Earlier this week my column highlighted several unique weather circumstances politically seized upon by the global warming alarmists. I closed the piece with a simple query – what can you and I do to debate the, myth, lies and culpable-media distortions?
The answer to that simple question may be surprisingly elementary.
Recently San Diego’s Lynceans group hosted a global warming debunking seminar in which several speakers highlighted effective debate tactics for global warming skeptics.
In particular, distinguished scientist Dr. Roger Cohen offered up a three-point approach for those wishing to engage and debate:
The Global Warming Alarmist’s “Appeal to Authority” – This seems to be the first line of defense for global warming advocates. They often appeal to their authority by citing ‘irrefutable evidence’, ‘consensus’ and such to assert authority and stifle debate. Recently, 31,000 climate scientists have signed the Petition Project. Also, top international climate scientists recently sent the United Nations a petition that challenges the UN’s global warming agenda. Settled science? Not hardly.
Global Warming’s “Precautionary Principles” – Global warming alarmists typically ignore the economic ramifications of drastic legislative measures. Yale’s Professor of Economics, William Nordhaus performed a study disproving draconian state-directed global warming initiatives, showing that simply ‘doing nothing’ would have the same effect over the next 50 years as extreme government action would.
This point begs a question – should Americans allow our economy to be potentially crippled and hyper-regulated due to the oft-chance inevitable collision of some lumbering asteroid in a galaxy far, far, away? In many ways global warming proponents are advocating just that.
The Alarmist “Pure Anger” Approach “ – This occurrence is an emotional, visceral display that shows skeptics are winning the day. It’s a common feature of debate — a citizen dares to question the validity of the global warming religiosity and is castigated as a “flat-earther” or other variety of pejorative. Dr. Cohen’s advice for the Pure Anger approach is to simply ignore and revel in the fact that it is the surest sign that global warming advocates are losing the debate.
The instructions above come in handy if the vampirious, multi-headed monster knows as Cap and Trade appears in Congress again. California residents also can use this information against opponents of Proposition 23.
Skeptics most likely won’t get any airtime on MSNBC or The New York Times but you can take it to the streets, your college campus and even around the dinner table with familial global warming kool-aid drinkers.
As the summer and global warming rhetoric heats up – it pays to know the correct course of discourse.
Tim Daniel is a small business owner and entrepreneur who currently lives in San Diego, California with his wife and lovely cat. He is editor in chief of the southern California-based Left Coast Rebel blog.