Pirate's Cove

One of the issues the Warmists have been worried about as of late is why, exactly, people aren’t buying into their mule fritter talking points. As always, one thing I’ll point out is the pure hypocrisy of Warmists, who want everyone else to suffer, but, refuse to practice what they preach. They always have some excuse handy to point out why they won’t live the “carbon neutral” lifestyle, but, hey, “that guy over there should be forced to comply.” Or, they’ll push the tired “we should all work together, won’t you help out?” No. Anyhow, Grist crossposts this article by Christie Aschwanden from The Last Word On Nothing

The anatomy of denial: Why truth doesn’t always win

I recently attended the Science Writing in the Age of Denial conference at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The event explored the phenomenon of denial and what it means for science writers. How can journalists effectively convey science when its uncomfortable truths face organized resistance?

Whoa, whoa, whoa: you live in Grand Mesa, Colorado, Christie: why are you taking unnecessary fossil fueled trips?

I walked away from the event feeling both energized and frustrated. Denialism is easy to spot, and conference speakers like Sean B. Carroll and Naomi Oreskes were especially adept at characterizing and documenting it. During his keynote talk, Carroll outlined a “denialism manual in six steps,” which he adapted from a history of chiropractors and vaccination published in 2000.

Step 1: Doubt the science.
Step 2: Question scientists’ motives and interests.
Step 3: Magnify legitimate, normal disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies as authorities.
Step 4: Exaggerate potential harms (scare the hell out of people).
Step 5: Appeal to personal freedom (I’m an American and no government official can tell me what vaccinations I need).
Step 6: Show that accepting the science would represent a repudiation of a key philosophy.

Those steps look pretty darned close to what the Warmist manual states

Step 1: State that the debate is over.
Step 2: Question the motives and interests of anyone who doesn’t agree 100%, attack them personally.
Step 3: Minimize legitimate, normal disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies as authorities.
Step 4: Exaggerate potential harms from trace amounts of a gas necessary for life on Earth (scare the hell out of people).
Step 5: Appeal to Government to Do Something to That Guy while heading to work in gas guzzling vehicle.
Step 6: Agitate and spread awareness, because that’s all that is needed to solve the “climate crisis”. And someone else’s money.

Warmists really don’t have science to stand on, all they have are prophecies. And, until they lead by example, more and more people will tune out their silly message.