Climate : Never, Ever Do Any Actual Research

This is a fairly typical climate study from academia. They definitively determined the motivations of people fighting the climate crisis scam, apparently without actually talking to any of the people they claimed to be studying.  Had they done that, they might have learned that science doesn’t support their climate religion.

The Ideology of Climate Change Denial in the United States

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Climate : Never, Ever Do Any Actual Research

  1. Anon says:

    /They definitively determined the motivations of people fighting the climate crisis scam, apparently without actually talking to any of the people they claimed to be studying./

    That seems to be typical of the progressive mindset. For example take:

    Jonathan Haidt

    Haidt received a BA in philosophy from Yale University in 1985, and a PhD in psychology from the University of Pennsylvania in 1992. Then went to the University of Chicago as a post-doctoral fellow. Hired as an assistant professor at the University of Virginia. Spent the 2007–2008 academic year at Princeton University as the Laurance S. Rockefeller Visiting Professor for Distinguished Teaching. Then moved to New York University Stern School of Business as the Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership.

    So with all of that education, listen to 15 seconds of this:


    This Haidt now calls the “Conservative Advantage”…

    “People get angry at what they don’t understand, and an all-progressive education ensures that they don’t understand.”

    As Ronald Reagan put it: “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

    • Steve says:

      Why do Republicans NOT trust government when Obama & Pelosi and Reid were in charge?
      It’s very simple … THEY are constantly trying to screw around with our lives.

      When people push you around, you tend not to “trust” the people doing it.

  2. Petit_Barde says:

    Jean-Daniel Collomb
    Maître de conférences

    Faculté des Langues

    Enseignement et recherche
    Domaines d’enseignement
    Disciplines enseignées
    Civilisation américaine
    Thèmes de recherche
    Histoire environnementale, humanités environnementales

    This guy has no clue on what he is talking about.

  3. Archie says:

    Life in the bubble! Typical press conference trick, don’t answer the question asked, rather answer the “question” that gets your a agenda across. This is why a whole generation has to die before change can come.

    All deniers are just shills for big oil. No legitimate arguments. Etc., blah, blah, blah.

  4. Patrick says:

    And the scientific basis for denial is … ?

    • Gator says:

      Nobody here denies that climates have always changed. Only a fool would expect no change. We are still warming out of a very cool period that ended about 150 years ago.

      Why do you deny natural climate change?

      • Wolfgang Black says:

        It’s a Rules for Radical trick to discredit and gaslight their “enemies”.
        Control the language and you control the narrative.
        Imagine if we had the media call them “global warming hoax proponents”.
        Part of calling someone a denier is the precedent we have where it is illegal and people are jailed for being “Holocaust deniers”.
        Seems to me the bile and hate thrown at people who don’t agree with the global warming hoax proponents would lead to similar laws against questioning their religious dogma.

    • JCalvertN(UK) says:

      What do you mean by “denial”?
      What do you mean by “denier”.
      There are not many of those around here. And Judith Curry isn’t one, Nor are Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts or Mike Hulme.
      But if you can track down a former commenter named “Doug Cotton”, you ought to ask him that question. He was a full-on full-frontal denier.

    • billtoo says:

      stupid comments like that? the fact that your side won’t even entertain any other possibility speaks volumes. Oh and the need to run a constant pr campaign and frighten little children isn’t a good look.

    • KevinPaul says:

      “And the scientific basis for denial is … ?”
      The basis of the scientific consensus as a politicized prejudiced pseudo-scientific scamming swarm of maggots getting fat off the flesh of the proletariat.

    • Billyjack says:

      One would have an easier time arguing the veracity of the virgin birth with an Evangelical than to provide facts that refute the gospel of the Church of Warming.

    • CK says:

      Ask the IPCC. They seem to deny that climate can possibly change due to natural variation. They seem to think that climate should continue, unchanged and that any change is 100% due to humans. The IPCC is in the same boat as the flat Earthers.

  5. Emslander says:

    Or, maybe, we lunkheads aren’t so stupid as to accept your ludicrous claims. Any welder knows the difference between warm air and cold air.

  6. Mary Innes says:

    That abstract immediately discredits itself by referring to the so-called scientific consensus as if consensus is the way science is done, thus prooving the authors know nothing about how science actually works.

  7. LexingtonGreen says:

    I truly don’t get how they don’t try to understand a skeptic at even the most basic level. Just make a case with irrefutable data that stands up to scrutiny over thousands of years.

    • ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N says:

      It’s because it’s become an ideology for them. The mostly stupid among them got easily brainwashed by the first alarmist “factoid” they were told about climate.

      The slightly smarter ones know they’ll lose their online “friends” that they’ve never met if they question any of the climate doctrine. None of them dare actually look at or research any of the simplest data or their entire belief system will collapse.

      All they have are parroted “factoids”, no true data which is why they have to lie constantly.

      • Disillusioned says:

        None of them dare actually look at or research any of the simplest data or their entire belief system will collapse.

        That was where I went wrong and ultimately became an infidel – I listened to what my [then] adversaries where saying, researched the data [in hopes of proving them wrong], but found out they were right and I was wrong. Hence, my moniker.

  8. czechlist says:

    I would like to know when and where I am exposed to the fossil fuel industry propaganda. I am inundated with the Catastrophic Climate Change Crisis alarmism opinions daily in the media; but, I have to search for contrary science and opinion.

  9. GCSquared says:

    I agree that Jean-Daniel is an idiot. (Or perhaps a liar: he might actually be a competent propagandist.)

    My personal view, that there are good reasons to believe that natural variations dominate CO2-induced effects, came about as a result of trying to firm up my own misplaced belief in APGW. When I looked past news reporting and into the data, I learned that declining polar bear populations, incipient flooding, and temperature records, were concoctions. Natural variation was never subtracted from observations, because no one knew what they were. (Thank you for much of this, Tony)

    Jean-Daniel totally misses this main pathway by which so many scientists (Judith Curry, Jim Steele for example), by their own account, jumped off the CO2 bandwagon: APGW simply collapses under close inspection, and one realizes that its advocates promote their views more like circus barkers than honest academicians.

    The success of this deception is a jaw-dropping cultural tragedy. Climate fraud has utterly destroyed the trustworthiness of European science.

  10. Dan Granirer says:

    From a knowledgeable friend: on the subject of global warming, very few point out that the main greenhouse gas is water (vapor and clouds). CO2 is a distant second, as you can see in the attached chart. Water vapor and clouds cause 74% of the greenhouse effect, CO2 only 21%. Most of the charts tend to show only man-made gasses, where CO2 dominates. I guess you can not outlaw water. At the most optimistic estimate, mankind can reduce CO2 by 25% from 400ppm to 300ppm (at 200ppm all life on earth disappears as all plants die). A 25% CO2 reduction is 25% of 21%, or only 5.2%. In other words, if trillions will be spent, economies disrupted etc the predicted 2 deg C temperature rise will be reduced by 5.2%, or to 1.9 deg C. This calculation uses the most extreme numbers from the alarmist camp, 25% possible reduction in atmospheric CO2 (a pipe dream) and 2 deg C rise. To reduce atmospheric CO2 by 25% you pretty well have to stop using carbon based fuels.
    Why don’t more people point out this simple math, based on numbers everyone agrees on?

  11. Al Shelton says:

    This is well researched on the fraud of the AGW funding groups,
    It is 30 minutes or so, but worth it…

  12. Disillusioned says:

    I am glad there are people of knowledge and integrity making a “concerted effort to discredit the [fake] scientific consensus over global man-made warming.” Somebody must fight the Ministry of Truth.

    Thank you, Tony Heller.

  13. Jimmy Haigh says:

    If you think fossil fuels are damaging the environment why not stop buying/using fossil fuels and everything derived from them? Simple.

  14. Tel says:

    First Global Warming religion stems from the strong ideological commitment of big-government leftists to central planning and regulating the entire economy. Second, in order to disarm their opponents, true Global Warming believers often present their power grab in terms of the common good and feelings of guilt for living comfortably without hardship.

    • Emslander says:

      Correct! If it were science, then they would be happy to discuss science all day long with those who question the science. Instead, they throw “consensus” at you and accuse you of being a Nazi.

      “Consensus” on anything is usually wrong.

      I watched a physics professor at the university drop a wooden block on his desk ten times and then tell us that the theory of gravity, even if it holds up a thousand times in a row, is only a theory that one day may be proven incorrect. He was illustrating the skepticism behind true science.

      • Disillusioned says:

        The fake [97%] AGW consensus seems to be closer group-think. Very few dare step out of line and be labeled a denier and a half-dozen other nasty pejoratives.

        I do. Since I became disillusioned, I wear it proudly.

  15. Woolworth says:

    “What we should do, I suggest, is to give up the idea of ultimate sources of knowledge, and admit that all knowledge is human; that it is mixed with our errors, our prejudices, our dreams, and our hopes; that all we can do is to grope for truth even though it be beyond our reach. We may admit that our groping is often inspired, but we must be on our guard against the belief, however deeply felt, that our inspiration carries any authority, divine or otherwise. If we thus admit that there is no authority beyond the reach of criticism to be found within the whole province of our knowledge, however far it may have penetrated into the unknown, then we can retain, without danger, the idea that truth is beyond human authority. And we must retain it. For without this idea there can be no objective standards of inquiry; no criticism of our conjectures; no groping for the unknown; no quest for knowledge.”
    ― Karl R. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge

  16. Brian D says:

    Looks like this paper shows that CO2 doesn’t even have the ability to warm anything.

    • DarkSideSteve says:

      This is consistent with the recent findings of Michael and Ronan Connolly regarding the atmosphere being in thermodynamic equilibrium based on radiosonde data and calculating molar density of the atmosphere all the way up to the stratosphere.

  17. Classical Liberal Girl says:

    Scaring children over climate change offends me. Nature gifted humans with big brains exactly for the purpose of better equipping us to adapt to changing conditions. Why? Because nature is always changing. It is a preposterous conceit to attempt to halt change. We should be spending our mental and financial resources on adapting to change, and that adaptation will require much more energy generation, not less, and much more reliable energy production, not less reliable. Unless, of course, the goal is to not have humans survive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *