People who deny global climate change have been called “crackpots and conspiracy theorists” by British politician Ed Davey. Speaking at a meeting of business executives, Davey came down hard on those who are deniers of global warming:
“Of course there will always be those with a vested interest in the status quo who seek to create doubt where there is certainty,” Mr. Davey said during a speech in Brussels, “and you will always get crackpots and conspiracy theorists who will deny they have a nose on their face if it suits them.” Davey was referring to those who remain unconvinced that global warming is real, even in the face of an overwhelming body of scientific evidence.
Davey went on to discuss the future ramifications of global climate change, issuing an ominous warning and saying that gambling on the issue is akin to negligence that should land someone in jail:
Climate change’s long-term impact on the global economy? Well, we can be sure it will make current economic troubles look mild in comparison. So if you meet in your boardrooms people who still doubt the evidence, ask them how they normally assess risk and how they normally act on the evidence and presence of risk. For on the basis of any normal risk assessment – weighing probability against impact, weighing the cost of acting against the costs of inaction – taking a gamble on climate change wouldn’t be just incredibly stupid, it would have you locked up in jail for corporate negligence.
His statements themselves actually have some science to back them. A study performed in Australia entitled “NASA faked the moon landing – Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science” found that people who deny global warming are also more likely to deny other scientifically proven facts, such as the link between HIV and A.I.D.S., the link between smoking and lung cancer, and other findings that are supported by a large body of peer-reviewed published evidence.
Deniers of global warming were also more likely to believe in conspiracy theories such as the moon landing being faked or Martin Luther King being killed by the government. But researchers say there’s a perfectly rational explanation for this this type of thinking, and it should come as no surprise that conspiracy theorists would reject scientific findings.
“Science is about weeding out bad ideas,” said head scientist Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, “With conspiracy theories, you start out with a theory and stick to it no matter what the evidence, so it is not that surprising that conspiracy theorists would not accept scientific propositions … If the scientific evidence is overwhelming and you don’t like the conclusion, you have to find a way to reject those findings.”
Some lawmakers in the United States agree, with one even going so far as to advocate ridicule of those who are climate change deniers. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), speaking at a conference, said “The power of ridicule should be deployed here. You have to get to the point where a major candidate for public office is disqualified when he or she denies climate science.”
No matter how adamant lawmakers are that global warming exists, global warming deniers will continue to keep the debate alive.
By: Rebecca Savastio
Source: The Telegraph
Source: Seattle Pi
Source: The Telegraph
Discover more from Guardian Liberty Voice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
8 Responses
“If the scientific evidence is overwhelming and you don’t like the conclusion, you have to find a way to reject those findings.”
“Head Scientist” Lewandowsky has his science back to front. You can never prove science right you can only prove it wrong. The problem with rejecting the global warming/climate change theory is that it is not well-defined. So more warming “proves” it, so does more cooling, more rain, less rain, more extreme events, fewer extreme events etc etc. Global Warming science cannot make accurate predictions so it is hard to show that the predictions did not happen. The best the IPCC can do is offer “projections” which it points out are definately not predictions.
‘ … said head scientist Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, “With conspiracy theories, you start out with a theory and stick to it no matter what the evidence …’
He should know, that is exactly what he does!
‘His statements themselves actually have some science to back them. A study performed in Australia entitled “NASA faked the moon landing – Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science” ‘
Has anyone run this past the 49 NASA employees, including moon landing astronauts, who wrote the letter mentioned here? http://www.livescience.com/19640-nasa-astronauts-global-warming-letter.html
“and you will always get crackpots and conspiracy theorists who will deny they have a nose on their face if it suits them.”
We call such people politicians!
It has been warming for the last 15000 years or so and it will cool again. One good eruption could send us back to the temp of 700 hundred years ago. The earth sun cycle is going to be changing to a cooler time. Should be punishment for calling fire, fire, fire into a crowd when there is no fire. Good I hope it does warm more here as the winters are to cold. Good this endless sand should get wetter and greener. To me it sounds like liberal media blowing hot air using scare tactics for ratings. If you want to clean up the air, force the super ships to cleaner and higher grade fuel. No media alarm about that but it is the biggest problem in the world.
Have the recent observations, which shows the affect CO2 has on temperature to be minimal or non-existant over the last 15 years, caused the AGW crowd to be reduced to infantile name calling?
I believe in the moon landings, I don’t believe that 9/11 was an inside job and I believe Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald and not the CIA.
However I do question the absolute blind bias I see in the media regarding the Global warming situation. I am an engineer so I do have a technical grasp of things and when I see the famous hockey stick graph now showing a levelling off since 1998 I get frustrated by the denial that this could be significant, and the scramble by scientists to make the models fit observation.
We hear the usual “the underlining trend is up”, “the heat has switched into the oceans” (Who flicked the switch in 1998 ?)
Of course there is an undeniable reduction in the Arctic sea ice cover but there is a corresponding increase in the Antarctic so really what is going on?
Your provocative picture of Penguins sat on an ice flow implies this situation is caused by a loss of ice and they are huddled there because of this. Check the facts, Antarctica has increased sea ice!!!
The bottom line is the global temperature seems to have plateaued, stop denying it and stop ridiculing average sensible people who look at the basic graph that started all this and who actually see that right now there appears to be little or no upward trend.
We should all be grateful that maybe, just maybe the scientists got it wrong and we are all not going to go up in a ball of flames. The trouble is pride, ego and the fear of losing face will stop them admitting this.
Unfortunately you have been reading misinformation.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/
The overall trend is that warming is still continuing but as mentioned above, no amount of evidence can convince a denier such as yourself because it simply doesn’t fit what you believe in.