We Shouldn't Dismiss People Who Deny Facts? Why The Hell NOT?

                                                         "I duz  not like facks! DOH!"

A recent irritating, short essay in TIME (Sept. 12-19, p. 26) insisted rational and fact-based people need to give all the zombies,  knuckle draggers, and ignorant buffoons among us a 'break' and not dismiss them.  So, for example, we must give a pass to those who "believe things that are factually incorrect". Say like those who believe that vaccines cause autism, or to one innominate,  self-proclaimed genius of Intertel who is 100 percent convinced that "scientific conspirators falsified their data on which they based their alarming findings."  Or -from the same genius: "these scientists manipulated the peer review process to keep valid research against global warming from being published."

But anyone who's  been involved in serious climate science research would know the latter two beliefs are pure balderdash and definitely merit no respect. Especially if they issue from people who are members of a high IQ group.  They ought to have known or found out that denier papers are rejected because they don't meet minimum publication standards, including: use of proper mathematical or statistical techniques to assess data, use of coherent and testable physical models and/or simulations and assessment of errors in each of the preceding. But it's easier for deniers simply to believe denier research papers are left out because the review process is "manipulated."

While ordinary people may be partly excused for their beliefs, a high IQ person cannot be similarly excused, and he or she merits the full hammer of criticism and opprobrium. He has effectively misused his high intelligence to 'go off the rails'  and not conducted sufficient self-checks on his claims. Nor used his intelligence - with sufficient energy - to do his own research to first seek to disprove his many superficially -based beliefs.

Why? Because by virtue of their very intelligence they ought to fucking know better!  They actually possess the necessary intellect to ferret out the truth and DO the research but are too god damned lazy to do it. They don't want to read 15 or 20 papers that thoroughly debunk their idiotic beliefs, they'd rather just go to climate denier websites, imbibe the misinformation and repeat it. Especially with the conspiracy aspect.

The authors of the TIME essay ('We Shouldn't Dismiss People Who Deny Facts') claim:

"If we really want to change how they think, we need to take an honest look at what's driving those beliefs. Because it's not ignorance, it's psychology."

Actually, in the case of the genius climate deniers (or their  soft soaping allies who aren't as denial -based but still think "the jury is out")  it's politics that's to blame. Specifically Libertarianism,  which most of them espouse, whether in Mensa or Intertel.  This leads them to collect — even invent — bad information to flesh out what they already believe to justify their economics theories.  Their aim isn't scientific pursuit but rather defending an economic system they believe will unravel if practical solutions to global warming became law.

My point? Their  interjection and invocation of politics means they can no longer be afforded special consideration, and this distinguishes them from say, the vaccine skeptics. The TIME authors, Sara and Jack Gorman, claim we are all subject to the same principles that "cause scientific denial".  They add:

"Research has shown that humans are distinctly uncomfortable with events or phenomena without clear causes - and when we don't  know something we tend to fill in the gaps ourselves. Take autism. Since we don't know why it occurs it becomes easy to misplace blame."

Fair enough, but autism is not global warming, for which we KNOW the cause is ever increasing CO2 concentrations that cause the atmosphere to retain more moisture and heat creating a thermal blanket that heats the Earth like a mammoth greenhouse. Indeed, the source of the greenhouse effect has been known for nearly 120 years, from the time of chemist Svante Arrhenius, e.g.

http://warming.sdsu.edu/

This issue also transpired in the debate Monday night when Trump tried to deny he had earlier called global warming a "hoax".  This, despite the fact an old tweet of his was dug up where in he babbled:
"the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese."

Why recite such crap? Because it served a political advantage. But sorry, you don't get any breaks nor are you spared criticism when you go that route. The same applies to Libertarians in Mensa and Intertel who have banged the denier drum until they're blue in the face. They do it precisely because they don't wish to acknowledge that - if true (which it is) - economic sacrifices will have to be made in the short and long term interest of future generations.  The upshot of their unquestioning belief in market economics leads them to craft a pseudo-scientific narrative ( in the guise of real science) to attack genuine climate science. To accomplish this trick they make use of  the data, papers of proven scientific whores and hacks, willing to sell their dubious skills for a few shekels to the highest capitalist bidders or think tanks e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/another-climate-scientist-fake-exposed.html

One of the best exposes of their methods and dynamics has come from Yale Law school prof and science communication researcher Dan Kahan.  He has concluded that their information processing is almost entirely determined by their deep-seated political values and cultural identities. Thus, a white libertarian member of  Intertel, for example, will see global warming science as just one more vehicle of  subversive force backed  by the "untermenschen"  to be used against his precious economic values and Eurocentric ideals. All of this is then attributed to "global warming alarmism", as an expeditious cover for his own abysmal laziness, ignorance and cynicism. At this point, his thinking is already so corrupted and contaminated it's almost impossible to break through on any rational or critical thinking level.

From Kahan's theory, these pseudo skeptics don't really have the time to evaluate every piece of evidence that comes before them (say ice cores containing CO2) so basically punt. Instead of rationally and objectively evaluating the evidence they side with the top bananas in their political group  - in this case folks like Charles Murray- and use their generic  economic arguments (i.e. against taxes as "theft" and "force")  to attack climate science or more precisely the climate science consensus that human induced warming is real, e.g.

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

One of their most used shticks is to clump all federal science agencies (like NOAA, NASA, EPA  etc.) together and "in on the scam". This makes it easy so they don't have to use their brains or  time plowing through separate specialist climate papers. Why do that when you can kill five birds with one stone?

Driven by this short cut mental modality, they then seek out those oddball contrarians (like Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Richard Lindzen) who do sound off against the climate consensus, even though they are dead wrong and have been proven so.  The stage then emerges for the next phase: cherry picking only the data which conforms to their economic or political values. By now we have  a self-reinforcing mechanism: the more the Libbie genius gets exposed to the faux science that  supports his economic and political stance the more he continues to adopt that position and related ones further out. These include such far out, paranoid ideations that one's opponents "demand that Western Industrial Civilization commit cultural suicide by adopting the crippling constraints sought by the global warming conspirators."  in the words of Kort Patterson.

Meanwhile, by extension, misinformation in public life isn’t the exception, it’s the rule, according to a study published in Social Science Quarterly  which employed a “knowledge distortion index” and looked at two competing explanations for why this is so — one top-down, the other bottom-up.  The researchers used three Washington state initiatives from the 2006 general election cycle to examine the dynamics of what is going on in this particular sort of political environment.  The study, “How Voters Become Misinformed: An Investigation of the Emergence and Consequences of False Factual Beliefs,” found that “voters’ values and partisanship had the strongest associations with distorted beliefs, which then influenced voting choices. Self-reported levels of exposure to media and campaign messages "played a surprisingly limited role,” despite the presence of significantly mistaken “facts,” which were used to help construct the knowledge distortion index.
 

Lead author, Justin Reedy in one interview stated “Both of these theories recognize that citizens can develop distorted factual beliefs because of their political views, but they disagree about how those distortions might happen. Heuristics researchers generally think that citizens have limited attention for politics and try to process information quickly and efficiently.”

Again, this reverts to Kahan's theory of why intelligent climate deniers give short shrift to deep research that might change their minds - if they only got off their butts and put their high IQs to use for an activity other than denial. But because simple denial consumes less time (one can get denier "misinformation" quickly and efficiently from numerous websites) then their denier behavior is more likely to be reinforced. That means they will be less likely to expend time or effort on difficult independent  research that might change their mind.
 
The Gormans assert Iibid.):

"Rather than chastising people for focusing so heavily on stories, we should figure out why we are all so drawn to stories in the first place. Changing minds requires compassion and understanding, not disdain."

A sentiment with which I wholeheartedly concur. And that's why I often make allowances for those like the anti-vaxxers because they aren't privy to detailed biological science nor are they likely to understand autism if they did access research. So they must confabulate "stories" and these often support their false beliefs. However, I am not about to extend the same generosity to a Mensan or Ilian - especially one who cynically uses his intelligence to spread misinformation and misbegotten conspiracy theories about "global warming alarmists".

Retiring NAS President Livid Over Climate Deniers & The Political Polarization Spawned

Retiring National Academy of Sciences President Ralph Cicerone expressed anger regarding partisanship associated with climate change.

In an interview in Eos: Earth & Space Science News (12 August, p. 5) retiring President of the National Academy of Sciences Ralph Cicerone  denounced the continued political polarization associated with climate change as "a threat to science".  Indeed it is, because if uninformed people are just allowed to pick and choose their own versions of science, totally rejecting the scientific method and current foundations, then what we get is a free for all. And in that case, the very survival of our science not to mention the human and other inhabitants of the planet,  may be at stake. Cicerone's point is that rapidly changing climatic conditions from melting glaciers to rising sea levels are nothing to be toyed with, or used for exercises in phony rhetoric.

Cicerone, in a brief published interview with Eos, asserted he was especially disappointed with the ongoing "rabid partisanship surrounding climate change". A lot of that disappointment has to single out his fellow citizens who remain proudly defiant in their scientific ignorance and repeatedly display confounding chutzpah. This is in respect to invoking a specious brand of economics (market fundamentalism)   to attempt to overturn sound climate science and replace it with pseudo science.

Cicerone's disgust extends to the recent congressional  "show trial" grilling of climate experts and officials, as well as moves to limit geoscience funding at the National Science Foundation and elsewhere.  He observed:

"The most frustrating thing has been these political developments around climate change. We are trashing our institutions.. For example, the antigovernment feelings that anything the federal government touches is somehow dirty and wasteful and somehow morally wrong. That drive me crazy."

Well, it drives me crazy too, especially when I see a lot of it emanating from putative high I.Q. societies like Mensa and Intertel wherein you'd expect the members to have more than air between the ears. A case in point has been how some of these denizens use their political ideology (Libertarianism) as a cudgel to try to undermine the value of any governmental investigations of anthropogenic climate change.

I noted one of these supposed high I.Q. characters, Kort Patterson of Intertel, who actually wrote in his  Region 7 Newsletter (Port of Call, June/July 2016, p. 6)

"Many people continue to believe the lies and demand that Western Industrial Civilization commit cultural suicide by adopting the crippling constraints sought by the global warming conspirators."

This foolish curmudgeon actually attempts to turn the tables on the real scientists, painting them as the liars when it is his politically brainwashed  (and scientifically illiterate) lot who are sowing the disinformation and  half-baked conspiracy theories about "global warming alarmism".  See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/06/intertels-kort-patterson-conjures-wacko.html

With belligerent nuts like Patterson slamming the science it's no wonder many of the more uninformed and weaker -minded will tag along, believing him to be some kind of voice "crying in the wilderness". This, as opposed to seeing he's more a semi-educated poppet with too much time on his hands from his computer tech job.

The most damnable and irritating aspect of these "high I.Q." Libbie looneytunes is their penchant for misusing their own intelligence to condemn legitimate scientific research instead of making a fair effort to understand it. As I noted in a previous blog post (on the "Intelligent Irrationalists") this lot finds it more to their liking to simply avoid doing the hard research into climate change. They evidently lack the time (or inclination) to evaluate every piece of relevant evidence that comes before them (say ice cores containing CO2) so basically punt. Instead of rationally and objectively evaluating the evidence they side with the top bananas in their political group in using a dime store grasp of economics to lambaste standard science.

None of them, I warrant, could pass even a basic 1st year college test on thermal physics the foundation for understanding basic climate change and global warming, see e.g. this test:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/12/thermal-physics-test-for-skeptics.html

At the same time, they have outsized influence on others thinking, especially those ensconced in the high I.Q. organizations. For some reason, probably the lure of the "individualist" or "liberty" cachet, they draw many of like mind too line up behind their ignorance. 

But it's maddening to those of us who understand the actual science, and even more infuriating to be called "frauds" and "alarmists" by these semi-literate nincompoops who don't know an atmospheric forcing component from a Btu.

Cicerone himself was just as livid as he responded to one question (ibid.):

"I did not see the severity of the attacks on science coming. I'm still hoping it's going to go away quickly, but it's been hard to deal with because it has raised a whole set of questions. When do we have to stand up and say that all of science is being tarred with the same brush."

The problem, of course, is that arguing logically or rationally with climate change deniers is as fruitless and futile as arguing with evolution deniers. In each case, a firm commitment to personal beliefs trumps the science and assumes priority in the denier's mind. This is exactly what we mean by false belief syndrome: a person so threatened by the indisputable facts of the science (whether Darwinian evolution or climate science) that he feels compelled to erect an elaborate psychological defense for security. Within this defensive psychological perimeter he will use fake science (and assorted contrarian clowns)  to defend his beliefs to the bitter end. Given this, no amount of factual appeal will change his mind.

"You'll have to pry these beliefs from my cold, dead brain!"

If this is the case, and I believe that it is,  then the political polarization and antagonism to science will not end quickly.  We can stand up to the nonsense and ignorance, of course, and even try to be patient with the more rational  elements of  the denier contingent. But ultimately it boils down to a choice:  the preservation of science or elevating the ignorance inherent in denialism to an art form. In that case, I stand with the preservation of science and take out my verbal sword to use on the deniers every chance I get.

The Intelligent Irrationalists: Why So Many High IQ Folks Deny Sound Science

A recurring problem for discussion in many professional scientific organizations is how to get out ahead of pseudo-science and in particular denial science: the denial of scientific legitimacy (or mocking it with facetious putdowns). The classic example is for human-induced global warming and what most concerns many climate scientists is a specific subset of intellectual critic referred to as "intelligent irrationalists".

These people, often in high IQ societies like Mensa and Intertel,,  fancy themselves "debunkers" but fail to perceive they are, in fact, sophisticated "bunkers" : the disseminators of bunkum and rubbish thanks to their own intellectual blind spots (especially in the critical thinking capacity) and also their irrationality.

What has often irritated and puzzled me - not necessarily in that order- is how so many of these denizens feel so confident to spout off at length about topics like global warming - despite the fact they've likely had the most passing acquaintance with thermal physics. The thread I have seen through all their assorted critiques - say like Intertel's Kort Patterson - is they lean almost entirely to Libertarianism or some entrenched and unquestioning belief in market economics. The upshot is that their adulation of the latter leads them to craft a counter narrative in the guise of real science (but more analogous to creationist "science") to attack genuine climate science.

There may be some psychological and sociological ballast to this. We've already seen, for example, the thesis of Stanford historian of science Robert Proctor who correctly ties global warming denial to the trend of pseudo-skepticism sown deliberately and for political or economic ends . In other words, the agents of agnotology - whoever they may be- are all committed to one end: extolling economic profit over human habitability of planet Earth.  Some disgusted climate scientists have even referred to this breed of economically dominated denizens as "Homo Economicus" to distinguish it from Homo Sapiens.

But a another side to this has been articulated by Yale Law school prof and science communication researcher Dan Kahan.  He has concluded that most information processing - especially by the intelligent irrationalists -is determined by their own deep-seated political values and cultural identities. Thus, a white libertarian member of  Intertel, for example, will see global warming science as just one more vehicle of  subversive force backed  by the "untermenschen"  to be used against his precious economic values and Eurocentric ideals. All of this then attributed to "global warming alarmism". At this point, his thinking is already so corrupted and contaminated it's almost impossible to break through on any rational or critical thinking level.

In general, according to Kahan's theory, these high IQ skeptics - or who fancy themselves such, don't really have the time to evaluate every piece of evidence that comes before them (say ice cores containing CO2) so basically punt. Instead of rationally and objectively evaluating the evidence they side with the top bananas in their political group  - in this case folks like Charles Murray- and use their generic  economic arguments (i.e. against taxes as "theft" and "force")  to attack climate science or more precisely the climate science consensus that human induced warming is real, e.g.

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

Driven by this short cut mental modality, they then seek out those oddball contrarians (like Willie Soon) who do sound off against the climate consensus, even though they are dead wrong, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/another-climate-scientist-fake-exposed.html

Thus, the stage emerges for the next phase: cherry picking only the data which conforms to the economic or political values of one's identity group, in this case, libertarianism. It is also by now become a self-reinforcing mechanism: the more one gets exposed to the faux science that  supports one's economic and political stance the more one continues to adopt that position and related ones further out. These include far out, paranoid ideations that one's opponents "demand that Western Industrial Civilization commit cultural suicide by adopting the crippling constraints sought by the global warming conspirators."  in the words of Kort Patterson.

In other words it's not that much of a jump from the irrational rationalizations underpinning one's position based on a group identity, to conjuring conspiracy theories targeting the out groups (real scientists and citizens - government officials who support them)

Related to the cherry picking of data, there is also the noisome tactic of mischaracterizing research methods and results, for example mocking the 'hockey stick" ansatz of Michael Mann.  In the words of one Intertel AGW denier Carol Dane:

"One hundred and twenty eminent scientists here, some Nobel laureates with impressive credentials, denounce Michael Mann and his hockey stick chart on which so much fraudulent global warming argument is based."

No mention that the bulk of those "eminent scientists" were economists, former NASA engineers, chemists, geologists, biologists and psychologists. Also that a number of climatologists  subsequently published their own reconstructions of global temperatures from independent lines of research that vindicated Mann's research by showing similar if not identical trends in temperature..

But again, this is the nature of the criticism from the intelligent irrationalists, who also comfort themselves (as members of Intertel, say) that few mortals will be able to take them on and dismantle their nonsense.

Another key attribute of their irrationality which especially stands out in Kort Patterson's tirades against AGW is focusing on perceived implications rather than examining the evidence itself. Thus Patterson leaps to the hysterical implication that climate scientists who've published in support of anthropogenic warming "demand that Western Industrial Civilization commit cultural suicide ".

In its irrational extremism it is really not much different from an anti-evolutionist who might assert: "well, if evolution is true and we all descended from a common primate ancestor we could as well kill ourselves because we don't have souls and life has no purpose".

Again, an unhinged,  hysterical implication. (Though I am sure Kort would disagree with the comparison)

Another  recurring irrational tactic of the economic obsessives in the high IQ societies is to make personal attacks on the scientists themselves, or their methods - say like Michael Mann and his hockey stick.  Thus, instead of focusing on the science (which admittedly most of these people are weak in) they claim the scientists have "rigged'" or "fudged" their research or data to support a scientific consensus. All it takes by this time is the slightest news or hint of subterfuge (say like the overblown climate gate brouhaha) to establish a specious confirmation bias and make them believe it's true and there really is a global conspiracy.

The most depressing aspect, as Kahan observes, is there may be little that can be done by the genuine rationalist or scientist to convince these intelligent irrationalists of their folly. That may have to await the extreme unfolding of multifold climatic disasters in real time, in whatever form - e.g.

http://video.pbs.org/video/1108763899


to finally turn this lot into believers or at least accepting the plausibility of the premise.. Even then they are just as likely to write off the effects, i.e. "That  51-day  heat wave leading to monster fires was just a meteorological disturbance".

As Kahan and others observe, all this discloses humans are hard-wired for irrational thinking. Science in its legitimate practice can certainly help to abate such tendencies but if the afflicted persons distrust even science (as "rigged") , there is little that can be done. That critique also applies to the superficial, frivolous lot of 'so what?' skeptics such as Intertel's Steve Mason - unprepared to invest mental capital in anything.. Hence, willing to believe anything even codswallop from the likes of Kort Patterson.

In the end the lack of any discrimination in the latter may pave the way for even more expressions of irrationality, based on "why accept anything when science is always changing" or to use Mason's words: "How can I believe anything when what I believe changes?"  

Those like Mason  are probably convinced they are the ultimate "rational"  AGW critics  using a meta-template to ascribe any risks of  climate change  as "inflated". But in the end they are just as irrational as the outright irrationalists - only adopting a less discernible cover to the superficial observer. But for those of us who've been fighting this lot for over 40 years in different forums, they aren't fooling anyone - at least not us!

INTERTEL'S Resident Libertarian Deniers Again Ignorantly Spout Off On Climate Change

It was coincidental yesterday that not long after a lunch conversation with our friend Nan, the monthly 'Port of Call' (Intertel's Region 7 NL) arrived in the mail.   Why coincidental?

At lunch, Nan bemoaned her fundamentalist sister who accused her of being "anti-Christian" because she accepted Darwinian Evolution as a fact. Nan was asked : "Do you really understand evolution?" Nan simply replied "No'"  Whereupon her sis "Rita" challenged her good sense: "Then why do you believe it?" Nan simply replied: "Because actual scientists have unearthed the evidence for it, including for natural selection, mutation."

But at the end the two remained at contretemps. Such is also the case with climate change deniers, or what I call pseudo-sophisticated climate change denier enablers. These people often have attained high education credentials - say in psychology or economics. However,  they are convinced they can opine on issues outside their specialty fields like global warming - or the alleged absence for it- without doing any hard work or proper research. . They believe they can simply bloviate from their armchairs or keyboards. They also invoke the comeback that "well, because the proponents -scientists can't put it into simple words" then it must be wrong or at least not compelling.

Such is the case with  Dr. Steven B. Mason:

in one of the two Port of Call 'letters to the editor" taking me to task for my original take on Carol Dane's infantile book review that appeared in PoC some months ago, e.g.  http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/02/a-high-iq-book-reviewer-shows-she-can.html

Mason begins his missive by quaintly asking: "How can I believe anything when what I believe changes?"   This is actually a misrepresentation of his stance when what he really means is "How can I believe anything when the science behind it changes?" And seen in this light, one wonders if Mason was ever a genuine scientist at all, because the very nature of the scientific enterprise is to mount new discoveries, via new findings obtained from ever more refined instruments and techniques. Hence the change from the old epicycles-based Ptolemaic solar system to the heliocentric one. Or, the change from Bohr's simple 'planetary' model atom to the wave model of Schrodinger, Born et al. Or the change from Newtonian gravitation to general relativity (though the former is still used for space trajectories, missions).

The point is that a real scientist - even a psychiatrist or psychologist- would know and understand science HAS to change for our understanding of the cosmos, nature to evolve. It is unscientific and naive to expect findings to remain static.

He then compares the Moon landings ("99 % sure") to extraterrestrial visitors ("1% sure") though interestingly he cites no "changes" in scientific evidence pertaining to either.  He claims from this he "prefers to hover around 50%" in  terms of his belief, but seems to forget or doesn't care that actual scientific acceptance of a hypothesis comes from testable evidence or confirmed data from a prior experiment (e.g. the LIGO finding for gravitational waves)  not "belief".  This is astonishing given Mason has not only been a  scientist - well, at least a psychologist, but also a college prof.

Then he drags climate science into his muddled mix along with Moon landings, "angels and devils" and "extraterrestrials".   He writes:

"I remember when experts were predicting another Ice Age and I figured why not? The ice was once a mile thick over Central Park....But now the experts are predicting it will get hot and I figure why not? Is global warming a fact? If so is it man-made, ...can it be reversed? Clearly I don't know but then who does?"

Actually,  a lot of hard working actual climate scientists  trained in a field a hell of a lot more complex than psychology or modern psychiatry.. A field (atmospheric science) wherein they have to actually produce testable data, such as from analysis of ice cores, changing cloud albedo etc. and  can't beg off on the basis of there being no confirmations or "ambiguity".  One such professional climate scientist,   Gunter Weller -  I met while at the Geophysical Institute in Fairbanks, AK in 1985-86.

By late 1986  Prof. Weller had shown the abnormal heating of the Arctic - some 5 - 7F greater than the continental U.S.

The ice cores available at Dr. Weller's  Atmospheric Physics lab (part of the Geophysical Institute in Fairbanks) were extracted from Arctic ice at depths corresponding with geological time frames dating back over 80,000 years. His results showed that the greatest ambient temperatures corresponded to the highest CO2 concentrations recorded in the ice cores. Also the largest increases in ambient temperatures have occurred over the past 50-60 years, during which the CO2 increases have been largest (now approaching 400 ppm). Since then this relationship has only been further corroborated. Does Steve Mason know this, or has he made any  effort to learn about it? Obviously not. It's easier to make glib comments to be on the "50 percent" line regarding global warming than extend one's mind outside an academic comfort zone.

Regarding Mason's dilemma on once being told about "global cooling" and Ice ages, this is a common misstep of those semi-educated on climate change or the trajectory of research which has now unimpeachably led to accepting anthropogenic global warming. It reminds me of the appearance of the  WSJ's resident denier Brett Stephens on the Real Time show a year and a half ago.

WSJ denier Brett Stephens much likc Steve Mason "once read about global cooling"

Stephens spouted out to host Bill Maher: "What I'm saying is if you look at a Newsweek from 1975 you will see it"  Whereupon  Maher moaned, 'Oh no, not the cooling thing!'

To which Stephens responded: "Yes, the cooling thing!"

For those who may not know, including Mason, global cooling was once all the rage--  briefly! Some popular  'zines picked it up in the mid to late 70s but it was soon left in the scientific dustbin. (Much like the Ptolemaic solar system based  on "epicycles") This was after it was discovered a decade or so later, that it had been incepted by particulates and aerosols in the atmosphere.  After the Clean Air Act and similar bills were passed overseas (e.g. in the UK), those particulates largely disappeared and the cooling was no longer evident. Aerosols remained and gave way to the global dimming phenomenon which also concealed the worst of global warming - but when aerosols were also controlled - after similar legislation, global dimming receded and warming assumed dominance. Rising temperatures ever since have confirmed the effects.

Mason then reveals his almost complete failure to grasp the nature of physical science with this idiotic remark (p. 4):

"If you look up Herd Animal you might as well find a guy in a lab coat and a bow tie...The reason is simple...scientists are even more protective of their reputations than teen girls of a generation ago. And they have to be. Make one false step and no one will get on an elevator with you at conferences".

Seriously?   The utter arrogance here of a prime member of a herd discipline (psychology) to write off physical scientists this way is beyond belief.   It also shows me  that he has about as much comprehension of the actual scientific process as a kindergartner has of quantum measurements and the role of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.  The second line is also choice and makes me wonder if Dr. Steve has even attended any conferences other than parent-teacher for his kids.

Having attended many conferences (solar physics, astrometry, celestial mechanics, space physics)  I have seen colleagues make the occasional "false step" (as in a paper presentation)  but no one held it against them because each realized it's entirely possible  to be wrong on occasion. Who wants to make a snark critique in the question period when his turn might be next? Only in religious realms, or maybe in Mason's psychology, do we have something approaching a "priest hood" with its dogmas and "beliefs" - as embedded in psychiatry's Diagnostic and Statistics Manual. (For an excellent expose all the psychobabble within it, check out 'The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry'.)

Like many before him, Mason is stuck in neutral believing that all or most of modern climate science is based on "appeal to authority".  Thus "many scientists agreeing as though it were proof of a concept".  Errr no, Dr. Steve. They don't agree "because others agree."  They do so because actual analyses - like of Gunter Weller's ice cores- point to actual changes of CO2 concentrations in  different layers of ice extending back thousands of years.  This connection was most powerfully explicated by Gale Christianson in his book, 'Greenhouse' noting that there has never ever (from the ice core data) been an ice age when the CO2 concentration was over 200 ppm.

Observing increasing concentrations of CO2 with a warming climate, it is then possible to craft the hypothesis that rising CO2 levels and a warming climate are inextricably linked. And since the most  profound rise has been from the Industrial Revolution there is a direct connection to human activity in generating CO2 from burning fossil fuels  This stuff isn't "rocket science" but appears to be for Mason who also referenced asking a physical scientist friend if he could explain a complex theory in simple words and his pal answered 'no'. But then this is the same Mason who in one Integra article admitted he understood nothing of quantum mechanics either, such as the wave-particle duality. He then extrapolated from that to assert that he "didn't think others understood it either"- using his own limited grasp of a subject as a standard for all.

Mason's take here seems to be that if it can't be  reduced to simple language then there's not much reason to accept it. But if that is so there is a hell of a lot of modern science most people would not accept, i.e.  general relativity, quantum mechanics, stellar evolution, gene splicing...to name a few.. But are the objectors truly in a position to express skepticism? I doubt it! To do so one needs to  at least possess the relative backgrounds and/or some  exposure to the material approximating that of those who've done the work!

Incredibly, in his last paragraphs Mason then jumps to the Chicxulub (asteroid impact) event that eliminated the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, based on the work of Luis Alvarez. He claims he "asked the younger Alvarez" about a "smoking gun" and was informed "not to worry there is an embarrassment of riches". Translation: there is so much disparate data to choose from that anyone - even his dad- could find just about any explanation desired. Which is total asinine nonsense.   The point missed by Mason is that the isotope Iridium 192 is used as a key marker for whether an asteroid (or meteoroid) is of extraterrestrial origin. This is because it occurs with much higher abundance than in Earth's crust. It was this discovery (for Ir 192 in specific layers near Chicxulub)  that provided the basis for Luis Alvarez' theory.

Mason goes on to babble::

"I find it hard to disagree with the majority (on climate science). However, I also find it hard to disagree with those like Kort Patterson whose opinion I value"

Really? Then you are allowing your subjective emotions (friendship?) to cloud your objective judgment.  It also shows me that you truly do not agree with the majority (the vast climate science research community) if you can also accept Patterson's climate codswallop including his belief in a global conspiracy to promote alarm.  One cannot on the one hand accept the bona fide science, and on the other the inflated and erroneous opinions of a climate know nothing who by virtue of his IQ thinks he's entitled to spout off on anything. (Does Mason also accept evolution at the same time as another friend's creationism? No, didn't think so, anymore than he believes one can square the circle!)

The last statement by Mason is truly pathetic and shows he cares not a whit for the welfare of future generations who are likely to experience heat waves and floods that make the current events seem like minor inconveniences

"The only thing about which I'm confident is that the Global Warming issue needn't generate anywhere near the heat it does".

However, as with his tenuous grasp of basic thermal science, Mason fails to appreciate that most of that 'heat' is a result of the obdurate deniers who calumniate and disparage  the actual climate scientists while they fancy themselves the exponents of real science and its traditions.

The case in point here is one Brewster Gillett, who is supposedly the "proof reader" for PoC  and scribbled the second letter taking me to task, writing that I (along with another writer, Karl Schlotterbeck) evidenced "reduced capacity for appreciation of subtlety in writing". No, I have the appreciation for sure. But NOT when dealing with lame deniers like Kort Patterson whose pseudoscientific claptrap needs to be bluntly exposed, not subtly, e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/06/intertels-kort-patterson-conjures-wacko.html

"Subtle" then doesn't cut it if a guy really believes (and bloviates)  that "celestial mechanics" (Milankovitch effect) and solar changes are fully responsible for climate change and that global warming is taking place on Mars. Such a bozo needs to be hit with the metaphorical equivalent of a 2 by 4.

Gillett then bloviates like Patterson before him of the "massive amounts of deception" complaining  we (AGW proponents) somehow embrace "global economic justice" as our real reason to educate fellow citizens' on global warming. Thereby employing the common Libbie trope that global warming science is a "Trojan Horse" for overturning market economics and interjecting socialism or some such B.S.  This sort of tripe isn't even worth dignifying with a full response - only to say it shows the complainant has his head up his ass. (Apart from which no serious scientist would ever be published in a peer reviewed journal if he submitted a paper conflating economic justice with climate change).

Gillett then claims to "have followed the controversy from the very beginning" but one is left to wonder how much he really grasps (if indeed he has grasped any), given he then writes:

"Not one of the alarmists has yet shown any concrete proof that the Industrial Revolution has been responsible for whatever amount of warming the globe is currently experiencing"

But I have on a number of occasions, and not merely in blog posts but also in Port of Call articles and letter. In particular I cited and discussed at length solar physicist's John Eddy's contributions pertaining to the ratios of C14 to C12 over time.














As Eddy observed concerning this output ('The New Solar Physics'. p. 17):

“The gradual fall from left to right (increasing C14/C12 ratio) is…probably not a solar effect but the result of the known, slow decrease in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic moment.[1] exposing the Earth to ever-increased cosmic ray fluxes and increased radiocarbon production.

The sharp upward spike at the modern end of the curve, representing a marked drop in relative radiocarbon, is generally attributed to anthropogenic causes—the mark of increased population and the Industrial Age. The burning of low radiocarbon fossil fuels- coal and oil- and the systematic burning off of the world’s forests for agriculture can be expected to dilute the natural C14/C12 ratio in the troposphere to produce an effect like the one sho wn,"

In other words, we have the "smoking gun" that the onset of accelerated global warming actually commenced in the Industrial Revolution. Add in the fact that the CO2 molecule has an atmospheric lifetime of up to 100 years, and it is essentially 'case closed' for this hypothesis   Indeed, even more information can be extracted from the graph which was originally put forward by P.E. Damon ('The Solar Output and Its Variation', The University of Colorado Press, Boulder, 1977)

Assuming the validity of the arbitrary norm (zero line or abscissa) for 1890, then it is clear that the magnitude of the Middle Ages warming period (relative C14 strength of -18), for example, is less than about ½ the relative effect attributed mainly to anthropogenic sources in the modern era (-40). Even if one fourth the latter magnitude is assigned to solar activity (based on solar variability component detected over 1861-1990 amounting to 0.1- 0.5 W/m^2 vs. 2.0 to 2.8 W/m^2 for heating component arising from greenhouse gas emissions, cf. Martin I. Hoffert et al, in Nature, Vol. 401, p. 764) the anthropogenic effect is at least 3/2 that for the last (exclusively solar) warming period.

These examples disclose a major misunderstanding on the part of these Libertarian climate change deniers: naively expecting deterministic outcomes from disciplines based on stochastic processes. .Thus, a reasonable skeptic must allow for a higher threshold of fuzziness than allowed in celestial mechanics where I can very exactly predict Jupiter's position in 50 years. Further, complaints like Mason's and Gillett's betray an ignorance of the distinction between the predictive standards of different scientific disciplines. A layman with no physics background can be forgiven for overstepping but not  members of a high IQ society which ought to be dedicated to objective inquiry as opposed to hiding behind a political ideology (In this case blatant Libertarianism)

Another ignorant remark by Gillett is:

"the loudest proponents of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) have been deliberately lying and destroying data"

This, again, harks back to the email hack of a few global warming scientists back in 2011. The belief expressed by those like Gillett and his buddy Patterson, doubtless originated from a WSJ article from Nov. 28, 2011 by James Delingspole ('Climategate 2.0", p. A13) . Delingspole wrote at the time that a new release of mails showed that top scientists in the field fudging data, conspiring to bully, and silence opponents and displaying far less certainty about the reliabiity of anthropogenic global warming theory than they ever admit in public"

Delingspole, who is as bad at propaganda as the WC  hacks trying to pass Lee Harvey Oswald off as JFK's assassin, then names the "usual suspects": Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, and Michael Mann of Penn State University. This, despite the fact that three separate independent investigations found the researchers at East Anglia to be guilty of nothing more aberrant than academic hubris, some mild snark and poor decision making. Certainly nothing to merit expulsion from any professional organizations or dismissal from their university positions as some hysterical deniers demanded.

Another news item missed by this braying  ilk? How a once  prominent climate change skeptic – Richard Muller- decided to use the emails kerfuffle to investigate matters for himself . (The Denver Post, 'Skeptic No Longer Cool to Warming', 11/28/11,  p. 9A). Muller, an atmospheric physicist who was based at the University of California-Berkeley and the Lawrence Livermore National Lab,  completed an extensive study - partly funded by the global warming denier Koch Brothers - which showed land temperatures crept to 1.6 F degrees warmer than in the 1950s, even taking into account the "heat island" effects near cities .

Muller in his research proceeded to plumb a range of data, and went all the way back to the era of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson for readings in the 18th century. The accumulated evidence from all his data showed agreement with the mainstream global warming research community, that Earth's land temperatures are increasing and more rapidly than ever. Muller presented his results at a subsequent climate conference  asserting (ibid.):

"Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world"

That a front and center climate skeptic could utter these words discloses that the claim of "fudging data" is total horse shit. Hence Gillett, and by extension Kort Patterson, are full of total horse shit.

That the likes of this clown Gillett then has the absolute chutzpah to rail about the "abuse of scientific traditions" is the epitome of irony. Because it is HE and his lot of brainwashed minions who are manifestly debasing scientific traditions in the interest of a market economics which ignores real world physics. But we've seen this before and it is the basis of agnotology. This is the term used by Stanford historian of science Robert Proctor to the trend of skeptic science sown deliberately and for political or economic ends.

Sadly, it is a sordid technique employed by the libertarian  intelligentsia of the high IQ societies to try to undermine actual science.  Those interested can read more details here:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/01/as-i-noted-in-earlier-blog-httpbrane.html

Gillett again:

"So the lies go forward and even putatively intelligent people like Stahl and Schlotterbeck apparently accept those lies uncritically as do the masses."

An astounding remark emanating from the keyboard of a person I'd not even regard as "putatively intelligent" given that absurd statement which turns the meaning of actual science on its head. In fact, I do hope that his future proofreading exploits avoid any further genuine scientific contributions.

But maybe he can handle a few from Dr. Steve Mason!

The most amusing sentence in Gillett's wasted space? His final assertion:

"And no, Stahl and Schlotterbeck, I have not now or ever have been in the employ of the petroleum industry."

Missing the point that one doesn't have to be "in the employ" of the fossil fuelers in order to be brainwashed by their propaganda. As Gillett manifestly is, at least to the same extent as his buddy Patterson.

Look, one more thing: I've no objection to those like Gillett, Patterson, Mason or any others arguing from strict economics that they dislike climate research pointing to advancing warming - a result of human activity.  Thereby making the case that economic pain will be a result of accepting the data. But do not dare invoke a specious science of your own ignorant fabrication to try to make an opposite case, and especially to besmirch actual climate scientists like Prof. Gunther Weller who've spend decades accumulating their ice cores' data.

The view reinforced in these latest diatribes is that AGW critics from high IQ societies are basically lazy and aren't prepared to exert their brains by doing actual research and plowing through formal climate science papers. They are also myopic in failing to see beyond their own subjective commitment to economic aspects of their Libertarian ideology.  These aspects obviously would be adversely affected if climate change is real - which it is.

Suffice it to say I don't plan to  submit a response to Patterson's PoC which more and more has become a sounding board for his silly libbie POVs on everything, not just climate change.  First, because it  would be  a waste of time, and Patterson would either cut it short or insert another of his daft "editor's responses", and second, because it would merely elicit more nonsense from the Intertel libbie peanut gallery. It's clear as I said before, that these folks represent perfect examples of what one gets when intelligence runs amuck without guidelines or specialty disciplinary critical thinking to ground it.

Sad, but it discloses that - as my wife Janice put it this morning. -  a high IQ isn't any guarantee of having common sense or even a basic operative intelligence for accurately  perceiving reality. (I.e. the ability to do genuine critical thinking to filter out propaganda and PR). If any of these Intertel climate change critics were serious they'd spend less time in their Libertarian echo chamber of denial and more perusing the site for actual climate science:

www.realclimate.org

These inveterate climate change naysayers could also do themselves a favor by consulting the  "State of the Climate Report" put together by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).


Note (8/3): The day before our friend Nan arrived we endured a hail storm almost right out of the hail scene in 'Day After Tomorrow' e.g.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYpIeyg8Axs


The insurance assessor came today and inspected our roof then took photos showing it essentially destroyed by impacts estimated to be from hail between tennis and softball size. The inspector acknowledged the massive damage throughout our area including windows blown out, roofs shattered from impacts and decks, fences destroyed. Related to climate change? Of course!
-------

To see the actual policy statement of the American Geophysical Union, the broad organization for most climate research, go to:

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

"These are the people who think that intelligent design is real and that climate change is not. They do not want to know better. They do not want to be disputed with “facts” and “statistics” .... Bless their paranoid, passive-aggressive, willfully ignorant hearts"-
Mary Elizabeth Williams, on salon.com

Astrophysicist Intends Trilogy To Combat Global Warming Deniers - Can It Work?

Wonder why no sensible person can get through to climate change deniers?

Astrophysicist Philip Judge is a Briton living in Longmont, Colorado who - according to a Denver Post bio spot from two months ago ('Scientist Pens Trilogy To Combat Doubters', May 16, p. 8A)-  is "incensed about climate change doubters in recent years". Well, I mean just about every sensible person is so incensed, because trying to get through to these batshit crazy fools is like trying to make a hole in solid concrete with a pen. You will break the pen before you succeed.

In the meantime, these uninformed, semi-educated twits - ranging in IQ from room temperature level to members of Intertel (like Kort Patterson) keep generating nonstop codswallop such as global warming is one huge "swindle" or "alarmist conspiracy". And pray tell who is behind this conspiracy? Well, all federal scientific agencies including NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) which are supposedly all part of one grand government-sponsored "alarmist" network to hood wink citizens. If only! If that were the only fact we'd truly have nothing to fret over.

But as recent published data from NOAA and NASA have shown June global temperatures have now set a new global record "joining every other month so far this year".  Both federal agencies, indeed, have shown the temperature increments to have resulted in the highest departures since global temperatures began in 1880 (according to NOAA).

To be specific, NOAA revealed that globally -averaged temperatures in June were 1.62 F higher than the average across the 20th century. Meanwhile, NASA data showed globally averaged temperatures were 1.42 F above the average applicable to the years 1951 through 1980.  But still there are numb nuts who truly believe there is a "global warming pause'.

Of course, even before the string of new records Thomas Karl, Director of the National Centers for Environmental Information of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (NOAA),  had dispatched the warming pause nonsense. See e.g.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html

Judge is a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder where's he's been for 25 years. He plans to change the climate doubters' brains by publishing a trilogy entitled "Ergo Sum". Already two works have been published, the 2nd 'Credo, Ergo Sum" (transl. "I believe, therefore I am") in April. The third and final volume will be out later in the year.

In the Post bio piece, Judge expresses deep concern about climate science doubters and their political motives. As well he should, given most have been caught in the maw of the ExxonMobil brain fuck machine so are no longer capable of thinking for themselves unless it's to conjure up some conspiracy theory about scientists colluding to get money for grants. Which is the biggest howler of all as I exposed earlier. In fact, bozos who latch onto this BS aren't even clear that scientists compete for grant money so it would not be in their interest to vindicate or reinforce the research of others - far less engage in a massive, networked conspiracy to snatch more money from taxpayers to attain one single goal.

According to the write up Judge felt compelled to write a story about the ethics of what's going on. He posed the central question that runs like a thread through all the books:

"What kind of person is willing to gamble the future of their grandchildren at the expense of today?"

Well, evidently, a hell of a lot of haughty, arrogant "economy first" deniers who - despite never even having taken a 1st year college thermal physics course  such that they can pass a basic test, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/12/thermal-physics-test-for-skeptics.html

Believe they have all the answers and that global warming is an "alarmist conspiracy". The core question, of course, is whether a trilogy can change the minds of such people. I doubt it. First, if they refuse to even read a relatively objective journal like 'Nature' or a web site like www.realclimate.org
 what makes anyone think they'd wade through a trilogy concerning the ethics of rejecting climate science? All the odds point to the books being ignored.

Second, this gets us to the primary impediment for these denier pseudo skeptics to even consider genuine science: they suffer from false knowledge syndrome.  This leads them to collect — even invent — bad information to flesh out what they already believe.  The classic case is the semi-educated dupe who by virtue of bad life decisions or experiences comes to believe "all liberals are liars". He then somehow finds Larry Schweikart's fishwrap book on '48 Liberal Lies About American History' and finds specious support for his false knowledge and bad insights. Classic confirmation bias.

In the case of a climate denier, say as one finds in the high IQ societies, you are typically looking at a libertarian or anti-government kook who distrusts everything about government, especially its scientific capabilities. Hence, he postulates wackadoodle scheit like gov't climate scientists engaged in a massive "conspiracy" to create alarm and thereby destroy the economic basis of the nation.. These turkeys never seem to process that if the runaway greenhouse emerges, our whole electric power grid-  not to mention economic system  that hinges on it - will be the first to go.

More to the point, as an example of the creation of bad information invoked for what one already believes, one need look no further than libertarian wannabe curmudgeon Kort Patterson bloviating about "celestial mechanics" being a key basis for climate change over the ages. (Based on the absurd Milankovitch hypothesis). Or his claim that "changes on the Sun" are behind it, long since torpedoed by numerous solar physics papers and studies.

Guys like this, impervious to actual insights and knowledge, will hold onto anything so that their precious economic world with its gratuitous consumption and GDP can continue indefinitely.

Basically, short of a brain transplant, you are not going to change their minds, though I do give Philip Judge props for his efforts. That's a lot of time invested in a trilogy of books aimed at climate change denier block heads for a likely tiny return on investment.

Kiribati - Another 'Nail' In The B.S. Coffin Of Anthropogenic Climate Change Deniers

Kiribati boy tries to negotiate passage in deep waters which will soon inundate his island

A recent visit to Barbados (in April ) reminded us again  of the extent to which the island is at risk of losing its precious beaches, especially on the east and southeast coast.. With each passing year more coastal land is reclaimed due to the inexorably rising sea and now- unlike thirty years ago - you won't find one single climate change skeptic.

The degree of ocean reclamation of beach near the Atlantis Hotel had our heads spinning, as we were informed by the proprietor it had become much worse since our last buffet lunch there in 2010. He since had to move the pavilion and restaurant tables some twenty five feet further away from the beach which also reduced the total size of the area so more diners (who wished to dine outside) had to be  packed together.

Janice's older brother, a mechanical engineer, expressed the opinion of all of us in the party: "I just don't see how any of these climate change deniers have any credibility any more. It seems to me they all ought to be hooted out on a rail. "

Indeed. But Barbados isn't the only place enduring loss of beachfront land and even future inundation from rising seas. Look also at the island off Kiribati  - a collection of 23 coral islands and reef atolls in the South Pacific.  See e.g.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/22/kiribati-president-buying-land_n_5860064.html

In a recent Sunday New York Times article (p. A11) we learned how the future has now crashed into Kiribati and big time. Fortunately for them, no climate deniers like Kort Patterson were around to suffer like the islanders are. But as the piece informs us, for years climate scientists (real ones) has been predicting that much of the island of Kiribati proper would become uninhabitable - and within decades. This was directly because of an onslaught of problems linked directly to  climate change. 

But the islanders, much like the current climate deniers, paid little heed. They took all the advance warning with so many grains of salt and probably even believed they were coming from "alarmists", or rich white guys who merely wanted to drive them from their tropical island paradise. Now it appears a "tidal surge" last winter delivered a wake up call. Also known as a "king tide" the event shocked islanders much like the recent deluges in West Virginia, Texas and other U.S. locales have shocked residents there.  The Times quotes one pastor (of the Kiribati Uniting Church) who exclaimed "It shocked us. We realized, okay, maybe climate change is real."

To set the context, while the Pacific island nations are scattered and small, with tiny populations, they are sort of the 'canary in the coal mine' in terms of rising seas from climate change.  Indeed, these nations - in many ways like Barbados and other Caribbean island nations - are among the world's most vulnerable to the vicissitudes of climate change, especially in the economic and physical sphere. In Barbados, this has led to a general program to educate average citizens about the risks from climate change. Already, these risks have been visible in the recurring invasions of red algae and a certain species of knotty seaweed on southeast coastal beaches, such as Crane beach. The economic downside is obvious in driving tourists away.

It is a travesty of sorts that while world powers like the U.S. conduct summit meetings to negotiate carbon reduction, even if they aren't entirely successful like the Paris climate summit last December, nothing similar is being done for the micro nations like Barbados or Kiribati, the places where the most extreme climate consequences will strike first. 


This is extremely dismaying, and as we beheld in Bim, has the political establishment anxious given how the island is already suffering from credit downgrades.  Where does a tiny island state with a GDP roughly the same as Alex Gonzalez payroll on the NY Yankees go to get badly needed funds to reclaim beaches lost to the rising seas? To the IMF at 25%  interest? It simply isn't in the cards, not when there are so many other issues in play including how to ensure the island's water quality and protect it from possible sea water incursion.  

Meanwhile, in Kiribati, as in Barbados, climate scientists warn that rising seas are also likely to worsen erosion, trigger groundwater shortages and increase the intrusion of salt water into freshwater supplies.  Then there are the impacts from natural invasions that are accompaniments of climate change. In Barbados there are two: 1) ever more Sahara dust  clouding the skies and causing respiratory distress in residents - the dust arriving in greater concentrations due to droughts in Africa, and 2) the arrival of tropical pests including giant African land snails that consume vegetation as well as the Zika virus and dengue fever.  Again, as Janice's brother Anthony put it "Only an idiot or uneducated twit would believe climate change isn't real, or isn't human-engendered." 

What to do? Barbados top Minister for the Environment is already drawing up plans if the worse comes to the worst, including evacuations of affected citizens to other  (higher altitude) parts of the island. In the case of Kiribati we learn (ibid.)  it has actually been "drawing up plans for its demise".  In doing so, the government has "been promoting migration with dignity" and has been urging residents to acquire employable skills before they move abroad.  Already, the government has "bought up nearly 6,000 acres of land in Fiji" - an island nation more than one thousand miles distant. This is as a potential refuge given Fiji is at a higher elevation and has a more stable shoreline.

Yes, some people in the world, not so blessed as to inhabit rarefied ivory  towers of unaffected areas, don't have the luxury to pen codswallop about "climate alarmists". The threat to their very way of life is real and very personal, involving how they can live and where they can actually survive.   But one thing is true: eventually everyone on the planet will be affected, even the most hidebound, stubborn deniers - who might well be yelping "There is no climate change it's just a big conspiracy!"  even as they are carried away by rising seas.