Saturday, March 17, 2007

Climate Change Deniers v. Climate Change Fascists

Ker-plunk has a great post about a debate between the two groups, a debate for which the science is supposed to be settled, remember?

Here are the participants, as well as some commentary:

The Deniers were:

- Michael Crichton
- Richard Lindzen
- Philip Stott

The Fascists were:

- Brenda Ekwurzel
- Gavin Schmidt
- Richard Somerville

Before the debate started the audience's position on Global warming is not a crisis was as follows:

30% Agree
57% Disagree
13% Undecided

After the debate the audience was polled again, with the following outcome:

46% Agree
42% Disagree
12% Undecided

How can it be that such a massive swing took place in the space of a couple of hours? If the 'science is settled' then why were the Climate Fascists not only not able to hold their position but actually increase it? And why would Gavin 'the debate is over' Schmidt even agree to a debate in the first place?

I forgot to mention that this debate has not been widely reported in the mainstream media. If the Fascists had won then do you think it wouldn't have been splattered all over the media?



Unknown said...

Ine of the biggest global warming proponents has come out and admitted that it isn't science.

Darren said...


Duez said...

The post losses it's credibility with the word "Fascists" being thrown about. Sorry. Not a very good way to convince people that do not see it your way.

Ellen K said...

I think Global Warming is as close to a quasi-religious agenda as the left is going to sanction. I mean you have to have faith that the people in charge know the truth and you have to blindly adhere to the statements from said experts to remain a member. If we changed the phrase Global Warming to any religion the concept would still fit. I find it alarming that people who should deal in facts are instead relying on conjecture. We know very little about the earth's cycles because in terms of geology, we have been able to track stats only a very short time. In a period when we need truth, instead we are given rhetoric. And God help you if you don't fall in lockstep with the agenda. I wonder if they have looked down the road to wonder what would happen if everything they thought was right, was actually wrong. There have already been examples where tree planting and other such "environmentally friendly" actions have negatively impacted the atmosphere. Good intentions with bad science could be a formula for disaster. Especially when real scientists who deal with factual evidence over conjecture are losing their jobs in order to make universities and organizations appear to be in agreement.

Darren said...

40, the author chose both words intentionally. Fascist is a loaded word, but so is "denier"--as in "holocaust denier". His intent was to cause offense to both, if any offense was to be had.

I don't think the title causes any loss of credibility at all. Then again, I don't have an emotional investment in one side or the other.

Unknown said...

No, no. 40 means that only liberals are allowed to throw "fascist" about, which is ironic, since fascism is a left-wing political movement, just as the Nazis were.

You know, like only heterosexual white males can be racists, because they're "privileged." That sort of nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Darren, there is a documentary playing now on Google Video entitled, "The Great Global Warming Swindle." A student at my school altered the school community to it. Several months ago, the students and faculty viewed, "An Inconvenient Truth". This particular student was dismayed by the fact that many of his peers accept the information presented in "An Inconvenient Truth" as fact. So, in order to present the other side, he is encouraging students to watch, "The Great Global Warming Swindle."

The student is correct. He and his peers should be presented to multiple perspectives.

Darren said...

Anonymous said...

Creationists nearly ALWAYS win debates against evolutionists. So I guess creationism is right and evolution is wrong.

Science doesn't operate on the results of circus-style "debates." No one reported it because no one cares. Utterly without a point.

You only picked it up because it was one of those rare items that seemed to give comfort to your scientifically-refuted, outside-the-mainstream opinion.

If moon landing deniers beat moon landing fascists in a debate, would you jump on that bandwagon?

In the immortal words of John Stossel, "Give me a break."

Darren said...

I thought the science was "settled", and that part of the reason it was "settled" was because so many scientists believed it to be so. In other words, a consensus. So now that the numbers go another way, you don't like it.

As to why the story didn't get traction, it's because devoutists like you don't want to hear it. And you are as much a zealot in your beliefs as is Jerry Falwell in his. Congratulations, Reverend.

Ellen K said...

I put "An Inconvenient Truth" in the same category as the 9/11 conspiracy film "Loose Change"-they both have hidden agendas and in both cases some facts have been picked to support their cases while other facts have been blatantly ignored. You can't get at any type of "truth" if you don't permit all the facts to be presented.
BTW, there are people in developing cultures that are being kept in poverty due to the perception by their governments that mining, the local industry, is more harmful than starving. Such is the mentality of liberals who don't seen the big picture and would rather keep a culture primitive and picturesque than allowing it to develop and flourish.