Climate Change Denial: A Model of Inconsistency

Image source: chadwickschool.libguides.com/greek_gods

If you're familiar to any considerable degree with the ongoing debate between monotheists and non-believers, you've probably seen or heard an atheist drop something akin to this startling bomb onto the conversation at some point...

"Truth be told, you and I agree much, much, much more than we disagree."

Now, why would anyone say something like that during an oft-heated back-and-forth lasting for hours, days, and sometimes even months (we do have the Internet and online forums these days to drag the argument out indefinitely, if participants wish, ya know)? To understand why this statement is in fact true, let's look at how modern-day religious people in the West and Middle East and non-believers answer the following questions...

Are/were Ra, Shu, Geb, Osiris, Horus, etc. real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Are/were Zeus, Apollo, Hera, Poseidon, Athena, etc., and their Roman analogs real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Are/were Odin, Loki, Freyja, Thor, Yggdrasil, etc. real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Are/were Tecciztecatl, Nanauatl, Huitzilopochtli, Quetzalcoatl, etc. real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Are/were Apu, Supay, Apocatequil, Ch'aska, Kuka Mama, etc. real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Are/were Ganesha, Vishnu, Shiva, Lord Brahma, etc. real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Are/were Gitche Manitou, Storms-as-He-Walks, Pah, Malsumis, Haashchʼéé Oołtʼohí, Angwusnasomtaka, Torngasoak, Sedna, etc. real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Is/was the Golden Calf real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Is/was Ba'al real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Is the Dalai Lama truly the enlightened reincarnation of all the lamas or tulkus that precede him (i.e.: a living god)?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

(And so on in a seeming unending loop until we finally get to...)

Is Yahweh (or whatever name you care to give the God of Abraham) real?
Monotheist: Yes.
Atheist: No.

Briefly and simply put...

"From a plurality of prime movers, the monotheists have bargained it down to a single one. They are getting ever nearer to the true, round figure."

- Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great

Similarly, despite the eyebrows that might raise over it, this statement is also true.

Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) advocates and deniers agree on the science about 99% of the time.

To see how this is the case, let's once again pose some illustrative questions to both sides...

Have you ever aggressively criticized epidemiologists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions in their field?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Have you ever aggressively criticized geologists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions in their field?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Have you ever aggressively criticized microbiologists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions in their field?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Have you ever aggressively criticized hematologists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions/diagnoses in their field?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Have you ever aggressively criticized oncologists or pathologists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions/diagnoses in their field?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Have you ever aggressively criticized seismologists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions in their field?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Have you ever aggressively criticized nuclear physicists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions in their field?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Have you ever aggressively criticized mathematicians and physicists for their usage of computer models to assist the military in making battle predictions?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Have you ever aggressively criticized neurologists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions in their field?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

(And so on in a seeming unending loop until we finally get to...)

Have you ever aggressively criticized climatologists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions in their field?
AGW Denier: Yes, all the time.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Just like monotheists have very nearly narrowed it down to the real number of gods, but refuse to take that final, irresistible, and unavoidable step toward maintaining logical consistency, climate change deniers almost hit the mark on the real number of computer models that have proven useless to scientists trying to improve the predictive capacity of their chosen discipline, and therefore are indeed worthy of their ignorant criticism.

Zero.

And, FYI, deniers, no matter how much you really, really, really want it to happen, no one is going to stop attempting to predict future climate, mmmmkay? It's not going to happen. EVER. So, unless you have a better alternative than computer models to offer the world for its much-needed climatic forecasts, you can go ahead and shut yer ever-flapping, horribly misinformed, pointless pie holes until you do.

Thank you.