Open Letter in Opposition to ‘Global Warming’ Indoctrination
The need to counter ‘global warming’ indoctrination becomes ever more urgent. I suggest taking just one element of the agenda and aiming to create doubt in the minds of those taken in by it.
Chipping away at the brain washing seems to be more effective than launching broadsides. So enraging is the entire issue that this is often easier said than done, but, by following my own advice, I recently had a letter published in the magazine ‘Philosophy Now’.
Here is my letter:
Dear Editor:
I wish to express my consternation that a professor of philosophy, Wendy Lynne Lee, should support the value-laden term ‘climate change denier’ (‘Dewey & Climate Denial’ in Issue 135). She does not define this concept, but a ‘climate change denier’ would appear to be anyone who questions the assumptions that (a) the planet is heating up unusually, and (b) that this is caused primarily by CO2 emitted by the burning of fossil fuels. These are matters of scientific observation which may or may not be true. However, if a person may not question them without condemnation, what becomes of Karl Popper’s principle of falsifiability ?
Worst of all, perhaps, the word ‘denier’ is habitually associated with ‘holocaust denier’. The application of the term is to imply an appalling moral deficit. Those who wish to live in a peaceful, reasonable and rational world should decry the use of the term ‘denier’.
Rosie Langridge
Here’s the story:
Philosophy Now is a well-established magazine based in London.
Wendy Lynn Lee is professor of philosophy at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania but nonetheless her article is such a terrible muddle that it was hard to know where to begin a letter in response. I picked out what I see as the critical issue here, the attempt from many directions to close down any discussion of the ‘global warming’ agenda, be that by claiming/assuming that the science is ‘settled’, or by branding those who question as ‘deniers’. By contrast, philosophers should be the last people who cease to question.
As I was writing to a magazine dedicated to philosophy, I decided not to challenge the data, the science, the assumptions of warming, or even the twists and turns of her ‘reasoning’; instead I homed in on the philosophical arguments and was delighted to be published by the magazine in the following issue.
‘Philosophy Now’ is a very interesting magazine that I can recommend. It allows readers in some regions access to four articles free per month. Here are the links to the home page, the original article and to the relevant letters page:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/135/Dewey_and_Climate_Denial_Squared
https://philosophynow.org/issues/136/Letters
****
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
JDHuffman
| #
Those protecting and supporting the hoax are a mixture of differing subsets. Some are innocently ignorant (sheep). Some are passionately transfixed by the false religion, believing they are “saving the planet”, (cultists). Some are just in it for the money (crooks).
Each subset will have to be handled differently. Education will help with the ignorant, but not with cultists and crooks. Cutting the funding is the only way to discourage the crooks and cultists.
Reply
Ddwieland
| #
Yes, I agree that we need to differentiate among the motivations of different groups of supporters of the hoax and to recognize that politicians can fall into more than one group while having more influence than the hoi poloi. Those with a financial interest, including third world countries receiving big payments from the UN redistribution fund, are not interested in the truth about climate. We can only hope that the others are and can be reached.
Reply
Patrick Hunt
| #
I have never met a ‘climate change denier’ in my life!
Just 12,000 years ago, most of Canada and the northern USA was covered in ice. There was more than a kilometre of ice above where I live today in Victoria, BC. It melted. The climate changed. You can’t blame the melting of all that ice on SUVs and anthropogenic CO2.
Using global warming alarmist logic, if every human being stopped producing CO2 today, climate change would stop because anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of “climate change” (they no longer use the term “global warming”). How illogical is that? The climate would continue to change without any humans, like it has for the last 4.6 billion years.
Those global warming alarmists are who I would label “climate deniers”. The has changed and will change with or without human beings.
Warmly, Patrick
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
An excellent letter to send!
Alarmists seem to think as Patrick says above, that if we stopped emitting ‘greenhouse gases’ the climate would never change again. That is utterly ridiculous. It has always changed and always will. Most alarmists confuse weather with climate, and assume a ‘freak’ or unusual weather event is someohow indicative of a changing climate.
With the (what is it now, 41?) failed predictions of death-by-climate, it’s about time people started seeing the scam for what it is.
Reply