The Real Climate Deniers

The American Spectator ^ | 4.3.09 | Peter C. Glover & Michael Economides

[Delacon]

For at least a decade, intimately connected with energy use, have been claims on climate change. Richard Lindzen, arguably the world's most renowned climate scientist, describes our understanding of the science of climate as "primitive." Yet many in the media persist in treating alarmist "climate experts" as "all-knowing." But then the same media have a long history of taking up "end is nigh" scaremongering. It's good for ratings. We have had a litany of warnings that "billions could die" when AIDS, Avian flu, SARS, Ebola, mad cow disease, the millennium bug -- the list is endless -- hit the headlines. When they didn't of course, media alarmists shrugged, claimed they "simply report the facts" and moved on to warn about the next looming disaster.

Since man set foot on the earth, however, nothing has quite gripped the angst-ridden imagination like the weather gods visiting their fury at human behavior and life, so much connected with the use of fossil fuel energy. Media editors know this. Where once we banished such "end is nigh" eccentrics to the limits of society, today, they are fêted for spinning prediction as science and conducting publicly funded research to "save the planet." Their messages are aided by apocalyptic video game scenarios passing for media news reports.

Nowhere has this been thrown into more graphic relief than in two international climate conferences held in March this year. The "expert" conclusions of each could not have been more starkly divergent. But it is in the aims, nature and public pronouncements of each conference that we discern where the real science of climate understanding lays, and thus who are the real "climate deniers." All of which has profound implications for the future of energy, energy policy and energy investment.

The Alarmist Conference

The climate alarmist conference met in

[Delacon]

ping

[Sherman Logan]

I am constantly amused by the same people who denounce GWB as a liar for “perhaps” overstating the degree of certainty on intelligence about Iraq proclaiming that global warming is occurring and they know exactly what the effects will be.

At the very least we have much greater uncertainty about the climate in 2050 than we have about what is going on in the inner workings of any country on earth. Which ain’t saying much.

[jimt]

While the article is excellent and well worth reading, the commentary that follows is absolutely priceless.

There’s a poster there by the name of David Matthews who makes no logical arguments, just spews his insults and bile all over the thread.

Then somebody else begins posting as David Matthews. One excerpt from thsi wit was:

David Mathews said:

” Please don’t respond to me. I am nothing but a name-calling ‘ho with nothing substantive to add to anything including life itself.

I most likely will not reproduce because I can’t get a date in the first place.

Please, please DON’T respond to me. The more you respond, the more I will just name-call and try my best to throw hissy fits.

I sincerely have nothing to add to ANY conversation. Seriously. “

Check it out. It’s hilarious.

[aquila48]

More than anything else, what convinces me that “global warming” is a religion and its followers are zealots is that anytime there’s an objective finding suggesting that the world isn’t warming (i.e. the dreaded catastrophe may not be happening), the “true believers” lash out with outrage and venom to the bearer of “the good news”.

It would seem to me that any sane & rational person would welcome such a finding.

[steelyourfaith]

Beam me to Planet Gore !