I Deny I’m a Denier

sajak(h/t Climate Depot) I consider myself to be a skeptic in the matter of man-made global warming. I’m not a denier; I’m not smart enough to be that certain. But, as with a lot of things in life, I’m skeptical. (And see what they did there? By labeling skeptics as deniers, they equate us with Holocaust Deniers. Pretty clever, huh?) Every now and then, I’ll use my Twitter account to send out a tweet poking fun at climate alarmists (see what I did there?). And, while most Twitter users understand the humor, there are those who get very, very angry.

First, they pointedly remind me that I’m not a scientist. That’s very helpful, because sometimes I confuse being a TV game show host with being a scientist. (It’s always embarrassing when I show up for a taping in a white lab coat.) Actually, that’s not the first thing they do; the bulk of them usually start with obscene name-calling.

There are two favorites, but Ricochet’s Code of Conduct forbids my being any more specific on the matter. Finally, most of them tell me that they don’t care what such an idiot who hosts such an idiotic program for idiotic viewers thinks about something that 90% (or 94% or 97%) of climate scientists agree on. Of course, the fact that they read my tweet, became agitated by it, and responded to it demonstrates that they truly do care. I find that rather odd, because I’m not sure why anyone would particularly care about any beliefs—or non-beliefs—held by a quasi-celebrity, especially one who doesn’t use his television forum to proselytize (as some are wont to do).

I’m also often reminded by my global warming (climate change?) Twitter buddies that climate is not weather. The fact that it’s extraordinarily cold in particular areas at particular times does not negate their argument. The climate—hockey stick and all—will doom us if we do not act quickly and drastically. I find the climate vs. weather argument interesting because weather events can only prove their point; they cannot disprove it. The historically calm Gulf hurricane period since Katrina—despite predictions of increasingly strong and devastating storms—can be explained away. However, it’s a safe bet that, had the last decade been marked by more violent activity, it would have been more evidence that The End Days were near. Snowless winters in England are a sign of the climate changing times, but when the snow and ice return…well, it’s weather, not climate.

So here we are. The science is settled. Extreme weather of any kind confirms it. Weather that seems to fly in the face of predictions is irrelevant. So how can one possibly deny all that? I can’t, because I’m not a scientist. But can’t I be just the teeniest bit skeptical?

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (4)

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    You can be a whole lot skeptical, because catastrophic global warming cannot be caused by man burning fossil fuels.
    It is a scare tactic of Agenda 21.
    Please read this:
    Wikipedia defines the UN’s Agenda 21 as “An action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development”. Of course we immediately recognise the phrase “sustainable development” as weasel words, a catch-all term incorporating a host of modish obsessions. Much of the activity described as “sustainable” is clearly unsustainable – for example, the EU/UK energy policy which is doing such huge economic damage across the continent. A better phrase for the UN’s Agenda 21 might be “An action plan with regard to climate alarmism and carbon dioxide paranoia” – though it covers a wide range of other fashionable leftist issues as well.

    The odd thing is that most people have simply not heard of Agenda 21 – although local authorities across the country, and government institutions across the world, at national and local level, have signed up to it. There’s even a cultural dimension. Clearly then, Agenda 21 is a key part of the UN’s global governance pretensions, and it seeks to drive policies which generally speaking are pretty unpalatable to our party.

    One party member, Anne-Marie Smith, has been particularly exercised over Agenda 21, and frustrated that it seems to operate under the radar, with citizens and voters largely unaware of it. I invited her to put her thoughts into a few hundred words, and I promised to run them as a guest blog. Here they are:

    UN Agenda 21 – Anne-Marie Smith

    Few political discussions are now taking place without some mention of whether Britain would be better served by removing itself from the EU. However our politicians and MSM seem strangely quiet about the real elephant in the room: UN – Agenda 21.

    Perhaps the reason for this, is that its influence has now spread so widely into all government institutions throughout the World, without revealing to citizens the true nature and intentions of the agenda. Indeed it has now been adopted by many local councils in Britain as Local Agenda 21.

    It was back in 1992 that the Earth Summit was held in Rio de Janeiro, and here 179 nations officially signed up to Agenda 21 — many more have followed since. Maurice Strong has been the driving force behind the imposition of Agenda 21, and was also a member of the UN’s Commission on Global Governance. Below are several quotes by Maurice Strong that I feel make scary reading.

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” (Founder of the UN Environment Program)

    “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” (At the Rio Earth Summit)

    In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that …. the threat of global warming would fit the bill ….. the real enemy then is humanity itself …..we believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or …..one invented for the purpose.” (Maurice Strong at the Club of Rome)

    Agenda 21 is actually a blueprint for the 21st century; which under the cover of environmentalism and scaremongering CAGW, is in fact, just communism resurrected in a new guise. It is clear to see, that with the various political parties producing their election manifestos, the Green Party is actually the “Agenda 21 Global Communist Party”. UKIP on the other hand offers us an escape route; as it is the only party which will repeal the ludicrous, suicidal, 2008 Climate Change Act. That will definitely be a start.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Wasn’t the” common adversary” the Jews for Nazi Germany . Have we learned nothing?

    Didn’t the Nazi’s want world government too ?

    The admission by Maurice Strong that the Un goal of world governance needed to start off with the massive lie , (global warming )….the “common adversary ‘ .

    They define the real enemy as” humanity itself ” . Having started off with a massive lie to further their Agenda 21 goals what else are they prepared to lie about to destroy their enemy ” humanity” ?

    How do they propose to rid the world of billions of people ? Gas chambers ? Or perhaps sterilization as Obamas right had man mused in his 1970’s book.

    Any elected government that directly or indirectly hands its countries right to self governance is in breech of its constitution and is performing an act of treason .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    John Wilder

    |

    It is SCIENIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR CO2 TO CAUSE WARMING. google the specific gravity of CO2 and it will send you to numerous scientific sites all stating that it is
    1.52 or literally a 152% heavier than air. It sinks to the ground when released and it does not go up into the atmosphere as the alarmists claim

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    The political science is settled . The UN Agenda 21 stated goal, as articulated above , is to bring about
    the collapse of industrialized civilization and creation of a world government .
    Global warming was the convenient,and ” invented”‘common enemy to motivate people towards that world government.The fact that the whole thing is a lie was seen to be irrelevant because as noted above in their view it was a necessary to achieve their goals .

    What they failed to understand was despite a well orchestrated campaign costing $$Trillions not everyone was buying the scam and they were terribly delayed in their efforts .

    Things like Climate Gate and no warming that even came close to the bought and paid for scary climate forecast models. Criminal charges and a conviction at the EPA as well as the recent resignation of the IPCC Chair over numerous allegations related to a long history of alleged sexual harassment . The cracks got bigger and bigger . The illusion could no longer be maintained and so “global warming” had to become” climate change “as they ran out of runway .

    It seems foolish to debate science in some sort of adversarial way when the study of climate isn’t settled and it will be a constant work in progress for a long long time .

    The science of climate was used in a false way to further the political ambitions of a group trying to create one world government .
    They invented a crisis to achieve their plans.That lie and their objective to
    bring about the collapse of industrialized civilizations is what should be debated instead of their hot air magical illusion .

    Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.