Delusionists Engaging Denialists?
Posted by greg2213 on November 8, 2010
Via Climatedepot – A group of scientists are getting together to “combat” those who don’t agree with their views. They could just call us Heretics, I suppose.
Update: I’ll leave the remarks below, since the apply to so many people on the warm side, but apparently the reports about the AGU scientist group were in error (or it’s a CYA tactic.) They say that their group is to provide information. There is a second group, separate from the AGU, which is doing the combating. Details here: AGU backs away from “climate rapid response team” citing faulty reporting.
Since they refer to those who dare to question the “science” as Denialists, a deliberately insulting term, I think it’s only fair to refer to them as Delusionists, a non-insulting term that refers to the complete lack of credibility of their catastrophic scenarios. Snarky? Me? Never.
First, let’s get some definitions straight since the Delusionist crowd likes to bounce back and forth between them.
- Global Warming version 1: the 0.6 to 0.8 warming that might have happened over the last 130 years or so. This might resemble, or be within shouting distance of, reality, once heat island effects and an iffy (and adjusted) thermometer record are considered.
- Global Warming version 2: Anything that comes out of the mouths of Al Gore and the Extremists. No basis in reality. Hockey sticks and disaster scenarios come to mind here. I’ll generally refer to this as CAGW – Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
What’s the science really say? See the Petition Project statement, that’s what the science says.
You know, this opens itself to all kinds of snarky remarks…
One could say that this is a gathering of scientists looking to defend their stream of government grant money. I wonder how many of these guys would lose their jobs, or be reprimanded/ridiculed by their superiors if they didn’t jump on the bandwagon?
Interesting how the most energetic supporters of the Catastrophic Warming Scenarios all have something to gain, be it money, power, fame, money….
Interesting how all of the mitigation concepts involve increasing government power, massive amounts of government funding, increasing the wealth of certain groups (Al Gore, Pachauri, Investment Houses (G. Sachs,) Big Oil, etc.) and so on. Power and money have always been a corrupting combination.
I suppose we can always look at the environmental glories of China, the USSR, and others. Interesting how the societies these people most want to control are the cleanest ones. Also interesting how their policies will damn the poor people of the world to a life of misery.
Interesting how they feel the need to do this (combat the heretics) when the money on their side of the issue is thousands of times that of the skeptical side.
Now, if they actually had some science behind the disaster scenarios then people might listen to them.