The hyper-activity* of some climate change sceptics/contrarians/deniers reminds me of the approach common with creationists on the internet. Constant cherry picking, quote mining, article linking, etc. All with the aim of discrediting scientific ideas and conclusions.
Some time ago in Intelligent design and scientific method I described how one of the Discovery Institute (Wedge) fellows, Joe Campana, revealed that “all ID scholars are obligatory participants in reinterpretation research, . . . . much of their day in, day out work is in reinterpretation research.” He defined reinterpretation research as interpreting past and current published science according to the “design paradigm” – to provide alternative supernatural explanations).
Seems to me this is exactly what these hyperactive individuals are doing in their climate change postings and quotes. Cherry picking, quote mining aqnd reinterpreting research according to their “global cooling” and “science conspiracy” paradigms.
Denial Depot posted this amusing graphic depicting this hyperactivity in a recent post (Why Leprechauns Can’t Explain The Recent Warming). It portrays the straw clutching arguments commonly used to explain, or deny, global warming.
The graphic is a caricature of a genuine graphic presented in the last IPCC Report. (Figure 2.20 – AR4 WGI Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing). This shows he estimated influences of several human caused effect and solar radiation since 1750. Notice the error bars. They are much bigger in some cases than others. Notice the assessment of scientific understanding for these influences. We have a high understanding for some of them and a low understanding for others.
I discussed this and similar graphics in my post Climate change is complex.
* For a local example of this hyperactivity have a look at the blog Climate Conversation Group. It basically involves about 3 or 4 individuals exchanging links from other blogs in the denier echo chambers and weather reports of snow storms. In between puerile sarcasm aimed at denying the credibility of scientists and honest science.