Cameron Slater vs The Pope and the Greens on climate change

23
1

quantum2

Nothing highlights the intellectual bankruptcy of the Whaleoil blog quite like their climate denial. Now we know Slater gets paid by industries trying to conduct smears and propaganda, I wonder how much of Cam’s climate denial is corporate funded.

Now Cam is up against the Pope who has singled out climate change as one of the most pressing issues facing humanity – because it is.

Climate Change stopped being a scientific issue some time ago, it’s now a cultural issue. Those who have benefitted most from free market capitalism don’t want to hear that the party is over. It’s those wealthy few from the leafy suburbs driving their monster 4x4s who don’t want to hear about climate change. It’s corporate farmers who don’t want to hear about climate change. It’s the oil industry, corporations and right wing Politicians who refuse to engage because they can’t counter the science and the dire consequences of doing nothing.

The Right simply can’t acknowledge they have been wrong on this issue and that free market economics can’t answer the problem.

In the meantime, the NZ Greens have been hammering Climate Change as a major theme and can point to more and more extreme weather events as proof they are actually engaging with a reality that is happening now.

Climate denial and those who peddle it have allowed Politicians to do nothing, the sooner we ignore their self interested sophistry the sooner we can force solutions through the political process.

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

23 COMMENTS

  1. Slater is a simpleton who appeals to simpletons and unfortunately there’s plenty of them out there!

  2. Martyn’

    We have so many amongst us that wont face reality so they wont wake up till it is to late, just as was predicted in the movie, “The day after tomorrow.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnvqsWVluCE

    Climate denial and those who peddle it have allowed Politicians to do nothing, the sooner we ignore their self interested sophistry the sooner we can force solutions through the political process.

    • What exactly is ‘climate denial’? No-one denies that there is a ‘climate’ or that it is changing. The debate is over the extent to which mankind is contributing to that change, and how effective any action we take will be. There are actually some intellectual heavyweights on both sides of this debate, and I for one am still watching how this debate develops. But one thing I can say is that referring to one of the worst movies ever to come out of hollywood as somehow supporting one side or the other is evidence of an ignorance that is as laughable as it is astonishing.

      • I believe climate change is occurring rapidly. Regardless of what has caused this. We are the only things on this planet that can stop it.

        The reason for which I believe this is going on, is the fact that Animals are changing. Their instincts, patterns and even bodies are evolving according to how our climate is. I have seen documentaries about penguins and seals etc in the arctic. Due to rising temperatures (conclusive evidence) the ways in which these animals are behaving is strange compared with what would normally go on.

        If we are not causing this, say perhaps the suns energy is increasing or something. Whatever. We are the only people who can reverse it.

        • Yes, I believe the climate is changing. It has been for millions of years. But if we aren’t causing it, or are a very minor contributor, how do you propose we can make any significant difference?

          • This is such disingenuous bullshit DD and you know it – ‘the climate has been changing for millions of years’ is an attempt to spin – you are a David Farrar styled climate denier in that you nod your head in agreement that there is climate change but it won’t be as abad as the ‘alarmists’ – it’s the new climate denial. You are part of the problem.

          • You want to believe in millions of years of change yet geological evidence suggests stability most of the time with periods of rapid change. In my 50 years i have seen more rapid change in this decade than our records have shown for millennium. Science suggests that Carbon in the atmosphere is a cause so reducing Carbon emissions is something we can all do to help.

      • In context, the meaning of the term “climate denier” is obvious.

        If you can’t work it out then perhaps this forum is too sophisticated for you.

        There is no debate in terms of the science supporting existence of anthropogenic global warming.

        Not a single scientific body on the planet, with no exceptions, and most importantly notably those representing science in all the physical and Earth sciences, rejects the science consensus view that humans are altering (warming) the climate through release of greenhouse gases.

        • You missed the subtlety in my first sentence, so I’ll be more direct for you. I don’t buy the outright denial, but neither do I buy the alarmist rhetoric, which is why I call BS on expressions like ‘climate denial’. They are meaningless expressions designed to shut down debate by people who cannot argue the science. Your sentence “There is no debate in terms of the science supporting existence of anthropogenic global warming.” is another in a long line of misleading statements made by alarmists. We may well be influencing the climate, but by how much? What proportion of climate change is man-made, and how much is re-occurring natural phenomena? Your claim for consensus is just posturing, and yet another pathetic attempt to shut down debate There is robust debate around the extent to which our activities are contributing to climate change, and there are many scientists who question the AGW alarmism you seem to adhere to.

          Until you can demonstrate incontrovertible evidence that man is a major contributor to climate change, and that that is reversible, climb back into your cave. The vast majority of people don’t believe you.

          • ” They are meaningless expressions designed to shut down debate by people who cannot argue the science”

            im curious here dave – you obviously know what the terms mean – yet you are debating the semantics of the terms – instead of the science, by focusing on this.

            then you throw around terms like alarmist and make claims to know what everyone thinks while criticising others for doing the same – and seem to think science is based on incontrovertible claims instead of ever evolving and contestable theories.

            Your being the exact thing that your accusing others of, all the while ignoring that RC has put a qualifier on their statement from the get go –

            “Not a single scientific body on the planet, with no exceptions, and most importantly notably those representing science in all the physical and Earth sciences, rejects the science consensus view that humans are altering (warming) the climate through release of greenhouse gases”

            Its a little odd and inconsistent as an argument to me

          • Your sentence “There is no debate in terms of the science supporting existence of anthropogenic global warming.” is another in a long line of misleading statements made by alarmists.

            It’s a fact.

            Name a single scientific organisation that rejects the scientific consensus that mankind is warming the planet.

            Name a single scientific organisation that states warming caused by man will have no adverse conequences.

            Those that you term “alarmists” have the weight of the world’s scientific community in support of their position.

            You don’t.
            You have nothing.
            Nothing except angry rhetoric.

            http://climate.nasa.gov/

    • Suggest you take a look at wattsupwiththat.com for a balanced view. Just saying

      Thanks for the suggestion but I’m not that stupid.

      I prefer to get my science from the scientists who do the hard work and who understand what they are talking about. Not from blogs.

      NASA, for example, is a good source of reliable climate science.

      So should you.

  3. It’s human nature to avoid uncomfortable truths, the ‘masses’ are happy being fed bullshit, even the masses of the so called ‘aware’ are happy to be fed mountains of happy chapter rubbish.
    The Greens being a prime example, with their savings scam, and growth based ambitions, the Pope will be just doing lip service to the ‘issues’ as well.

    “most pressing issues facing humanity” I guess near term extinction is ‘pressing’

    “it’s now a cultural issue”
    It is not just “Those who have benefited most from free market” et al that are to ‘blame’ it is all you mums and dads, with your nonstop urge to keep having more of us.
    It sucks, but 7 billion people is just to many for earth.
    If we hadn’t spent the past 1,000 years or so in wanton selfish ignorant destruction of our life support systems, we might have been able to support us, but the human friendly environment is utterly screwed for -humans-
    There are so many positive feed backs in place now, the total meltdown of the human supporting habitat is happening at an increasing rate.
    We are fast running out of the feed stock for this system, be it energy, top soil, water, clean air, fictional $.
    There is a blood bath coming, lucky little NZ gets front row seats.
    The refugees turning up at our borders might be in nuke powered aircraft carriers.
    —–
    —– The road to the future leads us smack into the wall. We simply ricochet off the alternatives that destiny offers: a demographic explosion that triggers social chaos and spreads death, nuclear delirium and the quasi-annihilation of the species… Our survival is no more than a question of 25, 50 or perhaps 100 years.

    – Jacques Cousteau (1910-1997)

  4. And judith collins and her husband are an example of this too, prospering from the fat of the land and now the kauri logs, unable to come up with wealth that doesn’t rely on plundering our natural resources and breaking the law. What really grates is these people think they are so clever coz they got rich and anyone who isn’t wealthy must be a bit of a loser.

    Thanks god for this pope reminding everyone of this inconvenient truth

  5. Yes, I read Slater’s rants on climate change on WhaleOil, absolutely ludicrous. It really makes him look stupid.

    Slater basically used to cherry pick one or two studies that cast a bit of doubt on climate change, but you can’t pick and choose isolated results like that, you have to look at the overall weight of evidence, which overwhelmingly shows that climate change is very real.

    Now right-wingers are trying to claim that climate change won’t be too bad, but our understanding of astronomy says otherwise.

    So lets consider astronomy. If you look at Venus and Mars, you actually see two planets that used to be Earth-like early in their history – but you can see that things went very badly wrong. In the case of Venus, it got locked into a runaway greenhouse effect that utterly destroyed the planet very quickly …it’s now a hell world with crushing temperatures and atmospheric pressures. All the planets astronomers know about so far, something has gone wrong , the climates are all unstable.

    The above tells us that planetary climates in general are really very fragile, and that Earth was just very lucky to remain stable for long enough for life to develop. Climate change could certainly have unpredictable dire consequences , no doubt about that.

  6. Really there is no time or even reason to try and convince those who deny climate change for whatever reason. Any massive cultural shift had stupid people clinging to the wreckage of their once comfortable assumptions. The World moved on without them. They are best ignored. There is hard work to be done and quick smart too.

      • It’d help if say, you stopped falsifying data and making crap up.

        Who pulled the chord attached to your back?

        Bleating *data falsification/making stuff up* = zombie science denier troll-speak.

        The scientific community has robust mechanisms for checking data, rechecking, evaluating data and rechecking again.

        Ask NASA.

        You can trust NASA.
        They spend billions on studying the climate.
        NASA is not lying to you.

        http://climate.nasa.gov/

  7. So the pope is scientist and expert on climate now is he? In any case the only “solutions” I’ve heard from believers is tax, tax, and more tax.

  8. I have been following the issue of climate change for some 15 years, have researched many articles, read and have a number of books on the subject. Many of the deniers statements are continually repeated yet have been proven wrong. There is no doubt in my mind that climate extremes are increasing due to human activities on the planet. Yes there is uncertainty but only as far as the extent and speed change will occur. It is happening faster than the scientists anticipated. Simultaneously we face other issues. But if we all accept we are in this together, we could start the conversation of how we could create a better society.

    • Interestingly, Ross, there have been two examples of organic-based events impacting on this planet’s atmosphere.

      The first was 2.1 – 2.7 billion years ago, when cyanobacteria (stromatolites) transformed this planet’s atmosphere from primarily methane-based, to oxygen-based. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/earth_timeline/first_life)

      The second was much more recent, where human activity, using chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) nearly destroyed Earth’s ozone layer. Thankfully, the threat to our existence was discovered in time, and CFCs were phased out.

      So not only is it possible for living organisms to affect this planet’s atmosphere, but it has happened already.

      Something climate change deniers studiously ignore.

Comments are closed.