I posted this comment on the “Greens Engage” site that Mira linked to, where it awaits moderation:
“If a non-member of the Green Party may be permitted a comment here, it is not only the non-scientists and those in the UK who are prepared to deny “anthropegenic climate change…”. In _the_ major US science fiction magazine, Analog, one of its regular bi-monthly science commenters, a US physicist, had a column two months back which used some legitimate doubts about US (automatic and unmanned) climate stations to query the whole argument about climate change, never mind the “anthropogenic” part of it. Thus, out of the window goes the melting of the arctic ice-cap and the Greenland ice shield, etc and so forth.
How can we expect laypeople to take climate change on board when natural scientists reject the scientific evidence.
Sorry, but I reserve comments on Holocaust denial for another place.”
Of course, _this_ is that “other place”. Mira’s use of the letter writer’s comment about feeling themself to be somewhere between a flat earthist and a Holocaust denier as a heading to the posting is entirely apt. Both groups deny evidence, despite the overwhelming nature of that evidence and the fact that, as far as the latter group is concerned, the perpertrators left the evidence behind them, thanks to their meticulous record-keeping.
Not that overwhelming evidence ever convinced anyone determined to disbelieve it: just like in their favourite conspiracy theory, “that’s what _they_ want you to believe”.
Funny that, but the conspiracy theorists rarely identify who the “they” are.
“One such is the critic Clive James. You could accuse him of purveying trite received wisdom, but not of being dumb. On Radio Four a few days ago he delivered an essay about the importance of scepticism, during which he maintained that “the number of scientists who voice scepticism [about climate change] has lately been increasing.”(6) He presented no evidence to support this statement and, as far as I can tell, none exists. But he used this contention to argue that “either side might well be right, but I think that if you have a division on that scale, you can’t call it a consensus. Nobody can meaningfully say that the science is in.”
Had he bothered to take a look at the quality of the evidence on either side of this media debate, and the nature of the opposing armies – climate scientists on one side, rightwing bloggers on the other – he too might have realised that the science is in. In, at any rate, to the extent that science can ever be, which is to say that the evidence for manmade global warming is as strong as the evidence for Darwinian evolution, or for the link between smoking and lung cancer. I am constantly struck by the way in which people like James, who proclaim themselves sceptics, will believe any old claptrap that suits their views. Their position was perfectly summarised by a supporter of Ian Plimer (author of a marvellous concatenation of gibberish called Heaven and Earth(7)) commenting on a recent article in the Spectator. “Whether Plimer is a charlatan or not, he speaks for many of us”(8). These people aren’t sceptics; they’re suckers.”
I like Clive James. Times like this I remind myself: people are never always right or always wrong.
Okay, folks, but I thought this site was about racism, antisemitism and anti-antisemitism in all their manifestations, and that Mira linked to the article to show the connections between the states of mind of climate change deniers and Holocaust deniers and such people.
When did this become a seminar on climate change? Have I said anything to suggest that I disbelieve in the (wholly, largely or mainly) anthropogenic causes of climate change? Well, I don’t so disbelieve, despite being in Monbiot’s “older age-group”. Even if we do fly to New York to see out daughter, son-in-law and grandsons a few times a year.
And where’s the link to the major concerns for this site gone, people?
The one thing that you’ll see is that even climate change “skeptics and critics” including serious scientists like Lindzen, (as opposed to “deniers”) all recognize that if you pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere, it will emit more efficiently, and from there they diverge on the specific impacts, feedbacks (like Lindzen), and mitigation strategies but not as much as Lord Monckton & Co. want people to think.
Hell, even Bjorn Lomborg (yes, THAT Bjorn Lomborg), despite everything, says very openly that global warming is real and a serious issue.