In any real science, if you resort to Ad Hominem attacks, you’ve lost. With climate “science” however, Ad Hominem attacks form the basis of its support. Unfortunate for the political left; boycotts, protests, phony models, “adjusted data,” and Ad Hominem attacks won’t change the reality of the catastrophic failures of the IPCC, the AGW theory, and Government Funded Climate Research.
If the political left deserves the title of “Champion of Science,” they would be spending their time addressing the data and the application of the scientific method to climate science, not debating political tactics to persuade the general public to support astronomically expensive public spending programs that offer no material/measurable benefits. All the spending on fighting climate change, measured in trillions of direct and indirect PUBLIC dollars, has had no measurable impact on the trend in atmospheric CO2 or atmospheric temperatures. Schools, hospitals, roads, and bridges go unbuilt and repaired so self-serving government climate “scientists” can keep the taxpayer funded climate gravy train rolling.
The ultra-Liberal New Republic offers a great example of how the voice of the “Champions of Science” discuss this scientific issue. Here is the laughable introductory paragraph of his highly scientifically literate magazine. Do they discuss the catastrophic problems with the IPCC climate models? The fact that 70%+ of the globe is defined by “made up” data? The dangers of politicizing science? No, the New Republic has a highly “sophisticated” discussion about what name liberals should call those that disagree with them. The New Republic dares to ask the question every American is dying to know, “Should We Call Climate-Change Deniers “Dismissives” Instead?” Wow, that is a really science based question that needs to be answered. To add “credibility” to this article and prove their progressive bona fides by being “inclusive” they find an “evangelical Christian” scientist to make the case. No, that isn’t a joke, the “tolerant,” “inclusive,” “unifying,” and sanctimonious New Republic actually finds it important to identify the religion of the science being quoted.
NPR’s Rachel Martin had a fascinating interview on Tuesday with Katharine Hayhoe, a renowned climate scientist and evangelical Christian, in which they discussed the toxic nature of the world “climate denier”—a word that environmental reporters, including me, use all the time to describe people who don’t accept the scientific consensus that climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous. Hayhoe argued that calling people deniers is “a good way to end the conversation,” and that it’s actually more accurate to use the word “climate dismissive.”
The scientifically literate New Republic even sourced a presumed “scientific” survey from Ivy League Yale University’s highly unbiased and disinterested Yale Program on Climate Change Communication which I presume is located in the Math, Science, Physics or Engineering departments, not the communications, journalism or political science departments. Certainly, the New Republic would want to focus on the science, not the politics of this issue being the voice of the “Champions of Science.” Right? Wow, I for one am thankful the New Republic is leading the charge to get to the truth about man-made global warming (insert vomiting emoji).
Please like, share, subscribe and comment.