Lo, these many years climate scientists have been hell-bent on putting their math where our mouths are. While we have been fully occupied in the business of living (did you notice your taxes went up for 2012?) the Left and new government employees are busy blaming us for putting food on both our tables.
Well, the tables have turned and government scientists are having a harder time getting our attention these days. After a strong beginning climatists realized they weren’t getting enough out of the language –i.e., global warming? So, the climatists ran from that description, preferring instead to use climate change and not long after, calamitous climate change to better highlight an impending peril to all life on Earth because of global warming. Implicit in the language, of course, is the connotation that we’re the real cause –i.e., AGW (anthropogenic global warming).
The climatists, however, still have three big problems, the first of which is the use of harmless descriptive words to describe a cataclysmic problem. Commonly used words like warming and climate are difficult to trademark. Moreover, words like calamity and climate oftentimes go together like peas and carrots.
It wasn’t long before everyone started taking advantage of all the goodwill the alarmists had invested in these words. By doing so even skeptics may easily assume the reputation associated with these simple words — warming, climate, calamity — as being among those who actually are vitally concerned about the dangers the world faces from us humans. That is why climatists must attack skeptics (e.g., call them names like deniers, hacks, flacks shills, wackos) whenever skeptics use these reserved words of climatists to tell a very different and mostly more plausible story that climatists find themselves impotent to prevent or counter. The risk of Confusion is especially high when the very same methodology the global warming alarmists use to define the problem now says global warming stopped 16 years ago.
While it is true that Western academia started out in the catbird seat, much of that goodwill has been squandered. The climatists borrowed heavily on the esteem that had steadily and sometimes courageously been built up over the centuries from the time of the ancients. So, the climatists lived off the reputations of dead scientists like mothers’ milk, which gave them a mighty leg up on the noisy competition from busy modern minds with a penchant for Google and satire and an abiding distrust for school teachers and politicians who believe they’re smarter than us and say so. Satirical cartoonist Tim Kreider in We Learn Nothing: Essays (June, 2012) captured the dynamics of the situation beautifully, as follows:
I’m intellectually lazy. I’m a fan of empiricism; it’s just a drag to have to practice. If you’re anything like me, you don’t make up your mind about important issues by doing original research, poring over primary sources and coming to your own conclusions; you listen to people who claim to know what they’re talking about— “experts” — and try to determine which of them is more credible. You do your best to gauge who’s authentically well informed and unbiased, who has an agenda and what it is—who’s a corporate flack, a partisan hack, or a wacko. I believe that global warming real and anthropogenic not because I’ve personally studied Antarctic ice core samples or run my own computer climate models, but because all the people who support the theory are climatologists with no evident investment in the issue, and all the people who dismiss it as alarmist claptrap are shills for the petrochemical industry or just seem to like debunking things, from the Holocaust to the moon landing. We put our trust—our votes, our Money, sometimes our lives—in someone else’s authority. In other words, most of us decide not what to believe but whom to believe. And I say believe because for most people, such decisions are matters of faith rather than reason.
Western academia knows us too well. Many of us folks appreciate being given any excuse for why we should not even try to invest ourselves in all of that work that is needed to form an intelligent opinion on any super complex issue — especially when the issue is about climate change research, which has been a huge hole in the ocean into which the federal government poured billions of dollars that have been stripped from the economy to feed the climatists that are supposed to answer any difficult questions we may have. Yes, Western academia knows all about us and formulated a simple plan: pretend there is a scientific consensus about global warming and bet on our glorification of idleness in the Disinformation Age to anoint their climate propaganda with an aura of reason.
The second problem is that other descriptive words such as ‘history’ or ‘science’ point to bodies of knowledge that previous civilizations previously used as handy tools to discern the truth from fiction hidden in the warp and woof of the sights and sounds that assail our senses. Other scientists in other disciplines are beginning to see that everything they know to be true is wrong if climatology is not a hoax so remaining silent is no longer a good option. “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” ~George Orwell
There are no strict guidelines in this but if I were hired to keep the global warming hoax alive I would focus on the inadequacies of the previous labels that the global warming alarmists and Leftists politicians have used in their putative prognostications about the looming calamity that awaits us. I think it is time to give more attention to some basic marketing principles. The science of climatology may not have been founded on an ideologically-motivated misuse of the language for ulterior purposes but that is certainly what it is all about now.
We need to discover new ways to make language dance to our AGW tune. As newsman Alfred Harmsworth (1819–1897) intuitively understood, “dog bites man” is not news — just as when the climate changes that is not news either — because, that often happens. Try and stop it! But, trying to stop the globe from warming is exactly what climatists demand we do if you believe humanity is killing the climate. We need to capture that, we-should-just-stop-it, spirit of righteousness when coming up with a new label for global warming aka climate change –e.g., It’s News! Man Bites Weather.
And, there is the third problem: a newsworthy event is something that defies your expectations. And, when it comes to global warming, news goes both ways. “News is something somebody doesn’t want printed; all else is advertising.” – William Randolph Hearst
All of this should serve as a reminder to government scientists of the need to make sure everything that is easily observable in nature should accurately reflect what the climatists would have us believe; otherwise, they should at least point to some indication of value that their erroneous predictions are nevertheless likely to justify the huge costs involved in funding climatists’ junk science. Indeed, as much as is humanly possible, the prognosticators of doom really should try to think of something that provides more value than to simply point at a natural disaster — like a family of five frozen to the face of El Capitan like bugs on flypaper by a sudden and unexpected flurry of wind and ice — and say, “Look! Humanity’s release of CO2 caused that!”
So, instead of fear of global warming or climate change or all of the obvious possible permutations… how about this: is the lunar effect causing otherwise normal and ordinary people — busy living their lives today in faceless ignominy — to deny their CO2 will destroy the climate 50 years from now and, we-should-just-stop-it? Obviously, more research is required.
It may sound silly but, Fyi— Freeman Dyson has been telling us: “Climatists are no Einsteins.” Or, did the idea of school teachers saving the world ever make some kind of sense to you? Did you know Caltech recently announced it has plans to capture an asteroid? Understand that the use of the scientific method has fallen into disfavor. Moreover, scientists no longer need feel obliged to share their data nor any of the assumptions they made that are implicit in their handling of such data: at least in the field of climatology, enabling scientists to come to the same answer, by replicating your work, is no longer a part of the definition of doing good work.