Climate denial undeniable, so no rest yet

After extended time off to cope with a family bereavement and its aftermath, let me present insights from someone else. Perspicacious and humorous, resigned yet adamant.
Yesterday, by email to a climate forum I subscribe to, a scientist posted penetrating comments on the state of climate change understanding. The comments are too good not to circulate, so, without revealing his identity (because I haven’t asked his permission), here they are. He was responding to a radio broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) by one Tony Eggleton.

Yes, I know, we all want to listen to yet another alarmist DAGW broadcast like we want to volunteer for washing-up duties.

But this one by retired geologist Tony Eggleton, of the Australian National University, broadcast on the ABC’s premier science programme Ockham’s Razor, is worth listening to from end to end in order to understand the immensity of the task of re-education that still lies ahead of us.

The talk, about Tony Eggleton’s new book, called A Short Introduction to Climate Change, is the very holotype of the measured, malevolent, insistent and deadly DAGW scientific propaganda piece. One’s breath is taken away throughout by the unconscious chutzpah that Eggleton exhibits as he relentlessly accuses those whom he terms “the deniers” of almost every one of the catalogue of scientific abuses that have been so well honed by the IPCColytes.

There is something strongly disturbing about the way that such an educated and doubtless well meaning (aye: there’s the rub) man can so thoroughly brainwash himself. Maintaining the drone like a bass pedal throughout his talk is an unmistakable thread of devout belief in the need for expiation of human environmental sin.

Then there’s an additional question to contemplate. Which is how did it come about that Australia (and the UK, and Canada, and …) ever got to the position where the national broadcaster sees it as its role to broadcast such unabashed propaganda without even a semblance of balance or right of reply to scientists who have a different view.

Robyn Williams, of course, has long form in specializing in just this type of professional imbalance on Ockham’s Razor for many years — he is Australia’s counterpart to the BBC’s Roger Harrabin, whom he will know well. Broadcasting managers seem to have no idea as to how they might, or should, control the prejudices of such influential journalists.

Bottom line: even though the general public has largely switched off both interest and belief in the DAGW issue, this type of programme is deadly because of the effect it has on politicians, bureaucrats and their advisers (many of whom form part of Ockham’s Razor’s core audience). Virtually all of these persons are risk averse, for good professional reasons. Chancing to hear Eggleton’s monotonic soliloquy, they will just cling even harder to the slippery pole of the precautionary principle to justify continuing their anti-CO2 measures — with the Greens and the media continuing to cheer them on.

So don’t put your sword or steed away just yet.

It’s his conclusion prompts this post, for I was thinking comfortably I might reduce my involvement in speaking up against the AGW scare. But, if this scientist is right, it is this moment that calls for renewed effort from those of us who see beyond the deceptive surface of the climate scare. So on we go!

7 Thoughts on “Climate denial undeniable, so no rest yet

  1. It is going to take a lot more to undo 30 plus years of brainwashing.


    The implications were even more harsh for those Republicans who block Obama on climate action and dispute the entire body of science behind climate change. “For voters under 35, denying climate change signals a much broader failure of values and leadership,” the polling memo said. Many young voters would write such candidates off completely, with 37% describing climate change deniers as “ignorant”, 29% as “out of touch” and 7% simply as “crazy”.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/25/us-politics-climate-change-scepticism

    I wonder if these “young voters” know the first thing about climate?

  2. Richard C (NZ) on August 20, 2013 at 1:38 pm said:

    Another of the genre in Time:

    ‘The Battle Over Global Warming Is All in Your Head’

    Read more: http://science.time.com/2013/08/19/in-denial-about-the-climate-the-psychological-battle-over-global-warming/#ixzz2cT6sDbPu

    Snippets:

    “Despite the fact that more people now acknowledge that climate change represents a significant threat to human well-being, this has yet to translate into any meaningful action. Psychologists may have an answer as to why this is”

    “For some, the answer lies in cognitive science. Daniel Gilbert, a professor of psychology at Harvard, has written about why our inability to deal with climate change is due in part to the way our mind is wired. Gilbert describes four key reasons ranging from the fact that global warming doesn’t take a human form — making it difficult for us to think of it as an enemy — to our brains’ failure to accurately perceive gradual change as opposed to rapid shifts. Climate change has occurred slowly enough for our minds to normalize it, which is precisely what makes it a deadly threat, as Gilbert writes, “because it fails to trip the brain’s alarm, leaving us soundly asleep in a burning bed.” ”

    And,

    “Robert Gifford, a professor of psychology and environmental studies at the University of Victoria in Canada, also picks up on the point about our brains’ difficulty in grasping climate change as a threat. Gifford refers to this and other psychological barriers to mitigating climate change as “dragons of inaction.” Since authoring a paper on the subject in 2011 in which he outlined seven main barriers, or dragons, he has found many more. “We’re up to around 30,” he notes. “Now it’s time to think about how we can slay these dragons.” Gifford lists factors such as limited cognition or ignorance of the problem, ideologies or worldviews that may prevent action, social comparisons with other people and perceived inequity (the “Why should we change if X corporation or Y country won’t?”) and the perceived risks of changing our behavior.”

    # # #

    DAGW’s in deep trouble if it has to ring in the Psycho-babblers to conjure up a few “dragons” to “slay”.

    No mention of the pause and perplexity over it or the Epic model fail I note – the latter described by Spiegel as “The wound of climate science”.

    Gotta watch out for those dragons.

  3. It is very interesting that when you examine the discussion behind these assertions we are urged to defend against denial and the big-whatever pushing it. Never does anyone rely on any science.

    I would urge anyone who is even mildly interested to go read the science….even as a non-scientific layman skimming through heavy stuff…you can see that what they spin the conclusions as is almost always based on models that are NOT EVIDENCE or DATA.

    Now why is that?

    What I am starting to detect is more and more alternative influences and drivers other than carbon dioxide, almost all natural, but even the man-made ones are NOT carbon dioxide.

    If you don’t want to find out and only want to be informed by activists, you WILL be led by the nose.

  4. Richard C (NZ) on August 20, 2013 at 1:56 pm said:

    Some irony in the denial from The Hockey Schtick:

    ‘New paper finds climate model results are ‘substantially’ erroneous because they assume the Earth is flat’

    A new paper published in Theoretical and Applied Climatology finds “substantial” differences between conventional climate models that assume the Earth is flat as compared to a model that accounts for 3-D geography over mountainous regions. The authors use topography data over the Tibetan Plateau in their 3-D model and find deviations in net solar radiation at the surface “range from −150 to 180 W/m2 over the Tibetan Plateau. The local deviation in the solar flux could lead to earlier onset of convection and more small-scale circulation.” The authors “demonstrate that the entire Tibetan Plateau would receive more solar flux by about 14 W/m2, if its 3-D mountain structure was included in the calculations, which would result in larger sensible and latent heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere.” By way of comparison, 14 W/m2 is about four times greater than the IPCC alleged forcing from doubled CO2 levels. The paper’s findings are ironic in light of Obama’s claims that CAGW skeptics are members of the Flat Earth Society.

    Continues>>>>>>

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/08/new-paper-finds-climate-model-results.html

  5. New IPCC Report: Climatologists More Certain Global Warming Is Caused By Humans, Impacts Are Speeding Up

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/18/2484711/ipcc-report-more-certain-global-warming-is-caused-by-humans-impacts-speeding-up/

    No doubt some in the media will continue to focus on the largely irrelevant finding that the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) may be a tad lower than expected.

    I’m not sure if I know what a “tad” is and why this key metric is “irrelevant”

    Continued inaction on climate change risks the end of modern civilization as we know it.

    Righto.

  6. stan stendera on August 21, 2013 at 2:02 am said:

    It is important to remember this Eggleton is not a scientist, he is a criminal. The green nonsense is killing innocent people. Pensioners in England are freezing to death from energy poverty because of green mandates for “renewables”. People in Asia and Africa are dying of starvation because of mandates for biofuels Children in Africa are dying of malaria because of the ban on DDT. VAD (vitamin A deficiency) is blinding hundreds of thousand across the rice bowl area because of green resistance to golden rice, a genetically modified crop. Most of the blinded children die.. These eco-fascists are murderers. Then they have the nerve to say “think of the children”. There is no circle in Dante’s Hell COLD enough for these cretins.

    Rant over for now.

  7. “retired geologist….”

    So if you are preaching the party line, it’s OK to be a retired geologist, but on the other hand, if you are a sceptic, then it’s the old “not a climate scientist” line.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation