Why can't we have climate truthers and 911 skeptics?

What idiot coined the moniker '911 truth movement'? The name suggests truth is a known thing to communicate to the wider world. That seems to go a little too far to me. The key message of the so-called 911 truth movement ought to be that we don't know the truth, and never will, that the truth has been suppressed. And that what we think is the truth, the findings of the 911 Commission, is far from the unchallengeable certainty touted by the MSM. The common thread of so-called 911 truth is skepticism of The Official Story.

On the other hand running through the heart of climate skepticism is the belief that truth about climate science has been suppressed, that the wider disinterested public is being misled. I know they don't like to be called deniers so how would our climate skeptic friends feel with the label Climate Truthers?

It's a point I've been meaning to make for some time, and was spurred on by watching this excellent documentary about the scientist Steven E. Jones who has published peer reviewed work strongly suggesting the twin towers were brought down by explosions. Now theres a hell of a crossover between science and politics in his field. Science. It's like a candle in the dark.

1 comment:

  1. Your statement that
    "running through the heart of climate skepticism is the belief that truth about climate science has been suppressed"
    is a new one on me. Major climate sceptic blogs (WUWT, Jo Nova, BishopHill) do not see a hiding of the truth, but that a lot of spurious claims are based on very little evidence and of prophesies that fail to come true. They also point to other ways of looking at the data. They would agree that the public is being misled, but this is about the quality of the science, and ultimately the very definition of what is called “science”.
    There is a huge weight of evidence for 911 being an act of al-Qaeda terrorism, with no assistance from the CIA. Similarly there is a huge weight of evidence for millions of Jews being killed in the Holocaust and that the average adult smoking 60 cigarettes a day from age 18 will live a much shorter and unhealthier life than the average adult who never inhales a single lung full.
    Analogy with these different strongly-supported propositions can be in three areas. The first is on based on numbers of expert supporters of a proposition. The second is showing that there is similarly very strong evidence. The third is showing that techniques and standards of outside from other areas are utilized.
    Use of the first area is attempting to gain credibility by association. The second area would make analogy and name-calling superfluous. The third area is contradicted by claims that only expert climate scientists can divine the real truth.