One of the things I adore when it comes to the “climate change” debate is that Warmists are always coming up with new ways to amuse me. Sure, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives (you can add in Marxists, Socialists, and authoritarians in, too) can be maddening, and Warmists are primarily made up of those people, but their unhinged pronouncements bring the frivolity on a constant basis. Oh, look, here’s Excitable Joe Romm, a paid flack who pushes “climate change” (let’s be clear, “climate change” means man induced Bad Weather per the Warmists) at far far left George Soros’ Climate Progress
Breaking Bad: Matt Ridley Exits Wall Street Journal Column As A Climate Science Denier Of the Third Kind
Hmm, Joe mixes up a few different entertainment shows. First he goes for the show about meth, Breaking Bad, then Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind (has anyone ever considered that the aliens are actually jerks? They kidnap a whole bunch of humans, some for decades, and a child during the movie. And during the timeframe of the movie they are screwing with people’s head’s, one of whom, being Richard Dreyfuss’ character, sees his family abandon him him along with losing his job because of the mental screwing)
A climate science denier of the first kind simply denies basic climate science, that, say the Earth is warming or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Given that both of those are basically “settled facts,†according to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, we tend to see fewer and fewer of the CSD1s, in part because the media doesn’t take them terribly seriously. Only very famous CSD1s, like Sen. Jim Inhofe, get much press these days.
I will note, as I have many times, that I will argue with anyone who states that the world hasn’t warmed since the 1850’s. As far as CO2 goes, first, it follows temperature increases, not precedes it. Second, if it is so bad, why are Warmists some of the worst “carbon offenders”?
Climate science deniers of the second kind say that they accept basic climate science — so they aren’t ignored by the media — but then just assert that it isn’t going to be a big deal. They usually latch on to some tiny subset of the recent literature to make this argument. You have to cherry pick your science very carefully to be a CSD2 since as 2010 research presented at the AAAS presentation “concluded“: New scientific findings since the 2007 IPCC report are found to be more than twenty times as likely to indicate that global climate disruption is “worse than previously expected,†rather than “not as bad as previously expected.†And, of course, you have to ignore the fact that if the world actually keeps listening to CSD2s and taking no serious action to reduce carbon pollution, then worst-case scenarios are all but unavoidable (see here). I would call Bjorn Lomborg the prototypical CSD2, except that he changes his position so often it’s hard to know what he really believes now.
To be clear, these are people who accept that Mankind is responsible for at least 50% of the warming since the Little Ice Age ended, but aren’t concerned about the effects and don’t think we should spend oodles of money while reducing people’s freedom, and should not be giving government more and more dictatorial powers.
A climate science denier of the third kind is the rarest of all. A CSD3 says that they accept basic climate science but then starts making arguments that effectively deny that science. Indeed a CSD3 who is rhetorically clever often says he or she used to believe in climate science, but then supposedly looked into the matter closely and was shocked, shocked to learn that they had been misled. The late Michael Crichton comes to mind.
Actually, this type isn’t rare at all: most of us are part of the 3rd kind. We understand basic climate science and see that those who believe that Mankind is mostly or solely responsible for creating the Modern Warm Period (or starting with whatever year is convenient for their argument) are full of bat guano. We use their own data against them. We understand that computer models are not real world data. We understand that Warmists continuously have to change the data and their arguments in order to keep their cult going.
The rest of the article is simply personal smears aimed at Matt Ridley, which I shall not repeat. But what of Climate Deniers Of The Fourth Kind? What would they be? Joe doesn’t say, so I’ll offer up…
Climate Science Deniers of the Fourth Kind are the penultimate worst kinds. These are people who buy into every pronouncement regarding Mankinds horrendous and evil role in making the Earth hotcoldwetdry. They believe that too much warmth causes it to get cold and snowy. They believe that the release of a trace greenhouse gas necessary for life causes earthquakes, volcanoes, Bad Weather, and virtually everything that happens. They smooth, normalize, spin, and falsify data in order to fit their preconceived notions, the very opposite of science. Their models fail in the real world but always give the answer the CDS4 folks want. The fail to follow the scientific model.
Their solutions revolve around more and more taxation and more and more Big Government, which creates more and more fascistic controls on people and economies. They mostly refuse to release their raw data, and when they do, the data fails. And they themselves refuse to practice what they preach. Yet they want everyone else to get the government “anal probes”, ie, higher taxes and control of their lives, such as what they can drive, what fuels they can use, what foods they can eat, what they must do with their homes and businesses to be “green”. Warmists always think the anal probes are for Someone else.
They’re also virulent racists and bigots, as they do not want people in the Third World to have the same benefits of modern lifestyle like Warmists themselves live.
Read: We’re Apparently All Deniers Of The Third Kind Now »
(
