lots of scary stories about things in the future. AGW is about as scientific as saying that all waves are manmade because boats cause waves.

Climate change deniers are as committed. Their denial fits perfectly with their support for free market economics, opposition to state intervention and hatred of all those latte-slurping, quinoa-munching liberals, with their arrogant manners and dainty hybrid cars, who presume to tell honest men and women how to live. If they admitted they were wrong on climate change, they might have to admit that they were wrong on everything else and their whole political identity would unravel.

To answer Paul’s question, we deny that changes in the weather and climate are caused mostly/solely by Mankind. We deny the politicized “science” being performed in order to push a Progressive agenda of higher taxes and more central government control of citizens and private entities. We deny that data should be changed to fit a preconceived notion. We deny science being used in a fashion reminiscent of a carnival fortune teller. And we deny the notion that we should be forced to change our lives by Government when Warmists will not voluntarily do the same for their own beliefs.

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

19 Responses to “Awesome: The Climate Change Deniers Have Won”

  1. Jeffery says:

    ‘Climate change deniers are as committed. Their denial fits perfectly with their support for free market economics, opposition to state intervention and hatred of all those latte-slurping, quinoa-munching liberals, with their arrogant manners and dainty hybrid cars, who presume to tell honest men and women how to live. If they admitted they were wrong on climate change, they might have to admit that they were wrong on everything else and their whole political identity would unravel.’

    Published psychology studies link climate change denialism with libertarian political beliefs and conspiracy ideation. We’ve had this conversation before here. The objections of deniers are not scientific but ideological. Why not just admit that part and argue that you believe recommended changes would be too onerous? At least that would be honest.

    Related – If you ignore and mischaracterize data and evidence regarding climate change for political gain, why wouldn’t you lie about tax policy, employment and debt?

  2. gitarcarver says:

    Jeffery,

    Related – If you ignore and mischaracterize data and evidence regarding climate change for political gain, why wouldn’t you lie about tax policy, employment and debt?

    At least you are aware of your own actions. However, it does not matter as to the gain. So your statement as it applies to you is:

    If you ignore and mischaracterize data and evidence regarding climate change, why wouldn’t you lie about tax policy, employment and debt?

    So now that you have identified your problem with your statements and actions, what are you going to do about it?

    Project it on others?

    Ignore it?

    (And don’t bother answering because the questions are rhetorical. We all know the answers from you.)

    Oh, and by the way, Al Gore and you are still hypocrites in the AGW debate and your unwillingness of you, Gore and people of your ilk to change your lifestyle shows that your talk about AGW is bluster and that you don’t actually believe what you type.

    Actions speak louder than words Jeffery.

  3. Jeffery says:

    Forgot to add: You’ve won the political/ideological argument! You’ve won the hearts and minds argument! Conservatives have long been much smarter than libs at messaging.

    When our grandchildren and great-grandchildren look back at what happened they’ll be able thank conservatives for protecting them from the power hungry scientists.

  4. Trish Mac says:

    That was me, I clearcut the Amazon.
    No, wait. I have actually given donations (in the past before they became radicalized) to organizations who try to prevent clearcutting in the Amazon.
    Nope, it wasn’t me.
    I agree completely with Teach “To answer Paul’s question, we deny that changes in the weather and climate are caused mostly/solely by Mankind.”

  5. John says:

    Teach do you think the planet is getting warmer? If so why do you think the planet is getting warmer?
    Teach the US Navy says that the planet is getting hotter and that the main cause is AGW. Do you think you have a better grasp of science than the US Navy? Do you consider them to be dupes and stooges of the warmists?
    Huge numbers (50) of coal plants are due to be closed on the near future because they are at the end of their service life. With what do you believe they should be replaced?
    Renewables? Fossils? Nukes?

  6. gitarcarver says:

    When our grandchildren and great-grandchildren look back at what happened they’ll be able thank conservatives for protecting them from the power hungry scientists.

    Actually, it is power hungry politicians and liberals that are the threat – not scientists, but you knew that.

    It is those politicians and liberals who don’t want to listen to scientists and refuse to look at data. Like the ilinformed people you want them to be, they go with what is “trendy” rather than what is factual.

    Oh, and by the way, Al Gore and you are still hypocrites in the AGW debate and your unwillingness of you, Gore and people of your ilk to change your lifestyle shows that your talk about AGW is bluster and that you don’t actually believe what you type.

    Actions speak louder than words Jeffery.

  7. gitarcarver says:

    john, john, john…. where did the US education system fail you so badly?

    Teach the US Navy says that the planet is getting hotter and that the main cause is AGW.

    We have gone over and over this john. Your statement is a lie. No amount of repeating your lie will ever make it true.

    Huge numbers (50) of coal plants are due to be closed on the near future because they are at the end of their service life.

    Coal plants are due to be closed because of the EPA, john. It is not their “service life,” but the fact that the EPA keeps shifting regulations without oversight to the point where it is clear the objective is to shut down plants no matter what.

    Why is it that Al Gore is always mentioned and the US Navy is never criticized ?

    Because Al Gore is a liar and the Navy is a branch of the military. Al Gore wants to tell you what you should do while he does something else. The Navy defends your freedom – the very freedom you use to expose your illiterate and illogical thinking.

  8. Teach do you think the planet is getting warmer? If so why do you think the planet is getting warmer?

    I’ve answered that again and again. Please pay attention.

    As for replacing coal plants, GC covered this well. We can also replace aging ones with update, cleaner plants, as well as natural gas, hydrothermal, geothermal, and nuclear.

  9. Hostgator says:

    If however, you have upwards of one-hundred pages and the pages are
    heavily laden with content and pictures you may want to
    opt for shared hosting which is going to cost you somewhere in the area of $10.
    There aren’t a great deal of companies putting their funds in which their mouth is, but this business genuinely
    believes in their item. If you do Google you would discover numerous website
    that are offering their discount codes but the matter of fact
    is that these companies do differ in the quality of service.

  10. philmon says:

    Do you think the planet is getting warmer?

    I dunno … seems to fluctuate a lot, actually.

  11. DC says:

    What blows my mind is that any 12 year old with a computer can do a simple search on Google or Bing and find that about every 950,000 years or so, the climate spikes in temperature. Evidence backed up by ice and soil samples/cores taken across the globe. So why the endless temper tantrum and stomping of feet demanding that us rationals conform to their stupidity ? In my long experience on this Earth, the pattern always repeats itself. In order to rake in cash, a cause must be presented and made believable to the mindless, the lazy, the masses. Works like a charm every time. So much money to be collected from the mindless masses in carbon taxes. It’s a campaign from the top down. From those who would benefit from it down to those who would pay for it. Poor rubes don’t have a clue how badly government is planning on raping them.

  12. Jeffery says:

    “To answer Paul’s question, we deny that changes in the weather and climate are caused mostly/solely by Mankind.”

    To what physical mechanism do you attribute the current warming of the Earth?

    Climate scientists attribute the current warming to the well-understood (for at least a century) physics of the interaction of infrared radiation with greenhouse gases. There is no evidence to refute their conclusion.

    What evidence will “prove” to you that the current warming is man-made?

  13. Hill says:

    What current warming? You mean before the current 15 year pause?

  14. Hill says:

    Oh, wait. I got it now, you are talking about climate change, which came after global warming, which came after global cooling. The track record of predictions is a complete joke. After all, global cooling was man made, the planet was cooling, and everyone was going to die (look it up, big in the 60’s and 70’s).

    I predict global cooling will be the new doomsday scenario in about two years, you know, after it hasn’t gotten warmer for the next twenty years.

    Oh, a reply to Jeffrey’s question:
    What evidence will “prove” to you that the current warming is man-made?

    How about some that hasn’t been altered, faked and just made up? Climategate emails showed how they do it.

  15. gitarcarver says:

    To what physical mechanism do you attribute the current warming of the Earth?

    Here we go again. You keep asking this because you won’t accept the answers that people give you. Your repeated asking of this question doesn’t mean anything other than you refuse to accept other ideas, date and conclusions that are contrary to yours.

    Climate scientists attribute the current warming to the well-understood (for at least a century) physics of the interaction of infrared radiation with greenhouse gases.

    This is a generalized statement that is simply not true. All climate scientists do not attribute the earth’s cycle of warming and cooling to CO2 as you postulate.

    Tell us Jeffery, to what do you attribute the warming and cooling cycles of the past before the last 100 years or so?

    What evidence will “prove” to you that the current warming is man-made?

    Being that you have yet to prove your hypothesis, it is not up to anyone to disprove a negative. But being that data has been lost, changed, manipulated, and distorted, you are going to have a tough time living up to or participate in an honest discussion.

    Oh, and by the way, Al Gore and you are still hypocrites in the AGW debate and your unwillingness of you, Gore and people of your ilk to change your lifestyle shows that your talk about AGW is bluster and that you don’t actually believe what you type.

    Actions speak louder than words Jeffery.

  16. Jeffery says:

    Hill,

    Your initial statement is incorrect. The Earth’s surface and oceans have clearly been warming – yes, even for the past 17.5 years.

    In your second comment, your suggestion that there was considerable scientific support for “global cooling” in the 60s and 70s is incorrect.

    Your suggestion that “climate change” was devised to supplant “global warming” is incorrect. Note that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in 1988.

    Your statement that in 2 years climate realists will be touting global cooling as a doomsday scenario is unlikely and borders on the silly, since the Earth is not cooling, even for the past 17.5 years. I predict that next year and the next one after that will be in the top 5 warmest years recorded.

    Do you have any evidence to support your claims of altered, faked or made-up climate data?

    Other than the points above where you whiffed, many of the verbs and prepositions you used were correct.

  17. gitarcarver says:

    In your second comment, your suggestion that there was considerable scientific support for “global cooling” in the 60s and 70s is incorrect.

    Nope.

    Your suggestion that “climate change” was devised to supplant “global warming” is incorrect. Note that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in 1988.

    Wrong again. The IPCC reports mentioned “global warming.” It was not until the data and predicted results didn’t match up that the term was changed. From NASA:

    But global warming became the dominant popular term in June 1988, when NASA scientist James E. Hansen had testified to Congress about climate, specifically referring to global warming. He said: “global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming.”4 Hansen’s testimony was very widely reported in popular and business media, and after that popular use of the term global warming exploded.

    Furthermore, the term “global warming” has been around since 1975. It doesn’t matter what the IPCC called itself 13 years later. The term was used, accepted and part of the lexicon.

    Do you have any evidence to support your claims of altered, faked or made-up climate data?

    You mean like this?

    http://www.collective-evolution.com/2010/01/25/ipcc-scientist-finally-admits-fake-climate-data-was-used/

    Or the claim that 95% of climate scientists believe in AGW?

    Other than the points above where you whiffed, many of the verbs and prepositions you used were correct.

    Yet without anything other than your statement of “you are wrong,” Hill’s statements stand much more than yours do, Jeffery.

    While you claim Hill “whiffed,” you never made it out of the dugout and up to the plate.

    Oh, and by the way, Al Gore and you are still hypocrites in the AGW debate and your unwillingness of you, Gore and people of your ilk to change your lifestyle shows that your talk about AGW is bluster and that you don’t actually believe what you type.

    Actions speak louder than words Jeffery.

  18. Let’s also not forget how many of the studies used in IPCC reports were faked, based on limited data, came from “environmental” groups without review, etc.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9968 access attempts in the last 7 days.