How Climate Denialists Like Marc Morano and Anthony Watts, Jeff Jacoby, too, among other
well-intentioned by seriously misguided people, See Climate Change
Evidence and Continue to Deny It is Happening, Inspite of it all
30 COMMENTS BELOW and COUNTING. KEEP 'EM COMING!
UPDATE: I need to make this very clear, not everyone saw this at first. I am not saying Holocaust deniers of today are similar to climate denialsts. I wrote in the post below that just as MANY people AT THAT TIME, during WWWII, 1939- 1945, refused to "SEE" what was happening to the Jews in Europe, despite govt reports and photos and documents, MOST PEOPLE at that time DID NOT BELIEVE any Holocaust was HAPPENING. This is what my post is about. Just in the same way that TODAY, MANY PEOPLE like our friends in the denialist/skeptic camps DO NOT BELIEVE that AGW is real or that climate change is happening, despite govt reports and photos and scientific docs. This is about DENIAL at the time. It is not about Holocaust deniers of today. They are insane crazy people. The climate denialists are sane, good people. But they are in denial. THAT IS MY POINT HERE. READ IT AGAIN. BELOW.
Look at it this way: it's as if trustworthy and trusted world
intelligence from scientists and universities have ample aerial photos
of marked trains making their way toward concentration camps in Nazi
Germany during WWII during the Holocaust, photos and written reports
of eyewitnesses of Jews being rounded up in ghettoes for eventual
deportation to said death camps, and the evidence includes German govt
statements about Jews and the Final Solution, intel reports that Jews
were being gassed -- this is in 1941, mind you! -- AND to climate
denialists like Marc and Anthony and Rush and Jacoby who say: "What
Jews?" "What Final Solution?" What death camps?" "That's all leftwing
propaganda, it's not happening, period." "There are no Jews being
rounded up and put on trains for Auschwitz and Treblinka. There are no
showers with poison gas for the deportees; that's all propaganda by
the Holocaust Industry!"
"The intel reports by the anti-Hitler groups on the left and liberal
groups in the middle are mere propaganda to raise money for their onw
war chests," says the climate denialists like Jacoby and Morano and
Watts and Rush Limbaugh. "And Al Gore contributed to this anti-Nazi
propaganda, even though he was not even born yet. Yes he did!"
THIS IS HOW CLIMATE DENIALISTS SEE THE WORLD, IN THEIR
WELL-INTENTIONED YET TWISTED WAY. And Jeff Jacoby is a good friend of
mine, and I mean no disrepect to him by making these comparions. He will understand my analogy very well. And
if anyone will get it, he will. But Jeff won't budge. Marc Morano will get it, but he will
make up a good excuse. Anthony Watts will ban me from commenting on
his blog again. I don't even know Rush.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
55 comments:
Stop emailing me Mr. Bloom. I have subzero interest in your videos or claims.
Anthony Watts
Jim Peden says
"Always interesting to sit on the sidelines and listen to the climate alarmists flogging the "denialists" with ad hominem attacks. It's the standard response from scientifically illiterate alarmists who aren't bright enough or well enough educated in atmospheric physics to understand that there is not one shred of actual empirical science to support the notion that carbon dioxide causes global warming. In fact, just the opposite is true. On high resolution examination of the CO2/temperature data, we see that CO2 follows, not leads temperature changes, thus changing CO2 levels are a result of, not a cause of temperature excursions. Morano and Watts are used to hearing moronic statements about death camps, Auschwitz, etc.... it's the logical and expected response from the climate science morons who don't have a real scientific leg to stand on, and would be intellectually incapable of reading the actual physics if you handed it to them on a silver platter."
I'm not sure if this is hilarious or sad. Whoever wrote this needs to seek professional help. Seriously, talk to a therapist.
Blooming idiot.
Of the tiny amount of CO2 increases over the years the majority is naturally occurring.
The planet has been cooling now for nearly a decade.
These are incontrovertable facts.
Follow me here now cult member; if the planet is not warming then mankind cannot be blamed for warming that is not occuring you Blooming idiot.
Yet AGW Propagandists such as yourself rely on the big lie as utilized by the actual Nazi Party.
Your lies are Orwellian. Your lies are Goebeles-esque. Your "science" is perverted.
In short, you lie.
You come to tell us that people speaking the truth are liars and compare them to Nazi Holocaust deniers.
And yet it is you who push the lie that higher taxes lower the planet's fictitious fever.
We can thank our lucky star above that we are in a deep solar minimum. Apparently it takes an entire solar system of truth to break the back of this economy killing ponzi scheme built on a pack of incredulous lies and propaganda.
The truth has already outed you.
You are just too stupid to recognize it.
More Ad hominem attacks and bogus comparisons. Add a few fallacies such as Argumentum Ad Veracundiam, Argumetum Ad Populum and you have the typical pro anthropogenic global warming argument. To put the shoe on the other foot: Hey, I am a Nazi and Hitler and everybody else can't be wrong so who cares about the jews and their sympathizers. They just cannot accept "our" truth. When I read imbecilic posts such as Northward Ho I must remind myself that the"dumbing down" of America has already occurred.
I commend you on your willingness to allow others to make you look so bad on your own blog. Perhaps you could talk to your buds on RC. That would be refreshing.
I think that a better historical parallel is one for you and the other AGW alarmists. It comes from an era long before the Nazis, so perhaps it will not be so emotionally charged.. I believe that AGW Alarmism is like the Catholic Church during the renaissance.
Evidence was piling on that the earth is not the center of the universe. They could see the evidence in Galileo's telescope. But they clung to their cherished religious beliefs. How could anyone not see the truth of their arguments. The sun came up in the morning and went down in the evening. Even the stars moved around the earth. The church had a staff of modelers that concluded that the earth was the center of the universe. Eventually it justbecame too embarrassing to continue denying.
Call me an optimist, but I believe you can still be helped. You should get out more and open your mind to new possibilities. Turn off ABC and NBC and look for some less censored news, more fair and balanced say. Get a few friends who hold other views.
I remain hopeful for your recovery and again, I commend you for not censoring the comments.
I am reasonably convinced by the evidence that the climate is warming, that this is caused by man-made emissions, particularly carbon dioxide, and that there is significant danger that the trend will push world temperatures into a range that is less nurturing and sustaining for the six billion or so homo sapiens currently inhabiting the globe. For many, it will even be deadly.
However, the analogy to the Holocaust doesn't quite fit. Since 1945, there has been a mountain of ex post facto evidence that millions of people, and not all of them Jews, but Jews were a major target, WERE KILLED in the Nazi death camps, and in smaller lots in other places. It's over. It's done. It happened. Past tense. It takes a hallucinatory ideological ax to grind to deny it.
The most serious and devastating consequences of global warming are still future tense. A rational human being could have sincere doubts that the evidence sustains the analysis, or that the evidence has been properly gathered and measured. That WAS true in the 1930s and 1940s to some extent, because the evidence was harder to come by, the picture was not so clear. There may be a bit of analogy there -- IF global warming proves to BE as serious a concern as the Nazi extermination efforts proved to be, then those who now deny the seriousness of the threat will look a lot like those who doubted Hitler would actually be quite so evil as all that.
That wouldn't be pretty either, but it does not compare to post-1945 deniers of the Holocaust.
"For many, it will even be deadly."
Deadly? Are you serious? This is planet earth, the planet where climate is always cooling or warming. Warming isn't deadly, it's a good thing, more crops, longer growing season, less killing frosts, more acreage. Cooling is deadlier by FAR, resulting in less crops, more starvation, shorter growing season, less acreage, more crop failures, killing frosts, etc.
You are believing the hype, the BS, from the alarmists who think that climate must not change or catastrophe awaits - ludicrous in the extreme. Change is constant, sometimes abrupt from year to year, but always and forever happening. Can we predict what the rate SHOULD be? Ha ha ha ha! Sounds like unimaginable hubris from a crazy man, but for AGW alarmists, it's the frigging' foundation of their religion...
Mr. Bloom - I am a member of the jewish faith and have studied climate science for over a decade (I am not a scientist but have been in the environmental industry for over 2 decades). I am also a steadfast "denier" of the hypothesis (and it's nothing more than that, despite what you, Joe Romm, Al Gore, and your brethren continue to preach) that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the cause of climate change. Your analogy is offensive to me. I am inclined to stoop to your level of ad hominem attacks, but for those of us armed with the facts (as opposed to computer model predictions), we have no need to lower ourselves to your level.
"Trustworthy and trusted", is that how you describe climate models (as opposed to empirical data), the IPCC Assessment Reports, and media/celebrity hyperbole which suggest that humans are responsible for "global warming" and "climate change"? Such a description requires a willing suspension of disbelief regarding geology, paleoclimatology, anthropology, and other areas of science.
You seem to miss a subtle but critical point. Whether you miss this intentionally because you think it bolsters your case/analogy, or simply don't know any better, you have "spun" our (i.e. Morano, Watts, and hundreds of scientists, statisticians, etc. such as Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Plimer, Michaels, Balling, Soon, Idso, Baliunas, McKitrick, McIntyre, and too many other "deniers" to list) beliefs by saying that we "see climate change evidence and continue to deny it is happening in spite of it all". So, I will attempt to set you straight.
Almost to a person, we all believe that climate is changing, and we see some of the evidence to which you must refer. Where we depart from your kind who blames this on humans is that while we know climate is changing (climate is, in fact, always changing, as the geologic and other evidence and histories of our 5 billion year old chaotic, non-linear system planet shows us), we do not a)attribute these changes to human emissions of CO2, b) consider these changes to be unprecedented, c) consider these changes to be catastrophic (or even negative, on balance), d) believe that proposed treaties (Kyoto or any attempts to replace it at COP-15 in Copenhagen this December) and policies (Waxman Markey, for example) will have any material effect on global climate.
For example, we know from geology that during previous glaciations during the Proterozoic era around half a billion years ago, atmospheric CO2 levels were around 4000 ppm during one glaciation and around 2000 ppm during another. Glaciation - not warming - occurred during these times. This in and of itself lays to rest the hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a driver of climate, could lead us to a "tipping point", etc.
Be forewarned. You have now been added to Carbonicus' list of AGW fear mongerers for whom a day of reckoning is coming - and sooner than you think. A few more years of continued cooling and more peer reviewed studies in a variety of scientific areas will, shortly, lay to rest the AGW hypothesis once and for all.
And when (not if) this happens, Carbonicus will call to account you, Al Gore, Joe Romm, the UN IPCC, Tom Friedman, Andy Revkin, Seth Borenstein, and a whole bunch of scientists who were not only dead wrong, but were all too quick to belittle and personally attack those of us who remained calm and devastatingly factual throughout this sad chapter in scientific history.
As Tom Scrutchin relates using the gaia-centric beliefs of the church several hundred years ago, your views will soon be seen as sophomoric, faith-based, and dead flat wrong.
Mr. Bloom, Our Comparisons of so-called climate change deniers to holocaust deniers is very offensive and is totally unfounded.
Show me the places or blog posts or conference presentations that the above mention people said that the holocaust didn't happen. Where is your evidence to make such a wild claim.
Time for a real debate on the real science of climate change and not attacks on people that are very offensive.
Carnot 1824
Mr Bloom, you posted on WUWT under the name "Sarah Breswell".
If there is any room for honesty in your psyche, it will be a very tight fit.
I believe that AGW Alarmism is like the Catholic Church during the renaissance.
Evidence was piling on that the earth is not the center of the universe. They could see the evidence in Galileo's telescope. But they clung to their cherished religious beliefs.
The Earth is as much the centre of the Universe as anywhere else. Or, put more simply, 'the centre is everywhere'.
But regarding Copernicus's heliocentric theory, its main theological opponents were Luther and Melanchthon. Copernicus was a son of the Church and his book Six Books on the Revolutions of the Celestial Orbits was published with clerical approval.
There endeth the history lesson. Go and check out the real history of the Galileo affair; as Steve Sailer likes to say: Truth is better for humanity than ignorance, lies, or spin. And it's more interesting.
TomLama said, above QUOTE above
TomLama, glad you chimed in here, good to hear all POVs, check back in 500 years, 30 more generations and let's see who was right. Until then, let's agree to disagree.
Blooming Idiot Galore!
eddy@blackgoldenergy.biz, you are welcome to post here. thanks
DANNY
Tom Scrutchen, sir, good comments, and I NEVER censor people here, unlike Anthony Watts who does censor POVs he does not agree with. Thank you for understanding that I value all POVs. keep posting here anytime. I don't mind being wrong, and I don't mind a good discussion. The future will tell who was right and who was wrong. We shall see. Meanwhile, let's agree to disagree and still remain civil with each other, unlike the YOU LIE remarks of Joe Wilson and others of his ilk.
Siarls Jenkins,
VERY VERY GOOD Post, yes yes yes.
re: "The most serious and devastating consequences of global warming are still future tense."
yes, it's all still future tense. AND I was not exactly comparing the Holocaust denialists with climate denialists, that was poetic license, a literary conceit, just to wake people up. The Holocaust was a thing unto itself, a completely different issuel. But denialists operate in the same kind of closeminded mental state. So Climate denialists are using similar denial functions on their brains to boost their own POV. That is all we were really saying. But yes, the future will tell. We don't know the details yet....
keep posting, sir, anytime, nothing gets censored here...
by the way, Siarlys Jenkins, I love your bio:
"I believe that as long as there are math tests, there will be prayer in public schools." AND
''I believe that the federal constitution prescribes what powers the government has, not what is a good use of those powers. Thus, I am happy with Roe v. Wade. I looked at the first five chapters of Genesis and found the fundamentals of evolutionary biology. How did Moses learn that 3000 years before Charles Darwin figured it out? I believe that as long as there are math tests, there will be prayer in public schools.''
TomLama said, above QUOTE above
TomLama, glad you chimed in here, good to hear all POVs, check back in 500 years, 30 more generations and let's see who was right. Until then, let's agree to disagree.
Blooming Idiot Galore!
Carnbonicus, welcome to the fray. Let's agree to disagree, sure and let's all be civil here. I agree with much of what you say, sir.
DANNY
RE:
;;Mr. Bloom - I am a member of the jewish faith and have studied climate science for over a decade (I am not a scientist but have been in the environmental industry for over 2 decades). I am also a steadfast "denier" of the hypothesis (and it's nothing more than that, despite what you, Joe Romm, Al Gore, and your brethren continue to preach) that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the cause of climate change. Your analogy is offensive to me. I am inclined to stoop to your level of ad hominem attacks, but for those of us armed with the facts (as opposed to computer model predictions), we have no need to lower ourselves to your level.;
Carnot 1824, above, I was NOT comparing Holocaust deniers with Climate denialists, I was just saying the the psychological function of denial in the human psyche has deep roots and we all need to examine our roots. You might be right, I might be wrong. I might be right, you might be wrong, The future will tell. Meanwhile, let's agree to to disagree and remain civil to each other. We are one people, one Earth. The sooner we learn to get along, the better. Don't believe my view of the future? Okay, then ask James Lovelock!
''Mr. Bloom, Our Comparisons of so-called climate change deniers to holocaust deniers is very offensive and is totally unfounded.''
-- Carnot 1824
Carnot, I apologize for the offense, it is offensive to me too, but I had to say it. As for my POV being totally unfounded, check back in 500 years. We shall see then. Meanwhile, keep thinking and keep posting, nothing is censored here. All welcome.
DANNY
Dear Anonymous, above, who wrote:
"Mr Bloom, you posted on WUWT under the name "Sarah Breswell".
If there is any room for honesty in your psyche, it will be a very tight fit."
Yes, I will tell you why. Anthony Watts has banned my real name and real email address for posting on his blog, which is his right of course, it is HIS blog, he owns it, it is NOT public airwaves, but since he banned me, and refuses to even read my polite emails or answer them, the only way to post comments on his blog is to post under a pseudonym but using a real email address which he has not banned yet. Unlike Watts, I do not practice censorship. See? There is a big difference. Keep posting here, your comments are always welcome!
Now Climate Depot links to this post. Good! Marc Morano is a good and well-intentioned man. I respect him as a human being. He does not censor and he is not easily offended. He is looking for the truth. As I am. He will find it one day. He is not there yet, but he might not even find it in his lifetime. That's okay. He is a seeker. Let him seek. For the record, this blog never said Climate Depot denies the Holocaust. We said Climate Depot denies the reality of climate change in much the same way that denialists of all stripes throughout history have psychologically denied things. Jeff Jacoby is a good friend of mine, his father is a Holocaust survivor, I know for sure that Jeff is not a Holocaust denier, and I never said that. I just said that the same mental games people play to deny the Holocaust -- and sadly there are many of them out there even today, ouch! -- from David Irving on down, just ask Deborah Lipstadt at Emory -- there are also climate deniers who for some reason in their intellectual/emotional make-up cannot see the reality we are headed to. That's okay. The world will not wake up all at once. Not now. later, the world will wake up all at once, and by then it will be too late. So let's agree to disagree, friends, but let's remain civil. and all POVs are welcome here.
Raven in Canada tells me via the New York Times DOT EARTH blog, where my comments also appeared re above:
"Danny,
Your pathetic attempts to link climate skepticism to the holocaust says more about you than the people you criticize. It also especially ironic given the fact that this thread is a discussion about choosing the best propoganda designed to manipulate public opinion on a complex issue.
Frankly, the concending blind fanaticism exhibited by many AGW alarmists should be a huge warning sign to any impartial observer. People who exhibit such traits cannot be trusted to analyze information in a unbaised fashion which means all of the arguments are suspect."
Raven in Canada, you need to understand: I was NOT linking the Holocaust to Climate Change. I was linking the mechanism of human denial, how it works in the brain and in the emotions. In no way was I linking the Hcaust with AGW. I was showing how denial works in the human brain. Have you ever been in denial, about anything, Raven? The brain is very very powerful, and denialism is a survival mechanism as well as a defense mechanism. We have all experienced it i am sure.
So, about the Holocaust the Mainstream Medias are correct. So about everything else they must be correct. Verly logic. Very clever. What a good point!
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Denialism: Climate Change, Holocaust & Evolution BLOG:
"I went to the very interesting talk last night in Bristol by Dr Michael Shermer on Why Darwinism Matters. Now the speaker is the Editor of Sceptic Magazine and has written a number of books and lectures all over the world on irrational beliefs and scepticism (amongst other topics).
During the Q&A I asked him about what I see as a connection in method and anti-science ideology between the global warming denialists (examples abound) and creationists.
Guess what he said - yes. He joked to the hundreds in the audience that it is almost as if they went to the same school together to learn 'how to challenge science when you have none'. He said there were parallels in the way both operated and argued. Then he also said there were parallels in the way climate change denial and holocaust denial worked, "It's like David Irving says, show me the evidence, show me the order Hitler wrote, when it does not work like that, as if he is going to write 'I, A.Hilter do hereby...' the evidence comes from thousands of different places, like in global warming there is no single piece of evidence but thousands of lines of evidence, the biology of birds breeding patterns to satellite data." (I paraphrase, but that was the gist of it, I hope there is audio posted...)
There you have it - the editor of Sceptic magazine does not think you are sceptics at all and does think you the same mind-set as creationism and holocaust denial."
Michael Shermer ? is he so bad?
http://www.michaelshermer.com/
About Michael
Michael Shermer, as head of one of America’s leading skeptic organizations, and as a powerful activist and essayist in the service of this operational form of reason, is an important figure in American public life.
— Stephen Jay Gould
Dr. Michael Shermer is the Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine, the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society, a monthly columnist for Scientific American, the host of the Skeptics Distinguished Science Lecture Series at Caltech, and Adjunct Professor of Economics at Claremont Graduate University.
Dr. Shermer’s latest book is The Mind of the Market, on evolutionary economics. His last book was Why Darwin Matters: Evolution and the Case Against Intelligent Design, and he is the author of Science Friction: Where the Known Meets the Unknown, about how the mind works and how thinking goes wrong. His book The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Share Care, and Follow the Golden Rule, is on the evolutionary origins of morality and how to be good without God. He wrote a biography, In Darwin’s Shadow, about the life and science of the co-discoverer of natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace. He also wrote The Borderlands of Science, about the fuzzy land between science and pseudoscience, and Denying History, on Holocaust denial and other forms of pseudohistory. His book How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God, presents his theory on the origins of religion and why people believe in God. He is also the author of Why People Believe Weird Things on pseudoscience, superstitions, and other confusions of our time.
Dr. Shermer received his B.A. in psychology from Pepperdine University, M.A. in experimental psychology from California State University, Fullerton, and his Ph.D. in the history of science from Claremont Graduate University (1991). He was a college professor for 20 years (1979–1998), teaching psychology, evolution, and the history of science at Occidental College (1989–1998), California State University Los Angeles, and Glendale College. Since his creation of the Skeptics Society, Skeptic magazine, and the Skeptics Distinguished Science Lecture Series at Caltech, he has appeared on such shows as The Colbert Report, 20/20, Dateline, Charlie Rose, Larry King Live, Tom Snyder, Donahue, Oprah, Lezza, Unsolved Mysteries (but, proudly, never Jerry Springer!), and other shows as a skeptic of weird and extraordinary claims, as well as interviews in countless documentaries aired on PBS, A&E, Discovery, The History Channel, The Science Channel, and The Learning Channel. Shermer was the co-host and co-producer of the 13-hour Family Channel television series, Exploring the Unknown.
Michael Shermer was a well known global warming skeptic until he publicly changed his position in the June 2006 issue of Scientific American. He says: "Nevertheless, data trump politics, and a convergence of evidence from numerous sources has led me to make a cognitive switch on the subject of anthropogenic global warming. My attention was piqued on February 8 when 86 leading evangelical Christians--the last cohort I expected to get on the environmental bandwagon--issued the Evangelical Climate Initiative calling for 'national legislation requiring sufficient economy-wide reductions' in carbon emissions."
I find it surprising that Shermer would change his position because he saw some glaciers melting. One wonders if he ever knew enough to be a
crdible skeptic in the first place. Theproblem with globall warming theories and models is that they're all over the place in their predictions and, what's infinitely worse, they make predictions on the basis of no change in energy technology during the coming, an idiotic assumption given the massive changes that
$3 a gallon gasoline has prompted during the past year.
I'm afraid we will repeat the
foolish measures that were taken during the 60's with auto exhaust pollution, when the technology was not up
to the task. Right now we are researchig various renewables and evaluating and implementing such things as wind, etc. It would be folly to allow ourselves to be stampeded by a rabble rousing moron like Al Gore into making idiotic rushed decisions. No one would ever claim Al Gore was a scientist, let alone a person driven by rational thought.
It seems to me that the original causes of global warming are not our concern so much as the ongoing causes of global warming. Regardless of man's future changes, warming already begun is melting permafrost, and melting permafrost releases more carbons into the air, which creates more warming, and on and on in a vicious cycle. We could stop all manmade carbon emissions tomorrow, and global warming would go on as a natural process very difficult to stop.
I thought it would be a cold day in hell when Evangelical Christians piqued global warming awareness. Maybe it's just been too many warm days on earth.
Sorry, kid, but Bloom definitely is a Jewish name: think Bloomingdales, Blum or Blumenthal. But I'm sorry if I offended you by calling you a Jew if you're not. On the other hand, given the current rates of Jewish intermarriage, almost everyone can claim a little bit of Jewish ancestry.
It's noteworthy that HIV-AIDS sceptics are also routinely called denialists and compared to Holocaust revisionists.
Why are these people soooooooo unoriginal?
I wouldn't worry about Fat Man SJ Gould's opinion - he's dead, that's how much he knows.
And the very notion that sceptics would be susceptible to an appeal to authority to the editor of a magazine called Skeptic [sic] is too ridiculous to even contemplate.
It seems to me that the original causes of global warming are not our concern so much as the ongoing causes of global warming.
Hey, kid, talk to me about the ongoing causes of global cooling.
And, above all, quit worrying. There ain't nothing (short of stop breathing out all the CO2) that you can do about it anyway.
Albert, re:
''Sorry, kid, but Bloom definitely is a Jewish name: think Bloomingdales, Blum or Blumenthal.''
RELY: But Albert, those names are spelled with a U, as in Blume, Blum, Blumenthal. BLOOM itself is not a Jewish name, never was. You must not be an American, am I right?
RE:
"It's noteworthy that HIV-AIDS sceptics are also routinely called denialists and compared to Holocaust revisionists."
Albert, listen carefully and read again. I was not comparing climate denialists to Holocaust revisionists at all, I never once said that. Nor was I comparing climate denialists to Holocausts deniers of TODAY. I was and am comparing you and other climate denialists to the good people of the world back in the 1939-1945 period of history when very few people believed reports and photos that were coming out of nazi Germany at that time that something terrible was happening to the Jews in Europe and especially in Germany! Those people then were in denial. Just like you are in denial NOW about climate change. That is all I was saying read this UPDATE One more time and then comment. All POVs welcome as always:
UPDATE: I need to make this very clear, not everyone saw this at first. I am not saying Holocaust deniers of today are similar to climate denialsts. I wrote in the post below that just as MANY people AT THAT TIME, during WWWII, 1939- 1945, refused to "SEE" what was happening to the Jews in Europe, despite govt reports and photos and documents, MOST PEOPLE at that time DID NOT BELIEVE any Holocaust was HAPPENING. This is what my post is about. Just in the same way that TODAY, MANY PEOPLE like our friends in the denialist/skeptic camps DO NOT BELIEVE that AGW is real or that climate change is happening, despite govt reports and photos and scientific docs. This is about DENIAL at the time. It is not about Holocaust deniers of today. They are insane crazy people. The climate denialists are sane, good people. But they are in denial. THAT IS MY POINT HERE. READ IT AGAIN.
It’s such a treat to see Greg Craven getting the attention that he deserves. I’m pursuing a doctorate in marketing and take it from me, there are a lot of scientists that should read his book. The basic thing that most scientists tend to overlook is that if you teach people HOW to think instead of WHAT to think (eg. “Don’t drive big trucks…”) they will figure things out for themselves.
Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt say
Communicating Science: Not Just Talking the Talk
''The issues involved in science communication are complex and often seem intractable. We’ve seen many different approaches, but guessing which will work (An Inconvenient Truth, Field Notes from a Catastrophe) and which won’t (The Eleventh Hour) is a tricky call. Mostly this is because we aren’t the target audience and so tend to rate popularizations by different criteria than lay people. Often, we just don’t ‘get it’.
Into this void has stepped Randy Olsen with his new book “Don’t be such a scientist”. For those who don’t know Randy, he’s a rather extraordinary individual – one of the few individuals who has run the gamut from hard-core scientist to Hollywood film maker. He’s walked the walk, and can talk the talk–and when he does talk, we should be listening!
The issues involved in science communication are complex and often seem intractable. We’ve seen many different approaches, but guessing which will work (An Inconvenient Truth, Field Notes from a Catastrophe) and which won’t (The Eleventh Hour) is a tricky call. Mostly this is because we aren’t the target audience and so tend to rate popularizations by different criteria than lay people. Often, we just don’t ‘get it’.
Into this void has stepped Randy Olsen with his new book “Don’t be such a scientist”. For those who don’t know Randy, he’s a rather extraordinary individual – one of the few individuals who has run the gamut from hard-core scientist to Hollywood film maker. He’s walked the walk, and can talk the talk–and when he does talk, we should be listening!''
When it comes to making scientists better communicators, Greg Craven’s book “What’s the worst that can happen?” demonstrates how it can actually be done. Craven is a science teacher and is very upfront about his lack of climate science credentials but equally upfront about his role in helping normal people think about the issue in a rational way. Craven started off making YouTube videos explaining his points and this book is a further development of those including responses to many of the critiques he got originally.
Craven’s excellent use of video to discuss the implications of the science is neatly paired with the work that Peter Sinclair is doing with his “Climate Denial Crock of the Week” series. Both use arresting graphics and straightforward explanations to point out what the science really says, how the contrarians distort and misinform and take some pleasure in pointing out the frequent incoherence that passes for commentary at sites like WUWT.
Crucially, neither Craven nor Sinclair are scientists, but they are excellent communicators of science. Which brings up a point raised by both Mooney & Kirshenbaum and Olsen – what role should working scientists play in improving communications to the public? Video editing and scriptwriting (and even website design!) is probably best left to people who know how to do these things effectively, while content and context needs to be informed directly by the scientists themselves. To our mind this points to enhanced cooperation among communicators and scientists as the dominant model we should be following. We don’t all need to become film directors to make a difference!
Jim Peden says,
"On high resolution examination of the CO2/temperature data, we see that CO2 follows, not leads temperature changes, thus changing CO2 levels are a result of, not a cause of temperature excursions.
Peden has it only half right. True, 10,000 years ago the rise in temp preceded the rise in CO2. Thus, CO2 didn't cause the beginning of deglaciation. Instead, the cause was orbital factors, as explained in 1941 by Milutan Milankovitch).
But here's the point: in the last 200 years, the rise in CO2 has preceded the increase in temp. This suggests that the increase in CO2 has caused the increase in temp that we're experiencing. For 1000 years or more the CO2 concentration varied within a narrow range between 200 and 300 ppm (averaged about 280 ppm) but beginning about 1800, especially since 1950, it has increased greatly. In other words, in the modern era, first came the rise in CO2 then the rise in temp.
Regarding CO2 and warming at the end of glacial eras: it is true that CO2 lags the onset of warming. This does not mean that CO2 does not contribute to the warming once released.
The sequence of events is as follows: Once a massive ice-sheet has built on North America and the ice-age climate has set in for good, comes a time when for orbital reasons northern summers become hotter. This happens due to Earth's orbital precession aligning northern summer with perihelion - Earth's closest approach to the sun. The sun's excess radiation in northern summer at this time starts to melt the ice-sheet which mostly drains into the North Atlantic and kills the deep ocean current that draws heat north via the Gulf Stream. Paradoxically this causes the Northern Hemisphere to cool substantially at this time, even though this cooling is really a symptom of the end of the ice-age. The heat that would normally get to the North Atlantic region is now redistributed to the Southern Hemisphere causing a warming there. This warming causes sea ice to melt back around Antarctica, and the southern westerlies to shift southward closer to Antarctica. These westerly winds now because of their more southerly position drive upwelling of deep waters from the deep Southern Ocean around Antarctica, and it is these waters that are saturated in CO2 because they've been isolated in the deep sea for 1000s of years, that bring the CO2 to the surface and release it to the air. Thus CO2 rises and boosts the warming that finishes off the ice-age.
It is a fallacy to claim that CO2 does not cause warming simply because it lags the onset of the warming. There isn't a single source for the warming. There are many. CO2 comes in later in the deglaciation but that does not mean it plays no role.
Good post, I like this comparison. I'm not sure these are *all* good-but-misguided people, some of them probably are callously putting their own short-term profit ahead of preserving a livable climate. But most of them probably do believe that everything is fine and us Al-Gore-worshippers are overreacting...
Predictably, of course, the comments are immediately swarmed by denialists frothing with outrage at being compared to holocaust revisionists, even though they haven't been.
Plus several dozen writing in 'lecture' style about how you've got it all wrong - with the assumption that the only reason you still believe in AGW is that you haven't heard a proper rebuttal of it. Also suspiciously similar to another type of denialist - the creationist.
anon at 6:03 am, above, very well said. I could not have said it better myself. I am going to save this and keep for a rainy day. Well said. If I need a speechwriter someday, I would love to hire you. You make better sense than I do!
cheers,
Danny
re
"Good post, I like this comparison. I'm not sure these are *all* good-but-misguided people, some of them probably are callously putting their own short-term profit ahead of preserving a livable climate. But most of them probably do believe that everything is fine and us Al-Gore-worshippers are overreacting...
Predictably, of course, the comments are immediately swarmed by denialists frothing with outrage at being compared to holocaust revisionists, even though they haven't been.
Plus several dozen writing in 'lecture' style about how you've got it all wrong - with the assumption that the only reason you still believe in AGW is that you haven't heard a proper rebuttal of it. Also suspiciously similar to another type of denialist - the creationist."
Sleeper on another board wrote
(Comment#20171)
September 17th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
''Nazi Germany could have used a few more courageous skeptics.''
THIS is what I am talking about!
Neven (Comment#20178)
September 17th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
“Nazi Germany could have used a few more courageous skeptics.”
That’s a nice one too, though more subtle. :-B
Look, you have to understand the state of mind of these people. I think they are genuinely worried that AGW will have catastrophic consequences for a large part of the global population. They are a certain type of person with a certain psychological make up and background that makes them prone to worry about abstract things like ‘the planet’ or ‘humanity’.
And in a sense it’s true that if CAGW does come about there are quite a few persons out there at the moment that are in a bit of an ethical predicament. Someone like Anthony Watts or Fred Singer or Ian Plimer (though they probably wouldn’t be around anymore if and when the catastrophe hit) would perhaps have reason to feel a bit guilty for their delaying tactics.
In that sense it’s not so strange for someone like Danny Bloom to fringe the law of Godwin, so to speak, out of sheer frustration. Because you have to admit: If AGW is happening, there is not much action being undertaken (lots of plans, lots of promises, lots of theory, lots of political spinning) to get to the core of the problem and do something about it. If you really believe as a warmist that time is running out, it’s no wonder that you get frustrated .
Imagine that you think your mother is showing symptoms of a terminal disease that can be cured if treated on time, but everyone else in the family convinces her it’s not true, she should wait a few weeks more before going to the doctor, etc. Some people can go nuts over that and shout at everyone at a birthday party that they’re all &#$*@ who don’t love their mother. Danny Bloom does. It’s not a good way to change things, even if they can be changed. But that’s what he did.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2908/Climate-Depot-compared-to-Holocaust-deniers-What-Jews-What-Final-Solution-What-death-camps-Thats-all-leftwing-propaganda-its-not-happening-period
Climte Depot webmaster Marc Morano took down my criticism of climate denialists after less than a day, showing that he is in denial himself. Gotcha!
What you need to realize is that the alarmists have overplayed their hand.
On average we have 1.6 doom and gloom predictions per day from those who are trying to convince the populace that we must do something about global warming today. But this constant drum beat rather than make people more worried, eventually makes them more skeptical.
I especially enjoy the news reports when a group or a study says global warming is happening "even faster or even worse than we thought."
At the same time we see no increase in global temperatures and no real increase in sea temperatures it certainly rings hollow. Again the man on the street is being asked are you going to believe us scientists or your lying eyes?
We were told in 2005 that AGW was causing worse and worse hurricane seasons with more and stronger hurricanes. We then had the next four years with very mild hurricanes with this year being unbelieveable mild.
And many of the predictions contradict each other. AGW means draughts in the west or is if floods. Every natural disaster is blamed on AGW, yet people aren't stupid and they know fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. happened before mankind started pumping fossil fuels into the atmosphere.
And Joe Romm and Michael Mann are disasters for the AGW crowd. Romm's chief reply to anything that doesn't support AGW is call the person a liar (maybe that's a characteristic of people named Joe). Mann seems to be involved in studies that are quickly discredited. When I see a new study I look to see if Mann was one of the authors to see if I can simply disregard it because it will quickly be shown to be seriously flawed.
And most AGW supporters refuse to debate with skeptics. In fact, when Al Gore testified before congress, the democrats wouldn't even allow a skeptic to testify opposite him. This indicates that the arguments the alarmist raise won't hold up to scrutiny.
Cartoonasaurus, try this on for size. I got a job this October doing tours for big groups of five year olds on a pumpkin farm. October is supposed to be cool sunny days, perfect for hay rides and corn mazes. No dice. We're getting cold rain almost every day. And it doesn't come from the south, like usual, it comes from the north. Why would that be? I suspect melting of the arctic ice pack. More open water, more evaporation, instead of "cool dry arctic air" we are getting "cold wet arctic air." Its also damaging a lot of crops. Not pretty.
You might also consider that while LIFE will adapt to any climate change, WE might not be around to enjoy it. I'm not so dispassionate and objective as to consider that acceptable.
Post a Comment