Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

Post Reply
Switch to Forum Live View Let's examine the problems of an incorrigible AGW-belief.
8 years ago  ::  Mar 23, 2010 - 5:07PM #1
Posts: 9,330

One thing I find disturbing is the lack of concern for the environment, or otherwise the lack of a common ethical sense, among hardcore AGW-believers.

If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.

Cheers, Phil

--cheery Phil Jones in email to John Christy

If by “the climate change” Jones means the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming advocated by him and the IPCC, and if by “science” he means “hypothesis,” then Jones' admission is truly reprehensible, monstrous.

It's an admission that one would prefer the catastrophic destruction of the planet, including the destruction and suffering of billions upon billions of lives, rather than to discover that one's deeply held AGW-belief is wrong.

My impression is that Jones' sentiment is true for many AGW-believers, especially those hardcore believers. For instance, let's say that as part of one's AGW-belief one believes that the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035--with all the suffering and death such an occurrence would undoubtedly entail. But then one discovers that the idea that the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035 is an outrageously false and unsupported claim. A person who doesn't wish to see (or foresee) the human-caused destruction of the environment and great suffering would celebrate this discovery. But AGW-believers seem to be most concerned with trying to minimize the importance of this discovery.

We can multiple such examples, e.g., the recent discoveries of the IPCC's false or unsupported claims about the predicted destruction of the Amazon, predicted agricultural failures, melting mountain ice, predicted flooding of heavily populated areas, attribution of droughts, the magnitude of UHI effects in the surface station record, etc. Each of these discoveries is worthy of celebration . . . for anyone who does not have an incorrigible belief in AGW.

For those with an incorrigible belief in AGW, the discrediting of the details and foundations of the catastrophic AGW hypothesis is most often perceived as a threat (to their belief) rather than as something worth celebrating--the debunking of a baseless catastrophic prediction. But such perceived threat (to one's belief system) is exactly what an incorrigible belief in AGW necessarily entails.

An incorrigible belief in AGW is obviously contrary to concern for the environment, including for the suffering of conscious beings. I find this disturbing.

Quick Reply
8 years ago  ::  Mar 23, 2010 - 5:08PM #2
Posts: 9,330

BTW: another important thing to note about Jones' admission in his email to Christy is that he obviously doesn't believe that “the science” has been “prove[d] right” from the empirical evidence that exists today. Jones' statement indicates that he's hoping something will happen in the future--that some evidence will eventually be acquired--that will “prove right” the AGW hypothesis.

One wonders, then, why Jones doesn't try to correct all the AGW-believers who are under the delusion that the AGW hypothesis has been substantiated by existing evidence?

Quick Reply
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

    Beliefnet On Facebook