So the Institute for Strategic Decisions, a Disinformation think tank which supplies Official Truths to the regime, wrote an interesting document, "Deny, Deceive, Delay: Documenting and Responding to Climate Disinformation at COP26 and Beyond".
I don't today have time to go through all this (busy week), but I did note with fascination their definition of "Climate Denial", from which we can discern there are several official kinds of "climate deniers."
Climate denial, in contrast to other stances like scepticism (see below), refers to the overt rejection of climate change as a phenomenon, as well as its related causes and impacts. This includes claims, contrary to scientific consensus, that climate change is a ’hoax’, global temperatures are not rising, or that warming constitutes a natural process with no relation to anthropogenic (i.e. human-driven) greenhouse gas emissions.
DENIER 1: I do not know a single soul, nor have I even heard of one, who rejects "climate change as a phenomenon". Do you? If this mythical person did indeed exist, then it would be right to castigate him, or even her, and say, "Sir, or madam, the climate on earth has indeed changed. It is sometimes warmer, and sometimes cooler."
Because this form of a "climate denier" is mythical, he is a Hot Man, like a Straw Man, a figure made entirely out of hot air, imagination, and desire. The desire to have an enemy on which one's troubles may be blamed.
DENIER 2: The second official form of "denier" is one who accepts a changing climate, but who denies or doubts Expert-asserted "related causes and impacts". There are plenty of this species, and should be.
Here, for instance, is a long discussion (one of several), really more of a lament, of Experts wringing their hands over their "hot models." It seems Expert models have, quite consistently and over a long period of time, been predicting temperatures that are too hot. Oops. (These Experts still have unbounded confidence in their abilities, of course.)
It would thus appear that these Experts are themselves "climate deniers", since they are questioning Expert-asserted "related causes" of "climate change." They are saved from the contradiction and insult, however, because they are, in fact, Experts. These beings are allowed to say whatever they like and be free from worry they will face penalties for being wrong. Think the Fabulous Fauci, Neil "My Model Once Again Says We're All Going To Die" Ferguson, among others.
DENIER 3: Our third type of denier is one who says events attributed to "climate change", which they call "impacts", are false or uncertain. These events are not the changing climate itself, but those things which may or may not be influenced by weather. Like crop yields, which are up.
But saying things like "The world is greener because of climate change" is to deny "climate change" here, because under "climate change" only bad things can happen. See "Why You Don’t Have To Worry About Climate Change: Multiplication Of Uncertainties" for details.
DENIER 4: Our fourth type of denier is one who says "climate change" is a "hoax", which is not what it seems. The person who says this does not deny a changing climate, or even that certain things are affected by changing weather, but he means that the "solutions" to "stop" "climate change" are, to use an apt single word, bullshit. That they are schemes to remove money from him, the denier, and give them to the rich.
The denier who says "hoax" implies that whatever happens to the climate, it is nothing to worry about unduly.
DENIER 5: Our fifth type of denier is one who says that "temperatures are not rising". Let's take a man from Gaylord, Michigan, who examines his local historical record and sees this plot of yearly annual mean temperature (in the civilized units of Herr Fahrenheit):
Well, what would our man say? That's it's growing hotter? He would likely deny it is growing hotter. He would become a local denier. (The "record" temp was in 1901, 101 big ones; and the next down the list was 99 in 1955. The record low was -37 in 1979, which I remember well; second place was -35 in 2015. 2015, I say.)
Yet our man might not be an "official" denier, because he only denies what he can see. He cannot see how Experts create the global average. But, as we have seen, even Experts don't know what Experts mean by creating a global average.
DENIER 6: The last and sixth form of denier is one who accepts "climate change" but says the bulk of it is natural, and (the bulk) not caused by man. Since Expert models run hot, and since even Experts admit to natural causes (or they used to), it would seem an open question which source is most important. But to avoid calumny one must assert, publicly, that man is the only source of interest. Like this woman:



Our last kind of denier, then, is a heretic.
Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.
Visit wmbriggs.com.
We are of course being prepared for an Inquisition and heresy trials regarding climate change, but they will have to find some alternative to burning at the stake in open air for the auto-da-fe.
Excellent essay, per usual.
Thank you for thinking before you write and for writing crisply, with clarity, concision and logic aimed at objectivity.
Yet, in debating the Left, "those who will not learn," do you not (as I too often do) fall into their tactical trap, that of taking the incredible seriously and painstakingly dismantling it on the merits? The Left creates the ruse of debate and we devote time and energy responding to it, while knowing that we're pursuing a fruitless project and aiming at the wrong target. There can be no debate with "those who will not learn. Rather, is it not smarter, in a culture war, to fight the enemies of truth and decency using their weapons of choice, rhetoric, ridicule, ad hominem, accusation, and character assassination, while discrediting their illicit tactics, attacking their markedly unscientific methods, and exposing the actual ideological purpose of their war on science, truth and decency?
Perhaps it's time to stop debating and start demoralizing the Left.
BTW: hot models have long been unreliable. Just ask Billy Joel.