BPSDB The bleat goes on, the bleat goes on
Deniers keep pounding a rhythm to the brain
La de da de de, la de da de da
- Plimer sinks even lower
- Lost and tampered data
- $22 million FUD
- Jones steps down, data being released
In keeping up with the theft and release of the emails from the Climate Research Unit I have collected a number of posts that did not fit into any of themes I have planned, but which are of interest regardless. It struck me that they do form a sort of survey of the story as it is seen from different perspectives, so I offer it as such. (more…)
Paul Hudon of BPSDB
Oh really? before 24 of them were even written?
“I’m going to make sure he goes to jail!“
Does this statement reveal:
I refer to the uproar about the hacked CRU site which I posted about a few hours ago.
For all the Sturm und Drang and Denier promises of “final coffin nails”, there doesn’t actually seem to be anything to the story. Sure, some impolitic and not nice things got said, and it’s embarrassing for some, but that seems to be about it.
We have all been waiting for the boot, or a shoe, or even a slipper to drop, and so far not even a sock … there’s nothing there. Nada, zilch, gar nichts, mei you. That’s it, there’s no story, go home … get a life.
But read on anyway.
I read the emails as someone who trained as a scientist, but has never had anything to do with climate as a research scientist. Thus I have a sense of the culture of the sciences, but without necessarily having any idea what specifics were being referred to with respect to particular papers and studies. Here is my take on it.
Digg.com is probably the largest social news sharing site on the web. As such it is an attractive target for the climate change Deniers to try and use it to reach a huge audience with their frauds. Their most recent success was the ‘Latif global cooling trend‘ hoax.
For the most part the Denier spam dies a quiet and well deserved death as the more scientifically literate Digg users are able to vote down the idiocy.
However, now and then one of the Denier frauds is picked up by an Earthsucker and makes it to the “front page.” At that point it gets seen by thousands of Digg users, many of whom seem only too eager to believe the most idiotic Denier claims despite the obvious flaws in the stories.
What is puzzling and disturbing about the comments that get made on the stories is the apparent inability of many users to distinguish the vacuous histrionics of the Deniers from rational, fact based points.
Posted in Assault on Science, Climate Change, Climate Science, Denier Culture, tagged Anthony Watts, Climate Change, Denier Culture, Denier Lists, Exposing Deniers, Global Warming on November 18, 2009 | 374 Comments »
BPSDB The other day I posted “450 more lies from the climate change Deniers” and the response has been interesting.
This has given fodder for sharing some more examples and reasons why the list is total nonsense.
By sampling approximately one third of the references from “450 320 299 286 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming” I showed that, of the references I looked at, all were:
BPSDB The climate change Deniers make four attempts to refute the Meehl et al NCAR: Record high temperatures far outpace record lows study.
Four tries, four epic FAILS!
In reporting on the study which showed that “…daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States.” Wattsupmybutt spins it as Number of record highs beat record lows – if you believe the quality of data from the weather stations ie repeating the false claim that surface station temperature monitoring is unreliable
Not to mention that ” … undergo a quality control process at the data center that looks for such potential problems as missing data as well as inconsistent readings caused by changes in thermometers, station locations, or other factors.” Record Highs Far Outpace Record Lows Across U.S.
but fair enough, at least Watts is consistent.
BPSDB Debunking the climate change Denierism nonsense that George Will writes is more akin to clubbing plush toys than an actual intellectual exercise. Shooting fish in a barrel? sure, if we’re talking about the barrel of the gun in question; easy and pointless.
George Will knows perfectly well that he is publishing nonsense about climate science, and he is going to keep right on doing it because he is paid precisely because he writes nonsense, not despite it.
The question is, what are we going to do about it?
Last winter Will stunned us when his pre-existing condition of climate change Denierism plunged to new lows. However, like the arctic sea ice minimums, it seems to have been merely a sign of an on-going precipitous decline.
BPSDBI’ve never simply linked another post before, but Schweitzer speaks Truth bluntly and from the heart:
We are just a few votes shy of descending into another Dark Age in which ignorance and faith triumph completely over reason and fact. We have entered a time in which scientific illiteracy has reached that catastrophic point where science transmutes from a search for objective truth to just another opinion, carrying no more weight than the blathering of a talking head with an opposing view. The collective opinions of thousands of professional meteorologists have been equated to nothing more valid than the uneducated opinion of a radio host. Such false equivalency is a sure sign we are in deep trouble.
Posted in Climate Change, Climate Science, Denier Culture, tagged Chamber of Commerce, Climate Change, David Bellamy, Denier Culture, Deniers, Exposing Deniers, George Will, Global Warming, Superfreakonomics on November 9, 2009 | 8 Comments »
Meanwhile, the Superfreaks are:
BPSDB Why the on-going fascination with the error filled climate change chapter in Superfreakonomics? Quite simple really, it’s a rare opportunity to get some anecdotal evidence on whether the climate science blogosphere has an impact, what kind of impact, and how much. This particular issue is valuable in that it has spilled over into the more public realm while still clearly ‘tagged’ as Superfreakonomics.
Naturally anecdotal evidence is far less than what we could wish for, but at least it is something. A sputtering match is still better than the usual darkness that we fumble around in.
Oh yes, there is also a link to where you can read the climate chapter if you haven’t yet and still want to ….
I was rereading Brad Johnson’s article about the Jon Stewart non-interview with Levitt of Superfreakonomics infamy when I realized that one of the links he provides is the Stewart interview on Crossfire…
Ouch, nasty, but so apropos. It brings up a couple of points worth mentioning in regard to the Levitt interview, so here is the Crossfire transcript, and here is the Crossfire interview:
Two points about the interview
1) Stewart is both clear and ruthless about how the failure of investigative journalism is damaging to society.
“…it’s not so much that it’s bad, as it’s hurting America … Right now, you’re helping the politicians and the corporations. … You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks …“
2) Carlson and Begala do challenge Stewart that he is no better, citing his interview with Kerry. Stewart responds that if they wish to compare themselves to a comedy show, that was fine with him. A number of people have made a similar point with regard to the Levitt interview, ie ‘come on, it’s a comedy show.’
BPSDB No, the Yes Men have not punked the Wall Street Journal, although you sure could be forgiven for thinking “Freaked Out Over SuperFreakonomics” is a DenialDepot post mocking how extremely braindead and fraudulent climate change Denierism can be.
There’s really nothing in Brett Stephen’s article to suggest that it’s supposed to be serious (cf Poe’s Law). Then again it’s not that surprising, Brett Stephens is definitely not “boldly going where he has never gone before.”
Stephens opens with 6 paragraphs of summary (more or less) of climate change as it appears in Superfreakonomics, liberally sprinkled with spurious cheap shots at Al Gore and all people who accept actual science and reason.
“Mr. Gore, for instance, tells Messrs. Levitt and Dubner that the stratospheric sulfur solution is “nuts.” “
I thought I was done with this particular tar baby and would just leave it to Brian to keep track of the ongoing discussion of Superfreakonomics, but like others (eg here and here) I just can’t seem to shake it off. Actually there are some good reasons to revisit it, so please bear with me … or jump right to “what you can do.”
An interesting exchange took that took place on a forum a couple of days ago raised an important question generally, but with reference to Superfreaknonomics specifically. As is too often the case the more general discussion will have to wait while we deal with the Superfreaks.
BPSDBA week ago Joseph Romm fired the opening salvo in what became a hail of criticism of the forthcoming book “Superfreakonomics” by Levitt and Dubner, particularly the climate change chapter which had been circulating on the web (albeit probably illicitly). Now the authors have begun to reply to their critics, or at least put out what they claim is a reply … or as Only in it for the Gold put it “The authors, Dubner and Levitt, are busily jumping the shark …”
I was late in making it to the freak show and had not actually read any of the critiques when the authors began to reply. As such I thought it would be interesting to discuss their reply rather than the climate chapter itself, particularly given the rather thorough treatment it has been getting (below). Thus I have read the critiques and the relevant parts of the book only after Levitt or Dubner framed it first. (more…)
Monbiot describes the lack of response from Plimer as “Answers Come There None.” As it happens “silence” is the best description for the typical climate change Denier response to this whole issue. In that respect it’s very reminiscent of the lack of attention given to Anthony Watts’ self-inflicted humiliation.
I was interested in the Denier reaction particularly with regard to:
His attempt to take Monbiot to task for being true to his word and the conditions set for the debate is such a brain dead, duplicitous outrage that it deserves vivisection.
As documented in my “Spectator cancels” post, The Spectator is 100% aware that:
BPSDBWhile organizing Monbiot vs Plimer debate (full background here) The Spectator put Monbiot in an impossible position which forced the cancellation of the event. They clearly knew more about Plimer’s intentions than they were telling. The only real question is whether they colluded with Plimer in doing this, as some evidence suggests, or if it was mere happenstance.
On 29 July 2009 Plimer directed the Spectator to organize the debate, including giving a specific date; this is before any debate had been agreed to. Why this date in particular? why in London? why not ask Monbiot if he was even available at that time? (he wasn’t) To me it reads very much like Plimer had other business in London about this time and it would be convenient for him as he would be there anyway.
Regardless, the date is being set before there is even an event. Monbiot has not agreed, in fact he states sooner would be more suitable IF a debate can be agreed to.
Posted in Assault on Science, Climate Change, Denier Culture, tagged Climate Change, debates, Denier Culture, Deniers, Exposing Deniers, Global Warming, Ian Plimer, The Spectator on September 18, 2009 | 34 Comments »
BPSDBAs part of analysing the Plimer Monbiot debate I thought it would be useful to critically examine Plimer’s final communication with Monbiot. As Plimer’s letter is rather lengthy I am posting this as a separate piece. Having set this debate in motion Plimer is caught and is seeking a way out, but we’ll let Plimer speak for himself.
Dear Mr Monbiot,
I return from abroad, interstate and outback to a very large number of emails, including a number from you.
As you are aware, I challenged you to debate me. Contrary to normal debate procedure, you imposed a condition (i.e. I answer your questions)
As has been discussed previously and repeatedly,