(.) (.)

Below is an excerpt from a climate geniuses. It begs a request.

I am working on a book concerning fundamental aspects of reason; in that examination I frequently run up against the magical failure to accept contradictory assumptions or corrections. I think we need a new term.

So far, I mention normalcy bias, lying, glazing over, and stupidity. However, I am taking submissions for the following: when a true believer attempts to respond to a violation of his faith, he will not address his own assumptions, as would a reasonable person. 

Rather, he will create a new reality to explain why the true belief must be left alone. That is, "I don't have to defend whimsical conclusions because others are just as bad."  This is sort of like: "Bush, did it, too!" An immaterial avoidance of thought.

So, if you come up with a name, I will send you one dollar, American, which will get you two stamps. 

Here is the gist of this new thought process, with my expansion:

1.  there is evil climate change, forever undefined (called "climate forcing" !!!!!!)
2.  we have to stop using oil or the earth succumbs
3.  natural gas has much less CO2 than evil oil
4.  scientists invented ways to obtain cheaper natural gas!
5.  statists do not want us to be free of energy control
        (or, more likely, I hear my gods tell me fracking is not permitted.)
Therefore, getting natural gas is bad.

I think I got that right.

Anyway, here is where I need a term:  sure, we can use cheaper, safer gas and produce much less CO2, BUT, the resulting economic boom will use result in the use of more gas, which will result in evil CO2 levels still destroying the earth. So, come on and make an suggestion.

This logic is like: if we feed starving Ethiopans, then they will produce more Ethiopians and a greater crisis.

Read it, below, if you have nothing better to do or find yourself on the john. Forget about actually doing the numbers. Just repeat: models show an increase of climate forcing up to 7%, whatever that means.

“The most important energy development of the past decade has been the wide deployment of hydraulic fracturing technologies that enable the production of previously uneconomic shale gas resources in North America1. If these advanced gas production technologies were to be deployed globally, the energy market could see a large influx of economically competitive unconventional gas resources. The climate implications of such abundant natural gas have been hotly debated... Here we show that market-driven increases in global supplies of unconventional natural gas do not discernibly reduce the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions or climate forcing. Our results, based on simulations from five state-of-the-art integrated assessment models of energy–economy–climate systems independently forced by an abundant gas scenario, project large additional natural gas consumption of up to +170 per cent by 2050.

The impact on CO2 emissions, however, is found to be much smaller (from −2 per cent to +11 per cent), and a majority of the models reported a small increase in climate forcing (from −0.3 per cent to +7 per cent) associated with the increased use of abundant gas. Our results show that although market penetration of globally abundant gas may substantially change the future energy system, it is not necessarily an effective substitute for climate change mitigation policy.”