How does a hoax like a belief in human-caused climate change (AGW) die?
It happens over time as previous global warming believers find the courage to face facts, to stand up to the fraud and corruption that their peers have participated in, embrace truth and admit they were wrong. “Time to catch up folks; global warming alarmism is on its deathbed.” ~Bob Carter
The only rational response to climate change is to use empirical, observable evidence. Rational people can point to results from 28 million radiosondes, 6000 boreholes, 30 years of satellites, 3000 ARGO ocean diving thermometers, raw data from thousands of surface thermometers, as well 800 peer reviewed references which include studies of corals, caves, pollen grains, ocean floor sediments, ice cores, and diatoms. ~JoNova
A hoax dies when people look at the facts and give reality a chance. Unlike AGW True Believers skeptical scientists are not afraid of the facts and they celebrate the truth. Real scientists do not do not engage in the politics of fear.
Rational people understand that we have been in a global cooling period for a decade. And, there is no end to the global cooling in sight. Global warming may resume; perhaps after 30 to 70 years. Or, we may be heading into another ice age.
Meanwhile, the AGW True Believers still believe global warming is caused by too little power in the hands of federal government. Public-funded academia still fiddles as it waits for the productive to deal with reality. The Left still continues to demonize capitalism even when our future depends on a vibrant free market economy to be prepared for whatever happens, from wherever it may come. And, science authoritarians in the EPA are destroying science and civil discourse in the name of the enviornmental movement:
Some activists simply couldn’t make the transition from confrontation to consensus; it was as if they needed a common enemy. When a majority of people decide they agree with all your reasonable ideas the only way you can remain confrontational and antiestablishment is to adopt ever more extreme positions, eventually abandoning science and logic altogether in favour of zero-tolerance policies. ~Patrick Moore, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout…
There are no liberal Utopian societies out there that are going to help bail out America as America faces economic crisis.
Given that this has become a quasi-religious issue, it is hard to tell. However, my personal hope is that we will return to normative science, and try to understand how the climate actually behaves. Our present approach of dealing with climate as completely specified by a single number, globally averaged surface temperature anomaly, that is forced by another single number, atmospheric CO2 levels, for example, clearly limits real understanding; so does the replacement of theory by model simulation. In point of fact, there has been progress along these lines and none of it demonstrates a prominent role for CO2. It has been possible to account for the cycle of ice ages simply with orbital variations (as was thought to be the case before global warming mania); tests of sensitivity independent of the assumption that warming is due to CO2 (a circular assumption) show sensitivities lower than models show; the resolution of the early faint sun paradox which could not be resolved by greenhouse gases, is readily resolved by clouds acting as negative feedbacks. ~R. S. Lindzen