Climate Change and Alarmists: Why Science Hasn’t Won

I’m passing on this well researched and documented article on climate change. The subject may be open and closed, ‘settled science’ to some, but for many in both the public and even more importantly the scientific community, the debate is far from over. I agree with the post’s author. There is far too much politics, propaganda and outright bullying going on in what should be a calm and rational continuing discussion, rather than an emotional and manipulative push to convince or silence the opposition.
Please consider with an open mind the facts, evidence and observations posed in this article. Climate change, like ‘global warming’ and ‘global cooling’ before it, have become the newest Religion that cannot… should not… must not EVER be questioned. Your mission, if you accept it, is to question everything, including Climate Change Propaganda and Political Pressure. -kia

Ta Voix

“But, but, that’s not real science!”

One of the longest raging debates in the political sphere is the fight about climate change. For all my life, I have been told that any proponent of climate change skepticism is rejecting science and needs to reevaluate their world view. Just this year, “Eco-action” at my school got up and proclaimed that climate change is settled science, resulting in cheers and applause from pretty much everyone around me. It’s hard for a civil, scientific discussion is prevail in this atmosphere.

For most of my life, I never learned anything about climate science, and just listened to politicians interpreting the science for me. I was vehemently against climate change, fossil fuels, the like. I tried my best to conserve what was around me, and hated anyone who thought differently. I had just assumed the science agreed with me. As I’m sure, the majority…

View original post 4,484 more words


15 thoughts on “Climate Change and Alarmists: Why Science Hasn’t Won

  1. Every single argument put forth in this article has already been exhaustively rebutted. This recycling of known talking points to deny man made climate change is straight out of the Heartland Institute’s playbook successfully used to deny and delay the consensus that tobacco is harmful to human health. That’s what these guys get PAID to do.

    Let’s be very clear on the disheartening distortions peddled in the hatchet job article you link to: they are manufactured to promote doubt. For example, the 97% consensus is from multiple studies on peer reviewed climate papers… that show 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. Extremely likely. That’s the point. That’s the root of the consensus… working and publishing climate scientists. Note how the distortion from the opinion piece fails utterly to describe this consensus honestly. Of the 79 published papers on collating scientific opinion on the matter of human caused climate change, 77 yielded a very high confidence. The other two were slightly less confident and ranked only as a high confidence. But the fact that all climate science opinion rests on this end of the confidence spectrum and none on the unlikely end is not presented here. In fact,m it is spun to make it seem like there is scientifically valid dissent.

    This. Is. Not. True.

    The only dissent is what’s being manufactured by people paid to try to find ways and means to distort what’s true, to deny outright the extremely high confidence by working and publishing climate scientists that human activity is radically altering the RATE of climate change by the mechanism of adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere far in excess of what the planet can reabsorb. This is what’s true. It is also true that funding for these groups comes almost entirely from the fossil fuel industry… in exactly the same manner and often by the very same people who were very well paid to lobby on behalf of tobacco companies to cast doubt on very clear scientific consensus that tobacco was harmful to human health.

    What you’ve offered is exactly the kind of doubt the deniers want you to think mitigates the scientific consensus. All they have to do to succeed is make you be skeptical by spoon feeding you bits and pieces of data that seem to be scientifically valid by people who seem to be related to climate science. That’s why I keep reiterating that you are being used, being fooled, being intentionally misled to feel justified that you are more insightful than EVERY MAJOR SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD, organizations that actually employ real climate scientists, who collect real scientific climate data, who actually analyze the data and demonstrate trends, who tell us with a united voice that we are causing global warming by our activities and that we need to stop doing this if we wish to have a world with stable climate. You presume to be skeptical by doubting all of this… not because you know better but because you’ve been fed a pack of distortions and misrepresentations aimed at making you feel like you know better and that those who respect the scientific consensus are the ones who are being fooled.

    Remember, these are the same climate scientists who rang the warning bell about ozone depletion and helped bring about significant changes to business practices through regulation that first constrained and then prohibited ozone depleting gases commonly used at the time. All the same charges were leveled against these same scientists for the same reasons we encounter once again today (but the dissent wasn’t nearly so well funded then as it is today and so well manufactured using the internet) and so the Montreal Protocols received widespread political support and we’ve stopped destroying our ozone layer in the name of profits.

    The same is not the case with greenhouse gases because these companies who produce the products that rely on them and that stand to lose the most should they be restrained – like the tobacco industries with the medical community – have launched a very successful campaign to cast doubt, to fool people like you. This is who you are helping when you pretend your skepticism is reasonable when in fact it is not. It denies scientific consensus and calls the denial ‘skepticism’ when it very clearly is not. It is denialism and we should label this manufactured false skepticism you think you are exercising by what it really is: scientific denialism. Stop being such a putz.


  2. Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’? — A $30,000 Utility Bill

    Armed with Gore’s utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president’s 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.

    I’ll reduce my carbon footprint when celebrities reduce their’s below mine (~1200 kw/h per year).

    Liked by 1 person

    • If they really cared about their impact in the environment, they’d do the one thing that would decrease their impact more than all the greenhouse gas production of all the autos and coal plants on the planet combined. They would go vegetarian or vegan

      Liked by 2 people

      • True dat. In fact, I’ll go one step further: if they were really concerned about eliminating their impact on the environment they would off themselves entirely. 🙂

        Personally, I’m a “live and let live” person, but I don’t presume to dictate what others should or shouldn’t do. It’s just the elitist “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” attitude from those who never walk the talk that annoys me.

        Liked by 1 person

          • How effective would it have been to allow CFC’s to continue being produced (destroying the ozone layer in the process while arguing consumers who weren’t ‘Collective socialists’ should return to using ice boxes rather than refrigerators? This approach is silly.


              • I was protesting rain forest loss for short term cattle raising back in the 80s. But I also know marginal land like much of Alberta is perfect for cattle raising. Many cattlemen are tremendous supporters and model practitioners of sustainable environmentalism (just as are select loggers tremendous supporters and model practitioners of sustainable environmentalism). Just as beef products are not the object of unsustainable cattle practices, wood products are not the object of unsustainable logging practices. The key here is to focus on what is and is not sustainable. That’s the metric that matters.

                I also know just how difficult it is to make meat protein substitutions that still meet the body’s nutritional requirements. So, like everything climate related, I seek the sustainable middle ground.


              • Methane from all ruminants amount to about 15% of global emissions per year. Yes, this needs to be reduced and there is lots of active scientific work on improving the feed to lower this footprint. Yes, methane is about 20 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 but it lasts in the atmosphere for a fraction of the time (about 10 years) so its impact if reduced can be relatively immediate. Yes, global beef consumption is on the rise and this is a very real problem for comprehensively reducing human caused climate change. (Pork is about 40 times more efficient at producing protein than beef per unit of methane produced.) Decreasing the global beef per person is a worthy goal.

                Our metric for sustainability wasn’t the market demand; it was that the land used to raise cattle had to meet the carbon sink requirement for these emissions. Beef raised that didn’t meet this carbon sink requirement would entail an additional carbon tax. That price would then be reflected in the cost per unit for consumption and that hamburger would suddenly cost a whole lot more. That’s why industry wide regulation is important to achieve… so that the real costs are revealed to the consumer.


              • I also wanted to mention that a level playing field is achieved through industry wide regulation to control the terrible excesses like we have seen with beef and now palm oil and I’ve been advocating this necessity forever. Of course, free traders decry such regulation as ‘stifling’ until it is implemented to effect and then industry decries those who want to remove it!


            • I seem to recall that DuPont pressed for legislation to ban CFCs shortly after their old patent on them expired and their new patent for a substitute was granted. So FWIW, the marketplace provided an immediate solution to the problem in that particular instance.

              BTW, corporate agriculture is now the second largest polluter of U.S. waterways, and the U.S. government comes in at third place. (Source)

              Liked by 1 person

Please comment Responsibly and Respectfully

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s