Denialism Blog

Author: MarkH

  • The end of the Alexander Cockburn saga

    George Monbiot posts his last reply to Alexander Cockburn.

    Wisely, Monbiot has chosen not to continue arguing with a crank. At a certain point it’s always a lost cause. And considering Cockburn’s evidence one would be crazy to continue.

    It turns out, the sole-source of his rambling diatribe against all global warming science – the papers from Martin “Guy I met on a boat” Hertzburg – turned out not to be papers at all. They were never published, never peer reviewed. The only peer-reviewed literature Cockburn managed to find to agree with him was published in Lyndon Larouche’s fake journal 21st century Science and Technology!

    My favorite part though is Monbiot’s sad realization he’s got nothing but a crank to argue with, and his somewhat mournful decision to write off Cockburn for good. He hits upon some big truths about cranks.
    (more…)

  • Kilimanjaro and Global Warming

    I’m surprised it took as long as a day for denialists like Patrick Michaels to gloat over the finding that the loss of the ice caps on Kilimanjaro – an example used by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth – has turned out to be from causes other than global warming (a more in depth paper).

    But one thing they usually won’t mention when they quote these articles – how Kilimanjaro was the exception that proved the rule.

    In an article in the July-August edition of American Scientist, Mote and Kaser also cited decreased snowfall in the area as a driver of melt because bright, white snow reflects sunlight back into the atmosphere; if there’s not new snow, sunlight gets absorbed and melts the ice.

    The scientists say that other declining glaciers, like the South Cascade Glacier in Washington, would be a better poster child for the plight of glaciers in a warming world, which are indeed diminishing overall as a result of climate change. It’s just that Kilimanjaro is one exception to the trend. Government photographs taken from 1928 to 2000 have shown that the South Cascade Glacier lost half its mass in that time.

    “There are dozens, if not hundreds, of photos of mid-latitude glaciers you could show where there is absolutely no question that they are declining in response to the warming atmosphere,” Mote said.

    Why am I not surprised that they never seem to mention this part of the article. Hmmm. Anyway, the best overview of the problem I think comes from Geek Counterpoint:

    Kilimanjaro has pretty much been used as a “poster child” for global warming by Al Gore & co. Meanwhile, climate change “skeptics” have used the data for Kilimanjaro’s natural thawing as supposed “proof” that climate change isn’t behind any glacier’s retreat. Essentially, both camps have fallen victim to their own versions of confirmation bias (you see what you expect / want to see…).

    Amen.

  • Is there any idiot theory UD won't credulously repeat?

    Now it’s the “Rachel Carson killed millions” nonsense over at Uncommon Descent and it’s based upon this WSJ editorial from Dr. Zaramba, the health minister for Uganda.

    What’s really embarrassing is how they link the entire article and it’s clear they didn’t even read it.

    BarryA writes:
    (more…)

  • Reprogramming adult cells into embryonic stem cells

    Blogging on Peer-Reviewed Research

    As promised, I’m going through the three papers from last week about the re-programming of adult cells into an embryonic-like phenotype. Since it is three papers I’ll go through first what’s common to all three, and then what each group did special.

    First of all, let’s summarize the method one more time.
    (more…)

  • Sopranos last episode

    Anyone else want to venture a guess as to what that ending was about?

    To those who haven’t seen it – I’d avoid going below the fold – it will be a spoiler.
    (more…)

  • A Bigot Surgeon General Nomination (part II)

    Last week we discussed the nomination of Dr. James Holsinger to be Surgeon General of the United States, and our concerns considering his anti-gay views.

    Now Jim Burroway has done a thorough dissection of Holsinger’s attempt to use science to advocate for homophobic policies in his church and it’s about as skewed and cherry-picked as something Paul Cameron would advocate.

    This is of significant concern as the Surgeon General is supposed to be a science educator, someone who informs the public about medicine and health-related issues. The fact that this nominee has abused science previously to bash homosexuals is a sign this is yet another unqualified nominee being advanced to a scientific position for political reasons. Write your senator, call or send an email. This man should not be Surgeon General of the United States.

  • Sean Carroll Reviews Behe's "Edge of Evolution"

    It’s a good read, also check out MarkCC’s review

    It’s another example of cranks not recognizing talent – or rather the absence of it. And Sean Carroll hits pretty hard in his review making the point that there are so many basic errors in the book that Behe isn’t doing ID any favors. He ends with this:

    The continuing futile attacks by evolution’s opponents reminds me of another legendary confrontation, that between Arthur and the Black Knight in the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The Black Knight, like evolution’s challengers, continues to fight even as each of his limbs is hacked off, one by one. The “no transitional fossils” argument and the “designed genes” model have been cut clean off, the courts have debunked the “ID is science” claim, and the nonsense here about the edge of evolution is quickly sliced to pieces by well-established biochemistry. The knights of ID may profess these blows are “but a scratch” or “just a flesh wound,” but the argument for design has no scientific leg to stand on

    The article included this picture – which I am shameless stealing from now on to mock this tendency:
    i-6dc20c7ace2a6700cccf1467778094dc-blackknight.gif
    CREDIT: JOE SUTLIFF, AFTER MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL

    I think Carroll was channeling one of my commenters…

  • Hurricanes and Global Warming

    Ever since I heard the link I was hoping for something more solid than the weak associations I was hearing about on NPR and other news sources. It seemed very preliminary, and a bit worrisome that, especially in the foreign press, that they were claiming things like the New Orleans/Katrina disaster was the first example of a global warming disaster. The evidence simply wasn’t conclusive and in general in science, results need to age. It’s like cheese or wine, you wait for the results that get better with time, and you have to be patient.

    I’m reading now in New Scientist that the hurricane link, when evaluated through proxy-data over about 3 centuries, is pretty weak. (Nature article here)
    (more…)

  • Profile of a Crank – Julia Stephenson

    Ben Goldacre at Bad Science is leading the way on opposing this new absurdity of “electric smog”, and one of it’s leading proponents in Britain, Julia Stephenson.

    It’s really too easy. Remember the crank HOWTO? Well, she’s just about a perfect example.

    It all started when she got wifi in her apartment…
    (more…)

  • Tim Blair quote mines me

    I see that Tim Blair has decided to quote mine me. As part of my analysis of Cockburn’s crankery I made the following statement.

    Below the fold I’ll summarize Cockburn’s arguments and how they use the denialist tactics, George Monbiot’s responses (including his amazing crank-fu!) and discuss why in the future we may start seeing global warming denialism from the left as well as the right.

    …

    It’s important to remember both the left and the right have anti-scientific tendencies, the left’s just tend to be less religious, less world-threatening and more woo-based. My brother recently told me about moving to California, “they don’t believe in Jesus here, just bullshit” in reference to the woo-based beliefs of large portions of the population. The risk of unscientific tendencies is when people with potential to become cranks see a scientific theory as a threat to some overvalued idea they hold dear. Sometimes the over-valued idea isn’t even a bad quality, it can be compassion – but taken to an extreme. If the left starts to see global warming policy as a money-grab by the elites, expect to see more left wing crankery and climate denial based on conspiratorial beliefs about carbon markets.

    I suspect this is what has happened to Alexander Cockburn, a lefty who has gone over the deep end, on what appears to be suspicions of a conspiracy to further defraud and hurt poor countries using global warming science.

    Basically, I was saying that the origins of anti-scientific arguments are based on certain overvalued ideas that the left has as well as the right. Neither is completely free of unscientific movements. How does Tim Blair read my statements?

    That this means there is no consensus on global warming science!

    CONSENSUS LESS CONSENSY

    Mark Hoofnagle predicts:

    In the future we may start seeing global warming denialism from the left as well as the right.

    But … but … the debate is over! And it’s been over for 15 years, according to Al the Colder:

    I actually can’t figure out exactly what his reasoning was here. Does it mean that left wing crankery somehow disproves science? That Alexander Cockburn, a political writer, disagreeing with global warming science is proof of no consensus? This is classic crank logic here though. A single sentence out of context proves they’re right! There is no consensus! If any left-wingers think something stupid the science is untrue!

    Sadly, he doesn’t allow comments without registering (and he isn’t registering anyone new). Basically, they all sit around in a circle-jerk making fun of my last name (I’m being persecuted!) and acting like it’s some great coup that Tim Blair could take half of a sentence out of an essay saying something completely different, and warp it into something absurd.

    What a moron.
    i-02de5af1f14cb0cdd5c20fb4d07e9b84-2.gifi-62a2141bf133c772a315980c4f858593-5.gifi-83ab5b4a35951df7262eefe13cb933f2-crank.gif

    **Update** Blair has suggested that I’m made unhappy by the attention I’ve gotten from his blog and the Blairites. Quite the opposite. The thing about running a blog on denialists and cranks is that you’re going to be attacked. I’m mostly amused when it happens. And besides, the Blairites don’t troll like others have – the 9/11 truthers come to mind. If anything they’re very polite, if a little touchy. I don’t mind having them around at all and am not so afraid of trolling (or just dissent) that I create a gated community of people who agree with me.