Statistics

The Six Kinds Of “Climate Deniers”, As Defined By Experts

So the Institute for Strategic Decisions, a Disinformation think tank which supplies Official Truths to the regime, wrote an interesting document, “Deny, Deceive, Delay: Documenting and Responding to Climate Disinformation at COP26 and Beyond“.

I don’t today have time to go through all this (busy week), but I did note with fascination their definition of “Climate Denial”, from which we can discern there are several official kinds of “climate deniers.”

Climate denial, in contrast to other stances like scepticism (see below), refers to the overt rejection of climate change as a phenomenon, as well as its related causes and impacts. This includes claims, contrary to scientific consensus, that climate change is a ’hoax’, global temperatures are not rising, or that warming constitutes a natural process with no relation to anthropogenic (i.e. human-driven) greenhouse gas emissions.

DENIER 1: I do not know a single soul, nor have I even heard of one, who rejects “climate change as a phenomenon”. Do you? If this mythical person did indeed exist, then it would be right to castigate him, or even her, and say, “Sir, or madam, the climate on earth has indeed changed. It is sometimes warmer, and sometimes cooler.”

Because this form of a “climate denier” is mythical, he is a Hot Man, like a Straw Man, a figure made entirely out of hot air, imagination, and desire. The desire to have an enemy on which one’s troubles may be blamed.

DENIER 2: The second official form of “denier” is one who accepts a changing climate, but who denies or doubts Expert-asserted “related causes and impacts”. There are plenty of this species, and should be.

Here, for instance, is a long discussion (one of several), really more of a lament, of Experts wringing their hands over their “hot models.” It seems Expert models have, quite consistently and over a long period of time, been predicting temperatures that are too hot. Oops. (These Experts still have unbounded confidence in their abilities, of course.)

It would thus appear that these Experts are themselves “climate deniers”, since they are questioning Expert-asserted “related causes” of “climate change.” They are saved from the contradiction and insult, however, because they are, in fact, Experts. These beings are allowed to say whatever they like and be free from worry they will face penalties for being wrong. Think the Fabulous Fauci, Neil “My Model Once Again Says We’re All Going To Die” Ferguson, among others.

DENIER 3: Our third type of denier is one who says events attributed to “climate change”, which they call “impacts”, are false or uncertain. These events are not the changing climate itself, but those things which may or may not be influenced by weather. Like crop yields, which are up.

But saying things like “The world is greener because of climate change” is to deny “climate change” here, because under “climate change” only bad things can happen. See “Why You Don’t Have To Worry About Climate Change: Multiplication Of Uncertainties” for details.

DENIER 4: Our fourth type of denier is one who says “climate change” is a “hoax”, which is not what it seems. The person who says this does not deny a changing climate, or even that certain things are affected by changing weather, but he means that the “solutions” to “stop” “climate change” are, to use an apt single word, bullshit. That they are schemes to remove money from him, the denier, and give them to the rich.

The denier who says “hoax” implies that whatever happens to the climate, it is nothing to worry about unduly.

DENIER 5: Our fifth type of denier is one who says that “temperatures are not rising”. Let’s take a man from Gaylord, Michigan, who examines his local historical record and sees this plot of yearly annual mean temperature (in the civilized units of Herr Fahrenheit):

Well, what would our man say? That’s it’s growing hotter? He would likely deny it is growing hotter. He would become a local denier. (The “record” temp was in 1901, 101 big ones; and the next down the list was 99 in 1955. The record low was -37 in 1979, which I remember well; second place was -35 in 2015. 2015, I say.)

Yet our man might not be an “official” denier, because he only denies what he can see. He cannot see how Experts create the global average. But, as we have seen, even Experts don’t know what Experts mean by creating a global average.

DENIER 6: The last and sixth form of denier is one who accepts “climate change” but says the bulk of it is natural, and (the bulk) not caused by man. Since Expert models run hot, and since even Experts admit to natural causes (or they used to), it would seem an open question which source is most important. But to avoid calumny one must assert, publicly, that man is the only source of interest. Like this woman:

Our last kind of denier, then, is a heretic.

Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here; Or go to PayPal directly. For Zelle, use my email.

Categories: Statistics

12 replies »

  1. I see our erstwhile Anika has some books to sell. So we should do all we can, with all our heart, to fix the problem of Climate Change by ordering it.

  2. I deny. I mean, I really deny. I am a proud denier. God made me that way. I was born in denial and I’ll die in denial. I embrace deny. Deny is my destiny. Deny is my north, south, east and west. I deny morning noon and night. I eat and drink deny. I brush my teeth with deny. My dog is named “Deny”. My car’s vanity plate reads, “I DENY!”. Deniers are my people. Deniers are my tribe. Deny is our religion. We are harmless and lovable.

    But the Affimers hate us. For no reason at all, but that we are harmless and lovable. The Affirmers have always hated and persecuted us. “You must affirm!” they scream with menace and venom. “You are the cause of all our problems!” they shout as they herd us into the cattle cars. AFFIRM OR DIE! reads the sign over the camp entrance. There must be six million of us deniers in camp. Tomorrow we will be sent to the showers. My last words will be, ”I deny!”

  3. Climatology has become a fundamentalist religion rather than a science, on both sides. I imagine soon we’ll see heretics burned at the stake.

  4. Hah! Denyers will not be tolerated! Just have a look at this lunacy.

    The political classes, not yet contented with the demolition of the UK economy, the destruction of confidence in our elected officials and quietly frog-marching us to an unwanted and unnecessary war; are attempting to establish a Ministry of Truth. This effort is encapsulated by the Conservative MP John Penrose in the new Online Safety Bill (p 13, his contribution):

    “Factual Accuracy

    (1) The purpose of this section is to reduce the risk of harm to users of regulated services caused my disinformation or misinformation.

    (2) Any Regulated Service must provide an index of the historic factual accuracy of material published by each user who has-

    (a) produced user-generated content,

    (b) news publisher content, or

    (c) comments and reviews on provider contact whose content is viewed more widely than a minimum threshold to be defined and set by OFCOM.

    (3) The index under subsection (1) must

    (a) satisfy minimum quality criteria to be set by OFCOM, and

    (b) be displayed in a way which allows any user easily to reach an informed view of the likely factual accuracy of the content at the same time as they encounter it.”

    https://docs.reclaimthenet.org/onlinesafety_rm_rep_0708.pdf

    On the other side of the isle, are there any complaints? Nah. Labour want to extend this to include medical disinformation.

    I can’t figure out who is Conservative or Liberal anymore. They both seem to be out to trample us beneath the jackboot of totalitarianism.

    If this bill goes forward (for now the debacle of PM Boris J has kicked it into touch until an new PM is appointed), it will no doubt be followed by a huge new government bureaucracy specific to the evaluation and enforcement of RETROACTIVE TRUTH.

  5. Stop saying the quiet part out loud Briggs, or the bogus carbon credit trading scheme will become valueless, and Gore will lose his 30,000 square-foot house.

  6. Seems like Anika Molesworth should eliminate the cause, given her self-admission of causing climate change, as she wants to “help fix this problem.”

    Her emotions aside, her responsibility and determination requires this course.

    Perhaps, in her vanity-signaling, she doesn’t mean anything quite so drastic.

  7. I’m solidly in the “hoax” category, and I’ve got a university degree, studied all sorts of science, and learned a great deal of climate history in connection with my profession as an archaeologist. Climate Change Hysteria is nothing but a quasi-religious cult cooked up by the greedy, the power-hungry, and the corrupt, and supported by the hopelessly ignorant who have learned to spout “science!” like parrots but have no concept of what the word means. You don’t have to be an “expert” to have an opinion like mine. You just have to have well-developed bullshit radar to train on the ideologues who have gained acceptance as experts.

  8. Well – I find myself solidly in categories 2 through 6. I imagine if there were more categories I’d be in those too. But the category I am most solidly in, having majors in both Earth Sciences and Computer Science with some experience of modelling, is those who call BS on the models. Where should I turn myself in…?

  9. I am all six. You can never be climate denier enough. The climate cult is a religion, well strictly speaking a substitute for religion, not based on physical reality so the categories are fundamentally meaningless in any case.

  10. 1. Climate is one or more summary statements about a specified location’s previously realized weather. Does the weather change? Of course it does, so why wouldn’t the climate change following the weather.

    2. Definitely this one. These models have failed spectatularly.

    3. Definitely this one, as well. Given the false premises that are used to call “global warming” a catastrophe, why should I accept the predictions. Plus, carbon dioxide is plant food. Why would I want to starve plants?

    4. Definitely this one, also. Given the false premises that are used to call “global warming” a catastrophe, why wouldn’t those pushing this be doing it for their own gain, and lie about it to appear noble.

    5. In my own lifetime, the overall temperatures are less extreme. It doesn’t get as hot as it did in the 1930s, nor has it gotten as cold as it has from time to time since the 1890s; with the overall appearance of a slight decrease. Yes, I said it. It was overall hotter during my grandparent’s time than mine; at least on this little spot of dirt I live on.

    6. Definitely not a heretic. I reject the “global warming” activist’s premises. Thermodynamic temperatures are proxies for the internal kinetic energy of a defined sample of matter and *only* its internal kinetic energy. Thermodynamic temperatures don’t have to completely correspond to color or brightness (emitted light) temperatures fitted to some idealized curve. Each measurement is a sample of one, generally; since they do not put multiple instruments in the sampling container. There’s much more uncertainty associated with the measurements that the reports make it seem, which is another lie by omission.

  11. We need a new name for the Expests and their crystal ball modelled soothsaying.

    I’m going with Climate-Wizards and their Weather-entrails.

  12. Well, for myself, I deny the ability or even intent of the United Nations and all its committees to actually solve ANY problem. Refugees? The High Commission has not settled any stateless persons in new permanent citizenship anywhere since WWII. Disease? Malaria and polio and typhus and typhoid and dysentery are worldwide, and cholera was brought into Haiti BY UN peacekeepers, who also raped the locals and fathered 100s of unwanted (what we used to call, “bastard”) children there. Oh, remember Korea? The UN dragged Truman and the US into a political struggle there that we have no declaration of war supporting, and no treaty of peace ending, and an unsatisfactory cease-fire that has persisted for nearly 7 decades. Kosovo seems to be on a similar trajectory. I could go on, but suffice it to say if the UN chartered the IPCC and defines the problem and the solution, then I say the whole thing is spinach, and I say the hell with it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.