Anthony Watts has posted a puff piece at WUWT (archived here). In it Andy May says how he wants a world without nature, or at least that's the subtext. What puzzles me is what on earth is it that deniers find so enticing about ridding the world of the abundance of amazing, wondrous flora and fauna? What is it that makes people so irate about having to share the planet with other species?
Andy May likes science fiction. He wrote about how fiction writer Michael Crichton was 'a wonderful writer'. Yes, he could write a compelling yarn, but why Andy prefers Crichton pseudo-science to real science remains a mystery. I guess that the only thing deniers have on their "side" is fiction.
Andy then went on about how "Environmentalists are horrible at predictions". What about all the wrong predictions about ice ages comething that deniers have come up with?
It gets worse. Andy wrote how "millions haven’t starved due to overpopulation", and linked to an article on Bloomberg. He can't have read the article. It was about Paul Ehrlich's book the Population Bomb. The Bloomberg author, Justin Fox, wrote how he read the book in a couple of hours (it's not a long book), and said in part:
...I have to say it surprised me.
First of all, half of Ehrlich’s prediction came true. He forecast in the book that global population, about 3.5 billion at the time, would double by 2005. He was only six years off on that -- world population hit 7 billion in 2011 -- which I figure counts as getting it right.
What Ehrlich famously got wrong was the planet’s carrying capacity. Sure, global population doubled. But thanks to the Green Revolution, per-acre grain yields went up much faster than that. The inflection point in global agricultural productivity, in fact, came just as Ehrlich was finishing his book.
Here’s the interesting thing, though -- Ehrlich was well aware that this was a possibility. New rice, wheat and corn varieties, he wrote in 1968, “have the potential for at least doubling yields under proper growing conditions.” They were, he concluded, the world’s best shot at averting mass famine. But while he was “hopeful” about the prospects for an “agricultural revolution,” there were all kinds of things that could go wrong, so he didn’t think anybody should bank on it.
That's right. Justin Fox pointed out that not only were half of his predictions correct, but Paul Erlich anticipated that advances may stop some of what he feared from happening. Thing is, without the warnings one has to ask whether there would have been sufficient attention to improving yields. Quite possibly not.
There's a lot more, but I'll just mention one thing. Many climate science deniers are staunchly against protection of natural resources and anything nature. Many also favour the use of harmful chemicals. Andy is no exception. He hasn't quite gone to the extent of drinking DDT but he does love it a lot more than he likes raptors. He is not the least bit skeptical of Michael Crichton's false claim that DDT doesn't harm them. He embraces that notion. He should take a leaf out of the book of Dr. Ana María Rodríguez, who describes how she investigated claims such as this. Her work is provided as a homework exercise. She described three steps when you find a claim:
- Go to the original source
- Find out where it was published
- Talk to the experts.
As I said at the start, climate science deniers at times seem to not only want to "bring on" the end of civilisation as we know it, they want to kill off all the plants, birds and animals as well.
From the WUWT comments
I'll just post this one comment, because I think it has a lot of truth to it, if only BernardP would realise why as he says "Skeptics are ignored or ridiculed, left to talk amongst themselves in their little sandbox.":
September 14, 2016 at 5:54 am
In fact, more than luck is needed. The Warmists are holding all the levers of power. The mainstream media keeps playing the AGW scare. New measures to fight Climate Change are continually being enacted. Skeptics are ignored or ridiculed, left to talk amongst themselves in their little sandbox.
When trying to discuss a skeptical point of view of climate change with friends and relatives, I am almost always dismissed : “It’s so obvious that man-made-climate-change is happening… I saw it on the news, I read it in the paper, I saw it on in internet…”
People don’t want to make the effort of looking for, and evaluating, contrarian point of views. They want the truth fed to them… like a religion.
More fundamentally, similarly to religion, too many people ***want*** to believe in man-made-climate-change. Believing gives them a convenient frame of reference to judge good and bad.
Perhaps if Bernard P would do what Dr. Ana María Rodríguez did, he wouldn't find himself "almost always dismissed".
References and further reading
Why 'The Population Bomb' Bombed - article by Justin Fox on Bloomberg, about The Population Bomb by Paul Erlich
USGS Data Exploration Unit: Lesson 1 Homework – Identifying Bias: DDT and Bald Eagles - a homework exercise on how to research claims about science