What’s the biggest challenge facing a “science communicator”? In this, the age of global warmism, it is wishing devoutly that a natural disaster kill as many disbelievers as possible while having them simultaneously survive so that their noses can be rubbed in their fatuous denial of “true science.”
More specifically, this is the dream of someone named Brad, who blogs at something called Climate Nuremberg. Brad is careful to avoid giving away too much information about himself (on his “About” page he writes, “I’m hardly going to give you my last name, am I, douchecanoes?”). Then again, in light of his views, which include the following, it’s understandable he chooses to guard his anonymity:
As a communicator myself, I’d like nothing better than for thousands of middle-class white people to die in an extreme weather event — preferably one with global warming’s fingerprints on it — live on cable news. Tomorrow. [Emphasis added]
The hardest thing about communicating the deadliness of the climate problem is that it isn’t killing anyone. And just between us, let’s be honest: the average member of the public is a bit (how can I put it politely?) of a moron. It’s all well and good for the science to tell us global warming is a bigger threat than Fascism was, but Joe Q. Flyover doesn’t understand science. He wants evidence.
Ever the “science communicator,” Brad invoked the considered opinion of “cognitive scientist C. R. R. Kampen,” who “thinks the annihilation of a city of 150,000 people might just provide the teaching moment we need.” [Ed. note: The link in the previous sentence takes you not to the “work” of C.R.R. Kampen but to an article by one Stephan Lewandowsky titled “The Analysis of Speech.” One of the commenters in the thread that follows identifies himself as “cRR Kampen.” So much for science communication.]
You see, consensus is so often only reached after a painful confrontation with evidence.
Knowing this, I hope against knowledge of her expected track that Cyclone Ita will wipe Cairns off the map. Because the sooner the lesson is learnt by early confrontation, the better one more population will be suited to anticipate and mitigate the vast weather and climate (+ related) disasters that lie in the immediate future and to lose all distractions on the way.
By this point, you get the general drift.
Never has there been a tract on the “dangers of the denialist agenda” that so clearly embraced the non-science of the science of climate change. For people like Brad — and possibly cRR Kampen — climate change is a religion, right down to the prayer to the Gods of climate change that He smite down the heathens. The only difference for Brad is that he wants the smiting to be impermanent so he can say, “Toldja!”
I hope for Brad’s sake that (1) he is kidding and (2) he is 15.
- EPA chief’s weekly flights home emit tons of CO2
- Peer-reviewed scientific consensus: Lying about climate is beneficial
- The big list of failed climate predictions
- Latest UN climate report is usual lying sack of — well, you know
- U.N. climate report writer resigns, calling today’s report ‘too alarmist’
- Repent, ye sinners: Climate change will cause spike in … golfing?
- Video: The best numbers from YOUR $700K climate change musical
- The coming paradigm shift on climate: Get ready for the liberal denial
- Dissension in the ranks among scientists over key climate impact report
- White House explores ways to curb flatulence to protect climate