Skepticism and doubt are fundamental aspects of science. Denial and belief are words used by religions – not science. I don’t receive any compensation for this and I know that most of the other skeptical bloggers don’t either.
Many alarmists would have been burning witches had they been born a few hundred years ago. They aren’t interested in facts, but they desperately need something to believe in.
Climate sceptics, deniers, contrarians – call them what you like – are engaged in a fight for column inches, radio waves, TV talk-time and community sentiment.
In Australia, the issue has turned decidedly unsavoury, with climate scientists revealing inboxes chock-full of hate and Government advisors being slurred as Nazis.
But as a memo from US Republican communications guru Frank Luntz revealed in 2003, the most important aspect of climate change denial is not to throw hate, but to sow doubt.
Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.
Doubt is the product of the climate change denial industry – an industry which is tightly knit, well resourced and globally linked.
Since the beginning of time, there has always been people that believed in witch doctors, shaman, high priests, etc
Nothing has changed, those same people will always be with us………
Where is the evidence for sceptics being well resourced. Warmists outspent sceptics. A large proportion of the American public falls into the category of ‘DENIER’. IMHO the use of the word denier has fuelled scepticism more than money.
Facts are always the flie in the ointment. 😉
Now, where is my oil check. 😦 If only.
There is no such thing as settled science, as even the theories of Einstein and Newton have been subjected to revisionist thinking. Who do these people think they are? Why to they have to cook their books and embellish their case if they are so certain? Where is the overwhelming evidence for the drastic, extremely costly action they are proposing? Why have their past predictions been a dismal failure? If global warming is catastrophic, why does it seem to be not happening in so many places?
We were promised accelerating sea level rise, lack of US snowpack and many other things. Today, there are some who state that we may be heading for a prolonged cooling. The use of the word ‘denier’ is a failed atempt to stifle dissent.
I think the picture of Graham Readfearn says it all………………..
Maybe their term for well resourced is synonymous with having the ability to think for ourselves…….. that’s probably what they mean, as opposed to the average alarmist.
Ahhhh.. the irony of a well funded, well organised alarmist machine like the ABC accusing skeptics of being the same.. and the final insult to them is that no amount of money changes scientific truth.
Sewing doubt here, boss……
(Apologies to Paul Newman in “Cool Hand Luke”)
It is not clear to me who Frank Luntz was advising. This is Sean Hannity’s favorite goto pollster.
Assuming he is advising the skeptics, and is saying to stay ‘on point’, don’t call names, I disagree.
There is room for both, the M&M’s dissecting the science, and the general public who has had it with state propaganda that we pay for! It is like a rapist that rapes you and then bills you for their time (not a lawyer crack, this time).
Besides, calling these neo-communists accurate names *will* pick off a few along the way.
Proof? It happens all the time on our side when the dinosaur media obsesses over some perceived right-wing kook. Dutifully, people on our side will then throw in the towel and say they are not electable. That is absolute proof that it will work on them. The only difference is that what we say is true.
Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly
That is in fact the biggest denialist meme among AGW True Believers…there is no evidence whatsoever in centuries of policy making for the move from “settled science” to “everybody agrees on the policy”.
If they don’t want us to succeed in spreading doubt, why don’t they just fabricate better lies?
Very good, Dirk.