ALERT! The climate change Deniers have acquired a powerful new skill! Apparently they are now able to actually use a search engine!
What do you suppose tipped them off? the pictures on my FaceBook page? the articles I’ve written about it? the radical new concept of actually looking for information?
The delicious irony of discovering this immediately after writing a post about how the climate change Deniers are completely incapable of discerning what is relevant from what isn’t is just too funny.
Well this sure puts the lie to my claim that the Deniers wallow in irrational ad hominems rather than try to cope with the fact that they have absolutely no science or evidence to support their delusions.
However, the seemingly random way in which Deniers process the world is truly scary. On the one hand you have the apparent inability to recognize the simple causation chain of CO2 = GHG, humans add CO2 to atmosphere, Earth warms.
On the other hand you have the belief that bandying about totally irrelevant nonsense about people who are able to make the simple association given above is somehow relevant to the science, or that it in some way affects the facts.
What do these people do when they need a clean shirt? put the cat in the oven? plant onions? No wonder these people are frightened. How terrifying would it be to live in a world where you cannot cognitively connect relevant information and instead just randomly associate things and events?
What next for the Deniers ? basic literacy?
Hey Poptart … I also used to collect stamps, liked trout fishing, was really into reading Faulkner (although I did have a SciFi phase in my teens), and made my own sour dough bread for years. There you go, run wild!
Is there any hope that they will ever figure out that the way you discuss science is by actually looking at the science and discussing it? It sure doesn’t look promising.
Postscript
If anyone cares, the EF! chapter in question never practiced anything other than strict Gandhian non-violence that was totally open (ie no person involved ever hid their identity or gave false information to anyone. For some civil disobedience actions we even gave the police lists of those involved and all relevant personal information in advance) and involved no harm to people or property.
Sadly that chapter dissolved over 15 yrs ago as the folks involved moved on to other things in their lives. It was an honour and a privilege to work with them and I have many a fond memory of truly awesome, committed activists giving their all to what they loved.
However, maybe it’s time to create Eaarth First! 😉
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Comment Policy
–
It is worth knowing and abiding by whether you comment on this blog or not.
- The “Mostly” Open Thread” is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
- The “Spam” Comment Thread is for comments posted by people who think that they can ignore site policy.
From the comments:
“# Gary 2011-05-03 21:04
Legal fund building well….
But Dr. Tim Ball still needs some help to battle the extreamly well funded Warmist attack.
This trial could be a turning point in exposing the folly of the CAGW movement.
Take a look and consider if the truth is worth a donation.”
Unshakeable certainty that flies in the face of the evidence.
What irony!
—-
h/t Adam – I suspect that’s Adam Jayne. That kid (as I’m sure he’s an arrogant adolescent) likes to dig up info on others.
The thing that I find most interesting (ipka has written a few post on this also) is that Andrew loves to collect info on other people and spread it around (not to mention mingle it with his own commentary where it can’t be rebutted – if it’s even worth doing to begin with) but goes to great lengths to hide his own real ID.
He openly threatens other readers also. Coupled with his general form of writing (misformation / hate inspiring), he truly is one of the more repugnant commentators on the blogosphere.
—-
Having both entertained discussions with him previously, I know I don’t need to tell you about his need for melodrama.
I’m not sure if he’s allowed to post here any longer, but the agony in his failed posts on my work is nothing short of cheap-Hamlet.
This is all life and death for Andrew and he really needs his readers to despise you.. why? It’s easier than faulting you. If he can demonize you as a former eco-terrorist, who needs to listen to you? If he can demonize me as deranged, surely I have nothing of value to say.
Ultimately there’s nothing we can do to reach such people or most of their readers.
Honesty is the only way forward – as you demonstrate here. I’ve never hidden myself in anyway on the net – most of my online presence is intertwined (hell, he could pick on my recent play list if he so wanted). I’ve got nothing to hide.
You have to wonder about a character both so secretive whilst ambitious to expose every fact about everyone else who he doesn’t like… Paranoid?
Dishonest?…
—-
That is the problem; it’s truly unreasonable. I’ve increasingly noticed behaviours akin to those of other “faiths” and the point you make – that his often disturbing behaviour seems acceptable from the inside – is yet another example where AGW denial resembles a cult.
I really don’t understand their anger at all – you can’t help but feel that if they’d take a step back and relax they’d realise that they got a little carried away… instead, they stir each other up in perpetual rage. That worries me. You can’t reason with such emotions.
Greenfyre:
You’re wrong. Searching for information isn’t a “radical concept” for these people. However, the Tea Party Samurai Code which they abide by imposes strict limits on when and how they can search for information.
To wit: any Google search should only be done in order to do quote-mining. Doing a Google search in order to figure out facts is strictly against the Code.
— frank
“Update: Mike Kaulbars of course is pleading “innocent” for founding a chapter of an eco-terrorist organization. He could have founded a chapter for any number of “peaceful” environmental groups such as the Sierra Club but instead choose to directly associate himself with a well known organization directly responsible for maiming others, sabotage and terrorism,”
I also added New York Times news stories of Earth First during the time he was active with the organization.
—-
You again demonstrate how poorly you reach your conclusions! When did he plead innocent? He more or less pleaded, “So what?”
How the hell is eco-activism in the same league as murder or pedophilia? Would you demonize someone who went to jail for chaining themselves to a tree as you would a serial killer?
You’ve truly lost it pt.
Heads up; from someone who actually went to the effort of acquiring tertiary level qualifications in a natural science and has worked a career in atmospheric / ecological monitoring, I assure you that reading a bunch of abstracts doesn’t make you a scientist. Claiming, as you do, both to have a higher than average understanding of chemistry and that ocean acidification doesn’t pose a problem demonstrates your weakness here and demonizing scientists whom you do not like, rather than a providing a coherent rebuttal to why the relevant conclusions are flawed only solidifies this.
If it wasn’t for the fact that a few misinformed inflate your ego and take on-board all the misinformation you vomit, you wouldn’t be worth discussing or entertaining at all.
its perfectly fine for Andrew to lump eco-terrorism with murder and paedophilia, but when we put in with creationists he makes sure we know he’s “religiously agnostic”.
Can you guess why Andrew doesn’t devote pages debunking Obama birth certificate conspiracy theories? Because he can’t piss off too many idiots, he needs them.
We need to handle this very carefully.
I think there’s more: you grow vegetables and practice Zen in addition to being trained at a graduate level in science and and being involved in civic activism, according to your self-disclosure and articles on the internet.
What next? Are you – gasp – a vegetable growing, Zen practicing scientifically literate active member of civil society?!
—-
Wallace and Gromit? They are so evil, worse than North Korea. Just check this out:
“Wallace: I’m sorry, Gromit. I know you’re doing this for my own good, but the fact is I’m just crackers about cheese. Look, if I must change me ways, at least let me do it my way, with technology.
[Lowers the Mind Manipulation-omatic onto his head]
Wallace: It’s time we tried my latest invention, the Mind Manipulation-omatic. It extracts unwanted thoughts and desires. I haven’t tested it yet, but it should be perfectly safe. Just a bit of harmless brain alteration, that’s all. ”
(CotWR)
—-
Yup. I was “outed” for commenting on – gasp – ClimateProgress and expressing support for – gasp – Tenney Naumer. At some point I will have to stop hiding behind Susan Anderson – so conveniently anonymous in plain sight! And I said too much already 😉
The most recent wakeup call I had was there were exactly as many people trashing me as were supporting the idea that the IPCC is a conspiracy with the goal of establishing world government. It took me a while to realize that people actually believe this!
—-
It was a month or three back on DotEarth, not sure which you wanted but I assume it was the IPCC world government one. Since then it has become as common as dirt to make this claim. Kind of like when Jane Mayer opened the Koch expose to a wider audience and suddenly it was OK to support the John Birch Society. Time limited, but if I find it will try to oblige. You may contact me offblog for unpostable info if you wish.
I’m actually supposed to be doing my art this weekend so need to cut out indulging myself in all this community hairshirting. Anyone in Boston area is welcome to come to local open studios event (you can find it in the papers) and introduce theirselves.
I heard rumour that Poptart will next publish a startling exposé that you wear a moustache plus goatee. You know who else wore a moustache? Hitler. Stalin. You know who wore a goatee? SATAN!!!11!
How much more evidence do we need that Greenfyre is a devil-worshipping eco-fascist who is currently building death camps for people who use the fossil fuels that the Christian god gave us?!!1! Won’t someone think of the CHILDREN?!!1!one!
—-
don’t forget Osama bin Laden!!
> don’t forget Osama bin Laden!!
Don’t you worry. Poptart is on it like mustard. He’s already sent a photofit of Greenfyre to Navy Seal Team 6 – painstakingly drawn with his best crayons.
Due to previous horrible experience I have had to develop a mental model of how these people think. In their thinking the laws of logic don’t apply. Instead there are what are regarded as “truths”, such as “Global Warming is a Hoax”. Anything that contradicts these “truths” is obviously wrong and can be explained away by introducing yet another “truth”. The end result is not one mistake in their thinking, but errors, errors, errors all the way down.
Letting them have personal information about yourself I regard as a really bad idea, because they will use it to reach conclusions no rational person would reach.
Even now some of them are thinking, “Why wouldn’t you put the cat in the oven when you need a clean shirt? This is just another example of fuzzy-headed liberal thinking! The liberals are trying to deny us clean shirts with their eco-terrorist, pro-feline agenda! Well, we’re onto them!”
My God that’s hilarious — your end bit. 🙂
And BlueRock, too — stop it. 🙂 You two are killing me. I’m on the floor… I can’t get up…
—-
“they will use it to reach conclusions no rational person would reach. ”
Sound familiar?….let me check..aha!
That’s what Inhofe was accusing scientists of in his Climategate report!
“Manipulated data to reach preconceived conclusions”
—-
They definitely ARE aware. This is where one of the biggest parallels between deniers and creationists come in, the accuse people EXACTLY of what they do themselves. (Thereby admitting they know it’s wrong)
A classic example would be how quick such people are to suggest the other is a “faither” because they are confident of scientific methodology.
They forget to point out that unlike ideological faith, one whom relies on scientific reasoning will, regardless how painful / embarrassing, change their tone as a result of new contrary evidence that dispels older conclusions.
Uh-oh… They’ve learned you broke the law — just like Thoreau, and Carl Sagan, like Joan Baez and David Harris, like Martin Luther King, Jr. And, in more recent times, like James Hansen and me (in very different ways, of course; his way took courage.)
—-
And Gandhi and Mandela, two notorious terrorists who were imprisoned in South Africa.
—-
But .. how did they figure out your name was, like, Mike?
——-
Maybe they discovered the “About” page, well hidden among the other tabs at the top! GF, if you want to keep you true identity hidden, you should not write it on your “About” page. And no pictures either! Especially not with moustache and goatee beard.
—-
The About page mentions nothing of him being a founder of a chapter of Earth First, nothing of his environmental activism, nothing of his arrests or jail time.
—-
I’m guessing “Trouble.” 😉
Interesting but true that people tend to think other people are like themselves. Therefore, since they live in a narrow world where they believe anyone who disagrees with them is in a conspiracy, they assume we do too.
It’s a much bigger problem for liberals, who are in general compassionate and care about the larger community, and assume at bottom their opponents are like them.
Good point and one that reflects scientific debate in general (and exploited by the less than honest deniers) as explained by Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee:
“The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules.”
We (Carbonbrief) weren’t profiled by Poptech – I was disappointed.
However, we did get nicely profiled on Wattsupwiththat a while ago – the gist of which is: ‘we are followed by some greenies on twitter’.
In this case, it wasn’t even information culled from Google, for the most part, but the contents of our ‘About’ page.
Hey ho! Enjoying your blogging.
Chr
That is interesting Christian, can you tell me when you went “straight to the actual scientists” you smear before you smear them to get their opinion?
—–
It’s always “smear” and “strawman” with you – always, without clear reasoning or evidence as to why you think as much; simply, they disagree with you, often with a reasoned argument why, so it must be a smear/strawman…
As with AGW itself, the obligation is on you to provide an evidence based counter-argument, not others to continue to make the same point over and over because you label them with such terms (in reality, that is a true smear or strawman argument). The same with your funny little “resource”.
Mike puts it well enough, but rather than admit to the points regarding hypocrisy, I have a strong suspicion you’ll simply jump on him with more labels.
You’re a coward, hiding behind your pseudonym and do your species and the wider ecosystem a great injustice in your misinformation.
[troll tone]
Moth, get your facts straight, or you’ll be called “liar”.
It’s not just “smear” & “strawman” , you can also be a “liar” when you disagree with Mighty Poptech. If you manage to follow what he writes, you’re also a “stalker” (which he promises to “knock the fuck out”). But Andrew enjoys doing to other people what he promises to knock them out for.
“the obligation is on you to provide an evidence based counter-argument, not others to continue to make the same point over ”
No, the obligation is for us hippies, warmists and alarmists to give him assurance that we DON’T WANT him to be carbon taxed, that he can safely admit to AGW alarmist if we promise he’ll never have to act on it. I’ll settle for winning people over on facts, but disagreeing over policy and solutions.
If the US & UN policy was to tax carbon without any good reason, he wouldn’t know what to deny. If scientific consensus said GW is true but nothing can be done, he’ll be happy to jump over and yell at deniers with us. Andrew has admitted enough times his concern is NOT climate or science, but $$$. He’ll support anything that allows his freedom and oppose anything that get between his wallet.
[/troll tone]
“I have a strong suspicion you’ll simply jump on him with more labels.”
Good news is, Andrew runs out of good ones, he uses them all upfront.
“You’re a coward, hiding behind your pseudonym and do your species and the wider ecosystem a great injustice in your misinformation.”
Don’t you get it? He’s a libertarian who doesn’t care about justice or anybody but himself.
Hey Andrew, dig my dirt up BITCH, I dare you!
“I can well understand why you insist on being anonymous. Who could withstand the shame and humiliation of being “Poptech?” Just imagine if family & coworkers ever found out?”
[Content deleted]
—-
To What Goes Around :
Feel free to spill Poptech’s info at my blog, all comments require my approval, so while I may not publish it, I will be happy to use it to my advantage. (Somebody who promises to knock another person the fuck out shouldn’t mind people knowing where he lives)
—-
I wouldn’t be doing anything illegal or stupid. And it would be something that anybody other than Andrew would feel nothing, and he himself would suffer.
No, God hasn’t punished him enough, at least not to my satisfaction (I’ll tell you when I’m satisfied after he tells us what would satisfy convincing him of AGW alarm).
—-
That’s a very unrealistic hypothetical, if I was stupid enough to have done what Poptech did, I would beg for forgiveness BIG TIME. Since he has not, I’m not letting him go.
—-
I left a comment on your blog.
I believe that reacting to an invasion of privacy by exposing who is behind it is justified, especially if that invasion of privacy is accompanied by hostile attention, threats or abuse, as long as that behaviour is not reciprocated- and I trust it won’t be- although I respect Greenfyre’s decision not to go down that road.
—-
Whatever information you have is bogus. I only use Poptech online.
—-
Who are you? Andrew Khan?
—-
This is a bogus post and not from me.
—-
I’d be careful making too much of it – it’s likely he thinks he’s being clever by feeding the fire of this “conspiracy” to put us off the scent.
He wouldn’t “accidentally” use his real name in that way, but seeing as you pointed out that the IP address is identical, it’s clear that PT is yet again lying.
I’m convinced that his brand of stupidity, misinformation and lies are a paid job and not the result of an interested individual. He cuts and pastes large chunks of his words so there’s no guarantee that it’s even one person.
You’ve got sock puppets and you have trolls. PT, I fear is the love-child of both and can only be described as Blog Zombie.
—-
That is my suspicion as well, that either he WANTS us to think Khan is his real name (and it actually isn’t), or he’s hoping that by not being afraid to use it, we’ll be convinced it isn’t (when it is). I got all bases covered, right?
Either way, he seems safe and confident about it. Glad everybody’s happy.
Exactly – it’s irrelevant if it’s his ID or not.
Either way, he’s an embarrassment to himself every time he utters the same cut-and-paste crap.
The only reason he deserves any attention is to counter the nonsense that others have fallen for. At the end of the day, I think he secretly needs to attention, so all of this works in his favour.
Another reason why he’s a blog zombie (apart for being relatively brain dead) – he’ll chew your brain with his stupidity, hoping to bring you down to his level.
oops, I forgot, or it might be somebody else posted as him. To embarrass him, but Greenfyre has a history of his IPs, so he should be able to tell if the post was coming from his area.
is the post that says “I am the real Poptech” from the same IP as “I only use Poptech online”?
I know of course the 2 identical posts (I only use poptech) are from the same person, but that doesn’t tell us whether it’s actually Poptech (Andrew).
—-
You don’t need his IP address.
on May 11, 2011 at 9:53 am | Reply **Andrew Khan**
“Whatever information you have is bogus. I only use Poptech online.”
appears 2 minutes *before* Poptech says *exactly* the same thing! So Andrew Khan cannot be copying or mimicking Poptech to seem to be him. Whether it’s his real name or not, the guy posting as Poptech is the same guy posting as Andrew Khan. To borrow his very favorite word, and use it accurately instead, it’s “irrefutable!”
Whatever information you have is bogus. I only use Poptech online.
Fair call Greenfyre – best not to go down Poptech’s route.
Job Loser – Poptech has made it clear what he stands for. No wonder he hides his ID – it’s probably not all paranoia; his despicable to be shunned in public.
Poptech – a synonym for internet leper.
Amazing how:
their language is identical even though both were held back for moderation so you could not have possibly seen the supposedly bogus one;
both are held back based on the identical IP address
the “bogus one” was posted first, and you used identical language 2 min later
So, you’re claiming pyschic powers now? or just a coincidence of incalculable magnitude?
Yup, we all believe you PopTart … as much as anyone in their right mind ever would at least.
What a sad, confused, dishonest little man Poptart/Andrew Khan/(insert endless sockpuppets here) is.
(shrug)
It seems to me that this subject (and increasingly the energy debate) attracts people who have no real interest in the subject – or at least not the truth of it. They are simply drawn to the fact that they can get lots of attention by spouting lies and nonsense on their blogs and in comments on other blogs.
ACC denial is the perfect vehicle for the attention-craving wingnut….
His interest in the subject is freedom from carbon taxes and his comfortable lifestyle. If you told him, that he needs pay nothing, do nothing, but climate change is real, he won’t argue with you.
But if you told him he needs to give up some money, some luxuries, some conveniences, he won’t ask you why or what he gets in return.
I have to disagree. From the outset of joining this public “debate” over ACC, I’ve tried to point out how pointless it is – once we factor in many of the related issues (most importantly peaking oil and ocean acidification, in my view): all roads lead to a decarbonisation of our energy supply and as the population increases, a decrease in personal footprints and community footprints to adjust to resources and land space which, unlike us, is not increasing.
Almost as early on, I became aware that this quite obvious conclusion was largely brushed aside (generally by labeling me an alarmist rather than finding genuine error in my conclusions), while perpetuating this nonsensical game of climate change debate. You can tell how idiotic it all is when a AGW denier states, “Your side, my side” as though it were a sport.
From my experience over the last year and a half, this subject has had little to do with reason and evidence, but rather dolts like Poptech and paid misinformers sprinkling out tainted chook feed to causes paralysis.
It’s sickening.
Moth:
> I have to disagree.
With which bit?
> From the outset of joining this public “debate” over ACC, I’ve tried to point out how pointless it is …
I think that is becoming true now. The deniers will never be swayed from their denial. The apathetic will never become motivated until the ocean is around their ankles or (more likely to come sooner) there is no food in the Quick-E Mart and it dawns on them that they cannot feed themselves.
> …all roads lead to a decarbonisation of our energy supply…
Indeed. That’s why I’ve switched from advocating ‘action on climate change’ to ‘action on renewable energy’. The former is ‘act or bad things will happen to you’, the latter is ‘act and good things will happen to you’. Both achieve what we need: decarbonisation – but ‘good things’ is an easy sale.
> You can tell how idiotic it all is when a AGW denier states, “Your side, my side” as though it were a sport.
Yup. It’s just another political football for the right, another mechanism to annoy those “damn tree-hugging libruls” with.
> It’s sickening.
It is. But once we’ve opened our eyes to the reality, we only have two choices: action or despondency. I’m not quite ready for the latter!
Just to underline my point: even the USA MSM is turning on the deniers – http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/17/usa-today-climate-science-deniers-now-like-birthers/ – but we know it won’t move them an inch.
If only the was a certificate of live climate change that’ll shut up these deniers.
Some are not actually deniers, they just don’t like to change their lifestyle and greed.
>”motivated until the ocean is around their ankles or (more likely to come sooner) there is no food in the Quick-E Mart ”
If that happens, they’ll say, there’s no proof that acting and taxing would’ve made a difference.
>Both achieve what we need: decarbonisation
And a denier says, either we don’t need it, or we need it but it’s not worth the freedom we have to give up.
>annoy those “damn tree-hugging libruls” with.
Which is why I avoid talking about the environment, I’ll be the first to say F polar bears, and F trees. I don’t care about animals or plants, I only care about humans and that’s enough to be concerned about AGW.
> …F polar bears, and F trees. I don’t care about animals or plants, I only care about humans and that’s enough to be concerned about AGW.
I can’t agree with that. I think a large part of the problem is that too many people think that they are completely separate from the ecosystem. Food comes from the Quik-E Mart, water comes out of the tap. That’s all they know and care about so see no need to worry about destruction of the Amazon through drought or loss of corals through acidification or spraying the land with poisons to kill ‘pests’. Eventually all of those things will turn around and bite us very hard.
If people don’t understand how interconnected we are to all life on the planet, then they won’t see any need to protect it. And I’m not talking about some Gaia / Avatar / mystical connection – purely the irrefutable scientific sense that we are dependent on much of the life that we are currently eradicating as quickly as we can.
And, if people don’t give a f^ck about ‘lower’ life forms including sentient animals, why would they give a f^ck* about some poor Africans or Bangladeshi? There’s already too many of them anyway! (That’s already a very common theme amongst the ACC deniers – overpopulation only applies to brown people in distant countries).
These things are not mutually exclusive. We can advocate for action on climate change (via renewable energy) as well as suggest it’s not a good idea to wipe out the life forms that we share this planet with.
tl;dr: Don’t get your environmental wisdom from a dead comedian. http://i.imgur.com/d1ZLR.png
I should have written ‘so-called overpopulation’. I don’t buy it. It’s a problem without a solution, a distraction and an excuse for those who don’t want to reduce their gluttonous consumption.
* on the ‘f^ck’ – just a gripe that WordPress moralises over which combination of letters we are allowed to use in the comments. F^cking ridiculous!
>>if people don’t give a f^ck about ‘lower’ life forms including sentient animals, why would they give a f^ck* about some poor Africans or Bangladeshi?
I don’t think they should. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to deny AGW, because if the consequences are true, poor Africans and Bangladeshi are going to affect us sooner or later, and some effects would be on ourselves.
I’ll be the first to say F polar bears, and F trees. I don’t care about animals or plants, I only care about humans and that’s enough to be concerned about AGW.
The problem is that preservation and conservation of the natural world is in our own best interests.
Where does the oxygen you breathe come from?
Where do the fish you eat come from? (And where does their food come from?) Etc.
We cannot survive alone. Can you eat rock? Many ecosystems are already highly stressed through human interference and AGW brings numerous additional side-effects, such as ocean acidification, rising temperatures and altered rainfall patterns which in-turn are further stressing ecosystems. At some stage these stresses will cause collapse which most likely be sudden.
We are trapped in the cage with the caged beast, perhaps we should stop poking it with a stick that gets shorter each time we poke it. Otherwise we risk getting eaten.
My point was, that I do not preserve and conserve plants and animals because of them, but only when it benefits humans.
> Which bit?
Sorry – I read it as “increasingly” and not what we both agree – this debate always has been of that nature.
I got sucked into the debate, being somewhat naive on the outset, believing that AGW deniers sounded like reasonable people – a year on their merry-go-round taught me the truth and so I’ve since returned to the broader subject that interests me more – the whole problem with developing truly prosperous societies.
I’m lucky enough to have had a series picked up by The Sustainable Cities Collective also (see “Recent Posts” [a 5th one will go live later today] here). In the 5th, I take a bit of a stab at the conservative voice in Aust – who use the “it’s hurt working families” fear propaganda.
As Job Loser and you both say, it’s been politicized to the point of sheer stupidity. This is not the only paradigm that offers a glint of prosperity and is far from the best.
Providing that positive message, as you also suggest, is likely to go further.
“it will hurt working families” [typo]
Hi Moth,
Looking good. 🙂
The new and pretend ‘solidarity’ of climate change deniers with people living in poverty particularly outrages me.
Cheers Martha.
Whilst I tried to debate with deniers last year, I heard a number of them try to use, “don’t you care about poor people?” as a slug against action. It is one of the more disgusting attacks on reason (one our friend, Mr. Poptech has used as well).
You don’t need to be a genius to see how the neo-liberal economic model fosters strong individualism and in turn has exacerbated disparity. Just look at the richest developed nations – such places shouldn’t have such inequality and poverty if the economy worked to improve the standard of living.
When you get down to the bottom of it, these deniers are only scared of a reduction of their own wealth (or the “we all wanna be millionaires” mentality) – it’s their own wealth their concerned about and not the genuinely poor.
I spent a little time looking into it and on every one of their common ideological arguments, you can find that at it’s core, they’re simply hypocrites. See here for some;
http://newanthropocene.wordpress.com/alarming-religion/
> …believing that AGW deniers sounded like reasonable people – a year on their merry-go-round taught me the truth…
I think we all own that t-shirt. 😉 “Just one more peer-reviewed paper and I will convince this person of the truth!” Nice dream while it lasted.
Briefly and broadly, here’s where I am: everyone who is going to be convinced is convinced; the deniers will always remain in denial; the apathetic will always remain apathetic. It’s now stalemate trench warfare.
So, we need to move to another battlefield – energy. The solution lies in renewable energy – and this ‘debate’ is a mirror of the climate one: full of FUD and propaganda, emanating from many of the same sources that produce FUD and propaganda about climate science. But this time we can produce a very positive message of clean, safe, never-ending energy that doesn’t send trillions of $$$s to countries that often don’t like us (often with good reason!).
http://www.grist.org/climate-policy/2011-05-19-socolow-reaffirms-2004-wedges-paper-urges-aggressive-low-carbon
For Will Potter, the subject matter behind Green is the New Red is personal. While working at the Chicago Tribune, he got a visit from two FBI agents at his apartment. The month before, Potter had been arrested at a protest. He had been passing out flyers in the neighborhood of an insurance executive who did business with Huntington Life Sciences, the infamous animal-testing lab. The FBI agents wanted Potter to help identify and spy on other animal-rights activists—or risk ending up on the domestic terrorism watch list.
Potter didn’t tell the agents what they wanted to know. Instead, he began to investigate heavy-handed law enforcement efforts aimed at environmentalists.
http://www.texasobserver.org/artsandminds/item/17828-green-terror