Roasting the Refuters

In the ‘Question and Answer’ site “Quora” a question read, “Why are there so many deniers of climate science posting here, and what are they trying to accomplish?”

Michael Barnard of Vancouver, British Columbia Canada the supposed founding consultant for a firm called TFIE Strategy Inc., an acronym for “The Future is Electricity” states in his published response:

Mostly they are bored, old, conservative, day-drinking white men, often with limited physical and mental abilities. They recline in their Barcaloungers, stretching their arms around their guts to the keyboards.

They’ve alienated friends, family, and loved ones, so all they have left is to alienate random strangers and their paid caregivers.

They are pathetic, wearisome and to be pitied. And ignored, except for downvoting their nonsense into much-deserved oblivion.

Certainly don’t engage with them. Their arguments are specious idiocy and they refuse to learn.

Block. Mute. Downvote. Live a better life without them in it. Their families, friends, and loved ones are.

Isn’t that a gem? It reminded me of Maxine Waters yelling and challenging people to create a gathering and then confronting opposition administration officials in restaurants, department stores, and gasoline stations by yelling, 'They're Not Welcome Anymore, Anywhere.”

Apparently, Barnard is very short on evidentiary testimony and any true science, but quite high on the value of the generalized attack we know as “ad hominem”.

I thought back on my 20-year pursuit of substantiation in anthropogenic climate change starting out as an acceptor, turning agnostic, and finally concluding as a refuter. I did this crazy pre-modernist thing called searching the science, studying the evidence, and determining the difference between political science and empirical science. I took the fanatical path of not placing sole credence in the activist, gravy-train funded scientists, particularly those with a monetary, bureaucratic incentive, the eco-politicians with political motivation, their allies in the mainstream presses, or a pseudo-science called, 'consensus'.

I have likely written 2,500 or more articles on anthropogenic climate change and typically link to an advocate document that I challenge or oppose as well as contradictory documentation I agree with. I did not start out old or a conservative and I am not a day drinker, nor do I have physical or mental limitations and I don’t even own a Barcalounger. These are apparently the telltale signs of inanity for those that pretend to have superior intellect and merely voice that attribute as sufficient testimony of their precious smarts and all due righteousness.

Have I alienated friends, assuredly – however, just the ones that have complete “confirmation bias” and can never read anything that is opposed to their own ideologies – whether right or wrong? I do not talk climate change with family or friends – there are lives to live and we do not need to negatively dwell on alleging the disparaging characteristics of people – whether true or not – like this Barnard did.

British Columbia is a beautiful province – at times, so it seems, spoiled by some thoughtless, inconsiderate coastal elites. I have lived there three times. Most would imagine that BC receives most of its electrical energy from hydro–dams and water turbines, but such is not the case. Hydro accounts for only 18% of that energy.

A total of 59% arrives as a result of fossil fuels, while 20% comes from the burning of biomass – still a determined emitter of carbon dioxide. The smallest percentages of electrical power come from coal and coke, again a fossilized fuel, burned mostly in cement and other manufacturing plants.

So, as a climate change advocate, Michael Barnard really needs to pursue issues with his progressive, coalition government and leave the elderly, deteriorating people from his purely assaultive ways.

This Barnard style of argument, or assault, is a typical strategy for the far left of today. It’s just another superficial attempt at censorship and belittling a sensible challenge from the opposing side.