Roberts: ‘Climate deniers won’t change, but they will die’

The enviro who called for Nuremberg-style trials for deniers is now waiting for deniers to die.

In “‘Cohort replacement’: Climate deniers won’t change, but they will die“, Dave Roberts writes:

… I don’t think the climate deniers will ever change their minds. What will happen is that they will, to put it bluntly, die off. We might wish it otherwise, but I fear that change on climate — real change, non-linear change — will not happen until the generational cohort in which climate denialism is concentrated begins passing into the sweet beyond.

There’s a polite term for this process: “cohort replacement.” This nice introductory post defines it as “the replacement of old guards of organizational members and leaders with newer cohorts who have different beliefs, opinions, and values.” It’s a strangely underappreciated mechanism of social change, but if you ask me, it gets the lion’s share of the credit for most substantial social shifts over the last century. People rarely change their minds, especially about matters core to ideology and identity. But they do die!…

Read Roberts’ entire screed.

19 thoughts on “Roberts: ‘Climate deniers won’t change, but they will die’”

  1. To cfostel:
    “Eventually climate data being gathered by unbiased satellites will….” you said
    I continue: ….will be further manipulated by BASTARDAMUSES-politicians and made “strictly confidential; Only for the WH and its anus-lickers.”
    Unless, of course, we change that nest of puff-adder(s)

  2. Constantine: Human nature being what it is, and fully shared by scientists, “political and/or financial reasons” is right on the mark. I like your ‘heated frying pan’ metaphor also. Makes me imagine Climate Chicken Little meeting up with Climate Kentucky Colonel. How about a scientific Nuremberg Trial for the Global Warming Alarmist fraudsters? Bernie Madoff’s fraud is penny-ante stuff compared to the massive mis-allocation of public monies to government action for Global Climate Management. The clowns can’t even keep the streets safe or in good repair.

  3. As I recall there has yet to be a human immortal. Fortunately, pre-Copernican scientists eventually died out, as did pre-Galilean, and pre-Einsteinean. More recently, has anyone been paying frantic attention to the Ozone Hole? An ozone hole is still forms over the South Pole every southern winter when no sunlight hits the South Pole to regenerate the ozone. Unfortunately, the U.S. still has costly regulations prohibiting CFC use. These regulations were enacted to protect the northern latitudes from having CFC in the atmosphere cause the ozone hole to grow to global proportions. The Ozone Hole alarmists predictions of the 1980s eventually gave way to the data showing the Hole was a natural phenominum that waxed and waned with normal weather patterns.

    Eventually climate data being gathered by unbiased satellites will over come the alarmists predictions and they will pick a new natural phenomina to sound the alarm about. It is just unfortunate that bad laws enacted to ease the fears generated by their shameless funding pursuit and the economic harm these laws produce will last for decades if not centuries to come.

  4. As banal card-sharpers, the adherents of the “real scientific approach to the Climate Change problem” (among whom this Dave Roberts has found a cozy shelter) keep replacing terms, notions and facts.
    1. The so-much-hated “Climate deniers” are not denying “climate” simply because it’s impossible to deny CLIMATE.

    2. The original name of that al-Gore hysteria was “MAN-MADE Global Warming.”
    Then, when the “warming” became disconcerted, that name has step-by-step changed to “Man-MADE Climate Change”, then the “Man-Made” was abolished for pure political reasons, and we’ve got that slogan “Climate Change”.
    But this very abridgment has revealed that our dear “scientists” (like this Dave Roberts) are suffering a disease that can be called a “brain shortage”: Climate Change is a NATURAL process that the Earth constantly goes through. We know that there have been at least five major Ice ages in the Earth past. Obviously, between them, there have been Warming Ages. We the people of the modern generations remember that a very cold weather happened every 30-40 years: In 1941, it was a very cold Winter in the European part of the USSR (which had helped to defeat Germans in the Moscow Battle on December 6, 1941). In 1973 (32 years later!), it was -44 Celsius (-47.2F) in Moscow. In 2004, it was again extremely cold in Moscow. See: every 30 years. And in between – “global warming.”
    In other words, Climate Changes are a NORMAL geophysical process, which human activities have nothing (or almost nothing) to so with.

    3. These “scientific” morons (oh gosh, forgive me for such a gloomy diagnosis!) are either too lazy or too uneducated to understand that proper (meaning: HONEST, non-biased!) computations have shown that human activities they hate so much are contributing to the NATURAL geophysical processes of Climate changes in amount of a minuscule fraction of 1 percent, and even the full stop of producing CO2 as a result of a greenhouse effect won’t stop the climate change anyway (if not to mention other negative results of implementation of the rabid ideologues activity.

    4. The decisive impact on the climatic change of the Earth is being made not by human activity, but by variations of intensity of solar luminosity. Such a conclusion has been made by Russian scientists of Pulkovo observatory and by American experts of NASA.
    The parallel global warming of the Mars climate has been detected by experts NASA in an interval with 1999 for 2005 also confirms their conclusion: there is neither human activity no greenhouse effect on Mars, therefore, the parallel global warming at the same time on both Earth and Mars can be only a direct consequence of the influence of the same factor – a long-term change of the intensity of the Solar radiation.
    Now the Solar luminosity has already entered a decreasing phase of the century cycle, but the thermal inertia of the Earth still causes the global warming, which we observe in recent years.
    This effect of a ‘heated frying pan’ will last as many as 6-8 years, and then earthmen will feel very slow beginning of cooling. It is being corroborated by the beginning of cooling of the upper layers of the World Ocean in 2003-2005.

    5. No matter what facts and real non-biased scientists say, the rabid “warmingers” will keep emanating their propaganda because of political and/or financial reasons.

  5. In two short paragraphs, the contrast in the AGW debate is framed in concise , articulate and simple splendor. Bravo, Jules……. you nailed it!

  6. Coincidentally, Europe has record cold this week, added to an “avalanche” of data (eg: no or minimal sea-level rise, antarctica). Can anybody get these morons to shut up? —-I know, let’s wait for THEM to die!

  7. Climates change; they always have and they always will. I would rather live in a warmer world than a colder one. However we are in between ice ages so it will inevitably get colder at some point, that will then be a fight for survival. CO2 is great! It is essential for life on this planet. In the geological past when there were higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were the times when life on this planet was at it’s most abundant. The myth of AGW is used by our leaders to tax us more. We will be burning all the coal and all the oil and gas that we can extract from the planet, that is obvious. If we do have a warmer world in teh future then lets be thankful we are not dieing in an ice age.

  8. Classical science (the old stuff) is based on curiosity, observations, measurements, compilations, calculations and conclusions. Conclusions produce questions that intensify curiosity and the cycle repeats itself, leading to our ever expanding knowledge of the universe.

    Politically correct science is based on emotions, agendas, consensus, doctrine and dogma. Questions, challenges and/or alternative theories are never allowed and our knowledge of the universe becomes stifled and diminished.

  9. When a really good explanation for a scientific phenomenon is presented, most scientists say, as the biologists did on the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, damn, that’s great, why didn’t I see that. This happened with relativity, destruction of the phlogiston theory, genetic inheritance, the cell theory and so on and so on. It is a myth that only the young adopt new ideas. Good theories stand up to examination and give rise to exciting new studies.
    One of the worries about AGW is that it doesn’t show the characteristics above. It doesn’t fit the facts well enough. Its main tool, modelling, is known to be weak, especially when so many determinants are not included in the models (dust, water vapour, solar radiation etc).
    We will die, but the evidence is that AGW will die first as it has amazingly little support amongst the public (though not politicians). It will die soon – as soon as one really important figure says it is not an adequate explanation for the minor warming we have had in the last 100 years. We have had some very bad leadership in science. Maybe this needs to change to precipitate the death of AGW.

  10. Well, it COULD occur. We had a Dark Ages once before, where knowledge and culture were “cohort replaced” by barbarians and warlords, and scientific investigation was “cohort replaced” by dogma and mysticism.

    If I had to choose the most likely vanguard of our next one, the radical environmentalists are made to order.

  11. Yes, we may die, but we may also eventually die if we eat carrots, to many candy bars, etc,etc. Having gone to school when they told you in pre-kindergarten, we have 4 seasons. Summer, Fall, Winter, nd Spring. Once and a while, its hard to tell the difference between summer and fall. Common sense will win out over the co2 quacks. CO2 is a fertilizer. It is not a poluttant.

  12. Doesn’t this nut-job realize that his “science” is simply drying up? The reason that “deniers” (his wording, not mine) as a group are increasingly growing is because these people can think for themselves. They can plainly see what’s going on within the entire scam that these “scientists” and their cronies in government have been trying to sell to the world, as if their love for humanity has outpaced their greedy little pocket books! So while you “believers” out there are waiting for the eminent deaths of those “deniers” on your block just remember that you too will be leaving us in the same manner, even though you won’t be dying with the same dignity that the rest of us will be.

  13. So what does Mr. Roberts think will happen to the AGW advocates like himself? They’re immortal? That water they’ve all been walking on has suddenly engulfed their neck and will soon rise above their uplifted noses. And he doesn’t “think the climate deniers will ever change their minds.” Brilliant, astute observation that is oblivious to his own intransigence. This “denier” will change my mind when the AGW crowd produces proof based on sound scientific theory supported by impartial, experimental observations that directly correlate with the predictions. Mr. Roberts and his phalanx of scientific “experts” have only proved how their preconceived agenda trumped inconvenient discrepancies, fudged data and facts among zealots more interested in perpetuating their carefully crafted hoax and keep those grant dollars from drying up. The “deniers” are messing up their narrative of fear, years spent dedicated to promoting their agenda will have been wasted and hopes of Nobel prizes and lucrative book deals are going up, if Mr. Roberts can pardon the expression, in smoke. It is Mr. Roberts and his fellow conspirators who are having the most trouble changing their minds. Perhaps an epiphany will make Mr. Roberts realize that the some of us “deniers” have already had a mind change.

  14. Not what I would call a ringing endorcement to the fundamental universal truth of AGW.

    Once everybody that is old enough to have experienced that the weather has not changed and is no more “extreme” than it has ever been AGW theory can gain dominance.

  15. “Cohort replacement” refers to replacement of an ‘old guard’ that has a major investment in old ideas with newer, younger members who have been educated and trained in an environment that allows them to compare the old and new ideas without bias or pre-investment. This is how many of the old Newtonian physicists were replaced with Einsteinian physicists.
    A key to the process is the availability of *empirical data* (not just theoretical calculations) that compare the old and new ideas and discriminate based on the differences in their consequences.
    AGW theory predicts significant mid-tropospheric heating that is inconsistent with the empirical data that show the mid-troposphere is not significantly warmer than the lower or upper troposphere. Simply stated, AGW makes erroneous predictions.
    “Cohort replacement” will NOT occur because the ‘new’ ideas are not supported by the empirical data.

  16. So, is this scientific prima nocta?

    To paraphrase the king in “Braveheart:”
    The problem with science is that it is full of scientists!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.