The twisted mind of the global warming denier
By Michael J.W. Stickings
As I mentioned yesterday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has issued a new report it which it details the bleak consequences of global warming. From the L.A. Times:
And yet the report didn't go as far as it could have (and should have). This was because, as The Washington Post is reporting, "U.S. negotiators managed to eliminate language in one section that called for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. was backed up by China, which doesn't seem to accept that "temperature increases" are affecting "natural systems," at least not with "very high confidence," despite all the evidence, both scientific and anecdotal.
Regardless of the extent to which the U.S. and China are deniers of global warming, they are certainly enablers of it. They are both a big part of the problem and a big part of not doing anything about the problem.
**********
Two separate reports provide a glimpse into the twisted mind of the global warming denier:
1) According to the AP, a "reliable" hurricane forecaster, William Gray, has called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" with respect to global warming: "He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about." Of course, Gore is fully backed up not only by the evidence but by astonishing scientific consensus on the leading causes of global warming and its likely consequences. As for Gray, he "has long railed against the theory that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm". In other words, he is a global warming denier. He may or may not have been a relatively successful hurricane forecaster, but what possible credibility does he bring to his criticism of Gore, or to his views on global warming generally? And why is the AP giving him a platform from which to spew his discredited views?
2) At Instapundit, popular right-wing blogger Glenn Reynolds displays the sort of gross ignorance and irresponsibility common among the more moronic deniers of global warming. He implies that global warming isn't a problem, or perhaps not even a reality, because it's so cold and snowy in Cincinnati in April. He may just wish it were warmer -- I certainly wish it were warmer in Toronto at the moment -- but making light of global warming, or even turning into a big joke (or calling it a hoax), is how many on the right have responded to the scientific consensus. Billions of people and countless species are at risk, but personal perception of unseasonal coldness is all the "evidence" they need.
And, as always, the genocidal global warming denying crowd will lap it all up.
As I mentioned yesterday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has issued a new report it which it details the bleak consequences of global warming. From the L.A. Times:
A new global warming report issued today by the United Nations paints a near-apocalyptic vision of the Earth's future if temperatures continue to rise unabated: more than a billion people in desperate need of water, extreme food shortages in Africa and elsewhere, a blighted landscape ravaged by fires and floods, and millions of species sentenced to extinction.
And yet the report didn't go as far as it could have (and should have). This was because, as The Washington Post is reporting, "U.S. negotiators managed to eliminate language in one section that called for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. was backed up by China, which doesn't seem to accept that "temperature increases" are affecting "natural systems," at least not with "very high confidence," despite all the evidence, both scientific and anecdotal.
Regardless of the extent to which the U.S. and China are deniers of global warming, they are certainly enablers of it. They are both a big part of the problem and a big part of not doing anything about the problem.
**********
Two separate reports provide a glimpse into the twisted mind of the global warming denier:
1) According to the AP, a "reliable" hurricane forecaster, William Gray, has called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" with respect to global warming: "He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about." Of course, Gore is fully backed up not only by the evidence but by astonishing scientific consensus on the leading causes of global warming and its likely consequences. As for Gray, he "has long railed against the theory that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm". In other words, he is a global warming denier. He may or may not have been a relatively successful hurricane forecaster, but what possible credibility does he bring to his criticism of Gore, or to his views on global warming generally? And why is the AP giving him a platform from which to spew his discredited views?
2) At Instapundit, popular right-wing blogger Glenn Reynolds displays the sort of gross ignorance and irresponsibility common among the more moronic deniers of global warming. He implies that global warming isn't a problem, or perhaps not even a reality, because it's so cold and snowy in Cincinnati in April. He may just wish it were warmer -- I certainly wish it were warmer in Toronto at the moment -- but making light of global warming, or even turning into a big joke (or calling it a hoax), is how many on the right have responded to the scientific consensus. Billions of people and countless species are at risk, but personal perception of unseasonal coldness is all the "evidence" they need.
And, as always, the genocidal global warming denying crowd will lap it all up.
Labels: conservatives, environment, global warming
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
3:04 PM
13 Comments:
You never really know how karma will manifest itself. I hate to sound like a broken record, but until humanity turns away from money, religion, and politics, and learns to live wisely without causing harm to other people and life-forms, these "plagues" will continue, unabated.
Welcome to "armageddon."
Armageddon refers to the valley of great decision(s), hence "judgment(s)." It thereby symbolizes a low place in time and human circumstances leading to humbling (wise) decisions and great realizations (revelations, apocalypse).
Look at the widespread "plagues" that have been afflicting human civilization in recent years. Global climate change and its many ramifications are merely one aspect of this unfolding scenario.
read more...
Here is Wisdom !!
By
Seven Star Hand, at 1:06 AM
Stickings is another symptom of brain-death infecting the blogsphere.The current hysteria is a symptom of displacement, a psychological mechanism that allows one to ignore real threats like Islamic terrorism, in order to focus on imaginary phantasms like Anthropogenic Global Warming. Part of the left's denial of reality, a symptom of a larger mass psychosis infecting much of the American electorate.
So just keep on drinking your leftardo Kool Aid while the sun melts icecaps on Mars, obviously because Bush didn't sign Kyoto.
By
dave in boca, at 1:43 AM
Wow, Dave, that's amazingly stupid.
Global warming is "imaginary," a phantasm? Do you know anything at all about what's going on?
And how does focusing on global warming mean not taking terrorism seriously?
Sorry, though. I realize responding to you with reason is completely pointless, and a real waste of time.
By
Michael J.W. Stickings, at 1:50 AM
Michael,
Dave aparently wants to display his stupidity everywhere. He posted a similar comment in response to both of my posts on climate change at Liberal Values. (The first post briefly looks at the latest report, and the second is on the anti-scientific attitudes expressed by people like Dave.)
I agree that responding to him is a waste of time, but I did so only because I've had so many inane comments on similar topics that I had a previous answer ready:
It’s the right which is distracted from the real threats, including both from terrorism and climate change. Climate change represents the consensus of scientific thought. Regarding terrorism:
It was the Republicans which blocked Clinton’s attempts to go after al Qaeda.
It was the Bush administration which ignored the recommendations passed down by the Clinton administration to deal with al Qaeda.
It was Bush who ignored the pre 9/11 warnings of an attack.
It was Bush who left the job in Afghanistan unfinished and then went and attacked the wrong country.
It was Bush’s poor planning which allowed bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora.
It’s been Democrats who have advocated real measures to improve homeland security, while the Republicans have opposed them.
By
Anonymous, at 3:49 AM
The difference between Fact and Religion is that religion has no provable Facts, where Facts have been proven.
"Global Warming" is just one faucet of the Church of Green. Nobody has ever proved that humans are responsible for climate change.
Now, if you don't think that it is a religion, then like all science there should be debate and that starts with a dissenting viewpoint. Try "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" by Christopher C. Horner, and unlike the Heads of the Church of Green, this guy actually bothers to back up his facts and site his references. Have a good day, and don't be scared, it's gonna be okay.
By
Fact Finder, at 10:45 AM
It sure is amusing for someone to take a position contrary to the overwhelming consensus of scientific thought, and to claim that his position is the one backed up by facts, and to claim that the position held by virtually all scientists is a religious position.
It is also an example of religious belief when people like this latch onto books of pseudo-science which are contrary to the scientific consensus because they support their personal opinion.
By
Anonymous, at 5:47 PM
Yes, the overwhelming consensuses of scientists is that the world is warming up, two degrees over the last hundred years, three hundred years ago there was an ice age; man kinds fault? Probably not. Look at a text book, the climate changes all of the time, not only when I burn a Styrofoam cup. But of course there are scientists that claim that man kind is to blame, they work for the green party, or the get these really, really big checks form the government to study it. Also, anybody who dares to disagree gets the smear treatment, like the guy that was mentioned at the start of this article.
But, pseudoscience? You mean like studying ghosts, aliens or astrology? No, looking at the data they shoved down our thoughts in school, and then looking at the dissenting viewpoint, made by scientists that aren’t on the Green Party payroll, doesn’t count as pseudoscience.
I am sorry, but I refuse to be afraid just because the news media tells me to. I like to think for myself. “News Media?” You say? Yes, they need to keep us good and scared, otherwise people watch the Simpsons during primetime, and then they aren’t too scared to stay up until ten to hear it again. After all, the News didn’t really start talking about “Global Warming” until about six months after the fall of communism, and their ratings dropped.
The Green Party is a two billion dollar capitalist industry with the same “It’s-True-Because-I-Said-So” attitude as Scientologists with a Inquisition stance that keeps any dissenting viewpoint politely kept to themselves. The Green Party is bent on taking all of the energy away from us, and they are scared to death that somebody will figure out another way to give us unlimited, safe energy, and then they will have to figure out another way to smear it.
It’s easy, look at all of the facts, when you do you can stand tall and proud and say, “I will not be afraid!” It beats the alternative, “I hate being a human.” After all without people, what’s the point? This is the story of planet Earth with out humans: Some animals evolved, the weren’t good enough, they went extinct, the climate changed, animals ate one another, the sun exploded a few billion years later and the climate really changed, the end.
I will not be afraid!
By
Fact Finder, at 9:01 AM
Not being afraid is not the same as hiding your head in the sand and avoiding finding solutions to a serious problem, but a problem that can be fixed.
What factfinder quotes is definately pseudoscience, as he has no understanding of the actual science of climate change. Quoting the distorted ideas of Christopher Horner, a shill for the energy industry who distorts the facts for political and business reasons, may keep him from being afraid, but this remains a foolish path to follow.
By
Anonymous, at 1:25 AM
Global Warming deniers toss around the same lies over and over until they stick to someone, anyone, who might want to join their tiny party. Most of them, Sci Fi authors and pundits alike, have exposed over and over that they don't a have grasp of even the most basic concepts of climatology - I'm talking about stuff that is provable in an 8th grade science lab. They constantly come up short in the debate and try the same tactics over and over. Then they wonder why no one wants to debate with them?
Let me ask you something, would you debate someone on the shape of the Earth over and over, even though they basically kept losing the debate and trying to mock some kind of victory? No, you wouldn't. Eventually you'd realize it was a giant waste of time and find better things to do. That's what's happening to the so-called global warming debate. No one is censoring anyone - hell they even had a prime-time movie on it in England - they are just getting sick of spin, the talking in circles, the non-sense, and the lack of basic climate education on the part of the deniers. It's like debating the plot of a movie with someone and then finding out they never bothered to watch it. They aren't good at science, they are just good at running down the clock in a debate and lots of them did for years with the tobacco lobby so they've had lots of practice. It's the strategy of losers trying to minimize their loses. Whatever it is, it's not a real debate. The real debate has been over for a very long time. It's the sun, it's water vapor, Al Gore is a commie, what about the coming ice age that a handful of scientists talked about in the seventies... none of that has anything to do with the subject - it's all distraction.
The nice thing about this is that the deniers are really exposing just how far backed into a corner they actually are. They're dropping like flies and those who are in it for the long fight seem to change their so-called debunking tactics and even their basic philosophies as time progresses and overwhelming evidence continues to mount. They go from 'It isn't happening' to 'it is happening but it isn't the fault of human's' to 'maybe humans play a tiny role but the cost of fixing it would be worse than the effects' to 'it is happening, humans are contributing, but there is nothing we can do about it since China won't change...' It's crazy that they have a shred of credibility with anyone at all!
So there they go, the last of the Global Warming deniers drift off into lunatic fringe obscurity with 9-11 conspiracy theorists, creationists, and scientology gurus. The big difference for me is the downright bad nature and selfish attitudes about their stances that expose just how apathetic they are to the rest of the world. Unlike a creationist or someone who thinks the CIA shot JFK because he was going to hand over the country to communists, the deniers are pushing for a thing that will really, really hurt and kill a lot of people. I can tolerate people with fanciful thinking when it's harmless. Global Warming deniers should get no quarter from anyone. The biggest voices among them have sold their souls to lobbyists and are the moral equivalent of child molesters, willing to exchange the long term suffering of other people for their short term pleasures.
Screw em. Don't give an inch. They don't deserve it. There is no debate left - there is just a group of selfish jerks pandering to a bunch of selfish idiots and their numbers are shrinking by the day. Let them drift off into obscurity to the sound of their own voices as they attempt to confuse the issue. I'm tired of these idiots blinding following these bull****-artists paid by oil industry stooges. Enough is enough. Call them what they are - 'Deniers'.
By
Anonymous, at 6:11 PM
You keep saying pseudoscience, but collecting data reviewing data and publishing data isn't pseudoscience, are you sure that word means what you think it means? Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method.
If anything "Global Warming" is a pseudoscience.
"We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should we make the data available to you, when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it?" Hockey Stick (as in the Hockey Stick Graph, not the sport equipment) co-creator Phil Jones, replying to an inquiring Warwick Hughes.
Uh-oh. A key step in the scientific method is that evidence should be made available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, that way if somebody is wrong, somebody else might notice before "the world is flat" or "mankind is causing global warming" winds up in a text book.
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are still collateral environmental benefits [to global warming policies] climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Canada's environmental minister, Christine Stewart, comments at a meeting with the editorial board of the Calgary Herald, Finical Post (Canada), December 26 1998.
Well, she must know something you don't.
"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up something scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest." Climate Alarmist Stephen Schneider, Discover magazine, October 1989
Well, that doesn't sound very honest, but it is probably okay, he is a professor and an advisor in the Bush Administration.
"[T]he world's climatologists are agreed....Once the freeze starts, it will be too late." Douglas Collagen in Science Digest, 1975.
You see, they used to tell us all the scientist say to be afraid of global cooling.
"We, in the Green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which the killing of a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of six-year-old children to Asian brothels." Carl Amery of the Green Party, quoted in Mensch & Energie, April 1983.
WTF!! These people are disgusting!!
"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem." Lamont Cole (as quoted by Elizabeth M. Whelan in her book Toxic Terror).
Nobody in their right mind says that!
I looked up Horner on the internet and the only interesting thing I found was that Greenpeace steals his garbage. Nothing about him being a shill for the energy industry. Besides, the "energy industry" isn't bad anyway, without them we don't get nifty things like computers, or warm showers, or surgery, or fresh food, or anything! The Greens would have us all living in the woods, peeing in a stream and eating sticks, meanwhile all of those people who live in the woods, peeing in a stream and eating sticks would kill to live in America. Why? Because it's BETTER!
"In short, if we can rise to the challenge, the permanent abolition of the wheel would have the marvelously synergistic effect of creating thousands of new jobs-as blacksmiths, farriers, grooms and so on-at the same time as it conserved energy and saved the planet from otherwise inevitable devastation." Catherine Bennett, The Guardian (UK) 2004.
You know what? I just changed my mind, go Green Party! Woo-Hoo! After all of the wheels have been burned I'll just move to Africa round up all of the starving children and then move onto Asia round up all of the child prostitute slaves and tell them that the same people that put trees before those kids welfare are now in charge, and the cut their own power. then we will come back over here, we wont be well armed, we will only have hand guns but you guys will only have bows and arrows, after all a gun creates a little puff of smoke and that goes against everything Green. It may take a few days but we will win, after all look what the musket did to the Native Americans with there bows and arrows. We will put you all in reservations and put up "no wheel" signs and turn the power back on.
But, not really, the heads of the Church of Green would keep generators for themselves; I don't think America will ever let it get that far, anyway. Sooner or later we will realize that we were idiots, and that we managed to fool ourselves again, and it will go into the text books right beside the world being flat, phrenology, Scientology, magnetic therapy, feng shui, warts from toads, astrology, the moon being made of cheese, the loch ness monster, communism, fear of communism, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and global cooling.
Someday we will tell our great-grandkids, “How were we supposed to know, the government lied to us, they told global warming was real in school, and on the news!”
…Well, I won’t have to say that, because I will not lift a finger to help this worthless, insane, pointless, racist, elitist, hypocritical cause such as Environmentalism by the Green Party. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t litter, I don’t pour motor oil into the street drains and I don’t want acid rain. I want to keep this world a beautiful place. I just don’t want to be scared into it, and I don’t want to put money into an organization that lies to me.
I doubt I will change your mind, Mr. Chusid and Anonymous, you seem to be a true believer, and when the truth is finally so obvious that you cannot ignore it any longer, it will only break your heart all that much more. I only hope somebody else out there becomes interested enough to look for him or herself, instead of just swallowing what they have been told to swallow.
In closing let me say this about the debate: It is like blaming the new guy in town for a drought, because he got there at the same time the rain stopped, and most of the town said, “Yeah, he’s a magician! He chased the rain away!” and a few people said, “You are idiots, it is August.” And then the rest of the villagers said “No! We have a graph, it rained until he got here. Top Shamans agree!” And the deniers said, “But it’s August.” The majority said, “You’ve made that point! You are backed into a corner! You must be working for the Evil Rain Taker!” (Because, that was what they were calling the newcomer) “…This debate is over!”
The debate won’t be over until we can actually prove that scientifically, and we won’t have that until there is a control planet exactly like earth in every was, but without the people to compare earth to, and we wait a million years until we can see the results over a long enough time line, and on a already four billion year timeline, a million years isn’t unreasonable. Then the debate will be over. Or the debate will be over when the Green Party collapses under the weight of their own bull****.
I will not be afraid.
By
Fact Finder, at 8:44 PM
"Someday we will tell our great-grandkids, “How were we supposed to know, the government lied to us, they told global warming was real in school, and on the news!”
Wrong FactTwister, one day we will tell our grandkids that uneducated selfish reality-deniers like you are why it took us so long to respond to the obvious Himalayan Mountain Range of evidence and start curbing our gluttonous consumption of their future.
Are you telling me you think ex-Tobacco Public Relation firms hired by big oil have more knowledge on climate than scientists do? You may not be afraid, but you're not following the fact that the deniers keep changing their story and the overwhelming body of scientists have pretty much stuck to theirs.
The debate is over, the deniers lost. Get over it unless you want to end up in the same social order as child molesters and Holocaust deniers.
By
Anonymous, at 4:02 PM
Wow, what an incredibly ignorant thing to say! You, sir, get first prize! The debate won't be over until, everyone is convinced, one way or another. Child molestation is truly the worst thing in the world, and only a child molester could possibly think that anything is as bad as child molesting. You just compared two degrees over a span over a hundred years to the murder of six million Jews and six million blacks/handicapped/homosexuals/Polish/Russians. Wow that is so ignorant I am at a loss. Should I call you an Anti-Semite? A child molester? Maybe just an Anti-Human pervert? You know you better than I do, what is your malfunction? Go see a therapist.
I will not be afraid.
Stay away from my children, anonymous.
By
Fact Finder, at 8:37 AM
"You just compared two degrees over a span over a hundred years to the murder of six million Jews and six million"
Yep, and you propose killing more people than that because you're too ignorant or too selfish to care about the poor in the rest of the world that will die by the millions from famine brought on by drought. It's already happening in the Darfur as the lakes run dry.
So I think it's fair to compare the two Mr. reality denier. If anything, what you propose, doing nothing about global warming, is far, far worse.
As for calling me a child molester when I simply compared you to one, that's not a good tactic. My point was simple, you are willing to trump the lives of millions of children for your ignorance and self interest. If the scientific community at large is correct and advocate doing nothing, than you are morally equivalent to a child molester, if not worse because your advocating the pain, suffering, and death of far more children than a child molester could ever get his hands on. That's not the same thing as calling you a child molester, in case you didn't figure that out.
Debates can be over when not everyone in the world is convinced. Saying otherwise just is just stupid. By your logic no problem in the world would ever be addressed because not everyone in the world would ever come to complete consensuses. That's tobacco lobby denial-machine tactic you're using and it won't work.
By
Anonymous, at 1:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home