Jump to content

A Handbook For Deniers


Recommended Posts


spacer.gif <h1 align="center"> A Handbook for Deniers</h1>

by Per Bylund

by Per Bylund Recently by Per Bylund: On the Need for a Final Arbiter

Since the esteemed climatologist Al Gore declared that "the debate is over," it seems the number of scientists denying both this fact and the accuracy of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis has continuously increased. Perhaps the "skeptics" have found the courage to speak out at this point when AGW has become universal religion and the movement’s leaders are calling for "global governance." The threat from this movement is much clearer now and the ultimate goal of the AGW prophets is finally spelled out, which of course has nothing to do with environment or climate.


The "global warming" movement is now calling for enormous "investments" in certain public policies and new political institutions to supervise people’s and firms’ emissions of CO2. To most scientists in climatology this change in the movement’s agenda is most likely unexpected; if you are not used to the political game you are not prepared when your opponent makes his politically obvious (in normal situations denoted "irrational") move.


Of course, the debate is not primarily between scientists even though such debates do exist. The literature in peer-reviewed journals in the relevant scientific disciplines have since long disproved the politicized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios. It has even been established that the global warming according to reliable data sources ended in 2001, despite the fact that CO2 emissions are greater than ever and continue to increase.



The AGW hypothesis with man-made climate change through emissions of CO2 and other "greenhouse" gasses lives on, however, as politicians and the media find in it an extremely powerful thesis that makes people feel both vulnerable and defenseless and desperate for "help." Politicians need a threat to increase their realm of power and make the masses cling to their belief in government, and the media needs disasters to attract readers and viewers (selling real news is a long-gone idea in mainstream media). To be honest, climate change is the perfect issue for the fascist state – it is a win-win game for powerful politicians, their buddies in the media, and big business.


Yet more people seem to realize that things don’t add up and that there is another side to the story, which is not generally allowed to be told. Even though most people still believe "we" are to blame, a thesis we are fed from cradle to grave by our all-too-mighty government through public schooling and media outlets, the number of people doubting the truthfulness of the theory is growing. This is why the mainstream posse needed to increase the level of blame in the overall blame game; people doubting man-made global warming were compared with holocaust deniers. People with no connection whatsoever with the study of weather and climate did not hesitate to join their fellow state worshipers, like the ignorant-of-economics-economist Professor Krugman.



Most of us laymen AGW skeptics have been dismissed with the proclaimed truth that "scientists all agree" (which really means "talking heads all agree"), but a lot of people are nevertheless beginning to doubt. We may be approaching a tipping point, at which politicians will be desperate to find another made-up disaster to rally support for their destructive policies. In other words, this may be an opportunity to not only get rid of the climate change scare – but also force the "noble" savages back to their Platonic caves.


One way of doing so is to be ready for and engage in the discussion – and do so wisely. This is the purpose, I believe, of Joanne Nova’s comic-book-style The Skeptic’s Handbook (PDF), in which she describes how to "[r]ise above the mud-slinging of the Global Warming debate." The book shows how to use the existing and scientific facts properly and how not to accept non-answers such as referring to authority or cheap ad hominems. It also supplies the facts and the only points that matter. It is a short manual for constructively pursuing debates with AGWers and in that sense it is truly a "skeptic’s handbook."


Perhaps Newton was right in that "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" and that this is applicable to public political discourse. There is just a slight delay between the action and the reaction, just like there is a proven time lapse between increase in temperature to increase in CO2.


July 13, 2009

Per Bylund [send him mail] is a Ph.D. student in economics at the University of Missouri and the founder of

Anarchism.net. Visit his website www.PerBylund.com or his blog where he comments on this article and more.

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.


Find this article at:

http://www.lewrockwe...genbach3-1.html btn-print-page.gif

Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article. Copyright 2009 LewRockwell.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, the jury's still out on this one for me: I don't believe one way or another. I have yet to hear a convincing argument from the people that propose a man made global warming apocalypse if we don't start drastically cutting carbon emissions. I have also good reason to be skeptical about any claims from GOP media that the above mentioned global warming is a fraud, because whether it is or not they are most certainly tied into oil companies. The GOP has a very big conflict of interest in this because a lot of their funding comes from multinational oil corporations which they have used the CIA to protect in the past.. However I can't help but feel that this all smacks of a dupe, the left wing version of the "clash of civilizations" scenario; a dupe played on the public with the idea of scaring everyone shitless and using fear to manipulate them. So basically this "War on Carbon Emissions" could be a lot like the "War on Terror", except far less harmful in a sense as no one will be tortured in it's name. If only the War on Terror had actually ended...


I think I should also add that I used to "believe" in APW, but eventually I realized there where many credible scientists with serious reservations about this, and "consensus" in the scientific community hardly determines scientific truth, in fact "truth" based on alleged mere consensus goes against what science is all about.. It has to work, and that's why scientists have peer reviewed journals. I also realized that the grounding I had for understanding global warming wasn't something that really made sense and that I was merely having "faith" in something with not enough coherence versus understanding something intelligible to me that is coherent and makes sense.


Freeman Dyson himself has trashed APW, and it's not merely just because he is a rebel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.