Meanwhile, the Superfreaks are:
- Pwned by George Will
- Getting hosed by The New Yorker
- Still using mind control on Jon Stewart
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 ….
BPSDBThe good news about the US Chamber of Commerce (CoC) and their climate change Denial public relations disaster just keeps rolling in, thanks to … The US Chamber of Commerce.
In August the CoC made a very public demand for political trials of climate change science. This proved to be a public relations “own goal” as the CoC outed itself as a regressive force for ignorance and stupidity. The tail spin just got worse as member corporations and groups began very publicly leaving the CoC accompanied by scathing critiques of the Chamber. Then the Yes Men and Avaaz Action Factory staged a press conference mocking the CoC and all hell broke loose.
Now it seems that having shot themselves in both feet, the CoC has reloaded and is aiming at their knees.
“I really don’t know what I’m talking about, do I?”
Well no shit Sherlock! The question is, why not?
The context (nutshell version) is that the new book Superfreaknomics has a chapter on climate change that is scientific gibberish. Not simply wrong, but error riddled nonsense. One of authors was on The Daily Show last night for some slow ball questions, with a nerf ball … and no strikes called … with Stewart both pitching and catching for Levitt.
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.
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,
BPSDBIf Climate change Deniers actually were from Mars they would know better than to claim that warming on Mars or any other planets was evidence that solar variability had anything to do with climate change on Earth. Given that warming has been detected on only 6 out of the over 100 bodies in the solar system, they’d have been smarter not to mention it at all.
Naturally the claim that “the other planets are warming” is just another Denier fable that contradicts the facts, but what makes the Mars fable interesting is the number of ways in which it contradicts many other Denier claims. It really serves to underscore the incoherence of many Deniers, and the extent to which they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
Poe’s Law states:
“ Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won’t mistake for the real thing.”
Poe’s Law makes the clear point that it is hard to tell parodies of fundamentalism from the real thing, since they both seem equally insane. Poe’s law also functions in its converse: real fundamentalism can easily be mistaken for a parody of fundamentalism.
“Even some of our most distinguished journalists …”
In the latest Climate Denial Crock of the Week Sinclair has once again debunked the ‘Climate change ended in 1998′ aka ‘it’s been cooling for a decade’ etc climate change Denier meme. If you missed his earlier one Party like it’s 1998 here it is:
BPSDB Climate Despot has targeted Rudy Baum, so how about showing him a little love?
Baum is the editor of Chemical & Engineering News, the publication of the American Chemical Society. About a month ago I reported on the tempest in a teapot that got raised because Baum had the gall to talk rationally about real science in the newsletter of a scientific association. This is always an unpardonable sin to the Denialosphere. (more…)
Is the climate change Denialosphere running some sort of “Incoherence Contest” that the rest of us are unaware of? Granted Deniers are never a source for much in the way of rational thought, but how to understand the flood of gibberish and convoluted bafflegab that we are experiencing today?
Just a quick update on the Plimer debate. Those who have been following it know that climate change Denier Ian Plimer challenged George Monbiot to a debate. At the moment we are all still waiting for Plimer to answer some questions (which had been agreed to previously) about Plimer’s book, and then we can move on to the actual debate. Don’t forget that you can follow it on Delagado’s Wikia page as well. (more…)
Posted in Climate Change, Denier Culture, tagged Alan Carlin, Chamber of Commerce, Climate Change, Denier Culture, Deniers, EPA, Exposing Deniers, Global Warming, James Inhofe on September 3, 2009 | Leave a Comment »
Next in the docket for being criminally bewildered, the climate change Deniers at the US Chamber of Commerce (hearafter CoC). We have some updates from the blogosphere, and a jaw dropping attempt at revisionist damage control by the CoC to consider.
A few days ago I reported how the US Chamber was calling for “Scopes Monkey Trial” type hearings on the Environmental Protection Agency (hereafter EPA) endangerment findings and proposed action. Much has been going on, so let’s sample some of it.
The CoC started some damage control with the unsubstantiated, unsourced claim by Brad Peck that “… the agency [EPA] used secondary scientific sources, studies that largely weren’t adequately peer-reviewed and the selective use of scientific studies to justify a policy decision they wanted to make.“
While the evidence before us clearly shows that Peck is something of an expert on using questionable sources to justify a decision that he wanted to make, I’d still like to know what his source was. No mention of the it though; apparently the CoC does not believe in transparency and using information that is beyond question.’ Maybe we should have a trial? (more…)
BPSDBPerhaps I give climate change Denier Anthony Watts too little credit for craft and and deceit. His clumsy handling of the Sinclair video incident suggests definite ineptitude, yet I detect a certain cunning in how he handles topics on his web site. He certainly seems to be an avid student of Sir Humphrey Appleby of Yes Minister fame when it comes to being dishonest.
One consistent tactic that I have noticed is that of making some outrageous claim in the title of a blog post, and then to say absolutely nothing related to it in the post itself. This is straight out of Appleby’s guide to deception:
‘I explained that we are calling the White Paper Open Government because you always dispose of the difficult bit in the title. It does less harm than in the statute books. It is the law of Inverse Relevance: the less you intend to do about something, the more you have to keep talking about it”
BPSDBTo some that might seem to be self-loathing, but contrary to the climate change Denier claims, the fact is that real skeptics are not climate change deniers, and vice versa.
In this post I hope to convince you of that, then discuss the perspective real skeptics have on climate change science, and finally issue a question, with an edge of challenge, to the skeptic community.
Now generally climate realists make the ‘Deniers are not skeptics’ point by critically examining the Deniers and demonstrating that they are not actually skeptics based on what a real skeptic is. I propose to look at the skeptics and show that they are not climate Deniers (yeah, I’ve always been somewhat backwards ).
Posted in Climate Change, Denier Culture, Media, tagged Climate Change, climate politics, Denier Culture, Deniers, Exposing Deniers, Global Warming, Ian Plimer, Jonathan Manthrope, Media, Vancouver Sun on August 6, 2009 | 3 Comments »
BPSDBThe “George Will Defense” is, having been caught in a series of flagrantly ridiculous lies, tell some more in an attempt to justify them. It seems that Manthrope’s uncritical idolizing of Ian Plimer’s climate change Denial discussed in Vancouver Sun: Perpetual Motion Works, Earth is Flat! has upset some of the Vancouver Sun‘s readers. So much so that a response seemed called for.
Unfortunately we do not get a thoughtful and honest reflection on the whys and wherefores of having published drivel. Far from it. The title “Opposing views draw scientists’ scorn” tells you exactly how Manthrope is going to try to spin it.
You see, the problem is not that the Plimer’s book is a load of unscientific nonsense, or that Manthrope was either incompetent or unethical (or both) as a journalist in his partisan and unabashed promotion of Plimer. Oh no, the problem is that scientists are intolerant of “opposing views.” We’re not talking about facts and science here, we’re talking about “views”, opinions, and tolerance.
Posted in Climate Change, Climate Science, Denier Culture, Media, tagged Climate Change, Denier Culture, Deniers, Exposing Deniers, Global Warming, Ian Plimer, Jonathan Manthrope, Media on August 6, 2009 | 3 Comments »
BPSDB The headline may as well have read like that since the actual one was just as idiotic; “Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites.” The article in question is allegedly reporting on the “science” of Ian Plimer, “an unremitting critic of “anthropogenic global warming”.”
The article by Jonathan Manthorpe is so fawning and gushing that it would be embarrassing as text for Plimer’s book jacket, never mind as an Opinion piece or book review. For breathless and brainless worship it’s about on a par with an adolescent’s Hannah Montana Myspace fan page. Yet according to the Vancouver Sun, this article was supposedly “News”?
In and of itself it’s just another piece of popular media climate change Denierism which has already been responded to by others. However, since the piece is so extreme in several senses I thought it might be a good example to use to look at the issue of climate science in the media generally.
Let’s begin with Plimer and his book. “Heavan and Earth” was published back in April and has been thoroughly reviewed by a number of reputable scientists (see ‘Plimer, a sampling’ below), including a point by point critique (38 page pdf). Real Climate’s summary pretty much covers the response by scientists: