From Watching the Deniers

1. Doubt the science – This is the standard tactic of all denial movements. Creationists attack evolution and geology as they contradict the belief a god/s created the world just under 10,000 years ago. Alternative health practitioners claim the science that demonstrates the lack of effectiveness of their treatments is at fault. On web sites, in books and on internet forums deniers attack the science by cherry picking data, misrepresenting research or making bogus claims.
2. Question the motives and integrity of scientists – This is the favourite tactic of the climate change denial movement. They claim the scientists are engaged in fraud, or are being pressured by governments to make up the results. They make up vast conspiracy theories in order to cast aspersions on the motives of climate scientists, physicists and biologists whose work confirms the reality of climate change. They use the “follow the money” argument, stating scientists are making up climate change in order to get research funding. All of these are simply ad hominem attacks: playing the man.
3. Magnify disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies – Again, one of the favourite tactics of the denial movement. The tiny percentage of actual scientists who express scepticism (Plimer, Lindzen) are dwarfed by the thousands of scientists who agree with the consensus that climate change is happening. But the denial movement exploits the media’s tendency to present “both sides” of the argument and thus help perpetrate the myth scientists are still debating climate change when in fact there is near unanimous agreement.
4. Exaggerate potential harm – This normally takes the form of “harming” the economy if the government intervenes. This is why opposition to cap-and-trade (or emissions trading schemes) are anathema to some parts of the denial movement. They also claim a climate change is an excuse to usher in a “world government”. The denial movement plays up to these fears, playing on the anxiety that they will lose their freedoms (see below).
5. Appeal to personal freedom – One of the great fears of the denial movements is a loss of freedom. Whether economic or political, they have a paranoid fear that someone (government, scientists, greens, politicians) are going to restrict their right to unlimited consumption or their freedom of speech. But reality is not a democracy. We don’t get to choose the truth about climate change, just as a popular debate about evolution does not decide the scientific facts. The denial movement loves to frame this as a “debate” when none exists, claiming they have a right to doubt the science. Of course they do. But it does not mean they are correct.
6. Acceptance repudiates key philosophy – For libertarians and free market advocates, climate change is a direct challenge to their assumption of unlimited growth. Any response to climate change will involve government intervention and global governance structures (such as a binding treaty to limit CO2 emissions). To such ideologues, it is axiomatic that such responses are “bad”. And yet the “market” can’t fix climate. Caught between accepting the science and what it entails and rejecting it in favour of their faith in the market, they reject the science. The same could be said of religious conservatives: like evolution, climate change is a direct challenge to the idea that a god/s has a governance role and is directly responsible for managing the day-to-day affairs of the world. That a god/s would let climate change happen and not intervene is deeply challenging to the idea that
   a) they would allow such “evil” and
   b) the god/s is omnipotent.

Black is actually white!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 15^th, 2013 at 9:55pm:

Oh you're onto it ay buddy 

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 15^th, 2013 at 10:10pm:

Why, cos i didn't vote for copper internet in the asian century that will make my kids cry forever and ever!????????

You see the big problem we have with global warming is that there is no global warming, you at least need that key ingredient if you are going to claim that the world is warming. 






Damning isn't it? 

lee wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 10:27am:
All of which seems like very good reasons to go with the majority. What makes you think that the minority will hold a lesser proportion of "frauds and charlatans"?

In general, the rigours of the scientific establishment do tend to weed out the most extreme abuses. If you want to say that puts them "above the common herd", then I wouldn't disagree with you. I tend to think that of any highly skilled group.

# wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:


Actually, I can..

Quote:
Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist
, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. .  Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.


How is any of this different to the 'Six Aspects'??

You attack the science, which is amusing, since Watts' uses 'official' pro-AGW sites, like NOAA National Weather Service and HamWeather records center. and then you use the 'paid by Heartland so he must be corrupt' excuse, which again, can also be used against ANY researcher...since the scientists working for any of the pro-agw groups, IPCC, HADCRUT, CSIRO etc are NOT working for free, they are being paid and the non-government, university based researchers are funded by grants..( again, paid to produce the results).

Doram, Zimmerman questionaire-

This was the full set of questions that Zimmerman asked in their survey:

    Q1. When compared with pre-1800's levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
    1. Risen
    2. Fallen
    3. Remained relatively constant
    4. No opinion/Don't know
'76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen.” '
    
    Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?  [This question wasn't asked if they answered "remained relatively constant" to Q1]
    1. Yes
    2. No
    3. I'm not sure
'75 of 77 (97.4%) answered “yes.” '

Q3. What do you consider to be the most compelling argument that supports your previous answer (or, for those who were unsure, why were they unsure)? [This question wasn't asked if they answered "remained relatively constant" to Q1]

Q4. Please estimate the percentage of your fellow geoscientists who think human activity is a contributing factor to global climate change.

Q5. Which percentage of your papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last 5 years have been on the subject of climate change?

Q6. Age

Q7. Gender

Q8. What is the highest level of education you have attained?

Q9. Which category best describes your area of expertise?
   
Not even a mention of CO2 either.

# wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:



Ah, consensus.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 12:38pm:
No, I'm sceptical of the interpretations of the unqualified.

lee wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 1:48pm:
Relevance? Your qualifications for interpretation?

lee wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 5:25pm:

I presume you're question is about the majority? It's hard to tell sometimes, what you're on about.

The 'Quote' button is provided for good reason. Use it to quote what you're commenting on.

Anyway; it's Doran, not Doram. If your source got that wrong, what makes you believe the rest is accurate?

Over the years, there have been many such surveys. We've been down the rabbit hole with the papers published this year. I don't see any point in repeating the exercise. The outcome is unlikely to change.

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 3:04pm:

Ah, of fact or fiction?

VOLUME IS VANITY PROFIT IS SANITY!!!!!!!!!'

77 out of 3164 scientists reckon that man made global warming is real, thats a consensus according to the warmies. 

7. Jesus loves you

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 9:06pm:
You can't substantiate that assertion, can you?

Over the years, there have been many surveys of scientific opinion on global warming. We've been down the rabbit hole with the papers published this year. I don't see any point in repeating the exercise. The outcome is unlikely to change.

# wrote on Dec 17^th, 2013 at 8:16am:


Not when he has just reposted the finds in total from another site. At least, not on Watts' part.

Here is the map he used, from the original site.
http://wx.hamweather.com/maps/climate/records/7day/us.html?c=maxtemp,mintemp,low...

Put your mouse pointer over the coloured dots, and it shows the current condition (as a December 9th) and the date of the previous record, for high temp, low temp snowfall and rainfall. As you can see, Watts' was reporting the evidence, not inventing it or interpreting it.

# wrote on Dec 17^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:


LOL yes he actually has...
You can complain all you like, but the info used is from a weather site, which means, that it's from the US National Weather service info..
He has used 'approved' temperature readings.

Oh and if you are going to quote my posts, quote ALL of my posts, rather than cherry picking.

And Cherry picking is definitely not choosing 79 of 3,146.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2013 at 11:02pm:




Yep, it pretty well covers any eventuality, they all have very sore arms from shifting the goal posts all over the friggin field 

lee wrote on Dec 17^th, 2013 at 6:30pm:
You picked that cherry and that interpretation. Over the years, there have been many surveys of scientific opinion on global warming.

# wrote on Dec 18^th, 2013 at 9:44am:


You mean like ALL the warns from the US National Weather service???

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/

Lee, you are wrong, and have been conned. I won't be posting on here much, as I've started with the "evil" LNG industry in a fairly pivotal role.

Despite that, I won't suddenly forget basic atmospheric physics. At least methane has a lower carbon footprint than oil or coal.

I'll drop in from time to time.

lee wrote on Dec 18^th, 2013 at 10:31am:
By way of which denialist blog? Clearly, you don't understand enough to come up with your skewed interpretations yourself.

Soren wrote on Dec 18^th, 2013 at 12:58pm:


do you use the same rationale to validate your deranged sense of selective racism and bigotry?

....or do you always smell this way?

Cc denial is snobbery!

Talking to man made climate change kooks is like trying to convince a jehovas witness that they need a blood transfusion 

Soren wrote on Dec 18^th, 2013 at 12:58pm:


Paraphrased - "I don't understand it, so it must be wrong."

Judith likes to play at being a denialist because she meets so many interesting people.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 18^th, 2013 at 6:04pm:


I thought that the Rothschilds were behind all wars

They certainly bank roll both sides

Lots of money to be made

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18^th, 2013 at 1:11pm:



- and you fail to make the connection with this?



http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2013/03/130326-arctic-sea-ice-global-...

The model is not the important part. It's the observational data.

Models can be run retrospectively.

Part of that second link:

Quote:


So Gizmo, I agree that those records show a general lack of agreement with your strawman that there must be a totally uniform rise in temperature in every corner of the globe, even for short timescales of 1 year.

Nice try, but the climate will never work in accordance with your strawman. You must admit, but as strawmen go, yours is extremely crude and simplistic.

It might well be, but it's posted with the intention of implying that it is not supported by IPCC data or that it somehow contradicts it. Two posters on here have already caught that spin.

He cherry picks data, papers and findings. I doubt if you can find anything on his site that confirms AGW in any way, but of course there are many papers that do.

Soren wrote on Dec 18^th, 2013 at 12:58pm:


You assume that AGW can only be predicted using models.  You're making conclusions about epistemology from the viewpoint of a barren epistemological wasteland.

Paraphrased - You don't have a clue.

In fact you can see from the graph that muso posted, that the standard deviation increases from the 1950s to the 2050s.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 20^th, 2013 at 3:09am:


what do you mean?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 3:14am:


Yeah, those 3 monkeys you have are a problem...See No Reality, Hear No Reality and Speak No Reality...