The eruptions of frantic doomsaying and apocalyptic fantasies on Facebook following President Trump’s announcement that the U.S. would no longer consider itself a party to the Paris accord on climate change. Seldom have I been more tempted to write, “Have you taken leave of your senses?” on so many of my friends’ walls. The statements are hyperbolic in the extreme. “I am glad that I won’t be alive, but fear for my children and grandchildren, when the effects of this catastrophic decision arrive!” wrote one hysteric. “What can we do to save the earth?” wrote another, in all caps. Naturally there were links to similarly over-heated blog posts and op-eds, and the routine amount of Trump vilification and hate. “Is he trying to destroy us all?” wrote one usually rational acquaintance who appears to be headed for a padded room and a guardian ad litem.
These people are all circulating among similarly oriented citizens increasingly emotional outcries unhinged to facts or reality, and making each other stressed, anxious and miserable. This is the cyber-equivalent of running around in a crowd screaming that something horrible is about to happen. What happens when you do that? Reason vanishes, fight or flight instincts take over, and people get hurt. These Facebook posts, and similar messages on other social media platforms, are at best shameless virtue-signalling–-I care about the environment! I’m a believer in everything I’m told that scientists are saying even though I really don’t understand anything about it! I hate Donald Trump like every other decent human being! Love me!-–and at worst, they are societal napalm.
Both President Obama’s 2016 signing of the Paris Agreement on climate change and President Trump’s withdrawal from that agreement had minimal policy impact, if any. The advocates are arguing about symbolism as if it were substance. Is it possible that the people writing that Trump has destroyed the future while cackling maniacally in his White House lair know how non-substantive, unspecific, self-defining, voluntary and unenforceable the thing is? I have to assume they have not, in which case everyone is reading climate change doomsday predictions from friends who they trust and assume they know what they are talking about, when, in fact, they don’t.
Read the text of the agreement (If the Facebook doomsayers have, they are lying about what leaving it means, or they can’t read.). It is a crooked peashooter against Godzilla, Jaws, an elephant or a particularly mean and unpredictable gopher, depending on how seriously you want to take Al Gore and scientifically ignorant shills like Nancy Pelosi (no, Nancy, climate change measures are not about “the air we breathe”) and John Kerry (no, you hack, air conditioners are not a greater threat than ISIS). It is a set of weak agreements using ambiguous language and laughable flexibility allowing countries to reinterpret their commitments as they go along. As the Federalist fairly summed up, “If you listened to President Trump’s remarks today you would think staying in the Paris Agreement would destroy the U.S. economy. If you listen to many advocates who support the agreement, you would think you need to start building an ark, soon.” Neither is close to being true. The policy achievements, such as they were (that is, almost entirely symbolic) have been over-hyped by the politicians involved, including, and perhaps especially, Barack Obama, because the climate change obsessives are as gullible as they are biased and inadequately informed. For his part, President Trump has a political interest in selling his anti-climate change base on the fiction that withdrawing from the agreements makes a substantive difference, when he is only nullifying American participation in an agreement that was substantively insignificant to begin with.
Now, responsible Facebook users could do something constructive, encouraging productive discussions by explaining this to the people who like and trust them, after, of course, they sufficiently educate themselves. While they are at it, they might also explain that Obama’s trick of not presenting what should have been a treaty to Congress and instead calling it an “executive agreement” because he was uniquely unable to build the political consensus treaties require was a good reason to ditch the Paris agreement as a matter pf principle.It was an end-around the Constitution.
Instead, Facebook users are taking to the social media echo chamber and screaming, “AHHHHHHHHHHH!” so the friends who read them think it makes sense to scream “AHHHHHHHHHHH!”, so pretty soon everyone is screaming “AHHHHHHHHHHH!” and becoming panicked, frightened and hysterical. And they still don’t know beans about the Paris agreement.
Nice job, everybody!
Ethics Alarms 
Henny Penny anny-onney?
I’m starting to think that “social media” like Facebook and Twitter is the worst thing humans have managed to come up with so far. And we invented genocide and reality TV.
In all seriousness, it’s not the worst we’ve done and it has upsides, but as a species we are in waaay over our heads with the internet. Psychologically we’re wired to receive information and emotional input from around 200 people we know and understand well enough to judge as sources. A tribe, basically. Cities and writing are a blip on an evolutionary scale, we don’t even totally have a handle on how to process those situations. And now the internet links us to a never ending stream of input from all over the world… It’s very nearly impossible for any of us to act rationally, because we just don’t have a way of processing it.
“we just don’t have a way of processing it.”
Then try harder. Cut your exposure, if you cannot be an adult about it. “We just cannot do better” is not an answer, it is a cop out.
You got there before I could. Thanks.
Not what I meant. We’re all full of biases, distracted by fallacies, and prone to misjudging dangers. Psychology has decades of data on this. In small groups these are manageable, and sometimes even beneficial for processing information efficiently and reacting to threats. In the modern world, not so much.
So this isn’t a threat you’re prone to misjudging, or you avoid this specific kind of overreaction. That’s great! Me too! But I can promise you there are places where information overload has you over or underestimating threats as compared to actual statistical likelihood; trusting authorities (both individuals and establishments) who, upon closer examination, you probably shouldn’t be; and using the mental shortcuts we’ve developed over millions of years, without even knowing it, which are increasingly dangerous in a world where we interact with the entire world at once.
That’s not an excuse, any more than “guns are more dangerous than ways we evolved to channel violence” is an excuse for mishandling a gun. It’s an observation of danger that we all should be aware of in the modern world, where our instincts are likely to be getting in our way. Those who think they’re immune — that they can handle this, no problem — are the most dangerous.
Thank you for the clarity
Evidence of mob rules influencing an ever growing hive mind.
We’re doomed I say, doomed! 😉
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
Bingo!
I just read some of the comments to your post on Facebook. A lot of them consist of changing the subject. They have no apparent interest in addressing the substance of your remarks, but rather to assert because you don’t believe Trump is bad, you’re somehow a denier of basic science and provable fact. The ancient wisdom of correlation =/= causation seems to be a concept more alien than the nth dimension, and demonstrating their self-awareness and moral virtue on the subject is the only response they can think of, or consider valuable enough to express.
Your argument was that the treaty was effectively a meaningless catharsis modifiable at the whim of the signatories that was never ratified by the Senate as required by our constitution, and therefore about as binding on us as an agreement between Monaco and Gibraltar. So Trump’s “pull out” was a nothingburger, a nonesuch, a non-event. He pulled out of an agreement that wasn’t an agreement, because it was never ratified.
But that didn’t stop your Facebook buds from telling you that you are effectively a climate change denier, and therefore a heretic and unbeliever. Because shut up.
It’s interesting that we live in a time where constant access to others peoples opinions has seemingly helped to further divide. Social media currently has its place but I don’t use it because the costs are too high. First off, I don’t have time for it. There are too many good books out there for one. And I prefer to not know what my cousin thinks about his recent colonoscopy.
My joke is our family participates in the original Facebook…meet face to face, then read a book.
All I know is when we eliminated social media & most television our household was rewarded with a level serenity that we continue to bask in. Friends & family (including teenagers) love visiting our home because it has a calm feeling to it (though perhaps my always making cookies helps). We don’t have wifi, cable, and just recently after 2 years started watching a bit of television. All this may sound boring but the benefits to our health & peace of mind have been worth the Luddite label. On a nice days I can sit outside on the deck for hours just watching the leaves dance in the wind, the sun cast its shine, and neighbors walking their dogs. So much more entertaining than the latest whatever trending on TwitFace. The closest thing I have to social media is this blog & articles on the Federalist.
I’d address the globalist plot helped no less by the Club of Rome to convert the worlds people to the Green World Religion but the birds are singing & its time to make coffee in the French press.
Well said, Lady Q.
I do not social media (I do have texts and one group text app, but only from people approved by ME) This site represents 99+% of online posting (you lucky people!) and I browse and research for news.
TV is recorded shows only (and only a couple, and commercials *I* want to see as I skip past) that I do not have time to watch, usually. “How It’s Made” plays more than almost anything else: no politics, just entertaining info, in a take it or leave it fashion, as time permits.
Netflix and DVDs are next: we may binge watch “Dr. Who” or some other show (usually NOT the ones people talk about) but it is for entertainment value. Redbox is our friend.
We have started Family Game Night with the two teens still at home. Music only (no headphones,) no devices allowed. We agree on the type of music, and ironically use the TV to play it. 🙂
A nice walk allows my wife and I to connect without distraction (well, our phones track our progress, but that is all) and has health benefits.
We are boring. No doubt. We are main stream Americans, living our lives as WE see fit. We drive the cars we can/want to afford, according to our needs.
I am working on my wife to unplug from social media as much as is possible for a teacher: she is seeing how the poison seeps in and destroys her tranquility.
Progressives can take their unwanted opinions, fold them up in all sharp corners, and stuff them where the sun does not shine.
TwitFace? Thank you, Mrs. Q. You have made my day.
If Kerry, et al, see air conditioners as the Demon Spawn, I invite them to do something proactive; stop using them.
This would make the criminally insane cabal of Climate Criminals (AKA: the UNIPCC) squeal with delight. They believe everyone, (which does NOT include themselves and/or the well-heeled, coddled attendees of Climate Conferences) to cut back energy usage 50 %.
There are folks that tremble like a dry leaf in a strong wind (made drier and stronger because of Global Warming) at the mere mention of Climate Change. Funniest thing, their concern invariably wilts like August lettuce juuuuuust shy of their checkbooks and any sacrifices of their personal comfort
Once their vitals have returned to acceptable levels, I ask them all a simple question: What have you done, what are you doing, and what will you do going forward to address the Global Warming that’s here and worse than the models predicted?
Only one has ever responded, and he doesn’t know the difference between albedo and a feedback loop.
His “contribution?” Preventing the spread of “false” information, which I took to mean ignoring the most basic aspect of scientific inquiry: skepticism.
Back to air conditioners and the fear their increase is causing, you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.
The world (mostly poor areas in Asia, Malaysia, Africa, Mexico, etc.) is on pace to add 700,000,000 units by 2030 and a total of 1.6 Billion (that’s with a B!) by 2050.
http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2016/06/02/world-air-conditioners
This creates a hilarious Lefty conundrum: their suffocating White Lefty Guilt requires they feel sorry for poor people, unless they’re lightly complected Southerners.
The poor want the comforts that Wamalista Alarmacysts take for granted (improved diets, on-demand energy, above subsistence living, etc.), yet satisfying those desires will have a deleterious affect on Mother Gaia.
What can be done that won’t involve compromising a lifestyle of Brie, Chablis, & Wheat Grass Tea?
Of course, this post neglects to point out that this move out of the Paris Accord comes in the context of a President who called climate change a hoax, the appointment of an EPA head who has a history of obstructing the work of the EPA and is setting about rolling back environmental protections, and, most importantly, no thought about or plan for proactively addressing what even many anti-Paris partisans admit is a worrying phenomenon, the warming of the planet. And, if I look at scientific evidence, listen to experts, and accept a widely-held scientific consensus about this issue, and I end up scared shitless at the lack of concern demonstrated by our government, guess what? It is presumptuous of you to dismiss my fears and offensive of you to call me ignorant and gullible. Name-calling and dismissiveness is not a particularly good tactic if your goal is to persuade, and if your goal isn’t to persuade, what is it? To nurture the echo-chamber divisiveness that has come to characterize our politics? This type of un-generous and condescending scold makes me wonder.
“Of course,” in the sense that like any fair and competent analyst, I don’t pollute the facts with irrelevancies. Does the Paris accord become any more substantive, or any less disposable, because of what anyone has said about it in the past, President or plumber? No.
If you want to express and spread panic based on “a President who called climate change a hoax, the appointment of an EPA head who has a history of obstructing the work of the EPA” that’s at least based on a plausible opinion. Claiming that the leaving of the Paris Accord, however, is cause for alarms is straight up nonsense, and, as I said, is either dishonest or ignorant. If the President and the EPA chief is what has you worried, say so. Don’t exploit a meaningless gesture because that’s the Facebook freak-out of the day. That’s cynical and dishonest.
“It is presumptuous of you to dismiss my fears and offensive of you to call me ignorant and gullible. Name-calling and dismissiveness is not a particularly good tactic if your goal is to persuade, and if your goal isn’t to persuade, what is it?”
The post isn’t about your generic fears, now is it? It is about spreading hysteria by misrepresenting the Paris agreement. It’s not presumptuous to sate a fact: if you think I’m wrong, please explain how the accord is any more than symbolic. (Almost nobody makes that case.) Nor am I name calling: claiming the world is doomed (you didn’t do this, or if so, I missed it) over an act that has no such effect IS irresponsible and dumb: that’s not name-calling, that’s diagnosis. Nor am I trying to persuade: I don’t have to persuade that the Paris agreement is fluff: read the damn thing. Since it’s fluff, I don’t have to persuade that pushing fear on Facebook over our exit is silly and harmful. It is.
It isn’t a meaningless gesture; it is full of meaning. It was a symbolic middle finger to the rest of the world, and to those who disagree with the president and agree with the vast majority of climate scientists. I’m not going to predict doom and gloom–you’re right that we don’t know the exact consequences of climate change yet–but this was absolutely a bad sign.
I’ll see your symbolic middle finger and raise you a hearty FUCK YOU to scientific inquiry courtesy of the Rock Stars of the “Consensus,” (CON US for short) gleaned from a VERY small sampling of the ClimateGate emails
(emphasis mine throughout)
Dr. Phil Jones: “I HOPE YOU’RE NOT RIGHT ABOUT THE LACK OF WARMING LASTING TILL ABOUT 2020. I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office press release with Doug’s paper that said something like – half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998!”
Dr. Phil Jones: ”Bottom line – there is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years … this is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and variability.”
Dr. Phil Jones to Michael Mann, on the death of Australian sceptic John Daly: ”In an odd way this is cheering news!”
Dr. Phil Jones: ”If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone … We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”
Dr. Phil Jones: ”PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. DON’T ANY OF YOU THREE TELL ANYBODY THAT THE UK HAS A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.”
Dr. Phil Jones: “I did get an email from the FoI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails – unless this was normal deleting to keep emails manageable!”
Dr. Phil Jones: ”Can you delete any emails you may have had with (Dr.) Keith (Briffa) re AR4? Keith will do likewise … Can you also email (Dr.) Gene (Wahl) and get him to do the same?”
Dr. Ben Santer: Next time I see (skepic Dr.) Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him.”
Dr. Phil Jones: – try and change the Received date! Don’t give those sceptic something to amuse themselves with.
Tom Wigley: If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse sceptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.”
Dr. Phil Jones: ”I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Dr. Michael Mann: ”How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that anti-greenhouse science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and so on).”
Dr. Michael Mann: ”We can hold (Warmalista Alarmacyst site realclimate.com) comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not …”
Dr. Kevin Trenberth: ”WHERE THE HECK IS THE GLOBAL WARMING?” We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. …
And the kill shot: ”The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
Whoa Nellie, sounds like the Rock Stars had some rather embarrassing misgivings about “settled science,” not to mention criminal conspiracy to avoid/dodge/intentionally non-comply with FOIA requests, am I right?
Just good honest Climate Scientists conducting good old Climate Science, or felonious & fraudulent misrepresentations and misuse of federal funds?
I’m leaning toward the latter; you?
Once a couple of these egg-heads gets a whiff of doing some serious time, something for which they’re not…um…calibrated, you’re going to hear them start to sing like canaries.
Yes, well, that was a fabulous entry in Out of Context Theater, but of course you know the “ClimateGate” emails were thoroughly investigated, and your selective interpretation of them thoroughly debunked. Your comment may have been more convincing a decade ago, before virtually every informed person knew its basic premises were bullshit, but at this point, it’s merely a fascinating relic of a bygone age.
Chris, serious question. I cannot find that the email were debunked. What are your sources?
They were not “thoroughly debunked.” They were spun too far one way, then spun the other. They showed unprofessional approaches, biases and attitudes toward dissenting opinions. They legitimately called into question the objectivity of the researchers.
It’s a troubling sign that you would shrug them off this way.
Chris wrote, “Yes, well, that was a fabulous entry in Out of Context Theater, but of course you know the “ClimateGate” emails were thoroughly investigated, and your selective interpretation of them thoroughly debunked.”
Debunked? Really?
Chris saying so doesn’t make it so; provide links to what you call the debunking?
Personally I think you’ve succumb to false propaganda and you’re just parroting what you’ve “heard”. Admitting it is the first step. 😉
“Debunked,” you say? More like “Green-washed.”
Interesting story; former PSU President and soon to be incarcerated Graham Spanier botched an investigation of then PSU employee/current shrillest-of-the-shrill Warmalista Alarmacyst, Dr. Michael Mann ~ 8 years ago.
Spanier failed to properly investigate Mann’s Climate Criminality, allowing Mann to skate over to UVa where he’s occupied with keeping his tax-payer funded emails from FOIA requests and, you know, like, the scrutiny of the people that underwrote them.
Strange, isn’t that eerily similar to what the Climate Criminals did at ClimateGate: trying to derail an investigation with mass email deleting, isn’t that what investigators would call a “pattern?”
And who do they think they are, Hillarity Clinton?
Anywho, does the name Spanier sound familiar? It should, his manifest incompetence was on full display during another botched investigation at that same school; the wildly expensive, personally devastating, and far-reaching repercussions of which resound to this day.
The name Jerry Sandusky ring a bell?
“before virtually every informed person knew its basic premises were bullshit”
Perhaps you’re just much more “dialed in” than the great unwashed, able to see what escapes the unpracticed eye, but I must confess that in this instance, your smug arrogance is absolutely staggering!
One more question; if Global Warming is such a slam dunk, why all the fraud, data-manipulation, shoddy science, character assassination of skeptics, secrecy, and BULL SHIT?
Got an almost-as-good question Paul…where’s the water? According to AlGore in 2000, the coastal cities were due to be inundated in 10 years. It’s been 17, and there’s no inundation. I repeat, where’s the water? It ain’t here and it likely ain’t coming.
Fat Albert’s hilarious, he claims the ocean couldifmaymight rise ~ 7 meters yet has a luxury Bay Area condo ~ 3 meters above SL.
‘Course, the area’s housing market’s a tad soft now…
It really isn’t difficult to Google “Climategate” and find the many debunkings–I’ll let you gentlemen do that, as I’m not remotely interested in rehashing a nearly decade-old debate that the conspiracy theorists already lost.
Arghhh. I explained this. The e-mails were not debunked—they say what they say. Spinning is not debunking. You cannot honestly read the links here and shrug them off.
No, they don’t PROVE climate change is a hoax. They prove that the scientists studying it have been conflicted and compromised.
All 97% of scientists who have studied this issue and concluded that rising temps, melting polar ice-caps, species endangered as habitats shrink, deforestation involve the things we’ve been pumping into the atmosphere for decades, all are conflicted and compromised? Wow. Quite a conspiracy. Not an honest person or altruistic soul among the lot? Respectfully, this seems a world view informed by a remarkable cynicism.
1. What in the world does that have to do about the post?
2. Shifting goal posts. Those e-mails portray an echo chamber and a clicque.
3. The 97% stat is a fake statistic, and using it is a tell. You really shouldn’t do that. It’s another reasonable people are skeptical about the climate change hysteria,
4. Since the 97% is fake, I don’t know what “all” means. The scientific establishment has proven itself conflicted and compromised, because it has capitulated to politics on this issue. Too bad. Stupid. They should be trustworthy.
According to whom is that stat “fake?” Again, your argument seems based on a shockingly, dare I say nearly unbelievable, amount of dishonesty on the part of many, many individuals, several of whom I’ve listened to carefully and have been impressed by their thoughtfulness and integrity.
“It’s not enough for me to be right; my opponents must also be evil.”
“It’s not enough for me to be right; my opponents must also be evil.”
I’m tempted to say that a vocal climate change advocate is ethically estopped from writing that, Chris.
Who has linked skeptics about scientific models that have yet to be reliable the equivilent of Holocaust deniers? Who has argued that those opposing radical climate change policies should be imprisoned, like Robert Kennedy Jr, Bill Nye, and Loretta Lynch?
This is called “shaky ground,” no? The climate change lobby has staked out a position of vilification that its opposition hasn’t gotten close to.
I’m disappointed that you didn’t take the opportunity to concede that some, any people who are climate voters, or some, any of the scientists who caution against inaction in the face of climate change, that any of these people might be expressing honest concerns. It lets stand my inference that you consider everyone opposite you on this issue dishonest and/or venal, and therefore I stick by my above tweak of your dismissive disdain. The conspiracy you imply is as sinister as a Bond adversary, SPECTRE, or Blofeld, or Mike Myers. Reminds me of your critique of overblown reaction to Trump. And your citing of the most extreme rhetoric of climate concerned activists reminds me of your frequent scolding of those who justify over-the-top rhetoric because the other side does it. And I will not be “estopped,” ethically or otherwise, because someone who shares my policy agenda said something stupid. You are the lawyer, but: “If the law supposes that, the law is a ass — a idiot.” Love, Mr Bumble
Arghhh. I explained this. The e-mails were not debunked—they say what they say.
Yes, and a great deal of what they said has been spun into the most sinister light possible by people who don’t understand scientific terminology like “hide the decline.” What Paul is doing is taking quotes out of context and misleading people.
You cannot honestly read the links here and shrug them off.
I honestly cannot bring myself to read anything from Anthony Watts at this point, as he is a discredited liar. I spent plenty of time on his website years ago–it’s not a reliable source, Jack.
You don’t get it, Chris. If a right-wing think tank funded by the Koch Brothers does a hit-job on scientists, that’s evidence. If you believe scientists more than you do organs of the fossil fuel industry, you are an alarmist, illogical, dishonest sheep. (Wow! I disparaged the motives of my ideological opponents. I feel like I’m suddenly going to be embraced by the commentators on this blog!)
Of course, biased scientists can still make good arguments and produce convincing research. The bias is a reason to be wary and why research requires duplication and verification. But, see, the presence of biasing factors—like who pays for the research—is a legitimate reason for skepticism and caution from those assessing the results objectively.
But why do you assume that research by scientists being funded by left-side interests and working at ideologically driven universities are any more “pure” than oil company funded research?
Ah! So the theory is that if something is exaggerated in one direction, this justifies exaggerating in the other direction. Th e-mails showed a biased cabal of petty academics behaving like mean girls. Nothing sinister. Just bias and immaturity—but relevant to trustworthiness.
The exaggerations may have been “debunked” but the emails have not. Res ipsa loquitur.
3. The 97% stat is a fake statistic
We’ve been through this before; it is not. The methodology was valid and the result has been reproduced multiple times.
You are quoting fake news. It is a made up figure, and the fact that you think that methodology is valid is confirmation bias. It’s an impossible stat to verify, for one thing. It lumps diverse opinions into a single pot by over-simplifying, and it is meaningless anyway. Science isn’t a poll or an election.
97% do not agree on the stuff that matters, and citing it suggests otherwise, misleading the Facebook knee-jerks who scream “ARGGHHH! We’re doomed!” Do their models agree? No. Can they agree on why climate change stopped for decades in the past? No. Can they agree on how long the world has before nothing can be done? No. Do they agree that other factors will not intervene to stop or reverse the warming, like sun activity? No. Do they agree what measures, if any, will have a sufficient ameliorating effect? No. Do they agree what trade-offs are acceptable or prudent? No, and that isn’t their area of expertise anyway. Are all 97% equally objective, astute, careful, unbiased and trustworthy? NO!
Conclusion: the 97% is a junk stat used by people who don’t really understand the science, haven’t read the studies, couldn’t evaluate a model if a gun was at their head, and can’t argue on substance, any more than Jim Imhoff. They have just chosen sides, based on what they want to be true. It is, as I say, a tell.
“The bias is a reason to be wary and why research requires duplication and verification.”
Gosh, why have the Consensus Scientists steadfastly refused to turn over their data-sets and methodologies in order for others to complete THE most basic aspects of scientific inquiry: independently determined reproducibility, verifiability, and falsifiability?
Chrissy-Boy & Chris, if we know the Koch Brothers haven’t gotten to them, who then?
Anywho, recall in 2011 when CERN Researchers thought they’d overturned Einstein’s Theory of Relativity with their experimental measurement of neutrinos exceeding the speed of light?
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0223/Einstein-vindicated-Neutrinos-probably-not-faster-than-light.-video
This would have been a monumental scientific discovery of epic proportions, putting these researchers on the Mount Rushmore of Science
To say nothing of the book/movie deals & merchandising tie-ins….
The FIRST thing these researchers did was what anyone with a whit of respect for scientific inquiry would do: they turned their research, methodologies, and results over for independent review.
Their adherence to the way pure science ought to be conducted resulted in their being proven wrong.
I’ve yet to see the the Consensus group conduct themselves in a manner even in the same Universe.
“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.” Thomas Huxley
Jack:
97% do not agree on the stuff that matters, and citing it suggests otherwise, misleading the Facebook knee-jerks who scream “ARGGHHH! We’re doomed!” Do their models agree? No. Can they agree on why climate change stopped for decades in the past? No. Can they agree on how long the world has before nothing can be done? No. Do they agree that other factors will not intervene to stop or reverse the warming, like sun activity? No. Do they agree what measures, if any, will have a sufficient ameliorating effect? No. Do they agree what trade-offs are acceptable or prudent? No, and that isn’t their area of expertise anyway. Are all 97% equally objective, astute, careful, unbiased and trustworthy? NO!
97% agree that a) global warming is happening and b) that it is at least partially caused by human activity, primarily CO2 emissions.
You may not think this is “the stuff that matters,” but these two facts are consistently denied by Republicans in politics, including by the President of the United States.
That matters.
There is no scientific debate about whether climate change exists. There is only a political debate. I have chosen the “side” of 97% of scientists because that is a rational decision to make.
No, Chris, it doesn’t matter. Saying climate change “exists” is scientifically useless. Of course it exists. Simple stopping with it exists as if that settles the issues that require knowing how much, how long, and what does it mean is as irresponsible (though not quite as stupid) as saying its a hoax.
Except that I didn’t stop at “it exists;” I very clearly said that the vast majority of scientists agree it is at least partially caused by human behavior. That has been denied on this blog.
Not by me. What has been denied? That the vast majority of scientists agree it is at least partially caused by human behavior? I agree with that, but since they don’t agree on how much, or to what extent, it’s not much of a concurrence. That it is at least partially caused by human behavior? I’m guessing that’s true, but nobody has proved it.
Ah! So the theory is that if something is exaggerated in one direction, this justifies exaggerating in the other direction. Th e-mails showed a biased cabal of petty academics behaving like mean girls. Nothing sinister. Just bias and immaturity—but relevant to trustworthiness.
The exaggerations may have been “debunked” but the emails have not. Res ipsa loquitur.
Paul has been accusing the scientists involved in those emails of criminal behavior.
Why not object to that? Isn’t that just as hysterical and deceptive as anything the climate “hysterics” have written?
Now the “Why are you writing about that instead of this” diversion? Digging deep…
Chris E. Boy,
Can you please explain the science behind the doomsday climate arguments?
Chris E. Boy wrote, “President who called climate change a hoax”
The President is not being articulate (shocking) when he says that. The fact is that the climate is changing but that’s not the part that’s the “hoax”, the part that’s the hoax is the part where these “settled science” scientists are blaming it all on human activity when there are verifiable facts that categorically disprove their “settled science” tunnel vision arguments. We are in a cyclical warming trend that has been going on for a long time; cyclical warming and cooling trends are a part of history and have been going on since the last ice age. Scientists blame a nearly insignificant increase in temperature on increasing levels of CO2 and yet they can’t even prove that CO2 is a cause of a warming climate or a result of a warming climate; however, recent trends (roughly the last 150 years) indicate that there has been a significant spike in CO2 atmospheric concentration without a corresponding temperature spike which is a very strong indication that CO2 is quite likely not the major cause of the climate changing. Until these problems with their so-called “settled science” can be properly and scientifically addressed, without completely ignoring facts, their dooms day arguments based on the byproducts of man’s existence are nothing but bad science.
By reposting the following part, I’m making the assumption that Chris E. Boy and Chrissy-Boy are the same person.
Chrissy-Boy wrote, “If Scientistic consensus is right, major parts of our country will be underwater.”
What’s this “If” stuff Chrissy boy? I see that as a tell. You are arguing as if the global warming alarmist arguments are settled science and then you squeeze in this “if” which shows us that you do not fully trust the science or you don’t understand the science, which is it? Which is it, science skeptic or science ignorance?
Chrissy-Boy, some of the global warming alarmist in the past were arguing and spreading fears that between 2010 and 2020 some of the coastal areas of the United States would already be under water. Of course their argument now is “it’s just around the corner”.
P.S. I am a Conservative that is all for cleaning up our environment particularly cleaning up the air we breathe. I’ve consciously been reducing my carbon footprint on the planet since the early 80’s and I’ve estimated that I’ve been reasonably effective at a roughly 40%-50% reduction from my previous imprint and I don’t plan to stop my efforts. I refuse use my environmental consciousness as justification to blindly present bad science as propaganda to manipulate the population. I’m all for cleaning up the air we breathe but they need to stop using lies as their major tactic to accomplishing it.
Jack: if you are talking about removing, say, a guard-rail at the curve of a stretch of highway, it isn’t “polluting the argument” to consider what mechanisms other than the guard-rail might exist to prevent a car from cascading off the road and into somebody’s house. If you want to argue against the importance of context, you need to do so more convincingly to persuade me. (Oh, sorry…I forgot that persuasion is not your goal.) Also, I wasn’t speaking about my generic fears, I was speaking about my specific fears for the planet in a context that included leaving the Paris Accords, which is why I brought them up in a response to your post about Paris. Finally, as Chris (that voice of reason) I think might have been teasing toward, I believe that symbolism in international relations can have profound effect on the world and on history. How many symbolic gestures, by Reagan, Thatcher, Pope John-Paul, Brandt, the man in the white shirt who stood before the Chinese tank, had negligible immediate effect but deep, deep, essentially important, world-changing effect? Your argument (which I don’t subscribe to) that the Paris Accord is “merely” symbolic does not undercut its potential to improve our world.
Zoltar: Being a thoughtful person (not that you aren’t, but to explain my word choice), I will embrace my predictions while at the same time realizing that it is foolish for anyone to assume the future. A child of the 60s/70s, I saw the Berlin Wall fall and Nelson Mandela walk out of prison a free man, things which seemed inconceivable a few years or months or days before they happened. So I will always say “If” when talking about the future.
Jack and Zoltar: I guess the presumption of this blog is that Jack’s analysis must be regarded as irrefutable fact. I have read it (believing myself an intelligent, engaged citizen) and have found that many of his arguments have been engaged and refuted in this article:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/01/why-abandoning-paris-climate-agreement-is-bad-for-america-trump/
and, heresy! I’m more convinced by these arguments than by those I have read from Jack. I guess I’m hysterical, fear-mongering, ignorant, gullible, irresponsible, and dumb! Did I forget anything?
Except that a guardrail is real and has a substantive effect, measurable effect. The Paris accrod was like the Hunger Project. A gesture dishoenstly masquerading as substance. It bound Trump to nothing, nor anyone else. I would argue that it’s more honest to admit its a sham, and not try to fool the public that something was being done when it isn’t and won’t be.
Of course, Trump’s argument wasn’t that the agreement did nothing, but that it was a job killer that would put America in debt and force us to pay more than our fair share. Perhaps your defense would make sense if that were Trump’s logic for not signing, but it’s not, so it’s not.
WHAT??? The Facebook folks are screaming that we’re doomed because he withdrew. We’re not. There are screaming because they think that there was anything in the agreement that was substantively going to affect climate change. There wasn’t. It doesn’t matter if he argued that the agreement would turn the sky to cheese. How does one invalid or dubious argument by someone opposing an agreement that is over-hyped justify another bad conclusion in the other direction?
Were you awake when you wrote this? Sober? That’s terrible logic.
I never said or implied that Trump’s argument justified hysteria on the other side. It seemed from your comment you were defending Trump’s decision to not sign the accords. Since your argument for not signing them is totally different from Trump’s argument, your argument does not justify Trump’s decision. That was my only point.
My only defense of Trump not signing the accords—meaning that they are legitimate arguments, not that I wouldn’t stay in the agreement—is that it was a treaty, and Presidents (Obama) shouldn’t try in commit us to treaties by the back door. The other argument is that if you aren’t going to follow the agreement, and its not enforceable, why mislead everyone?
Again, neither argument has been employed by Trump, and in fact he has employed completely contradictory arguments. So you’re not presenting a defense of Trump not signing the accords. You’re presenting a defense of an imaginary, more logical president not signing the accords.
The Facebook hysterics did not write—“ARRRRGH! The President could have cited valid reasons for leaving the agreement, but instead cited other ones!” They wrote that the future was doomed because he left the accord.
The theory that a reasonable policy choice becomes unreasonable because of the motives or reasons it was taken is a novel one—that’s the basic (judicially unethical) theory for stalling the travel halts in terror centers. It’s brilliant, because it means the same measures deemed acceptable if taken taken by Democratic Presidents become horrible if taken by a Republican President. When Trump starts droning suspected terrorists like Obama did as Democrats shrugged off the obvious due process violations (and as he said “I’m very good at killing people”), I can’t wait to see how Democrats make the case that it’s an impeachable offense because HIS reasons, expressed in 140 character tweets, are dubious.
The Facebook hysterics did not write—“ARRRRGH! The President could have cited valid reasons for leaving the agreement, but instead cited other ones!” They wrote that the future was doomed because he left the accord.
And I wasn’t defending the people who said that. I was addressing your statement that you were defending Trump’s choice.
The theory that a reasonable policy choice becomes unreasonable because of the motives or reasons it was taken is a novel one—that’s the basic (judicially unethical) theory for stalling the travel halts in terror centers. It’s brilliant, because it means the same measures deemed acceptable if taken taken by Democratic Presidents become horrible if taken by a Republican President. When Trump starts droning suspected terrorists like Obama did as Democrats shrugged off the obvious due process violations (and as he said “I’m very good at killing people”), I can’t wait to see how Democrats make the case that it’s an impeachable offense because HIS reasons, expressed in 140 character tweets, are dubious.
But we always take motive into account when determining the ethics of an action. If the man who returned to pay his bar tab the day after the attack in London did so only to get media attention, then his action was less ethical than if he did so because it was the right thing to do.
Account, maybe, sometimes. Motive usually does not and cannot transform an ethical act into an unethical one, or vice-versa. Motives are also seldom unmixed. This drives people who want to excuse conduct that is wrong because the actor had good intentions crazy.
Chrissy-Boy wrote,
I can fully agree that it’s “foolish for anyone to assume the future”; however Chrissy-Boy, in your earlier statement you wrote that “if I look at scientific evidence, listen to experts, and accept a widely-held scientific consensus about this issue, and I end up scared shitless at the lack of concern demonstrated by our government”; why would you say that it’s foolish for anyone to assume the future but yet you say you’re scared shitless at the lack of concern demonstrated by our government which has openly chosen to not foolishly assume that the future that is being predicted by the “settled science” alarmists is accurate when their predictions to-date have not been accurate. So, you being foolish about the predictions is somehow being more rational than someone (Trump) who is not being foolish about the predictions – got it.
Seriously Chrissy-Boy, you can’t have it both ways, you’re talking outta both sides of you mouth. Either you are being foolish or you’re not and if you’re being foolish about the predictions why do you condemn those who choose not to be foolish?
I think this one boils down to anti-Trump for you; Trump dropped out of the Paris agreement and since everything Trump does is “wrong” then the climate alarmists must be right (by default) because Trump is always wrong.
I’m curious why you haven’t addressed any of the points I made about the science. Do you actually understand the scientific evidence you look at or the experts you listen to or do you just blindly fall inline with the bad science because it’s over your head and the environment is a good cause? That last phrase, in bold, is exactly what the climate alarmist want you to do regardless if it’s foolish to predict the future based on bad science. Don’t take offense; but, you’re a good sheep.
Dear Zoltar, meet NASA:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Their “bad science” put men on the moon and achieved the greatest feat of exploration in the history of man, and in an astoundingly impressive amount of time. Please forgive me if I consider it to be a more reliable source of information than you. To rebuke the impressive consensus demonstrated in this article, one must presume immense dishonesty, malpractice, venality, and lack of honor on the part of a stunning number of scientists and organizations. I am not prepared to do so, nor am I prepared to give credence to counter-arguments that are buttressed by fringe organizations whose conclusions contradict not only that consensus, but also my own experience, as a citizen who is living through climate change/global warming and seeing its real-life consequences. PS Half of the GOP and of the current administration were opposed to leaving the Paris Accord, so, rather than being the kind of obvious, slam-dunk decision that Jack and you seem to portray it as, it is a minority decision, controversial even within the party that took the decision. I try not t be mean or personal anymore when I post here, but, in the spirit of “America First,” may I proclaim “Earth First” and suggest these issues be left to inhabitants of our planet, and not whatever planet or galaxy spawned Zoltar. (Tee hee.)
Oh my, are YOU in for it. The rationalizations in this post are staggering, as is the illogical reasoning. I will be back when I have more time to dismantle this post, if anything is left by then.
You’re deputized!
Chrissy-Boy,
I’m going to ignore the rationalizations in your comment and let someone else deal with you on that; I’m on focus on the science. I won’t forget about this; my comment will be forthcoming…
Chrissy-Boy,
I haven’t forgotten.
Update on the forthcoming comment about the science:
Since my post is large, it’s not reasonable to put here. I’m putting it in a blog post, it’s pushing 3000 words right now plus graphs and I’m currently in the process of rereading and editing to keep it reasonably understandable.
I’ll provide a link. Please be patient.
You must be forced to wear a Scarlet “D” for DENIER!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Even a “Dilbert” cartoon lampoons Dr. Michael Mann(-made Global Warming)
Paul, I am waiting with bated breath. Very definitely interested is reading your treatise.
dragin_dragon wrote, “Paul, I am waiting with bated breath. Very definitely interested is reading your treatise.”
We do personally know each other but Zoltar Speaks! is not the same person as Paul.
I didn’t actually think you were, Z. However, both of you guys have similar thought-processes…skeptical, logical and critical of emotion-based assumptions devoid of fact. You also share a working knowledge f the scientific method, uncommon these days. My earlier suggestion to you regarding food production, etc. was made, largely, to both of you.
I’m looking forward to Paul’s treatise as much as yours, although I suspect they will be similar.
“Zoltar Speaks! is not the same person as Paul.”
My eyes don’t follow you around the room…
I think by now I can stipulate that you two guys are not the same person. Sorry if either of you thought that I thought otherwise. Never-the-less, the suggestion for correlations with warming trends stands. Both of you might consider the Bibliography of Michael Crichton’s State Of Fear, copyright 2004. Might even consider reading the novel, and his conclusions at the end.
Shoot, I’m flattered beyond words, you best make things right with Zoltar Speaks! though…
My recommendation is “Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism”
One of the best accounts I’ve ever read.
http://landscapesandcycles.net/
Thanks, Paul. I’ll order a copy before the days out.
I’ll put both of those books on my seemingly unlimited to-do list. I’m gonna have to live till I’m 130 to get it all done. 🙂
Wish I could tell you that it gets better, but at 71, my ‘To Do’ list is NOT appreciably shorter, and my bucket list simply impossible.
Dear Chrissy Boy Meet WHUPP ASS!
Dr. Richard Lindzen, UN IPCC lead author and reviewer resigns abruptly: “Controlling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life.”
2005: Dr. Christopher Landsea resigns abruptly, withdraws from participation in the UNIPCC AR4, ”(it uses) a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.” Landsea claimed the IPCC had become politicized and the leadership ignored his concerns.
2011: UNIPCC Lead Author Ken Caldiera resigns abruptly. “it is not clear how much additional benefit there is to having a huge bureaucratic scientific review effort under UN auspices…”
2014: Dr. Richard Tol (UNIPCC AR5 Working Group II) resigns abruptly from the writing team for the SPM/AR5– September 2013, disagreeing with the profile of the report which he considered too alarmist and putting too little emphasis on opportunities to adapt to climate changes.
“The Panel is directed from within the environment lobby and not from within the science.”
Sensing a trend, here? I am!
Couldn’t be because of the politically motivated fraud that engulfs the organization, could it?
Former IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachuari, a RR Engineer who writes porn novels in his spare time, would have nothing of it.
What would he have some of? Leaving the real scary prediction of the Himalayan Glaciers disappearing by 2035 IN the AR4.
That the REAL year was 2350 and the IPCC had to embarrassingly withdraw their erroneous claim and apologize is inconsequential.
It accomplished what it was intended to accomplish, securing additional funding in the amount of $500 large for, amongst others, TERI (The Energy and Resources Institute).
TERI Director General? Rajendra Pachuari himself.
Hmmm!
Pachuari replaced the widely respected Bob Watson ~2000 at the behest of a memo from EXXON-MOBIL. Why? It was determined that Pachuari would be ‘friendlier” to business.
I’m unsure you’re familiar with the type of business EXXON-MOBIL is in, but I assure you it’s not collecting for the Rotary; NOT a subject True Believers prefer to address.
A Mumbai-based Indian multinational conglomerate with business ties to none other than Rajendra K. Pachauri, the TATA Group, shuttered British steelmaker Corus Redcar, throwing 1700 people out of work.
Why? to cash in on windfall profits of ~$2 billion by selling its carbon credits.
Well, Corus Redcar was an evil polluter and those furloughed workers deserved their fate, am I right?
One way to look at it, Pachuari really cut down on global pollution, so <b<ALL that real GREEN ($) is due recompense for his selfless efforts.
‘Sides, he’s a real real deserving Nobel Laureate, just like Fat Albert and the CHOSEN ONE, isn’t he?
Just good honest CLIMATE CRIMINALS doing good honest CLIMATE CRIMINAL activity…right?
Your use of caps lock is very persuasive and makes you look like a rational person.
I don’t use caps lock, I use the shift key. But verifiable, measurable, & quantifiable facts aren’t user friendly to the committed Warmalista Alarmacyst.
I understand why a True Believer would want to focus on something completely extraneous when they’re faced with all those direct quotes and all that damning truth.
Now: What have you done, what are you doing, and what will you do going forward to address the Global Warming that’s here and worse than the models predicted? And please don’t hesitate to be specific.
FYI, your google searches use enough CO2 to boil a kettle of H2O for that Wheat Grass Tea of which you’re so fond, same with your ad infinitum/ad nauseum posting.
Good God, man, have you no concern FOR THE CHILDREN???
And I humbly recommend that if want to cut back on the atmospheric concentrations of two of the three major GHGs (CH 4 & CO2); respectively, sit down and shut yer mouth!
Methane generally comes from an orifice other than the mouth.
“Methane generally comes from an orifice other than the mouth.”
Hence the “sit down” recommendation.
Chrissy-Boy wrote, “Dear Zoltar, meet NASA:”
Here is the blog I said was forthcoming:
Climate Change
Z, this is a really excellent review and analysis. Comes very close to being a review of the literature for a pending research project in and of itself. Let me throw something else into the mix, just for grins. Try correlating food production with the warm periods, as well as population and “economic well-being”, however you want to define it. This may even surprise you.
dragin_dragon wrote, “Try correlating food production with the warm periods, as well as population and “economic well-being””
Interesting. Do you have any links to inspire me and get me going?
Unfortunately, no. I haven’t actually looked at this in something like 10 years. What made me curious was an historical account of Eric the Red establishing colonies in Greenland, then watching them fall apart as the climate grew colder. Sadly, I can’t even remember the name of that document.
“Try correlating food production with the warm periods, as well as population and “economic well-being”
It’s a personal theory of mine that the “Deep Green/All In” True Believers are “human haters” at heart.
They see humans (except for themselves and the like-minded) as the scourge of Mother Gaia, and I will concede they have a point.
They’re against Global Warming but when you face facts, a few degrees colder rather than a few degrees warmer would be FAR more catastrophic globally on levels too numerous to mention.
There are advantages to a warming climate: 20 times more people succumb due to cold than heat, increased crop yields, parts of sub-Saharan Africa are “greening,” Gross Primary Production (GPP) is on the rise.
The MWP (which they incorrectly contend wasn’t global in nature) was a time of relatively great human prosperity and progress: advances in food production, improved diets & life expectancy increases because of gains in the approach to health & anatomical understanding. The long and the short of it, more people were living longer.
With those population increases, the influence of Religion thrived; many of the great Cathedrals were built during the time.
Now, if there’s anything Lefties (most, not all) hate it’s more, More, MORE non-ideologically certified humans; if they’re religious people of faith, that puts it over the top.
Unless they’re practitioners of The Religion of Peace, who are the victims of EVIL White racists.
So if a warming Planet is allowing more EVIL people (who may or may not be religious) to populate it for longer periods of time, you can see why folks like Chris, Chrissy-Boy, et al, will abandon all objectivity in the effort to nip that at the bud.
Notice neither of them have deigned to answer my question? Probably too busy saving Mother Gaia.
FWIW, the developer of the Mother Gaia Theory, Dr. James “I made a mistake” Lovelock, is a recovering True Believer.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134092/Gaia-scientist-James-Lovelock-I-alarmist-climate-change.html
And he’s far from alone.
Chrissy-boy,
Since others have torn your science into little shreds, let me take a shot at your ethics.
“Meet NASA….Their “bad science” put men on the moon and achieved the greatest feat of exploration in the history of man, and in an astoundingly impressive amount of time.”
Nice appeal to authority, using something done under a capitalist friendly regime. Those people are mostly dead. Organizations change. Did you notice what they have been doing under Obama? Reaching out to Muslims. Great science there, huh? NASA is biased by the Obama Administration.
“Please forgive me if I consider it to be a more reliable source of information than you. To rebuke the impressive consensus demonstrated in this article, one must presume immense dishonesty, malpractice, venality, and lack of honor on the part of a stunning number of scientists and organizations. I am not prepared to do so, nor am I prepared to give credence to counter-arguments that are buttressed by fringe organizations whose conclusions contradict not only that consensus, but also… my own experience, as a citizen who is living through climate change/global warming and seeing its real-life consequences. ”
So what? You are simply validating your bias, when there is a great deal of smoke (if not fire) that you are being lied to. If you are too lazy to look into the science, you are too ignorant to have an opinion here.
“…my own experience, as a citizen who is living through climate change/global warming and seeing its real-life consequences. ”
Can you name a SINGLE instance of something you have experienced that proves man is causing climate change? See, this remark alone disqualifies you from even taking part in a scientific conversation. How many times have we been told ‘x’ would happen by ‘y’ time because of climate change? Notice how EVERY prediction has been wrong? Where are the melted polar ice caps? They were predicted to be gone already. Where are the rising sea levels, up 20 feet by 2013? Where are the ‘super’ hurricanes predicted over the past decade? Weather is variable. Greenland was named thus because it was warm and fertile when the Vikings discovered it. Did man cause Greenland to freeze? Climate propagandists likes to use the observation of ‘because this happened once, and we cannot remember it ever happening before, it must be man’s fault.’ This is simple confirmation bias, and proof of nothing scientifically. Anything you think is ‘real-life consequences’ falls under this category.
“PS Half of the GOP and of the current administration were opposed to leaving the Paris Accord, so, rather than being the kind of obvious, slam-dunk decision that Jack and you seem to portray it as, it is a minority decision, controversial even within the party that took the decision.”
So what? Science is not a popularity contest. At one time most of the population of the Earth thought our planet was flat, and the cosmos revolved around it. Did that make them right? It is also false. Document where half the GOP and Administration were against this.
“I try not t be mean or personal anymore when I post here, but, in the spirit of “America First,” may I proclaim “Earth First” and suggest these issues be left to inhabitants of our planet, and not whatever planet or galaxy spawned Zoltar. (Tee hee.)”
This was precious. “I am not going to be insulting, but now I will insult you.” What, are you in 5th grade? Your virtue signalling means nothing. You do not want to leave ‘these issues’ to the inhabitants of our planet. You are saying you know better than they do, and are doing this for their own good. You cannot pretend to know what they want or care about. If you cared what others thought, you would not rail against Trump voters.
You know better than they do, after all.
CB is such a smart and reflective guy, and I regard his being in this state a revealing and somewhat scary case study. It really is hard insisting on reason and objectivity when your friends, loved ones community and peer group hold furious opinions. He doesn’t have to come here and test himself, though. I respect him a great deal.
I hope I was not too hard on him? This stuff drives me nuts, being an engineer who understands science. I can lose patience with a climate enabler more quickly than with the run of the mill progressive, and that is my problem to deal with, not theirs. Many times they are just virtue signaling and have never thought about it.
CB was making claims about the science, and denigrating rational people for not agreeing, against all logic. Again, my pet peeve.
Mr Schlecht, your comments are intolerant of opposing views, disrespectful of an honest attempt to explain a differing position, disturbingly aggressive, and, eventually, rather childish. I won’t engage at this level of discourse. Be well.
Mr. Schlecht is my Dear 92 year-old Father, call me Paul.
The rest of it? Oy gevalt!
“All 97% of scientists who have studied this issue and concluded that rising temps, melting polar ice-caps, species endangered as habitats shrink, deforestation involve the things we’ve been pumping into the atmosphere for decades, all are conflicted and compromised?”
That is the statement of someone who’s frighteningly ill-informed.
Disturbingly aggressive? You must lead a very sheltered existence.
What have you done, what are you doing, and what will you do going forward to address the Global Warming that’s here and worse than the models predicted?