Thursday, May 15, 2025



Climate Hooplah

Mr. Holt,

You got us. Climate change is a hoax. For the past two decades, we have been following the lead of the Dark Lord Al Gore, who we affectionately refer to as “Gorelemort.” Indeed, his paternalistic schemes are dastardly. In fact, they are so horrific that they should only be mentioned in the form that you do—as unsubstantiated fear mongering.

You are correct in ignoring 50 years of science studies work. Thomas Kuhn was surely under the influence of Gorelemort when he wrote in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that science works by consensus, excluding fringe opinions to produce scientific knowledge. This process of paradigm formation is political, but it is also pragmatic to the extent that it directs scientific research towards real goals. However, when Kuhn wrote about paradigm formation, he was referring to real scientific controversies, with real arguments being made for competing paradigms. The “debate” on global warming hardly qualifies. A study by Naomi Oreskes published in 2004 looked at 928 papers published in the preceding decade, and found that 75% “either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view,” and 25% do not address the subject, and “none of the papers disagreed with the consensus view.” Your buddy Justice Burton seems to have echoed this when he wrote of Gore’s film that “it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion.” Clearly, the Dark Lord has been very efficient in his schemes to rule the world through cap and trade. His influence seems to have permeated even those who you have referenced as his detractors.

However, Gore’s influence was resisted by one, the courageous Alan Carlin. That Carlin is an economist by training, a profession actually which exists outside of the scientific community, is of no consequence to you, myth-buster, and rightfully so. Authority is found in the extremity of a claim, instead of the existence of any substantiating knowledge. Climateprogress.org reports that Carlin’s commentary features several excerpts, on the order of paragraphs, plagiarized straight from the works of global warming denialist Pat Michaels. The chain of prestige continues, as it has been well documented that Michaels has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from energy corporations with a vested interest opposing climate change legislation.

Considering your heretofore enlightened position, we are confused that you would align yourself with the likes of Senator Joe Lieberman, who, along with Senator John McCain, coauthored three climate change bills in the last decade. They were probably just kidding, though.

Also, we killed Kennedy. And Reagan.

Love,
Evil climate scientists
AKA Sam Bernhardt

Comments

3 responses to “Climate Hooplah”

  1. Wes Alum '09 Avatar
    Wes Alum ’09

    Ohhhhh… 50 WHOLE years of science! That is only a sliver of necessary data, considering the most ideal would be that of the lifespan of the earth, or at the least the span of our present climate cycle (from the last glacial period, 10,000 B.C. to now)!

    Another point that the alarmists today rely upon are the numerous models predicting disaster. My question: if the science is so settled, why isn’t there only ONE, scientifically perfect model that makes these predictions?

    Obviously this question is rhetorical, because multiple models prove either disagreement among scientists in the method of computation, or at least in the magnitude of the factors. And finally, as far as I know, NONE of these models predicted the current cooling period, which further undermines their credibility as accurate predictors.

  2. Mytheos Holt Avatar
    Mytheos Holt

    I decided to pull this Wespeak at the last second because it would have taken up unnecessary space. However, I think it ought to be posted for posterity’s sake:

    Hail Gorelemort!

    By Mytheos Holt

    Mr. Bernhardt,

    I must admit to being quite glad that you had the good taste to admit your own dishonesty, and also quite shocked that you would open up about your involvement in a conspiracy. None of the people I routinely fly out of Wesleyan to meet with in George W. Bush’s basement (which is also the gateway to the 9th layer of hell) would ever be so honest. Though really, if I may say as one conspiratorial villain to another, you must do a better job covering your tracks. I at least have the good taste to cover my paper trail from the oil company which pays for my tuition, not to mention go by a false name (my real one is Arthur Bauregard von Popplington IV), whereas your little conspiracy clearly can’t even keep its own story straight. Do try to be a little more careful in the future, won’t you? I’d hate to see Gorelemort fry you for incompetence.

    For instance, I must ask what the point was of bringing up Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Surely, you realize that such a postmodern sack of hooplah does not enhance your case, especially given that the majority of scientists once believed in Newtonian physics and were proven wrong? Why bring up 50 years of scientific research? Bring up the past 100 – I’m sure no one will notice that 1938 is the hottest year on record. Moreover, what on earth are you doing bringing Naomi Oreskes’ easily refuted study into this debate? Surely you know that 30,000 scientists have already signed a petition against the so-called “consensus,” and that Ms. Oreskes herself acknowledged in 2004, after a query from fellow scientist David Appell, that her study was based on an overly restrictive survey of the research? What kind of conspiracy is Gorelemort running if he can’t even tell you which sources seem the most irrefutable? I suggest you bring in outside help – I can put in a good word for you with Karl Rove the next time he and I decide to plant false evidence about Obama’s advisors.

    And good heavens, doesn’t Gorelemort teach his minions anything about semantics? Or has he not taught you that when someone says something is “based substantially on scientific research and opinion,” that is not the same as saying that it is based “entirely on scientific research and opinion?” Moroever, hasn’t he taught you that quoting one positive sentence fragment from a legal decision in which a much larger chunk of the decision is critical hardly proves that the decision is uncritical, and is, in fact, a fallacy of composition? Truly, your conspiracy does need help in masking its own dishonesty. If you like, I can ask Dick Cheney to let me borrow the brain scrambler which convinced Nancy Pelosi that she had known about and approved the CIA interrogations.

    Finally, talking of fallacies of composition, would it kill your evil compatriots to invest in a basic course on logical fallacies? Really, you could probably get it cheap from a Cecilia Miller class – this is just lazy! Surely you know that just because something is plagiarized, that doesn’t make it untrue, but simply proves that the person writing it is lazy? Moreover, Gorelemort must be very disappointed that you believe that getting money from an outside source automatically refutes an argument. How will he ever defend his crackpot theory while profiting from the sale of carbon credits when you believe ad hominem nonsense like that? Dear, dear, Mr. Bernhardt, I smell a pink slip in the mail.

    Also, not to worry, as someone who spends every weekend telling jokes about all the sick poor people with him, Joe Lieberman was just kidding, which is probably why you went out of your way to attack him in your previous article. I’m at a loss as to why you’d defend him after attacking him, though. Oh well, apparently I just don’t understand the mysterious ways of Gorelemort.

    Also, shame on you for taking credit for something you didn’t do. As any liberal will be happy to tell you, we not only killed Kennedy, but also John Lennon, Martin Luther King and Michael Jackson. Though to be fair, the last guy was getting in Mark Foley’s way a bit too much at the playground and Dick needed target practice…

    Cheers,

    Mytheos Holt
    Chair of Student Outreach for the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy

  3. Sam Bernhardt Avatar
    Sam Bernhardt

    Mytheos,

    You can’t disregard the Kuhn just because its postmodern. This is an attack on the category and not the substance of the argument. I’m not sure if you’ve done any reading of Kuhn or the field of science studies as a whole (by the way, when I write “science studies” I mean sociology/history/anthropology of science, not the study of science. Both Oreskes and Appell work in this discipline, so they’re not scientists, as you call them), but from my perspective you have an incomplete conception of what science is and how it works. Its true that physics no longer works from the paradigm of Newtonian physics. But this is exactly the point. We work from a paradigm until it fails us. In the case of Newtonian physics, we worked from that paradigm until it stopped working- until enough problems had built up that there was a revolution that brought on quantum physics. Even so, Newtonian physics still WORKS for much of the problems that it faced. The same goes for the current paradigm in climatology. In fact, it seems as though the current climate models have underestimated the effects of global warming.

    The petition is interesting. 30,000 is a big number. However, when I argued that we need to heed authority to real science, I didn’t mean any science. Its a funny notion that you can gain respect by just throwing the title “scientist” out there, but what does that really mean? Well, in this case it means people who work in the field of science, which is a really big industry. 1/4 of them have PHDs, and good for them. But how many of them have a background in the topic at hand, climatology? The breakdown is here (http://www.desmogblog.com/30000-global-warming-petition-easily-debunked-propaganda). Its really pretty absurd that only 39 of these 30,000 actually have a background in climatology. A petition like this places value in a profession rather than a discipline which produces knowledge. Furthermore, John Coleman, the man who founded this group, is a complete quack. Here he is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&feature=related) on Fox News (surprise, surprise) claiming that carbon dioxide is benign because it is a naturally occurring compound. WHAT does that even mean? (The host replies “its like water vapor,” which is equally laughable, as water vapor is also a green house gas!) That this compound exists “naturally” means nothing when considering doubling and tripling its atmospheric concentrations. By the way, uranium is a naturally occurring compound, too.

    The bit on Oreskes is surprising and disappointing, and had I known her methodological inaccuracies I would not have referenced her paper (she does say right in the paper that she used the search term “climate change”). But, at the same time, the fact that she excluded 90% of the scientific community doesn’t mean that the consensus doesn’t exist on that scale, it only means that she hasn’t proven that it does.

    I’d like to see your sources which indicate that 1938 was the hottest year on record in the last century. According to the World Meteorological Organization, the last ten years have been among the twelve hottest on record.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Wesleyan Argus

Since 1868: The United States’ Oldest Twice-Weekly College Paper

© The Wesleyan Argus