Thinking back to a week ago, I featured an opinion piece by Tom Harris (it was published in multiple papers) which discussed the use of “duckspeak” by members of the Cult of Climastrology. Warmist Jason McClean attempts to rebut Harris by diving into typical Warmist talking points
No, climate change believers aren’t using “duckspeakâ€
Can a newspaper chain jump the shark?
This past Friday, Canada’s Postmedia published a column in its Toronto Sun by climate change denier Tom Harris. Not a surprise in itself, since Harris, the voice for International Climate Science Coalition, gets featured in the Sun dailies from time to time, but notable all the same for its extra-sad and slightly ridiculous attempt to keep flagging interest in a debate that lost all remnants of reasonable traction years ago.
That’s duckspeak for “the debate is over” and “the science is settled”.
Harris writes of “duckspeak,†that phrase from George Orwell’s 1984 used to represent a person’s mindless repeating back of the terms and logic of a given ideology. Here is Winston Smith in observation of a man chatting at the table next to him, unquestioningly caught up in Big Brother’s totalitarian dogma: “The stuff that was coming out of him consisted of words, but it was not speech in the true sense: it was a noise uttered in unconsciousness, like the quacking of a duck…â€
Harris accuses Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of duckspeak when the latter states that “climate change is real†and United States President Barack Obama of the same for calling greenhouse gases “carbon pollution.†(snip)
Who in this day and age doesn’t understand that carbon pollution refers to carbon dioxide?
So, in other words, Harris is completely correct in noting “carbon pollution” is duckspeak. If you’re discussing Science, one needs to be specific. “Carbon pollution” is a political term. CO2 is neither carbon nor a pollutant.
Harris then says that the phrase “97 per cent of experts agree†effectively kills debate through its definitiveness and furthermore commits the logical fallacy of appealing to authority and consensus.
More silliness. An appeal to authority is only faulty if the experts in question are not to be trusted. “I don’t need bypass surgery because my mechanic told me so,†is an improper appeal to authority, but who doesn’t listen when almost every scientist on the planet says that climate change is real and human-caused?
“I don’t need to be taxed out the wahoo and have my freedom limited to solve climate change because politicians told me so.” If the authorities cannot be trusted, and the science and data cannot be trusted, and the 97% assertion is a lie, well, yeah, it is a faulty appeal.
Like everyone else, publishers want to look cool. And so they give space to contrarian viewpoints not just to show two sides of a story but to align themselves with the outsider, with the one who can tell us the real truth hidden by the mainstream viewpoint -the one with the straight goods instead of the duckspeak.
Looks like McClean is trotting out the trope of disallowing Wrongspeak. Warmists love trotting out their fascistic tendencies to shut down opposing voices. End paragraph
And we get it. Being a rebel is cool. Fonzie’s leather jacket was cool. But paired up with a set of waterskis and towed behind a boat? Well, we almost want to look the other way.
Oh, you were expecting more rebuttal from McClean in order to kill the duckspeak idea? Yeah, me too. But, as usual, you just have to trust that Warmists know better, and just assume that it is wrong.
Yes, if I wanted to give examples to support the points in my duckspeak article, the piece by Jason McClean would be ideal.
Since the end of the last ice age, when Canada was under a mile of ice, there was dramatic, natural warming that resulted in todays climate. This post ice age warming stalled about 10,000 years ago with resulting temperatures lower than pervious interglacials. Since then temperatures have been both slightly warmer and cooler than they are today.
During the Medieval warm period, about 1,000 years ago, it was warmer than it is today. About 400 years ago there was a cooling off called the Little Ice Age. Since then it has warmed back up. Nothing unnatural, dramatic, or worrying. For at least the past 18 years when CO2 levels have been rising there has been NO measurable temperature increase.
Outside computer models, and some peoples vivid imaginations scientifically measurable runaway global warming does not exist, is not caused by CO2, and therefore can’t be causing “bad†climate change.
If these facts upset you, you have a problem.
Well said! Thanks.