There Are Only Two Types of Climate Deniers–And You Don’t Want To Be Either One
A skeptic comments on my post re: yesterday’s Climate March in which I mentioned that Pakistan saw temperatures of 122F in April. He mentions that all this hub-bub is not about science, but about “short-lived publicity.”
I wish he were right, but he’s not.
True, it’s incorrect to attribute any one weather-related phenomenon to climate change. But it’s hard to overlook that the three hottest years on record (i.e., over the last 130 years) have been 2016, 2015, and 2014–in that order. This is why climate deniers have such a tough time being taken seriously in these modern times of reason, math, and science. Even if you ignore the other countless data points that support the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and look at this alone, you’re saying that something with the probability of one in 2,146,560 (130*129*128) just happened by chance. Educated people don’t think that way.
What this means, and I hesitate to be so blunt, is that climate deniers are either 1) grossly uneducated or 2) pandering to people who are grossly uneducated. There is no third category.
I disagree, the third category are people who are very well aware of the truth, yet for political of financial reasons choose a lie instead.
Right!
I suspect that there are many in the third category.
Sorry if I was unclear on this, but this is essentially what I meant by the second group, i.e., those who understand that AGW is real, but who profit off pretending that it’s not. This is accomplished my pandering to uneducated people, sowing doubt, etc.
Craig,
“climate deniers are either 1) grossly uneducated or 2) pandering to people who are grossly uneducated. There is no third category !”
Proclaimed with all the authority and outrage from the pulpit of an high priest denouncing “heretics” and disbelievers.
Except, as with most preachers, your condemnation is inaccurate. I’m not “denying” climate change, just your interpretation of certain weather events.
So vehement condemnation has nothing to do with the scientific basis for Climate change, but a great deal about your interpretation and orthodoxy to your doctrine. I find it sad when you label any dissenter to your particular version a “denier” or heretic”.
Educated people should be open to all interpretations in an open minded spirit of inquiry, but I guess that depends on the sort of education.
Actually, despite what you say, there is a third category of people who are neither climate deniers, nor fanatical adherents to any particular GWCC cult.
Among the ranks of these folk are those who are anxious to ensure close minded fanatics don’t continue to hi-jack the agenda and polarize the general public.
Perhaps you should consider the wisdom found in Proverbs 11:29
” He that troubles his own house shall inherit the wind “. (or at least see the movie:))
As for arguing about temperature readings in Pakistan or elsewhere, there are a wide number of explanations, not the least being really infinitesimal degrees of increases could be easily attributed to more accurate measuring technology, the shortness of the time-span 2016, 2015, and 2014, ( even a span of 130 years is not very significant). Nor did I argue that the media reports were necessarily inaccurate, just not taken as “gospel”.
I did caution against seizing upon every “favourable” media report as a means of bolstering the “faith”, in what should be a science, not a religious disscussion.
Being skeptical about the significance of unverified media reports, doesn’t make anyone a “climate denier” (a non nonsensical phrase since nobody denies climate exists).
If you continue to label anyone who questions the validity of media articles as “climate deniers” , for daring to not engage in your orthodoxy, then you perhaps you should pay special attention to the exchange between the two adversaries in the play.
In the play, Inherit the Wind, one lawyer accuses the other of, ” having “moved away” from everything both men once believed in”. The other replies, “All motion is relative. Perhaps it is you who have moved away by standing still.”
It’s also disturbing to note you ignored, or refused to comment, on my example of the folly of relying too much on overly excited claims be even respected media publications.
I cited the recent reversal of scientific information coming from the Antarctic. That included admissions by some of the original scientists as to errors in their original methodology.
I’m not a “climate denier”, but you are in danger of becoming preacher for a new “faith” based orthodoxy, with little in common with furthering scientific inquiry.