Recently in Angry Rants Category

New debate - treachery or delusion?

| 11 Comments | 0 TrackBacks
Here's a debate:  Is AGW denialism treachery or delusion?


Global warming is unfolding faster than expected.
CO2 makes global warming worse, and happen sooner
Carbon fuels generate CO2; more CO2 emissions make the problem worse.
The only known way to reduce CO2 is to reduce fossil fuel combustion
All this is well known and agreed to by all -  except by denialists
These people disagree, deny and obstruct by claiming CO2 is blameless
They may be delusional, or they may be paid propagandists
Either way they are wrong.
If we work to make our world safe, and somebody purposefully gets in the way,
They are making us unsafe.  Even if they really believe otherwise.
Appeasing CO2 polluters hastens human demise
An obstructionist denier who blocks or delays information is harming everyone, even themselves.
Even if they believe it themselves, they pitch scientific falsehoods.
Denialists are not acting like flat-earth believers, or Holocaust deniers, or Elvis Spotters.
These are not silent believers, these are active obstructionists.
While they are entitled to their beliefs, they are not permitted to endanger others.
Their actions hinder our survival
No matter what their beliefs or intentions,
Their actions amount to treachery and sabotage.
And we cannot allow them to continue. 
They are now on notice that this is very serious.
Your belief in delusional magic is yours alone. Keep it to yourself.
If you are a paid shill from a carbon fuel company, paid to believe something,
paid to promote and influence a falsehood, then your actions are treason.
You betray a human future with your allegiance to industry or money.
Your intentional obstruction is no longer acceptable.
As global warming disasters pile up and get worse,
your voice will sound shrill and crazy to those of us suffering.
You might want to hold your beliefs in silence.

If you hold contrarian denialism in your mind,
it will be hard to distinguish from professional public relations
Neither is benign.

This issue is discussed further in Climate Progress

If we fail to heed the warning of our top scientists, if we fail to adopt the low-cost strategies need to avert the incalculably high-cost consequences (widespread desertification, large and rapid sea level rise, loss of the inland glaciers, extinction of most species, fatal acidification of the ocean, and on and on), nobody is going to be writing books labeling us "the greatest generation." We will at best be "the greediest generation" and perhaps even "the first unpatriotic generation" since we were the first who would not bear any burden or pay any price to preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the next generation.

But that is how future generations will label us. We haven't failed yet. Should we question the patriotism of deniers? That is a tough call, made even tougher since they question our patriotism even as we fight to save their children and their children's children from their own ignorance and indifference.

I suppose the answer is "no," we shouldn't stoop to their tactics -- readers can weigh in with other views -- but I will say that if we are going to save this great nation, progressives are going to have to fight back much harder against the despicable actions of the deniers who practice polluter appeasement. Whatever we are currently doing, it ain't enough.

The time to act is yesterday.


Just Shut Up

| 7 Comments | 0 TrackBacks is that other very popular site that I am criticizing here. This is And I have some words for them:

Just shut-up.
Your pseudo debate just props up the empty case of skeptical climate denialism.
Just because you present two sides does not mean equivalent stature.   Your soapbox for idealogs, fringe whack-jobs and professional denialist campaigns pales next to selected, reputable news and science reports.   Are you planning similar "debates" on plate techtonics, evolution, or the theory of gravity?
What does your "graceful argument" have to do with scientific truth? Comparing the styles and layouts of arguments means nothing. Do you think this another OJ trial? "If the glove don’t fit, it must not be global warming?"
I know you have the right to free speech and all that.   But the strident denials, delaying tactics and purposeful attempts to confuse the issue go too far.
If it is OK to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, do you think the opposite is OK?   In a crowded theater that is burning, we feel heat and smell smoke, we move toward the exits - are you telling me is it OK for the usher to yell "There is no fire!, sit down?" or even "There is no fire, sit down and lets have a debate."
Nothing illegal about expressing your thoughts. I think you should just shut-up.
You know you are talking about politcs, not science
You know the data refutes you,
Your tactics have nothing to do with open discussion,
Everything to do with diversion and delay.
And nothing to do with science.
We know how you have emerged victorious from the tobacco industry PR campaigns. You helped extend tobacco product sales for decades beyond their proper life — all by a professionally unified denial campaign.  You kept a toxic drug delivery mechanism out of the FDA and deflected legislation that properly should have banned nicotine.  And you cemented the flow of profit.   Now the very same PR agency and individuals are deep into the climate change denialist movement - this time paid for by the carbon fuel industries.
Gosh, could it be that all the big carbon fuel companies fully realize the decades of unrestrained carbon dioxide pollution has actually caused climate instability?
Could it be that all this subsidized deceit and purposeful denialism is here just to prevent any interference to their business operations? Are your words intentionally designed to detract science and delay responsible legislation?
It is sleazy, immoral, it ought to be illegal, and pretty soon the courts may find you liable.  Eventually you will be shunned and reviled for your words and actions, but until that day comes, then just SHUT-UP.
We are not talking about a little tobacco and cancer here.
The stakes are the ultimate: the very survival of our civilization.
We need lots of science focused on knowing the extent of the problem.
We don’t need paid obstructionists, willful skeptics, and professional denialists distracting the quest for more information.
We need to be making adaptation and mitigation plans.  First off, carbon fuel companies should stop these PR campaigns.
And we have contempt for your ignorant toady followers that you trick into academic suicide just to sabotage research and cripple public policy.
Your actions are close to criminal because your words act to inflict potential harm to the innocent.  If you don’t see that then try these common analogies:
- Let’s say we all commute in a car where the driver says the brakes are bad and maybe we should not ride, but one passenger insists the brakes are fine and we should keep going in fast traffic.  The driver is worried and wants to slow down and check the brakes. Any skeptic that denies danger and tries to stiffle more information should shut-up and let the driver decide.
- Or say your carload is driving fast in heavy fog on a darkened highway; the radio reports the bridge ahead has just collapsed.   You start to slow down so as to carefully see the road ahead, but one of your passengers insists that you keep driving the speed limit. He claims that he can see perfectly well, and insists that everything is OK, and he did not hear any warnings. Nope again, in my car, I would say Shut Up.
- Or consider the common story of a successful small town tourist spa that finds it has poison water that kills people - all the townspeople violently deny the facts, just to keep their commerce going. The difference here is that EVERYONE on the planet will suffer in some way. No matter how many want it to be OK, if there is even suspicion then everyone needs to find out what is wrong. Don’t fight these correct acts.
Remember that just prior to Pearl Harbor the impending attack was seen on radar.  Seeing more planes on a screen than anyone had ever seen before, someone was skeptical, and doubted what they saw.  They said it must have been a flock of birds, or friendly flights. But they certainly did not cling to that skepticism after seeing the smoke and fire of the attack. They did not persist in denial; I am not sure how a denialist of today would have been regarded back then.
We are on a warming planet, the climate is destabilizing, we are getting in trouble and people are dying.   You are pandering to human denial and cultivating human weakness for self-deception. Then you try to redirect public attention with debates about the shape of the arguments instead of the substance.   Stop it.
And you know, with HUMAN CAUSED, CLIMATE DESTABILIZATION, the stakes are higher than Pearl Harbor or 9-11 or even Katrina. Until someone is brave enough to call you out as saboteurs to our future, or to haul you into court, or to win a lawsuit - and that may happen soon - until then, just shut-up.
We are looking for solutions, we first have to know just how bad the problem is, and you don’t want to help, you don’t want to do research. You just want to promote delay and engage in ideological squabblings.   Well, you can think your own thoughts, but don’t obstruct the important progress of science and government and industry and community. We will not award false importance to your delusions by merely examining the process of a phony debate. There’s important work to do.
Study Science, Seek Solutions, or Shut-up.

Words up top by Richard Pauli Aug 2008
rantman {at}
After you give me wads of cash, then you can say I am bought off, until then I am poor, independent and the words at the top are all mine.