I don’t follow Ben Shapiro for a variety of reasons, so I just watched a couple of his most recent talks. I’d be willing to downgrade Shapiro from an obvious liar to possibly misinformed. He uses his typical debating strategy, which is a good one having been in debates clubs myself, of focusing on very particular facts, and pretending that these are the only facts that matter. For example, he loves to focus on rising sea levels, and says there’s an easy solution. People will just move. He mocks rising sea levels to some degree as saying it won’t be like the movie “The Day After Tomorrow”, yeah well no kidding, nobody is seriously saying it would be (Shapiro LOVES strawman arguments). He ignores the multitude of other issues surrounding climate change. Now, it could be he’s unaware of them, or he could be aware of them and ignores them because they’re an inconvenient truth. He seems to be of the view that the damage won’t be that bad. Again, most studies disagree with him. So is he unaware of them? Or is he aware of the additional facts and lying (in some sense by omission)? I don’t know what is in his heart, but I will say that while he’s clearly leaving out a lot of elements, but he’s isn’t grossly misrepresenting/twisting facts to his favour. My gut tells me that he’s just not looking into that deeply, and I will say that if he wants to take this public position with such a large audience, and speak on climate change in a factual way he has a moral obligation to be well-informed. Otherwise, in my opinion, he should say “This isn’t something I’ve looked into very deeply, so I’ll leave that to people better informed.”
I’ll go with “sociopaths paid to lie” for denial propagandists. The money’s good; they probably won’t be charged with “crimes against humanity” during their lifetimes; and they don’t really like their grandkids much. Nice and easy.
Or they figure that by the time their sociopathic behavior really catches up with them, they’ll be dead and their kids will be rich. It’s not unreasonable to bet on the chances of rich people being able to lead essentially normal and comfortable lives in the less severely affected habitable zones of a significantly warmed world.
Of course, there will be millions and millions of non-rich people whose chances of a normal and comfortable life in such circumstances will be drastically reduced. But you can’t expect lying sociopaths to care about them.
Climate deniers are more bullshitters than liars, as described in Frankfurt’s treatise “On Bullshit and Lying” (abstract). Main explanatory bullet points being:
[ul]
[li]Bullshitters do not consciously deceive.[/li][li]Bullshitters just don’t know or care about the truth.[/li][li]Bullshitters ignore or reject the distinction between truth and falsity altogether.[/li][/ul]
I don’t think that Rush Limbaugh (for example) knows what the truth is, nor is he trying to hide it or delude people from it. He doesn’t care what the truth is. His goal is to get you to buy what he’s selling. His main tool is convincing you that that truth and falsehoods are matters of taste or partisan affiliation. Once you’ve bought that, he owns your brain.
I’ve just read a book by Morano, Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change. Not having really read about this subject before, I figured he was being forthright. I am sure some truly believe there is no danger in climate change, but why would ones who do misrepresent?
Is it really that dire? Give me a good title to look for in my library system.
We have an ongoing thread about the dire nature of climate change. And yes, it is very dire.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=885666
Marc Morano doesn’t seem like a particularly good source. Especially since he, at a minimum, lied about the CRU email controversy (“ClimateGate”). He may have lied about other things as well since he seems to like cherry-picking from scientific studies.
The best reading materials are the IPCC reports. Since it is very long, I would suggest at least reading the summaries.
You might be better off reading RationalWikion Morano.
Or RationalWiki on just about anything.
I prefer to look at the claims first, and just by looking at the first one he makes in the first chapter:
That was debunked back in 2014:
As Morano makes a big deal of this item, one has to conclude that he is not only politically incorrect, but completely incorrect.
After establishing that a messenger is pulling our leg, **then **it is ok to shot him down.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Marc_Morano
Really, why is that an “expert” on Vietnam military things is deemed now to be an expert now on climate change issues? What is clear is that he is an expert alright, but an expert on misleading people.
Get a brain, Morano!
I think it was author Robert Bloch who said, “I have the brain of a small boy. I keep it in a jar on my desk.” Merely “getting” a brain isn’t enough. Preservation is also important. Formaldehyde? Just don’t take a jar labeled “bad brain”. Only tragedy can follow.
Note that a brain pickled AFTER bottling is likely sounder than one previously pickled. If pickled while still alive, a brain may slip into error, especially about climate change. Like mistaking weather for climate. Snowfall doesn’t debunk global warming.
How many deniers live on low-lying islands?
The book claims any scientists who disagree are branded heretics and not reported. Also that Al Gore uses 900 times more electricity than a family in Uganda for a year and the “powers that be” want to keep poor people in nations like that poor.
What Morano said was false.
This shows that he is missing the point that Al Gore makes about being carbon neutral, that is that at the same time he could be using that electricity he is actually also using energy sources that pollute less or are green.
Just like in the case of the consensus, Morano goes for discredited sources. Really, that book is only good as a doorstep.
Indeed. Much like any scientist who disagrees with the existence of gravity is branded a heretic and not reported.
“You protest the state of society, and yet you live in society. How hypocritical of you !”
When you suggest that we don’t hear from many “heretics” because they’re being covered up, that is classic conspiracy theory thinking. The likeliest reason is that there just aren’t many.
To test that theory, observe that the fossil fuel industry happily gives a loud platform to any scientist that will say what they want. Also observe that you are reading a book reporting the “heretics”.
If I may tangent on that: IMHO it’s 1st-world tourists of many political aspects who want exotic, quaint, handcrafting, impoverished ethnics to remain low-paid, exotic folk crafting cheap goodies to take back home, with the exotic locale staying cheap too. An expat can vacation or live very well in countries facing economic collapse.
Back to topic. Major polluters and their minions lie about product danger; truth shall not deter their survival instinct. Are we surprised? A certain biblical verse should accurately translate as, “Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live.” Who takes that seriously?
I’m glad I posted here, I tend to take most books at face value. Ignorance eradicated.
You shouldn’t do that. While articles in good magazines get fact checked, many or most popular books don’t. Some technical books do.