AGW catastrophism Climate Change Culture Dissent Freedom Global Warming IPCC Omniclimate Policy Politics Science Skepticism

Epidemiology And The Rise Of AGW's Ugly (Fascist) Head

Mike Kaulbars at News Junkie Post writes plenty of idiotic nonsense in the desperate attempt at finding a legal way to prevent people from ever questioning a thing about climate change.

In particular, a lot is made of the alleged analogy between global warming doubters and the tobacco companies engaged in fighting against the truth about the nasty effects of cigarette smoking. A truth discovered by British researcher Richard Doll.

But whoever mentions Doll in support of the uber-Warmists has obviously not bothered to try to understand what Doll has actually done. Epidemiology concerns the past, and can only be applied to stuff that has already happened. Doll’s results were overwhelming, with manifold increases in the risks of developing cancer and/or heart disease.

That has little to do with “climate change”. In the very words of Mike Kaulbars himself, “climate change promises to be much more deadly in the 21st century“, i.e. it is a concern for the future. And as such, its effects cannot be ascertained in advance with any degree of certainty remotely resembling Richard Doll’s.

I am also amazed that Mr Kaulbars has managed to write so much about the legal aspects of talking about climate change, without a single mention or link to the IPCC.

Poor Pachauri, so much work done and now just of figure of fun or neglect.

0 replies on “Epidemiology And The Rise Of AGW's Ugly (Fascist) Head”

Whoever bundles people up in neat good-vs-bad categories is a fascist by definition. Likewise marking somebody’s reasoned comments as “trolling” is a bad case of bullying. At least I can provide a rational explanation.

When someone gets labelled a denier you scream WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! DON’T CALL THEM DENIERS!!! But you don’t have a problem calling AGW ugly and fascist. You’re a hypocrite ansd a whining wanker Maurizio.

Hi, Nice post!

I really like it especially the part “But whoever mentions Doll in support of the uber-Warmists has obviously not bothered to try to understand what Doll has actually done. ”

I will surely reading your other posts.

The article you link to claims:
“In the 20th century smoking killed 100 million people . Climate change promises to be much more deadly in the 21st century”. When you click on “much more deadly” you’re sent to:
which quotes its shocking findings from:
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Climate Change
who are financed by Shell, BP, Exxon, etc.
Small world.

I made a similar point about old Jerome Ravetz, father of Post-Normal Science, and criticized him for lumping ‘Climate Change’ in with evident diseases. For example Ravetz states “Wherever we turn, be it in global climate change, new-variant CJD, weakening of male sperm in many species, or the rising incidence of asthma, we find serious, perhaps very threatening problems, for which science provides no easy answers.” And Ravetz proposes his Post-Normal Science method as the way forward. But note that ‘global climate change’ is there lumped in with human disease, the incidence of which appears in populations of discrete entities. As I commented on this:
‘To include “global climate change” in a list with increasing incidences of new-variant CJD, infertility, and asthma is completely disingenuous. Those things and their trends are all relatively easily measured and diagnosed. Ravetz is not stupid – he was originally a mathematician – and he knows a lot about numbers, so he knows that he is pulling the wool over our eyes by including climate change in a list of diseases that affect populations of discrete entities. Is the incidence of “global climate change” increasing? Do we have a population of thousands of other similar earths with which to compare our earth?

Moreover, if a patient presents with CJD, you know from experience that it’s life threatening and not the natural state. You might have difficulty finding the causes and dealing with them, but you know for certain that this is not the normal state of affairs. The same can’t be said of “global climate change”. Ravetz has absolutely no grounds to say that “global climate change” is a “serious, perhaps very threatening problem”, nor should he include it in a list of things that are measurably increasing and deleterious. People have died of asthma and CJD, so there cannot be the slightest doubt that they are “serious…very threatening” – we know the likely prognoses. But climate change has been happening for thousands of years, and no one has yet been able to demonstrate that this is anything but a normal state of affairs – natural variation – nor can we make any realistic prognosis. What Ravetz has done is assume that climate change is an unnatural phenomenon with a deadly causative agent (anthropogenic, of course!) – he assumes the ‘normal’ science can tell him that, so that the ‘post-normal’ science can be applied to the allegedly difficult problems it throws up. But you don’t need policies to deal with things that haven’t been shown to be problems in the first place– don’t waste your time chasing those shadows when there are plenty of real problems in the world that can be diagnosed and dealt with.’

Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.