Rinse, repeat...

(...) Yesterday, Roy Spencer took to his blog, writing a post entitled "Time to push back against the global warming Nazis". The ensuing Godwinian rant was apparently triggered by somebody calling contrarians like Spencer "deniers." Personally I tend to avoid use of the term, simply because it inevitably causes the ensuing discussion to degenerate into an argument about whether "denier" refers to Holocaust denial. Obviously that misinterpretation of the term is exactly what "pushed {Spencer's} button," as he put it.

However, this misinterpretation has no basis in reality. The term "denier" merely refers to "a person who denies" something, and originated some 600 years ago, long before the Holocaust occurred. Moreover, as the National Center for Science Education and Peter Gleick at Forbes have documented, many climate contrarians (including the aforementioned Richard Lindzen) prefer to be called "deniers."

"I actually like 'denier.' That's closer than skeptic," says MIT's Richard Lindzen, one of the most prominent deniers. Steve Milloy, the operator of the climate change denial website JunkScience.com, told Popular Science, "Me, I just stick with denier ... I'm happy to be a denier." Minnesotans for Global Warming and other major denier groups go so far as to sing, "I'm a Denier!".

Spencer is also on the advisory board of the Cornwall Alliance, a group with 'An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming' claiming that "Earth and its ecosystems—created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory." The declaration also has a section on "What We Deny," and Spencer recently wrote in The Christian Post,

...we deny "that most {current climate change} is human-caused, and that it is a threat to future generations that must be addressed by the global community."

Thus it's rather hypocritical of Spencer to complain about the use of a word meaning "a person who denies" when he has expressly admitted to denying these climate positions. (...)

 steeler wrote: 
Its been great, too.  Kinda how I hoped it would go.

But backscroll in that thread I linked to.  It seems that every other word in there is denier.  Pardon the hyperbole, but the usage of the term is overwhelming in there. 

 DaveInVA wrote: 

Does that trump calling those on the other side of the debate   "deniers?"

Pat Sajak: Global warming alarmists are 'unpatriotic racists'

 kurtster wrote:  
Uh-huh. 

It seems to me that there are those who deny that there is any significant climate change that is occurring.  I'll summarize: You have stated that you do not deny that climate change is occurring, ,but contend that there is little or nothing that can or should be done to try to mitigate it.  The cartoon, in my view, goes to the former.
Even if you were to dispute that characterization of mine, it seems to me that one post or even one person labeling those who hold a position similar to yours as "deniers" does not equate, as you seem to suggest,  with the almost the entire forum being intolerant of your views.  Again, I have seen a bunch of comments in this thread — Climate Chaos —responding to your views, taking them seriously, and debating the merits.                   

 kurtster wrote: 
You just confused the crap out of me. Did you not just say you're in favor of fracking? 

 
edit: Sorry, fell into the sarcasm hole.  

 steeler wrote: 
Oh yeah ?

 kurtster wrote: 
Some of the responses provided were solid references to real science that show how those "natural causes", i.e. causes not of an anthropogenic nature, do not match up with observations (like the often-used canard that it's the sun that's causing all of it), and thus cannot decently explain what's going on. It's not hard then to see where the responsibility lies for the choice to ignore/deny those references in favour of a chauvinistic status quo mindset, and to repeat the same nonsense once more...

Proverbially, one can lead a horse (that likes to paint itself as a victim with oppressed/suppressed opinions) to the water, but one can't make it think drink...

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Hey, I didn't say that fracking was safe regarding groundwater.  I said the the EPA says it is safe.  Big difference.

Isn't the EPA the darling of the global warming crowd and the primary means of implementing its policy ?

So this case began 6 years ago and now 6 years later ... what has the EPA done other than investigate endlessly ? 

Yep the groundwater is contaminated, most likely from drilling and the EPA is doing nothing about it other than talk about it and spend money investigating it.  A typical federal bureaucracy more interested in perpetuating itself than the citizens it is supposed to serve.

Yes, I wish the EPA would be abolished and replaced with a new approach. 

 kurtster wrote: 
lol lol lol

You loathe them but will cite them when it suits you?

Here's one that's close to home.

 kurtster wrote: 

You seem to have received a lot of reactions here today regarding your views and I do not see a single one where you have been labeled a denier.  And — before you say it — it has nothing to do with whether the thread is titled Climate Change or Climate Chaos.

    

 steeler wrote: 
Yes, its gets old, especially when you try and mention natural causes to climate change and the only reaction you get is denier.

 black321 wrote: 
I'm not advocating doing nothing.  

One of the points I am trying to make is the sheer futility of what is being promoted as the solutions.  We have one nation, China who giving them the benefit of the doubt, produces as much GHG as the US and EU combined and is set to increase there output 5 fold more by the year 2050.  No one can compensate for that. They are building their infrastructure.  Making steel, concrete and asphalt and producing the energy needed is dirty business.  There is no way around that.  On a good note, China and Russia just signed a deal for Russia to provide China with nat gas for the next 30 years.  This is breaking news.  That alone should help tremendously with China's output of GHG.

How is setting up a commodity exchange for pollution going to solve that problem (cap and trade) ?  The only thing its going to do is make a whole new set or an existing set of middlemen wealthy(er).

I am all for fracking and drilling.  According to the EPA (which I loathe) fracking is safe and there are no instances of it causing any pollution or contamination of underground water. Not a one.  On the other hand there seem to be questions regarding earth movement.  That remains to be sorted out.  We will always or for decades to come, need petrochemicals for uses other than fuel.  We need it for plastics, fertilizers and drugs to mention a few off road uses.

In addition, there are natural causes to climate change that need to be considered.  The jury advocating government intervention and cap and trade ignores even the possibility of natural causes and as soon as one tries to mention natural causes they are automatically dismissed as a denier.  Why are they afraid to discuss natural causes ?

 kurtster wrote: 

This whole "contrary views are not welcome" shtick got old a long time ago.

 kurtster wrote: 
I get that; nevertheless, the arguments to do nothing, or that climate change is just the latest bugaboo aren't very compelling.  Even if there were no climate change, I would still argue for alternative investments in new, cleaner energy.  Not many are actually saying throw away your car and gas/oil furnace, but let's move things in a different direction rather invest in more cheap (excluding the environmental cost) fracking/drilling.  Regardless, it may very well be too late to reverse the damage, as some say...time will tell. 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
touche'    I'm just trying to look at this from a different angle and make a place that is receptive to it.

Indeed we have been hearing about this all of our lives.  And now all of a sudden, we need to act or its curtains.

Or that's the drift I am getting.  

On a personal level, my thought is to make the most efficient use of the energy we already have readily available.  LED's and better building materials, more efficient heating and cooling and cars that get 50 mpg on the open road. We need these things regardless of the energy source.  Save our money to develop this kind of technology so we can survive in the inevitable new hostile environment.  

Just using less energy is a real good start.  Cheap stable energy is the key for a better way of life regardless the weather.

Thanks for getting my drift.

 

 kurtster wrote: 
doubt any of us on this site are smart enough to really know...but from what I've read and heard from reputable sources, there is a very real "risk" of major changes to climate and sea levels...over the next 100 years.  The word risk implies a certain probability and negative impact during a future period...of course no one has a crystal ball, but the risk, probability and impact, appears high enough to have a significantly negative effect on humans and other species (the earth will survive fine).   So taking action is akin to buying health insurance.  I don't know if I'll get sick in the future, or simply just die one day.  But to deal with the financial risk of dealing with a potential future health issue, I buy insurance.  Of course its financially a drain to my current resources while I'm healthy, but it could potentially avert a future disaster. 

 kurtster wrote: 
Do you really think this will stick? You and I are old farts and have been hearing about this for our entire lives. I suppose, on a glacial time scale, it's quite rushed.

 black321 wrote: 
I have no idea. 

I just started this cuz I was fed up with being called a denier in the other two threads devoted to this subject.

The purpose here being to introduce things that are left out in the group think rush to judgment and the potential bankruptcy of the US.if those demanding action are wrong.

What you posted below about Kerry is the kind of stuff that I hoped would come to this thread.  Things that question this rush to judgment are welcome in here unlike the other two threads.

I am trying to find out who amongst us really believes that there is a real crisis that warrants what Kerry is trying to equivocate in your post below.  

No one has yet been willing to say that there is a genuine crisis calling for drastic and immediate measures to prevent the end of life as we know it now, which the drumbeat of those like Kerry seems to imply. 

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
No I am not.

a)  I am still trying to find who thinks there is a problem large enough to call it a crisis. 

b) yes 

No one will respond to the question.

Crisis or no crisis ?  Why is it so hard to declare a position ?