When I believe I’m amply fortified to withstand a horrendous assault on basic human intellect, I trip over to the Huffington Post’s Climate Change section to see what the nutters are up to.
They had a headline which piqued my interest…..
Climate Worst-Case Scenario May Backfire In Activists’ Campaign: Study
I thought maybe they would acknowledge that the hysterical hyperbole simply makes people laugh at them and they lose credibility. And, that their proclamations of fact, when no such “facts” have been established may push people the other way. Maybe? Nope. Not a chance. Apparently, according to a new study, the unwashed masses simply can’t handle all of the information.
Climate activists’ strategy of barraging people with information about the consequences of climate change could end up hurting the cause, according to a benchmark study released Thursday.
You see it isn’t the false, or overhyped information they’re providing, it is that we can’t handle the false and overhyped information which causes us not to care about what driveling nonsense these people are spewing. It’s fascinating. Even when the answer is slapping them in the face, they refuse to acknowledge it.
Full acknowledgement of uncertainty increased survey respondents’ acceptance of climate change when discussing sea level rise in isolation.
“If scientists fully confess their uncertainty to the public, this appears to increase trust,” said survey director Jon Krosnick, a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and professor of communication, of his findings.
But when the disclosure regarding sea level is coupled with predictions of climate change’s effects on storm intensity, however, that trust didn’t hold.
It couldn’t possibly be that even the unwashed masses can plainly see there has been no increase in storm intensity over the last few decades? Naw…… we just can’t handle all this…… stuff.
One reason for that, Krosnick suggested, could be that people are “overwhelmed” by information and “psycho defenses kick in.”
It isn’t the message that’s the problem it’s the recipients of the message. In a stunning example of refusing to see what the problem actually is, the article gives a great example but, doesn’t realize what the problem is.
To take a real-world example, consider the critique Jeff Masters, director of meteorology at the Weather Underground, gave to Al Gore’s global warming movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which sought to draw attention to the dangers posed by climate change. Masters wrote:
[Gore] shows animations of what a 20-foot rise in sea level would do to Manhattan, Florida, India, and China. A 20-foot sea level rise is what we expect if all of Greenland or all of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet were to melt. Such a 20-foot rise is not expected by 2100, and it would have been appropriate for Gore to acknowledge that the consensus of climate scientists–as published in the most recent report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)–is that sea level is likely to rise between 4 and 35 inches, with a central value of 19 inches, by 2100.
Perhaps such transparency could do more than pacify Gore’s critics, provided he doesn’t overwhelm them with information. If this study is right, it could help him and other advocates gain greater public acceptance of the scientific reality of climate change.
For those who don’t know, Masters is no skeptic. So, when even he is pointing out Gore’s absurdity, we know Gore’s madness is total bs. Gore didn’t overwhelm anyone with information, he overwhelmed people with utter nonsense. And this is why people ignore climate catastrophs. They lie, they overhype, they exaggerate, they’re given to panic, and are generally seen as wild-eyed lunatics. And they refuse to learn from their own absurdities and assault on human intellect.
Today, HuffPo is full of them…….They’re mad that Senator Cruz removed a climate change mention in the Senate’s symbolic Women’s Day resolution. As if these two issues are related. Yes, the article does the necessary mental gymnastics to try and tie these two together. You see you’re a sexist pig if you think otherwise. And, this idiotic article continues in the great tradition of their stupidity.
In fact, 97 to 98 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is anthropogenic, according to the National Academy of Sciences.
That’s a fact? THAT’S NOT EVEN WHAT THE PAPER STATED!!! Anderegg is a horribly flawed paper, but even if it wasn’t flawed, the above statement isn’t in their conclusions!
It is a scientific fact that climate change makes extreme weather events more likely, ……
Good heavens!!! They even provide a link showing that it isn’t a fact by any stretch of the imagination.
“A changing climate leads to changes in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration and timing of extreme weather and climate events, and can result in unprecedented extreme weather and climate events,” reports the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
When did the word “can” become synonymous with “does”? When does the opinion without so much as a citation of evidence become accepted as science?
HuffPo even had an interview with the Goracle.
Q: Also threatening to the Earth are devastating events like Hurricane Sandy. Do you ever think, “I told you so”?
Al Gore: Well, no, certainly not in those words. I take no pleasure in the fact that the scientific predictions I’ve relayed to popular audiences turn out to be true. And much worse will come unless we act very quickly. Sea rise is going to accelerate dramatically, and storms that used ……
Because we never had storms before? What predictions have come true? Back to the hyperbole, lies, and exaggerations. Even their headlines become an exercise in the absurd……
Arctic Sea Ice Maximum In 2013 Is Sixth Lowest On Record
Or, the 3rd most in the last seven years.
I do find this HuffPo article pretty amusing, though. It seems warmists have become victims of their own hyperbole.
The duo challenge what they say have become pervasive misinterpretations of recent scientific results, including findings from a 2010 National Research Council report they helped write that said that the amount of global warming to date is essentially irreversible on the timescale of about 1,000 years. That study has been repeatedly cited by policymakers to justify delays in tackling carbon emissions by making global warming appear to be inexorable, regardless of what actions are taken.
Now they’re saying that’s not what they meant. Even though that’s what they said.
I guess they’ll never learn. But, their pervasive stupidity doesn’t allow for it, so we shouldn’t be surprised.
Great stuff, I’m reading it slowly so that I don’t gloss over pearls like
“It is a scientific fact that climate change makes extreme weather events more likely, ……”
I don’t think that one can define the relationship between two vague terms that can mean anything, as a scientific fact.
Those are considered scientific facts by the alarmists elite only.
I’ve posted this in James Delingpole’s blog on the DT site.
I’d reblog it but my theme only allows one new main post on the front page at a time, so I’m trying to keep the focus on that one item. Knowing you, I won’t be short of material over the coming months. lol
I do try to stay busy! 🙂
They have now entangled themselves so much in their own lies that no sceptic will ever have to make an argument again, it seems we can just sit back and watch them fall over all by themselves.
It is funny. They’ve talked themselves into a circle of fail.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
LOL, I think we Americans have the Aussies beat in “A religious boondoggle that is mind-blowing in it’s stupidity and ignorance.” But, I will give them credit for their efforts. And, they do have a carbon tax….. so there’s that.
When will Hansen rescind all the Malthusian junk he has expounded over the years?
When he resigns from NASA. Oops, he has!
Combatting the misrepresentation of the scientific evidence is an area where a true consensus can be reached, right across the spectrum. Lewandowsky and Cook begin “The Debunking Handbook” with
I doubt Lewandowsky and Cook would agree with us on what is and isn’t “accurate information.”
For instance, both of those two dimwits couldn’t tell the truth about Cook posting a link to the survey for Lew’s paper. So, while we can agree with the thought, we see that neither Lew or Cook are not practitioners of what they preach.
You are probably right in this. Based on their past record they can only see a very narrow point of view. However, I believe quite firmly
(a) no-one is beyond redemption
(b) in the miraculous
(c) that belief in democracy means allowing freedom of expression to points of view that you consider inferior and potentially repugnant.
Yes, I agree with a through c.
I think the answer lies more in educating the public so they can employ discernment to the information than regarding the information itself. Which brings us back to (b).
“Combatting the misrepresentation of the scientific evidence is an area where a true consensus can be reached, right across the spectrum. Lewandowsky and Cook begin “The Debunking Handbook” with”
Manicbeancounter, do you suggest in earnest that Lewandowsky and Cook are anything but crooked attack dogs? There is not one iot of honesty in any of the SkS kids or Lewandowsky.
The shotgun approach – just fire, and then draw a circle around the shot pattern and declare that your target.
That is about how useful the Huffpo piece is.
Another ‘hottest ever’: http://pindanpost.com/2014/02/05/summer-in-australia/, where the images are really, really hot …
I hope you sterilized your computer after going to HuffPo … don’t want to catch anything nasty.