“I don’t have much patience for people who deny climate change”
– Barack Obama,
“I hope there are no climate-change deniers in the Department of Interior.“
– Sally Jewell, U.S. Interior Secretary
A common fallback position when losing an argument is to assault your adversary personally. Known as ad hominem, it involves “attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.”
In climate science, those who employ this rhetorical tactic attack individuals who ask probing scientific questions. The attacks indicate that they know how inadequate their science is. It often works because of a deliberate campaign to exploit basic sensitivities: fear the sky is falling, guilt about not protecting the environment, guilt about the damage already done, fear and embarrassment of showing ignorance.
People who challenge the claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are often labeled “global warming skeptics”. Skeptics do not deny that warming occurred in modern times, but, sensibly, questioned the cause. The IPCC said it was due to human production of CO2. This is driven by a political agenda, not science, so any opposition is considered troublesome and requires silencing.
The IPCC claim is an unproven hypothesis. Science advances by proposing hypotheses that other scientists challenge in their proper role as skeptics. The word skeptic has markedly different public and scientific connotation; negative for the former and positive for the latter. Scientists act as skeptics by trying to disprove the hypothesis. Global warming skeptics are acting appropriately. (Dr Tim Ball, WUWT)
Pierre Gosselin at NoTricksZone has discovered a rather concerning example of a “denier” strike, endorsed by one of Germany’s most respected research centres, the prestigious Helmholtz Center Geesthacht…
Prestigious Helmholtz Research Center Gutter-Dives…Promotes Sophomoric Attacks On Skeptics, Labelling Them “Deniers”
By P Gosselin on 20. February 2014
It’s worrisome enough that the German government itself recently issued a brochure singling out, naming, and defaming German and American climate science skeptics. Today we have one of Germany’s most prestigious science associations actively backing adolescent-level attacks on skeptics who have decided not to take part in collective climate hysteria.
This morning on Twitter I happened to come across the following tweet:
Inhofe, Morano, Michaels, Bachmann labeled “deniers”
The above tweet comes from the Climate Service Center, which provides a link to an intolerant video called “The League of Deniers“, which was produced by Kickstarter.com. In summary the video portrays skeptics as “deniers”, claims that ”the public is misinformed” and that skeptics’ words are “human foolishness”.
– Read on here.
Gosselin posts a series of basic climate questions that identify, not what sceptics deny, but rather what the promoters of CAGW continually fail and refuse to answer :
To help them understand why there are skeptics when it comes to climate science, below are some questions that us skeptics have been waiting 15 years to receive answers.
- Why has there been no global warming for 17 years?
- Why have 97% of the climate models failed to foresee this?
- Why has Antarctic sea ice been well above normal for more than 2 years?
- Why are northern hemispheric winters getting colder?
- What makes the present warm period any different from that of the Medieval warm period?
- Why is it that CO2 has been suddenly assumed to be the major climate factor and the rest like the sun and oceans
- If there is consensus on manmade climate change, then why is there so much controversy over it?
- Do you think that it’s not necessary to have skeptics in order for science to progress?
Perhaps instead of wasting taxpayer resources on sophomorically defaming and ridiculing those who legitimately ask questions, the Helmholtz Center ought to focus on providing some clear answers for the above questions for once.
Climate scientist Dr Roy Spencer has had enough…
Yeah, somebody pushed my button.
When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”, they crossed the line. They are still doing it.
They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.
Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back.
I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis”.
The pseudo-scientific ramblings by their leaders have falsely warned of mass starvation, ecological collapse, agricultural collapse, overpopulation…all so that the masses would support their radical policies. Policies that would not voluntarily be supported by a majority of freedom-loving people.
They are just as guilty as the person who cries “fire!” in a crowded theater when no fire exists. Except they threaten the lives of millions of people in the process.
Like the Nazis, they advocate the supreme authority of the state (fascism), which in turn supports their scientific research to support their cause (in the 1930s, it was superiority of the white race).
Dissenting scientific views are now jack-booted through tactics like pressuring scientific journals to not publish papers with which they disagree…even getting journal editors to resign.
Like the Nazis, they are anti-capitalist. They are willing to sacrifice millions of lives of poor people at the altar of radical environmentalism, advocating expensive energy policies that increase poverty. And if there is a historically demonstrable threat to humanity, it is poverty.
Bravo Dr Spencer.
What has become of society, and science, when one of the core principles of the scientific method – the ability to question it – is met with “Nazi” totalitarian hostility?
The inference ‘eco-fascism’ not too far from the truth at all.
However, their tweet endorsement still remains.
via Jo Nova :
Readers here will know that my problem with the term “denial” is with its misuse in English*. But the term “denier” is also used as a character slur to mark those who disagree in a science debate as being as odious as Holocaust deniers. The hope, apparently, is that dissenting views should be shunned and their arguments and evidence ignored. It’s a cheap debating tactic to shut down debate for those without evidence and reason, but it’s incredibly effective if you have the media on your side. What’s amazing is how many otherwise smart people don’t see through this babyish rhetorical stunt.
Last week Roy Spencer had had enough. In response to years of name-calling, he protested at being called a “denier” and said
“Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back. I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis”.
See also :
- Labeling People ‘Climate Change Deniers’ Merely Reveals the Attacker’s Ignorance | Watts Up With That?
- Nature’s ugly decision: ‘Deniers’ enters the scientific literature | Watts Up With That?
- Lord Leach of Fairford weighs in on Nature’s ‘denier’ gaffe | Watts Up With That?
- How to Cure a Climate Change Denier | Climatism
- Establishing Propaganda Is Vital For Climate Action | Climatism
- EPA and Sierra Club Climate Change Deniers? | Climatism
- Humor – The Alarmist Debating Keyboard | Climatism
Climatism Trending :
- NATURE STUDY Confirms Global Warming Stopped 15 Years Ago | Climatism
- Climate Ambulance Chasing | Climatism
- Climate Scientists 95% Sure The Science Is Unsettled | Climatism
- Global Warming Is The Greatest And Most Successful Pseudoscientific Fraud In History | Climatism
- “In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” | Climatism
- Shock News : Green Energy Not Fit for the Grid | Climatism
- Global Warming Was Never About Science. It Was Always About Power And Money | Climatism