Historian got one thing right, comparing econuts to communists.
——————————————————————————————-
Climate change deniers skilfully fuel doubt
Quasi-science used to manipulate opinion, new book says
Historian Erik Conway did two things this week that might seem counterintuitive, if not downright odd.
He voluntarily left the warmth of Pasadena, Calif., where he works at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, to come to Edmonton during the middle of a bitter cold snap. And while here, as thousands of Edmontonians coaxed their cars to life for the frigid commute home through snow-choked roads, Conway entered a lecture hall at the University of Alberta to present a lecture on global warming.
Conway understands, as do climate scientists around the world, that a cold snap in Edmonton does not negate the science of global warming that takes into account the worldwide climate over a span of a century and a half.
But he also understand how it’s simple human nature for each of us to focus on the evidence under our noses — and in Edmonton on Thursday that evidence included frozen cars, ice scrapers and frost nip. Just thinking of global warming seemed counterintuitive.
For people with a shaky notion of climate change, frigid days like this probably raise doubt. That doubt is exploited by those who deny the science of climate change, (people such as U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe whose family built an igloo during the blizzard in Washington, D.C., last year and sarcastically labelled it “Al Gore’s New Home”).
But there’s another kind of doubt that doesn’t rely on the vagaries of Mother Nature. It is manufactured by man, specifically by a small group of influential libertarians in the U.S. who have led a decades-long ideological fight, first against the communists and then the health community and now environmentalism.
a cold snap in Edmonton does not negate the science of global warming
But heat in Russia proves it.
No detectable double standard.
But he also understand how it’s simple human nature for each of us to focus on the evidence under our nose
Funny, his human nature didn’t get him to focus on ClimateGate, or on the NAS finding , “Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium””. His human nature didn’t catch the 2035 glacier problem in the IPCC report. His human nature didn’t pick up on any of the flaws of “global warming”. But he’s a scientist, so why would evidence matter to him….? What’s more, he’s a global warming believer which makes his judgment superior to the “skeptic”.
I noticed something strange recently. The way I pronounce “scientist” comes out differently now than a decade or so ago. Now when I say it, the derisive sarcasm is unmistakable. I don’t quit spit the word now, but it is uttered with discernible contempt. It is probably my fault. I had the silly notion that when someone called themselves a scientist, they were more concerned with things such as empirical evidence and the like. Now, I view them as something just a bit less comical than the wizard in the Wizard of Oz. It seems human nature got the best of science.
I don’t agree with his viewpoint, or that he conclusion about libertarians is valid, but I still would like to ask, why does he have a problem that communism was battled????
They were attempting to discredit his heroes!
He’s probably using the term libertarian as a euphemism for anyone that values liberty of the individual over the concerns of the collective. In this particular case, he’s right. Only he’s viewing it from the other side of the fence. The reason he has a problem with communism being confronted is because, like we’ve long known, the battle with climate change advocacy and the battle against communism is one and the same. Many alarmists don’t even know it, but it is just the same. I chuckled when he used the term “health community”. I’d long suspected they were the other side of the collective coin. He’s reaffirming it for me. Cholesterol, mad cow, DDT, smoking, red meat, coffee, ……… all bs causes, costing unfathomable resources and money. Usually wrong on all accounts, destructive to industry and almost zero results.
Why is NASA JPL paying a historian?
Why is a NASA JPL employee giving a speech in Canada or anywhere for that matter?
All his claims about the libertarians being against three separate groups is false because it is the same group just using different names in an attempt to disguise their agenda. For a historian he sure knows nothing about history and to go give a talk on another subject he shows ignorance on is proof of NASA’s loss of value.
Time to stop wasteful spending at groups like NASA. It would be cheaper in the long run to retire this guy to a fishing resort somewhere.
Why are we paying an advocate?
Just another eco-fascist nutcake, concerned that Chairman Mao’s dictates may not destroy democratic polities fast enough for Gaia’s benefit. Why is it that such tripe-ologists always assume that force and fraud are in their favor? Manifest as scientific tragedy since c. 1988, the Green Gang’s driveling Luddite psychopathology is rapidly transforming to mere farce.
Climate alarmists skillfully fuel alarm. Let them “deny” that.