Climate semantic

6 June 2017All categories, Climate, Politics Comments (0)

For climate gullible or activists, anybody not sharing their dogmatic view is considered with contempt, or even hatred. I’m no angel, but two things are sure: these ones are out of their minds, and I’m no criminal. Beware however! Extended to the masses, such pathological state can evolve to pure fascism.

Words are used that lead to confusion; if done without intent, it is due to intellectual laziness; but when there is an intent to hurt, then it is political populism at its worst. To put some order in the debate, hoping that it may take place one day, I propose the following scheme to categorise people’s opinion about the climate, regardless of having or not sufficient knowledge to forge one by themselves:

Download this sketch as pdf

The corresponding tentative definitions could be as follows (lesson givers: please stay unemployed, this is a difficult enough exercise) :

Climate gullible

Wants to believe:

whatever is told about the bad human impact on the climate.
that the climate can be put under human control
that all ills on Earth are caused by a climate that has gotten out of control
that, by urgently and massively reducing greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions, excessive climate warming will be avoided.
that everybody should believe this.

Climate alarmist

Same beliefs as the gullible.

Wants to literally terrorize us about the immediate dangers of climate warming.

Attributes the guilt of this warming to the developed World.

Climate denier

Denies the fact that the earth’s global climate experiences a warming, whatever its cause.

Or, accepting that warming is taking place, denies any human contribution.

Climate skeptic

Calls in question the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) that attributes to human activities the preponderant, even exclusive, cause of climate warming.

Climate heretic

Makes an interpretation differing from to the official posture of IPCC on the observed facts, on the validity of the alleged hypothesis, on the possible phenomena –human as well as natural– leading to climate changes, and on the effectiveness of the proposed actions.

However, I’m not sure that the debate follows such logic, but rather that of a political-moralistic confusion on an ecologist cum economic background.

Merci de partager et de diffuser cet article !