Do you consider the following statement to be a) true, b) controversial, or c) false?
The climate has been changing from the dawn of time. The climate will change as long as we have a planet Earth.
If you answered a) then you should hang your head in shame and go to the bottom of the climate-denial stairs. I’m not sure about b), but only c) would allow you to burnish your credentials and hold your head up with pride. The statement was uttered by Senator Ted Cruz, and was enough to see him labelled a climate denier by both the Guardian and the Center for American Progress (CAP). The former recently published an article about a report by the latter.
Where do you stand on this?
I think many scientists would debate the percentage of what is attributable to man versus normal fluctuations.
I’m afraid if you didn’t bridle at such outrageous denialism, then that probably makes you a denier. Just like Senator Marco Rubio, who had the audacity to say it.
How about this?
There is no question that the Earth’s climate is changing and that over the Millennia of the Earth’s existence it has changed dramatically. No climate model is able to determine exactly what effect human activity has on our environment but there is little doubt that human activity has some effect…Yes, the climate is changing, geology tells us that Oklahoma was once covered by water and that glaciers dominated North America in our ancient history.
I hope you don’t think that represents a fairly sensible, middle-of-the-road statement of facts. If you do, then you are a denier, just like Senator James Lankford, whose outrageous words those are.
DeSmog has a list of the shameful people who deserve to be included in a Climate Disinformation Database, and so CAP has a report on the “Climate Deniers of the 118th Congress”. They are, apparently, a despicable bunch. Senator Kevin Cramer is, in the eyes of CAP, definitely someone to be outed. For goodness’ sake, he is quoted as saying this:
The earth has gone through cycles for as long as there’s been creation. What I would also tell them is ‘We can’t destroy ourselves in the process of trying to save the earth.’
Senator John Kennedy is another one with far too open a mind. What on earth was he thinking when he said this?
I’ve seen many persuasive arguments that [Earth’s rise in temperature is] just a continuation of the warming up from the Little Ice Age.
As for Senator John Hoeven, well really!
Well, the science shows that there’s warming. There’s different opinions of exactly what’s causing it.
Senator Rand Paul, how could you?
I mean, the planet is 4.5 billion years old. We have gone through great extremes of climate change, natural and now we may have a man-made influence as well.
On and on it goes. The list includes 123 of these wretched people, 100 in the House of Representatives and 23 US Senators. That’s almost a quarter of Congress. To be honest, what worries me is what the other three-quarters think.
The Guardian tells us that in order to make it onto the list, the individuals concerned have to:
…say that the climate crisis is not real or not primarily caused by humans, or claim that climate science is not settled, that extreme weather is not caused by global warming or that planet-warming pollution is beneficial.
That strikes me as being nonsense. There are at least elements of truth in all of those statements. One can accept that the climate is changing without it being a crisis; one can accept that the climate is changing, but contemplate that it might not be entirely down to the activities of human-kind, or even that humans are causing at least as many problems by chopping down forests as they are by releasing greenhouse gas emissions; one can consider that there must be – or certainly should be – room for doubt among the scientific community as to elements of the science, regarding such things as the equilibrium climate sensitivity; that extreme weather is not caused by global warming (my reading of the IPCC reports suggests that while it concludes that humans are entirely responsible for warming, such warming isn’t necessarily responsible for all forms of extreme weather); that greenhouse gas emissions are not “pollution” (after all, CO2 is a vital ingredient for life on earth); and that there are beneficial aspects to a warming planet, that it isn’t all down-side. So far as I am concerned, anyone who insists that none of that is true is far more of a denier than I am.
It’s worse than that, though. The CAP report adopts these criteria:
In this report, a member is considered a climate denier if they have:
- Stated that they believe that climate change is not real or is a hoax
- Stated that the climate has always been changing as a result of natural factors and that today’s warming is merely a continuation of natural cycles
- Claimed that the science around climate change is not settled or that they cannot speak to the issue because they are not scientists themselves
- Claimed that while humans are contributing to a changing climate, they are not the main contributors
- Stated that increasingly frequent and intense extreme weather events such as wildfires and hurricanes are not related to climate change
- Claimed that climate change impacts are actually beneficial to humans or positive for planetary health.
Saying that you cannot speak to the issue because you are not a scientist, apparently makes you a denier. An entirely rational statement, declining to express an opinion on a subject you do not feel qualified to speak about, makes you a denier.
The entire report has the feel of propaganda. How about this?
The fossil fuel industry also undermines the build-out of a clean energy economy through public misinformation campaigns. For example, a network of oil and gas interests operates to spread offshore wind misinformation with the goal of blocking the expansion of renewable energy in the Northeast, with claims that offshore wind construction has led to whale deaths. While it is true the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has declared an “Unusual Mortality Event” for humpback whales since 2016, none of these deaths have been attributed to offshore wind projects. The deaths, instead, have been attributed to ship strikes and entanglements. These specific falsehoods have been traced back to AstroTurf groups, organizations, and elected officials funded by the fossil fuel industry to block the expansion of wind projects off the Atlantic coast.
Some of us (sceptics, not “deniers”) are not so obsessed with the need to fill the planet with wind turbines that we ignore the obvious. When is a fact an opinion?
CAP concludes thus:
While there has been a shift in the use of rhetorical tactics to obstruct climate action without directly denying climate science, there are still 123 members of Congress who are outright climate deniers. The fossil fuel industry continues to use its exorbitant profits to exert its influence on federal environmental policy in the form of contributions to elected officials and on public relations campaigns. Publicly elected officials and the fossil fuel industry must be held accountable for their statements on climate change and deceptive obstructionist tactics such as greenwashing and spreading misinformation. Climate action cannot afford to be delayed any further.
I prefer to leave the last word to Senator Joni Ernst. Unlike CAP, I most certainly don’t think these words make her a denier; rather they demonstrate some fundamental common sense and decency:
I do believe in climate change, and I think our climate has been changing since the dawn of time and certainly, we as mankind can absolutely do a better job of protecting our environment.
Climate Scepticism 
Who are these “climate change deniers” we hear so much about? Does anyone really doubt the climate changes? Well, yes. There are climate change deniers — a lot of them. They live right under our noses, and they are celebrated. Here’s a quote from one of the most famous climate change deniers:
That was Al Gore in 2007. According to Gore, the climate was “shiftless” for thousands of years — a paradigm of stability.
Gore’s quote was a restatement of Michael Mann’s 1998 “hockey stick.” Mann argued that the Earth’s climate held steady for all of human history (the hockey stick handle), until suddenly, in the 1900s, the temperatures increased, representing the upturned blade of the hockey stick.
Mann’s theory is the basis of the modern CO2-focused “global warming” movement, which ironically morphed into the “climate change” movement. Mann’s theory informs the positions taken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the agency dictating policy to your local, state, and federal governments.
The most important assumption in Mann’s theory is that there was no climate change prior to the 20th century. But this assumption is false. It is climate change denial; it is the sacrifice of truth for a desired outcome.
Scientists estimate that, during the Medieval Warm Period, for example, the temperatures in parts of Europe were 1.0–1.4° Celsius (1.8–2.5° Fahrenheit) warmer than they are now. Oxygen isotope studies in China, Germany, Greenland, Ireland, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Tibet, as well as tree ring data from many sites throughout the world, confirm the Medieval Warm Period. The studies are so numerous (several thousand published papers confirming this warming) that it raises the obvious question: “Why do climate activists deny that the climate is always changing?”
There are two important reasons why activists deny climate change. First, the acceptance of prior warming periods undermines the argument that a modern warming is an existential threat, and second, prior warming periods undermine the idea that anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 is the primary cause of climate change.
The Medieval Warm Period is a particularly inconvenient truth for the modern climate activists because it shows that warming has beneficial effects on humanity. As the European region became warmer, agriculture spread and generated food surpluses. The European population doubled. In short, the Medieval Warm Period underscores the reality that, while humans struggle in colder weather, we generally thrive in warmer weather.
In other words: no crisis justifying extraordinary intervention.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ron, thanks . I think climate hysteria involves denying a lot of facts. As I asked, when is a fact an opinion?
The attempt to impose opinions on society (at great cost to both society and the environment) by insisting that they are facts that cannot be denied, is one of my chief gripes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 3 people
Of course, Ron, they would say the same about us!
LikeLike
So, if it is a political choice, the quantity of opinions for and against rules. If it is a scientific choice, the quality of the evidence for and against rules. If it is a legal choice, the quality of the judge rules for or against. (In the old days, that last one was also evidence.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark – gave up trying to count how many times “climate deniers” was used in that CAP link.
Do they have an agenda, well from the webpage –
“Our mission – The Center for American Progress is an independent, nonpartisan policy institute that is dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans through bold, progressive ideas, as well as strong leadership and concerted action. Our aim is not just to change the conversation, but to change the country.
Our values – As progressives, we believe America should be a land of boundless opportunity, where people can climb the ladder of economic mobility. We believe we owe it to future generations to protect the planet and promote peace and shared global prosperity. And we believe an effective government can earn the trust of the American people, champion the common good over narrow self-interest, and harness the strength of our diversity.
Our approach – We develop new policy ideas, challenge the media to cover the issues that truly matter, and shape the national debate. With policy teams from a number of disciplines and major issue areas, CAP applies creative approaches to develop ideas for policymakers that lead to real change. Our extensive communication and outreach efforts allow us to adapt to a rapidly changing media landscape and move our ideas aggressively in the national policy debate. 20 years of progressive leadership”
LikeLike
dfhunter, CAP is also a charity enjoying privileged tax status – see this from its website:
The Center for American Progress is an independent, nonpartisan educational institute under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Donations are tax deductible. CAP does not support or oppose candidates or political parties…[my emphasis].
My take on its “climate denier” piece might suggest that the last statement is somewhat questionable. Support or opposition come in many forms, I would suggest.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then there’s what it describes as its “sister organisation”:
https://www.americanprogressaction.org/
It has articles like this on its website:
“Kamala Harris Knows How To Make Communities Safer”
https://www.americanprogressaction.org/article/kamala-harris-knows-how-to-make-communities-safer/
Throughout her career, Kamala Harris has consistently delivered real solutions to keep communities safe by holding people accountable for serious crime, investing in crime prevention, and leading the country to a significant decline in violent crime.
That looks pretty partisan to me, though no doubt the separation of the two “sister” organisations in to separate legal bodies enables CAP to retain its charitable status and maintain its claim to be non-partisan.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Climate Deniers of the World, Unite!”
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/08/13/climate-deniers-of-the-world-unite/
…The “climate denier” epithet is used to shut down rational debate on climate change with specious claims about “settled science”. As the physicist Steve Koonin says: “I find it particularly abhorrent to have a call for open scientific discussion [on climate change] equated with Holocaust denial, especially since the Nazis killed more than two hundred of my relatives in Eastern Europe.”
The scurrilous epithet resurfaced last week in an article in the Guardian entitled – cue shock, horror – “Climate change deniers make up nearly a quarter of U.S. Congress.”
How much longer will this heresy be tolerated?...
LikeLiked by 3 people
Bring it on. Personally, I feel a lot more comfortable about Plod banging on my door to arrest me for climate denial rather than for sharing say an ‘Islamophobic’ post on FB. I would quite enjoy explaining how highlighting the limitations of the ‘Settled Science’ does not constitute malicious communications or disinformation in my police interview. Are we sceptics already on the radar of the Counter Disinformation Unit?
Anyway, must dash, I’ve got a Gazprom executive on the phone asking whether I want payments in Roubles or dollars.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Wow, that is a stonkingly good article by Tilak Doshi in the Daily Sceptic Mark. Can’t say more for now – but very helpful.
LikeLike
“Chair of Nuclear for Australia denies that calling CO2 ‘plant food’ means he is a climate denier
Dr Adi Paterson’s statements are apparently at odds with the group’s official position, which says nuclear is needed to tackle the climate crisis”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/17/dr-adi-paterson-nuclear-for-australia-climate-change
The chair of a leading Australian nuclear advocacy group has called concerns that carbon dioxide emissions are driving a climate crisis an “irrational fear of a trace gas which is plant food” and has rejected links between worsening extreme weather and global heating.
Several statements from Dr Adi Paterson, reviewed by the Guardian, appear at odds with statements from the group he chairs, Nuclear for Australia, which is hosting a petition saying nuclear is needed to tackle an “energy and climate crisis”.
Nuclear for Australia was founded by 18-year-old Queensland nuclear advocate Will Shackel, who has said repeatedly he believes reactors are needed to fight “the climate crisis”.
Two climate science experts told the Guardian that Paterson’s statements were misguided and typical of climate science denial.
Paterson defended his statements, telling the Guardian he was “not a climate denier”. He described himself as “a climate realist” and an “expert on climate science”…
On his Facebook page, Paterson has said that “cold is more dangerous than warm” and described a leading scientist as a “climate creep”.…
...In April, Paterson told an audience at the Centre for Independent Studies that “you can’t make a correlation between extreme events and climate” and said “no matter what you believe about carbon dioxide – it is plant food”.
“Increasing carbon a little bit is not going to dramatically change the climate. The plants will grow better,” he said, saying the planet was in a period of low CO2.
Prof David Karoly, a councillor at the Climate Council and a respected atmospheric scientist who has been studying the affects of CO2 on the climate since the late 1980s, said Paterson’s statements were typical of those from climate science deniers….
...Paterson said he did think rising levels of CO2 were a problem and that fossil fuels needed to be limited “as soon as we can”. “It is a very, very serious problem but it is not a climate crisis,” he said.
He said he had been concerned about climate change for many years but said unduly worrying children over the issue was “a form of child abuse”, and “the chance of significant catastrophic events” occurring in the next 30 years “related to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere in the southern hemisphere” was “small”.
Paterson added he was more concerned about the “ecocide” from building wind and solar farms” than about climate change.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The climate/climate mitigation ‘Conversation’ is so intensely frustrating. ‘Denier’ and ‘realist’: terms bandied around by those who seek to dismiss/dishonour others who don’t toe the line on climate alarmism and used by those ‘heretics’ fearful of condemnation who seek to appease the witch-hunting fanatics by claiming that they drink the cool-aid but still maintain a cool head.
Look, it’s simple; those among us who reject the climate consensus and who are honest about our rejection, do so on the basis of claiming that we are sceptical of the claims made by the Settled Science and are sceptical of the necessity, usefulness, practicality and safety of the various ‘solutions’ being implemented to address what is in essence an imaginary ‘climate crisis’. We justify our scepticism by pointing to the lack of evidence for the bold claims made by the alarmists and by the Green Blob capitalists/industrialists and by pointing to the abundance of scientific evidence and data which casts doubt on their claims.
That’s it. Why is this such a problem for everyone? We don’t need terms like Denier, Realist, Lukewarmer etc., we just need to accept that there are some among us who don’t believe too easily and who require sound, scientific evidence in order to accept the Settled Science, plus a sound, logical, coherent, practical rationale for the mitigation solutions imposed. We certainly don’t need idiots like Miliband in charge who cite The Science as justification for their batshit crazy eco-fascist/Marxist interventions. Those who wish to control the narrative are ever so fond of creating silos so they can conveniently section off those who don’t buy into the narrative, simply because they refuse to be bullied and coerced into believing what the ‘experts’ are telling them. We shouldn’t be helping them in that endeavour: we are climate sceptics or Net Zero sceptics, who are quite naturally sceptical of the safety, effectiveness and/or necessity of carbon reduction measures.
Morning rant over.
LikeLiked by 2 people