Thursday, 19 March 2015

Picking apart the attacks

This is not a true information piece, just a demonstration of dealing with misinformation techniques used by the dictatorial cheerleaders of any dishonest and corrupt regime, this century best represented by the global warming fanatics. Here is an archetypal statement made a moment ago using every trick known by lawyers and politicians, and as a result caused western law to ban such practices in a courtroom as it exploited witnesses and misled juries. The brother of the direct leading question is the false assumption, where the proposer sets it as a given "We all hate Jews/blacks etc/ want to reduce our carbon footprint/ want to shit in our neighbour's gardens (OK I made the last one up, but you get the picture)", and go on to try and sell you a product or idea based on not the fact but the claim presented as a fact. Over half of people (as proved in surveys) go along with it as it is like catching fish with a lure rather than bait. It looks like food, it moves like food, I'll eat it and be caught.

Here is the guilty statement:

"Denial is such a sad mental state to be in...try seeking the help of a mental health professional in order to cope with reality. You may feel better, be more likeable and finally increase your decision-making capacity and positive outcomes"

Besides its clear patronising stance, by beginning a statement with a claim of 'denial' it brings in both the existing followers, who already believe such nonsense, and the waverers who hadn't yet made their minds up. The remainder are free of ideology so simply feel insulted and walk away before the person tries to take their money, wife or house, or all three. It then makes personal insults, as if you could be 'more likeable and feel better' you're clearly shit right now according to their personal opinion. And when they expand you discover their term 'denial' doesn't mean the handful of people, mainly highly qualified scientists, who say CO2 cannot cause any warming, who actually call themselves 'slayers', but everyone who does not totally accept man made CO2 emissions will wreck the planet.

So even the few believers who are not quite as determined as they are to ruin the world's economy just yet, but totally buy into the GW trope otherwise such as Bjorn Lomborg are lumped together with all the others because even a small absence of acceptance of every single element is seen as a heresy and they see no difference between a 2% sceptic such as Ljomborg and the slayers. To them they are the same as Jews were to Hitler, one distant Jewish ancestor, and you got the yellow star and concentration camp.  If you don't agree with the entire Koran, I mean UN, you are a heretic and only worthy, according to some, of the death penalty. I am not exaggerating, and speaking against global warming religion is being pushed as a crime by Al Gore and many like him.

Making an appeal to change personal is a smart trick. It makes the person take their attention totally away from the issue, back to them, and then to fitting in with society. It's basically saying 'Don't be like an outcast, come and join our club, you're not a Jew so why help or defend them, even defending a Jew makes you one of them and we will add you to the list'. Or denier, what's the difference, the mechanism is the same. The only difference being you can't stop being a Jew, but as a so-called denier, you are able to change sides and stop being an apologist, a Jew-lover, and join the majority who hate and persecute Jews just like Uncle Adolf told them to.

Of course these creeps wouldn't keep rolling out these tricks if they didn't work. For every one who resists some will fall, the trap was set and many simply see the words and take them literally. "I am a denier, denial is bad, I must stop denying or I may be convicted of a crime and even lose my life. I believe, I am converted." This is how the world has gone, with politicians and scientists working together to convert weak minds from Austria to Zambia and everywhere in between. That is a known, but the added information is how to see through these technically cheating manipulations of people's minds and thoughts and let them bounce off you like an inappropriate insult would naturally. Of course calling someone a denier is an inappropriate insult, as currently there is far too little known to have something to deny. But they treat it as certain as the sun rising each day and knowing the exact moment it will. Even though the actual warming they talk about has nearly all never happened.

So, assumption follows assumption. You're a denier, you do not accept reality. That is a complete state, like pregnancy. Something is either real or not. Global warming is a slightly known about potential which may happen in 50-100 years but none of us alive today will be likely to see it either way. That is their reality. The physical trend, requiring CO2 warming to cause humidity increased warming and then climate problems is a multi stage process which besides the CO2 rise responding with a very minor rise in temperature (the 0.8C is made up of nature (25-50% but no one really knows), and adjustments which raise a basically flat random trend to a hockey stick which ended around the end of the 20th century and has now worn off, the decadal trend now reducing per year. That is not anything but a minor response to a major change, a 50% rise in CO2. Add to that every previous warm period corresponded with a rise in CO2, but after the temperature rose, means CO2 is released by the oceans when nature warms the earth and follows the temperature, meaning its role is mixed at most, certainly not all as a cause of warming rather than an effect. In fact the long used holocene temperature records prove our current peak is a regular occurrence, the red herring was our burning of fossil fuel, and in fact it just happened to coincide with an inevitable rise, one which happened many times before and never before caused by CO2. And we are at a lower peak than the others.

Once you look at the context, the only thing you can deny is that we are at a natural regular peak, and maybe the rise in CO2 was caused by the rise in temperature. I have yet in twenty or more years of reading the papers to see this single diagram which puts every other claim into context, and removes much of the weight from the claims man's output of CO2 and nothing else is responsible for the current warming, even though they cannot prove it and there are many other known causes, although not the exact degrees. Do I call people who disagree with this deniers? Not exactly, as proxy temperatures are fairly easy to revise, as the UN did three times so far, by conjuring away the medieval warm period and then bringing back a shadow of its former self. They claim new methods make it easier to measure the past, but so far not one scientist has ever questioned the diagram above, it is the best known holocene record, and therefore impossible to attribute today's rise on anything if it was always going to happen anyway. The longer record shows the same peaks every time, and happen approximately every 10,000 years, we were due for it right now, and we have it, but less than before, despite the additional CO2. If you can figure that out then there may be something to actually deny, till then this is the position and it is a complete uncertainty, one which is not open to a single claim of knowns, as even the temperature itself is mainly estimated by filling in gaps where there are no measurements, and altering for local conditions.

Ultimately denying it is uncertain is the only true sense of possible denial in man made global warming. All other claims and accusations are simply mind games played by the unscrupulous.

No comments:

Post a Comment