“Denier” We are all aware of the particular meaning that word has acquired in contemporary parlance. It has been employed in this [the climate] debate with some malice aforethought. ~John Howard
Does it make sense to believe climate change can be about science and also be a Left vs. right issue? Is it paraprosdokian to inquire: if global warming is of world-importance, why put Western school teachers in charge? Climatology is a conservative vs. liberal mess precisely because it is not about science at all.
Global warming alarmism is not just believing that humanity is heating the globe (AGW theory); rather, it is what you have when belief in belief is all that matters — i.e., it’s twice removed from science. Global warming denial means more than a scientific-based disowning of the idea of AGW. Denial means you’re bad to not believe in correctness of secular, socialist big government and Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ religion. “A traitor denies his country; Peter denied Christ,” says Edward Skidelsky: “Holocaust denial was the first political application… The thing being denied is, by implication, so obviously true that the denier must be driven by perversity, malice or willful blindness. Few issues warrant such confidence.”
The use of the term, “denier” is a Leftist propaganda tactic. Global warming is not just a Left vs. right issue. It’s them. vs. America and that is what is so aggravating — school teachers sided with them. Academia is using our money to help create the America they want, by any means (e.g., scaring children and turning English into a liars language) in an effort to make America more like them… thankless secular, socialist Eurocommies with a cargo cult understanding of economics who live in fear of the free, self-actualizing individual who is willing to take personal responsibility for his or her own life.
Al Gore may be what the Left considers a government energy expert but the productive do not have the luxury to place their futures in the hands of a lifetime politician from a background of privilege with delusions of grandeur. We’ve gone pretty far down the dead end road of demonizing free enterprise and making the Left feel useful by taxing the productive to build solar cells in China but, “no intervention will stop inviolable economic law from revealing what is real and what was mirage.” (David Calderwood)
Who seriously denies that humanity will need more energy in the future irrespective of what Western school teachers dream up as to what the future temperature of the globe will be in 50 years? There won’t always be books for UK’s elderly to burn to stay warm in cold winters. You don’t need to speak German to know coal-fired power plants are being built in Germany because it is the pragmatic thing to do when the Left says ‘Nyet’ to nuclear.
It is unfortunate that Michael Mann, one of the Left’s most infamous school teachers, was too morally ambitious. Otherwise, instead of producing a ‘hockey stick’ graphic to trash America’s triumphal economy he might have graphed a springboard to herald a future of even greater accomplishments whereby America would draw on its faith in the power of individual liberty and personal achievement and not just shoot for the moon but fall among the stars.
Have we let those who hate America tell us what we should think about America? Imagine for a moment a hypothetical conversation between a reporter and a skeptical scientist about how the IPCC recently came up with its 95% certainty number, as follows:
Reporter: The AR5 report (The Fifth Assessment Report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC) states scientists are “95 percent certain” human activities are largely to cause for global warming. How was 95 percent calculated?
Skeptical scientist: The 95% number was simply made up.
Reporter: You mean the authors just pulled a number out of their arses and said they were 95 percent certain because that sounded scientific?
Skeptical scientist: They wanted to show progress — despite no global warming over the last 17 years — and, they’d already used the 90% number in the 2007 AR4 report.
Reporter: So, no math is involved? No statistics? Nothing happened in the meantime to lend more credibility to Western academia’s AGW theory?
Skeptical scientist: No, it is totally subjective. The AGW theory is less plausible now because it has been falsified by the first decade of the new millennium.
Freeman Dyson says, “I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic.” As for Dyson’s opinion about climatologists he says, “I just think they don’t understand the climate.” Dr. Hans von Storch labeled the Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ as quatsch and, Dyson’s view of climatologists is similar –i.e., “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”
The Left’s continued fearmongering about global warming is just more of the same convoluted and colliding vectors, wobbles, magnetos and novel spectroscopy with immeasurable affect, spinning in waves of pulsing microscopy with runaway effect and convolutions from hellish diffractive optics, impacting, influencing, and diffusing to almightiest events and frequencies, affluent inflows and influential up-flows and outflows and no-shows and congruent no-goes, with regular predictions and prognostications, forecasts and projections of perturbations forcing additional contributions to current observations outside past paradigms into alternate spheres of utmost atmos of partial irradiance aplenty anomalously increasing while decreasing oscillators in synchronous ablution, hasten our decline. Just more gobbledygook global warming pseudoscience.
The actual science of global warming is pretty clear. “After correcting for the urban heat island effect, the years around 1940 emerge as the warmest years of the century in both the US record [Karl and Jones, 1989] and European record [Balling, 1997].”
How can we celebrate scientists who claim to have found a way to breakthrough all the noise that in the statistics of AGW is represented by huge error bars — to detect a human signal in the greenhouse warming effect — when humanity’s contribution is immeasurably miniscule at best? Sure, sure, charlatans are persuasive. The reason a human signal due to human activities is impossible to detect within the natural variation of the continually changing climate is because there is no link.
A human signal does not exist at all without manipulating the data and pointing to statistical models that real world observations invalidate altogether. The only correlation observed between increased CO2 and global warming, is the other way around: the historical record shows that increases in atmospheric CO2 follow periods of global warming. The lag time is measured in centuries — 1000±500 years (Wahlen et al. 1999).
Climate change obviously is not the result of a single cause. It is, however, one of those self-evident and undeniable truths that global warming is in some way related to that huge independent variable in the sky we call the Sun. So, why do global warming alarmists continue to ignore solar activity? Scientists that understand natural variation and the role of the Sun believe the lack of global warming we’ve seen over the last 17 years may extend into the 30s and perhaps beyond.
“Global Warming has become a religion. A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint. There may be a growing realization that this may not add all that much meaning to one’s life, but, outside the pages of the Wall Street Journal, this has not been widely promulgated, and people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal. ~Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.