Be careful for the bag of tricks of climate change deniers

작년

Hello there, Steemians.

Now that climate protests are clearly on the rise, attempts to minimize what is at stake are also being increased. In many ways, the severity of climate change and its causes are called into question. It is therefore important to know which techniques are being used by lobby groups, opinion makers, politicians or journalists in order not to take the climate seriously. Hence a small overview of the bag of tricks of climate change deniers.

1. Disputing or denying the human factor in global warming

This is undoubtedly one of the most popular techniques used to cast doubt. Although it is not denied that there is climate change, the human share is being contested or minimized.

For the sake of clarity: the climate has constantly been changing since the creation of this planet. But it cannot be denied in any way that the current warming of the climate is a direct consequence of human action. In its fifth report, the IPCC wrote that it is "extremely likely" that more than half of the observed temperature increases between 1951 and 2010 were due to human activity. With "extremely likely", they mean a probability between 95 and 100 percent.

It should be added that the conclusions of the IPCC are usually very cautious. There statement is also confirmed by other reports. For example, the US Fourth National Climate Assessment states that at least 93 percent of the observed temperature rises are due to human action.

The human share in the warming is therefore unquestionable. At most there can be a discussion about some proverbial fractions and decimal points. But making grammar and syntax the central issue of a debate about human responsibility is nonsense. It only serves to cast doubt.

2. Accusations of 'climate alarmism', 'climate religion' or 'lack of debate'

When climate deniers are confronted with the unscientificity of their statements, they usually change the rules and take a different road. Whoever warns of climate change is put away as alarmist or as someone who is a supporter of the religion of climate. It is a useful reversal where the accused, who is scientifically right, suddenly has to prove that he or she is not religious' or alarmist and really is scientifically or well informed. In other words, it is also a way to contest and deny the scientificity of conclusions or prognoses.

To accuse climate activists of religious thinking or alarmism is quite similar to the way in which social activists are dismissed as social justice warriors or 'gutmenschen'. They are terms that serve to discredit people and force them on the defensive. It is primarily used as a smokescreen to hide the real content of different forms of social struggle.

The criticism that climate activists do not want a 'debate' is very similar to the accusations of alarmism or climate religion. But it is not so much about disputing the scientific or knowledge of climate activists, but about their democratic attitude. Not holding debats with statements that are pertinent inaccuracy or with persons who intend to delegitimize the efforts of activists is portrayed as a great democratic injustice.

But who actually said that democracy entails the obligation to debate with everyone? It is also a democratic right to refuse a debate when it can be labeled as absurd or as a loss of time. The freedom to express an opinion is not equal to the obligation to label every debate as equal. Moreover, the paradox is often that those who proclaim that no debate is possible often do so on platforms with a public reach that the average citizen can only dream of.

3. Individual moral responsibility

Another classic: linking the right to speak about the climate to the fortitude of one's own behavior. Those who do not like climate activism will generally try in every possible way to show that climate activists themselves also contribute to pollution.

Only 100 companies are responsible for 71 percent of the global emissions. Climate change is therefore mainly the result of not restraining big companies and governments. Of course, individual behavior is important, but thinking that you will be able to combat climate change in this way is nonsense. You can achieve real rapid effect by acting politically, by forcing governments and companies to map out a sound climate policy.

4. Taking refuge in naive progress optimism

Those who accuse climate activists of alarmism will also often claim that things are going well with the world. All kinds of statistics are then listed to show that humanity made some great progress and that we are actually living in the best of all possible worlds. It is another way to break the atmosphere of urgency, to appease people with the thought that things will not go that fast.

But even if you accept the idea that humanity has indeed made great progress over the past centuries (although the question remains whether the fruits of that progress are so fairly distributed), this says nothing about the future at all. The point is precisely that the way in which we have created this progress is overly burdensome for the ecological strength of this earth, and that there will have to be consumed and produced in radically different ways. That's what it’s about!

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
STEEMKR.COM IS SPONSORED BY
ADVERTISEMENT
Sort Order:  trending




This post has been voted on by the SteemSTEM curation team and voting trail in collaboration with @curie.

If you appreciate the work we are doing then consider voting both projects for witness by selecting stem.witness and curie!

For additional information please join us on the SteemSTEM discord and to get to know the rest of the community!

Everybody that still believes that humans are not responsible for Global Warming should check this page:
https://skepticalscience.com/

·

You can't be serious? Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook. It's moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted.

Deceiving the people was never the hard bit, convincing them they have been deceived is!

·
·

sorry bro.. but you are simply wrong.
97 out of 100 climate scientists call this fact and call it wrong what you call dissent.
There is rarely any scientific topic where right and wrong are so clear..
.. this clip sums it up quite nicely...


and nobody is by far alarmist enough for what is coming if we proceed with business as usual...
you guys from the midwest will feel it first...
.. if you want to read the whole story:
https://steemit.com/nature/@solarwarrior/losing-earth-the-decade-we-almost-stopped-climate-change

·
·
·

Quoting 97% consensus and Bill Nye is hilarious, surely you can't be serious?

The following quote from the late John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel, sums up this pretend scientist Nye "I have always been amazed that anyone would pay attention to Bill Nye, a pretend scientist in a bow tie. … As a man who has studied the science of meteorology for over 60 years and received the AMS (American Meteorological Society’s) 'Meteorologist of the Year' award, I am totally offended that Nye gets the press and media attention he does."

Bill Nye, The Not-So-Science Guy, Gets Slammed, And It's Pretty Great
https://www.dailywire.com/news/23377/bill-nye-not-so-science-guy-gets-slammed-and-its-hank-berrien#exit-modal

Professor Bob Carter - The Faux "97% Consensus"

Fred Singer, a real scientist, explains why Naomi Oreskes is a scientifically inept and a poor historian. Her famous claim of a scientific consensus based on 900 papers missed more than 11,000 that should have been included. Her grasp of science is so poor she isn’t familiar with the pH scale, thinks Beryllium is a heavy metal, mistakenly assumes that CO2 is trapped in the troposphere, and climate models can predict forest fires and floods. Embarrassingly, Oreskes doesn’t understand the difference between reactive oxygen and radioactive oxygen. Armed with cherry picked distortions she sets about maliciously impugning upstanding senior scientists with distinguished records in science, and years of service. Unlike a professional historian she hasn’t even interviewed any of them to find out if the information she promoted was correct.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/science_and_smear_merchants.html

Science or Science Fiction? 97% climate consensus crumbles in survey
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/03/science-or-science-fiction-97-climate-consensus-crumbles-in-new-survey/

Here are four simple summaries of the 97% claims you might actually understand.

http://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-97-consensus-myth-one-fake-survey.html
.
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2018/02/fake-consensus-survey-a.html
.
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2018/02/fake-consensus-survey-b.html
.
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2018/02/fake-consensus-survey-c.html
.
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2018/02/fake-consensus-survey-d.html

·
·
·

Good trolling ahaha! Billy Nye the "scientist' who wrote a song about about butt stuff and unlimited genders.

Great sauce.

consensus is not science.
what are the facts.

This is hilarious.

The apocalypse is coming!

Gotta defend your religion right. Burn the heretics at the stake.

Asking questions is denial in your religion. Even practicing actual science and asking for methodology and asking questions. That makes you a denier too.

Religions silence questions. I guess we have freedom of religion (if it is a popular religion). You just happen to be a follower of one of the new modern religions.

·
  ·  작년

You should see this guy trying to defend the Green New Deal in the comments of my latest post. Absolutely bonkers. The cognitive dissonance is impressive.

The best part is he talks down to me like I dont know what Im talking about or like I havent been on his side of the argument when I was young and dumb.

You cant win with these types. Some will learn in time. The rest will continue to eat up the cult bullshit. Al Gore is still going strong and he told us the world was going to end in 2012. Yet these goofs still listen to him lol.

Posted using Partiko Android

·
·

@treepi: check this out: https://skepticalscience.com/
if that does not convince you nobody can...

·
·
·

Skimmed through. Nothing I haven't seen before.

Even if it were real, there is nothing you can do about it lol. Are you going to get China, India, and the rest of the developing world that contribute the most greenhouse gasses by a large margin to stop? No you're not.

There is not 1 single logical solution to the problem. Let's tax people. Brilliant! Meanwhile the same people preaching the apocalypse are buying up ocean front properties. Let's use all these renewable energies that require massive amounts of fossil fuels to make! Awesome!

No thank you. The government can't even not lie about the consensus on the issue. 97% of scientists can't even agree on gravity let alone something as complex as the climate.

·
·
·

Wow, solar dummy, you got that propaganda bookmarked? This guy can’t debate, he's too stupid too!

Posted using Partiko iOS