Posted on 03/20/2017 9:38:53 AM PDT by MtnClimber
A few days ago I had a conversation with a very smart university professor of history and somehow the climate change subject came up. Almost instantly he responded to my thoughts by saying: “You must be one of those deniers who rejects the science consensus.”
This is the new form of intellectual bullying and it’s intentionally designed is to stop the conversation not advance it. In the academies it is a technique to close off scientific inquiry.
When the liberals talk of consensus, what consensus are they talking about? Of whom? .......
“Perpetual repetition.” “Unqualified environmental groups.” “Sensational headlines.” This is what mass movements are all about. From his book, The True Believer, here is Eric Hoffer on mass movements:
Hatred is the most assessable and comprehensive of all the unifying agents.… Mass movements can rise and spread without the belief in God but never without the belief in evil. By the way, isn’t this what the left accuses the Trump movement to be all about?
Hoffer then goes on to cite the historian F.A. Voigt’s account of a Japanese mission to Berlin in 1932 to study the National Socialist Movement. Voigt asked a member of the mission what he thought. He replied, “It is magnificent. I wish we could have something like it in Japan, only we can’t, because we haven’t got any Jews.” This brought a bit of clarity as to why the mass movement, rather brilliantly, wants to label those of us who have questions as “deniers.”
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Totalitarians use the same playbooks...
If there weren’t individuals to challenge “consensus”, we’d be running around racially segregated thinking the world is flat, and that the sun revolves around us.
Or “You must be one of those disingenous pseudo scientists who thinks consensus defines science”.
They lost all credibility when it was discovered that Mars was experiencing the same global warming the Earth was.
Since then, it has stopped and reversed course.
Nobody had to “hide the decline” in climate reading from Mars.
This professor sounds like a “True believer” and no amount of real facts can persuade him.
“Be polite, Be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.” - Gen. Mad Dog Mattis
Hard to argue with that one. Scott Adams has another fine rebuttal: How Leonardo DiCaprio Can Persuade Me on Climate ChangeHe explains why it is naive to believe AGW proponents on the reality of AGW - and even more naive to accept the posited seriousness of AGW.
BOOKMARK
And for being a complete jerk to people who would have supported him.
I know he gets trotted out every time but he was the exception rather then the rule.
I deny that there is a consensus. In fact I'll prove that there is not.
Global Warming Skeptics Question Authority
Princeton Professor Denies Global Warming Theory Jan. 12, 2009
Princeton Physics Professor Discredits Anthropogenic Climate Change Theory Dec. 21, 2016
German scientists reject man-made global warming
Real Scientist Uncover Serious Flaw In Global Warming Data
Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims [pre-Climategate]
'Consensus' On Man-Made Global Warming Collapses in 2008
Perth electrical engineer's discovery will change climate change debate October 04, 2015
Top Physicist Freeman Dyson: Obama 'Took the Wrong Side' on Climate Change October 14, 2015
Global Warming Petition Project Scientists who reject AGW
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs
Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit 'Irrational' * 'Based On Nonsense' * 'Leading us down a false path' November 19, 2015
97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus”
I think that proves beyond consensus that those who claim there is a consensus are liars.
Carbon dioxide only absorbs two narrow wavelengths of infrared energy. Water vapor absorbe a broad range of infrared wavelengths including the two narrow ranges absorbed by carbon dioxide. The normal distance a photon of IR energy travels before being absorbed by water vapor is less than 100 meters at mormal humidity levels so they would get absorbed with or without carbon dioxide. I think carbon dioxide has almost no effect on global temperature. The desire for crushing government regulation was desired by the left before they thought of inventing their computer model.
No smoking hot spot David Evans - THE AUSTRALIAN July 18, 20081. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
Given the above no Greenhouse gas is a cause of warming.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.