“When a liberal says it’s time for you to shut up, it usually means they’re losing an argument. When they want you arrested and prosecuted, well….”
– Steven Hayward, “Climatistas Double Down on Stupid,” Power Line, March 29, 2014.
When faced with a powerful, threatening argument to a troubled paradigm, those in denial will first ignore. If this does not work, they will ridicule. And it this does not work, they will shout and even use hateful talk.
“You just don’t get it,” Jeff Skilling would tell Enron’s detractors. Ken Lay, in the middle of his company’s implosion, likened short sellers and media critics to ‘terrorists’ (his last speech to employees was a few months after 9/11). The Enron duo wanted an undeserved peace. They were really saying: “Stop the criticism. Just believe the shared narrative, and we will all be better off.” Enron, indeed, was a postmodern corporation.
Enter the Shared Narrative of catastrophic global warming. The data is going the other way, the public has all but turned off the alarm, and the climate lobby has increased their shrillness. The scholars’ hope for midcourse correction seems all but lost, given all the emotional (and financial) investment in a failing paradigm.
Romm on the Term ‘Denier’
Consider Joe Romm who in a moment of moderation (he is very emotional on the subject) once tried to distance himself from the ‘denier’ screed against critics of climate alarmism. Two years ago in a post titled “Climate Science Disinformers are Nothing like Holocaust Deniers,” he wrote:
Since I lost many relatives in the Holocaust, I understand all too well the unique nature of that catastrophe. The Holocaust is not an analogue to global warming, which is an utterly different kind of catastrophe, and, obviously, one whose worst impacts are yet to come.
But forget that! In “What Is The Difference Between A Psychic And A Climate Science Denier” (March 25, 2014), Romm combined both ridicule and name calling:
I know what the similarities are between psychics and deniers. They both use unscientific methods, generally make stuff up with no evidence to support their views, and have consistently been debunked when scrutinized.
What is the difference between a psychic and a climate science denier? In fairness, psychics sometimes guess the right answer.
Romm on ‘Alarmism’
Romm is a master of the half-truth at the expense of consistency and scholarship. The MIT Ph.D will do just about anything to score instant points, veracity aside. And he is not above pretending to be a voice of reason and moderation, not a serial exaggerator. “This notion that the environmental movement — or any other major play in the media landscape — is pushing non-stop apocalyptic messages like a broken record is one I debunked,” he once said.
But consider this Earth Day post from Dr. Doom last month. “With 7 billion people going to 9 billion, much of the environment is unsavable,” Romm stated. Without fundamental change, he continues:
the relatively stable environment and climate that made modern human civilization possible will be ruined, probably for hundreds of years … with permanent Dust Bowls in Southwest and around the globe. And that means misery for many if not most of the next 10 to 20 billion people to walk the planet.
Romm has been touting an apocalyptic climate message for years, such as this in 2012: CONCLUSION: Unrestricted emissions of greenhouse gases threaten multiple catastrophes, any one of which justifies action. Together, they represent the gravest threat to humanity imaginable” and “the alarmists have ‘won the day’ scientifically.”
I summarized such in a post titled “Alarmism or Not? Joe Romm and the ‘Crying Wolf’ Dilemma (May 1, 2012):
Confused? Even dizzy? It is not your fault. The alarmists’ alarmist Joe Romm is trying to soften a bit to have it both ways. But if Obama is a new oilman, just about anything is possible in this election season where the Hard Left is running to the middle on climate alarmism and energy policy.
Conclusion
There are multiple examples of failed prognostications about doom and gloom with population, food supply, natural resources, mineral resources, global cooling, and global warming. The alarmists even decry alarm from time to time as their message backfires.
It is all over but the shouting–however long the shouting phase lasts. There are real problems competing with the Scientist-Kings’ hypothetical ones.
I have previously noted what I refer to as “Romm’s Law”: He/she who first uses the terms “denier”, “anti-science”, “climate zombies” and their derivatives loses the argument. (Google “Godwin’s Law” for context.)
“Dr. Doom” has a contender for that “honorary” title…one well known to readers here:
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun”: Paul Ehrlich.
Paul Ehrlich’s mentee and co-author is in the WH as “science czar”. We’re doomed to pay for this insanity until 2016.
Believe it or not, Paul Ehrlich is back with new pronouncments of “we’re doomed, doomed I tell you”. He’s never been right and why anybody continues to publish him is beyond me.
It is a peculiar tradition that we reward those who make failing scientific predictions and ignore those who are correct. John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich are prime examples.
James H. Rust, Professor of nuclear engineering
And Joe Romm again today: “On the do-nothing side were well-known climate-science deniers, James Taylor of Heartland and David Kreutzer of Heritage Foundation.”
http://theenergycollective.com/josephromm/385336/most-interesting-climate-policy-debate-you-haven-t-heard
[…] and “front,” those opposed this “war effort” have been labeled anything from Nazis to Holocaust deniers. (I personally have been called a sociopath by climate activist Joe Romm of the Center for […]
William Happer recently responded to this question: “Do you have your own sense of a way to get us out of this alarmist-denier-alarmist-denier rhetoric? Or is it hopeless?”
A. I don’t know. First of all, just the term denier to someone like me is extremely offensive because it’s carefully chosen to make me look like a Nazi sympathizer. And you know, I dodged Nazi submarines when I was a kid [on a ship carrying immigrants to the United States] and my father fought against them and my mother worked on the Manhattan Project, and I found it profoundly offensive, you know, and many other people feel the same.
https://www.propublica.org/article/a-physicist-and-possible-adviser-to-trump-describes-his-love-of-science-co2?utm_source=Inside+Climate+News&utm_campaign=5479b2bf7c-Today_s_Climate12_10_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_29c928ffb5-5479b2bf7c-327748789
[…] is very fair–and it uses the term “skeptic” instead of the pejorative “denier” (as in Holocaust denier). Reporter and Climatewire Deputy Editor Robin Bravender‘s […]
[…] The Democratic Party Platform heading into the 2016 election compared the fight against global warming to World War II. “World War III is well and truly underway,” declared Bill McKibben in the New Republic. “And we are losing.” Those opposed to a new “war effort” were compared to everything from Nazis to Holocaust deniers. […]
[…] The Democratic Party Platform heading into the 2016 election compared the fight against global warming to World War II. “World War III is well and truly underway,” declared Bill McKibben in the New Republic. “And we are losing.” Those opposed to a new “war effort” were compared to everything from Nazis to Holocaust deniers. […]
[…] The Democratic Party Platform heading into the 2016 election compared the fight against global warming to World War II. “World War III is well and truly underway,” declared Bill McKibben in the New Republic. “And we are losing.” Those opposed to a new “war effort” were compared to everything from Nazis to Holocaust deniers. […]