These last few years have not been kind to the climate flat-earthers. Their patron political party got drubbed in the mid-terms, the IPCC demolished their favorite talking points, numerous post-IPCC scientific results make the IPCC look conservative, and the impetus for action on climate change is growing at breakneck speed everywhere outside the U.S. executive branch.
This last couple weeks has been particularly humiliating.
In the Vermont trial wherein the automakers sued to block California's emission standards (ultimately losing), famed climate change denier Patrick Michaels was called to testify on automakers' behalf as an expert witness. As part of an affidavit, Michaels submitted a financial statement disclosing his sources of funding. But when he found out he might have to make that statement public ... Michaels withdrew as a witness.
Now why do you suppose he wouldn't want to reveal his funding?
Then there was the hubbub over a paper by "medical researcher" Klaus-Martin Schulte that purported to show that, contrary to the work of Naomi Oreskes, there is no consensus about climate change among researchers in the field. Who cares about a random paper from a medical researcher? Well, it was going to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Sure, it was notorious crank haven Energy & Environment, but hey, at least it was something.
Only, uh ... it was nothing. Turns out the paper couldn't even meet the desiccated standards of that journal. It won't be published in any peer-reviewed journal at all, it turns out.
So much for that.
Of course, these serial humiliations do nothing to stop the flat earth movement. The Schulte paper has already entered the "skeptic" pantheon and will bounce around the dipshitosphere for all eternity, just like its repeatedly debunked forebears.
After all, these people are desperate. Earlier this month they went into a full hair-on-fire tizzy over a statistically insignificant adjustment of U.S. temperature data. This week they're freaking out because research they (wrongly) thinks predicts global cooling was done using a tool developed by James Hansen, which allegedly shows that Hansen is a hypocrite, or ... something.
Nothing embarrasses them at this point. The scraps they're clutching are more and more threadbare, but the volume of their screeching hasn't gone down a single notch.
Luckily, the wider world seems to have figured out how to ignore them. Finally.
What can China teach us about electric bikes?
Has Big Organic passed its sell-by date?
One year later, a Happy Meal doesn't decompose
Comments
Post a Comment +
AGW == Subprime Science
Yes, the balloons have surely flown high for AGW pseudo-science the past few years, just like the real estate bubble.
Let's see who benefits from the bubble:
Al Gore
Hillary
AGW Think Tanks
Eurocrat IPCC members
Apple Computers
But every bubble must burst...and science can then be restored to rational discourse rather than shrill histrionics.
John Bailo
Sutext:
De Nile is a river!LOL, I think most rational people accept global warming as a very serious threat to us. Who cares about the ostrich-heads?
That said, there are many aspects of global warming that are not fully understood, or are subject to extreme speculation. The melting of the Arctic is still not really predicted well in the models, for example, and all those super-hurricanes never really started happening.
Just because I believe in global warming does not mean I accept a bunch of the wilder hypotheses, but that's not denial - it's called being smart!
Onward through the fog
Keep it coming JBBalloons? Real estate bubbles? Apple Computers?
Ha! Keep it coming, I need the laughs cos my hometown is dieing from a never ending drought. And those damned climatologists are bringing me no good news.
-> My home town bites the dust.
-> Followed closely by the rest of southern Australia.
So why don't you ignore them?Either you ignore the climate change sceptics, or you attack them. You can't do both, by the very meaning of the word.
Definitely, it's not a good idea to attack them in the way you are. Heavens knows I believe in anthropogenic global warming, and I live in hope that my suspicion of what will happen to this world doesn't come true. And some trolls I could mention (about 3 posts higher up, hint hint) deserve to be insulted. But, frankly, it doesn't help, and just gives them ammunition. Use science, not violence.
If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?
Religious overtonesTico that's right-on with me, friend. I hold no quarter for people who will not even consider global warming as a very serious process, one that could flood much of the US shoreline in coming decades, never mind the storm surge on top of that seal level rise.
I did sound a cautionary tale in my post. I worry about the group-think and the unscientific journalism. But my caution was because I support the effort, and not the other way around. /sam
Onward through the fog
What is being debatedI think people have to go after the deniers. This is more than just science, this also has to be a street fight.
I read the fiction book, "State of Fear" by Michael Creighton. What a bunch of crap. The philosophy in the book is what I call "Rumsfeld incompetence" just a set of the stupidest ideas in combination I had ever read. If all you read is the good stuff, you forget how bad the bad stuff can be.
One of the points he tries to make is ...read more
Erring on the side of cautionThis is where we are: We think global warming is happening. Much data points that way. There are a few voices who do not think so and can show data. They have a hard time finding listeners. Some scientists think it is natural, many more think it is human caused or at least influenced. Of the latter group some believe we can influence the climate by changing our behavior, the sooner the better. It is certainly VERY unpopular to not believe that ...read more
a question for non deniersIf global warming activists really believe that the situation is as bad as the evidence indicates, then why aren't they sounding all the alarms? Why are they so ready to support proposals in congress that stretch out reduction of GHGs over the next forty-three years, to 2050? Why are they not proposing really drastic reductions in energy consumption, such as gasoline taxes or rationing? Why are they refusing to take tough positions and make demands on ...read more
Because.......there is not one "they". There is many, and like in most other aspects of life, "they" do not agree on one thing. "They" may not have the same agenda. "They" may not believe in rationing to be the right thing to do. "They" may believe the opposite. Where do you find "them" or what "they" say anyways.
You will have to help yourself. It is very simple: If you can find the "one" solution to "the" problem, you may be able to find what "they" have to say about it.
Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com
what's possibleWhat's possible to do? That's politics.
I made the comment "this is a street fight." Well, what does that mean? Am I going to go out and knife somebody? No. But I was trying to say is that it's more important than most subjects. Sometimes we have to go after peoples philosophy of thought, not just advocate the science, which many times isn't very interesting.
Why doesn't the policy makers go stronger after global warming problems? Because they ...read more