Summary of the use of ‘denier’ in Senate Dems all-night warmathon

5 Responses

1. I have heard from many climate alarmists that the term “denier” does not necessarily suggest a link to Holocaust denial – however they are using this rhetorical slight-of-hand to suggest that skeptics are to quick to jump to the Holocaust denier comparison instead of just accepting that “denier” is a legitimate word to describe scientists that “deny” what they call the facts surrounding the climate change debate. However, it is very clear, looking at past statements by many climate alarmists, that they absolutely want to connect climate “denial” with Holocaust “denial”. It is an integral part of the strategy of alarmists that the best way to win their argument is to paint anyone who questions climate alarmist orthodoxy as being someone who is so out of the mainstream that they would even deny the Holocaust – deny the “obvious”, deny the “overwhelming scientific consensus”, deny the “extremes” in weather (hello, weather, not climate). It is a classic straw man – set it up as something that is so terrible that anyone would think that way – and then knock that straw man down. Shame …

   Log in to Reply

2. It’s a typical fascist propaganda trick: label the opponent, call your opponent a Jew, a Denier, a Kulak, whatever… Make it stick. Make it derogatory. Make it a caricature. This is the level of discourse we get from these dregs of US politics.
   So, let’s have a closer look at who they are and how much they know about climate science:
   Reid: majored in political science & history
   Schumer: majored in law, but never practiced
   Boxer: majored in economics
   Blumenthal: majored in law
   Schatz: majored in philosophy
   Feinstein: majored in history
   Whitehouse: majored in law
   Franken: majored in political science
   Kaine: majored in economics
   King: majored in law, has family business in energy conservation
   These people are scientifically illiterate. None of them has even an ounce of science background, none of them has ever majored in science. They don’t know what they are talking about.
   The climate change issue is a science issue first and foremost. It is not resolved in any way. It is an open problem. There isn’t even enough change around to identify it clearly as anything unusual, anything “man-made.” Climate has been drifting towards warmer weather ever since the end of the Little Ice Age, but the drift has been extremely slow and global temperatures today are barely 0.7C higher than they were 200 years ago–if we can trust the measurement procedures, data interpretation procedures and the way this dubious number is obtained. There were no earth observing satellites 200 years ago that could be used to measure temperatures in every spot around the globe, year round. So any statements about global temperatures at the time are speculative at best. No acceleration in temperature rise has been observed. Temperature rise rates towards the end of the 20th century were the same as towards the end of the 19th century. There’s been no statistically significant global temperature rise this century.
   Scientific illiterates, like the ones listed above, with their academic degrees in humanities and no background in science or engineering at all, are the most vocal supporters of the pseudo-scientific fraud called “climate change.” It fits. They organized their whole lives around similar scams and elevated themselves on this pile of stench to leading positions in the US society. They shame our country.

   Log in to Reply

3. The term “climate change” is itself a political construct. Climate change has been ongoing for the past few billion years. These non-scientists (as well as some supposed “scientists”) now render such things as ice ages as insignificant compared to what human activity may be doing. Is this really any different than claims, a few centuries ago, that earth was at the center of the universe?

   The physicist Richard Feynman said that it doesn’t matter how smart or powerful you are, if your hypothesis is contradicted by the empirical data, you need a new hypothesis. The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis claims that the increasing level of carbon dioxide (co2) due to human activities (largely related to burning fossil fuels) causes global warming. Evidence backing that claim is nowhere to be found.

   “The seas are rising!”. The seas have been rising for the past 18,000 years, ever since the last (real) ice age began melting (except possibly for a few hundred years of reversal during the Little Ice Age). Sea level is up 400+ feet. The current annual sea level rise is 1 to 2 mm per YEAR! ( 1 mm = .0393701 inches.) This is miniscule and
   likely overwhelmed by measurement error. Some perspective may help. There have been 13 ice ages in the past 1.3 million years. The average duration of each ice age during that period was 90,000 years. Each ice age has been followed by a warming (interglacial) period, (such as the one we now enjoy) average duration 10,000 years. When there is no further increase in sea level it’s a good bet that the next ice age (or at least a Little Ice Age) has just arrived.

   The statistics clearly show that extreme weather events (typhoons, hurricanes, tornados, floods, droughts) have been even less frequent and less severe than usual over the past few decades. Even many scientists who back the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis are embarrassed by uninformed folks (particularly well known politicians) blaming such weather events on human-caused global warming.

   The latest UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) admits in at least one released version of its recent periodic report that current temperatures are the highest in the past 800 years. This is, finally, a reversal by the UN, now admitting that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP, about 1,000 years ago) was a global event and experienced higher temperatures than now. Human activity was not responsible for that warming period (and co2 level was low and was not rising.) What’s more, earlier warming periods going back thousands of years in this interglacial had even higher temperatures. In other words, current warming is well within the bounds of natural warming. However, that did not stop even many “scientists” from making the bogus claim that our current warming could not be explained, so must have been caused by human activity. (That is pure speculation, not even based on plausible logic!) Before casting aside the default assumption, that our current warming is merely natural climate variation, there must be at least a scintilla of evidence.) Finally, there has been no additional increase in our global temperature for the past 17 years, even as the co2 level has continued to increase. In fact, the five accepted global temperature datasets, (3 terrestrial, 2 satellite), all reportedly show a current 5 year cooling trend , and 4 of the 5 show a current 10 year cooling trend!

   The beginning of our current warming (such as it is) is generally associated with the beginning of our industrial revolution and the recent rise in co2 level. But there is no justification for that cherry-picked start-date. Our current warming actually began, by definition, at the bottom (the low temperature) of the Little Ice Age, which happened in the mid 1600s. For those lacking arithmetic skills, that’s two centuries of warming BEFORE both the industrial revolution and before co2 began increasing. The only known correlation between global temperature variation and co2 variation is over geologic periods and shows temperature variations being reflected, hundreds of years later, by very similar co2 variations. That’s just the carbon cycle at work. Oceans outgas when warmer, and absorb gas during cooling periods. During the most recent cooling period (1940s to 1970s) co2 continued to rise. More recently, as the global temperature has basically remained flat, co2 has continued to rise. Moreover, co2 has been 10 to 20 times higher than now in the more distant past, been much higher during two ice ages and going into once ice age, so neither does there appear to be any nearby “trigger”. Also, the physics is clear: co2, as it’s level increases, has a rapidly diminishing heating capacity.

   All the computer models which project global warming assume that the real greenhouse gas culprit is water vapor, which supposedly provides a positive feedback, bringing on a temperature increase 2 to 3 times greater than that brought on by increasing co2. The assumed feedback assumption is speculative at best because NO ONE yet understands climate feedbacks. In fact, cloud cover, one aspect of water vapor, likely provides a negative (offsetting) feedback. This baseless assumption about water vapor feedback happens to be consistent with their projected output, since all have grossly overestimated the actual temperature increase. (In any case, computer model output is NOT evidence of anything apart from the understanding and possible confirmation bias of the authors!)

   Co2 relative volume in the atmosphere is 4/100 of one percent. This is also referred to as 400 parts per million by volume (ppmv), or .0004. That’s why it is referred to as a trace gas. The recent average annual increase in co2, related to human activity, (fossil fuel and land use) is 2 ppmv. This co2 emission represents less than 4% of the
   natural annual co2 emissions of the carbon cycle (ocean and biomass emissions.) The US is responsible for less than half of that 4%, and our contribution has been dropping (both absolutely and relative to most other countries) due to increased use of natural gas and also partly due to recent economic conditions. Obama is promising to reduce our use by 17% over the next several years. But the economic analysis, using the alarmists’ own numbers, indicates that the cost to our economy (which will also affect other countries) would be enormous, and have an impact on temperature so miniscule that the improvement would not be discernible. Hundreds of billions (if not trillions) in cost and NO IMPROVEMENT!

   I have yet to hear even one coherent attempt at rebuttal of the issues outlined herein, neither have I heard any evidence supporting the alarmist position. So far the only response to questions or criticism involve name-calling, “appeals to authority” (hardly relevant when it is “authority” which is in question), or claims of the “consensus”, and that the science is “settled”. Science is not decided by votes, but in any event that claim is based on completely debunked surveys, and only the foolhardy claim that the science is “settled”. Michael Mann (infamous “hockey stick
   graph” author) responds to scientific criticisms by ignoring the facts presented, and instead asks whether the reader prefers to have their gall bladder taken out by a dentist rather than a surgeon.

   It is clear that human activity is contributing to the increase in carbon dioxide. However, some perspective, again, is needed. By 2099 the co2 level is projected to reach 600 ppmv (this assumes a continuation of the annual increase of 2ppmv per year). A crowded gym with poor venting would likely be at 1,000 ppmv. Submarine crews work, for months, in atmospheres of 3,000 to 5,000+ ppmv. Plants LOVE the increased co2 level and, in that environment, require less water. Scientists have also acknowledged that lifeforms, not unlike our own, survived in co2 levels which were many times higher than now.

   We have time, and technology will likely come up with sensible solutions long before the co2 level is a problem. Invoking the “precautionary principle” to address an imagined catastrophic situation will solve nothing but could bring
   on much larger problems. Don’t let the politicians introduce this kind of hobgoblin!

   Log in to Reply

4. I have sent the following letter to the ADL

   Dear ADL,

   I am writing you to say that I am appalled by the US Government’s use of the word “denier” with respect to those who challenge the highly partisan theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, or more in use right now “climate change.”

   I am part of a very large group of the US population that happens NOT to agree with the highly partisan CAWG theory, and am grievously insulted and threatened by the government when officials use the word “denier” to label me. I have a degree in physics and run a small company who’s livelihood is provided by scientific study.

   Furthermore, the incendiary monicker “denier” or “climate denier” was specifically chosen to associate those who not believe in CAGW with holocaust denial.

   Examples are clear, and they are many.

   In the recent Senate All-night warmathon, democratic senators used the highly charged and insulting moniker “denier” no less than 27 times. This language, being used by our elected government officials, is meant to intimidate and degrade those who do not agree with partisan politics. As such, they are violating my first amendment rights of free speech.

   So far, the ADL has condoned this horrific action with it’s silence. Will the ADL continue in it’s tacit agreement with political suppression by means of holocaust imagery?

   This abuse of power is well documented here:

   http://testclimate.wpengine.com/2014/03/12/summary-of-the-use-of-denier-in-senate-dems-all-night-warmathon/

   Sincerely,
   Walter S. Allensworth
   —– my address ——

   Log in to Reply

5. None of these ignoramuses has even the slightest comprehension of ‘Black body Radiation and absorption’, ‘Quantum Physics’, ‘Thermodynamics & Heat Transfer’, or the fact that Carbon Dioxide is a minor trace gas 1/2500th of the Earth’s Atmosphere and only 1/10000th is caused by human activity.
   This is what happens when stupid people get political power !
   Water H2O is Earths primary ‘Greenhouse Gas’ !
   Al Gore has his degree in ‘Religious Studies’ and most of their so called ‘Climate Scientists’ are ‘Political Science’ majors !

   Log in to Reply