Believers in man-made-catastrophe can’t win over skeptics with evidence and reason. Instead the peak “believers” intellectual strategy is to hope the oldies might die off in time to save the planet: Death isn’t an option: climate change activists aren’t waiting for deniers to die.
It’s sexist, ageist, intolerant and illogical: just what we’ve come to expect from “progressives”, eh?
Oh the hubris and arrogance of the terminally immature
Take their conclusion that because skeptics are older, they are less educated, more selfish, and more easily fooled. Doesn’t the alternative sound more likely? Could it be that believers are younger and so more naive, less worldly wise, and throughout history, more likely to be the gullible rollovers — the mere tools of the powers at large? It’s not just that it’s happened before, its a standard repeat theme throughout history.
But hey, it’s not their fault they are young and badly taught. When we don’t teach logic and reason at school anymore, we can’t expect them to recognize that con-men and crooks always pretend to be “helpful” at the start of a scam, and that people who attack the messenger are the one who are losing the debate. Besides, everyone knows that educational standards have slipped badly in the last 20 – 30 years, and that today’s students are given more self esteem and less, you know, facts and logic.
Whatever – – none of it tells us anything about the planetary atmosphere. Not that you can explain that to the starry-eyed fan of Gaia who keeps believing the witchdoctors even though their predictions of droughts, warm winters, hot summers, dead reefs, and wild cyclones were all wrong. And they don’t seem to care that their witchdoctors are helping themselves to buckets of taxpayer’s cash…
The immature believers struggle with numbers:
Mathew Wright, executive director of Beyond Zero Emissions and the 2010 winner of the federal environment minister’s Young Environmentalist of the Year, says: things are moving faster than they ever have before, and the fact that solar didn’t work 20 years ago but works now is a problem that for some people is hard to face and admit to.”
So what does “works” mean? Not something you can measure with money or kilowatts. Coal fired electricity costs 3c a kilowatt wholesale, and the government is paying up to 60c a KWH for solar electricity. The Victoria Auditor General showed large scale solar costs about 5.5 times as much as coal, and at best, rooftop solar costs at least 9 times as much.
So Wright thinks something “works” when taxpayers have to fork out 5- 20 times as much for the same electricity? No sane business would sell a product like that in a free market, because no sane customer would buy it. (That must be why the numerically challenged like to make money through government grants rather than by competing with people who can do sums). What does “works” mean? Those of us with the humility to know that we don’t have all the answers, let the free market decide.
Lindsay Soutar is blind to big numbers and the big-money-on-his-side too. He thinks this is not about age, but about “money”, blaming mining giants, and energy utilities for the money he can’t name but imagines they spend. If he wanted to research his views he’d find the people who defend the status quo the most are the government departments, the financial traders, and the renewables industry. (Respectively in the order of $7 billion (US govt alone), $140b and $243b annually). The Big Money is with big government departments, big financial houses, and big-pro-carbon-scare industries.
Notably, like Wright, Soutar won The Young Environmentalist of the Year (2011), which only goes to show how much those awards are worth. More taxpayer money used to reward people who help the government get more taxpayer money. Sorry, was the environment important? How many species, or acres of environment did they save?
People who can’t deal with big numbers like “60”, are complaining that those who can are in “denial”. Our hearts go out to them. It must be tough to cope in a world with so many numbers.
Watch the so-called “compassionate” crowd bask in festering intolerance
Let’s rephrase the drivel. If I said this, would I be called racist?
“Conservative white older men (Progressive young black women) are the most likely group to deny the threat of climate change (the data)*.”
I doubt that statement is true, and I can’t be bothered looking up the polls to see. My point is that our so-called moral guardians are every bit as intolerant and racist as the racists they supposedly “expose”. Hypocrites united.
And their pop-psychology-reasoning is as vapor-thin as ever. Nearly every statement they make can be turned inside out, and turned against them.
“Younger people don’t have any financial vested interest in climate change, and seeing older people denying it annoys young people because they are putting profits and lifestyle in front of the future.”
Let’s rephrase that:
“Older people don’t have any financial vested interest in climate change (because they are retired and free to speak without affecting their career), and seeing younger people denying the data, and falling into the same old traps, is frustrating for longer-lived and wiser folk…”
The same believers of man-made catastrophe are usually the first to yell “sexist” or “racist”, and yet they are the ones discussing the deaths of old white guys as if it might help the “planet”. The ageism is rampant, as well as ingratitude, arrogance and ignorance.
The name-calling betrays the “education” level
The term “denial” or denier or variation thereof, is a cheap Orwellian trick that the puppets unwittingly pick up. It just can’t be justified in any form of it’s true English language meaning.
They can’t name any scientific observations we deny. They still can’t find that mystery paper in support of the assumptions that imply warming will be greater than 1.2C.
As long as the petulant name-callers deny the meaning of English words, and are still referring to Nobel Prize winning scientists as “deniers” there is no chance they can hold a polite conversation about the evidence. A real debate to help the poor and save the environment can’t even begin while one side condones a form of namecalling that stops them even listening to the conversation.
As usual, those who chant “denier” are the ones in denial.
900 peer reviewed papers that support skeptics
31,000 US scientists signed a skeptical petition (the debate is not settled)
The request for the evidence that no one can find.
Big-Government outspent Big-Oil 3,500 to 1