The climate change denial machine

Here’s an interesting diagram I found at Climate Progress (see Organized Climate Change Denial “Played a Crucial Role in Blocking Domestic Legislation,” Top Scholars Conclude). It’s taken from the book  chapter,Organized Climate Change Denial,” by Riley E. Dunlap and Aaron M. McCright in The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society.

This describes the situation in the USA where Joe Romm points out:

“the fact is that what the deniers have accomplished in this country is unique in the world, going far beyond the spread of disinformation.  They have allowed fossil fuel interests to “capture” almost an entire political party — at least these in national office (see National Journal:  “The GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science that appears unmatched among major political parties around the globe, even conservative ones”).”

The New Zealand denial machine

OK. things are nowhere as bad in New Zealand. But I still think a similar diagram applies here – providing we include international connections.

We have some local corporations and financial interests supporting climate change denial, but they themselves have international inks. And many of the fossil fuel interests in the US have connections down under.

At the next level we even have our own conservative think tank – The NZ Centre for Political Research. This has important links with local big business, overseas business and conservative think tanks, local politicians and news media. Links with the NZ ACT Party are clear – and one can’t help thinking that this was the organisation pulling the strings behind the recent leadership coup in that party. Especially as the plotters were not even members of the party!

Links with astroturf climate denier and contrarian organisations like the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition and the NZ Climate Conversation Group are also clear. The Centre for Political research also has a forum which displays plenty of evidence of links with some way-out conspiracy theory organisations and individuals.

These links with media, politicians, astroturf organisations., blogs and internet forums form the local denier echo chamber. Individuals involved in the echo chamber also spread their influence more widely, for example, to conservative Christian and political blogs, by their cut and past activity.  Follow one of these blogs and you get the impression of a few very active individuals passing on links to denier sources, and disparaging comments about science and scientists. They rely very much on the “authority by hyperlink” process.

The authors of the chapter from which this diagram is taken say in their conclusion:

“We have argued that because of the perceived threat posed by climate change to their interests, actors in the denial machine have strived to undermine scientific evidence documenting its reality and seriousness.  Over the past two decades they have engaged in an escalating assault on climate science and scientists, and in recent years on core scientific practices, institutions and knowledge.  Their success in these efforts not only threatens our capacity to understand and monitor human-induced ecological disruptions from the local to global levels (Hanson 2010), but it also weakens an essential component of societal reflexivity when the need for the latter is greater than ever.”

Again, this denial machine has far less influence in New Zealand than in the USA. But I think, if we remember the activity of the local components (as for example their attacks on our NIWA scientists), this conclusion does describe the local denial machine as well.

Similar articles

73 responses to “The climate change denial machine

  1. I consider it an especially telling point so many deniers are anonymous. This serves to hide the fact their numbers are limited and to avoid taking eventual responsibility. If I am wrong my name is out there for perpetual mocking.

    (Having said that, it does surprise me that at climate conversation they have not created a few sockpuppets to bolster the miniscule roster of commenters).

    Like

  2. Denier, denier, denier blah blah blah,

    Yawn……

    Like

  3. Mark Hoofnagle has described denialism as “the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.” It is a process that operates by employing one or more of the following five tactics in order to maintain the appearance of legitimate controversy.

    1.Conspiracy theories — Dismissing the event by suggesting opponents have an ulterior motive for their position or are conspiracy theorists.

    2.Cherry picking — Selecting an anomalous critical paper supporting their idea, or using outdated, flawed, and discredited papers in order to make their opponents look like they base their ideas on weak research.

    3.False experts — Paying an expert in the field, or another field, to lend supporting evidence or credibility.

    4.Moving the goalpost — Dismissing evidence presented in response to a specific claim by continually demanding some other (often unfulfillable) piece of evidence.

    5.Other logical fallacies — Usually one or more of false analogy, appeal to consequences, straw man, or red herring.

    Tara Smith of the University of Iowa also stated that moving goalposts, conspiracy theories and cherry-picking evidence are general characteristics of denialist arguments, but went on to note that these groups spend “majority of their efforts critiquing the mainstream theory” in an apparent belief that if they manage to discredit the mainstream view, their own “unproven ideas will fill the void”.

    Link

    Like

  4. Colin MacGillivray

    There are a few qualified individuals, unbacked by money, who deny climate change, Augie Auer is one I heard speak convincingly before he died.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augie_Auer
    According to Auer:
    “ Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm. …If we didn’t have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time. The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

    Obviously this argument been refuted in a way that ordinary open minded people can understand. Could someone provide a link? Thanks

    Like

  5. Obviously this argument been refuted in a way that ordinary open minded people can understand. Could someone provide a link?

    Where have you looked already? What sources of information do you use when you want to find out about scientific issues?

    Like

  6. The big problem you will have with refuting denialist nonsense is getting people to use primary sources of information as opposed to secondary sources. Denialists just love no-name blogs and the “University of Google”. The very thought of going to primary sources of information and going to the scientists that actually do the work themselves is an alien concept to them. It freaks them out if you even suggest it. They seem to regard using primary sources of information as a type of cheating or something.

    NASA, for example, is a primary source of information. NASA does much of the heavy lifting on climate science. They are pioneers in climatology research and have been for decades. They have a very good website where they explain their research in easy and simple terms and make it crystal clear the global scientific communities position on climate change. They take on the water vapour canard very effectively.
    Water vapour is important. It’s very important…only the deniers don’t tell the rest of the story.

    My favourite one-stop shop for debunking of Denialist zombie PRATTs is “Skepticalscience.com” They have gathered all the PRATTs on one site and patiently gone through them using primary sources of science information. They give full references and even take the time to give optional levels of technical detail.
    There’s no such thing as an original denialist PRATT. They just recycle the old stuff.

    Denialists are very busy people (of course) and so, very sadly, they don’t have the time to read.
    Sometimes it’s easier to just give them a video that is well-sourced and accurately reflects the scientific consensus.

    Water Vapor and Climate

    Like

  7. What does the acronym PRATT stand for?

    Like

  8. Richard Christie

    Point Refuted A Thousand Times

    Like

  9. Richard Christie

    Denialists just love no-name blogs and the “University of Google”. The very thought of going to primary sources of information and going to the scientists that actually do the work themselves is an alien concept to them. It freaks them out if you even suggest it. They seem to regard using primary sources of information as a type of cheating or something.

    Aptly illustrated in this interview of James Delingpole, Telegraph columnist and pin-up boy for climate science deniers , by Sir Paul Nurse, president of Royal Society, Delingpole played a major role in kicking along the nonsense referred to as climategate.

    James Delingpole doesn’t do science – he’s “an interpreter of interpretations”.

    Like

  10. James Delingpole doesn’t do science – he’s “an interpreter of interpretations”.

    He’s actually proud of that.
    Wierd.
    It would never occur to me to get my science information from a newspaper. My standards are higher than that.
    Even with the best of intentions, newspapers can get the reporting of science badly wrong. Scientists grant interviews hoping to reach out to the general public only to routinely see the printed article pulp the scientist’s research into unrecognisable mush.
    Delingpole does no actual investigative journalism at all. He could but he doesn’t. His idea of supporting material for anything he writes is to give a few blog links. Anybody can do that…and they do. Hearsay and rumour are given free reign. There’s no actual fact checking at all.
    Unless you are prepared to go to primary sources of information and do the bare minimum of scholary effort then you deserve to be sucked in by twaddle.
    Use primary sources of information. It’s not some sneaky trick.

    Why can’t I just Google?

    Like

  11. Speaking of “primary sources” of information, there is peer-reviewed literature (e.g Lindzen and Choi 2011) that suggests that cloud feedback is net negative, which kind of runs in the face of the Peter Sinclair “crock” video.

    Like

  12. Colin, on questions like this it is worth also having a look at the latest IPCC report on the science of climate change (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html). It is searchable.

    For example on this particular topic one of the comments in the report is:

    “Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water vapour. Indirectly, humans have the potential to affect water vapour substantially by changing climate. For example, a warmer atmosphere contains more water vapour. Human activities also influence water vapour through CH4 emissions, because CH4 undergoes chemical destruction in the stratosphere, producing a small amount of water vapour. “

    So it’s not a matter of Augie requiring refutation about water in the atmosphere. its just a matter of him isolating that fact from the way that CO2 influences the amount of water via its own warming effect.

    A common problem with contrarians.

    They also play a significant role in the denier echo chamber by streesing cherry picked facts like this.

    Like

  13. …there is peer-reviewed literature (e.g Lindzen and Choi 2011)…

    Therefore what? Think about it. Think about what you are doing.
    If you don’t want to be labeled a denier… then stop following the well-worn pattern.

    2.Cherry picking — Selecting an anomalous critical paper supporting their idea, or using outdated, flawed, and discredited papers in order to make their opponents look like they base their ideas on weak research.

    3.False experts — Paying an expert in the field, or another field, to lend supporting evidence or credibility.

    Like

  14. “False experts”

    Richard Lindzen, MIT Professor of meteorology and IPCC author, is a “false expert”, and all you have is a Peter Sinclair propaganda video and a link to Skeptical (sic) Science.

    Give me a break Basically, what I am doing is presenting peer-reviewed literature that disputes your claim, and you say it is not allowed because it doesn’t fit with your world view.

    Like

  15. Basically, what I am doing is presenting peer-reviewed literature…

    No, you are cherry picking a single paper that you heard about on some blog somewhere. You have no actual interest in the vast store of peer-reviewed literature as published by working scientists such as those at NASA. You went shopping for a paper. You found one. That’s all you did. Cherry picking is dishonest and it happens all the time with deniers.

    …and you say it is not allowed because it doesn’t fit with your world view.

    No, I didn’t tell you that it’s “not allowed”. My “worldview” is neither here nor there.
    Read what I wrote.
    You are behaving like any other denier. You are not doing anything new.

    …there is peer-reviewed literature (e.g Lindzen and Choi 2011) that suggests that cloud feedback is net negative…

    And so what? Seriously, so what?
    Somebody produces a paper and gets it peer-reviewed and…what? Or do you think that’s all there is and the show is over or something?
    Do you have any idea how the peer-review process works?
    Creationists and HIV deniers and vaccine deniers do exactly the same thing as you have just done. They all do the same thing because they have to.

    Selectivity (Cherry Picking)
    Denialists tend to cite single papers supporting their idea (often you have to squint to see how it supports their argument). Similarly they dig up discredited or flawed papers either to suggest they are supported by the scientific literature, or to disparage a field making it appear the science is based on weak research.(…)
    One of the main reasons this is such an effective tactic to use on science is that when something is shown to be incorrect, we can’t “purge” the literature so the bad papers stay there forever. Only when a paper is retracted is the literature actually restored, and there’s a lot of research and researchers that got things wrong on the way to figuring out a problem. It’s really just the nature of research, we make mistakes, but the self-correcting nature of science helps get us incrementally closer to some form of scientific truth. It is up to the individual researcher to read and quote more than the papers that support their foregone conclusion, as one has to develop theories that effectively synthesize all the data and represent an understanding of an entire field, not just quote the data one likes.

    From “Denialism blog”

    Claim CI001.4:
    Intelligent design in biology has been supported by several peer-reviewed journals and books. As of December 2005, intelligent design supporters offer, in support of this claim, the following articles:
    (…)
    Response:
    Publishing is not an end in itself. Scientific ideas mean nothing unless they can withstand criticism and be built upon. None of the “intelligent design” publications have led to any productive work. Most have had their main ideas rebutted…

    From “Talkorigins.org”

    If you don’t want to be considered a denier then you should stop acting like one.
    Adopt a proper methodology.
    Use primary sources of information.
    Find out how the process of peer-review actually works as opposed to cherry picking the stuff you personally like.

    6. Evolution vs. Creationism:Experts vs. Scientists-Peer Review

    Like

  16. And so what? Seriously, so what?
    Somebody produces a paper and gets it peer-reviewed and…what? Or do you think that’s all there is and the show is over or something?

    Yes, potentially. It takes one scientist to disprove a theory. Even the IPCC acknowledge this

    Like

  17. Richard Christie

    The moron runs strong in this one.

    Like

  18. Yes, potentially

    What do you mean “potentially”?
    You are being dishonest.
    All you have done is cherry-pick a paper that you personally like out of the thousands of other papers that are out there. You have no idea if the paper is any good or not.
    You are ignoring the science.

    Publishing is not an end in itself. Scientific ideas mean nothing unless they can withstand criticism and be built upon. None of the “intelligent design” publications have led to any productive work. Most have had their main ideas rebutted…

    If you don’t want to be lumped in with the denier crowd then you have separate yourself from them by you actions. So far, you are just doing what they do.

    Like

  19. All you have done is cherry-pick a paper that you personally like out of the thousands of other papers that are out there. You have no idea if the paper is any good or not.
    You are ignoring the science.

    Perhaps you’d like to provide me with one of these “thousands” of papers that demonstrate positive feedbacks from water vapour.

    Like

  20. Science may be stimulated by argument and debate, but it generally advances through formulating hypotheses clearly and testing them objectively. This testing is the key to science. In fact, one philosopher of science insisted that to be genuinely scientific, a statement must be susceptible to testing that could potentially show it to be false (Popper, 1934). In practice, contemporary scientists usually submit their research findings to the scrutiny of their peers, which includes disclosing the methods that they use, so their results can be checked through replication by other scientists. The insights and research results of individual scientists, even scientists of unquestioned genius, are thus confirmed or rejected in the peer-reviewed literature by the combined efforts of many other scientists. It is not the belief or opinion of the scientists that is important, but rather the results of this testing. Indeed, when Albert Einstein was informed of the publication of a book entitled 100 Authors Against Einstein, he is said to have remarked, ‘If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!’ (Hawking, 1988); however, that one opposing scientist would have needed proof in the form of testable results.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-2.html

    Like

  21. Richard Christie

    >i>Perhaps you’d like to provide me with one of these “thousands” of papers that demonstrate positive feedbacks from water vapour.

    Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations,
    2003–2008
    A. E. Dessler, Z. Zhang, and P. Yang
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L20704, doi:10.1029/2008GL035333, 2008

    “The existence of a strong and positive water-vapor
    feedback means that projected business-as-usual greenhouse gas
    emissions over the next century are virtually guaranteed to produce warming of several degrees Celsius.”

    http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/229/Dessler_et_al_2008b.pdf

    Many more here:
    http://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?hl=en&q=water+vapour+climate+feedback&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

    Like

  22. The insights and research results of individual scientists, even scientists of unquestioned genius, are thus confirmed or rejected in the peer-reviewed literature by the combined efforts of many other scientists. It is not the belief or opinion of the scientists that is important, but rather the results of this testing.

    Yes, which is why I said you have no idea if the paper you cited was any good or not. Was the paper confirmed or rejected in the peer-reviewed literature by the combined efforts of many other scientists? You have no idea. You don’t care. Yet by using primary sources of information, it’s really easy to find out what the scientific community has to say about that one, solitary paper that you fell in love with. Very easy indeed.

    Perhaps you’d like to provide me with one of these “thousands” of papers that demonstrate positive feedbacks from water vapour.

    You are not getting this.
    You cherry-picked a single paper. That’s what deniers do. They are famous for it.
    That’s why people call you a denier.
    They look at your methods and compare them to the methods used by deniers and find that they match perfectly. This is not the first time from you.

    Perhaps you’d like to provide me…

    No. Stop being so dense and intellectually lazy.
    If you really want to find out about science issues then you don’t rely upon some guy over the internet. That includes me. (It also includes all the science denier blogs you use for talking points.)
    You must use primary sources of information. You must go directly to the scientific communities themselves. There is no need for any middlemen.
    It’s not some sneaky trick.
    NASA is always a good place to start.

    Double-check the sources that Richard kindly provided for you. You will find that they are much better that the ones you are used to.

    Like

  23. The paper I provided has been peer-reviewed and was published.

    Denier? Please cut the crap. Why are Richard’s sources better than mine. Explanations please.

    Like

  24. Richard Christie

    Why are Richard’s sources better than mine. Explanations please.

    They’re not “better” but they are in line with current scientific consensus.

    Climate science is a wide field, it includes several specialities of physics, chemistry, paleontology, geology, geography etc.

    Data and hypotheses from all these separate fields over time results in the formation consensus view of the current state of science, as it relates to how the climate behaves and as to what conclusions can be (safely) drawn from the general consensus.

    This is what the IPCC does, that is its function. It doesn’t create the data nor do the science, it merely collates, if you will.

    But of course, the IPCC is part of the conspiracy to get your tax dollar, isn’t it?

    Like

  25. But of course, the IPCC is part of the conspiracy to get your tax dollar, isn’t it?

    At least we agree on that.
    Of course, I am well aware of Andy Dessler and his discussions with Roy Spencer etc.

    e.g http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/the-dessler-cloud-feedback-paper-in-science-a-step-backward-for-climate-research/

    Like

  26. The paper I provided has been peer-reviewed and was published.

    Jeez, you really are thick.

    The paper I provided has been peer-reviewed and was published.

    And so what?
    Think about it, you idiot.
    You cherry-picked a single, solitary paper out of all the papers that have been published in climatology. You are ignoring the science. You are ignoring all the other work out there.
    That’s what denialists do.
    Hello?
    How many different ways do I have to explain this to you?
    When will it sink in? This is not hard to understand.

    Anybody genuinely interested in the science would not cherry-pick a single paper. I don’t do it nor does Richard nor does Ken. None of us are interested in a single paper or data point as opposed to the overall body of research done in any field. That goes for HIV research or tobacco/cancer research or vaccine research or radiometric dating.
    You don’t even know if the paper was any good or not. You never bothered to find out. That’s genuinely stupid in anybody’s language.

    ”But of course, the IPCC is part of the conspiracy to get your tax dollar, isn’t it?”
    At least we agree on that.

    Richard is being ironic. The only person that fumbles around with conspiracy theories is you. It really does make you look gullible. Global conspiracy theories are a contradiction in terms. You don’t know how to wean yourself off the blogs.
    You rely upon them because you have no choice. You can’t use mainstream science. There is not a single climate denier talking point that doesn’t implode instantly upon contact with primary sources of information.

    Primary vs. Secondary Sources

    Like

  27. The point I was trying to make that the statement in the video you posted was incorrect, i.e that there are no peer-reviewed papers that support a negative feedback in the climate.

    I was not trying to “cheery pick” or claim the veracity of the paper I showed.

    Like

  28. Richard is being ironic.

    As was I. This appeared lost on you

    Like

  29. The point I was trying to make that the statement in the video you posted was incorrect, i.e that there are no peer-reviewed papers that support a negative feedback in the climate.

    Nobody said this. Nobody claimed this. Stop listening to the voices in your head. Focus on the reality-based conversation. Read what people actually wrote.

    I was not trying to “cheery pick” or claim the veracity of the paper I showed.

    Liar.
    You took one single paper out of thousands out there in the peer reviewed literature. One that just (my oh my) magically happened not to agree with all the other scientific literature out there.
    It’s called cherry-picking.

    2.Cherry picking — Selecting an anomalous critical paper supporting their idea, or using outdated, flawed, and discredited papers in order to make their opponents look like they base their ideas on weak research.

    Really.
    It’s what denialists do…and you thought it would be a good idea to try it on with us. It didn’t work.

    When I called you on it you said…

    Basically, what I am doing is presenting peer-reviewed literature that disputes your claim…

    Yep, that what you wanted.

    Besides, what kind of an idiot cites a paper that he doesn’t believe is true?

    Yes, potentially. It takes one scientist to disprove a theory.

    What kind of an idiot cites a paper that he doesn’t believe is true?

    The paper I provided has been peer-reviewed and was published.

    What kind of an idiot cites a paper that he doesn’t believe is true?

    Like

  30. Richard Christie

    The point I was trying to make that the statement in the video you posted was incorrect, i.e that there are no peer-reviewed papers that support a negative feedback in the climate.

    Now you are just lying.

    Like

  31. Wow. Nice chart explaing the conspiracy… do you have one for the moonlanding too?

    Like

  32. Richard Christie

    Wow. Nice chart explaing the conspiracy… do you have one for the moonlanding too?
    No Max, there doesn’t appear to be a paper trail of corporate nor political funding for the denial of the moonlandings.
    But I’m sure if you looked hard enough….

    Like

  33. Jeremy Bowman

    That diagram is the work of a paranoid psychotic. Get real and acquaint yourself with a teeny weeny smidgeon of philosophy of science, and learn something about scientific methodology instead of know-nothing political sloganeering.

    While you’re at it, try and learn something about “informal fallacies of relevance”.

    Like

  34. Wow. Nice chart explaing the conspiracy… do you have one for the moonlanding too?

    The climate change denial machine is not really a conspiracy.
    They operate in the open with only a bare minimum of cover and what they are doing is, unfortunately, not illegal. Their tax records, internal company memos, check stubs, public statements etc are on file as are most of their front organizations. So it doesn’t qualify as a conspiracy.

    What it does qualify as is a disinformation campaign.
    The same kind of disinformation campaign that the tobacco industry used successfully against the public for decades. The purpose of the campaign is to sow doubt in the public’s mind about scientific issues. The methods used are disturbingly simple and effective. A tiny number of scientists happily worked to produce pet studies that smoking was just fine for your health and that there was “no consensus” on tobacco/cancer…and a tiny number of scientists trot out pet studies that global warming isn’t happening. Compare both groups. You will find a lot of overlap. They know each other. Nothing new is happening. It’s all been done before.

    DOUBT – The climate Reality Project

    Like

  35. The climate change denial machine is not really a conspiracy.
    They operate in the open with only a bare minimum of cover and what they are doing is, unfortunately, not illegal. Their tax records, internal company memos, check stubs, public statements etc are on file as are most of their front organizations. So it doesn’t qualify as a conspiracy.

    The climate change alarmist machine is not really a conspiracy.
    They operate in the open with only a bare minimum of cover and what they are doing is, unfortunately, not illegal. Their tax records, internal company memos, check stubs, public statements etc are on file as are most of their front organizations. So it doesn’t qualify as a conspiracy. (see comment #1)

    Like

  36. Doesn’t work.
    There is no “climate alarmist machine” in the first place.

    There is NASA and the NAS and the AAAS and the AGU and the USGS and the Royal Society and the RMET and the CSIRO and the British Antarctic Survey and NOAA and the Americal Quaterney Association and the APS and the American Chemical Society and the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences and Royal Society of New Zealand and the National Research Council and the American Institute of Physics and the European Physical Society and the European Science Foundation and the ASA and the EFG and the European Geosciences Union etc
    In fact, there is every single science community on the planet.
    Every single scientific community on the planet is on board with AGW.
    There are no exceptions.
    None.
    Every single scientific community.

    All you have is a big bag of stupid and a few blogs and you rant and rave when it’s pointed out to you on the internet. Primary sources of information are not your friends.

    Behold. Welcome to the world of John Wakelin. A run-of-the-mill climate denier:

    Mick | September 15, 2011 at 8:55 pm |
    Do you think I am a cretin like you Richard?
    You brainless **cktard
    September 16, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
    **ck you Ken,
    You are a **nt.
    100% Pure, unadulterated New Zealand **nt
    I hope you **cking die soon.
    Mick | September 16, 2011 at 6:28 pm | Did you get that Ken?
    A **CKING **NT
    You worthless piece of **it.
    **ck off and die **nt.

    https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/empathy-for-colleagues/

    I wonder if John Wakelin’s family and friend knows what he gets up to on the Internet? I feel sorry for them.

    Like

  37. Perhaps you’d like me to provide you the receipts Cedric? It’s all there. No conspiracy.

    Just corrupt, unethical pseudo-scientists.

    Like

  38. Just corrupt, unethical pseudo-scientists.

    Then go out and make a formal complaint. Call the police.
    Fraud is illegal. It’s a crime.
    Honest.
    You really can and for truly get people fired from their job and sent to prison for that kind of thing in real life.
    If you have evidence of hanky-panky then tell the world.
    Expose the global scientific conspiracy. Expose the corruption. Expose the actual instances of unethical behaviour.
    I dare you, you pathetic gullible kook.

    Like

  39. Then go out and make a formal complaint. Call the police

    We have already done that

    Next step is to cull the “useful idiots”.This is work in progress. You are probably glad you are a pseudonym based in Seoul, Herr Katesby.

    “How amusing Ja!?”

    Like

  40. We have already done that

    Oh please. Don’t stop there. Tell us all the results.
    Expose the conspiracy.
    Don’t let “them” keep you silent.
    What are the nuts and bolts of the operation?

    Like

  41. I was being ironic

    (*sigh*)

    Like

  42. You were being a dick. There is no global scientific conspiracy.
    Wake up, man.
    Such a thing is physically impossible.
    “The scientists” can’t be all corrupt all at the same time across all the Earth Sciences.
    You are being misled.
    If you want to understand the truth then you must use good scholarship and do some real research for a change.
    Otherwise, you will just go around in circles.
    You must use primary sources of information. Ditch the middlemen.
    Don’t let someone “helpfully” tell you what the scientific community thinks or does. Forget the blogs for a change.
    Find out for yourself. Go to the global scientific community directly. Find out for yourself how they do their job and the history behind their work. They don’t get to just make stuff up.
    Use only primary sources of information.
    Look at how Peter Sinclair puts together material for his vidoes.
    Look at how SkepticalScience set up their list.
    Their research methods are excellent. It’s all about primary sources of information. Go ahead and examine the fine print for yourself.
    Either you are prepared to use primary sources of information or you are not.

    Like

  43. (Hang on….my avatar has changed! How did that happen???)

    Potholer54 is someone who also does excellent research on science issues.
    Again, look at his methodology. Look at how he examines the topic.
    Look at the effort he puts into digging up original source.
    Primary sources are not the enemy.
    They are a researcher’s best friend.
    If you are not using them to support whatever postition you hold then that’s a big red flag right there.

    Lord Monckton Bunkum Part 1 – Global cooling and melting ice

    Like

  44. Richard Christie

    Ah, it’s back!

    hmm, how did you know that before the post illustrating it showed?

    Like

  45. hmm, how did you know that before the post illustrating it showed?

    WordPress does an asynchronous (AJAX) postback that updates the avatar before you hit the “Post” button.

    Like

  46. Yep. What he said…..I think.
    I fooled around with my comment box and my avatar popped up again as good as new.🙂

    Like

  47. Thanks Cedric and Richard. Sometimes I just don’t have the patience.

    Like

  48. (…blushes furiously…)

    Shucks, tweren’t nothin.
    Before I got stuck into climate deniers, I made life miserable for the “Intelligent Design” community. When they died out I moved on to (slightly) fresher meat. Arguing against the one group of deniers is the same as arguing against any other group of deniers.
    They operate the same way. There is never really anything new from them.
    Yet the National Centre for Science Education can draw the parallels better than I can.
    Enjoy.🙂
    Evolution and Global Warming Denialism: How the Public is Misled

    Like

  49. I really don’t see how believing in creationism and thinking that climate sensitivity to CO2 is low are related at all.

    Unless of course, you are a bully that likes hanging out at Stalinist anti-science blogs like this one, in which case anyone who disagrees with you is seen as “meat”.

    Like

  50. Thanks Cedric and Richard. Sometimes I just don’t have the patience.

    What don’t you have the patience for Doug?

    Just asking a question.

    Like

  51. Richard Christie

    Thanks Cedric and Richard. Sometimes I just don’t have the patience.

    Mick (or John Wakelin or whoever) is a troll of particularly vile and infantile persuasion, unfortunately, blocking or banning this type merely results in them adopting a new sock puppet identity.
    This one, and similar, serve a useful purpose by allowing opportunity to expose not only their fundamental stupidity but also the lack of substance in their argument.

    Like

  52. Crap. I just realised Mick is right. Hey Ken! This is a Stalinist antiscience blog. Thank goodness for visionary folk like Mick.

    Like

  53. You know the way things go with people like Mick, Doug.

    He sets out to provoke with silly comments like this. Others respond, often taking advantage of the opportunity to provide information (last thing Mick wants but other readers benefit). This provokes the troll (and I suspect the other commenters are conscious of this and are attempting to do so).

    The game develops with each side raising the anti, providing more specific provocation.

    Eventually someone breaks. They either leave the discussion or actually lose self control. Mick has done the later a few times – clearly lost control.

    In this game it means he has lost.

    Unfortunately he just can’t seem to keep away – he is fascinated by what I write. After a week or so of sulking he comes back.

    In this particular case he is providing a useful example of the way deniers work at the fringes of their echo chamber when they are so fueled up by the self flattery of the chamber they venture forth to spread their wisdom elsewhere.

    But in the process he traps himself into a pattern which eventually ends with his complete break down and discrediting behavior.

    Like

  54. Crap. I just realised Mick is right. Hey Ken! This is a Stalinist antiscience blog. Thank goodness for visionary folk like Mick

    Yep. The cat is out of the bag now.
    lol

    Like

  55. Unfortunately he just can’t seem to keep away – he is fascinated by what I write. After a week or so of sulking he comes back.

    In this particular case he is providing a useful example of the way deniers work at the fringes of their echo chamber when they are so fueled up by the self flattery of the chamber they venture forth to spread their wisdom elsewhere.

    But in the process he traps himself into a pattern which eventually ends with his complete break down and discrediting behavior.

    I have no interest whatsoever in your “writing” Ken.

    So why do you think I come back? Just a thought. Just a little question for you.
    Eh?

    eH?

    Denier, denier blah blah drone blah drone blah..

    Eh? Ken? What do you think?
    Just a thought.
    Just asking a question..
    Eh?
    Eh?

    Did you think of the children?
    Eh?

    Drone drone blah blah drone

    Eh?

    Smearing honest scientists
    ACT party
    Murial Newman
    blah blah drone drone blah blah

    Eh?
    Ken?
    Just a thought?

    Just a question?

    [Link to skeptical science]
    [List of Royal Societies]

    Blah blah drone drone

    [Link to Peter Sinclair video]

    Drone drone blah blah

    [Reference to tobacco lobby]
    \Blah blah

    [Reference to creationists]

    Drone drone blah blah

    [Final video link]

    Like

  56. denier denier blah blah drone blah blah denier denier blah blah drone blah blah
    denier denier blah blah drone blah blah
    denier denier blah blah drone blah blah
    denier denier blah blah drone blah blah
    denier denier blah blah drone blah blah
    denier denier blah blah drone blah blah
    denier denier blah blah drone blah blah
    denier denier blah blah drone blah blah
    denier denier blah blah drone blah blah
    denier denier blah blah drone blah blah
    denier denier blah blah drone blah blah
    denier denier blah blah drone blah blah

    Just a thought?
    Just a little question

    (*giggles*)

    Like

  57. If you don’t like being called a denier then stop whinging about it.
    Change the way you argue and gather information.
    Put some distance between yourself and the usual run-of-the-mill denier out there.
    How hard can it be?
    Use primary sources of information.
    The NASA website would be a good place to start.
    (A regular hotbed of Stalinist anti-science)
    http://climate.nasa.gov/

    Like

  58. I had a look at the popular “95% contribution by water vapour” (Pat Michaels was one of those using it) claim 5 years ago, it’s discussed and explained in comments 118, 148, 151 and 152 in this thread:
    http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=367#comment-21433

    It’s the perfect example of a false claim gaining momentum in the denialosphere and being impossible to kill – it suits denial politics too well to be allowed to die.

    Like

  59. Richard Christie

    Heads up for NZ readers of this county’s North And South magazine.

    2011 November edition contains a woeful opinion piece by staff editor Graham Adams trying to paint environmental issues, including climate science, as being akin to religious belief systems.

    excerpt:

    “Critics of climate-change “denier” Lord Christopher Monckton point out that he has many daft ideas – including cures for HIV, multiple sclerosis and influenza – but, unfortunately, a similar charge could be levelled against that towering genius Sir Isaac Newton, who was obsessed with biblical prophesy and alchemy.”

    [I found that comparison hard to swallow]

    In well researched fashion he ploughs on to bring up the Oregon petition

    31,000 scientists [who] reject the views of 2000-odd scientists cited by the IPCC…”

    [31,000 vs 2,000 – gee, that’s persuasive then],

    Not finished there we get that CERN’s CLOUD study shows that galactic cosmic rays are the dominant influence on earth’s clouds and climate.

    Local deniers feature large, with quite a few column inches given over to de Freitas’s viewpoint.

    Like

  60. Richard Christie

    I seem to have messed up the italics a bit, so please use your critical abilities to sort quote from comment.

    Like

  61. “Use only primary sources”

    Well that rules out Skeptical Science”, “Real Climate”, Peter Sinclair videos

    Unless your name is Cedric, of course,in which different rules apply.

    Like

  62. Well that rules out Skeptical Science”, “Real Climate”, Peter Sinclair videos

    If you don’t want to use them then don’t.
    Go to primary sources of information yourself.
    What’s the hold-up?
    Why do you hesitate?

    Skeptical Science, Real Climate and the Peter Sinclair vidoes and the Potholer54 videos are excellent examples of good scholarship. They use primary sources of information and they are in perfect harmony with the global scientific community. They don’t cherry pick because they don’t have to. They don’t use no-name blogs because…they don’t have to.

    If you don’t like being called a denier then stop whinging about it.
    Change the way you argue and gather information.
    Put some distance between yourself and the usual run-of-the-mill denier out there.
    How hard can it be?
    Use primary sources of information.
    The NASA website would be a good place to start.
    (A regular hotbed of Stalinist anti-science)
    http://climate.nasa.gov/

    Like

  63. In well researched fashion he ploughs on to bring up the Oregon petition
    31,000 scientists [who] reject the views of 2000-odd scientists cited by the IPCC…”

    I (HEART) that petition.
    I bring it up every chance I get.
    If anything sums up the denialist community, it’s that piece of hokum. We should never let them forget that it exists and how it came to be.

    32000 Scientists

    Like

  64. Skeptical Science, Real Climate and the Peter Sinclair vidoes and the Potholer54 videos are excellent examples of good scholarship. They use primary sources of information and they are in perfect harmony with the global scientific community. They don’t cherry pick because they don’t have to. They don’t use no-name blogs because…they don’t have to.

    So that’s why John Cook finds it necessary to rewrite history and delete comments on his site that are “off message”

    It’s hardly surprising that it is in “perfect harmony” then is it.?

    http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/

    Like

  65. Richard Christie

    So that’s why John Cook finds it necessary to rewrite history and delete comments on his site that are “off message”

    If you’re so fascinated by who said what in personal squabbles why don’t you ask him directly yourself?

    Meanwhile the science remains unperturbed.

    Like

  66. Meanwhile the science remains unperturbed.

    Of course it does. If you delete comments a la Real Climate or Skeptical Science, if you “game” the peer review system to gatekeep papers that are “off message”, then of course the science remains “unperturbed”, like some pure white virgin.

    Doesn’t look like science to me.

    Like

  67. Richard Christie

    Agreed, Andy, it looks like a blog, not science, not that you seem to understand the difference.

    Like

  68. Agreed Andy

    And you look like a Dick to me.I thought my name was “John” the other day?

    Time to take the meds?

    Like

  69. Richard Christie

    I thought my name was “John” the other day?
    The other day yes.
    But not now, Andy Scrase, fits the bill better.

    Like

  70. Oh well that’s settled then.
    I expect we’ll read about it in Skeptical Science soon.

    Like

  71. If you delete comments a la Real Climate or Skeptical Science…

    This has nothing to do with using primary sources of information.
    You are not restricted to blogs, dummy.
    You are free not to use a blog that you don’t like.
    Fine.
    There’s always NASA.
    Plus every single scientific community on the entire planet.
    Use them. Go to primary sources of information.

    …if you “game” the peer review system to gatekeep papers that are “off message”…

    Paranoid fantasy. If you really believed this, you would lodge a formal complaint and cite the paper that’s magically been “gatekeeped”. Go ahead. I dare you (again). All you are doing is going around in circles repeating the same old, tired suspicions. No even you genuinely believe what you are saying. Otherwise, you’d call the police. You are just repeating what some blog told you to believe. You never seriously looked into it.

    That HIV is the primary cause of AIDS is the strongly held consensus opinion of the scientific community, based upon over two decades of robust research. Deniers must therefore reject this consensus, either by denigrating the notion of scientific authority in general, or by arguing that the mainstream HIV community is intellectually compromised. It is therefore not surprising that much of the newer denial literature reflects a basic distrust of authority and of the institutions of science and medicine. In her book, Christine Maggiore thanks her father Robert, “who taught me to question authority and stand up for what’s right”. Similarly, mathematical modeler Dr. Rebecca Culshaw, another HIV denier, states: “As someone who has been raised by parents who taught me from a young age never to believe anything just because ‘everyone else accepts it to be true,’ I can no longer just sit by and do nothing, thereby contributing to this craziness”

    If you don’t like it when people write you off as a denier then put some distance between yourself and the methods that deniers use. Demonstrate how your scholarship is solid and not built on kookiness.
    Go to primary source of information. Why do you hesitate? Is it…too hard for you?

    …if you “game” the peer review system to gatekeep papers that are “off message”…

    Claim CA320:
    Scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma.

    Source:
    Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life–How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 182.
    “Response:
    1. The pressures that science imposes do not weaken the validity of evolution — quite the contrary. Scientists are rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles. Thus, they tend to look more for novelties and for results that would overturn common beliefs. If a scientist found evidence that falsified evolution, he or she would be guaranteed world prestige and fame.
    2. Creationists are under far more pressure than scientists. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated not to admit it. Many creationists have taken oaths saying that no evidence could change their dogma (AIG n.d.). At least one admits that he became a scientist not to find the truth, but to destroy Darwinism (Wells n.d.). The commitment to established dogma is pretty well monopolized by creationists.”

    Denialism: It’s always the same old silly excuses.

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s