Whether we’re talking about people who are paid to deny that climate change is happening, or those who use the materials these flacks produce, denial is a precise and concise description of what they do. Their attempt to wriggle out of it by insisting that – by calling them what they are – we are somehow debasing the Holocaust is as contrived as all the other positions they take. We shouldn’t fall for it.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- Peter Carroll on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- arn on HUD Climate Advisor
- spren on HUD Climate Advisor
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Tel on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Petit_Barde on Ellen Flees To The UK
- dm on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
The good thing about moonbat is he only writes for his small audience. He can’t possibly be trying to win someone over to his side………..
It isn’t “debasing” the Holocaust. It is minimalizing and trivializing the Holocaust.
Not only that, but the Holocaust already happened and global warming…hasn’t.
Another alarmist statement dripping with irony.. If George was actually capable of it, he should take a step back and take a look at himself.
The more Monbiot talks the more people see who he is.
interesting that a leaked memo form IREA shows Pat Michaels being paid $100,00o by an energy company. I have not found this bit of info anywhere on Steve’s blog.
Interesting article, didn;t quite see where he says anyone who disagrees with him is a NAZI. he seems to be saying that it is NOT the same thing.
Climate scientists don’t get paid. They do it to save the planet.
I just can’t help but laugh hysterically at this statement. I appreciate the extreme sarcasm. It’s great.
You really believe a “leaked” memo that claims Pat Michaels received $100,000 from an energy company is credible. Those of us that have known Pat for a long time could probably tell you about all of the struggles he and other honest scientists have gone through to obtain funding for their research. Pat could probably become rich by joining the ranks of government grant seekers by simply accepting the AGW hoax.
I’m sorry, but when a veteran journalist uses insulting language when he has the opportunity to do otherwise – these guys are wordsmiths, there are ways to oppose without being insulting – then I am out of there. Forget it Mr Monbiot, I may have given the benefit of the doubt but this is too much.
I will not comment on your blog and thereby give it a patina of respectibility, even if you did not delete my post, as seems likely.
I’ve spent 30 years in science, in research, in chemistry, thermodynamics, modelling, statistics, I have taken no money from any company or government with sceptical (in your words ‘denier’) views, and I make no money from commenting. In fact I have looked to contribute to anti AGW technology, with some success, but on examination of the climate data it is clear that CO2 is not a large contributor to temperature, AGW or otherwise. It would have been futile and dishonest to continue developing anti-AGW technology in view of the data, so I gave it up. I have better things to do with my life than waste my time on political ideology and dishonesty. Am I a denier? Am I a raper of the world? I don’t think so, I think I am a scientist with honour, and a realist. Look to yourself Mr Monbiot, and look out your window.
Post normal science is quite the phenomenon isn’t it? At less than 20 years old and still in its infancy, it has seemingly been elevated and placed on a pedastal above applied science. Here is how wiki describes the criticism of post normal science.
“Detractors of post-normal science, conversely, see it as a method of trying to argue for a given set of actions despite a lack of evidence for them, and as a method of trying to stifle opposing voices calling for caution by accusing them of hidden biases. Many consider post-normal science an attempt to ignore proper scientific methods in an attempt to substitute inferior methodology in service of political goals. Practitioners advocating post normal science methods defend their methods, suggesting that their methodologies are not to be considered replacements for dealing with those situations in which normal science works sufficiently well[citation needed].
Few mainstream scientists advocate the approaches taken by post-normal science, even among those who agree with the goals of Funtowicz and Ravetz, though the idea has gained some publicity in recent times, appearing prominently in an article published in The Guardian in March 2007 [1]. Some[citation needed] argue that there seems to be little to distinguish post-normal science from the skewed cargo cult science described by Richard Feynman in 1974.”
Such criticism obviously could only come from deniers. ;*)
What a great way Monbiot came up with back then to demonize credible people with opposing views, classic bad guy association and a slight suggestion of violence toward opponents of his CAGW hypothesis.
let me know how that worked out for him!
Whatever your opinion on AGW, it is just that, an opinion. The fact is that nobody, and I mean NOBODY, on Earth can state with 100% certainty to what extent, if any, anthropogenic emissions are affecting the planet’s climate.
Given that, it would be nice if we could have an open and rational debate about the whole issue.
Instead of which, we get loud-mouth, arrogant blowhards like George Monbiot, writing in so-called “quality” newspapers hurling insults at anybody who has the temerity to disagree with his particular opinion, thus reducing the debate to the level of two hungry dogs squabbling over a scrap of meat (apologies to any hungry dogs who may take offence at this analogy).
Makes you proud to be a member of the human race!