Lack of Environment

A blog on the politics and psychology underlying the denial of all our environmental problems

To all who say AGW is junk science

with 12 comments

What qualifies you to judge what is “junk” and what is “sound” science? Or have you, in fact, just borrowed this facile method of debunking real science from the tobacco companies that tried for so long to convince us smoking was not dangerous? (The answer is “Yes” by the way!)

I know that some suggested (and indeed already-implemented) solutions to our problem are misguided, but to continue to claim that we do not have a problem; that takes being wrong to another level altogether.

I also know that it was unwise of me to post remarks like “your days are numbered” and “the game is up (you lost)” on WUWT but, I am not attacking any of you personally – I am just trying to point out to you that you are not being objective or rational in dismissing the findings of climate science as a hoax, scam, or whatever you want to call it.

The world, most politicians, and even some conservative think tanks are moving on; they are trying to tackle the problem. You are merely delaying the effectiveness of that action by slowing it down and – in so doing – you are in effect self-harming because, the longer we delay the harder it gets to take effective action. This is not scientific scare-mongering; it is an empirically-based, laboratory-tested and, now, observable fact.

Some of you may demand evidence, but then you do not accept it when it is presented to you: disappearing sea ice, melting permafrost, retreating glaciers, desertification, crop failures, food shortages, water scarcity. These are all consequences of ongoing AGW not consequences of our attempts to prevent it.

If your response to this is to say that I am being duped by a conspiracy – based on your faulty interpretation of some CRU/UEA emails (or whatever) – then you may be so far down the conspiracy theory rabbit-hole that I cannot help you.

However, for the record: There is simply no evidence for your left-wing conspiracy to over-tax and over-regulate people (so as to make everyone poorer). Whereas, there is a great deal of evidence for a right-wing conspiracy to under-tax and under-regulate industry (so as to make a few people richer). Therefore, the question is, whose side should you be on?

If you go looking for a WMO/UN/IPCC conspiracy like Andrew Montford did, you will see what you want to see and find what you want to find. But, as I keep saying, your conspiracy is an illusion; whereas the historical evidence for a conspiracy to downplay, deny and dismiss all environmental problems, ongoing since the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962, is available in any library (should you care to look).

About these ads

12 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. [...] believe we need to start with climate change. LD_AddCustomAttr("AdOpt", "1"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Origin", "other"); [...]

  2. [...] There is much I would like to say but in the interests of brevity, and in the hope that you will therefore read to the end of this letter, I will just say this: The temperature change over the last decade (or absence of it) is utterly irrelevant in the context of 7,000 years of stable climate and stable sea level. Similarly, the fact that the Earth has been much warmer than it is today in its distant past is utterly irrelevant in the context of the conditions to which all life on Earth is currently adapted. As I said on my blog recently: “There is simply no evidence for your left-wing conspiracy to over-tax and over-regulate people (s… [...]

  3. [...] under-tax and under-regulate industry (so as to make a few people richer).” [Quoted from my 'To all who say AGW is junk science' (4 October 2011)] (N.B. For AGW, please now read anthropogenic climate disruption [...]

  4. Great post Martin. You might want to re-post this every few months for those who read your blog for the sake of arguing :)

    jpgreenword

    25 March 2012 at 21:34

    • Thanks JP. In a way, I do (I just re-work it and give it a new name) :-)

      Martin Lack

      26 March 2012 at 09:35

  5. [...] also: To all those who say [CAGW/ACD] is junk science (4 October 2011). Share this:TwitterFacebookLinkedInLike this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]

  6. [...] Your position requires the existence of a scientific and/or governmental conspiracy on an unprecedented scale – for which here is no evidence (that has not been already comprehensively debunked).  I know it may have become something of a personal mantra but no-one has yet falsified my argument that: There is simply no evidence for your left-wing conspiracy to over-tax and over-regulate people (so as to make everyone poorer). Whereas, there is a great deal of evidence for a right-wing conspiracy to under-tax and under-regulate industry (so as to make a few people richer). See: To all who say AGW is junk science (4 October 2011) [...]

  7. [...] Your position requires the existence of a scientific and/or governmental conspiracy on an unprecedented scale – for which here is no evidence (that has not been already comprehensively debunked). I know it may have become something of a personal mantra but no-one has yet falsified my argument that: There is simply no evidence for your left-wing conspiracy to over-tax and over-regulate people (so as to make everyone poorer). Whereas, there is a great deal of evidence for a right-wing conspiracy to under-tax and under-regulate industry (so as to make a few people richer). See: To all who say AGW is junk science (4 October 2011) [...]

  8. [...] Unfortunately, rather than concede that Muller has now done a demolition job on both of these first two pillars of climate change denial, Watts et al are therefore still trying to cast doubt on the validity of what BEST did; by asserting that 50% of the warming recorded across the contiguous USA is not real.  However, even if there is some validity to their criticisms, does this change anything?  Not really, I suspect.  Unless of course you are a conspiracy theorist; and believe that someone is trying to get you worried about ACD as a pretext to tax you more heavily, etc., etc.. [...]

  9. Reblogged this on vasper85.

    vasper85

    6 August 2012 at 17:55

    • Very flattered, thank you. As I have said to many other WP bloggers now, I would recommend you change the Tagline for you blog (top-right) in Settings/General (e.g. mine is “On the politics & psychology underlying the denial of all our environmental problems”). Happy blogging…

      Martin Lack

      6 August 2012 at 18:29

  10. [...] debate” about policy.   However, this is a tacit admission that he thinks climate change is a hoax and a politically-motivated conspiracy designed solely as an excuse to tax people more heavil….  In his final sentence he even claims that expenditure on the “unproven” science is hurting [...]


Please join the discussion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 296 other followers

%d bloggers like this: