To all who say AGW is junk science

What qualifies you to judge what is “junk” and what is “sound” science? Or have you, in fact, just borrowed this facile method of debunking real science from the tobacco companies that tried for so long to convince us smoking was not dangerous? (The answer is “Yes” by the way!) I know that some suggested (and indeed already-implemented) solutions to our problem are misguided, but to continue to claim that we do not have a problem; that takes being wrong to another level altogether. I also know that it was unwise of me to post remarks like “your days are numbered” and “the game is up (you lost)” on WUWT but, I am not attacking any of you personally – I am just trying to point out to you that you are not being objective or rational in dismissing the findings of climate science as a hoax, scam, or whatever you want to call it. The world, most politicians, and even some conservative think tanks are moving on; they are trying to tackle the problem. You are merely delaying the effectiveness of that action by slowing it down and – in so doing – you are in effect self-harming because, the longer we delay the harder it gets to take effective action. This is not scientific scare-mongering; it is an empirically-based, laboratory-tested and, now, observable fact. Some of you may demand evidence, but then you do not accept it when it is presented to you: disappearing sea ice, melting permafrost, retreating glaciers, desertification, crop failures, food shortages, water scarcity. These are all consequences of ongoing AGW not consequences of our attempts to prevent it. If your response to this is to say that I am being duped by a conspiracy – based on your faulty interpretation of some CRU/UEA emails (or whatever) – then you may be so far down the conspiracy theory rabbit-hole that I cannot help you. However, for the record: There is simply no evidence for your left-wing conspiracy to over-tax and over-regulate people (so as to make everyone poorer). Whereas, there is a great deal of evidence for a right-wing conspiracy to under-tax and under-regulate industry (so as to make a few people richer). Therefore, the question is, whose side should you be on? If you go looking for a WMO/UN/IPCC conspiracy like Andrew Montford did, you will see what you want to see and find what you want to find. But, as I keep saying, your conspiracy is an illusion; whereas the historical evidence for a conspiracy to downplay, deny and dismiss all environmental problems, ongoing since the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962, is available in any library (should you care to look).


About Rick Altman

Possibly just another 'Climate Cassandra' crying 'Wolf' in cyberspace. However, the moral of the old children's story is that the Wolf eventually turned up!
This entry was posted in Climate Science, Climategate, Cognitive Dissonance, Confirmation Bias, Environment, Hockey Stick Illusion, Junk Science, Merchants of Doubt, Pseudo science, Scepticism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to To all who say AGW is junk science

  1. Pingback: The pollution of death | Anthropocene Reality

  2. Pingback: A letter to the (right-wing) Editors | Anthropocene Reality

  3. Pingback: Is having an open mind the problem? | Anthropocene Reality

  4. jpgreenword says:

    Great post Rick. You might want to re-post this every few months for those who read your blog for the sake of arguing 🙂


  5. Pingback: The Greatest Lie Ever Told « Anthropocene Reality

  6. Pingback: On the trail of Christopher Monckton « Anthropocene Reality

  7. Pingback: On the trail of Christopher Monckton – part 2 « Anthropocene Reality

  8. Pingback: Muller knows BEST that Watts is wrong « Anthropocene Reality

  9. vasper85 says:

    Reblogged this on vasper85.


    • Anthropocene Reality says:

      Very flattered, thank you. As I have said to many other WP bloggers now, I would recommend you change the Tagline for you blog (top-right) in Settings/General (e.g. mine is “On the politics & psychology underlying the denial of all our environmental problems”). Happy blogging…


  10. Pingback: Fostering denial in the C of E (Part 2) « Anthropocene Reality

  11. Dodgy Geezer says:

    …What qualifies you to judge what is “junk” and what is “sound” science?… Why do I need a qualification to exercise my judgement? This is beginning to sound very like an ‘argument from authority’…


    • Anthropocene Reality says:

      On the contrary, it is simply an appeal for people to be objective. The assertions of subatomic particle physicists are far less believable but we do not really question them because they do not have implications that require global action to prevent unmanageable climate change.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s