‘these professors at the University of California, San Diego say environmentalists need to stop pitching or trying to persuade people of global warming by focusing on the temperature of the earth, ’cause it isn’t rising. Temperatures aren’t going up. They need to find some other way to persuade people. He’s mentioned in this story, and to me it’s a tantamount admission that they’re wrong. But what they’re saying is, “No, we’re not wrong, we just have to find a different way to fool people, ’cause our primary premise, that CO2 is gonna cause the temperatures to rise, greenhouse, it isn’t happening. So we gotta find an alternative way of persuading.” Why can’t they just admit that they were wrong about it?’ (link)
The 2C limit is what I understood was what was meant by tackling “global warming”: the case was being put to achieve this 2C limit.
We all know 18 years without warming, failed predictions, “noble” scientists in court, etc., so, when I heard these stories that some activists wanted to ditch the 2C limit I didn’t think much except it was mildly amusing – but hardly unexpected.
But reading the above quote, I realise when I read the phrase “alternative way”, that those proposing this wholesale ditching of temperature as the measure of global warming must have in mind some kind of crazy logic by which they somehow attack the single key concept of the whole scam.
From what we’ve seen, we can rule out common sense or a sudden embracing of rationalism. So, what are they thinking? It’s there core belief that there is a huge big mega enormous problem. And now they are admitting that temperature is not “scary enough”, to get the rest of the world to embrace their hysteria. But what’s plan B? What else is there? Even in their half crazy worlds where more plant growth from CO2 is seen as “evil”, there’s usually still a small amount of reasoning.
But as I read about this I’m astonished to find that they aren’t proposing any replacement!
A fundamental difference between sceptic science and global warming believers is that sceptic base their views on evidence. In contrast, believers look to see where the “consensus lies” and will accept that irrespective of the evidence.
So, to a sceptic, a measurable criteria (aka test) is key to making decisions so ditching a “test” like this seems utter madness. How do you know what you are aiming for? But the believer does what “the consensus” wants. I’ve learnt that they don’t need hard and fast goals like this. If it feels right they will sing it from the mountain tops that its “undeniable scence”. We just do what the consensus tells us to do! would be all they need to justify action.
They might be able to live with that, but that is not how government works. Civil servants do not implement “consensus”. They are told what to do in the surest possible terms by politicians and expected to do it.
But now, there’s no hard and fast ANYTHING. In effect, government is now being asked to be “nice” to the environment.
And so, government will begin “being nice”. We’ll soon have people putting up “be nice to the environment” signs everywhere and “be nice to the plants” adverts and “beware the furry animals” on roads. We’ll hate them, but at least our fuel bills will come down.
The Global warming scare is now like a massive shark – washed up on a beach flipping & flopping around where it might still look dangerous, but in reality it cannot do any harm.
So, what have the forum comments been like? Is there anyone on the Forums arguing for keeping the 2C. No!
However, I did spot this gem:
“even if all available evidence turns out to be flawed and man is not the cause of the changing climate, the only way we can control it is to change behaviours.
that is fact. the only ‘debate’ about it is brought by these lobby groups that allow governments and the private sector to avoid signing non-binding agreements.”
Even if they are totally wrong – we must do these non-binding agreements (it might make sense if they had said binding) – or was this a sceptic taking the micky?
Is the Battle over
In the past, I’ve used the analogy of a battle. Two armies come together to fight, one said “A” the other says “Not A”. They fight – and eventually the one that asserts “A”, decides that “actually A is not really something we think is important“.
They are now saying global temperature is not important.
Is there any way that the actions of those changing their mind this way, cannot be described as a victory for those who have always said that global temperature was not important?
Is this how it ends?
Are we supposed to shake hands at the end?