Queen Meave and the Druid, Eleanor Hull, The Boys’ Cuchulainn, Image: S. Reid.
Some commenters wonder why I allow the word cultist, but sometimes there is no better term. Remember, apocalyptic storms are coming, and we’re all going to die, unless we heed the prophesies of the new Gods of Science.
What’s the difference between a real disaster foretold by scientists, or a cult? Evidence, for starters, and we’re still waiting for observations that support the idea that a catastrophe is coming, but there are more clues.
In normal conversations people can be, you know, wrong, but in a cult, wrongness is not a comment on a scientific point, it’s a statement of identity and a judgment of moral fitness. Those who speak against the (insert doctrine) are not just wrong, they are evil, immoral, and not “worthy” of polite conversation. Believers who become skeptics, are exiled (think “apostate”) and let’s not forget the sacrifices for penance (anyone want to buy a carbon credit for their sins?).
Then there’s the machinations to avoid dealing with reality. No matter what evidence skeptics point to, the answer is effectively always the same: the weather-balloons, satellites, ocean buoys and temperature proxies are all flawed but the models are not. When you really get right down to it, it’s right because “the government climate scientists say so” (aka “The Gods must be right”). An eight year old can tell that the whole corrupt thermometer thing is obviously not science, but believers willingly accept that distant all knowing computers can adjust for each individual siting problem en masse and without any information on the siting problem. Likewise, computers on the ground can estimate the temperature of the air 10 km above the tropics better than a radiosonde that passes right through that air. Who would have thought?
Jim Guirard pointed out the similarities between a cult and the belief in catastrophic man-made global warming back in 2009 (excerpt below). Bear in mind that the cult similarities don’t apply to all people (or even most people) who think we need a carbon tax or have Green sympathies, but sometimes it’s exactly the right term (witness the awful murder-suicide in Argentina; what else could you call that?) — Jo
CLARIFICATION: If “cultist” is ok, what’s wrong with “denier”?
Bulldust raises a fair point, “what’s the difference”?” When is an insult OK, and when is it mindless namecalling? Answer: When it can be substantiated. I ask those who use “denier” to point to any scientific evidence we deny (which is exactly what “denier” implies). Since we deny nothing — the descriptor is 100% wrong. It’s a misuse of the English language, it’s Orwellian, and designed to denigrate, to dismiss, and to dehumanize. There is no point talking to a “denier” and no point listening to them.
That said, I did point out that the term only applies to some people. It treads a fine line, and skeptics should be wary of misusing it. But when a dogma is unhealthy, obsessive, condones bullying, and encourages violence (think 10:10 and the gruesome joke of blowing up children) the term “cultist” is accurate, and we should not silence accurate writing, especially while our opponents destroy English. Denier is applied to all and sundry — including people who merely question the evidence. It’s a mindless group-label. You’ll note that I have no single one descriptor for unskeptical commentators, I change it to suit the context. ( eg. Warmer, warmenist, alarmist, pro-carbon-crisis, believer in man-made global warming, supporter of a carbon-tax, government funded climate scientist, Establishment scientist, fans of the Big-Scare-Campaign, unskeptical scientist, activist, and Team Carbonista). Group stereotypes can be dangerous memes. Please use the term “cultist” with care.
It’s good to see this post and the issue of namecalling being debated in the thread. That is exactly as it should be for a skeptical community . — JN
—————————————————————————————————–
The Branch Carbonian Cult
Adapted from Jim Guirard in American Thinker (2009)
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Movement (AGW) has taken on worrisome attributes of a pseudo-religious cult, which operates far more on the basis of an apocalyptic “belief” system than on objective climate science.
Kingdom of the Cults
Here are ten of this AGW ideology’s very specific characteristics, many of whose roots and lock-step influences can be found in Walter Martin’s and Ravi Zacharias’ definitive, award-winning 2003 book, “Kingdom of the Cults:”
-
- Leadership by a self-glorifying, manipulative New Age Prophet — in this case, former Vice-President Al Gore, though he is possibly being supplanted by President Barack Obama.
- Assertion of an apocalyptic threat to all mankind.
- An absolutist definition of both the threat and the proposed solution(s).
- Promise of a salvation from this pending apocalypse.
- Devotion to an inspired text which (arguendo) embodies all the answers — in this case, Prophet Gore’s pseudo-scientific book “Earth in the Balance” and his more recent “An Inconvenient Truth” documentary.
- A specific list of “truths” (see the Ten Commandments listed below) which must be embraced and proselytized by all Cult members..
- An absolute intolerance of any deviation from any of these truths by any Cult member.
- A strident intolerance of any outside criticism of the Cult’s definition of the problem or of its proposed solutions.
- A “Heaven-on-Earth” vision of the results of the mission’s success and/or a “Hell-on-Earth” result if the cultic mission should fail.
- An inordinate fear (and an outright rejection of the possibility) of being proven wrong in either the apocalyptic vision or the proposed salvation.
Prophet Gore’s (and now Prophet Obama’s) Ten Commandments
The Ten Commandments of “Thou-Shalt” and “Thou-Shalt-Not” absolutes — designed for keeping its devoted cultists in lockstep support and its intimidated detractors in retreat:
-
- Thou shalt have but one Mother Earth (Gaia) Goddess before you
- Thou shalt not worship false Prophets — especially sun cycles, ocean cycles, volcanic influences and “Objective Science” in general
- Thou shalt never doubt catastrophic depletion of the so-called “Ozone Layer”
- Thou shalt not doubt man-made “Greenhouse Gasses” as the primary cause of GW
- Thou shalt condemn such doubters as “Extremists” and “Criminals Against Humanity”
- Thou shalt minimize, ignore and deny any and all environmental good news
- Thou shalt avoid benefit-cost evaluations of AGW solutions and never admit error or falsehood about anything
- Thou shalt continue opposing all Nuclear and new Hydro power, despite their non-GW attributes
- Thou shalt promote “zero-carbon-footprint” policies of Less Energy at Higher Prices, except for heavily subsidized ethanol
- Thou shalt engage forever in “Eeeekology” and “Eeeekonomics” (scare-tactics ecology and economics) and never, ever vote Republican
Conclusion: Since every such Prophet-led, scare-mongering, pseudo-religious conspiracy needs a properly descriptive name, and since this one’s primary concerns over alleged depletion of the so-called “ozone layer” over Antarctica have shifted to a panic over CO2, instead, a fitting new name for this cultic gaggle would be the “Branch Carbonian Cult” —
- “Branch” because it is a radical offshoot from the main body of science-based environmentalism;
- “Carbonian” because of its professed fear of carbon dioxide as a primary cause of AGW; and
- “Cult” because of its self-evident structure and practices — which are in full accord with most elements of the typical religious cult, Branch Davidian or Jim Jonesian or otherwise.
American Thinker (2009)
Jim Guirard — TrueSpeak.org Justcauses@aol.com
A DC-area attorney and national security strategist, Jim Guirard was longtime Chief of Staff to former U.S. Senators Allen Ellender and Russell Long. His TrueSpeak.org web site focuses on truth-in-language and truth-in-history in public discourse
Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as a Religion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv9OSxTy1aU
20
The framing of the issue of AGW in quasi-religious or moral terms is a convenient ruse which licences true believers to act in ways that ordinarily they would not. There is safety in numbers. Identification with the herd affords the believer the luxury of adoption of the herd mentality. By submitting to herd groupthink the individual can disappear into the group and indulge in all manner of nasty practices under cover of group approval. Part and parcel of the adoption of groupthink is the practice of demonising one’s opponent, the ‘other’, and denying them even basic rights – to speak or even to exist. Thus, we see ostensibly rational journalists advocating the jailing, tattooing, drowning or gassing of non-believers in AGW. These people have rationalised their belief system, and have succumbed to the moral disease which, in the extreme, ultimately gave us most all of the atrocities of the 20th century. No wonder certain people mention certain totalitarian regimes and AGW advocates in the same breath. One would need to be blind not to see the dangerous parallels. All we need is now is an Australian Greens Enabling Act and Bob will be your uncle (in ways you never imagined).
20
The scary thing is the chief zombie in Australia has under his spell the Prime Minister, who is either too scared or too dumb to denounce the cult.
10
And the public look to our (public funded) science organisations who
have remained shamefully silent throughout. Distrust of politicians,
yeh ok, but scientists ?? The percentage of the population who now
clearly don’t believe them, don’t know whether to weep or worry. Or both
10
“Cultist” ?
How bad/good a word is relevant for a movement that changes data, changes facts, to promote their message?
When you leave honest science to pursuit a “higher” goal, then your movement can rightly be caled “cultists”.
NEW CRYSTAL CLEAR CASES of data changes without scientific justification, not before reported on the net, enjoy:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/systematic-removal-of-warm-peaks-found-in-hadcrut-temperature-data-232.php
K.R Frank
10
I really don’t mind environmentalism being a cult/religion. Just don’t ram your beliefs down my throat. I expect Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Taoists, Environmentalists, plus miscellaneous, to keep their moralising within the confines of their place of worship. We live in a secular society. The agreement is, I don’t forced my brand of salvation on you and you don’t reciprocate.
Now every greenie go away and say three “Hail scientists”
Praise Newton!
20
I forgot to say, that the American Thinker article missed one point about religious indoctrination. All religion’s establish themselves by improving their followers’ quality of life. This convinces them of the benefits that the belief system can provide when followed and even disseminated within the wider population.
What environmentalism achieved was better air and water quality. However, modern environmentalism has hijacked science itself claiming all benefits of science as a quality of the belief system. You can’t argue with science!
This is the moral foundation of these scamsters. If you look at the comments by new visitors(warmists) in recent threads you can see this fallback. They extol the virtues of science in the defense of the indefensible. The guilt complex is applied when you reject the psuedo-science as taking advantage of the science when it suits you and ‘denying’ it when it’s inconvenient. This, is a fundamental logical error which simply cannot be explained to the person using it. The blinkers are simply too broad.
10
Being in Jonestown, Guyana and realizing that Reverend Jones was a fraud is kind of like being a skeptic today, except that it’s not personal suicide that’s on the table, it’s economic suicide.
10
At the risk of being marked down by many who know I do not support the CAGW doctrine, I feel compelled to comment that I do not see how this article is helpful. Many here have argued vehemently (myself especially) that name-calling, in particular the D-word, is uncalled for and not helpful in the scientific debate. Is this position now being abandoned? If we accept the term “cultist” for CAGW types then we should also accept “denier” to describe those who oppose this position.
[Bulldust, fair point to raise, but No, Denier is not OK. I define the difference between an insult and mindless namecalling as whether the insult can be substantiated. I keep asking those who throw it to point to any scientific evidence we deny (which is exactly what “denier” implies). Since we deny nothing science-wise — the descriptor is 100% wrong. It’s a misuse of the English language, it’s Owellian, and designed to denigrate, to dismiss, and to dehumanize. There is no point talking to a “denier” and no point listening to them.
[That said, I did note in the article that the term only applies to some people, and you are right, it treads a fine line, and could be misused. But as I said, sometimes “cultist” is accurate, and we should not silence accurate writing, especially while our opponents destroy English. But I will add a note to the post to clarify. You’ll note that I have no single one descriptor for unskeptical commentators, I change it to suit the context. — JN
10
Bulldust: Good point. I tried to address the same problem in principle in a comment on Judith Curry’s blog a while ago. The essence is that the serious trouble starts only when you pretend to know the individual based on a group stereotype.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/14/politics-of-climate-expertise-part-iii/#comment-32491
10
Bulldust: Off topic, but this is such a funny coincidence. You are mentioned in Judith Curry’s latest blog post relating to the origin of the term “Climategate”.
(I’m assuming there is only one Bulldust.)
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/01/going-viral/
10
Hi Bulldust!
Well said. In comment 5 i support the use of the word “cultist” and gives link to what appears to be evidence of unscintific data manipulation newly discovered.
So when i accept “Cultist” it is for those who crosses the line, destroys science.
The fraudulent, cheating and lying hard core of AGW: You can call them any bad word and it is likely to be ok.
But true, those that just trust the hard core and does nothing wrong, them we should treat fairly and not talk down to, they are in some way victims as well, one might say.
K.R. Frank
10
I agree with you on everything but the title but referring in a derogatory manner to the Branch Davidians even through implication is grossly unfair. I didn’t agree with their version of Christianity but they were a harmless peaceful group of people that Clinton and his henchmen in the DOD FBI ATF and media butchered, then vilified ruthlessly including dozens of children.
11
AGW is of demonology, the devil is in the detail.
10
Bulldust, I agree with you. But, I personally have some feelings of cult victim syndrome in the relation to AGW. So, having a vent every now and then is not entirely a bad thing. I’ve argued for the last couple of years to stick with the science.
However, there is a tyranny on our doorstep which seeks to not only make our lives increasingly miserable but, less in number as well. There are many causes to this phenomena. One of them is the rise in environmentalism as a belief system. Most environmentalist will describe themselves as being spiritually aware but not religious. This does point to a form of cultism. So, I don’t think we can ignore this component of the problem when discussing how on earth we are going to extricate ourselves from the heinous Labor/Greens imposition in our lives.
I personally think they we should adopt alot of anti-cult psychology to the problem. We need to remind our citizenry that, if they don’t believe in AGW then, the are not alone. There is life outside the dogma which is happy, productive and, most importantly, prosperous.
10
Is anyone here an expert in the area of the psychology of cults?
My observation of cultists is that they avoid at all costs examination of opposing viewpoints.
They are often passionate about truth but lack the tools to assess truth, and so tend to confuse affirmation with confirmation.
Conversations have an ‘echolalic’ property. Lots of “Me toos”, “Yes, yes. yes”. No, “Hang on but explain this bit.”, no refinement of belief.
No sense of irony, plenty of sarcasm. (And no ability to distinguish)
Do cultists tend to have inconsistent beliefs as a group, as long as they have a common enemy? Evolution deniers are interesting in this respect. But are they really cultists?
There are many anti-science movements. Some have lots of money, some do not. But they all run “grey literature”, and thrive on opposition.
If opposition to your logic strengthens your belief without you examining your logic then you should beware.
10
“A ‘Heaven-on-Earth’ vision of the results of the mission’s success and/or a ‘Hell-on-Earth’ result if the cultic mission should fail.”
Interesting. When I was in high school, my dad, one of the English teachers, wore a lapel pin reading “Imminentize the Eschaton.” He said he’d gotten it via a National Review promotion (Dad wasn’t so much conservative as puckish), and that it was W.F. Buckley’s typically elliptical way of remonstrating the liberals and their childish “Heaven on Earth Now!” demands.
Maybe we rationalists should resurrect it to twit the greens.
10
If we accept the term “cultist” for CAGW types then we should also accept “denier” to describe those who oppose this position.
Yep..that makes sense????..the first is a word which is 100% relevant..read the article again…if you dont understand then I cannot help you..
The second is a word that is using terms related to the holocaust..and is NOT relevant to the argument.
You can “pretend” to not understand the difference..I dont really care. 🙂
10
If using the term “AGW cult” or “cultist” helps to make some of the uncommitted or ignorant begin to think about the lies being told I’m all for the use of the term.
There is no valid science of AGW from a little more CO2. Observational evidence rules that out. This has made not the slightest difference to the AGW mob.
I’m interested in the response of the planet to a little more CO2 in the atmosphere just so I have an understanding of it but this isn’t about that.
It isn’t about science any more. It never was really.
“The Spartans ask not how many the enemy number, merely where they are”
Before you can fight them you need to locate them. It is about politics which is about using force to determine how people shall live. We are in a monumental battle for the survival of the western rational technical worldview and civilisation itself.
It is “warre to the knife and the knife to the hilt”.
No Prisoners.
10
Jo.
Just picking up “An eight year old can tell that the whole corrupt thermometer thing is obviously not science, but believers willingly accept that distant all knowing computers can adjust for each individual siting problem en masse and without any information on the siting problem.”
Is this a reference to Anthony Watts and his concern about UHI?
I read his paper and I thought that he concluded that UHI had a very minimal impact (maximum temperature trends are very slightly under-estimated, minimum ones are over-estimated) and as a result the mean trends agree with the establishment.
[No “siting” is not the same as UHI. Even and eight year old knows that thermometers shouldn’t be near air conditioning exhaust vents and over concrete. — JN]
10
@ 20 More white-anting and Waffle.
The Church of AGW is still alive but almost done; rejoice!
“Can nobody rid me of this meddlesome priest?”
10
Waffle @ 15
Good stuff.
I too am worried for the warmers.
When the whole thing collapses, as it started to do at Copenhagen, they will start to feel deceived or maybe just confused.
Either way, the loss of group belonging could be catastrophic and Warmer Counseling Centres may need to be set up.
11
Bulldust
Good point.
Perhaps the difference is that with science and scientists we can all look to an agreed body of knowledge as the ultimate arbiter. It does keep us on the straight and narrow.
Mostly we are just arguing about extensions to that agreed base of repeatable science.
The trick used by AGW people is to discuss peripheral science which appears to be relevant to the topic. It is related but not crucial to the argument. AGW has no core science – NONE; the stuff they use is all peripheral and has no implication for Man Made GW.
10
Bulldust @ 9
I’m going to disagree with you Bulldust, but but only in friendliest way that I can, because I don’t disagree with your logic, only the outcome.
Cultists distinguish themselves as “cultists” with one particular act above all others, and that is their need to “witness”. This is the overwhelming “need” to go out and “sell” their message to the “unbelievers”.
There are many, many people who hold a variety of religious views, who do not feel the need to regularly bang on your door and force their belief system down your throat. But then there are those who do – who see it as their “earthly mission” to “convert the heathens”.
CAGW is a modern day belief system and some of its adherents – the cultists – employ modern day “witnessing” methods. Rather than bang on doors, they invade skeptical websites such as this one, trying to “sell” their message and “convert” unbelievers.
One has only to go back to the convoy thread to see Adam Smith, P Dragone, Jovial Monk, imacca (until he was banned) and others, “winessing” now for three days straight, sometimes for over twelve hours a day, trying to “convert” the ignorant heathen.
Sorry Bulldust, but there simply are no suitable words other than “cult” and “cultist” to describe such fervent, devoted behaviour.
And yes, before anybody asks, if I came across a skeptic spending three days, twelve hours a day, at SepticScience or unRealClimate debating a point with the locals there (assuming such a thing were allowed to happen), I would have no choice other than to describe them as a cultist too. It cuts both ways.
10
MaryFJohnston @ 23
“….we can all look to an agreed body of knowledge as the ultimate arbiter.”
With that statement you gave your game away. You’re playing mind games – promoting consensus science.
10
Bulldust@9,
I am of two minds about this, however I don’t consider the label cultist to be in the same realm as “denier”. Denier is a direct and indisputable reference to holocaust denial. A comparable insult to “climate change denier” would be something along the lines of “Science Molester” or something like that, but cultist doesn’t qualify, imho.
For easy (and lazy) compartmentalisation of the agw fanboise, I tend to use the label catastrafarian. For the members of that group who advocate violence, I tend to call them much nastier things, as I’m sure you have seen.
10
Bulldust@9
In modern day language the term cult is used in reference to groups seen as authoritarian,exploitative and use dangerous rituals or mind control. The word implies a group which is a minority in a given society.
Govern-ment is the art of managing perceptions.
Reference: Wikipedia
10
25
Kevin Moore:
Basic science is basic science; C + O2 + heat = CO2
Nobody disputes that.
What game?
10
They’ve all got it totally wrong. Gaia, hungry for carbon dioxide to feed the greening of the post-ice-age world, has supported the rise of a species capable of releasing, unfortunately only temporarily, some of the carbon dioxide locked up in the fossil fuel deposits.
She is doing her bit too, recycling by subduction and re-release of some locked up limestones, and when she organises a natural disaster or two to remind her dependants who is really in charge she makes damn sure it isn’t the carbon dioxide releasers who take the hit. She needs them too much.
Take the hint and do your bit for Gaia.
(Abiotic methane?- who knows- if so, then Gaia. Does Gaian high priesthood sit well with you Louis?)
10
G/Machine #4
Mary #23
Goebells and co. demonstrated the benefits of propagating lies. It worked (with the support of science). And yes, then as now science organizations remained shamefully silent.
All those who are blessed with the education that allows them to establish, for example, that the snake oil is coloured water or your water is poisoned, have a responsibilty to explain to those who do not have the skills or knowledge to know that they are being taken for a ride. The title “scientist” is accompanied with some moral responsibility.
The Y2k scarism was generated by a handful of accounting firms who found a great way to make money selling the scare. Many who said it was exaggerated found themselves unemployed. Recent experience tells me that when it comes to putting your livelihood on the line for the truth, very few are prepared to do so (note the use of pseudonyms on this blog).
Jo rightly points out the “cultist” approach of AGW proponents. In the interests of being able to sleep in their twilight years, scientists should consider
a) their moral responsibilities
b) that AGW is not just another easy money (like y2k) scam, it will have a profound and deleterious effect on many people.
c) will there be retribution when the scam is widely exposed?
So, to the point of the rambling –
Scientists should proudly display their “denier”
tagtatoo.10
“Cultists distinguish themselves as “cultists” with one particular act above all others, and that is their need to “witness”. This is the overwhelming “need” to go out and “sell” their message to the “unbelievers”.
There are many, many people who hold a variety of religious views, who do not feel the need to regularly bang on your door and force their belief system down your throat. But then there are those who do – who see it as their “earthly mission” to “convert the heathens”.”
MV you are describing evangelical churches not cults. For sure there are evangelical environmentalists… jsut as there is a convoy of evangelical truck drivers on the way to Canberra.
10
be careful where your Super goes…
2 Dec 2010: Christian Schools Australia: Christian Super wins Money Magazine’s ‘Best Green Super Fund’ award
Christian Super has won the Best Green Super Fund award for 2011 from Money Magazine…
Christian Super, a public offer fund, is one of over 600 superannuation funds in Australia and is the fund of choice for 19,000 members across churches, schools and ministries. The ethical growth fund is a diversified investment with Australian and international shares.
In 2008, Christian Super was awarded, ‘Sustainable Super Fund of the Year’. Earlier this year they received the ‘Infinity Award’ from SuperRatings, and were ranked second in the second annual ‘Asset Owners Disclosure Project’, part of the Climate Change Investment Initiative run by the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees.
Jennifer* has chosen Christian Super as her superannuation fund because of their ethical investment policy. She and her husband are active members of a suburban ‘sustainability street’ organisation in Melbourne. “It’s a not-for-profit group of local residents who work to educate the local community to reduce their environmental impact” said Jennifer.
The organisation held a workshop on ethical investing and superannuation that challenged participants to find out where their money is invested. “We both started researching our super funds, although I was already with Christian Super at the time,” said Jennifer.
“It turns out that Christian Super is the only ‘deep green’ super fund in Australia. After my husband, Tom, started investigating his super fund, he decided to switch to Christian Super also. We’re really glad to know our retirement funds are both ethical and green,” she said.
Christian Super also invests in funds that comprise renewable energy projects and clean technologies including geothermal, wind, solar and tidal sources; and a sustainable agriculture fund that is mindful of water efficiency and renewal energy practices.
http://csa.edu.au/community/partner-news/456-christian-super-wins-money-magazines-best-green-super-fund-award
10
MattB @ 31
Keep posting MattB – they’re your electrons after all, and you just go on proving my point.
Apart from that – no Plan B (other than “wear a jumper”) and I can’t see the point of replying to you anymore.
What happened to you cultists precious’ “precautionary principle”?
Does it only apply to global “warming” because “cooling” is impossible under current cult dogma?
10
Dagfinn @ 11:
Yes, only one Bulldust. Thanks heaps for that heads up – it caused us endless mirth this morning. Had I been more entrpeneurial in nature I might have leveraged some income off the name 😉
10
Pat @ 32
I foresee a time of great wailing and gnashing of teeth coming up.
“And the smoke of their torment rises forever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image”.
10
BTW I agree with most of the comments above – there is a subtle difference between “cultist” and “denier”, but they are both derrogatory when used in the climate discussions. The main difference between the terms is that it is quite clear skeptics are rarely “denying” anything, we mostly disagree with the outrageous extrapolations from climate models. The moniker is therefore inaccurate. As long as we continue to question things we can be deemed to be sceptical, but it is also a stretch to refer to CAGW types as cultists. It’s a pretty long bow to get from Real Climate, for the sake of argument, to Jonestown. But I am rambling…
Short version: There are a range of positions on both sides of the debate.
10
PS> This seems appropriate :p http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIRb8TigJ28
10
MV – how’s this for precautionary principle… I already own quite a few jumpers and jackets!
10
MattB @ 38
And thanks now for confirming the “mass-murderer” charge.
What comes next – ” and let them eat cake”?
I quietly await the day of atonement – knitting needles and ball of wool in hand.
10
Jiminy @ 20, you said, “I read his paper and I thought that he concluded that UHI had a very minimal impact”. This is, in part, correct if you consider those stations’ histories that have always been influenced by UHI. UHI impacts are greatest where (well-sited) what-were-former rural stations are nowadays influenced by changes in land uses such as urbanisation, airports, etc. This emphasises the point that we need to protect and preserve those long term weather stations that still remain unaffected by changing land uses in order to preserve the consistency in the long term temperature record.
10
I’m annoyed by the cultists on both sides. On the right we have the libertarian free market cultists who worship at the shrine of liberty, private property and Ayn Rand. On the left we have the eco-nuts who believe any rubbish, not matter how far fetched, because it fits in with their modern re-interpretation of original sin, “humans and all they do are bad”.
Lets just go with the common sense in the middle, eh?
10
This notion of CAGW as a cult is a long bow to draw; and the term ‘cultist’ is highly and unnecessarily pejorative. There are indeed people, on both sides of the debate, who are highly impassioned and inflamed by the issue and appear to be cultist like; but most people who I know personally who accept CAGW are in no way people I would consider to be cultists. Mainly, they accept, on good-faith, the expert advise they are receiving; this is a reasonable and logical position to hold if you have no intention to delve deeper yourself and try and develop a detailed grasp of the subject.
I have some experience with “cults”, 10 years ago half my social peer group joined Scientology. My skepticism back then got me into alot of trouble with my then friends (I’ve since lost contact mainly due to the fact that they feel nothing but active contempt towards me), and the church itself (including legal shenanigans and hiring of lawyers) because I exercised the temerity to dig around a bit and try and develop a meaningful understanding of what was occurring around me at the time. Even in this case today, I hesitate to use the word “cult”, because it is highly derogatory and pejorative. Also – from my own direct experience, my experience with trying to grappling with CAGW and build an understanding and my experience with Scientology are not equivalent and I would never compare the two.
I am currently reading Mackay’s popular delusions. I am more inclined to explore comparisons between the various things Mackay explores in this novel with CAGW, and weigh up CAGW as a potential modern example of a popular delusion, than draw comparison with CAGW and religious cults.
10
Pat @ 32
I think you will find that the Green renewables that Christian Super are investing are ultimately owned by Goldman Sachs.
10
Check it out, someone gave a politician an executive summary of ar4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HmDUxaAkO0&feature=share
10
In case anyone skipped Pat’s post above, I found this information quite fascinating:
Who’d a thunk!
Those supposedly reactionary evangelical Christians and their super fund are the greenist, most sustainable, climate-change-concerned and environmetally responsible group around.
Matt B, embrace your brothers and sisters!
10
Good article.
And, like in religion, the problem is more than the believers. There are many people who say: ‘I am not really religious, but I am ok with it because these religious people mean well and if the faith doesn’t help, it doesn’t hurt’. And deep inside they may think: I don’t really believe that God is up there, but just in case…’
I am surrounded by people like this when it comes to AGW. They quote rubbish like ‘the precautionary principle’ and ‘there has to be a reason for all these changes’.
We can’t convert the zealots, but we can convert these people. Let’s keep at it!
10
I don’t think “believers” in the AGW fraud are necessarily cult members, the politicians, media mouthpieces and merchant scientists use the very same techniques as the worst cultist high priests to suck in the unwary. Lots of good people have been conned.
10
Judging the CAGW group by their actions it would seem that their motto is “the end justifies the means” – fiddle the data, cherry-pick the data and the literature, ignore/exclude any contrary evidence, use unvalidated models based on unwarranted assumptions, ignore failed predictions, exaggerate, deceive, hide the data, hide the decline, hide the code, indulge in pal-review, suppress publication of anything which conflicts with CAGW, marginalise those who disagree with CAGW etc.
After IPCC was thoroughly discredited by the IAC review, our Government (whose policy is supposedly based on the ‘authority’ of the IPCC CONsensus) is now invoking the approval of the CSIRO which has been so politicised that it has compromised its scientific integrity. (CSIRO’s recent publication on future energy in Australia does not even mention nuclear energy as an option).
The Productivity Commission conveniently omitted to look at the policies of our trade COMPETITORS (cf partners).
Whatever is not covered/included in the initial legislation will be captured by the regulations administered by an army of bureaucrats – you can count on it.
10
UPDATE to the post (thanks Bulldust and others for helping to clarify just what was needed.)
CLARIFICATION: If “cultist” is ok, what’s wrong with “denier”?
Bulldust raises a fair point, “what’s the difference”?” When is an insult OK, and when is it mindless namecalling? Answer: When it can be substantiated. I ask those who use “denier” to point to any scientific evidence we deny (which is exactly what “denier” implies). Since we deny nothing — the descriptor is 100% wrong. It’s a misuse of the English language, it’s Owellian, and designed to denigrate, to dismiss, and to dehumanize. There is no point talking to a “denier” and no point listening to them.
That said, I did point out that the term only applies to some people. It treads a fine line, and skeptics should be wary of misusing it. But when a dogma is unhealthy, obsessive, condones bullying, and encourages violence (think 10:10 and the gruesome joke of blowing up children) the term “cultist” is accurate, and we should not silence accurate writing, especially while our opponents destroy English. You’ll note that I have no single one descriptor for unskeptical commentators, I change it to suit the context. “Warmer, warmenist, alarmist, pro-carbon-crisis, believer in man-made global warming, supporter of a carbon-tax, government funded climate scientist, Establishment scientist, fans of the Big-Scare-Campaign, unskeptical scientist, activist, and Team Carbonista”. Group stereotypes can be dangerous memes. Please use the term “cultist” with care.
It’s good to see this post and the issue of namecalling being debated in the thread. That is exactly as it should be. I said I “allow” the term. That’s not the same a license to use it ad lib. — JN
10
“I ask those who use “denier” to point to any scientific evidence we deny ”
Well there’s your answer, you deny that there is any scientific evidence to deny. Deny does not imply that the thing you deny is correct.
Or is that the difference… is the dictionary actually wrong, and while denier is “someone who denies” in actual common usage one could argue that denier is “someone who denies something in the face of overwhelmong evidence to the contrary”.
I’m as much a denier that there is no evidence as you guys are deniers of AGW I guess.
10
Re 50
“I ask those who use “denier” to point to any scientific evidence we deny ”
You DENY real science.
10
Lol Mary I was quoting Jo… So your reply is to Jo. But point well made;)
10
just shows how closely I read your posts…………quik scan
10
[…] Now check out the Carbonian Cult. […]
10
But what have you got against Druids? To impugn them by relating them to AGW cultists seems completely unfair. I have never seen a paper indicating that druids are, as a group, among the warmist believers.
10
UFOlogy began this movement. When CIA and others created fake UFO cults to discredit people reporting genuine experiences it began the modern post-war phenomenon of scientism- a veneer of science used to promote or support magical thinking and irrational beliefs.
What is striking is how many beliefs in common all the cults of modern times share – deeply hostile to Christianity; planet-as-single-organism aka “Gaia” (inspired by the Lovelock theory relating to planetary scale gas exchange on Mars); unity of government on Earth as being both inevitable and desirable; extermination of “unevolved” people -ie deep anti-human hate; telepathy and psionic energy as being a fundamental force; metempsychosis; doomsday predictions that do not come true – are they actually tests of faith to make the “faithful” more secure in their beliefs and more disconnected from reality?
I think the eschaton all death cults preach is a self fullfilling prophecy that the intelligences behind the scenes will do everything in their power to make come true.
10
When it comes to “deniers” or “cultists”, I prefer the term “fake skeptic”. A fake skeptic is only skeptical of evidence from the “other side”. Argument or evidence from their own side (be it pro or anti AGW) is given a free pass.
10
Karin Zeitvogel of AFP wrote the following piece. NOWHERE in the piece does Kaberuka blame “climate change” for the famine, and the only MSM suggesting this in their headline of this exact same story is Fairfax and Sky News:
2 Aug: SMH: AFP: Famine due to climate change: African bank
The famine in Africa’s fragile Horn of Africa region has been caused by climate change and a collective failure to end the Somali civil war, the head of the African Development Bank(Donald Kaberuka)says…
The international community should “get in and help” parts of Somalia that do work, namely Somaliland and Puntland in the north of the country, and give logistics aid to the African Union force, AMISOM, deployed in Somalia to try to stabilise the country.
“No one is saying they should put in soldiers from abroad – Africans are capable of doing that – but they need logistics support,” Kaberuka said, citing things like food rations, transportation and helicopters.
“AMISOM is under-manned, under-equipped, does not have enough logistical support…
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/famine-due-to-climate-change-african-bank-20110802-1i8nn.html
2 Aug: Sky News: AFP: Africa bank blames famine on climate
http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=645660
this is the headline in France and MSM elsewhere:
France24: AFP: Africa bank says Somalia war key to famine
http://www.france24.com/en/20110802-africa-bank-says-somalia-war-key-famine
who added “climate change” or “climate” to the AFP headline? it could be Zeitvogel who has a history of CAGW alarmism – headllines such as:
Global warming may poison seas: studies
Global warming could spur toxic algae, bacteria in seas
Tough US measures needed to beat climate change: experts
Global warming good for trees, bad for ducks: studies
Could Gore’s Nobel Prize Win Switch on Energy-Saving Bulbs in US Minds?
is Karin a member of the CAGW “cult”? i think so. but SMH and Sky need to come clean as to what prompted their headlines.
10
I’m pretty sure that in the CACC camp there are the Green Cultists eg Bob Brown and Tim Flannery, the Mislead eg Greg Hunt of the Liberal Party, the Ignorant eg Gillard and most of her ministry, the Opportunists eg Turnbull and the *Enthusiasts, which of course has religious undertones eg most if not all the CACC scientists.
* Enthusiasts – holding a vain belief of private revelation.
10
Misled or Gullible..
10
MaryFJohnston:
#28
Basic science is basic science; C + O2 + heat = CO2
I like to disagree: C + O2 – heat = CO2
10
Hey everyone, I’ve been handing out “science is not settled” style leaflets in the city today. I’ve never done anything like this before so my confidence about approaching people isn’t high, but I got about 22 handed out in about an hour. I was trying to target the under 30s crowd so couldn’t just hand them out willy nilly.
It has short blurbs with hyperlinks to recent stories, science articles, and videos, all to introduce people to the reality of the huge range of past climate change and CO2, plus of course a few IPCC deceptions which they would not have heard about.
I have to publish this comment under a pseudonym so as to prevent reprisals from militant greens if they were to ever find who authored the leaflet – sad world we live in.
I know this doesn’t make much of a difference, but it was good knowing at least a few of the people will go home and read these things, and out of those few perhaps one or two will have that dawning moment of realisation that it’s all been a scam.
It’s not much but I’m doing my part.
I believe Jo has had a win with scoring that Op-Ed in the Australian over the weekend.
Have any of you other commentators done anything towards getting Joe Public’s lightbulb to turn on?
I mean, we have about 2 weeks until Parliament resumes sitting and there’s a chance this carbon tax will be signed unless there is overwhelming public response.
10
Thanks Rabe
It’s been a long time; can I rewrite it again,
C + O2 = CO2 + heat
It’s also good to see some Welsh spirit in this debate.
Abersychan Dan
10
Cults..call them what you like with stuff like this
http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/climate-thuggery/29919
and more they deserve what they get called. No sympathy here.
And
source C3.
Got something to hide? So did Jim Jones at Jonestown.
And with the KNOWN new Green eco-fascist agenda DOCUMENTED all across the net
then rock on with as many terms as one would like.
10
Brilliant Mattb, so since the evidence is overwhelming, it’ll be easy for you to start naming those papers. It is after all, unskeptical to assume that just because authorities say there is overwhelming evidence, that it actually exists.
You’ve nailed the exact nub of it. I’m looking forward to finally being enlightened.
The real deniers keep saying the evidence is real, but then they can’t seem to find it…
10
Jo you’ve misinterpreted me… because that’s not the dictionary definition of denier. By the dictionary definition you are a denier of AGW as presented in IPCC reports, and I’m a denier of Low Climate Sensitivity. Your argument against being a denier relies on an “in the face of overwhelming evidence” definition of denier. That’s not the dictionary definition, but I accept it can be implied in common usage.
FYI, and we’ve been through this long ago, I know you don’t think there is evidence, which means you deny the evidence exists. I’m not trying to put a value judgement here on whether the evidence does or does not exist, but the simple truth is the IPCC and many scientists think it exists and you deny that.
10
Jo Nova @ 65
“The dog ate it.”
“We lost it.”
“Tommy pinched it offa me.”
10
MattB @ 66
The term “denier” can be interpreted many ways – even as hosiery as put forward by one (t)twit.
Since this is Jo’s website how she interprets it is THE ruling interpretation, regardless of how much you may wish it to be otherwise. Go start your own website of you’re so unhappy about it.
In the meantime, those of us threatened with Nuremberg-style trials for crimes against humanity, compulsory tattooing so everybody knows who we are, transportation by death trains to concentration camps where we can be gassed as a final solution to the problem of deniers, will probably tend to side with Jo’s interpretation.
Or maybe you would like to direct us to where you posted so vehemently against these things when they were demanded by various cultists?
No?
Didn’t think so.
.
10
MattB:
The core “belief” of alarmism is that under “business as usual” temperatures will rise by four to eight degrees over the next hundred years or so. Now since no prediction of this nature has been made in the past and subsequently verified, it is not part of science’s body of knowledge and therefor not settled. So yes I am a denier but I do not deny an established truth.
10
Memoryvault can I have a word with you in private somehow?
I want to ask about an old mutual freind.
Hint- Mary from richmond/tamworth.
10
Andrew@41. Apologies. I gave you a thumb-down by mistake. Should have zoomed-in with my iPhone. Perhaps Jo may be able to fix?
10
Bulldust: #9, and Jo’s subsequent comments
We need to consider the nature of propaganda, and how the words used build emotional responses in the receipients. Propagandists maintain three lists of words that can be applied to a specific topic: those with negative connotations, those with pleasent connotations, an words that are neutral.
Denier is high on the list of negative words, and has been for ever, as far as I can see. Several people have highlighted the large amount of bad luggage that this word totes.
Warmists, or Warmista’s (as we sometimes call them) is actually a positive and pleasant word. Being warm (and cosy and protected) appeals to some of our most primitive instincts. We do our arguments actual harm in using this word. And yes, I have used it on many occasions out of deference to Jo’s wish for us to be polite, but it does us no favours.
Cultist is a slightly negative word (although nowhere near as bad as Denier), that also has slightly humorous overtones – the man carrying the sandwich board saying, “The end of the world is nigh”. Cultist implies an unthinking acceptance of the power of the Shaman or the High Priest. And in that context, it is the perfect factual and emotive descriptor for the followers of the AGW belief system.
As far as I am concerned, it is AGW Cultists from now on.
10
I agree with your eight year old. That would not be science. However one could read the comment and conclude that you thought that such thermometers had been incorporated with malice aforethought, and had affected the results. But the (near) agreement between Watts (whose opinions on the matter are well known) and the published record clearly suggests that they are not, and everyone has used similar methods of accounting for UHI regardless of preconceptions. Are you saying that “believers” believe that’s how the science is done? What means “the whole corrupt thermometer thing” etc?
It’s one of the magic things about science that people who disagree on fundamentals, who each agree that the other is an idiot, never-the-less can contribute.
10
The International Perestroika for Climate Change, is for the changing of the political climate to lean the powers left as has been told in interviews by the climate cultist leaders themselves.
The only way to fight the climate communist hippie cultists is with proper spaghetti sauce, so feel free to join the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster @ venganza dot org. It’s free and if you’re a proper denier person you’re probably already a member any how. :p
10
In about 1990 something like 2/3 of world temperature stations were deliberately taken out of service FACT. This gave a strong warming bias to all surface records since then. This has been documented and on record. Why would this have been done other than to push a warmer record. Most of the removed stations were at higher altitudes and country locations around the globe. This allowed the heat island effect to be far more prevalent in the temp records. So saying its an accident is stretching it. The records have been tampered with to such an extent that its doubtful weather any of it is worth the media its stored on.
10
I don’t think Cultist is appropriate as it gives people the impression that anyone who follows a ideology could be a fanatic or unhinged psychologically. These are not unhinged people they know they have hidden agendas and pursue them. One Green told me in private, we know the world is probably heading for an ice age, but really who cares we want to stop corporations and governments controlling and manipulating our lives and damaging the environment and animals that live in it.
I’m an environmentalist but I object to the science they are promoting and also the hidden agendas attached to it. I think that Garnaut showed his true colors when he released a report (Available on the Internet Just Google
Ross Gaunaut on methane emissions). He said that farmers should farm kangaroos instead of beef or sheep. Fair dinkum! He also came to New England and said farmers could make as much money out of carbon credits from soil
carbon sequestration than they could from Wool production.
He’s very sure of his facts eh? Kangaroos aren’t domesticated, nor will they ever be as they are marsupials.
My dog likes the meat but I don’t. Ever tried to milk or shear a kangaroo, Ross.
Following the Green or AGW agenda means that those who go along with it are seeking power over other people, by dictating how they will live and the standards they live by, particularly those who handle the purse strings. All in the name of a New World Order and the PETA mentality. The four corners film made by Animals Australia was horrific.
But – Animals Australia is connected with PETA. I think
that these people including the Greens leader and Christine
Milne are a danger to democracy, and their ideologue is moralistic and quite dangerous particularly the one world government and depopulating the Earth. (Might be a good idea to depopulate but how do they propose going about it). But to call them cultist is to me is unnecessary and they are more dangerous than a religious zealot. We should change the person who is believing they are right to follow by saying the dogma is wrong and manipulated like a cult leader does to drag in followers gullible to believe the crap they are promoting. Bring the leaders down first no one likes to back a loser and tainted by the same brush. Just my opinion.
10
In Jo’s post http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/front-line-in-the-climate-trenches/#more-15442
a couple of us were discussing this, but in the context of behaviour being ‘cult-like’. This was in reference to Curry and Lynas and the treatment they received for daring to become sceptics.
See my comment @ 4 and Rick Bradford @ 8 with a great list of how to recognise a cult.
I’ve also referred to the dangerous AGW movement as an example of bandwagonism (a form of group think) and mass mania, not unlike the social contagion that was the witch hunts.
For me to describe a movement as having cult-like aspects is more a comment on the leadership – the cynical manipulators for financial gain i.e. Gore et al. Then there are the Bob Browns and when you read the list supplied by Rick, well you tell how many ticks you give him….. ?
What we have to recognise in this is that many well meaning people have been caught up in what has been fashionable thinking. They have had little choice but to believe as they’ve been force-fed climate doomerism for years through the media and by people they would never have thought to question – the scientists.
It really has been an abuse of trust and I doubt the reputation of climate scientists will ever fully recover once the dust finally settles. But never mind, the next academic field to benefit – sociology, will kick into action as they start trying to understand just how this all happened.
10
This is the first reference I found.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-are-there-less-weather-stations-and-whats-the-effect.html
Seems waaay to obvious to be conspiracy to defraud. Who was it said, “When faced with a choice of conspiracy and a f*up, it’s f*up every time.” It may be neither of course.
Needs to be thunk about. Going snooping … BRB
10
I’m sorry Jo but you haven’t convinced me not to use the term ‘denier’. It simply says that a person denies the key aspects of the science behind AGW.
To me its not an insult, its just an accurate description and if that is taken as hurtful then that can’t be helped.
10
Jo,
The whole of science corrupted itself long ago with the way education and research are funded.
The carbon debate does not cover the actual separation of the creation of carbon products and heat that was created from source being brought together.
Science is a very shallow game of theories that fails to understand the interactions of many events that creates our understanding pushed by arrogant scientists who believe they are correct but fail to incorporate many fields that are outside of their knowledge base.
Mathematical calculations are absolute in only one actual point in time and need to be adjusted constantly as the planet changes and slows along with the solar system.
The interaction of pressure, motion, shape, friction, density composition, etc.,etc. generate a fantastically complex system that we currently live under.
But past corruption of science through the social order of the day has generated a bad line of science we are currently under.
10
theRealUniverse: 75
Thank you. The centre of the whole scam. The data is junk, yet people wish to discuss the significance of the change of junk data?
Q. Can we have the original data please Mr Jones?
A. Errr…
Like Joe @ 80 says. Corrupt.
10
It seems an innate feature of the human psyche that humans, all humans need to have a belief in a higher purpose or a need to look up to a great unknowable guiding counsel that is far beyond their reach and understanding as humans.
For many in our western society, with the slow decline in the following of the great religions, most were left at large with seemingly no purpose and no guiding principle to their lives.
And along came environmentalism characterised by it’s constant refrain that we, that is, mankind are the despoilers of planet, despoilers of our home, and like the great religions have preached, we have therefore siinned and we must therefore make amends both personally and collectively.
And there was much gnashing of teeth and much self flagellation with public confessions from prominent disciples and then the increasing attacks on those who had sinned against the cause through some dastardly and destructive deed aimed at destroying a sacred “natural” habitat where one of the great creator’s most humble and rarest creatures had made their abode.
Then under the guiding light of the opportunists and amoral power seekers who saw an opening and a political niche not yet filled or discounted, the environmental movement and it’s ideology and the sheer luck of a new earth destroying plausible sounding phenomena appearing already equipped with the necessary scientific elites, the green environmentalism was transformed into an earth worshipping ideology called an easily recalled terminology, Global Warming
And so as in all such long lived do-gooder organisations with massive amounts of wealth regularly at their disposal, the good intentions of the environmental movement have been completely debased by the influx of opportunists and amoral power seekers attracted to the influence of the environmental organisations and their wealth both of which can be very useful in the lust for and the seeking of power at any price.
And so we now have the creation and rise of the opportunistic political greens with their strategy of attaching themselves to good causes such as the so called but badly misnamed “environment” which they have used to brainwash their followers to the point where it is a belief in an ideology backed by a carefully tailored dogma which has now created the ” Green Faith” which is now slowly but increasingly seen by many of the public as just another cult that like all cults is eventually doomed to extinction.
“Zealot”or “Climate Zealot” is the descriptive word I am now using more and more, specifically for those that can do no more than the mindless mouthing of the green global warming propaganda.
“Zealot” unlike “Cultists” is a person specific word and can be used as such rather than “cultist” which unjustifiably can brand a whole group with a very derogatory and incorrect description.
“Zealots” [ person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.] of course are a fundamental part of any cult that is at all partially successful in that it attracts a following and it lasts for a decade or more
Cults rarely last more than a generation and a half and it is only when the last believer is lowered into the hole will a cult be dead and needless to say, buried.
So we are stuck in the western world with the global warming cultists for another generation or say 25 years into the future.
And we are stuck with “Climate Zealots” who are incapable of independent thought and only are able to repeat the mantra as propounded to them by the Great [ Brown ] Leader whoever he or she temporarily is.
10
Will Gray @ 70
Email me at forwillgray at hotmail.
Though I doubt there’s much I can tell you.
Regards
Peter
10
JC@79; “denier” is used in 2 overlapping ways by alarmists such as yourself. The first is discussed in New Scientist, that once excellent periodical which is now only suitable for bird seed and other droppings:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.000-living-in-denial-when-a-sceptic-isnt-a-sceptic.html
The reasoning is fatuous; by its standards true scpeticism will always bring the rational enquirer to the truth of AGW. The irony here is that the distinction offered between denialism and scepticism, in that denialism has a predetermined attitude, defines the very article supposedly defining the difference. The best that can be said is that this version of denialism is based on the consensus and argument from authority supports for AGW.
The second version of denier seeks to attach the stigma of the holocaust to the sceptic as this article by Hamilton shows:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/16/hamilton-denying-the-coming-climate-holocaust/
This is both fearmongering of a misanthropic kind [and Hamilton is a misanthrope] and the basis of the undemocratic inclination of pro-AGW believers. Hamilton of course is on record for calling for the suspension of democracy.
In short the term denier reveals everything we need to know about AGW and its supporters; which is, it is promoted by fear, denigration and appeals to authority. Any thing which needs to be so promoted has no scientific merit. Unlike you elitists I know the average punter, the hoi polli, has the wit and sense to see through the lies of AGW ‘science’.
10
Jeremy C @79
Quote: “It simply says that a person denies the key aspects of the science behind AGW.”
We can’t deny something that doesn’t exist.
Therefore we cant be Deniers!
10
“So yes I am a denier but I do not deny an established truth.”
Thanks for agreeing with me Mr Walker.
10
Jerome C @ 79;
OK Cultist Jerome.
As Rereke plainly put it @72:
So I plainly see why you will continue to use it.
There is more on Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
and that this should worry liberal-minded people.
and that this should worry liberal-minded people.
and that this should worry liberal-minded people.
Get it Mattb?
10
MattB:
So when and by whom was it predicted that temperatures would rise by four to eight degrees and that prediction was subsequently verified by observation?
10
I’ve noticed that in these discussions, there are often a few who maintain that “denier” is a useful term, but when you ask the for a specific definition on what distinguishes a denier from a non-denier, there is no agreement among them. It’s primarily a collective straw man that those who are so inclined can use opportunistically to pretend that their refusal to engage opposing viewpoints (or to honor FOI requests) is rational.
10
ROM # 82
The best description I have read. Thank you.
It does make me wonder how we as a society will get out of the mess we are in. Zealotry does not help social cohesion and, as you point out, zealots are not convinced by rational argument, zealots are not known for accepting the will of the majority. When we look at the above posts we see facts and logic dismissed because they are “not the truth”. I guess the opposite of zealotry is evidence based belief.
I think the word zealot fits the AGWers better than cultist. It is worth contemplating what creates zealotry, is it simply a poor education system?
10
It does seem rather unfair to call them deniers, when all they ‘deny’ is the reality of what the IPCC likes to point out, are only projections after all, even if based on the best scientific knowledge available at the time .,
It’s like denying the infallibility of weather forecast, only a lot more plausible.
10
Got it!
Man, I always thought denier was a stocking thread measurement.
Nyuk nyuk nyuk (to quote Curly)
Tony.
10
What would you call an unquestioning following of Science & the pronouncements of (albeit, mortal, & government funded) scientists ?
Are the IPCC merely the soothsayers of this ‘scientific’ age ?
10
Jeremy C. @79.
”
I’m sorry Jo but you haven’t convinced me not to use the term ‘denier’. It simply says that a person denies the key aspects of the science behind AGW.
”
If we mean by “key aspects of the science” the veracity of the Climate Models & the IPCCs projections from them, then were not really talking about scientific facts are we? Because that is all the catastrophic scenarios that these ‘deniers’ are not accepting at face value are based on.
When a witch mixes a lot of real & stuff into her cauldron, before mumbling a spell and adding a bit of magic to come up with a result, the more stuff and the more complicated the spell seem to be might add plausibility to the outcome, but we still know it’s a lot off mumbo jumbo.
10
Speaking of inflammatory language, get a load of the following. (thnx via a link from RealScience)
Here is the link to the article where they state…
Considering we can’t just shut down Australia and walk off into the ocean, I gues this means we can’t avoid being tried for genocide in an International Criminal Court.
And if you think that’s far fetched, think about what the Greens Leader Bob Brown wants us to do, i.e. join a Global Government where these decisions will be made for us not by us.
10
Who, exactly, are the ‘deniers’? Mooney has identified a key group, the Conservative White Males (CVM), a group who are more likely described as those who a) have penises, b) come from a 100% Caucasian breeding stock, and c) support voter-based governments for the people and by the people. After all, if there are enough believers of the CAGW story to approve and pay for all the Gorite legislation, then the CWM will adjust, though unhappily. But there must be more to the “denier” crowd than the CWM, surely. The CVM are not that large a group or I (one of them) would feel pretty secure in my over-taxed, under-represented world.
The “deniers” must be in their hundreds of millions for all the bombast and vile directed their way. Obama and ilk, I gather, are part of the denier-support group, if not active sabateours in the fiendish denier circle. So Republicans AND powerful Democrats in the US government are deniers or fellow-travellers. The mainstream media, for all the foolish covers on Times magazine, speculative alarm in Discover, Scientific American and the AAAS magazine, Science News, not to mention the various US climate-related magazines, are deniers, or at least that vile breed that lets deniers have an inch of ink every now and then. The skeptics think the MSM is pro-Green, but from reading Desmogblog, Gore and Suzuki, I’ve been disabused of that notion. The MSM is Fox News with paint. All deniers or deniers-in-the-closet.
Who else fits the denier bill? Rich people everywhere, definitely, regardless of their colour. Middle-class people everywhere from the albinos to the melatonin-swamped. They are protecting their wallets at the expense of the World. Anyone who works for an energy company, the transportation services, foreign holiday destinations, cruise-ship aficionados – all whose private pleasures discharge a lot of CO2. This does not apply to big entertainers, politicians or paid speakers who travel widely and luxuriously, as all their emissions are necessary so that their supporters will hear the Word. The deniers are all those people who don’t listen to what is being told to them (with fireworks or from $2000 suits) for the planetary good.
So far the deniers seem to be everyone. With the exception of liberal art majors, vegans with service industry jobs, Greenpeace members (the Sierra Club and Greenpeace have almost completely overlapping memberships), and five guys down my street who show up on Open Mike night to recite sensitive poetry about Gaia.
We have 6.9 billion people on the planet, and the majority are Believers, except for, apparently, about 6.3 billion who fit in the “denier” category. I shouldn’t be surprised. Isn’t the argument between the CAGW believers and the CAGW non-believers all about one side not being able to do simple math?
10
Imwd @77
I’d like to point readers to an excellent comment by Pat Swords of Ireland here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/05/21/co2-avoidance-cost-wind/#comment-130230
Here is part of his comment:
Pat goes on to explain the parallel between the effect of group think and heard mentality in the banking sector with the group think and heard mentality in environmentalism and renewable energy in the EU. I suggest the CAGW Cult is an example of the heard mentality and group think that infected the financial industry leading to the GFC. However, the consequences of the CAGW Cult may be far more devastating than the GFC.
10
I have just returned from my Diploma for Organic Agricultural production and one of the students had a quick ‘not for discussion’ answer when I said I didn’t believe in a carbon tax. They had the cheek to say ‘Because you don’t want to change your lifestyle? What about all the poor people in the world?’ I had the chance to reply ‘I don’t care about people in other countries other than giving aid when needed, but I do believe in the standards of living in this country…’ Wot a cheek. I installed a 5k fresh water tank. Not all the lamps in my house have globes and where they are are those low wattage ones that ruin your eyesight. I don’t run any heating other than one two bar electric fire and that is used only when we have visitors from warmer parts.(We have ducted oil heating we never use). We don coats and I watch TV in my bedroom with the electric blanket one. We turn off appliances from the wall. I don’t use herbicides or insecticides. I do use vermin bait as we do have the occasional rat and many mice sometimes. They get in the roof and I don’t want them gnawing through electricity wires and causing a fire. See how the Green mentality assumes that those against carbon taxes are people who are affluent?
So – what more can a pensioner do who suffers from arthritis and carpal tunnels and has to wear gloves most of the time.
Beijing had no problem with pollution until they stopped riding cycles
and turned to cars. But will they reverse the decision and still stay one of the most developed countries in the world?
10
Doug @ 96
Even James Hansen is a denier by certain criteria (he disagrees with parts of the currently fashionable climate policy). In principle, a denier is whoever the person using the term wants to label in order to be able to ignore their arguments. It’s a rhetorical, not an analytical concept. The reason Steve McIntyre has been labeled a denier is that he has criticized specific research by specific scientists who didn’t like that specific criticism, not because of his views on AGW in general.
10
I read this on a site and it had me wondering why Kevin Rudd wanted NATO to oust Gaddafi.
There is no proposal for a carbon tax in Libya.
Loans to Libyan citizens are given with no interest.
Students get paid average salary for the profession they are studying for.
If you are unable to get employment the state pays the full salary as if you were employed until you find employment.
When you get married the couple gets an apartment or house for free from the government.
You could go to college anywhere in the world and the state pays 2,500 euros plus accomodation and car allowance.
Cars are sold at factory cost.
Libya does not owe money [not a cent] to anyone. No creditors.
Free education and health care for all citizens.
25% of the population have a university degree.
No beggars on the streets and nobody is homeless [until the recent bombing]
Bread costs only $0.15 per loaf
“No wonder the U.S. and other capitalist countries do not like Libya. Gaddafi would not consent to taking loans from the IMF or world bank at high interest rates. In other words Libya was Independent! That is the real reason for the war in Libya! He may be a dictator, but that is not the US’s problem. Also Gaddafi called on Oil producing countries Not to accept payment for oil in USD or Euros. He recommended that oil get paid for in gold and that would have bankrupted just about every Western Country as most of them do not have the gold reserves to the rate they print their useless currencies.
Remember the last time someone had the NERVE to make a similar statement was when Saddam Hussein advised all Opec countries not to accept payment for oil in U.S. dollars. Well we know what happened to him. Yes – they hung him.”
10
I love it. There are none so blind as those that will not see, is a rough quote, but, appropriate
10
You have a right to be annoyed, but your annoyance of the right is perplexing. What is wrong with liberty and private property (and as far as Ayn Rand is concerned, she just penned a good book that is used as an example)? I would think that all people who cherish freedom would at least support liberty and private property – both essential pillars of support of Freedom (among others).
10
O/T Talking to friends today outside our local library, they are AGW
believers, two ‘heavy’ young gals with obviously full of the joys of success, skipped by wearing green T-Shirts bearing ‘Don’t Feed Plants’
We were all somewhat amused by their t-shirt slogan, wondering what they
meant exactly. The AGW believer piped up, Oh they can’t spell, they have put in an ‘L’! We all had a laugh.
Cheers
10
Kevin Moore @100,
Libya is a more complicated item than the simple, “World hates Gaddafi because he’s independent,” idea you apparently propose. But I’ll put to rest one implication of what you said — that it’s such a great place because so much is free and Gaddafi is independent. Gaddafi is perhaps a benefactor to those who agree with him. But don’t try living in Libya and mouthing off with a dissenting opinion. You can easily observe his reaction to any opposition on your daily news broadcast.
It ought to alarm any straight thinker that someone has been in power for as long as Gaddafi has. And I’ll go so far as to say he buys that power with all that oil money. Not many will even question, much less turn against the one who benefits them. The free ride can be very costly in the end.
PS: I don’t like what my country is doing there. It’s done for the wrong reason and it’s against our own good interest as well. But the “freedom fighters” must be helped. Oh yes!
PPS: I think that should Gaddafi fall, the people who replace him will be worse for us than he is.
10
Roy @ 104
I quoted an article written by someone who lives their.If it is half true,why did Kevin Rudd get involved. As the bloke says, Gaddafi might be a dictator but that isn’t the US’s problem. What are the implications of “mouthing off” in Australia? Most people practise self censorship for fear of government reprisal! You will find that the “freedom fighters” are agents of the banksters.
The mob that want to oust Gaddafi have no natural leader,so like you say things will probably be worse for people everywhere if Gaddafi goes.
10
Praise Gore from whom all knowledge flows,
Praise Global Warming for we know,
There’s power to grab with tons of dough,
Praise Marx, Lenin and Stalin’s ghost.
From: Earth Day:Bush Shovels earth in punishment. The Peoples Cube.com
10
The an interesting analysis of the Greens here on ABC Counterpoint.
Anger, politics and the new media
Comparing the support for Greens as being idealogical in an almost religious way, with other politicians who don’t enjoy such deification.
Direct link to Audio
10