Explaining Climate Change To Committed Liberals
I took to Twitter last weekend to respond to a tweet from Bette Midler about the temperature, the Koch brothers, climate change and, most importantly, climate deniers. It was climate deniers who were the target of her wrath. Midler made clear in her tweet that she believed climate deniers caused a 66 degree day in December in NYC. Her argument was so vacuous, I concluded she needed a non liberal explaining climate change so even liberals understand.
That’s where I came in. Clearly, the concept of causality completely eludes her, so I figured I’d respond by explaining climate change. I wish I could say, at this point, that I was just trying to help, but if I said that, I’d be lying like a Clinton. The truth of the matter is that I decided to have a little fun at Bette Midler’s expense.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that I couldn’t help Ms. Midler, it’s that I didn’t want to. Anyone who believes that climate deniers are somehow responsible for the temperature is beyond help. Midler, like most liberals, allows liberal dogma to overrule logic because liberalism is more important than facts.
— Bette Midler (@BetteMidler) December 24, 2015
My response pointed out that average, run of the mill climate deniers can’t actually effect the temperature. I sarcastically added that there are only a select few of us climate deniers who are empowered to change the temperature. Hopefully the sarcasm will help liberals understand that climate deniers aren’t responsible for warm days in December.
Overcoming Liberal Dogma With Climate Change Facts
Explaining climate change to liberals is a challenge because liberal dogma is exceedingly difficult to overcome. No more so than when it concerns climate change. Facts about climate change don’t matter at all to liberals, because climate change is more religion than science to liberals. They avoid any climate change discussions that focus on temperature or other demonstrable facts. The only climate change related number liberals ever use is the 97 percent consensus. The so called 97 percent consensus is the universal safe place for liberals for all things related to climate change. The real problem for liberals and climate change alarmists is that their claim that 97% of climate scientists agree is a lie.
The study which produced the 97 percent consensus actually only had 33 respondents who met the qualifiers established by the author. So, 33 scientists of dubious pedigree make up the consensus used by liberals to carry the argument. By the way, specifically excluded from the study that produced the vaunted 97 percent consensus were solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
Even if there is consensus among real climate scientists — which there isn’t — consensus does not mean correct. Consensus is meaningless if the group agrees on something that is incorrect. For 90 years, a 100% consensus of scientists agreed that Pluto was a planet. Not so, as it turns out. Jonah Goldberg summed up the point nicely, “the more important point is that consensus — manufactured or otherwise — is not how science is done.”
The fact remains that there is no appreciable global warming at all, let alone man made. There has been no demonstrable global warming for 19 years and no consensus of opinion can overcome that fact. But watch the video by Michael Loftus. It does a good job of clearing up the consensus myth and delivers lots of laughs.