Rodney isn’t, neither am I, what about you?

Rodney Hide has found out that he isn’t a climate change denier.

I was happily reading a local rag’s analysis of the psychology of climate change denialism prompted by President Donald Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord only to be rudely shaken out of my near slumber by the shock that I was not a denialist.

I had wearily read the claim, “Nearly all scientists concur that climate change is occurring because of humans and that our lives are at risk – so why is it so hard for some people to believe it?” and clicked on the link first to the Washington Post and then to the study itself.

I jumped to the appendix and the relevant questions. I am pretty sure mean temperatures are higher now than the pre-1800s. So tick. That’s because the Little Ice Age extended beyond 1800.

The next question was trickier: Did I think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? I ticked yes but only after hesitation. Increased CO² means warmer temperatures all other things equal but all other things aren’t equal and within the earth’s climate system there are complex positive and negative feedbacks.

I was also a little unsure about the term “significant contributing factor.” I took it to mean that it would be statistically significant, not, say, the major factor. And so I ticked yes.

Oh, and that was it.

The other questions were just testing how sure I was and what I thought of the credibility of climate science compared to other sciences.

The shock was that I would have been classified as believing that, “climate change is occurring because of humans, and that our lives are at risk.” Of course, there’s a big difference between agreeing that the climate has warmed over the past 200 over years, that humans have had an impact and the belief that anthropogenic warming is so threatening that totalitarian action is needed to de-industrialise. There is a huge leap from the questions asked and the conclusions reached.

What? Bizarre stuff, but then again nothing surprises me anymore in the climate change wars.

And nowhere did the survey ask whether “lives are at risk.” The line that scientists concur that “lives are at risk” was apparently added for journalistic effect.

In the same sentence the author wondered, “so why is it so hard for some people to believe it?”

I think I have the answer. It’s because we have learnt to distrust environmental reporting and activist scientists. They simply can’t be relied on. The very sentence in which the author’s article posed the question contained the answer.

It’s the unceasing hyperbole, fake extrapolation and biased reporting that has made us deaf to the latest environmental scare. And as for the Paris Climate Accord?  Why the upset with President Trump pulling out?

The father of the global warming scare, James Hansen, declared the accord “a fraud really, a fake.” It does nothing to reverse the programmed doom of the climate models. So the US pulling out makes not a difference.

The scientists have over egged for decades, little wonder no one believes them anymore.

-NBR


Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to Podcasts?
  • Access to Political Polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

As much at home writing editorials as being the subject of them, Cam has won awards, including the Canon Media Award for his work on the Len Brown/Bevan Chuang story.  And when he’s not creating the news, he tends to be in it, with protagonists using the courts, media and social media to deliver financial as well as death threats.

They say that news is something that someone, somewhere, wants kept quiet.   Cam Slater doesn’t do quiet, and as a result he is a polarising, controversial but highly effective journalist that takes no prisoners.

He is fearless in his pursuit of a story.

Love him or loathe him.  But you can’t ignore him.

61%