The lies of climate change denial

#1
C C Offline
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde...ge-denial/

INTRO (Steven Novella): Whenever I write about climate change here, the deniers show up spouting dubious (to say the least) claims. In my opinion, this is a manifestation of a deliberate political strategy, one that we see with other topics. The strategy is to make up blatant lies, or at least claims without the slightest regard for whether or not they are true, and then spread them through ideologically friendly outlets.

Sometimes this may involve amplifying claims that emerge from the most extreme “fever swamps” promoting that ideology. Just keep throwing crap against the wall, and some of it will stick. When these notions make their way into the mainstream media, they are quickly debunked. But by then it’s too late – the damage is done. Long after the false claims are soundly refuted, the rank and file believers will still be quoting them. They are now part of the narrative.

This means that for science communicators and skeptics (but also mainstream journalists), we need to have a working knowledge of these common false claims that are circulating, so that we can respond to them quickly when they emerge. One of the reasons I allow such comments to continue in my blog is because that is one of the ways that I can see which claims are circulating. I don’t mind if they come here – we can handle it. Normally I handle the claims in the comments, but occasionally there is a critical mass of nonsense that is more efficiently dealt with by a post. Here are some recent claims... (MORE - details)

FALSE CLAIMS COVERED: Volcanoes emit more greenhouse gas than human activity ..... Climate models are simplistic and wrong ..... CO2 causes greening which absorbs excess CO2
Reply
#2
Yazata Offline
(Nov 15, 2022 07:31 PM)C C Wrote: INTRO (Steven Novella): Whenever I write about climate change here, the deniers show up

I wonder if Steven is able/willing to distinguish between climate-change deniers and climate-change skeptics. Does anyone deny that climate changes? Denies the ice-ages? I sense a straw-man being slipped in here.

I'd class myself as a climate-change skeptic. I'm skeptical about many of the claims of what I perceive to be climate-change alarmists. I don't deny their assertions so much as I'm not convinced of their truth.

And that seems to be the objection of those like Steven, the fact that people don't unquestioningly believe what people like him tell us. He doesn't like the fact that we prefer to make up our own minds, and the fact that we fail to defer to (assumed) authority.

As for me, I'd say that some skeptical critical-thinking is a sign not only of intelligence but of intellectual integrity. (Whatever happened to that exhortation of decades past: "Don't believe everything you are told?" Why have we done a 180 on that, as we have on so many other things?) We seem to be returning to a medieval intellectual climate where we must believe what the authorities tell us, on pain of being flamed (on the internet if not at the stake).

Why is it so important to them that everyone must agree with them?? Why are they so intolerant of disagreement??

I'm skeptical that a global temperature rise of 1.6 degrees C since the industrial revolution is anything to be panicking about.

I'm skeptical about all the "extinction level event" "Earth on fire" talk which seems to be the grossest hyperbole.

I'm skeptical that the alarmists' long-term decades-out predictions are as good as the alarmists claim they are. (It's all based on models that by their nature can't be tested, can they?)

I'm skeptical because China is by far the world's largest producer of greenhouse gasses, but we hear little or nothing about them. Instead all of the rhetoric is concentrated on forcing fundamental social change in the West and seemingly on returning the West to a pre-industrial economy.

Frankly, I suspect that fundamental social change is the real objective here and that the global warming hysteria is just the pseudo-scientific rhetorical means intentionally created to persuade people to move in that direction.

And bottom line, I'm extremely skeptical when what are purported to be scientific issues are coopted by politics, so that objective questions of true and false become blurred together with and inextricable from subjective issues of should and shouldn't, or good and evil. When facts and values become totally confused as supposedly dispassionate judgements of fact become indicators of one's identification with a particular social or political party or cause. (That's far more corrupting of scientific integrity than matters of money and it seems to be taking over science as we speak.)

Quote:spouting dubious (to say the least) claims. In my opinion, this is a manifestation of a deliberate political strategy, one that we see with other topics. The strategy is to make up blatant lies, or at least claims without the slightest regard for whether or not they are true, and then spread them through ideologically friendly outlets.

Your opponents could/should say the exact same thing about you and those you identify with, Steven.
Reply
#3
Syne Offline
(Nov 15, 2022 07:31 PM)C C Wrote: In my opinion, this is a manifestation of a deliberate political strategy, one that we see with other topics. The strategy is to make up blatant lies hyperbole, or at least claims without the slightest regard for whether or not they are true can be proven or demonstrated, beyond educated guesses and repeatedly failed climate modeling, and then spread them through ideologically friendly outlets.

Sometimes this may involve amplifying claims that emerge from the most extreme “fever swamps” promoting that ideology. Just keep throwing crap against the wall, and some of it will stick. When these notions make their way into the mainstream media, they are quickly debunked amplified. But by then it’s too late – the damage is done. Long after the false claims are soundly refuted, the rank and file believers will still be quoting them. They are now part of the narrative.

9_9
Reply
#4
confused2 Offline
From the start I'd like to make clear that I have great respect for Yazata and I'd prefer not to be 'disagreeable' but sometimes ya just have to do it.

Syne " 9_9 " not so much.

I'm skeptical that a global temperature rise of 1.6 degrees C since the industrial revolution is anything to be panicking about.

The "since the industrial revolution" seems to be embedded in the rhetoric - IMHO it would be better to look at the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere and the source of the CO2 and choose (skeptically or otherwise) whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas and whether or not the observed change may or may not have any effect on global temperature. If, looking at the planet, the distribution of deserts, rainfall, fertile areas and so on isn't determined by average annual temperature to within a degree or so then of course it would be foolish to bother about a change of even a few degrees. 

I'm skeptical about all the "extinction level event" "Earth on fire" talk which seems to be the grossest hyperbole.

The young tend to identify with the poor - it may be half a century before they inherit their parents wealth by which time they will themselves be old. For the rich, of course, climate change (if real) isn't and never will be a problem.

I'm skeptical that the alarmists' long-term decades-out predictions are as good as the alarmists claim they are. (It's all based on models that by their nature can't be tested, can they?)

Whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas is 'fairly' verifiable - just opting out of high school science doesn't change the way physics and chemistry works. Obviously any prediction depends on the assumptions made - if you don't think CO2 is a greenhouse gas and/or the ppm isn't increasing then .. no problem.

I'm skeptical because China is by far the world's largest producer of greenhouse gasses, but we hear little or nothing about them. Instead all of the rhetoric is concentrated on forcing fundamental social change in the West and seemingly on returning the West to a pre-industrial economy.

If 'we' stopped buying stuff from China would they go back to knitting bamboo baskets? Unanswerable but transferring manufacturing to China (because its cheaper) and greenwashing the consumer while ?washing China .. is that what you're doing? Comes back to the population of China not changing the distance between NY and LA.

The SUV is probably (arguably) the peak product of an industrial society - SUV drivers see cycllsts as manifestations of selfishness and stupidity -  cyclists view SUV drivers in exactly the same way. I suspect what the US regards as 'pre-industrial' is what what most of the planet thinks of as 'normal'.
Reply
#5
Zinjanthropos Offline
Read some Google articles that state human activity has postponed the next Ice Age by 100,000 years. Personally I’m never going to know if that’s true for obvious reasons. However I don’t know what’s worse, a slow crushing remodelling of the Earth’s surface or being warmer. I’m imagining everyone in the equatorial zone wearing sweaters and winter coats. At least with oceans receded there might be a little elbow room.. Actually I worry more about Earth’s water because it’s not very hard to see the actual pollution in many places. My descendants will enjoy sailing to the US Midwest.
Reply
#6
Kornee Offline
An example of how CC has been weaponized and effectively aimed at cowering countries that are comparative minnows in respect of CO2 emissions:
https://www.mcgill.ca/humanrights/articl...heres-what

Australia's CO2 emissions do not mysteriously concentrate around Pacific Island dots on the map.
Let the chuffed Pacific Islander coconut kingdoms heads make the same charge against actual huge emitters like China. Somehow one senses that won't happen.
They know the likes of China's Xi Jinping will not prostrate themselves and humbly beg forgiveness. Instinctively go for a soft target.
Reply
#7
confused2 Offline
Collecting up some good points on this thread.
What climate change?
If the Earth only warmed by 1.6 degrees when the average population was 1 billion - why would it increase any faster when the population is 8 billion?
We don't want to go back to the stone age.
Climate change (warming) is a good thing (postpones ice age).
Look at what the Chinese are doing.
Any more good points?
Reply
#8
Zinjanthropos Offline
(Nov 16, 2022 02:44 PM)confused2 Wrote: Collecting up some good points on this thread.
What climate change?
If the Earth only warmed by 1.6 degrees when the average population was 1 billion - why would it increase any faster when the population is 8 billion?
We don't want to go back to the stone age.
Climate change (warming) is a good thing (postpones ice age).
Look at what the Chinese are doing.
Any more good points?

Might want to look at this but you may already know this.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milan...s-climate/

I will never deny the climate changes. If it isn't the Milankovitch cycles then it's something else. Millions of years ago there wasn't anyone around to predict our affect on it. I don't know if we're really important or how insignificant we are in the grand scheme of things but affecting the climate has probably been something in the cards for life since lifeforms showed up. I think the big problem is that a lifeform(s) can change things rather quickly in the geological time sense.

I'm still having trouble figuring out what's best case scenario for the species, a warmer planet or a return to colder weather? I don't think the ice ages have been too beneficial to certain flora & fauna over the millennia. We got thru it and to think halfway through the last ice age there probably wasn't a soul alive who knew what warm weather could really be like. To them, cold weather was normal, they spent lifetimes in it. Sentiment must be so that if nature changes climate then it must be OK...idk
Reply
#9
Kornee Offline
In #6 "An example of how CC has been weaponized..." was meant to read "An example of how CC prevailing dogma has been weaponized...."
Till recently I subscribed to the same skepticism as expressed by others here, but find it hard to ignore the evidence of dramatic North Polar regions ice melting and glacier retreating in recent decades.
Those recent times steady trends are fact.

At the same time, it's clear the likes of Pacific Islands folks have been sent into hysteria over alarmist projections of sea level rises that are orders of magnitude greater than the centimeter levels actually cumulatively accrued so far.
Similarly for predictions of mega deaths in other regions owing to mega droughts. Or super hurricanes/cyclones wreaking stupendous destruction.
Well there has been a lot of widespread droughts, floods, forest fires etc. reported constantly in the MSM.

How much is a true reflection of actual climate induced change, versus Globalist power mongers MSM stooges hyping it all up? Who really knows.
Reply
#10
RainbowUnicorn Offline
hurricane season in the usa is interesting
warmer gulf of mexico is adding strength to the hurricanes

climate change is real
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  There will soon be no more ads denying climate change on Google C C 2 36 Oct 10, 2021 12:15 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Interview with Lee McIntyre: Science denial & post-truth (on our new Dark Age) C C 2 202 Jul 25, 2021 05:41 PM
Last Post: Yazata
  Science denial won’t end sexism C C 1 280 Mar 15, 2019 05:14 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Science denial not limited to political right C C 1 357 Sep 21, 2017 04:31 AM
Last Post: RainbowUnicorn
  Politics and climate change: "Another model vs reality problem" C C 0 472 Jun 9, 2015 12:42 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)