Posts Tagged ‘attacks on sceptics’

The Cost of Political Pseudo-Science Shown In Two Examples

Tuesday, June 7th, 2011

Source:  Red State

Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.

- Richard Glover (HT:National Times.Com)

Richard Glover and Dr. Donald Brown are two very different men, in different nations, who work towards a common goal. Each man believes that human pollution has driven a series of chemical and physical changes in the Earth’s atmosphere. Each man believes this will damage the world around us and must be fought. Neither man has any ability to objectively prove their belief. Neither man will let that lack of knowledge stand in the way of enforcing their views upon others. Both men indulge in unethical behavior that demonstrates yet another cost that pseudo-science imposes on modern society. (more…)

Smearing Skeptic Scientists: What did Gore know and when did he know it?

Tuesday, May 24th, 2011

Source:  ClimateDepot

Below is written by Russell Cook as an exclusive for Climate Depot

My thanks to Marc Morano for allowing me to share this unreported fault of the issue that any ordinary citizen can ask about: why the MSM ignores massive efforts relying on unseen, unsupported evidence to suppress skeptic climate scientists.

Smearing critics of any argument is a huge red flag, reasonable people will ask, “Why do that, why not just disprove the critics?” That’s what surrounds the idea of man-caused global warming. In my May 9 American Thinker article, “Warmist Mantra Wearing Out“, I detail how global warming believers push their agenda using an easily remembered 3-point mantra, “the science is settled / skeptic scientists are paid by fossil fuel industries to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” / the media gives too much attention to those skeptics, who don’t deserve equal time”. (more…)

New Scientist – Those cursed climate emails

Friday, January 21st, 2011

Source:  Real Climategate

Originally a Guest Post of mine at Watts Up With That

The first edition of New Scientist (UK) of 2011 has a review of 2010 and a preview of 2011 section…

…and they are rather optimistic that the world has finally moved on from the climategate emails.

Those Cursed Climate emails – New Scientist Jan 1, 2011

Thousands of them were hacked off the servers of the University of East Anglia, home to one of the UK’s leading research units, in November 2009. In 2010, their content was dissected, re-dissected, and then dissected some more, amid claims that some climate scientists had engaged in fraudulent behaviour. Four independent reviews exonerated them, and datasets were made public that were previously under lock and key. And finally, the world moved on.”

(behind a paywall, but in their blog)

This would just appear to be the time-honoured PR strategy  ‘Nothing to be seen here, move along please’ and an attempt at controlling a message.  So there is to be no optimism from New Scientist that the world could now be safe from Thermageddon (NS October 2010). (more…)

SourceWatch – Who and what is it intended for?

Friday, January 21st, 2011

Source:  Real Climategate

I came across Sourcewatch a little while ago.

If you were to also take a brief look at it’s global warming, climate change and climate skeptic section it will become quite clear what the contributors thoughts are  about ‘climate skeptics’. After browsing for a while I then considered:

Who and what is the climate skeptic section intended for? (more…)

Oreskes’ Brave Old World

Monday, November 22nd, 2010

Source:  American Thinker

by Robert Ferguson

The effort to discredit global warming skeptics is warming up globally. Australian blogger Graham Readfearn reports on Naomi Oreskes’ speaking tour of Australia:

As a celebrated historian, Professor Naomi Oreskes is interested in the origin of things – where ideas start from, what drives them and ultimately who propagates them.

Oreskes, Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California San Diego, has just arrived in Australia on a whistle-stop speaking tour promoting her new book, co-authored with Erik Conway, titled Merchants of Doubt – How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming.

The book, five years in the writing, ultimately concludes that much of the world’s scepticism on climate change – whether that be over the validity or certainty of the science of climate change, its causes or the need to act – is chiefly driven by a paranoid ideological fear of socialism and an unbending faith and belief in free-markets.

Put simply, free-market think-tanks such as the George C Marshall Institute, the Heartland Institute, The Science and Public Policy Institute and the Why-Can’t-You-Just-Leave-us-Alone-While-We-Make-Oodles-of-Cash Institute (not a real institute) don’t like industry to have to be held accountable.

Oreskes spoke to the ABC’s Lateline program on this brand of scepticism which also drove shoulder-shrugs over acid rain, tobacco smoke and ozone depletion.

Says Oreskes, “It’s part of this whole ideological program of challenging any science that could lead to government regulation, because it’s part of an ideological conviction that all regulation is bad, that any time the government steps in to ‘protect’ us from harm, that we’re on the slippery slope to socialism, and this the ideology that you see underlying a kind of almost paranoid anti-communism. So even after the Cold War is over, these people are seeing reds under the bed.”

Has Oreskes’ snarky book indulged what Freud called “projection”? It is certainly demonstrable that her book’s “carbon footprint” and “greed” slams on skeptics are so filled with hypocrisy they “stink on ice.”

But this has to be the topper:

The book, five years in the writing, ultimately concludes that much of the world’s scepticism on climate change – whether that be over the validity or certainty of the science of climate change, its causes or the need to act – is chiefly driven by a paranoid ideological fear of socialism[.]

As an average six-year-old might ask, “Gee, ya think?” (See an in-depth response to Oreskes here.) (more…)

Lomborg: uses irrational name-calling and denies the evidence

Monday, November 22nd, 2010

Source:  SPPI

by Joanne Nova

The Australian published Bjorn Lomborg: A Rational Take On Warming last week.

It was self-contradictory, baseless name-calling from a formerly sensible writer.

Rational?

The only rational response to climate change is to use empirical, observable evidence. Rational people can point to results from 28 million radiosondes, 6000 boreholes, 30 years of satellites, 3000 ARGO ocean diving thermometers, raw data from thousands of surface thermometers, as well 800 peer reviewed references which include studies of corals, caves, pollen grains, ocean floor sediments, ice cores, and diatoms.

Lomborg is happy to call these people names, but irrationally doesn’t appear to have read their arguments. His method of quoting scientific studies, which was so successful on other topics, has come unstuck on climate science. He doesn’t realize that the US government poured $79 billion dollars into demonstrating one theory, but next to nothing to research, audit, or question that theory. He’s been tripped up by the skewing effect of monopolistic funding.

Far from being rational or scientific, he accepts the opinions of the Scientific Gods at the IPCC, and ignores the empirical evidence. It’s a step back to the stone age. In a rational world — when the evidence disagrees with the opinions — scientists toss out the fake Gods and go with the data. (more…)

Smearing Global Warming Skeptics

Wednesday, September 29th, 2010
Source:  American Thinker
by Russell Cook
Meteorologist blogger Anthony Watts normally talks about the crumbling science of man-caused global warming, but recently he described an uninvited office guest demanding to know about his alleged “big oil funding.” The charge that only the lure of big money causes people to question warmist gospel is old but, as it turns out, of highly questionable origin.
Al Gore typifies the central accusation in An Inconvenient Truth, pg 263:
The misconception that there is a serious disagreement among scientists about global warming is actually an illusion that has been deliberately fostered by a relatively small but extremely well-funded cadre of special interests, including Exxon Mobil and a few other oil, coal, and utilities companies. These companies want to prevent any new policies that would interfere with their current business plans
One of the internal memos prepared by this group to guide the employees they hired to run their disinformation campaign was discovered by the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Ross Gelbspan. Here was the group’s stated objective: to “reposition global warming as theory, rather than fact.”
Internet searches of the “reposition global warming” phrase show how viral it is. However, more searching reveals former Boston Globe reporter Gelbspan not only has never won a Pulitzer, despite uncountable times he’s described as such, but he is also not the discoverer of the “campaign.” Intensive investigation reveals only myriad ties to the phrase, but the actual 1991 internal PR campaign memo containing the phrase is never seen. (more…)

The AGW Activists Exhume Joseph Goebbels

Wednesday, September 29th, 2010

Source: SPPI

by Dennis Ambler

We are not thinking the wrong thoughts, we just don’t know how to think the right thoughts.

In a just published paper for SPPI, We Are Thinking The Wrong Thoughts, I highlighted the intensive efforts by government funded research groups, to categorise and explain away the non-acceptance by ever-increasing numbers of the general public, of the IPCC and UN creed on global warming, It is obviously very galling to some of the Lead Authors at IPCC that not everyone, including very many scientists more qualified than they, accepts their modelling claims.

One such IPCC Lead Author is Professor Andy Pitman, from the University of New South Wales, who has joined forces with psychologist Ben Newell from the School of Psychology, also at the University of New South Wales, in producing a paper which suggests that “Insights from the psychology of judgment and decision making might help the climate community communicate global warming science to an often skeptical public.”

You would of course expect a paper on cognition to appear in a psychology journal. Wrong! Failure of cognitive thinking. It actually appears in the journal of the  American Meteorological Society with the title “The Psychology of Global Warming – Improving the Fit between the Science and the Message”

Here is the abstract: (more…)

The Art of Slander

Wednesday, September 15th, 2010

Source:  American Thinker

by Russell Cook

Warmist true believers bitterly cling their mantra that only the corrupting influence sinister money could possibly explain skepticism toward the theory they embrace as gospel truth.

In case anyone is unfamiliar with the simplicity of the man-caused global warming idea: overwhelming scientific conclusions say we are causing floods / droughts / blazing summers / intense winters, and don’t listen to any skeptic scientists — they’re corrupt.

This mantra is fine until you start asking questions. On the so-called consensus of “numerous” IPCC scientists, it appears Donna Laframboise has now exposed a rather troubling set of problems with the IPCC’s 1995 Health Chapter authors, and John O’Sullivan has just recently pointed out some details the NOAA would rather not have you know about, while Steve McIntyre continues to tear down the ClimateGate scandal with ever finer levels of detail.

Considering how Exxon, Chevron, and others have climbed on the CO2 reduction bandwagon, believers of man-caused global warming may have realized the “skeptic scientists corrupted by big oil” idea is rapidly losing credibility. Skeptic populations are increasing; somebody must be funding them. (more…)