December 22, 2009 Leave a comment
In the wake of “Climategate” and the aftermath of the Copenhagen CarbonFest, it’s been interesting to watch the increasingly incoherent “responses” by dedicated cyber foot-soldiers, steadfastly clinging to the tenets of the “Church of Settled Science“.
The following is an excerpt (via WUWT) from an analysis by the Pew Research Centre. Considering the known flaws in the pretty graphs so beloved by key proponents of AGW, it is somewhat ironic that in comparing coverage in the blogosphere with that in “traditional media”, the three graphs presented by Pew cover two different periods. Unless the captions are incorrect, it would seem that in the world according to Pew, a “week” in the blogosphere and Twitter (Dec. 7-11) is different from a “week” in traditional media (Dec. 7-13). Global warming was tops in the blogosphere, but only third on Twitter and in traditional media. But I digress …
In the written analysis, Pew observed:
“The e-mails have popped the credibility bubble of what Roger Pielke Sr. of the University of Colorado, has called ‘the climate oligarchy’” wrote Teófilo de Jesús at Vivificat. “Suddenly I don’t think that I have all the facts, that the sober analysis of competing hypotheses has not taken place, that the global consensus often bandied about is a fallacy — a variation of ad populum argument — and that our nation cannot commit itself to irrevocable courses of actions based on compromised science.”
“The climate change … movement has gone way beyond reasonableness,” added Too Conservative. “The data scandal and burying of conflicting opinions that has recently come to light show that this is indeed more a cultish lemming movement than any scientific phenomenon….”
And speaking of “cultish lemmings” … on the CBC site, a Dec. 21 article was open for “discussion”. Suffice it to say that CBC does not make it easy to have a “discussion”; however, I did my best:
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Monday defended the results of the Copenhagen climate change talks as a significant step toward a binding agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
He made the comments to reporters on Monday in response to criticism from world leaders that the process was flawed.
The UN had hoped the Copenhagen talks could come up with an agreement that could replace Kyoto, which is set to expire in 2012.
Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen, who hosted the summit, complained that lower-level negotiators failed to make enough headway in nearly two weeks of talks, leaving much of the work to be done by leaders at the end of the summit.
While perusing the comments, I came across the following from “Free_Thinker_Matt”:
Let me present 2 scenarios :
Scenario 1 : Climate Change is a hoax, we were all duped
Result : We end up with pretty much the same as we’ve got now, minus perhaps a few thousand dollars, a slightly lower standard of living, and probably less smog, better air quality, etc…
Scenario 2 : Climate Change is real
Result : We destabilize the global climate, causing mass flooding, hurricanes, pandemics, starving, financial collapse
Do you really need to be 100% sure that scenario 2 is where we are heading in order to lean in that direction? You do not KNOW that your home is going to burn down, but you still spend thousands of dollars a year on insurance – just in case.
Even if the risk of scenario 2 is 0.1% – is it not a good idea to do what you can to mitigate it?
As Canadians, it is easy to ignore the risk because we are so well positioned to deal with the consequences. As we have seen with the recent economic problems, however, we are all connected.
I replied as follows [hro001 Posted 2009/12/22 at 1:13 AM ET]:
Free_Thinker_Matt 2009/12/21 at 4:21 PM ET wrote:
“Scenario 1 : Climate Change is a hoax”
There’s the first part of your problem, sir! The reality is that climate does change. It always has – and it always will. Change is what climate does! Consequently, suggesting that it is a “hoax” is somewhat of a straw man.
The issue is whether or not “anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause of climate change (formerly known as global warming)”
I trust you can see the difference between the two. And since you are a FreeThinker, I trust that rather than accepting the word of a self-selecting clique of “climate scientists”, you have done some investigation for yourself.
If you have done your own “due diligence” on this, then you already know that for all the money that has been spent (even before the Copenhagen CarbonFest), none of the papers on which the IPCC recommendations are based come anywhere close to establishing such a causal relationship.
They haven’t even been able to show any correlation which might suggest that CO2 (which is actually beneficial to life on our planet) is a pollutant – let alone such a deadly enemy of the future of the planet.
To borrow your insurance analogy, for a moment. People decide on how much they’re willing to pay for insurance based on a sound risk assessment. In the case of C02, as I’ve shown above (and as the CRU documentation confirms), in the absence of a sound risk assessment, it would require a giant leap of faith in the work of “scientists” who have proven themselves to be less than trustworthy.
This is not to suggest that there is nothing that can be done to ameliorate our less than perfect world. But, putting all our eggs in the carbon basket doesn’t strike me as being a particularly wise move.
I returned several hours later. No sign of any response from “Free_Thinker_Matt” (which isn’t to say there wasn’t one, it’s just that – as I noted above – CBC doesn’t make it easy to carry on a “conversation”). But I did encounter the following from “Nunataq” [Posted 2009/12/22 at 1:42 AM ET]:
— The issue is whether or not “anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause of climate change (formerly known as global warming)” —
Someone has obviously been studying the Frank Luntz propaganda spin document that the 5th Estate did an expose’ on back in ’07 where they mentioned that very same “play on words” to confuse the gullible public with a downplayed version of global warming to “climate change” so the skeptic zealots could use the “climate is always changing” mantra to dodge the facts.
That 5th Estate documentary is still available on their website, just type in “The Denial Machine” and watch Frank explain the skeptic “art of spin”.
There is also a copy of that document available through the DeSmog Blog website, just do a search of “Frank Luntz” in their database.
The rest of hro001′s post is typical skeptic rant. I’m suspect it’s all written down as a coach note sitting beside his/her keyboard.
My post was a “rant”?! For a moment I thought I’d landed back in the trenches of alt.revisionsim – where such non-responsive “replies” (not to mention exercises in projection!) were standard “debating” tactics of Holocaust deniers and Israel-bashers.
Clearly, this incoherent little AGW lemming is bound and determined to keep all his eggs in the carbon basket!