Rebuttals of the Week! #36: Conflate carbon dioxide with air pollution… then insist you’re right anyway when you’re caught!


You see this a lot these days: People present their interpretation as definitive and insist that anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. Then when the interpretation is demonstrated to be flawed… they simply say “Well just ignore that because I’m still right!”

Here is my exchange with Alice:

Alice B: seriously?? You nutters at The Australian need to live in China for a year and see if Climate change and pollution is not real and see if THAT is not shrinking the economy i.e half China’s population will die young if they dont do somethng about their emissions! Now THAT aint good for economies!

Going to Getugly: You are an exceptional illustration of just how clueless people are about this subject while being absolutely certain of the excellence of their perception of the matter.

The problems you are referring to in China are not due to carbon dioxide emissions. They are due to actual air pollution as a result of untreated toxic emissions from industry.

Alice B: this exceptional illustration of clueless (LOL) can understand you can have both CO2 emissions from coal and untreated toxic chemical waste. LOL i.e. And most of the source of energy used to power these toxic chemical producing industries are powered by coal. ( As China has become more wealthy it has stopped using its own low grade coal an importing Australia’s high grade coal and has either closed allot of its own crap coal mines or exporting the crap to places like Africa)

Going to Getugly: That’s my point Alice…NOT yours. I’m the one who is distinguishing between carbon dioxide… which is what is allegedly driving climate change… and air pollution which is what is adversely affecting the health of people in China. You are the one who conflated those two things. And now that you’ve had that conflation pointed out to you… you are struggling to justify it. Unfortunately all you’re doing is emphasizing the distinction which you failed to make in your original comment.

Alice B: I do understand the difference. Conflated original comment or not, Climate change is affecting China as much as anywhere else. i.e I STILL stand by my point (it is not a justification) i.e Coal in China has has and is still a major source of energy that results in co2 emissions which in return WILL shrink the economy as climate change worsens ie. so to argue the Paris agreement will slow growth , is laughable as it is climate change that will slow growth dramatically going forward.

Going to Getugly: So I think you’re acknowledging that my criticism that you conflated climate change with air pollution in your original comment was correct. Your assertions that CO2 emissions “WILL shrink the economy as climate change worsens” of course is nothing but conjecture based on a whole lot of assumptions that you’re making being true. I think the IPCC claims climate change will shave off 10% of a country’s GDP over the next 80 years… which is computer generated fortune telling and as Scott Adams has argued is an insignificant number anyway. Even the guy who came up with the number says in Forbes magazine that “the statistic mischaracterizes the evidence”.

Your argument doesn’t make sense anyway. To assert that it’s somehow “laughable” to be concerned about the negative impact on economic growth brought about by the Paris agreement because of concern over the negative impact on economic growth brought about by climate change is fallacious.

Not to mention the fact that you haven’t even tried to grapple with the main problem: Even if you accept that the claims of the climate change establishment are 100% accurate and if everyone complies to the letter of the Paris Accord over the next 80 years (which no one will of course) by their own estimates the effect on temperatures by the end of the century will be something like a reduction in global temperatures of 3 tenths of one degree. In other words… it will have no meaningfully quantifiable affect whatsoever.

Which means we will get the negative economic and social impacts of this radical top down intervention into national economies by UN bureaucrats and we will get the alleged impact from climate change.

The only reason for supporting any of this is as far as I can tell is that it allows people… presumably like yourself… to feel good about yourselves in the present moment because you can delude yourselves into believing you’re helping to ‘save the planet’ by acquiescing to all of this bull shittery.


Rebuttals of the Week #34: Knowing the popular narrative is NOT the same thing as understanding climate change.

In this video: People mistake knowing the popular narrative that has been spoon fed to us with knowing everything that is relevant about the complex issue of climate change. That’s why they mistake critical scrutiny of the narrative with ‘rejecting science’.

Rebuttals of the Week #32: Australian ‘progressives’ happy to see children used to advance political agendas

The eyes of Australian ‘progressives’ were moist and lumps rose in their throats at the sight of thousands of school children skipping class and mouthing the political views  of adults back at them in the streets of the country’s major cities last week.

The kiddies were engaging in an act of mass civil protest you see. They had “demands” don’t you know.

What did they want? “Urgent action on climate change!” When did they want it? “Now!” Or at least before 9 o’clock. That’s their bedtime.

That’s not all. As stated in the apparently irony-free headline from the daily newspaper The Age : “the students ‘demand’ climate talks with PM.”

“Demand climate talks” with the Prime Minister no less.

Have a look at two of the hard-nosed political activists in the picture below who are issuing ‘demands’ and insisting on a tête-à-tête with the leader of the country to hash out policy initiatives.

1 aaa kids

Granted, they’ve got the steely-eyed stare into the camera thing going… but I find the gravitas is undermined somewhat by the barrettes and rosy-red apple cheeks.

So what happened here?

Well it seems that the phenomenon highlighted by renegade academics like Jordan Peterson, Gad Saad, Janice Fiamengo, Bret Weinstein and others whereby the explicit purpose of ‘social justice’ programs at the university level to produce  ideologically ‘progressive’ political activists has made its way down to the earliest levels of the public educational/indoctrination system.

Very young school children who have had catastrophic man-made climate change taught to them less like a theory of physics than a theological absolute and moral crusade have been encouraged, rewarded and otherwise manipulated by the  adults around them into perceiving themselves as enlightened warriors for the ‘truth’. Any distinction between themselves as children and the adults in the highest positions of authority to whom they feel entitled to  issue “demands” and lecture seems not to have been impressed upon them.

Chillingly, the ability to distinguish between child and adult appears to be absent from a fairly wide swath of alleged grown ups in the general population as well. The willingness to perceive this as some spontaneous, self-directed expression of preternaturally enlightened 12 year olds bestowing their authoritative personal insights about the issue of planetary climate science as it relates to political and economic policy is simply surreal.

The AGE’s broadsheet competitor The Australian presented a decidedly less gushing and sentimental take on the ‘protest’ by visiting UK Left-wing  contrarian and commentator Brendan O’Neill.


1 aA children


My interaction with Linda M below is a pretty revealing overview of the mindset of people who rationalized this use of children to advance a political agenda into a glorious stirring of the nation’s youth leading us to our ‘progressive’ green Utopian future.

Notice how quickly  Linda reduces the subject to a moral binary in which everything that is ‘admirable’ and to do with ‘hope for the future’ and which is in the interests of ‘democracy’ is 100 percent located with her and those who agree with her… and anyone who fails to conform to her views is identified as ‘conservative’ and immediately associated with everything unscrupulous and corrupt.

At a point in my rebuttal I zero in on this reflex to bypass critical thinking in favour of reducing the world to a hyper-simplistic categorization of  “All of the good people think these things over here and anything other than that is evil and wrong by definition.” That’s the basic pattern of ideological thinking and it is the definitive form of reasoning relied on by those on the ‘progressive’ Left.

And it should probably come as no surprise…. Linda is a teacher.


Linda M: Double whammy for the Murdoch gutter hacks. They get to attack children and get in their daily hysterical attack on the ABC in the one go.

Going to Getugly: Was that easier for you than addressing the actual concerns and criticisms that people have about this Linda?

Linda M:  As a teacher of 30 years I can assure you that many of these children, who will be voters in a few years, are admirably demonstrating the hope for our future in a democracy. As opposed to a foreign media baron, who pays no tax in Australia and is able to arrange his affairs in order to get an $870 million tax refund, being able to fly in and organise the toppling of our Prime Minister. Not to mention the daily attacks on our independent broadcaster and any alternative to their extreme conservative tame pollies.

Going to Getugly: They are “admirably demonstrating the hope for our future in a democracy.” That’s very interesting. Whose hope are they demonstrating Linda? Their own? Or are they merely the vehicles for the political “hopes” of the adults around them?

Linda M:  As I have pointed out: As a 30 year teacher, I can attest to the ability of these young adults and adolescents to think for themselves. I and everyone of my acquaintance are grateful that there are future generations with the intellect to understand that we can’t sell the future of our grandchildren for the interests of mega rich miners.

Going to Getugly: It’s quite disturbing actually to see a “teacher of 30 years” being an apologist for using children to advance a political agenda because she personally likes the agenda. These are little CHILDREN who are too intellectually and emotionally immature and are lacking the life experience and the personal autonomy to fully cognise the concepts they are regurgitating and what it means to be participating in this ‘protest’.

These are not autonomous adults expressing ideas and convictions they have cultivated on their own who are engaging in self-directed activity. These are children who are behaving in a certain fashion because they are being encouraged and validated to do so by adults who are using them to advance a political agenda.

Linda M:  What utter arrogance!!!! To claim that young adults and adolescents are incapable of rational thought just because they do not subscribe to the Alt Right agenda of propping up the mega rich miners/political donors in their disastrous pursuit of profit before people.

Going to Getugly: So you’ve been teaching for 30 years (!) and yet you have no idea what logical fallacy is or how to make a rational argument? “You aren’t telling me my enthusiasm for using children to advance a political agenda I like is a sign of how enlightened I am because “alt-right agenda” and “rich miners” and stuff!”

No wonder parents are turning to home schooling.

Linda M:  These rational thinkers are our future. Thank goodness. Most of us understand that an argument is a logical series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Not the Alt Right method of automatic gainsaying and hysterical attacks.

Going to Getugly:  And for how many of these “rational thinkers” is the other primary concern at the moment what Santa Claus will bring them for Christmas in two weeks?

Here’s the thing Linda… you can’t include yourself in the category of “us” who “understand that an argument is a logical series of statements intended to establish a proposition” when you immediately do the opposite of that.

Writing the words “the Alt Right method of automatic gainsaying and hysterical attacks” is not an argument. It’s just a bunch of words in a row that are not connected to anything.

Linda M: “Here’s the thing”. Again with the condescending and arrogant tone. Do you even listen to yourself? To dismiss young adults and adolescents as Santa pining babies is to write alienate all the potential future voters. Conservatives shooting them selves in the foot as usual these days. If I was going to use the attack tactics of the right I’d point out that a troll group with the moniker “Going to Getugly” is self explanatory as a bunch of wreckers in the world with no worthy agenda.

Going to Getugly: Complaining about the “tone” isn’t an argument either Linda.

Identifying the actual intellectual and emotional stage of development of these children… as well as identifying their lack of individual autonomy isn’t ‘alienating’ them. But adults romanticising and idealising young children and projecting their own political aspirations onto them is unethical, abusive and grotesquely self-indulgent.

That’s why until very very recently all thoughtful ethical adults regarded the use of children to promote and advance political agendas… as was common under authoritarian regimes… to be a prime illustration of how indifferent those regimes were to any moral and ethical constraints. This was considered self-evident to normal people because… they are CHILDREN.

As someone who was just pontificating about logic and the structure of a properly reasoned argument you should notice that you don’t address any specific points that challenge your opinion. Being intellectually mature means you can defend your ideas against criticism directly because your perspective is the result of a complex process of reasoning which generates genuine insight. So there is a lot behind your perspective which you can draw on to validate and justify it.

Contrast that to what you do…which is to reduce everything to a hyper-simplistic binary categorisation:

Category 1 is a set of fixed opinions and interpretations which you’ve adopted because they appeal to you personally and which you accept as universal truths that reflect moral excellence.

Category 2 is anything that doesn’t conform to Category 1. Which by definition is the opposite of universal truth and moral excellence.

That’s why when your unexamined assumption about the excellence of your opinion is challenged your reflex is to simply slot the other person into Category 2…. “The only plausible explanation for anyone not telling me I’m right and how enlightened and wonderful I am is that they’re EVIL “wreckers in the world” and they’re “Conservatives” and “alt-right” and other generic self-confirming slogans and clichés!”

That being a  ‘wrecker of the world’ and arguing against children being used to promote the political agenda of adults are mutually exclusive motivations is conveniently overlooked.

That’s because at no point does conscious, adult-level rational thinking play any part whatsoever in how you process this.

And so it’s not surprising that when you have adults whose own reasoning and ethical development hasn’t matured past the stage of adolescence that the distinction between the child and the fully developed autonomous adult remains opaque them.

Paris Climate Change Accord and Elitist Hypocrisy

Donald Trump fulfills an election promise to withdraw the US from the completely ineffectual Paris climate accord... and the liberal, progressive Left loses its collective mind. The most incensed of course are those in the governing class who embraced the accord as an expression of their noble and superior values.

But have you ever noticed how the governing elites conduct their lives in a manner completely contrary to the values they proselytise to the rest of us? Have a look at the new Getugly video!

‘Rebuttal Of The Week!’ #9: Why do people who care about the environment not care about the truth?

The Daily Wire drew attention this week to a revealing new study from the Danish Meteorological Institute. Not only does the study contradict the widely accepted catastrophic man-made climate change official narrative… it 100% refutes the endlessly recycled messaging from the mainstream media, the liberal political class and government funded scientists that the theory of man-made climate change is ‘settled science’ and that there is universal scientific ‘consensus’ on the issue.

a1(read the article here)

In other words… this one study alone ends the debate about whether or not scepticism towards the claims of the climate change establishment is justified. The verdict is in and it is indisputable: IT’S JUSTIFIED!

The fact that this paper is just one in a long series of under reported studies and news items undermining the validity of the ‘consensus’ climate change establishment orthodoxy only helps seal the deal. In February of this year  for example, a whistleblower accused NOAA (one of the government funded scientific bodies that is a primary source for information and data supporting and promoting the man-made climate change premise) of “flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards”. The allegation is that this was done to intentionally “discredit” the so-called “hiatus” – the now two decade-long period in which there has been no global warming.  The whistleblower, former principal scientist of the National Climatic Data Center John Bates, accused senior officials at NOAA of “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation.” (Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data to hide global warming ‘pause’).

Last year, the journal Nature Climate Science published a report titled “making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown.” The scientists who authored the report presented the following summary:

“It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.”

John Fyfe, climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia and lead author of the report described it like this:

“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing…We can’t ignore it.”

Susan Solomon, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge was quoted in the journal Nature that “Fyfe’s framework helps to put twenty-first-century trends into perspective, and clearly indicates that the rate of warming slowed down at a time when greenhouse-gas emissions were rising dramatically.”

I could go on. There are countless other examples like these that receive essentially no attention from the mainstream press. But this is clearly sufficient to justify scepticism in any rational, objective adult about the claims of indisputable veracity made by the man-made climate change establishment and their proxies in the political and media classes.

What cannot be justified in light of information like this is anyone who would still impugn the motives or intelligence of people who simply acknowledge the inconsistencies and contradictions that are right in front of their eyes…. let alone affix to them the pejorative  and inflammatory label of “denier“. To do so would be to exhibit a mindset more analogous to that of a devotee of some pernicious cult rather than a serious minded adult capable of independent thought and reasoning.

Not only is scepticism justified when it comes to these claims… for objective, thinking laypeople who privilege the pursuit of truth it is the only intellectually viable position to hold at this point.

Of course, this is not news to anyone who has bothered to make even a mild effort towards self-directed scrutiny of the climate change issue. As I point out in my ‘Rebuttal Of The Week’ below, every single person who objectively investigates this issue beyond what is spoon-fed to us by the liberal political class and the mainstream media immediately discovers the same thing: this is a far more contentious, uncertain and politicised issue than we have been encouraged to believe. There are massive economic, political, professional, personal and ideological interests at stake in sustaining the myth of catastrophic man-made climate change theory as ‘settled science’. And yet the narrative that has been constructed in the minds of many lay people is one of purely benevolent saviours of ‘Mother Earth’ versus the absolute evil of greedy oil executives and their malevolent or stupid stooges.

Here is my rebuttal to someone who responded to me posting the Daily Wire article by essentially downplaying  the report and making the argument that it’s not the science that’s relevant, but rather it’s caring about the future of the planet that counts.

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly:
I think what happens is that people who have identified with a particular passion for the natural world are told by these establishment interests that if you don’t unreservedly support all things related to climate change… then you don’t really care about the environment. And so people reflexively join the bandwagon in order to feel like they’re doing the right thing, to feel they are part of the right team, like they’re one of the ‘good’ people. They give their unreserved support without thoroughly and critically scrutinising what they’ve been told, who is telling them what to think, what interests are at play, what the alternative perspectives are… and most tellingly, why at a time in which climate change is such a prominent issue, relevant information like this from the Danish Meteorological Institute isn’t headline news… or even mentioned!…. by the CBC, the ABC, Toronto Star, The Age, Globe and Mail, National Post, The Guardian, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune etc. etc. etc.. And yet every time some wing of the American government like NASA or NOAA issues a misleading press release about ‘the warmest year on record’ it immediately gets splashed across these same media outlets.

For those of us who actively look for information about the climate change issue beyond what is spoon-fed to us by the mainstream media… there is nothing surprising, unique or controversial about this report. Despite what we have been encouraged to believe, there is no shortage of expert opinion and data that challenges the so-called  ‘settled science’ of catastrophic man-made climate change. Everyone who is interested enough to look into it finds the same thing.

Does the preponderance of scientific evidence and opinion that is contrary to the claims of the climate change establishment prove the theory of catastrophic man-made climate change is false? Not necessarily. But it does prove beyond contention that we have been and continue to be lied to by that establishment about the certainty of their theory and the absence of disagreement among experts in their field. It also proves the mainstream media and the liberal political class have helped perpetuate that lie…. if not deliberately, then by systemic incompetence.

Which means the sceptics… or ‘deniers’…. were right all along.

For what it’s worth, here is my personal ‘big-picture’ take on all of this…. EVERYONE cares about the health of the natural environment. But only some people care about the natural environment and also care equally about being told the truth.

Rebuttals of the Week#6: Annoying Self-Righteous Canadian Alert!


No… not Justin Trudeau. Or even David Suzuki. Although both would easily qualify.

No, this time it’s life of the Party, Naomi Kline. And she has travelled thousands of miles in a huge, fossil fuel guzzling, CO2 spewing jet (business class no doubt)…. has been driven back and forth between airport, luxury hotel and media studios in fossil fuel guzzling, CO2 spewing cars… getting treated like a VIP…. eating well and often….. all so she can lecture average working people in Australia about how they are obliged to feel ashamed of their lifestyle and modest standard of living.

Yes folks. It’s climate change again. You’d forgotten about it, hadn’t you? What with all the hysteria about the US election and Donald Trump taking up so much oxygen for the past several months.

Naomi hasn’t forgotten about it. Nope. Naomi never forgets about it. And she considers it her business to make sure you don’t forget about it either.


Professional obnoxious, self-righteous bores like Kline and Suzuki seem to really embolden the amateur obnoxious, self-righteous bores that are  out there.

Below is the response from one of these self-anointed, amateur intellectual powerhouses to a comment of mine that expressed my reasoned disinclination to obediently submit to the judgements of the hypocritical academic class of which Kline is a privileged member.

Brenton Boswell B B : Imagine this for a moment: let’s say in a month from now, having made a genuine effort to listen and learn and think, you find that you have changed your mind and that climate change is in fact real and desperately, frighteningly urgent. How would you look back on your previous attitude? Would it be with shame or anger? To what extent would you blame yourself? Or should you blame others? I can answer that for you: it’s not really your fault. You have been actively misled by businesses that make *trillions* of dollars out of fossil energy production. You have also been ‘in denial’ in a way that is common to all human beings, i.e. we deny our fear of death. Think of it this way: clinging to ultimately false and foolish disinformation is not rare: it’s normal. What is rare is science: a disciplined approach to knowledge that in some ways is only 250 years old. The fact that you haven’t yet understood what makes science different from all other human beliefs is therefore not surprising. There are thousands like you. Don’t be angry. Just see what you can learn. The evidence and information, and patient people who can teach you, are available.

The dripping condescension and the assumption that anyone who doesn’t share his uncritical devotion to the ‘catastrophic man-made climate change narrative’ must never have heard the various slogans, clichés and ‘go-to’ talking points they all rely on is pretty standard. The weird faux-Freudian ‘denial of death’ stuff is a nice innovation though.

Here’s how I slapped him down:

Going to Getugly – Going to GetuglyIf you’re going to use fallacious arguments, at least try to come up with an original one… don’t just parrot standard clichés like “you’ve been brainwashed by oil companies and all of their anti man-made climate catastrophe propaganda !”

I’m always amused by people who mindlessly regurgitate that one as if it’s some devastating insight.

Because we are constantly being bombarded with oil funded, anti-climate change propaganda, right? It’s everywhere! I mean, we can go back to that multi-million dollar , Oscar-winning movie by a former American vice president that promoted the anti-man made climate change message…..

Oh wait. That was promoting the concept of man-made climate change.

Well, there’s all the messaging in schools indoctrinating children into disbelieving in man-made climate change….

Oh wait. That’s all promoting the unquestioning belief in man-made climate change.

Well, there’s the mass media which has spent the last 15 years legitimising only one side of the argument and promoting the belief that the ‘science is settled’ and proves that man-made climate change is not true….

Oh wait. They’ve done that for the pro man-made climate change side.

Well, at least we can point to all of the major politicians in the world who refuse to get on-board with the pro man-made climate change agenda! That’s why there’s been no carbon tax programs introduced anywhere. No cap-and-trade programs. No taxpayer subsidised ‘green initiatives’. No wind turbines erected anywhere etc. And of course there was that huge gathering last year in Paris when all of the world leaders got together to formalise their total rejection of the catastrophic man-made climate change premise and signed documents pledging not to pretend they can control the temperature of a planet to within fractions of a degree, 20 years into the future!

Oh, wait….

So essentially we’ve had 10-15 years of consistent, unified and exclusively pro man-made climate change messaging from the mass media, the education system, the entertainment industry and the political class (in other words, society’s elites). But your conclusion is that people such as yourself whose position on the subject conforms precisely with that wall of single-focused messaging are the people who are free from the effects of propaganda and manipulation……and it’s people like me whose perspective is at odds with messaging that is constantly streamed from every easily accessible source and yet maintain that there are legitimate reasons for remaining sceptical despite overwhelming pressure to conform… it’s us who are the weak-minded victims of a  program of propaganda that is nowhere to be found.

Yeah, yeah Brenton… there’s absolutely nothing about that premise that is in spectacular defiance of simple logic or is in any way hilariously ironic.

No seriously… the depth of your insight and the potency of your reasoning skills totally justifies your pose of intellectual superiority which otherwise would just come across as adolescent and embarrassing.

Not surprisingly, he gave up after that.

Climate change science wrong again!

Man-made climate change ‘science’ seems to be unique among scientific disciplines in that it doesn’t matter how consistently it generates predictions that turn out to be wrong when compared to real world observations…. it never justifies re-assessing the validity of the theory.



Scientist accused of ’crying wolf’ on climate change with claim that Arctic sea ice would vanish

Instead, we get the argument from the very people who kept getting it wrong for 10 to 20 years that we are obliged to consider this track record irrelevant and to accept that all the claims, predictions and policies they are promoting today are beyond questioning.

Shockingly, there are still adults out there who believe their absolute refusal to recognise any justification for any degree of scepticism about the claim is the most rational position to hold on the issue.