Global Warming Speaker: “The opinions of laypersons are not relevant”

Tom Rand ( email: advertises himself as an ‘adviser, speaker, and author’ on global warming and is a fellow of Action Canada, an activist organization funded by the Canadian Government.

In a recent article, The Catastrophe of Climate Change Skepticism, Rand takes aim at ‘skeptics’ who dare to challenge the consensus handed down regarding the imminent heat death of earth.  Rand starts off the article with the bald statement:

Unlike in politics or painting, when it comes to climate change, the opinions of laypersons are not relevant.

He then goes on to berate his own government (which funds the organization he works for) for failing to follow the example of Germany, which he says is surging ahead into a clean, renewable energy future. As we pointed out on this blog a while ago, Germany is in fact surging ahead into a coal powered future, and laughing at the useful idiots who believe its platitudes about investing in renewable energy.

Germany clearly doesn’t agree with Rand’s comment elsewhere that “We’re kidding ourselves if we think we can escape peak oil or move the needle on carbon emissions for anything less than trillions“. Nope. Germans will get their power from coal, and still have enough carbon credits left over to sell to well-meaning dupes in other countries.

Rand says that discussion and debate are irrelevant, as a switch to a low-carbon world “is not optional”. As such, scepticism on global warming is a “vice” as the opinions of mere “laypersons” are meaningless compared to the consensus of “expert opinion”:

Skepticism becomes a vice when applied to a broad consensus of expert opinion warning of existential danger. The policy commitments demanded by climate science need broad public support. Skeptics erode that support without intellectual justification

The only area of debate over global warming, Rand says, is over “how volatile nature has become, and how angry it will get”.

I don’t know about nature, but I get pretty angry with jumped-up little men like Rand trying to lord it over “laypersons” like me with their dismissal of discussion and debate.

8 responses to “Global Warming Speaker: “The opinions of laypersons are not relevant”

  1. This is actually good news. It means we can now ignore – at the request of a high profile warmist activist – lay people such as Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri, Lord Stern, Roger Harrabin and Richard Black.

    Unless of course he feels these people should be exempt because they spread the ‘findings’ of scientists. In which case he can button it because those of us in the counter consensus are doing exactly the same thing by spreading the ‘findings’ of scientists who have a scientific basis for rejecting the AGW narrative.

    As with so many activists, Rand emits too much hot air and CO2 orally.

  2. Unlike in politics or painting, when it comes to climate change, the opinions of laypersons are not relevant.

    Yet their money is important. ;>)

    The only area of debate over global warming, Rand says, is over “how volatile nature has become, and how angry it will get”.

    The ACE hurrican index is at its lowest for over 30 years. We have just finished the ‘hottest’ decade on the record. Sorry, but nature is being non-cooperative.

  3. Ha ha, Vancouver has not set a monthly high temp record since 1998, and their overall record was set in 1983, they have not set a rainfall record since the 60’s and did manage to set an October snowfall record in the 90’s. The max Canadian Temp ever recorded was from 1903 and remains unbroken.

    Where are the extremes?

  4. “Tom holds a BSc in electrical engineering from the University of Waterloo, a MSc in philosophy of science from the University of London / London School of Economics and an MA and PhD in philosophy from the University of Toronto.”

    Yet he says:

    “Unlike in politics or painting, when it comes to climate change, the opinions of laypersons are not relevant.”

    Yet he, as a non-climate scientist has said:

    “Climate change is not a future threat, it’s already here. It’s not like some unsavory character that might one day crash the fossil fuel party, and ruin the good times. It’s already here – it’s in the kitchen, stealing beers and breaking furniture. The fossil fuel party needs to end.”
    “We have ten to 20 years to turn the ship around and we’re not going to do it by writing tip books on how to lower one’s carbon footprint.”

    Baaah! Humbug!

  5. “…the opinions of laypersons are not relevant…” a.k.a. ‘you are not a climate scientist, therefore you may not speak about the issue, and if you do, you are driven by (fill-in-the-blank) motivations or are funded by big coal and oil.

    This is just one of many regurgitated talking points, much like the more recent one about ‘so you are saying the vast consensus of scientists is simply conspiring to redistribute wealth’. All these defenses are intended as distractions for what is the proverbial 800lb gorilla in the room, the emperor wearing no cloths, the ‘pay no attention to the man behind the curtain’: the idea of man-caused global warming is on the verge of total collapse.

    Laypersons like me saw the contradictory assessments of the IPCC and skeptic scientists. I have no qualifications to tell who is right, but when I asked politicians, policymakers and journalists to explain what justifies going ahead with CO2 regulation, I wasn’t told how skeptics were disproved, I was given nothing but evasive shallow answers, particularly about skeptics’ corruption. When I asked for specific proof of that, none was given, so I had to look for it myself, which ultimately resulted in the collection of articles and blogs seen at the link when you click on my name above.

    Laypersons matter, because when anyone makes an authoritative statement, a layperson might ask for clarification. If the first person can’t actually defend the authoritative statement and instead resorts to evasive answers and personal attacks against all critics, then that is a fairly good indication the authoritative statement may very well be indefensible, and that fault must be covered up at all costs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s