We Won Climate Battles, but Are Not Winning the Climate War: Here’s Why.

IMPORTANT READ. And Dr Ball is spot on – Mann won hands down. Not through “science” but via politics, fake consensus, emotion (victimhood) and being on the ‘right’ side of the debate.

Mann understands that simple rhetoric and climate taking points will always trump science and observations because most won’t and don’t follow the important intricacies of science and observations. Not because they are unable to follow intellectually but rather they don’t have the time nor the need or passion to dig deeper and see the real truth or the other side of the coin.

IMHO the way to ‘unmask’ the ideologically driven “climate change” charade/scam/hoax is to keep pushing *historical* comparisons.

AGW alarmists detest historical perspectives.

In my ‘debate’ experience AGW alarmists will immediately deflect, smear and slime when challenged with historical comparisons.

Watts Up With That?

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

“You can have brilliant ideas, but if you can’t get them across, your ideas won’t get you anywhere.” Lee Iacocca

In his essay, “Reflections on Mark Steyn’s ‘A Disgrace to the Profession’ about Dr. Michael Mann” Rick Wallace wrote,

Tim Ball, Fred Singer and others have been countering the AGW meme for a few decades, but to little avail.

He is correct. Yes, there is a slight increase in the number of skeptics as evidenced by the increased readership at WUWT, but it is a fraction of even total Internet users. Even those who read and comment on WUWT articles on the site often say they are not scientists or don’t fully understand the topic. Others demonstrate their lack of knowledge and understanding without the caveats.

Wallace continues,

But why is this? Why haven’t their voices carried? And, conversely, why was The Team so successful…

View original post 2,012 more words

Advertisements

One Comment on “We Won Climate Battles, but Are Not Winning the Climate War: Here’s Why.”

  1. Denis Rancourt says:

    Dr. Ball makes some very good and valid points but I do not agree with his main conclusion that winning the war is about clear and tactically informed communication regarding underlying basic science in a historical perspective. Rather, the war is mainly one that involves government, corporate (including media), and professional-career overarching driving forces. These forces exploit resonances with individual psychology but no amount of clear communication about the science can change that. The way to win the war is via cultural transitions where the establishment science enterprise is seen for what it is and thus loses all credibility of such questions. This is achieved a la Trump, in the same way that victories in the areas of political correctness have been achieved. The new radicalism that is youthful anti-feminism (anti-academic-dominance-of-what-a-woman-is, led by young women vloggers), the MRM, the anti-warmist movement putting priorities on good jobs and middle-class security instead of elite-class globalism, etc. Those are the cultural movements that win the war against elite globalist management. These movements are tied to the emerging phenomena of Brexit, Trump, anti-immigration, Frexit, Finexit, … and to the emergence of the multi-polar world (emergence of Eurasia, BRICS, …), and building threats to the global US-petro-dollar. Warmism is a creation of globalism. Downfall or resetting of globalism (i.e., exploitation by a global elite: IMF, UN, etc.), to the benefit of nationalism (US and other) is what wins the war against this insane CO2-alarmism mantra.

    Liked by 1 person


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s