The CO2 Climate Change Cult Series
Part 3 of 8:
The Stigma of Being a Climate Denier
Part 1 of 8: Blame Everything On Man-Made Climate Change
Part 2 of 8: Greenpeace and Oxfam Manipulating Science
Part 3 of 8: The Stigma of Being a Climate Denier
Part 4 of 8: Environmental Journalists - Suzanne Goldenberg
Part 5 of 8: Environmental Journalists - Damian Carrington
Part 6 of 8: Environmental Journalists - George Monbiot
Part 7 of 8: The False Doctrine
Part 8 of 8: Solutions
By: Shawn Alli
Posted: September 26, 2014
*All individuals and organizations receive 4 full days of pre-publication notice.
*Disclosure: I am a climate denier, albeit a more rational one. In Part 3 I explain why I'm a climate denier and not a climate skeptic.
*Disclosure: I am NOT funded by any oil, natural gas or coal corporations. I am NOT funded by any private interest groups (NGOs, foundations or political entities).
This article is the third instalment of an ongoing series of articles to unpackage the entire man-made CO2 climate change cult.
The term "denialist/denier" has a stigma of its own. It's even worse than being a conspiracy theorist. The terms, "holocaust denier" and "AIDS denier" predate the "climate denier" category but all engender the same result. A denier is a stupid self-interested individual perceiving the world through their ideological belief system instead of "objective and impartial" empirical observations. This is very different than the term "skeptic."
A climate skeptic is an interesting label because the opposing parties can still respect a skeptic, but not a denier. The difference is quite significant. The separating barrier between a skeptic and a denier is the use of ideological beliefs. Every individual on the planet advocates particular ideological beliefs about themselves and the world around them. But whether they do so consciously with intent is the deciding factor that pushes a skeptic into the denier category.
So in practice, though a skeptic has ideological beliefs like any other individual, if they use it in their arguments, they lose the benefit of the skeptical category (along with credibility in the eyes of the opposing party).
And this is one of the main reasons why I'm a climate denier and not a skeptic. I argue my environmental ideologies alongside regular information.
The information that I present to others is intentionally skewed with my environmental ideologies. And while there are degrees of ideology I believe that my environmental ones are that of the extreme, such as:
1. The Earth has/is consciousness similar to that of humans (with no connection to the Christian god).
2. It's possible to connect with the consciousness of the Earth just as humans connect with each other on a deeper spiritual level.
3. The Earth is capable of handling most, if not all of the garbage that humans do to it.
4. Land, sea and air creatures are capable of understanding the consciousness of the Earth but are also skewed by unknown generational/cultural/social conditioning (just like humans).
While it's possible for me to argue the climate skeptic point of view without these ideologies, as a philosopher, it would be disingenuous to do so. Hence the term, climate denier.
The very notion of subjective and activist perceptions vs. objective and impartial observations is still a hotly debated issue in philosophy. The idea that a clear separation of both can even exist, aside from whether it should, is still debatable.
While many individuals may think of mathematical equations and laws of physics as being absolute, in the future they may turn out to be false and relative.
CO2 cult believer scientists, politicians and journalists interpret these "objective mathematical equations" into climate models and then base their arguments on such models.
And this is why climate deniers exist, to question that which cannot be questioned.
The obvious problem is the interpretation or "selection" of particular data to fit a particular ideology. A secondary problem is the fact that many climate models don't actually reflect reality, but what reality "should be like" according to their models.
If an organization, a government, or the global general public labels an individual as a climate denier, at the least, it implies their inability to question dogmatic doctrine, and at worst, it shows their obedience to an "official version" of any event. Critical thinking doesn't usually come into play when the ideologies behind it are so strong and fixed (be it conscious or subconscious).
Despite the surface appearance of CO2 cult believers claiming that they respect climate skeptics, they really see them as deniers and characterize them as stupid self-interested ideological believers.
In 2014 US President Barack Obama implies such characteristics in his speech at the University of California, Irvine:
It's pretty rare that you'll encounter somebody who says the problem you're trying to solve simply doesn't exist. When President Kennedy set us on a course to the moon, there were a number of people who made a serious case that it wouldn't be worth it...But nobody ignored the science. I don't remember anybody saying the moon wasn't there or that it was made of cheese. 
Obama is really saying that anyone who is skeptical about the CO2 cult is a climate denier. And all climate deniers are stupid self-interested ideological believers.
As the chair of a review panel of Australia's renewable energy targets, Dick Warburtun has to do fancy tiptoeing around environmental organizations:
NAOMI WOODLEY: The Greens and some environmental groups say that you're a climate change denier and that this will influence your approach to the review. How do you respond to that?
DICK WARBURTON: Well, I'm not a climate change denier. Simple as that.
NAOMI WOODLEY: In 2011 you told Lateline Business that you were a climate change sceptic, not a denier, but you did believe the science isn't settled, and that was why Australia shouldn't be pursuing a carbon tax. Do you still believe that the science isn't settled, and will that have an influence on the way that you conduct this review?
DICK WARBURTON: Yes, let's qualify the terms. I am not a denier, nor a sceptic actually, of climate change per se. What I am sceptical is the claims that man-made carbon dioxide is the major cause of global warming. I'm not a denier of that, but I am sceptical of that claim. 
I ask the WWF, Oxfam, Greenpeace and the David Suzuki Foundation (DSF) about whether they respect climate skeptics. None of them respond with the exception of Greenpeace's boilerplate answer:
"I kindly refer you to our website where you can find all the answers to your questions."
In 2010 Dr. Peter H. Gleick (a prominent climate scientist) et al. says:
Society has two choices: We can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. 
These scientists (over 200 of them), are really implying that climate skeptics and deniers are stupid self-interested ideological believers. I ask Dr. Gleick if that's what he and the hundreds of other scientists are implying. He doesn't respond.
I remember having a conversation with a CO2 cult member about the supply of water a few weeks ago. It goes something like this:
Me: The supply of water isn't the problem. It's simply a matter of distributing water and creating proper infrastructure. But such a task is difficult because of corrupt and incompetent leaders. But that aside, the oceans are quite plentiful; and water filtration isn't exactly rocket science.
CO2 cult believer: What if the oceans dry up soon?
Me: Um...For 6000 years of recorded history the oceans have always been there [never mind the billions of years of its existence].
CO2 cult believer: Just because it's been there for 6000 years doesn't mean it can't dry up soon.
Logically, the past doesn't guarantee future actions with 100% certainty; but it's 99.9% probable that it'll be the same or similar. The idea that the oceans will dry up in a few decades is completely nonsensical.
I even get flack for being close-minded because I have an answer to all of the negative climate events that's "coming soon." That's not me being close-minded. That's me being more knowledgeable.
The reason why the CO2 cult is completely out of touch with reality is because they don't believe that they're advocating their own environmental ideologies. They believe that they're advocating objective and impartial scientific data.
I ask the WWF, Oxfam, Greenpeace and the DSF whether they believe that their environmental ideologies on man-made CO2 climate change operates behind their objective scientific claims and influences them to a significant degree.
None of them respond with the exception of Greenpeace's boilerplate answer:
"I kindly refer you to our website where you can find all the answers to your questions."
If an organization or an individual is unable to see the ideologies operating behind their actions/choices/arguments they're lost in their perception of the world and themselves.
But aside from the ridicule from environmental journalists, CO2 cult believers use the stigma of being a climate denier to assassinate an individual's character (both personally and professionally).
Steve Zwick, a journalist for Forbes, lights the fire underneath climate deniers:
At the same time, however, the denial machine is ratcheting up its disinformation campaign, and therein lies the problem. Every time someone validates or fine-tunes the science, ten or twelve well-funded and active propagandists pop up to distort it - usually by twisting the attempts at fine-tuning into "proof" that the models are fundamentally useless, and then launching childish attacks on the scientists themselves. 
10 or 12 well-funded propagandists? While the climate change denial machine is certainly well-funded,   there are many climate change deniers (like myself) that are poor, starving but passionate bloggers.
Zwick goes on:
As crop failures mount and costs from damages rise, the denial machine will first continue to blame everything on nature, then it will pretend to be reconsidering its position in light of "new" evidence, and finally it will pretend this was all just an honest mistake - oops, sorry. 
Actually, blaming everything on nature is quite rare, even for climate skeptics. The blame usually goes to artificial weather and ground manipulating technologies. But this gets into the world of conspiracy theories (which I'll save for a future article).
I don't know of any climate skeptic that's gone from a skeptic to a believer in light of "new evidence." Least of all, I don't recall many transformed individuals apologizing for their "environmental mistakes," (aside from Richard Mueller).
Zwick's next few paragraphs rightly draws the ire of climate skeptics and deniers:
Let's take a page from those Tennessee firemen we heard about a few times last year - the ones who stood idly by as houses burned to the ground because their owners had refused to pay a measly $75 fee.
We can apply this same logic to climate change.
We know who the active denialists are - not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let's start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let's make them pay. Let's let their houses burn until the innocent are rescued. Let's swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let's force them to bear the cost of rising food prices. 
Let's let their houses burn until the innocent are rescued?
Though Zwick attempts to explain his reasoning with 3 addendums, the text shows his environmental ideologies in full clarity.
In March 2014 Lawrence Torcello, a philosophy professor, suggests that climate deniers should be charged with criminal negligence:
We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public's understanding of scientific consensus. 
What about free speech?
He has a rebuttal to that as well:
We must make the critical distinction between the protected voicing of one's unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a strategically organised campaign to undermine the public's ability to develop and voice informed opinions. Protecting the latter as a form of free speech stretches the definition of free speech to a degree that undermines the very concept. 
Despite what you may think, climate deniers aren't trying to undermine the scientific peer-reviewed process (that process is destroying itself). They're trying to point out the ideological, economic and financial interests at stake in being part of the CO2 cult.
But it's interesting that Torcello uses the term "unpopular belief" instead of a popular one. Let's say the case is about Christian ideology and the world being only 6000 years old (which I don't subscribe to). The Christian faith is definitely a well-funded industry. Does Torcello deny that such individuals deserve the right of free speech because their efforts are "undermining" informed opinions about Darwinian evolutionary theory? In an email request for comment I ask him this question.
He doesn't respond.
To be fair, Senator James Inhofe, a prominent climate denier, fires the first shot when he calls for the criminal prosecution of climate scientists in 2010.  However, in June 2008 James Hansen (the patriarch of the CO2 cult), says that:
CEOs [of fossil fuel energy companies] should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature. 
In September 2014 Phil Plait (a prominent CO2 cult believer), says that:
This claim of Arctic ice recovering was made last year, and it was just as wrong then as it is now. It's shameful. Global warming is real, it's a huge problem, and it's our own damn fault. There's still time to fix this, though that breathing room is getting slimmer all the time...and it's not helping when media give air to deniers. 
Plait is responding to an article in the Daily Mail showing that the Arctic ice sheets are expanding instead of melting due to more CO2 and higher temperatures which is contradictory to what Al Gore says in 2007.  Plait sidesteps Gore because Gore isn't a climate scientist and says that:
You can't compare two years with a record low the year before that was due to unusual circumstances; you have to look at the average over time. 
And I agree. Eventually, the Arctic ice will melt based on current trends. Cherry picking two years isn't accurate. But five years, a decade or more indicates a pattern. And a pattern that goes against a scientific dogmatic doctrine should prompt a reevaluation by scientists.
But Plait's last comment about mainstream media (MM) outlets withholding coverage of climate skeptic and denier theories is the wrong attitude. Denying media space will only radicalize climate skeptics to become deniers and potentially cause them to devote their entire life to stopping the CO2 cult.
CO2 cult believers also use shame as a manipulation tactic to push the global general public into action. In a May 2014 CNN opinion article professor Carl Safina employs such tactics:
I think we could do what's needed. But collectively we simply aren't. Sometimes I don't see humanity as being capable of fixing the problems we're creating. We'd have to agree to fix them. Before that, we'd have to care. We're not doing enough of any of those things. Too often, we're in denial. And we feel fine. Our main solution is that snooze button.
So, let's not worry about the people of Bangladesh, Kiribati, New York and Miami, or the 23rd century. Pleasant dreams. 
Too often we're in denial? That's a pretty good euphemism to attach to the global general public with the idea that "you don't want to be one of those climate deniers, right?"
The last paragraph, to not worry about such populations, utilizes the shame/guilt manipulation tactic. This is a usual tactic by CO2 cult believers. Shame climate skeptics and deniers as individuals who don't care about animals, the planet or anyone but themselves. A disgusting manipulation tactic.
But aside from accepting the climate denier label, I can at least agree with one statement:
Human activity/human induced changes are leading to potentially catastrophic consequences.
Human activity (representing all human activity): nuclear weapons, nuclear power plants, GMOs, real industrial pollutants and weather manipulation are real problems and will eventually lead to catastrophic consequences. CO2 cult believers use the above claim to bring the global general public into the CO2 cult.
It's almost like scientology.
They use general claims about an issue to bring an individual into the fold and after they get the individual to accept the general claims they go deeper into the issue. And while an individual can simply reject the specific ideological causes of an issue, they're more likely not to reject it because they already accept the general claims.
And if the environmental conditioning process is successful, even if the individual doesn't believe in the CO2 cult, they'll still stick with it because of the benefits (social, political, academic or financial).
Personally, the ends can never justify the means. If the CO2 cult is successful in manipulating the global general public to wage a war on CO2 and succeed through global efforts, the results are irrelevant.
Manipulation can never lead to the democratic empowerment of humanity.
One form of attack that's relevant to both sides is through the tax system, the charity status for non-profits. In May 2014, after pressure from the UK Charity Commission, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (skeptical about man-made CO2 climate change), will split its education campaign from its political campaign.  
CO2 cult believers hail this as a victory because it "proves" that the foundations aim is political.  While that's definitely true, every single global issue is political.
Poverty, aside from being a humanitarian, environmental, and developing nation issue, is a political one.
War/terrorism, aside from being a humanitarian, social, ideological, economic and financial issue, is a political one.
Human/sex trafficking, aside from being an economic, financial, personal, social and humanitarian issue, is a political one.
Man-made CO2 climate change, aside from being an environmental, social, economic and humanitarian issue, is a political one. Any individual that believes that the man-made CO2 climate change issue isn't a political issue is living in a dream world.
But in April 2012 the Canada Revenue Agency questions the DSF's political intent of their environmental campaigns.  The DSF plays the victim card as being a victim of an aggressive Canadian Conservative Harper government.
While it's true that the Harper government has no love for environmental organizations, the hypocrisy is annoying.
The controversy causes David Suzuki, the founder of the foundation, to step down.  Personally, the tax-exempt charitable status title is completely outdated in Western-European countries and needs a complete overhaul.
MM outlets' incursion into the climate change issue is just as polarized, with environmental journalists being CO2 cult believers. In October 2013 Paul Thornton, the letters editor for the LA Times, creates a policy to ban letters from readers that don't subscribe to the man-made CO2 climate change cult:
Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying "there's no sign humans have caused climate change" is not stating an opinion, it's asserting a factual inaccuracy. 
In an email request for comment I ask Thornton what effects he believes his action will have on the man-made CO2 climate change debate and the actions from climate skeptics and deniers.
He doesn't respond.
This is a chilling policy. While some scholars believe that such a policy isn't censorship,  these individuals are living in a dream world where all of science is objective and impartial.
The idea that letters from readers (opinions) can be banned for not towing the mainstream line is beyond disturbing. It's questionable whether such policies will soon take shape in the UK, but the signposts are certainly indicating that direction.  And David Suzuki is helping to lead the way:
It's time to shift attention from those who sow doubt and confusion, either out of ignorance or misanthropic greed, to those who want to address a real, serious problem. The BBC has the right idea, instructing its reporters to improve accuracy by giving less air time to people with anti-science views, including climate change deniers. 
In Suzuki's mind, if you don't subscribe to the CO2 cult you're anti-science. Seriously?
Oddly enough, the well-funded man-made CO2 climate change machine is having an affect on bottom of the barrel organizations, PR companies.
My respect for PR companies is as low as any other marketing corporation in the world. They're like capitalistic vultures feeding on the desire to market oneself to the world. Generally speaking, such organizations don't have any ethics. Everything goes because it's all green (money).
In August 2014 WPP, Waggener Edstrom (WE) Worldwide, Weber Shandwick, Text100, Finn Partners and Edelman (all companies that I've never heard of prior to writing this article), do an about marketing turn and state that they won't provide PR services for individuals or organizations who question the CO2 cult.  
However, in their defense, climate deniers funded by oil, coal and the natural gas industry regularly utilize their services in the past for large campaigns.  Climate deniers even utilize PR companies to write fake letters to denounce a US climate change bill.  That's pretty low. For the record, I don't recommend climate deniers engage in such activities.
In September 2014 Google announces that it will cut all ties with the rightwing lobby group the American Legislative Exchange Council because of its "lies" about the existence of climate change. 
Eventually, all major companies will "publicly" abandon the climate skeptic/denier movement. But this will still benefit the climate denier movement and take it to a whole new level. The fact that the CO2 cult doesn't understand this is why they've yet to succeed in getting the global general public to become CO2 cult believers. Many are environmentally active, but they aren't CO2 cult believers. Such actions will only give climate deniers the excuse they need to "keep fighting the good fight."
Though I'm a climate denier I'm not one just so I can appear as an individual "fighting against the man," or because I'm a regular conspiracy theorist (and no, the CO2 cult doesn't cause/push me to become a regular conspiracy theorist). I don't subscribe to the CO2 cult because of its junk dogmatic science, environmental ideologies and environmental private interest groups funding the movement.
Despite US Secretary of State John Kerry's words at the climate change summit in September 2014:
While we are confronting (ISIS), and we are confronting terrorism and we are confronting Ebola, this also has an immediacy that people have come to understand. There is a long list of important issues before all of us, but the grave threat that climate change poses warrants a prominent position on that list. 
As well as Obama's words at the summit:
There is one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other...that is the urgent and growing threat of a changing climate. 
...man-made CO2 climate change is not one of the world's greatest threats or a defining issue. The defining issues are:
a) Transforming developing nations into developed ones.
b) Global poverty.
c) Human/sex trafficking.
d) Global government surveillance and the loss of constitutional rights.
e) Continuing to use nuclear power plants for mass energy and stuffing the radiation into the earth.
f) The ideology of conditioning the global general public to accept GMOs.
g) The inability for the century old Western-European medical industry to create real cures for individuals with poor health.
Future generations will ask their peers why the global general public doesn't learn that politicians and private interest groups merely see them as mindless puppets to be manipulated to support various causes.
The CO2 Climate Change Cult Series will continue next week on October 3, 2014 with Part 4 of 8: Environmental Journalists - Suzanne Goldenberg.
 Pickler, Nedra. Obama Says Climate Change Deniers Ignoring Science. Associated Press. June 14, 2014.
 Woodley, Naomi. Warburton defends climate views. ABC News Australia. February 18, 2014.
 Gleick, Peter H., et al. Climate Change and the Integrity of Science. Science, Vol. 328, May 7, 2010. p. 689.
 Zwick, Steve. A Tennessee Fireman's Solution to Climate Change. Forbes. April 19, 2012.
 Goldenberg, Suzanne. Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks. Guardian. February 14, 2013.
 Goldenberg, Suzanne. How Donors Trust distributed millions to anti-climate groups. Guardian. February 14, 2013.
 Torcello, Lawrence. Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent? Conversation. March 13, 2014.
 Goldenberg, Suzanne. US Senate's top climate sceptic accused of waging 'McCarthyite witch-hunt.' Guardian. March 1, 2010.
 Hansen, James. Twenty years later: tipping points near on global warming. Guardian. June 23, 2008.
 Plait, Phil. No, You Can't Claim Arctic Ice Is "Recovering." Slate. September 1, 2014.
 Rose, David. Myth of Arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago...despite Al Gore's prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now. Daily Mail. August 30, 2014.
 Safina, Carl. Rising oceans will be unstoppable. CNN. May 15, 2014.
 Ward, Bob. Global Warming Policy Foundation campaigning move is deeply cynical. Guardian. May 9, 2014.
 Harrabin, Roger. Lawson's climate-sceptic group hit by charity status row. BBC. July 16, 2014.
 Carlson, Kathryn Blaze. David Suzuki charity questioned for alleged partisan politics. National Post. April 25, 2012.
 Boesveld, Sarah. David Suzuki resigns to save foundation from 'bully' charitable status threats. National Post. April 14, 2012.
 Thornton, Paul. On letters from climate-change deniers. LA Times. October 8, 2013.
 Readfearn, Graham. Should newspapers ban letters from climate science deniers? Guardian. October 16, 2013.
 Suzuki, David. Climate Change Deniers Are Getting Desperate (and Personal). Huffington Post. August 8, 2014.
 Goldenberg, Suzanne and Karim, Nishad. World's top PR companies rule out working with climate deniers. Guardian. August 4, 2014.
 Goldenberg, Suzanne. Edelman formally declares it will not accept climate denial campaigns. Guardian. August 7, 2014.
 Goldenberg, Suzanne. US Congress inquiry reveals fake letters from 'voters' opposed to climate bill. Guardian. August 19, 2009.
 Goldenberg, Suzanne. Google to cut ties with rightwing lobby group over climate change 'lies.' Guardian. September 23, 2014.
 Goldenberg, Suzanne et al. Kerry compares climate change to fight against Ebola and Isis as thousands march around world. Guardian. September 22, 2014.
 Mackrael, Kim. Obama urges action on 'growing threat' of climate change. Globe and Mail. September 23, 2014.