Denialism Blog

Category: Global Warming Denialism

  • The inconsistency of cranks

    One of the most salient features of cranks is their inconsistency. A major difference between someone who is trying to reason scientifically and someone who has a fixed belief they are trying to defend against rational inquiry is the scientific thinker is looking for synthesis. They want things to fit together nicely, to make sense, and incorporate as much of the data as possible into a cohesive picture or theory that is convincing to ones peers so they adopt your view.

    A crank, on the other hand, doesn’t care about internal consistency, presenting a cohesive picture of any kind, or creating a body of knowledge to be adopted and utilized by their peers. If someone has a different theory that is completely different from theirs they don’t care, as long as it remains opposed to the scientific theory that impinges upon their fixed belief.

    Case in point, Jennifer Marohasy’s blog features this post which exclaims with glee that Kerry Emanuel has reversed his position on the role of global warming on hurricanes based on this news piece. In an example of crank magnetism Dave Scot at Uncommon Descent has also picked up this thread only he exclaims that Emanuel has reversed his position on global warming itself (check out the intellectual company you keep when you’re a global warming denialist, sheesh).

    What becomes immediately clear, however, is that this is only evidence of the scientific incompetence of these individual writers, their lack of reading comprehension, and the inconsistency of global warming denialists’ approach to the scientific literature. So, what is it we do, boys and girls, whenever a crank mentions some finding in a scientific paper? Look at the primary source! It’s the first step, and I guarantee you the crank’s didn’t read or comprehend the paper at all. Here it is, free at MIT (PDF). Not only does the paper consistent with an impact of global warming on hurricanes, but the cranks have latched on to a paper that uses computer models *gasp*. You see, the endless refrain from global warming denialists that computer models have no value goes out the window the second they perceive a modicum of support from a paper that uses them.

    As far as Kerry Emanuel reversing his position, they got that wrong too. Here’s what he told me:

    Unfortunately, reports about my paper have been greatly distorted. I am certainly not denying global warming, nor am I denying a link to increasing hurricane power, but I am pointing out that one particular technique suggests less of an increase going forward than we previously feared. Also, the technique, when applied to historical climate data from 1980-2006, strongly re-affirms earlier analyses that show that hurricane power has increased by about 50% over the past 25 years.

    Oops. It’s hard out there for a crank. This paper is consistent with global warming increasing hurricane intensity, it just predicts less of an effect going forward. I’m sure Dave Scot and Marohasy will immediately retract all their bogus claims, distortions and lies about this paper, Kerry Emanuel, and, no doubt, their sudden belief in models. While I’m waiting for that to happen though, let’s keep this in mind as an example of how cranks don’t actually care what kind of evidence they must use to preserve their fixed belief, or that it be consistent with their previous statements, arguments, etc. All that matters is that science they oppose ideologically gets crapped on.
    i-02de5af1f14cb0cdd5c20fb4d07e9b84-2.gifi-83ab5b4a35951df7262eefe13cb933f2-crank.gif

  • A history of denialism – Part III – Global Warming Denialism

    Part III of our discussion of the history of denialist movements is on one that should tie things together and one I hope some of my fellow sciencebloggers will realize speaks to the necessity of challenging denialists on every front.

    My work in this instance is made extremely easy as Naomi Oreskes has done it all for me. Please watch her discussion on the history of global warming denialism, it takes a bit of time, but it is dead on and is one of the best discussions of the methods and strategy of denialism (not to mention free-market fundamentalism) I have seen to date.

    For those of you who follow this site and recent postings you will see some consistent themes:

    1) Well-funded think tanks are capable of derailing a scientific consensus, in this case the consensus on global warming which has existed for nearly 3 decades.
    2) The goal of denialists is not to propose an alternative theory that is explanatory and useful, but to create controversy and doubt where it does not exist.
    3) These attempts are highly effective despite a complete absence of controversy in the scientific literature. Attacks in the lay press are more than sufficient to create a false debate using an appeal for parity or balanced presentation of ideas.
    4) The same strategies used by the tobacco companies to deny the link between cancer and tobacco smoke, and in fact, some of the exact same actors are present in both cases.

    These efforts must not be ignored. The methods of denialists must be exposed and attacked, and the sources of denialism must be discredited.

    Part II – tobacco
    Part I – the ancients

  • The Heartland Institute Crankfest


    BPSDB
    There is no way I could let the Heartland Institute’s Global Warming conference go by without comment, especially since it’s so beautifully conformed to my expectations of what a gathering of cranks would be like. I think DeSmogBlog’s coverage has been the best.

    But back to my expectations, we have experts of dubious quality speaking to a group of people that clearly have no ability to judge sources (from the WSJ ):

    Given that line-up, and the Heartland Institute’s stated mission–“to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems”–two of the presentations seem a bit jarring: They’re given by Vladmir Putin’s science advisor and Mr. Putin’s former chief economic advisor.

    We have the complete disregard for synthesis – that is, real scientists don’t get together and celebrate their complete inability to create a cohesive picture of the data (from the NYT article

    One challenge they faced was that even within their own ranks, the group — among them government and university scientists, antiregulatory campaigners and Congressional staff members — displayed a dizzying range of ideas on what was, or was not, influencing climate.

    This is a feature of cranks we discussed in our Unified Theory of the Crank almost a year ago. There is no interest in creating an explanatory theory or framework to incorporate the data into a useful picture, just a desire to crap on that which they don’t want to hear.

    It explains the tendency of cranks not to care if other cranks (and denialists in general for that matter) have variations on their own crazy ideas, just as long as the other cranks are opposing the same perceived incorrect truth. Cranks and denialists aren’t honest brokers in a debate, they stand outside of it and just shovel horse manure into it to try to sow confusion and doubt about real science. They don’t care if some other crank or denialist comes along and challenges the prevailing theory by tossing cow manure, as long as what they’re shoveling stinks.

    And consistent with the HOWTO their struggle comes with a built-in sense of persecution:

    such events were designed to foster the impression of “little Davids battling the Goliath of the environmental establishment.”

    It’s too bad the author of the article didn’t know that the standard comparison is to the fight between Galileo and the Catholic Church.

    In perusing the various discussions of the conference I have to admit that this time Nisbet does have a point. I disagree with him that the crankfest will really amount to much, but I do agree with him that the real problem here isn’t scientific but personal. Global warming crankery, more than anything, isn’t a generalized dismissal of science but an extreme dislike for the people identified with the science. Consistently through these arguments you see this streak of defiance, that no one should be able to tell anyone else how to live. If they want to spend their free time disposing their used motor oil by pouring it onto a pile of burning tires, that’s their business, and Al Gore can go screw himself.

    The main targets at the meeting were former Vice President Al Gore, who has portrayed global warming as a “planetary emergency,” and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…

    That’s a much harder problem to face. I can’t make Al Gore more likable to the psycho libertarian wing of the country, and since he, for better or ill, is intimately attached to the science we might just have to call it a wash. After all, there is no actual knowledge of the science associated with such dismissals. The popular dissent over global warming doesn’t come from people pouring through scientific journals and thorough reading of material that’s challenging even for specialists in the field. It’s about personality.

    The meeting was largely framed around science, but after the luncheon, when an organizer made an announcement asking all of the scientists in the large hall to move to the front for a group picture, 19 men did so.

    Know what I mean? Global warming isn’t being rejected because the science isn’t sound. It’s critics don’t tend to be scientists, and the ones that are, well, let’s just say they could have fooled me. The issue is the effective framing of the scientists and supporters of global warming as snooty liberals who want to tell you what to do and the media who want to scare you (they do have a point there). What is surprising is that how ineffective environmental groups have been at fighting this impression.
    (more…)

  • If I find out about your study on Uncommon Descent first, it's a bad sign

    I want to point out two things about the anti-consensus report the anti-AGW denialists are spreading as if it is an actual scientific document. For one, if the first place I read about it is when it’s promoted on Uncommon Descent, you immediately lose about 99.9% of your credibility. I’d be a little embarassed if my staunchest allies were people who historically denied the link between cigarettes and cancer – like Milloy and Singer – or those who deny evolutionary science – like the cranks at UD. Maybe they need to stop, try developing some insight into why this is happening, and maybe realize the magnetism of other obvious cranks to their ideas is what is known as a bad sign.

    But hey, that’s not reason in itself to reject this latest nonsense from Senator Inhofe out of hand. Nor is his recent announcement he’s proud to be referred to as a holocaust denier. The best reason to reject this nonsense immediately is that they couldn’t even break 400 signatures.

    Hell, even the IDers can get 700 signatures of other cranks that deny evolution. The global warming denialists barely broke 400, and we’re supposed to be impressed?

    The list and promoters in from the EPW link is a who’s who of climate crankery. Everyone from Lindzen, to Motl, to Singer, to the AEI is prominently cited. As usual, none of these people have any actual expertise in this field. They should start writing for JPANDS next to expand their portfolio of denier papers, and send their nonsense to Uncommon Descent’s list of scientists who deny evolution. I guarantee they’ll double their numbers within a week, if there isn’t already significant overlap.

    * Update * Joseph Romm takes apart the report and the so-called scientists that super-crank Inhofe has gathered to pad his report. I salute his efforts, but like I say, all you had to do is look at the purveyors of the nonsense and save yourself some time.

  • I could have told him that

    Richard Black investigates the common crank claim that science is just an old boys network designed to throw sweet, sweet grant money at their friends. Guess what? The evidence of this conspiracy is lacking.

    I anticipated having to spend days, weeks, months even, sifting the wheat from the chaff, going backwards and forwards between journal editors, heads of department, conference organisers, funding bodies and the original plaintiffs.

    I envisaged major headaches materialising as I tried to sort out the chains of events, attempting to decipher whether claims had any validity, or were just part of the normal rough and tumble of a scientist’s life – especially in the context of scientific publishing, where the top journals only publish about 10% of the papers submitted to them.

    The reality was rather different.
    …
    The sum total of evidence obtained through this open invitation, then, is one first-hand claim of bias in scientific journals, not backed up by documentary evidence; and three second-hand claims, two well-known and one that the scientist in question does not consider evidence of anti-sceptic feeling.

    No-one said they had been refused a place on the IPCC, the central global body in climate change, or denied a job or turned down for promotion or sacked or refused access to a conference platform, or indeed anything else.
    …
    Whether this exercise has conclusively disproved a bias is not for me to say – I am sure others will find plenty to say, doubtless in the courteous and gracious language that typifies climate discourse nowadays.

    But I will say this; if someone persistently claims to be a great football player, and yet fails to find the net when you put him in front of an open goal, you cannot do other than doubt his claim.

    Andres Millan, who wrote to me on the subject from Mexico, offered another explanation for why scientific journals, research grants, conference agendas and the IPCC itself are dominated by research that backs or assumes the reality of modern-day greenhouse warming.

    “Most global warming sceptics have no productive alternatives; they say it is a hoax, or that it will cause severe social problems, or that we should allocate resources elsewhere,” he wrote.

    “Scientifically, they have not put forward a compelling, rich, and variegated theory.

    “And until that happens, to expect the government, or any source of scientific funding, to give as much money, attention, or room within academic journals to the alternatives, seems completely misguided.”

    It’s good that he researched this and all, but frankly, it was a waste of time. It doesn’t matter what the crankery is, they’re always convinced the reason people don’t listen to their nonsense is that it’s some kind of conspiracy against them. And surprise surprise, when you actually try to make them provide evidence of said conspiracy, they can offer none. From the HIV/AIDS denialists to the cdesign proponentsists, you always see the same argument again and again. Science is a church, protecting dogma! It’s biased against us! You’re just conspiring to enrich your buddies with grant money! Blah blah blah.

    You don’t need to waste any time investigating such nonsense, it’s a prima facie absurd claim.

  • Global warming crankery from co-founder of the weather channel

    Just watching CNN, and saw them mindlessly parrot the latest rant from a crank. In this instance it’s the founder of the weather channel John Coleman, now a San Diego meteorologist, who peels off a doozy.

    It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motivesmanipulated long term scientific data to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

    Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minute documentary segment.
    …
    I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

    Ahhh, that is some fine crankery. I speak as a connoisseur. We have a conspiracy theory that involves, well, everybody. I’m really impressed. Not only do we have every climate scientist lying, and their “friends in government” steering research grants their way (he doesn’t know how grants are awarded clearly), but he manages to pull in every single media organization short of Fox news and Governor Schwarzenegger! I think I even detect a little bit of the Galileo gambit mixed with Gore-derangement syndrome in that last bit.

    Why are we listening to this nonsense? CNN might as well broadcast an editorial from a man convinced the FBI put a chip in his brain (or an intelligent design advocate – same arguments). I think we’ve got to break out the tinfoil hats for this guy.
    i-83ab5b4a35951df7262eefe13cb933f2-crank.gifi-3a38ecb7855955738c9e961220d56e25-1.gif

  • Vikings Disprove Global Warming!

    It’s the latest idiotic attack on the science of global warming, Joe Queenan tells us it was great for the Vikings! Why the LA Times publishes this crap is beyond me.

    So the argument is, the Vikings had a merry old time the last time it was warm like today, therefore, why worry? Global warming is good?

    Well, take a look at temperature reconstructions for the last 2 thousand years or so (1):

    i-c517b2d00621be7b0ae253e6b9ca3a2b-vikingstick.jpg

    The Vikings supposedly roamed the northern Atlantic around the year 1000 AD +/- 200 years.

    Can you see the problem? We’re at happy Viking now (and that’s if you except the top, end of the distribution and not the mean at 1000AD) and ramping up. If we were to stop here, maybe you could make this argument, but the fact is we’re traveling into the unknown, and if paleoclimatology is right about anything, we’re likely heading towards disaster.

    Yet another poorly-thought out argument to justify complacency. Anyone who reads my blog realizes I’m anti-alarmist, but that doesn’t mean we should sit around looking for non-existent silver-linings like this twit.

    1. Jones, P.D., M. New, D.E. Parker, S. Martin, and I.G. Rigor, Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years, Reviews of Geophysics, 37, 173-199, 1999.

  • Al Gore and the Attack of the Global Warming Cranks

    I’ve postponed writing about Gore/IPCC Nobel largely because I wanted to see how the denialists would respond, and it has been interesting.

    The problem is worsened by what Paul Krugman called Gore Derangement Syndrome:

    So if science says that we have a big problem that can’t be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed. For example, Investor’s Business Daily recently declared that the prominence of James Hansen, the NASA researcher who first made climate change a national issue two decades ago, is actually due to the nefarious schemes of — who else? — George Soros.

    He makes a few mistakes in the essay. For one he repeats the myth about Hansen rather the the corrective information. Hansen’s ethics can were impugned wrongly, and the smears were immediately falsified. Krugman also neglects to mention a lot of people on the left are pissed at Gore for backing down too easily in Florida, and not running more aggressively throughout the 2000 race. But he’s mostly correct.

    We should start our coverage of the inevitable Gore smears with the most recent myth which Tim Lambert and DeSmogBlog have really stayed on top of. That is, that a UK court found nine errors in Gore’s film. In reality, the decision was an overwhelming endorsement of the film. It does have some errors, for instance, Kilimanjaro is a poor example of a real problem. Glaciers are shrinking, yes, but the Kilimanjaro mechanism is thought to be different. No big deal, unless you’re a crank that is more interested in celebrating every perceived instance of scientific fallibility rather than communicating the truth. Even 9 real errors would be relatively minor in such a data-rich presentation. But when you actually read the decision, rather than quote-mine it (or repeat the quote-miners credulously), you see the judge was putting “errors” in quote marks, and was saying they may be points of contention, while not judging them to be actually incorrect. From DeSmogBlog:

    Justice Burton says, “I have no doubt that Dr. Stott, the Defendant’s expert, is right when he says that: ‘Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.”

    We also find, not surprisingly, that this court case wasn’t just a spontaneous incident, but a yet another orchestrated attack from denialist organization linked to the George C. Marshall institute and the “Great Global Warming Swindle”.

    Continued…
    (more…)

  • If you can't beat 'em, smear 'em

    Tim Lambert has coverage of the latest in the denialist attempt to discredit global warming science – the smearing of scientist James Hansen. Using the bogey-man of George Soros, they try to suggest that Hansen has been funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely “NASA whistleblower” standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros’ Open Society Institute, which gave him “legal and media advice”?

    That’s right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros’ flagship “philanthropy,” by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI’s “politicization of science” program.

    They do this by the dubious assumption that 100% of the Soros organization’s outlay to cover “politicization of science” that year went to Hansen.

    The facts? Hansen received zero money from Soros, and 10,000 dollars and legal representation from the Government Accountability Project . As Hansen explains (PDF), he temporarily accepted this help, then declined after he was concerned strings would be attached.

    So, in other words, this is a lie, and a smear, and it is completely beyond the pale for the Investors Business Daily to attack a civil servant this way and fabricate some kind of bribery charge against him. Lambert has also covered other attempts to discredit Hansen by saying he used to raise alarms for global cooling, equally dishonest, that are sadly already making the rounds of the conservative blogosphere unchallenged.

    It again goes to the fundamental dishonesty of the global warming denialist movement. They can’t win with data, so they have to resort to lies, and smears to advance their agenda.

  • Schulte's Analysis Challenging Climate Consensus Has Been Rejected

    DeSmogBlog has the details. Apparently, “cut-and-paste” Schulte didn’t have anything new to say, not even enough for a journal like Energy and Environment to take it. Although, Richard Littlemore’s letter discussing his loose use of other researchers contributions might have helped.

    Here is the email that I sent to Boehmer-Christiansen”

    …

    Dr. Schulte’s analysis has engendered both enthusiasm and controversy, but at least one arm’s length “reviewer,” Dr. Tim Lambert, has noted that Dr.Schulte’s draft draws heavily from a document that it does not credit, an earlier letter on this topic by Dr. Benny Peiser. In fact, the overlapping content in these two documents is so considerable as to support a charge of plagiarism.
    This, of course, must be awkward for your publication. Although you have not published Dr. Schulte’s work, you have been “credited” with the intention of doing so and are now being discredited on the basis of a work that has clearly not received Energy and Environment’s stamp of approval.
    In the circumstances, however, I would request that you clarify whether you are considering Dr. Schulte’s survey for publication and, if so, that you make available for independent review an actual copy of the draft currently under consideration.
    Sincerely, etc.,

    And this is Bochmer-Christiansen’s response:

    For your information, I have informed Dr.Schulte that I am happy to publish his own research findings on the effect on patients of climate alamism/’Angst’.
    His survey of papers critical of the consensus was a bit patchy and nothing new, as you point out. it was not what was of interest to me; nothing has been published.
    Sincerely
    Sonja B-C
    Dr.Sonja A.Boehmer-Christiansen

    “Nothing new” indeed. That’s the nice way of putting it. So good job Tim and others for detecting the BS and shutting down yet another repetitive and debunked crank paper.

    And for a humorous take on the situation see Nexus6 on the fiasco (H/T Tim).