Climate Deniers Still Exist, and They Make Lots of Noise Wherever They Go
As suggested here, it’s still possible to find climate deniers with PhDs after their names. There aren’t many, but they still do exist. Patrick Moore, for instance, was interviewed last year on Fox and Friends and said, “The whole climate crisis is not only fake news, it’s fake science.” Moore’s Twitter bio says “CelebrateCO2!”
Whether Moore’s position is sincere or not is anyone’s guess. In a world where climate deniers in academic circles are like one-armed red-headed left-handers fluent in both Mandarin and Dutch, it’s far easier to stand out and fashion a career for oneself if you can claim to be that rare bird.
In any case, it understandably raises eyebrows when one of these fellows is hired by a university, in this case, the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, Canada, to give a keynote to a conference on Renewable Cities.
I had a very similar experience at my daughter’s alma mater, University of California at Santa Barbara, a couple of years back, where I found myself in an audience of perhaps 500, listening to a man who had been paid to come speak, who explained how climate science and everyone who participates in it is a fraud, sucking down huge salaries and receiving enormous grants to investigate something they know for a fact does not exist.
I wish I had been in the room with UCSB’s Chancellor when he read the letter I wrote in response, which I paraphrase:
a) People with bizarre and unsupportable beliefs on academic subjects are entitled to those beliefs, but they should not be paid to spread them, especially not at an institution with the stature of UCSB, and particularly not in front of a room full of people many of whom have devoted their entire career doing real research and publishing peer-reviewed reports, as opposed to purveying gossip and nonsense. On the other side of the Atlantic there are Holocaust deniers, but I’m quite sure they’re not being paid to speak at Heidelberg.
b) That his position is baseless is one thing. But all this is made that even more outrageous that he publicly impugned the integrity of a broad class of the world’s top scientists. This puts him in a class by himself in terms of both academic and moral bankruptcy.
I’m still reeling in disbelief that this actually took place at UCSB. What happened in that lecture hall was inexcusable, and demands an immediate apology to all who witnessed the spectacle.
Craig,
Perhaps you should try just for once stepping outside your outrage and indignation and read what you write.
Your tirade reads like a sermon delivered by one of the more narrow minded firebrand preachers ranting from a pulpit about the “moral’ wickedness of heretics.
The most shocking thing that you should consider is how you have allowed this new found faith to change your once open-minded liberal values.
Once you would have encouraged debate and enjoyed a free exchange of ideas, especially within the forum of a university assembly hall. Once you would have even participated in the debate with an open and inquiring mind.
Now, you are demanding the censorship of Patrick Moore for fear his ideas might challenge your orthodoxy.
Do you really believe that “a room full of people many of whom have devoted their entire career doing real research and publishing peer-reviewed reports” would be so traumatized by listing(of their own free will) to unorthodox views?
Or are you afraid the heresy might spread and the faithful may begin to have doubts about you particular interpretation?
Next thing you’ll be holding a book burning ceremony!
What exactly is a “climate denier”? I’ve never met anyone who denies the climate exists? For that matter, I’ve never met anyone who has felt the need to prove or disprove the climate exists!
The definition of “climate ” is the long-term average of weather as pertains to any particular geographical location.
But your definition of “climate denier” is a far more vague, yet sinister, term. You employ the term as a form of abusive epithet toward any person who doesn’t share your particular combination of pseudoscience, political ideology and personal belief structure.
You’ve developed a sort of faith based,quasi-religious, political crusade complete with idols, high priests, acolytes, evil enemies and heretics.
Long ago you abandoned objectivity,reason, logic or even commonsense in pursuit of your new faith.
Can’t you understand what is so wrong with your anguished plea;
” all this is made that even more outrageous that he publicly impugned the integrity of a broad class of the world’s top scientists. This puts him in a class by himself in terms of both academic and moral bankruptcy”.
Has you outrage blinded you to absurdity of your complaint?
Do you really imagine “the world’s top scientists’ consider themselves to be persons of such revered or scared status that their utterances must never be challenged ? Do you really believe these persons are so saintly and noble that their motives and personality traits must be free from all criticism?
Why do you feel the need to treat these individuals as exalted, scared oracles, worthy of complete devotion and blind obedience? Don’t you think they are quite capable of defending themselves?
Worse still, why do you want to turn Universities into mere places to worship and teach only your weird new faith?
It’s you who should be issuing an immediate apology.