The Boundary Conditions of a Manufactured Debate
Had this comment on the “about” page:
I wandered onto this blog from a twitter link about Antony Watts. Still somewhat befuddled because I was under the impression he hunted down alarmists, not reinforced them. However what really felt like coming home (I’m a Physics grad) was the return to first principles with the laws of thermodynamics in that article – which seem to have been ditched in the climate cacophony. A perfect example of this prostitution of science is this classic from (un)skepticalscience.com:
It is stunning that they parallel CO2 with a blanket, when anybody with a basic grasp of physics knows that the effect of a blanket, and indeed an actual greenhouse, is to block CONVECTION, which is a major process of cooling.
I still regularly have to reinforce the point that they are thermodynamic LAWS and anything in climate is a THEORY. Most don’t get it, and the BS touted by the likes of the link above are not going to make it easy to get the point across.
My reply (plus some more elaboration):
Well this may sound ridiculous, but you have to consider the scope of what we’re dealing with here. Read my “Religion of Climate Change” series. And watch Star Wars episodes 1 – 3. Seriously. Crazy, I know.
They’re creating a false reality. Outright alarmism is an obviously false reality, to anyone with the slightest sense of reason. Well, just think of the operation and the forces mustered to establish that false reality, promote it, fake it, have people running websites promoting it, having James Hansen promote it, etc. It’s kind of a big deal.
It all rests on the alarmist version of the greenhouse effect (see here for clarification). There is a real greenhouse effect inside a real greenhouse, and then there is the fake “alarming” greenhouse effect of climate pseudoscience, something pretended to be the same or similar to the real thing, but which it is not, and is not real in its own right either.
It all rests on that. So, you put people in place to look like skeptics, but what they’re actually doing is defending the very basis of the alarming theory, the basis of which is fundamental to every single aspect of the religious, political, and financial platform:
- Religious: belief in a false reality.
- Political: give up rights and freedoms for that false reality.
- Financial: Pay (i.e. be enslaved) for the luxury of believing in, and for having your rights and freedoms taken away for, the false reality.
That’s what people like Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, Robert G. Brown, Tim Folkerts, Joel Shore, etc etc, are all doing.
To defend the basis of that platform, especially when it is SO EASY(!) to criticize, is ipso-facto to directly defend that platform, no matter what language is being used, no matter what appearances are being made, no matter who you appear to associate yourself with or to be, etc. This is as simple as 1 + 1 = 2.
It is the existence of the debate itself which allows for the intended control. People like Watts are there to ensure that the debate, the battle and chaos, does not end. If it did end, first of all Watts & co. would be out of work. Second of all, more importantly, their “Sith Lord” would lose power. The Sith Lord in the Jedi didn’t want any war to end – it was the existence of the war that gave him his power. Without the war, without the battle, without the debate & chaos, whoever is at the top of it all would lose their power. The Sith Lord played and created both sides of the war because it was that chaos that gave him his power.
So it is here: the longer this debate continues, the more it LEGITIMIZES it in the eyes of the unwary and uneducated public. If the debate itself is legitimized, which is what Anthony Watts & co. are all about with their “the question is not whether or not there is warming, the question is how much warming” statement, then this legitimizes the alarm.
Do people not see how that works? If there was a massively funded group of people who could command large sections of the media, who all created the appearance of a legitimate debate as to whether or not there were unicorns, then this would legitimize the proposition that there are unicorns. A large number of people would see the television telling them that it is a legitimate debate as to whether or not unicorns exist. Given the right emotional language, say, you should feel bad if you don’t believe unicorns exist and you should feel good if you do believe they exist, people will naturally begin to believe in the existence of unicorns, without ever having seen one.
We are dealing with very skillful propaganda with the alarming greenhouse effect meme…masterful propaganda and simulacra and hyperreality, the likes of which only a Sith, an “Archon”, would and could create.
But forget about all of the metaphor, it is all just a matter of practicality: some people want to make (lots and lots of) money off of carbon taxes, and it just so happens to be an extremely useful political tool at the same time. As criticisms naturally arise, new tools are naturally developed to defeat them. Metaphor is fun to think about but it is just practicality: currency, politics, and control.
The last thing that can happen, in fact, the thing which would defeat them, is if the entire thing was exposed as a fraud, or at least as a dumb mistake if the masses can not accept the concept of intentional fraud. This is precisely what would happen if it were exposed that their “alarming greenhouse effect” is pure pseudoscientific BS, and this is precisely why the Sith apprentices defend it.
Do you all know how Anthony Watts signs off on his emails and forum comments when he tells people that he’s trash-moderated their comments or replies so that they can not defend themselves against his and his friend’s bullying and blatantly sophist attacks? This is how he signs them off, after telling people he won’t allow them have a chance to have their say, which note comes after he’s already hooked them into replying or commenting:
“Feel free to be as upset as you wish.”
What kind of a sick f*ck says that? This is what I’ve elsewhere labelled as a “disgusting human being”. That is, someone’s whose existence is viscerally, qualitatively, worth less than what we would normally consider human. :)