Progress But The Lunatics Are Still Delusional

image

HuffPo has an interesting article up.  It’s written by Mike Bellamente  Director, Climate Counts  [I've Never hear of Climate Counts]

5 Tips for Handling Climate Skeptics in 2013

It’s fun to see people still stuck in the past.  Their meme’s don’t change regardless of how ineffective they are.  Here are 5 tips for the warmista to ensure they get laughed at by skeptics. 

1) Consider the Source: If someone decries climate change as a hoax, they tend to base their information on distorted facts cherry-picked from the press rather than their own experience, say, as a trained scientist who has spent their career analyzing climate data. As Dr. Cameron Wake, climate researcher at the University of New Hampshire states “because of the complex nature of climate change, it is much easier to sell the lie than it is to sell the truth.”

Sources commonly cited by skeptics in support of their stance include: “Climategate” — a series of emails between scientists taken woefully out of context (several independent investigations have since been conducted — all have absolved those involved of any scientific misconduct); the Oregon Petition — a collection of 30,000 signatories claiming that there is no scientific evidence to support human-induced climate change (apparently all you need is a degree in basic science to sign on); and anything supported by the Koch brothers, Charles and David, who have spent billions on climate denial to protect their investment in the oil industry.

For more on this, see Media Matters’ November 2012 piece: “Meet the Climate Denial Machine.”

That’s a hoot!  Mike starts his article by saying people should consider the source and then he sources an extreme leftist media outlet, Media Matters.  He also states the Koch brothers have spent billions on climate denial?  LOL!!!  No, they haven’t.  I would advise to consider the source, but Mike doesn’t source this.  I’m a little upset I didn’t make MM’s list.  Maybe next year! 

2) Know Your Stuff: It’s true; climate science doesn’t exactly lend itself to a quick study on the bus ride to work, but there are basic components of climate change even the least scientifically-inclined person should have in their back pocket:

  • The Greenhouse Effect — the primary reason that temperatures on Earth remain livable, the greenhouse effect is responsible for trapping heat from the sun in a way that keeps conditions comfortable for all living things. This natural phenomenon has been thrown wildly out of balance by the steady output of greenhouse gas emissions to support our society (for example: electricity from coal-fired power plants to heat and cool our homes, and gasoline to power our cars). For an interactive crash course on the greenhouse effect, visit National Geographic.
  • Natural versus Human-Caused Climate Change — It is 100 percent true that the Earth’s climate shifts naturally between warming and cooling periods (think Ice Age). However, when looking at climate patterns over several thousand years, it has been the drastic rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (carbon dioxide) since the industrial revolution 300 years ago that is now causing man to play a role in this process. For a slightly more involved understanding of the science at play here visit the OSS Foundation website on the natural cycle of global warming.

image

LOL, yes drastic.  Or something.  Atmospheric CO2 has increased 0.01% in total atmosphere.  Know you’re stuff!  The slope would be less dramatic if I went back the 300 years Mikey mentioned, but I think you all get the point.   source  (graph dedicated to cdquarles) Smile 


3) Look around You: Climate change is cool because everyone is talking about it. Well, not everyone. In fact, few people beyond Bill McKibben seem to be talking about it with any degree of regularity. The fact is, though, a vast majority of Fortune 500 companies (oil and gas companies included) admit that society is contributing to global warming and agree that the best course of action is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. What follows is a mere smattering of companies that publicly address human-induced climate change on their website (caveat — even though these companies admit the importance of reducing emissions, they are not in any way meant to indicate they are faultless champions for the environment) ExxonMobil; Hess; ConocoPhillips; The Clorox Company; Bank of America; PepsiCo; Citi; IBM; AstraZeneca; Unilever; LEGO; and Nike.

Yes, the familiar theme….. companies= bad.  But, we do see progress!  “few people beyond Bill McKibben seem to be talking about it…..”  Win!   

4) Don’t let politics and religion cloud the issue: As the adage goes, three subjects never to broach at the dinner table are money, religion and politics. Not so discreetly, climate change is woven into all three, only adding to the taboo nature of the problem.

According to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, only 16 percent of conservative republicans think that global warming is caused by human activity. Two things that make this moderately intuitive: 1) the face of climate change in the U.S. since 2006 has been a very polarizing Al Gore; and 2) at the very foundation of religion is the belief that God, not man, controls the fate of humanity and the planet we inhabit. In many ways, this line of reasoning automatically hamstrings the level of accountability we have as a species to manage our destiny.

Exacerbating these two issues is the fact that conservatives tend to favor limited government and the ability of the free market to determine what is best for society — a notion not altogether unsound, save that the free market doesn’t account for environmental costs unless it is regulated to do so.

Policymakers on both sides of the aisle (as well as extremely powerful oil, coal and gas lobbies) realize that curbing greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change won’t come from voluntary carbon reductions, but rather from a government-imposed carbon tax. To even hint at a tax in Congress, as was seen with the fiscal cliff negotiations, is the equivalent of jumping off the political career cliff, but that shouldn’t preclude us from understanding that a carbon tax is a viable solution.

I love step number 4!  Don’t let politics and religion cloud the issue!!!  And then he goes on blathering about it, ignoring the fact that belief in CAGW is pretty close to being a religion itself. 

Our salvation depends upon our ability to create a religion of nature.“- Rene Dubos, board member Planetary Citizens French scientist, environmentalist, author of the maxim “Think globally, act locally

Yes, don’t mix religion into the discussion.  He, then, jumps into the eco-political world by uttering some incredibly stupid thoughts about a carbon tax.  A carbon tax is a viable solution to what?  It’s an impossibly unmanageable idea.  Even if CAGW was a real concern, and even if the mechanisms touted by the alarmists were correct, what, precisely would a carbon tax do towards the issue?  Does it constrain emissions or does it simply increase the costs?  Carbon taxes have been implemented in several areas of the globe.  Do we have any abatement in the CO2 rate of rise?  Nope, it’s still increasing exponentially.  Further, several other areas of the globe have rejected the notion of a carbon tax.  (emerging economies)  The only thing a carbon tax would do is put us at an economic disadvantage. 

5) Embrace Common Sense: If it looks like caca and smells like caca, it probably is caca. There is little doubt that no matter how perfect the science is, or how many celebrities work to advance the issue, or how many extreme weather events occur, there will always be a passionate contingent of climate skeptics ready to cast doubt and muddy the “debate” on climate. When confronted by these folks, it is important to take this and the preceding four steps as a guide to disarming (not literally!) and educating people who remain skeptical about the causes of climate change.

A word to the wise: Whatever you do, don’t go running around, arms flailing, screaming “Sound the alarms! Climate change is going to kill us all!” — people tend to respond negatively to this type of behavior.

image

Did he really just write about Wild Bill and then write “don’t go running around, arms flailing, screaming “Sound the alarms! Climate change is going to kill us all!”   Did he really?

Celebrities?  Extreme weather events?  “If it looks like caca and smells like caca, it probably is caca.”

Indeed Mikey, indeed.

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Progress But The Lunatics Are Still Delusional

  1. Bruce says:

    5 Tips for Handling Climate Skeptics in 2013

    Rarely do sceptics get a chance to debate warmists. Recently Gore’s Climate Reality Project slipped by agreeing for one of their guys, a Gore-trained presenter called Ray Bellamy, to debate with Heartland’s James Taylor.

    And here is the write up. I liked it so much I have saved the link.

    We had something similar a couple of years ago when our government broadcaster the ABC was mousetrapped into televising a 1 hour debate between Christopher Monckton and a warmist champion who they chose, a guy called Richard Denniss from the Australia Institute, a left wing think tank.

    It also was fun to watch.

    Result was very similar, even though ABC refused to let Monckton use his overheads.

    Why is it that CAGW people cannot find a competent person to debate?

  2. copernicus34 says:

    our eminent climate astronomer mentioned a few posts ago, has stated on multiple occasions that we dither while the ‘world burns’. i guess he falls into this category of ‘mcfibbin’ as well

  3. HankH says:

    I can’t wait for Mike Bellamente’s five tips series on toilet training cats. That should be even more amusing. LOL!

  4. Jim Masterson says:

    I was watching Prometheus (in 3D) tonight. They said the alien atmosphere was 71% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and a poisonous level of CO2 at 3%. Sorry, but 3% is not fatal. More than 5% is fatal, 3% causes problems. (Except for the CO2 level, the alien atmosphere was similar to ours–assuming the same pressure.) 3% CO2 is 30,000 ppm. They never mentioned runaway global warming. According to activists, 3% CO2 should have vaporized the planet. ;-)

    Jim

    • Jim Masterson says:

      One character said that breathing the planet’s air would be like sucking on an exhaust pipe. No, it wouldn’t. The carbon MONoxide in car exhaust is poisonous at 100 ppm. They made no mention of CO in the atmosphere.

      Hemoglobin has a greater affinity for carbon monoxide than it does for oxygen. That’s why car exhaust is dangerous. Hollywood never gets anything right when it comes to science.

      Jim

    • suyts says:

      Most of the people in Hollywood aren’t very bright. Well, leftists in general…. Carbon, CO, CO2…. they make no distinction because they don’t know the difference.

    • Jim Masterson says:

      I was watching a movie about planes, and they cleared the plane to land on runway 40. The problem with that is there’s no such thing as a runway 40. The largest number for a runway is 36.

      Jim

      • gator69 says:

        “We have clearance, Clarence.” ;)

      • Jim Masterson says:

        Roger, Roger. Over, Over. (Over-and-out annoys me–that’s a contradiction of terms.)

        Jim

        • gator69 says:

          Roger Murdock: Flight 2-0-9′er, you are cleared for take-off.
          Captain Oveur: Roger!
          Roger Murdock: Huh?
          Tower voice: L.A. departure frequency, 123 point 9′er.
          Captain Oveur: Roger!
          Roger Murdock: Huh?
          Victor Basta: Request vector, over.
          Captain Oveur: What?
          Tower voice: Flight 2-0-9′er cleared for vector 324.
          Roger Murdock: We have clearance, Clarence.
          Captain Oveur: Roger, Roger. What’s our vector, Victor?
          Tower voice: Tower’s radio clearance, over!
          Captain Oveur: That’s Clarence Oveur. Over.
          Tower voice: Over.
          Captain Oveur: Roger.
          Roger Murdock: Huh?
          Tower voice: Roger, over!
          Roger Murdock: What?
          Captain Oveur: Huh?
          Victor Basta: Who?

        • philjourdan says:

          I did not realize someone would post the whole conversation when I posted my meager vector victor.

          Funniest movie ever!

        • Jim Masterson says:

          Sounds like a typical take-off to me. ;-)

          Jim

        • Jim Masterson says:

          Captain Oveur died in 2010:

          Jim

        • gator69 says:

          He will be missed…

          “Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?” ;)

      • philjourdan says:

        The runways are numbered for the direction of the compass they point towards, so since there are only 360 degrees, that would make 36 the highest number.

        • Jim Masterson says:

          And it’s magnetic heading, not true heading. There’s an airfield in Greenland whose magnetic variance is almost 90 degrees.

          Jim

        • philjourdan says:

          True – but compasses point to the magnetic pole, so I implied that.

        • Jim Masterson says:

          I beg to differ. The term compass does not imply magnetic. But I’m just a stupid (for watching too many movies), retired Naval aviator. What would I know about compasses?

          Jim

        • philjourdan says:

          No, you are the knowledgeable one. I am the ignorant one. I ASSUMED (when I said compass and later) that it was a magnetic one. I have never been a pilot (nor do I play one in a movie).

        • Jim Masterson says:

          Still, if you fly in CONUS, you’ll never know the difference because all headings are magnetic. However, if you fly over the poles or over ocean, the headings are true.

          RNAV or point-to-point is probably magnetic heading, but in a P-3 we had to fly true heading and convert.

          We also file true airspeed and fly indicated airspeed.

          Jim

        • Jim Masterson says:

          >>
          Jim Masterson says:
          January 17, 2013 at 3:05 pm

          But I’m just a stupid (for watching too many movies), retired Naval aviator. What would I know about compasses?
          <<

          Hmmm, that was rather obnoxious of me Phil. I’m no expert, and even experts are sometimes wrong. I didn’t mean to sound like a liberal.

          Jim

        • philjourdan says:

          It aint bragging if it is true. You merely stated facts. That is hardly sounding liberal.

        • suyts says:

          We all do that from time to time.

  5. philjourdan says:

    His problem, and most of the high priests of AGW’s problem is that most of their accolytes are dumb as a fence post! Even I, a novice when it comes to Climate Science, can have them blathering in a possessed demonic manner inside of 2 minutes by just challenging them with the basics of the science. They know the talking points, but understand nothing about the science.

  6. gator69 says:

    I’ve boiled it down for the ADD crowd…

    5 Tips for Handling Climate Skeptics in 2013

    1- Project about sources and cherry picking
    2- Claim AGW is absolute
    3- Be one of the ‘cool kids’
    4- Witness your faith in leftist politics
    5- Embrace caca

  7. Latitude says:

    “Atmospheric CO2 has increased 0.01% in total atmosphere. ”

    I wonder how many people realize that if the planet was that sensitive….
    ….we wouldn’t be here

  8. cdquarles says:

    Yay :) Now how alarming does that rise look now with a zero baseline? Still, the Mauna Loa data are in themselves a bit cherry picked. They still obscure the large biological and non-biological fluxes by claiming ‘well mixed’, but even that is only partially true.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s