Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Some alarmists are waiting for skeptics to die off

Apologies for the severely lowered frequency of blogging. I've been busy with many things including my new notebook (it's amazingly fast) I bought after a decade as well as a new stage of the translation of Brian Greene's latest book.

Willie Soon has pointed out a new conflict in between two groups of climate change alarmists. What do they disagree about?

One group led by David Roberts of Grist argues that the alarmists should wait for all the climate skeptics to die off; another group, represented by Crikey, claims that the alarmists are not waiting for skeptics to die off even though they would be happy if this dream came true:
‘Cohort replacement’: Climate deniers won’t change, but they will die (Grist)

Death isn’t an option: climate change activists aren’t waiting for deniers to die (Crikey)
You may react to these texts in various ways. You may be shocked or scared. Or you don't have to be surprised at all: we may have already heard everything. Most reasonably, you should realize that the folks such as David Roberts are just unhinged impotent ideologues whose words mean absolutely nothing – and you should be as amused as your humble correspondent.

Grist argues that it's not possible to create a chicken little out of a climate skeptic. He has given up the "deficit model" that was assuming that people are skeptics because they are ignorant about something; instead, he has accepted the fact that skeptics are those who actually know the relevant atmospheric physics and economics, the alarmists are those who have a hollow skull, and the goal of the climate alarmist movement is to have a mankind composed of completely ignorant fanatics such as David Roberts himself.

Because it seems impossible to Grist to transmute a skeptic to a complete idiot, David Roberts proposes another solution: to wait when all the climate skeptics die off. It's determined that skeptics are conservative white men so the only task is to wait for the conservative white men to die off and be replaced by the liberal pink hermaphrodites, or whatever is the opposite species. If you wish, you may read the rest of the "analysis".

What I find amusing is the complete detachment of these lunatics from reality. The world population growth is comparable to 1 percent per year; in recent years, however, the number of skeptics grew by more than 10 percent a year when it pretty much doubled over the period of several years. It's really the alarmist fanatics who are dying off; the climate alarmist movement is thankfully regaining the original status of a fringe clique of psychologically unstable cranks and conspiracy theorists.

What David Roberts doesn't understand is that particular people – particular old white men – may pass away but that doesn't mean that they take their values, insights, and achievements with them. As the level of education and personal wealth goes up, an increasing number of people may become a part of the same group as the old conservative white men or climate deniers or whatever is your favorite term for the most productive part of the mankind. In fact, since the 20th century, even some blacks and women may do science and other things so the term "old conservative white men" has become an immense oversimplification: there are very, very many sensible people of all races and both genders who share the attitude to the reality, wealth, science, and climate science with the old conservative white men. At some point, most of the current alarmists will learn something and they will become skeptics, too.

This very discussion in between the members of this alarmist movement shows how unrelated to the actual policies and doable plans their wishful thinking has become. They argue about morbid ideas involving the hypothetical death of hundreds of millions or billions of people – the people who primarily drive the human civilization, a group of people that is arguably dominated by conservative white men but is very far from being restricted to conservative white men.

Crikey has asked Australia's "young environmentalists" how many of them are just passively waiting for the climate skeptics to die off, as David Roberts instructs them to do. Ellen Sandell, the director of a spoiled pubescent alarmist coalition, admits that death is too far but this fact is "frustrating". ;-)

This 8-minute video on parenting is just 6 days old but it already has 23 million views. A 15-year-old, somewhat lazy daughter wrote a disrespectful message on Facebook. Her father makes you believe that her output is vastly lower than what his output used to be when he was a teenager. The punishment? An innocent laptop will be sacrificed if you watch the whole thing... Other young girls admire this dad while a male feminist fa*got produced a parody. Another animated parody. Translation to Korean English. Lots of others on YouTube. Hat tip: Willie

I urge Ellen's father – who is probably a white man – or any other closest older white male relative to vigorously spank his daughter because he has one of the last chances to educate her and prevent her evolution into a nasty killer, terrorist, or professional environmentalist. So far, the father has failed miserably in his job of a parent.

The same recommendation applies to the parents of many other young idiots mentioned in the articles above.

Meanwhile, as they are preparing the gas chambers for the skeptics, Real Climate complains that the alarmists don't enjoy as much freedom of speech as they would like to. It's kind of incredible. They're the contemporary world's heirs to NSDAP, they're dreaming about the death of everyone who disagrees with their insane pseudoscientific prophesies, they've been trying to suppress skeptics on every day of their dirty lives so far, but they are those whose freedom of speech is threatened. Who could have thought?

No comments:

Post a Comment