Green Affected Climate Change: Who Are The Deniers Now?
|
16 November 2009
“When you point your finger at someone, three fingers are pointing back at you.” Anonymous
Finger pointing rarely includes facts, especially in the climate debate. The first finger said we were global warming skeptics, but was turned back when it was explained all scientists are skeptics.
The second finger claimed we were climate change deniers. It was turned back because the opposite is true; we’re telling the public about the extent and speed of natural climate change. As Copenhagen nears, it’s evident no agreement is possible so rhetoric, and alarmism abound. Finger pointing has a new form, being a denier is now a disease. They never consider the failure is due to facts proving the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis wrong. With the left it is always someone else’s fault.
Just the Facts
Extreme left journalist George Monbiot ignored all the facts I provided when he was pointing a finger at me. He’s ignoring them again, which forces him to assume the deniers are at fault. He wrote, “There is no point in denying it: we’re losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere that cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.”
The sphere is expanding for several reasons.
- All evidence rejects the hypothesis that human CO2 is causing warming or climate change.
- Facts are gradually getting to the public despite obstructionism by journalists like Monbiot.
- Temperature projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are consistently wrong.
- Record cold temperatures are occurring everywhere.
- Motives of those pushing the need for reduction in CO2 are being exposed.
- Economic costs of a completely unnecessary action are emerging.
If you shoot the messenger it changes the question to, “Who is the denier now?”
Denialism is defined as “the practice of creating the illusion of debate when there is none.” It’s a variation on “the science is settled” theme, but personalized to say you deny the facts that prove it’s settled. I experienced it this week and learned there’s no rational response. A person presented herself as a journalist writing an article on climate change. I don’t refuse interviews and assume the person is seeking balance. The article was about “denialism”, which the journalist claimed was a serious threat and I was a prime example. It evolved there was no balance, the journalist believed the science is settled and I was refusing to concede.
I explained how I am the antithesis of a denier. I explained how the scientific method was thwarted and the AGW hypothesis became fact before the research began. I was told this was clear evidence of my denial. As the chosen representative of denialism I wanted the facts and science I was supposedly denying. I asked what percentage CO2 was of greenhouse gases. The answer; “I ask the questions.” I ended the interview, an action that will probably appear as clear evidence of denial.
Leftist politicians are pointing the same fingers. Australian Prime Minister Rudd said in a recent speech, “climate-change skeptics, the climate-change deniers, the opponents of climate-change action are active in every country.”
He wrapped the charges in the standard environmentalist argument of the precautionary principle. Of the Australian opposition he said, “You are betting our jobs, our houses, our farms, our reefs, our economy and our future on an intuition on a gut feeling; on a political prejudice you have about science.”
It is the finger of guilt. What he denies is those impacts will occur if you implement his proposed climate-change action.
But who has the political prejudice?
Logic says it’s those who want to stifle debate, to silence individuals and groups. All I’ve ever sought is a full and open debate. It was what 59 fellow skeptics and I sought in a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister.
A new book with another twist accuses those trying to uncover the facts of a cover-up. I hesitate to give the book attention but as an example of the illogic, lies and nastiness in the climate change debate it must be exposed.
James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore’s form of the denialism charge is in their book titled, “Climate Cover-Up” subtitled, “The Crusade to Deny Global Warming.” They’ve likely achieved a new low with two major errors in the title. Nobody denies warming; the issue is the cause. The word “crusade” implies a religious quest, but the real crusade is to force acceptance of the hypothesis by personal attacks. Scientists as skeptics were subjected to an inquisition as befalls non-believers.
Disclosure; I’m a victim of their attacks and accusations. The false information about me leaves little doubt the rest is equally questionable. I was a threat from the beginning because I identified the hoax early in a peer-reviewed article, “An Iconoclast’s View of Climatic Change” in the 1992 Canadian Water Resources Journal. The editor published but with the bizarre condition he provide the title. When I saw his choice I agreed because, unknown to him I already realized I was challenging a religion. Hoggan and Littlemore falsely linked me to the oil and energy industry. They said my failure to follow through on a lawsuit to stop their false information was proof of guilt. Truth is I could not afford to continue the action. Besides, Hoggan was supporting the person who made the false accusations. The book smears by suggestion, implies guilt by association, and uses various forms of ad hominem attacks. They don’t discuss the scientific facts.
Hoggan and Littlemore are major players in the attacks and real cover-up. It is their expertise. Hoggan is a master of spin who owns a large Public Relations company. Littlemore is a political journalist. Hoggan set up a web page called Desmogblog and hired Littlemore and Kevin Grandia, to produce material replete with personal attacks, while ignoring the science.
Hoggan is Chair of the Board of the David Suzuki Foundation, a political environmental group that receives funding from oil and energy companies. With the twisted logic of true believers somehow this is not tainting and neither is money from government or any other agency. Hoggan’s clients include alternative energy companies, like Ballard Engineering, who benefit from showing CO2 is causing global warming or climate change, but somehow that is not a conflict. But none of that is important; the issue is the science and the facts, which they consistently ignore.
Knocked Out by the Facts
The final finger of denialism pointed so directly by Monbiot is, ironically, an eloquent description of his own position. The reason he writes, “There is no point in denying it: we’re losing” is because the fingers have curled into a fist and it is aimed right back at him and the other real deniers. As James Howell (1594 – 1666) said, “Burn not thy fingers to snuff another man’s candle.”
Comments
www.twawki.wordpress.com
It all comes down to a question of feedback. Is the feedback from CO2 warming large and positive? Or is it only slightly positive or even negative? All the models used by the IPCC say it's warm and positive, yet the actually numbers from the ERBE/Ceres satellite systems say it's negative.
The science was never settled, but the warmists were trying to settle the politics by claiming it was.
At this stage it is much less about science than about continued poverty reduction and preserving our freedoms.
And like you, a political split is obvious, with those on the left almost all true believers and the rest very varied but accused of being right wing ideologues, holocaust deniers, flat earthers etc if they speak out against the orthodoxy. It is all very unscientific, irrational and the antithesis of free speach people like our PM claim to value. I must confess I don't fully understand why the APG crowd in politics don't welcome reality when it means we can save hundreds of billions otherwise wasted in CO2 abatement and go on burning cheap coal to run the modern world.
There are many more parallels, but these few are enough to tell you your opponents are not unique, but typical of strange mindset that makes so many people in the western world readily accept guilt for crimes against humanity and the planet they have not committed. Most of them have rejected the priests of old who peddled guilt and fear to secure control and money, only to embrace greenies using the same tactics for the same reason. All very odd and I don't claim to understand precisely what's going on, except that it is irrational, untrue and needs to be fought as you are so capably doing - so keep up the good work.
Best regards,
Doug Hurst
Doug Hurst
Data sources, an eye-opening graph that overlays the measured and calculated temperatures from 1880 to 2008 and a detailed description of the method are in a new paper at climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true .
This research shows that there is no significant Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) (and therefore no human caused climate change) from added atmospheric carbon dioxide or any other added greenhouse gas.
desoggybog.com/
claiming it was “gibberish”. They really go berserk when you bring up the fact that for over a decade now, global temperatures have trended down while Co2 rises. They post links to “smoke and mirror” sites. I believe they‘ve been conditioned into thinking in one way for so long that they have been blinded to the facts. They resort to computer model manipulation to justify their beliefs. Brainwashing has overridden the ability for logical, fact base reasoning. It’s hard to argue a point when the person you are debating refuses to recognize facts. Gore’s propaganda machine proves this as the hysteria has infiltrated our everyday life in all forms of media, even TV and radio commercials. It will be interesting to watch as the man-made global warming scheme falls apart when the lies and miss-information are realized by the majority of the American public.
Please stop assuming that all leftist are climate alarmists, or that the belief in CO2 or AGW is a leftist trait!
It is not so. I certainly have nothing in common politically with "the right wing" but in the climate debate I am as strongly opposed to the AGW claims as many from the right.
This is not about political left or right. It is about honesty, science vs deceit, and doing the right things.
So, please stop pointing fingers at the left. No responsible leftist wants to be identified with the CO2-alarmists.
Thanks.
That is certainly true. I am a moderate myself and have been strongly against the AGW theory for some time now. However, it is hard to ignore the fact that most Warmists are Leftists. There are probably Right Wingers who are Global Warming Alarmists but it is less common.
RSS feed for comments to this post