ANGELA MERKEL : The New Climate Change ‘Denier’ | Climatism
“We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.
–– Warren Buffett
“Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.”
–– Top Google engineers
“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.
– James Hansen (The Godfather of AGW alarmism / former NASA climate chief)
AFTER hundreds of €Billions of taxpayer’s hard-earned-money spent on sunshine and breezes, Germany’s Energiewende program has been exposed as a catastrophic failure, with carbon dioxide emissions higher now than in 2009.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
ONE of the biggest problems with the “climate change” debate today is that so many have been irresponsibly and irreparably brainwashed by political memes; “the science is settled” and that there is a “consensus of scientists” who know with “97%” certainty that humans are destroying the planet thanks to their excessive lifestyles and ‘frivolous’ use of cheap, reliable energy – fossil fuels.
THIS mantra has become so widespread and ‘believed’ that it has unfortunately robbed many of individual sense and reason and the ability, desire or need to investigate objectively information pertaining to the issue.
THEY are then no better than a cheerleading member of a herd protected by the belief system of the mob. A position demanded by the authority where enquiry is discouraged, thus discovery and advancement in knowledge and in ‘science’ is quashed!
A CLASSIC CASE IN POINT (repeated over and over and over again, everyday on social media):
Image: Paul Bongiorno, RN ABC Breakfast Political Commentator (ABC RN/Elliot Dunn)
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” – Bertrand Russell
A STARK lesson in climate facts and data Vs ABC groupthink eco-ideology via “denier” numero uno – Andrew Bolt of The Herald Sun.
MAKE your own mind up. Who really are the real “science deniers”, the sceptics or the “save the planet” virtue-signalling, eco-zealots? …
PAUL BONGIORNO, THE REAL DENIER
The real “deniers” are generally not the global warming sceptics but the extremists who denounce them. Take ABC commentator Paul Bongiorno, who today denied the science in attacking Tony Abbott’s speech in London overnight.
In most countries, far more people die in cold snaps than in heat waves, so a gradual lift in global temperatures, especially if it’s accompanied by more prosperity and more capacity to adapt to change, might even be beneficial.
ABC presenter Fran Kelly on ABC Radio Breakfast quoted this at Paul Bongiorno this morning. His response:
This just flies in the face of contemporary science.
Actually, it’s warmist Paul himself who flies in the face of science.
Cold weather is 20 times as deadly as hot weather... The study — published in the British journal The Lancet — analyzed data on more than 74 million deaths in 13 countries between 1985 and 2012. Of those, 5.4 million deaths were related to cold, while 311,000 were related to heat.
A new study published in The Lancet shows 6.5% of deaths in this country are attributed to cold weather, compared with 0.5% from hot weather. Most deaths will be from cardiovascular and respiratory disease, as it’s the heart and lungs that struggle when we are outside our comfort zone.
The situation has become so dire that 77 per cent of low-income NSW households are going without heating in a bid to reduce their onerous power bills, new research from the NSW Council of Social Service (NCOSS) shows. And one in three low-income earners have been forced to stop using hot water for bathing to pay for energy bills.
Then there’s the increased crops we’re getting as the world (mildly) warms.
The latest indications for the current season point to record cereal production in 2017 at the world level with total inventories hitting a new peak.
It’s the invincible ignorance of Bongiorno that staggers me. Confronted with facts that challenge his ideology he instinctively denies them, and, indeed, went on to insult Abbott as someone he falsely claimed had said he couldn’t be believed unless he’d written it down (which, incidentally, Abbott had actually done in this case).
And what of Fran Kelly? She fancies herself as someone who is pretty well informed on global warming, which she, too, spruiks.
But to Bongiorno’s false claims she offered not a word of demurral.
“I don’t have much patience for people who deny climate change”
– Barack Obama,
“I hope there are no climate-change deniers in the Department of Interior.“
– Sally Jewell, U.S. Interior Secretary
A common fallback position when losing an argument is to assault your adversary personally. Known as ad hominem, it involves “attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.”
In climate science, those who employ this rhetorical tactic attack individuals who ask probing scientific questions. The attacks indicate that they know how inadequate their science is. It often works because of a deliberate campaign to exploit basic sensitivities: fear the sky is falling, guilt about not protecting the environment, guilt about the damage already done, fear and embarrassment of showing ignorance.
People who challenge the claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are often labeled “global warming skeptics”. Skeptics do not deny that warming occurred in modern times, but, sensibly, questioned the cause. The IPCC said it was due to human production of CO2. This is driven by a political agenda, not science, so any opposition is considered troublesome and requires silencing.
The IPCC claim is an unproven hypothesis. Science advances by proposing hypotheses that other scientists challenge in their proper role as skeptics. The word skeptic has markedly different public and scientific connotation; negative for the former and positive for the latter. Scientists act as skeptics by trying to disprove the hypothesis. Global warming skeptics are acting appropriately. (Dr Tim Ball, WUWT)
Pierre Gosselin at NoTricksZone has discovered a rather concerning example of a “denier” strike, endorsed by one of Germany’s most respected research centres, the prestigious Helmholtz Center Geesthacht…
It’s worrisome enough that the German government itself recently issued a brochure singling out, naming, and defaming German and American climate science skeptics. Today we have one of Germany’s most prestigious science associations actively backing adolescent-level attacks on skeptics who have decided not to take part in collective climate hysteria.
The above tweet comes from the Climate Service Center, which provides a link to an intolerant video called “The League of Deniers“, which was produced by Kickstarter.com. In summary the video portrays skeptics as “deniers”, claims that ”the public is misinformed” and that skeptics’ words are “human foolishness”.
Gosselin posts a series of basic climate questions that identify, not what sceptics deny, but rather what the promoters of CAGW continually fail and refuse to answer :
To help them understand why there are skeptics when it comes to climate science, below are some questions that us skeptics have been waiting 15 years to receive answers.
Why has there been no global warming for 17 years?
Why have 97% of the climate models failed to foresee this?
Why has Antarctic sea ice been well above normal for more than 2 years?
Why are northern hemispheric winters getting colder?
What makes the present warm period any different from that of the Medieval warm period?
Why is it that CO2 has been suddenly assumed to be the major climate factor and the rest like the sun and oceans
If there is consensus on manmade climate change, then why is there so much controversy over it?
Do you think that it’s not necessary to have skeptics in order for science to progress?
Perhaps instead of wasting taxpayer resources on sophomorically defaming and ridiculing those who legitimately ask questions, the Helmholtz Center ought to focus on providing some clear answers for the above questions for once.
When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”, they crossed the line. They are still doing it.
They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.
Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back.
I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis”.
The pseudo-scientific ramblings by their leaders have falsely warned of mass starvation, ecological collapse, agricultural collapse, overpopulation…all so that the masses would support their radical policies. Policies that would not voluntarily be supported by a majority of freedom-loving people.
They are just as guilty as the person who cries “fire!” in a crowded theater when no fire exists. Except they threaten the lives of millions of people in the process.
Like the Nazis, they advocate the supreme authority of the state (fascism), which in turn supports their scientific research to support their cause (in the 1930s, it was superiority of the white race).
Dissenting scientific views are now jack-booted through tactics like pressuring scientific journals to not publish papers with which they disagree…even getting journal editors to resign.
Like the Nazis, they are anti-capitalist. They are willing to sacrifice millions of lives of poor people at the altar of radical environmentalism, advocating expensive energy policies that increase poverty. And if there is a historically demonstrable threat to humanity, it is poverty.
Readers here will know that my problem with the term “denial” is with its misuse in English*. But the term “denier” is also used as a character slur to mark those who disagree in a science debate as being as odious as Holocaust deniers. The hope, apparently, is that dissenting views should be shunned and their arguments and evidence ignored. It’s a cheap debating tactic to shut down debate for those without evidence and reason, but it’s incredibly effective if you have the media on your side. What’s amazing is how many otherwise smart people don’t see through this babyish rhetorical stunt.
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
In a recent article, Mike Hulme argued that the debate “needs to become more political, and less scientific”. We agree, because the scientific debate has moved on from the fundamentals – there is no scientific debate about the fact that the globe is warming from human greenhouse gas emissions. So we need to hammer out political solutions rather than “debating” well-established scientific facts. – John Cook
With no rise in atmospheric temps over the past 17 years, the latest bluff in climate alarmism is that the ‘missing heat’ is hiding at the bottom of the oceans. However, the first globally accurate network of measurement buoys (3000+ ARGO satellite buoys), which descend to depths of 2,000 metres, have detected no significant increase in ocean heat since deployment in 2003.
Kevin Trenberth theorises that missing heat takes a dive into deep oceans. “The oceans can at times soak up a lot of heat. Some goes into the deep oceans where it can stay for centuries [and where lamentably, there are no reliable temperature measurements]. But heat absorbed closer to the surface can easily flow back into the air.” Yet sea surface temperatures and the upper heat content didn’t increase over the last decade by enough to account for the “missing heat” that those greenhouse gas emissions should have trapped in the Earth’s climate system but couldn’t be found. (via Forbes)
Another alarmist excuse for the 17+ year “pause” in Global Warming has been ‘scientifically’ assassinated …. by none other than the doyens of ‘Global Warming’ hysteria ~ NASA, who now admit that the “Missing (atmospheric) heat” is NOT “Hiding in the deep oceans” after all !
More from former NASA Climate Scientist Dr Roy Spencer :
NASA: The Deep Ocean Hasn’t Warmed Since 2005 (but we’re all gonna die)
October 6th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
While still claiming that the results do not cast doubt on climate change, a new NASA press release says that the global oceans below 2,000 meters depth haven’t warmed since 2005. This is the period that we have had the deep oceans reasonably well sampled with thousands of globally-distributed Argo floats.
The thing that annoys me about such press releases is the obligatory disclaimer (no doubt crafted so that “skeptics” don’t have a field day with the press release):
“Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.”
Such statements have the usual vagueness that allows the True Believers to interpret it any way they want.
Does it mean: “It doesn’t throw suspicion on Al Gore’s impending thermogeddon”?
Or does it mean: “It doesn’t throw suspicion on the fact that climate has always changed, and always will change, with or without the help of humans”?
Or maybe something in between?
You see, as long as the IPCC gets away with basing alarmist rhetoric upon factually benign statements, like over half of the warming since the 1950s has been human induced (yawn), the global warming debate will remain dominated by extremists.
And this allows politicians to get away with saying whatever they want. Scientists are so vague that their statements can be used in a wide variety of ways that help the politician.
From the well-established scientific fact that there has been no global warming, at all, for the past 17 years, it’s not hard to see why Cook and the global warming climate change cult believe the debate “needs to become more political, and less scientific”.
Seventeen and a half years. Not a flicker of global warming. The RSS satellite record, the first of the five global-temperature datasets to report its February value, shows a zero trend for an impressive 210 months. Miss Brevis, send a postcard to Mr Gore:
Make that 18 years and 4 months, or now a “pause” of global warming lasting for more than half the entire satellite record:
Satellite temperature records (via wood for trees) on six different data sets show that there has been no atmospheric global warming since 1998 or any statistically-significant warming for between 18 and 23 years. A distinct lack of any warming evident, despite a dramatic rise in industrial greenhouse gas emissions over the same period:
I saw an interesting comment on a discussion forum the other day
“Wood for trees is a well known denier site”
Wood for Trees is a graphing site which allows you to plot out temperature data sets, among other things. Apparently actual data is biased towards deniers, which gives the site a bad reputation among alarmists.
Here is a book with a twist – an eco gone rogue and self modified into a climate change “denier”. His experience parallels many, actually, including some of mine (though I’d never join Greenpeace, UPDATE: and now after having read his Kindle book, I’ll point out that I believe that CO2 has some effect, but far less than has been claimed, especially where feedbacks operate) – Anthony
From the description:
Paul Caruso once lived in an off-grid eco-community, grew much of his own food and was an active member of Greenpeace. However, over the past few years he has lost his faith in human induced climate change and become a denier!
He doesn’t really deny that the climate is changing – he has just come to the conclusion that it is natural variation.