What it isn’t:
What it is
Condensed overview (still painful though)
Too many Kooks spoil the …
Shredding the “climate consensus” myth: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore
What it isn’t:
- “new” It’s the same old Inhofe fraud (ie “700 Scientists …”) as before with some recycled silliness tacked on. None of it is anything we haven’t seen before;
- “improved” unless you consider repetition of ridiculous claims and irrelevant appeals to false authority an improvement;
- “Inhofe‘s” as before the real author is Mark ‘Wormtongue’ Morano;
- science; utterly absent is any trace of of actual science or any reference to it except in the most abstract and meaningless ways;
- a list it’s a collection of anecdotes, specious claims, contextless quotes and copy/pastes of various petitions and declarations;
- relevant scientists while many (not all) on the list are, strictly speaking “scientists” in that they acquired a relevant degree at some point, almost all:
- have done no research or ever published peer reviewed research on climate or related issues;
- offer no credible scientific explanation for their dissent;
- cannot demonstrate even a crude understanding of basic climate science (I’m not kidding).
- “a consensus buster” the consensus is about the science of climate change, which as noted above is not actually discussed or even mentioned except in vague terms. You can’t “bust” what you don’t talk about;
- an anti-consensus while the people named may believe the IPCC and broader scientific community is wrong, they are unable to say why (in rational, fact based terms), and the internal contradictions (below) are such that they also think each other are wrong.
- 1000 names; or almost certainly not. Morano provides no numbered alphabetical list (and damned if I am going to do one), so it looks like he got his number by adding up the totals of various other lists. Since those lists have considerable overlap it is pretty much a certainty that many names are being counted more than once (see Repetitious below)
What it is:
A rehash of the same old fraud with updates.
This is the same old “650 scientists dissent” fraud (which was a recycling of the “400 scientists dissent” fraud) with some updates. The updates are pretty much a “worst of” index of the more recent frauds and memes that have appeared at Climate Despot over the past 16 months.
Nothing new, nothing true, nothing relevant.
One long ‘appeal to false authority’ logic error
Missing is any reference to what they agree on (exactly how the science is supposedly wrong would be an interesting, possibly relevant topic) or what we are supposed to think is happening if the science of anthropogenic climate change is wrong. It’s just people saying the IPCC is wrong and we should believe them because they say so.
In short, it would be an ‘appeal to authority‘ logic fallacy if they were actually authorities, but as almost none of them are even remotely authorities on climate (see “relevant scientists” above) it is an “appeal to false authority‘ logic fallacy.
The people named do not agree on what they think is actually happening. You get everything from those who say we are cooling (Easterbrook), warming because of solar (Alexander), cosmic rays (Svensmark), gravity (Jelbring), mythical cycles (Singer), and so on. The list would be much more accurately described as ‘More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Each Others Global Warming Claims.’
Padded like crazy
To get his 321 pages Morano includes the complete text and lists of signatories to the various Denier petitions and letters such as the Ban Ki Moon letter, the APS Petition, the Manhatten Declaration etc. In fact this is the bulk of the “report”, a silly copy paste waste of everyone’s bandwidth. I’m surprised he didn’t copy/paste the Oregon Petition, or maybe that will be the next update (or is that one too obvious a fraud even for Morano?).
Repetitious & padded in at least 3 ways:
1) Simple copy paste such as the Ban Ki Moon letter which appears in it’s entirety (with the list of signatories) twice, or paraphrasing of memes such as the climategate story over and over;
2) Repeatedly self-referencing. All through the “report” are references to the “list of 400 dissenting scientists” and the “list of 700 dissenting scientists” which do not acknowledge that this “report” is merely an update and repetition of those lists (which weren’t lists).
3) List overlap. Many of the signatories of the Ban Ki Moon letter also signed the Manhattan Declaration, and the Obama letter, and the APS petition, and the …
Thus many names appear multiple times and seem to have been counted as a new name each time. For eg Fred Singer appears at least 4 times, and most of the usual suspects appear more than once.
Condensed overview (still painful though)
We open with the usual
lies misrepresentations, such as “The well over 1000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.”
Most readers will miss that the Summary for Policymakers is not the actual IPCC report, which had 450 lead authors, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 2,500 expert reviewers.
Needless to say both claims rank right up there with ‘Elvis’s 2 headed alien love child’ for accuracy and truth.
We then get a bunch of damning quotes from supposed scientific luminaries. The problem is (as usual) that the luminaries in question are better described as dim bulbs (at best). The list includes
Will Alexander, co-author of “Solar Activity and Climate Change – A Summary” which S2 long considered “the worst climate paper ever.” It is a completely misguided attempt to defend the thoroughly discredited solar theory for our current climatic change. Predictably it was published in the equally discredited Energy and Environment.
Tom Tripp, “IPCC lead author.” Well, yeah … lead author of the “2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories – Volume 3 – Industrial Processes and Product Use“, a technical support document about industry that involves nothing on actual climate.
Don Easterbrook of the “Coming Cooling” and “Hide the Incline” fame (see also Don Easterbrook’s research misconduct). Chris Colose summarized his analysis of Easterbrook as “Easterbrook’s analysis is hopelessly flawed, and one is left to wonder just why he would intentionally shoot down his own credibility with such sloppiness.”
Leonard Weinstein, a retired Engineer (like Alexander) with no research history on climate issues, who authored the blog post “Disproving The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Problem“, a cherry picked work of such monumental irrelevance that no one seems to have bothered refuting it.
Robert B. Laughlin, author of “one of the most destructive, immoral, and yes, stupid arguments ever —.” There is no scientific argument for his “skepticism”; it’s just a juvenile appeal to nihilism and self-indulgence.
Anatoly Levitin, who does not seem to grasp the simple fact that climate change is about thermal energy blocking by the atmosphere, not anthropogenic thermal energy production.
Christopher J. Kobus, a Mechanical Engineer who seems to have formed his ‘scientific opinion’ by brainlessly believing the Denier claims about the non-scandal that they like to call “climategate.”
Hal Lewis , a nuclear facility safety engineer who got 15 minutes of fame for his ‘things were so good when I was young and no one listens to me anymore‘; a geriatric rant totally devoid of any mention of actual facts, much less science. (here, here here and here).
And on and on it goes. Frankly it’s embarrassing to see so many alleged professionals humiliate themselves by parading their ignorance &/or incompetence so publicly.
Regardless, the charade continues with:
- a repetition of the Climategate meme;
- the claim that Judith Curry was one of climate sciences “leading lights” (like most I had never heard of her before she became incoherent);
- the claim that “As new data and science continued to call into question man-made global warming claims, …” with no actual reference to where this data might be. [To be fair, it’s difficult to properly reference things which do not exist; lnks to Morano’s delusions come up 404.]
- Some out of context quotes from Lovelock that completely misrepresent his views;
- the ‘Hulme refutes the consensus’ meme, which is nonsense;
- pages of expanded quotes from the same people listed above and more, such as Hans Jelbring who believes climate change is caused by gravity (Energy and Environment again);
- the “60 German Scientists” hoax;
- the APS gambit (have a handful of cranks in professional scientific society petition for a change of climate policy, make media story out of it as if it were a serious scientific challenge)(also here and here)
- a subset of the same collection of Deniers signing a letter to President Obama (again, no science or reference to it, just an appeal to false authority)
- the ridiculous letter to Ban Ki Moon (pathetic for it’s errors of basic logic and simple science, never mind having any grasp of actual climate research);
- lots more quotes and misleading biographies of Denier “scientists” (eg Leighton Stewart, actually “former Chairman of the U.S. Oil and Gas Association and the Natural Gas Supply Association, and is currently an honorary director of the American Petroleum Institute.”) in attempt to disguise the fact that there is no actual science here, just specious & vacuous claims by people who apparently have no idea what they are talking about;
and so on with more false claims, misrepresentations, and the complete texts and lists of signatories to various Denier diatribes.
Too many Kooks spoil the …
All in all this is just a random collection of quotes, anecdotes, excerpts of stories about and lists of people who i) disagree with (or have said something that seems to) the scientific consensus for one reason or another (almost never a reason that even attempts to look like actual science), and ii) have some sort of credential that is a degree in some science or other, or can be made to sound like one.
In short, 321 pages of equine excrement.
Needless to say it is such a obvious and ridiculous insult to the intelligence that naturally the climate “skeptics”
simply ignored it immediately reposted it throughout the Denialosphere.
“Skeptics” … right.
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
- The “Mostly” Open Thread” is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.