by Daniel Brouse
Climate Scientist
Climate Denial Part I: A Climate Denier Making a “False Narrative” Political Stand
Climate Denial Part II: Freedom of Speech, Authority, and Regulation
According to an analysis from the Center for American Progress, there are still 139 Republicans in the 117th Congress, including 109 representatives and 30 senators, who refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change. All 139 of these climate-denying Republicans have made recent statements casting doubt on the clear, established scientific consensus that the world is warming—and that human activity is to blame. These same 139 climate-denying Republicans have received more than $61 million in lifetime contributions from the coal, oil, and gas industries.
Michael Bierly asked:
which is worse — the gop denying it or the dems accepting it verbally yet doing nothing about it?
I responded:
Both are equally responsible for this part: “In the spring of 2023, the USA suspended their national debt ceiling. Included in the debt ceiling suspension is a provision for unlimited emergency federal spending. The result is the government can continue to ignore the causes of climate change and instead give trillion-dollar subsidies to the fossil fuel industry through emergency disaster relief. Yes, another vicious circle — more fossil fuels subsidies result in more climate catastrophes resulting in more fossil fuel subsidies, etc. The end result will be additional trillions in government borrowing while the standard of living declines.” — Daniel Brouse
After I asked Darren Wolfe to stop posting climate denial lies on my page, Darren replied:
I guess I’m the world’s first authoritarian libertarian. Anyway, I’m not the one threatening legal action to silence a different POV. Who is the authoritarian now?
Let me repackage what I’ve already posted. Do agree that the Earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles that have nothing to do with CO2 emissions?
I replied:
No. Not during the existence of humans has the Earth warmed to the levels of July 2023. That’s why I asked you to read my peer reviewed research. You also need to learn the difference between your opinion/point of view and facts. I’m not trying to silence your point of view. I’m trying to silence your dangerous and inaccurate information. What you are doing is equivalent to telling people to ignore the fire alarm in a crowded theater during a fire. So, back to your good question. No. The Earth has never been through a warming cycle like the one caused by burning fossil fuels.
Darren Wolfe:
Ja wohl Herr Gestapoman! You really need a shrink. I’m merely trying to have a discussion with you. Are you really so weak and insecure that you can’t handle respectful disagreement? I will cease and desist because I’m tired of your dogma. You win and freedom of speech loses. I hope you’re happy now.
Daniel Brouse:
No. Freedom of speech wins! Liars lose. This is not a respectful disagreement… this has been an ignoramus making a “false narrative” political stand on a climate scientist’s page.
Oliver Kocher said:
I find there certainly isn’t scientific consensus about catastrophic, human caused climate change, it’s just that those who don’t agree with the agenda are minimized and have their voices silenced. And besides, the idea of “consensus” being the right thing to go by is sketchy at best. Remember when the Copernican theory of the solar system was “consensus” and people were jailed or worse for disagreeing? Or as a more recent example, COVID 19. Consensus certainly wasn’t a sure thing on that, but those who disagreed were threatened, cancelled, and silenced, just to find out a year later that many of them were right, and their very valid concerns were often at least partially correct. So, your claim of consensus is a logical fallacy of “appeal to authority.”
I replied:
Sorry to say, but you are wrong. When you disagree with facts you are not exercising freedom of speech. You are committing fraud or libel. Science has nothing to do with consensus. 1 = 1. Nevertheless, there is also consensus: “A 2021 report by Cornell University found that 99.9% of more than 88,000 climate change studies agree that humans have accelerated the phenomenon, largely due to carbon emissions.” It’s when you use fraudulent consensus like Darren did (in Part I) that you get yourself into legal trouble.
Ken V Kaplan added:
Oliver Kocher, it’s people like you who put people like them in Congress. To compare Copernican theory with CC denial is preposterous. The empirical evidence is incontrovertible that over 90% of Covid deaths once vaccines were introduced (hundreds of thousands) were among the unvaccinated.
Look the frack around and wake up. You live in a developed country that relies on air conditioning. Others aren’t so lucky. People got third degree burns in AZ from the pavement. The new normal is once in a 100 year disasters are now common. And it will get worse.
Oliver Kocher:
So consensus that agrees with you is right, but consensus that disagrees with you is “fraudulent.” Got it. That’s awfully convenient.
Ken V Kaplan:
Oliver Kocher, there is no actual consensus against CC except for deep deniers about man made CC. Your stement is an example of “false equivalence.” Daniel is an expert in this field. What are your credentials?
BTW, look around. What the hell do you think is happening? 100-500 year occurances are now yearly, on every front, hurricanes, fires, droughts, floods, you name it.
People in AZ got frigging third degree burns from the pavement. Without AC the state would be uninhabitable. You can’t get insurance in Fla.
This is just the beginning.
Daniel Brouse:
Oliver Kocher, no. That’s not what I said. I said my research is not based on consensus… our team are the originators of the hypothesis. Since that time we have gone on to prove our hypothesis, as well as, get 80,000 studies to confirm our results. Now our hypothesis has become theory. That means it is fact. It has nothing to do with consensus. Another fact is people need education about politics, economics, and science. Normally this problem would be only of concern to the individual; however, when people spread dangerous, deadly misinformation, it becomes my concern.
Oliver Kocher:
Daniel Brouse, ok. How am I an authoritarian libertarian? That doesn’t even make sense.
In addition, I do not deny that the climate is changing. I question whether that change is caused by human activity, and more specifically, if it is, whether the impact of the US is sufficient to change the course of said climate change. It is part of the nature of climate to change, so no, I’m not a climate change denier, I’m just skeptical of the alleged cause and theorized effects of it.
Daniel Brouse:
An authoritarian libertarian means you insist on your opinion of “freedom of speech”. You are not free to make false scientific claims. I’m not saying you have, but Darren has. You are allowed to say that you are skeptical of whatever you believe. However, if your opinion is wrong about a fact… expressing that opinion makes you a liar, at best.
“Our team are the originators of the hypothesis. Since that time we have gone on to prove our hypothesis, as well as, get 80,000 studies to confirm our results. Now our hypothesis has become theory. That means it is fact.” If you are skeptical of the facts I have presented (and are supported by over 80,000 independent studies), then prove me wrong with your own scientific study. Otherwise, you should learn these new facts… new to you.
FACT: Human induced climate change is an exponential component of an unordered system (chaos theory). That means global warming is accelerating at a rapid rate in a complex way.