CONSENSUS WATCH – 8/30/2011

An ongoing series dedicated to vigorously monitoring emerging threats to The Consensus that global warming is real, caused by humans, and must be addressed at all costs. Because without consensus, scientific conclusions would remain vulnerable to new data.

It is a disgrace that there are still those who would attack the integrity of scientists who support the Consensus.  These global warming denialists slander them with the lie that they are making up the science in order to make money. Such attempts to delegitimize people through character assassination must stop.

This is not to be confused with the 100% legitimate tactic of accusing those who don’t support the Consensus of being a lot like racists.  That’s perfectly okay, according to Al Gore, former Vice President and millionaire global warming businessman, because as he sees it, supporting today’s Consensus on global warming is a lot like supporting the civil rights movement back in the 1960s.  In the former, a group of government-funded researchers are attempting to shield a scientific theory from further scrutiny, and in the latter, an entire race of people were systematically denied fundamental human rights as guaranteed under our Constitution.

In terms of the “moral component,” it’s really just two sides of the same coin.  A really thick coin.

For example, let’s say you point out to a friend that data gathered regarding moisture and temperature readings in the tropical upper troposphere seem to be at odds with current Consensus models.  What you've basically just said, is that only whites should be allowed to ride in the front of the bus.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

What can we do about this transparent anti-global warming racism? As Al Gore says, we must work to “win the conversation,” when it comes to the Consensus:

“There came a time when friends or people you work with or people you were in clubs with — you’re much younger than me so you didn’t have to go through this personally — but there came a time when racist comments would come up in the course of the conversation and in years past they were just natural. Then there came a time when people would say, ‘Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean that is wrong. I don’t go for that so don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that.’ That happened in millions of conversations and slowly the conversation was won.”

Yes, it can be difficult and awkward, but you can do it.  Here’s an example:

A Friend: Did you see that peer-reviewed paper that demonstrated the sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change?

You: Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean that is wrong. I don’t go for that.

A Friend: What? I’m just saying that satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, which calls into question their accuracy.

You: Don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that.

There’s a chance your friend will be hurt and confused by this confrontation. You need to explain that you’re not accusing him of prejudice, but rather “postjudice.”  Postjudice is when you form an opinion about something only after you’ve examined all the available evidence. 

For example, let’s say you come across a study demonstrating that that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation providing support for a "heliocentric" rather than "anthropogenic" approach to climate change.

If you then conclude that current climate models will have to be revisited and the role of the sun taken into greater account regarding climate change, you’re just being postjudice.  If instead, you had approached the subject having already made up your mind that humans driving SUVs cause global warming, and instruct those involved to keep their opinions to themselves, you could avoid creating all this awkwardness in the first place.

This will not be easy, but then, it never has been easy, has it?

I have a dream that one day at an IPCC conference, the sons of former denialists and the sons of former Consensus supporters will be able to sit down together and agree the Consensus supporters were right.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of global warming, sweltering from runaway CO2 production, will be transformed into an oasis of solar cells sold by Al Gore-owned companies.

I have a dream that UN reports on global warming will one day be judged not by the content of their research, but by the color of their covers.

I have a dream today…

J.

Now you have a chance to show your support for The Consensus with the Shut up, that’s why T-shirt, the perfect answer to anyone who dares to question the science behind global warming.

In addition to the T-shirt we also have a fashionable beach tote and a set of stackable mugs, so you’ll have the opportunity to show the world that you’re smart enough to know when not to ask too many questions.

And while you're at it, make sure the world knows you won't allow yourself to be bullied by facts with our extensive line of CONSENSUS WATCH MERCHANDISE!

 PLUS: Our "We're all going to die! (Some before others)" organic T-shirt, sleevless shirt, and mug.  

We also have the classic Consensus Watch coffee mug, bag, and beer stein (along with assorted T-shirts, sweatshirts, and other garments): "Consensus Watch Because without consensus, scientific conclusions would remain vulnerable to new data" plus a complete line of "Stop raping the planet! You may, however, touch it inappropriately," items (shirts, coasters, stickers, buttons)

All proceeds raised from the sale of Consensus Watch merchandise go towards ensuring that we never run out of gin.