The trillion dollar guess and the zombie theory - Climate Change: The Facts - page 118

Scientific American lauded a study showing as much as $558 million was funnelled to
almost 100 'climate denial' organisations over seven years. 37 It was published in Climatic
Change , because, after all, right wing think tanks are a recognised climate force. 38
While Greenpeace was complaining about the Koch brothers controlling the climate
debate with $67 million, 39 the renewables industry was quietly spending nearly a billion
dollars a day. 40
#2 Wordsmith—leave no definition intact
We think through our words, so clear logical thinking requires accurate English. But if
your aim is marketing, not logic, accurate words are the enemy, and foggy text is your
friend. Any word can be abused and reused. The practise is rife—indeed it starts and ends
with abuses of language. The entire debate between scientists is reframed as a non-contest
between 'experts' and 'climate deniers'. Don't ask anyone to define a climate denier,
because literally it doesn't exist: no one denies we have a climate. Even John Cook, who
wrote an entire topic on the topic of 'deniers,' admits 'there is no such thing as climate
changedenial.' 41 Despitethat,hedoesn'tseemtobeinahurrytofixhissite,hispapers,or
his topic.
It's as if a Wimbledon finalist declared they won before the game even
started—because the other guy is a ball-denier. It wouldn't work in tennis, but in a
sciencedebate,theambitclaimfoolsprofessorsandprimeministersalike.Thesespectators
seemingly want to watch the contestants throw names at each other, instead of the ball. It's
a parody in action.
Scientifically, things are so dismal that climate scientists are not even trying to kick a
goal anymore. For them success now is when the ball can't be said to have missed. Yet.
#3 Sell the 'simplicity'—hide the unknowns.
Would you buy simple physics from this man? 'The science is settled,' said Al Gore. 42
It's 'simple physics' says Lord Rees, the President of the Royal Society. 43 Both of them
salesmen.
The physics of CO 2 is simple, but the fine print on the models is that doubling CO 2
will only lead to 1.2°C of warming. 44 No catastrophe. You can ask James Hansen or
the IPCC. 45 Did they forget to mention that all the disastrous predictions—two, four,
six, or eleven-hyperbolicdegrees—come from assumptions about what humidity and cloud
feedbacks will do? Repeat after me: physics points at one degree, everything above that is
a vaporous damp guess.