…and this is a 
Even sleazier than the DI
Category: Denialism
Posted on: May 11, 2008 10:50 AM, by PZ Myers
Climate change denialists have something in common with evolution denialists: they have a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares," just like the Discovery Institute's list of hundreds of 'scientists' who "Dissent from Darwinism". There is a difference, though: the DI got it's list by asking crackpots and specialists in irrelevant disciplines to volunteer to sign on, so it is a real (but silly) list that exposes the existence of a tiny minority of loons within science.
The Heartland Institute, a think-tank for right-wing denialists, isn't even that honest. They put their list together without consulting any of the authors they added to it — basically, anyone who published anything discussing the complexities or problems of climate analysis found their name added on to this list.
"I was surprised to find my name in the list of 'Co-Authors' in the Heartland Institute's web page," says Edward Cushing, professor emeritus in the U of M's Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior. "I resent their implication that I agree with one of more of their statements."
…
Herbert Wright Jr. is a former regents professor in the U of M's Department of Geology, Ecology and Botany who was also named by Avery. "I requested that my name be removed from the list," Wright said, "but the perpetrator refused to do so."
Dozens of scientists have demanded that their names be removed from the list and that they be issued an apology, but the Heartland Institute opted instead to simply change the name of the study from "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares" to "500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares." In a release accompanying the name change, Heartland Institute's Joseph Bast said the scientists "are embarrassed -- as they should be -- to see their names in a list of scientists whose peer-reviewed published work suggests the modern warming might be due to a natural 1,500-year climate cycle."
"I suppose the list included anyone who had published on past climatic changes as inferred from the dated geologic record, even without reference to human factors," said Wright, who did not seem the slightest bit embarrassed.
Wow. I never thought I'd find an anti-science outfit sleazier than the DI, but they've been topped.
Oops, spoke too soon — DI is pretty sleazy, too.
Comments
I had read about the list on DailyKos few weeks ago, but this new twist about the change in the title, is just amazing. Not even a slightest hint of acknowledgment of wrongdoing. That has to top the dishonesty scale.
Posted by: daenku32 | May 11, 2008 10:59 AM
I guess Craig Venter can retire now.
Posted by: danley | May 11, 2008 11:01 AM
Ah, the moral code of the anti-science community. Lie, cheat, steal. When you get caught, blame the other guy. Actually, I see very little difference between them and the Discovery [sic] Institute.
Posted by: Mark B | May 11, 2008 11:01 AM
I can't find the video at the moment, but some guy fact checked the DI list and found quite a few of the people listed there also tried without success to get their names removed.
It's a pretty damning video, if only i had saved the url.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | May 11, 2008 11:04 AM
Clearly, the scientists don't even know the real implications of their research. I thank Zombie Jesus that institutions like Heartland are here to tell smart people what they really think.
Posted by: Heliologue | May 11, 2008 11:05 AM
Found it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM
Posted by: Dutch Delight | May 11, 2008 11:06 AM
How long do you think it will be before one of these scientists sues them over this list? I'd think that someone who tried to get their name taken off would have a case.
Posted by: Antimatter Spork | May 11, 2008 11:11 AM
Is it at all possible that the level of sleaziness correlates to the stakes involved?
If so, it would seem that money still trumps god in this wonderful country.
Posted by: amphiox | May 11, 2008 11:17 AM
I seem to recall seeing a similar list for HIV/AIDS denialists, but I'll have to look it up. This whole "list of 'experts'" (most or all of whom usually are not) who disagree with the scientific consensus seems to be a sure sign of crankery and denialism, and it's amazing at how often they are deceptive and dishonest about it.
Posted by: Orac | May 11, 2008 11:25 AM
Would somebody PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE create a Brainland Institute that we can all join?
Posted by: TheWireMonkey | May 11, 2008 12:07 PM
All of the anti-science cranks seem to operate the same way. The anti-vaccine nuts, anti-fluoride crackpots and devotees of innumerable "alternative" medical theories all grasp at anything that can be twisted to support their ideas or to discredit the scientific consensus.
It's sad.
Posted by: SES | May 11, 2008 12:42 PM
Hey, I thought this happened in America...why can't I hear the sound of distant lawyers revving their engines over this? It's spelled C-L-A-S-S-A-C-T-I-O-N-L-A-W-S-U-I-T.
Posted by: AlanWCan | May 11, 2008 1:03 PM
I see over at the Heartland site they have a bright red button labeled 'Crichton is Right!', referring to 'State of Fear' no doubt. Enough said. State of Fear is a work of fiction and should be treated as such.
Posted by: Lionel A Smith | May 11, 2008 1:04 PM
My dad apparently read that "State of Fear" book, and knowing that I had liked other Crichton works when I was much younger, started yakking about it and how right it was. Its weird to find this sort of uninformed sentiment so close to home.
Posted by: DaveX | May 11, 2008 1:18 PM
The HIV deniers do that too. In fact, several scientists have written to request their names be removed when they found they were listed as signatories--in some cases, they've been refused. Super slimy.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | May 11, 2008 1:43 PM
A few months ago, I attended a lecture given by Dr. Jeffrey Severinghaus at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. His position regarding global warming was very clear -- it's a serious problem that we need to begin addressing now.
Imagine my surprise when I saw his name on that list. I'll bet he's hopping mad.
Posted by: caerbannog | May 11, 2008 2:04 PM
And it turns out that Dr. Severinghaus *is* hopping mad. Here's his response to his inclusion on that Heartland list:
I recently learned from a colleague that I am listed on your (the Heartland Institute's) website as one of 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares.
Please remove my name from the list of "coauthors" on your website. I do not agree with the conclusions attributed to my name, and in no sense did I "coauthor" anything on your website.
P.S. Using my name (and many others) in this way is a major ethical transgression.
Posted by: caerbannog | May 11, 2008 2:07 PM
Climate change denial is what you get when you combine the levels of delusion and honesty exhibited by creationists with the money, PR, and dishonesty of the fortune 500.
It's no wonder climate change deniers are even sleazier than the DI or the ICR. It'd by a miracle for them to be more honest.
Posted by: Vagrant | May 11, 2008 2:41 PM
Speaking of climate change denialism and creationism --
There's a scene from Jesus Camp in which Levi's mother is homeschooling him and "teaching" "science". She "teaches" him about how global warming is a lie that "won't really hurt us," that evolution is "stupid" and creationism is "the only possible answer to all the questions," and that "science doesn't prove anything." Levi concludes that "I think personally that Galileo made the right choice by giving up science for Christ."
The scene can be found here, starting at around 05:00.
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 11, 2008 3:03 PM
It really goes for all the cranks. I have a colleague who does water research. He had a collaborator visiting, and she commented about how she was amazed that her work had been cited by the homeopathics as supporting their nonsense.
Posted by: Pablo | May 11, 2008 3:25 PM
STOP PRESS - The DI has revised their list of scientists, without consulting the new additions.
More Scientists Who Dissent From Darwinsim:
Newton
God
Darwin
etc.
Posted by: JC | May 11, 2008 3:26 PM
For the record: there's at least one mistake in the video about the Disco Institute's little fraud: the University of Florida and Florida State are not the same schools (as indicated around 3:00 minutes). Actually, by state law Gators and Seminoles are required to gnash their buttocks at each other at every encounter.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | May 11, 2008 3:27 PM
I wonder if the religious right's antienvironmentalism is something they came up with themselves of if they were 'encouraged' to that position by the corporate right. The religious right has an uncanny ability to come up with theological causes that conveniently justify placing business interests above the public good. It's questionable if this is merely coincidence or the result of cross-pollination between the upper echelons of the Christianist movement and the upper echelons of the business community.
Posted by: Vagrant | May 11, 2008 3:33 PM
What? What? I'm confused.
The Heartland Institute is a global warming denialist, right?
And their list is of scientists who may have disagreed with the consensus of man-made global warming, right?
And Mr. Bast, who is with the Heartland Institute and can safely be assumed to be a warming denialist, says these scientists who want their names removed "are embarrassed -- as they should be -- to see their names in a list of scientists whose peer-reviewed published work suggests the modern warming might be due to a natural 1,500-year climate cycle."
So I'm confused. Mr. Bast claims that these scientists should be embarrassed for agreeing with his bosses. Is that the correct reading of this?
Even if the Heartland Institute is a total warming denialist, even denying the 1,500-year natural cycle idea, this list is one they hope bolsters their arguments. And their spokesman says that being put on this list is "embarrassing?" That's more the sort of talk you'd use if you wanted to shame or out these scientists as denialists, rather than pretend they have signed on to agree with your ideas.
Crazy, crazy.
Posted by: Falconer | May 11, 2008 3:37 PM
So I guess that makes atheists "God-denialists", then. Like Christianity, Global Warmism is a doomsday cult. Christians, like the Warm-mongers, have a messiah figure (Christ vs. James Hansen). Most of the "true believers" have no experience with the underlying science. How many Christians / Jews / Muslims / whatever have ever actually studied the question of the existence of their "savior"?
Of course, like most if not all religions, "climate change" predicts The End Of The World As We Know ItTM, and only the chosen few (those with enough carbon credits) will be saved.
Congratulate yourself if you haven't bought into the lie.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | May 11, 2008 4:14 PM
That last comment was parody. Right? Right?!
Posted by: Numad | May 11, 2008 4:18 PM
Re 25, 26: Numad, I'm afraid not. There really are people too stupid to see the difference between relying on people who say they have a direct line to a sky-fairy, and relying on the evidence-based consensus of relevant scientific experts, as expressed in the peer-reviewed literature.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | May 11, 2008 4:25 PM
#24 Falconer,
That puzzled me a bit too, but I think what he means is that they should be embarrassed at being 'exposed as liars'. That is, being on that list (which is the truthTM) while publically espousing another view (which is Godless and wrong) demonstrates that they're hypocrites and that (ironically) is something to be embarrassed about.
Ouch. That hurt my brain.
@#25: "Warm mongers" - heh, I like it.
Posted by: Sili | May 11, 2008 4:25 PM
Damn, I love those ExtantDodos!
Posted by: firemancarl | May 11, 2008 4:26 PM
Re 25, 26: Numad, I'm afraid not. There really are people too stupid to see the difference between relying on people who say they have a direct line to a sky-fairy, and relying on the evidence-based consensus of relevant scientific experts, as expressed in the peer-reviewed literature.
Well, looks like we have ourselves a genuine Global Warming Doomsday CultTM True Believer here. Tell me, O Pious One, how does your religion explain this winter's record snowfall?
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | May 11, 2008 4:29 PM
@#25 GWiaS --
How does this even work?! Is the Liberal Conspiracy building a space shuttle that they will use to whisk away the carbon credited elite? What a bizarre eschatology...
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 11, 2008 4:34 PM
How does this even work?! Is the Liberal Conspiracy building a space shuttle that they will use to whisk away the carbon credited elite? What a bizarre eschatology...
No, the elites will be profiteering from speculation in carbon credits, while the rest of us poor schmucks will be bankrupted by evermore excessive government regulation, all in the name of junk science.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | May 11, 2008 4:38 PM
So...
The "Global Warmist's" end of the world is government regulation? Makes sense to me!
Posted by: Numad | May 11, 2008 4:42 PM
GWIAS, you're a moron; you don't even know the difference between weather and climate. Don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat when you go out.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | May 11, 2008 4:45 PM
# 38
Hey, pea brain, crawl out of your rabbit hole and look at the whole wide world around you. Over here in Lithuania we barely dropped below zero all winter. Last year we had weeks of 20 below. Explain that, my little rabbit.
[Clue: You don't need to, it's just another data point.]
How come you nutjobs always think everything is all about you and your backyard.
Posted by: pedlar | May 11, 2008 4:47 PM
@#32 GWiaS --
But in the comment I quoted from, you were describing the alleged eschatological beliefs of GWDC™ True Believers. Now you're describing your eschatological beliefs about government regulation.
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 11, 2008 4:49 PM
@#34 Nick Gotts --
To be fair, this is a relatively common misunderstanding that the modern media's framing of science contributes to. Every other odd weather phenomenon gets a paragraph in the news media to the effect of "oh noes, could this be global warming?!" This sort of (mis)framing only undermines the real science and data that exist wrt climate change....
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 11, 2008 4:52 PM
Hey, pea brain, crawl out of your rabbit hole and look at the whole wide world around you. Over here in Lithuania we barely dropped below zero all winter. Last year we had weeks of 20 below. Explain that, my little rabbit.
[Clue: You don't need to, it's just another data point.]
So you admit that his whole "climate change" thing may be nothing more than random variability, which is what those of us who don't follow your religion have been saying all along. Thank-you for your candor!
But in the comment I quoted from, you were describing the alleged eschatological beliefs of GWDC™ True Believers. Now you're describing your eschatological beliefs about government regulation.
It's not a belief; it's a fact. All of the idiotic, repressive regulation coming out of the Warm-monger movement will drive most developed nations into poverty, which is the underlying goal of the Warmistas. Most of them are leftover leftists who haven't quite gotten over the fact that their side lost the Cold War.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | May 11, 2008 4:58 PM
GWIAS, you're a moron; you don't even know the difference between weather and climate. Don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat when you go out.
Ah, yes, the last refuge of the religionist: accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being mentally ill (thus also mocking those with legitimate psychiatric and psychological illnesses), while simultaneously throwing in a few third-grade-level schoolyard insults. You know you've won the argument when the other side stoops this low. This is exactly why the Warmista movement is running out of steam (pun intended!). People are seeing your religion for exactly what it is: a scam.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | May 11, 2008 5:03 PM
GWIAS, it's climate scientists who have persuaded the majority of politicians that anthropogenic climate change is real, and a real threat. Politicians including those well-know communists John McCain, Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, David Cameron - hell, Margaret Thatcher was ahead of the pack on this one. Even the denialists have largely given up pretending warming isn't happening - you're behind the times. Many of them have even given up pretending human activity isn't causing it, and have gone on to saying the cost of trying to prevent it will be greater than adapting to it. Hell, even George W. Bush has got that far. Get with the program!
Posted by: Nick Gotts | May 11, 2008 5:16 PM
There's another similarity between evolution- and climate change- denialists. They condemn a model because the evidence they choose to look at doesn't even fit the problem.
"I don't believe in [the gradual change of a population over time] because I don't see [drastic changes in an individual in a single generation]"
"I don't believe in [global climate change] because I see [inverse local weather changes]"
Posted by: Marc Connor | May 11, 2008 5:16 PM
Sorry, you just lost my vote. Using this 'denialist' meme is disgraceful. It's an attempt to equate people who - PROPERLY - approach climate science with scepticism with holocaust deniers. Contemptible. Scepticism is what brought us out from the darkness of religious delusion in the first place.
There were withdrawals from the IPCC signatory list as well, by scientists who refused to allow their names to be associated with the most recent report. That makes the IPCC neither right nor wrong; it simply means that, as with every other area of science, opinions vary.
The only reason lists like that of the Heartlands Inst are produced is that climate alarmists have insisted there are NO peer reviewed papers that question their 'consensus', and that's untrue.
If Heartlands went beyond truth, that's neither acceptable nor surprising, as it happens. But that doesn't mean they didn't have a point. See here, for example.
Posted by: Peter Risdon | May 11, 2008 5:23 PM
GWIAS,
already more than 300 words and still you haven't said a thing.
Posted by: negentropyeater | May 11, 2008 5:27 PM
GWIAS, it's climate scientists who have persuaded the majority of politicians that anthropogenic climate change is real, and a real threat.
First, there are numerous climate scientists who disagree with this hypothesis. Second, the fact that politicians are convinced of some proposition has absolutely nothing to do with said proposition's truth value. Third, politicians absolutely love crises, because it gives them an excuse to enact more legislation, thus increasing and more easily maintaining their power over the populace. This is why they will latch onto anything, no matter how insignificant or lacking in validity, which they can use to scare the public into supporting their far-left agenda. Fortunately it doesn't appear to be working anymore.
Hell, even George W. Bush has got that far.
GWB, a big-budget, tax-and-spend RINO, exemplifies the power-hungry politician discussed above, as does John McCain. Not to mention Hillary and Obama. These individuals and their ilk will use any lie they can to obtain and maintain political power, which to them is an end unto itself. Their sycophants in the mainstream media, of course, will be right there with them every step of the way.
"I don't believe in [global climate change] because I see [inverse local weather changes]"
Then why is it every time the temperature is above freezing in January, we get some "scientific" talking head telling us that it absolutely, postively must be a result of global warming? You can't have it both ways, you know.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | May 11, 2008 5:32 PM
already more than 300 words and still you haven't said a thing.
And you just posted twelve words without saying anything. Your point?
You might want to re-read what I wrote, this time after taking off your Global Warming Filter Glasses.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | May 11, 2008 5:36 PM
Using this 'denialist' meme is disgraceful. It's an attempt to equate people who - PROPERLY - approach climate science with scepticism with holocaust deniers. - Peter Risdon
No, it isn't, as I suspect you know full well. The equation is with evolution-deniers, HIV-causes-Aids deniers, tobacco-causes-cancer deniers, vaccination-saves-lives deniers, and other groups of anti-scientific halfwits.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | May 11, 2008 5:36 PM
It's an attempt to equate people who - PROPERLY - approach climate science with scepticism with holocaust deniers
peter-
have you ever bothered to actually gander at the arguments made by holocaust deniers?
something tells me, that if you think they don't employ "skepticism", then you haven't.
seriously, there's being skeptical, and then there's projecting wishful thinking onto reality and CALLING that skepticism.
two very different things.
start here to learn more about the similarities involved in the denialism exhibited by different groups:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
you could also search on the many comparative articles that have been done on the issue over the last few decades.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 11, 2008 5:38 PM
There were withdrawals from the IPCC signatory list as well, by scientists who refused to allow their names to be associated with the most recent report.
Don't expect anyone here to acknowledge or address this, anymore than you would expect a True Chistian Believer to acknowledge any of the numerous contradictions in the Holy Bible.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | May 11, 2008 5:40 PM
start here to learn more about the similarities involved in the denialism exhibited by different groups:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
As we all know, Wikipedia contains the Sum Total Of All Human KnowledgeTM, and is never wrong about anything.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | May 11, 2008 5:43 PM
Poor Peter [#42] is sorry:
Reading for comprehension, Peter. It's a wonderful skill. You should try it. Consider PZ's opening words:
(my emphasis). He then specifically explains what this specific 'something' is: a faked-up list of 'dissenters'. You don't agree, then argue his point. As it is you just sound like a whiny schoolkid. Grow up.
Posted by: pedlar | May 11, 2008 5:44 PM
No, it isn't, as I suspect you know full well. The equation is with evolution-deniers, HIV-causes-Aids deniers, tobacco-causes-cancer deniers, vaccination-saves-lives deniers, and other groups of anti-scientific halfwits.
Nicks definition of "anti-scientific halfwit":
Anyone who disagrees with my far-left agenda.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | May 11, 2008 5:46 PM
Did the IPCC add anyone's name to the report without their knowledge, or against their known wishes? Those are the actions of the Heartland Institute which are being objected to.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | May 11, 2008 5:46 PM
Global warming does seem to bring out the trolls.
A bit of advise, GWiaS: Spinning an invective about how your opponents are part of some grand conspiracy to overthrow capitalism and subjugate the world's poor is not going to make people take you particularly seriously. Science is not black and white, there exist uncertainties, hypothesis, observational evidence, etc. We leave the capital T truth to those religious folks. So while climate science is far from certain, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence to date, as seen in the peer reviewed literature, suggests that anthropogenic warming is a serious problem that we as a society must deal with. If you want to discuss the science, I welcome your arguements and references. Conspiracy theories, however, will get you nowhere.
You may want to start with familiarizing yourself with the definitions of weather and climate, and why a particular cold winter or hot summer in and of itself is somewhat immaterial to the discussion of climate change.
Posted by: Zeke | May 11, 2008 5:49 PM
Did the IPCC add anyone's name to the report without their knowledge, or against their known wishes? Those are the actions of the Heartland Institute which are being objected to.
Nice moving of the goalposts. Now do you care to address Peter's point about scientists withdrawing from the IPCC?
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | May 11, 2008 5:49 PM
Re #51. So GWIAS, don't keep us in suspense. Which of these other batty groups do you belong to?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | May 11, 2008 5:49 PM
Re #51. So GWIAS, don't keep us in suspense. Which of these other batty groups do you belong to?
None. Unlike you, I don't have any religions.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | May 11, 2008 5:51 PM
Nice moving of the goalposts.
not even wrong.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 11, 2008 5:55 PM
Global warming does seem to bring out the trolls.
Zeke's definition of "troll":
Anyone who disagrees with my far-left agenda.
A bit of advise, GWiaS: Spinning an invective about how your opponents are part of some grand conspiracy to overthrow capitalism and subjugate the world's poor is not going to make people take you particularly seriously.
I never used the word conspiracy, did I? Perhaps you need to bone up on your reading comprehension. No conspiracy is necessary, for each individual politician is acting in his or her own self-interest.
So while climate science is far from certain
...something one would never conclude from listening to the IPCC alarmists...
overwhelming preponderance of evidence to date, as seen in the peer reviewed literature, suggests that anthropogenic warming is a serious problem that we as a society must deal with.
There are many climate scientists who disagree.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | May 11, 2008 5:56 PM
Re #54. It was Peter moved the goalposts. I take your comment as an admission that the IPCC has not indulged in these clearly unethical practices. The usual complaint against the IPCC is that they exclude sceptics from their procedures. Actually, of course, they don't the few sceptics who had actually published in the relevant peer-reviewed literature were welcome to take part. If they don't want their names on a document they disagree with, that is their privilege, and no disgrace to either party. Deceitfully suggesting that scientists support views they oppose is something else entirely, but par for the course for the Liars Heartland Institute.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | May 11, 2008 5:56 PM
Nice moving of the goalposts.
not even wrong.
Then it must be right. Thank-you for your candor.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | May 11, 2008 5:57 PM
I always feel compelled to point out irrelevant typos/errors: you've misspelled "its" in your first paragraph by adding an apostrophe.
Posted by: pedant | May 11, 2008 5:58 PM
There are many climate scientists who disagree. - GWIAS
Name them, and list their recent relevant peer-reviewed publications.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | May 11, 2008 5:59 PM
Then it must be right.
now that's just plain wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep/19/ideas.g2
it's typically used when someone makes a category error, as you did when you tried to label what Nick said as "moving goalposts".
you're bugfuck nuts, you know that, right?
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 11, 2008 6:02 PM
Name them, and list their recent relevant peer-reviewed publications.
So, obviously, you haven't read them, much like many True Believers haven't read anything other than their Holy Books. I assume you know how to use Google Scholar. If not, learn.
While you're at it, tell us all about the validity of the hockey-stick model trumpeted by a certain former Vice-President of the United States.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | May 11, 2008 6:05 PM
So, obviously, you haven't read them, much like many True Believers haven't read anything other than their Holy Books.
You made the claim. I deny it, so I'm not going to waste my time looking for what I don't believe to be there. Back your with evidence. Or admit it's a lie. And stop trying to wriggle out of your lies by constantly changing the subject. It won't wash here.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | May 11, 2008 6:10 PM
Sorry, you just lost my vote. Using this 'denialist' meme is disgraceful. It's an attempt to equate people who - PROPERLY - approach climate science with scepticism with holocaust deniers.
If the tinfoil-hat fits, Mr. Risdon, feel free to wear it.
The "denier" label is entirely appropriate -- you and your denier friends are either totally clueless or dishonest about climate-science, just as holocaust deniers are totally clueless or dishonest about history (note: when I use "or", I use it as an inclusive "or").
You clowns bring nothing to the table but lies and garbage.
Posted by: caerbannog | May 11, 2008 6:11 PM
In #65 "Back your with evidence" -> "Back your claim with evidence".
Posted by: Nick Gotts | May 11, 2008 6:11 PM
it's typically used when someone makes a category error, as you did when you tried to label what Nick said as "moving goalposts".
What I wrote was nowhere close to a category error, as you are fully aware. Nick responded to a post containing the point in question (scientists withdrawing from IPCC) by equating everyone who is not a member of the Global Warming Death Cult with Holocaust denial. If that's not moving goalposts, what is?
you're bugfuck nuts, you know that, right?
I said this earlier, but it bears repeating:
You know you've won the argument when the other side stoops to third-grade-level schoolyard insults.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | May 11, 2008 6:13 PM
The scientists on these lists should get together and put out their own list of "Dissenting Scientists that don't Dissent" with a clear statement of how dishonest these lists are.
And sorry Global Warming Denialists, but your tactics are exactly the same as the others: cherry pick data, quote mine, move the goalposts, make fake lists of dissenters, invent conspiracies. Check out Oreskes, and my little experiment where I remove the key words and challenge readers to tell me whether it is an evolution-denial or global warming denial. You can' tell, the scripts are the same.
Posted by: Science Avenger | May 11, 2008 6:13 PM
So, obviously, you haven't read them
pot-kettle-black.
pathetic.
hmm, "something" makes me think you wouldn't understand them, even if you had read them.
go back to sucking at Limbaugh's teat, eh?
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 11, 2008 6:14 PM
@Science Avenger:
my little experiment
I'll play!
from the first one:
You shouldn't be too surprised that those of us that don't see XXXXX as settled science would do the same.
settled science is something I usually hear being spouted by the global warming deniers, so I vote the first one is a GWD.
yes/no?
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 11, 2008 6:18 PM
You made the claim.
What "claim" did I make? That global warming will cause the end of the world as we know it? Sorry, it's your side which has been making all of the claims.
I deny it, so I'm not going to waste my time looking for what I don't believe to be there.
Spoken like a true believer! If I had a nickel for every time I've heard this staement or something similar uttered by a fundamentalist Christian/Muslim/Jew...
Back your with evidence. Or admit it's a lie.
Ah, the rules of evidence apply to everyone except Nick, because he's RightTM.
And stop trying to wriggle out of your lies by constantly changing the subject. It won't wash here.
How have I constantly changed the subject? What was the original subject, and to what did I change it?
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | May 11, 2008 6:19 PM
Is there a billboard down there in Troll-land saying, "Go to Pharyngula - they'll feed you till you pop!"?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | May 11, 2008 6:21 PM
And stop trying to wriggle out of your lies by constantly changing the subject. It won't wash here.
stop projecting.
it won't "wash" here.
where the hell do you think you are, btw?
you do realize we're just playing with you, right? Just poking sticks at the shit-flinging monkey?
nobody here takes you seriously.
deal with it.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 11, 2008 6:22 PM
pot-kettle-black.
pathetic.
Projecting again, are we?
hmm, "something" makes me think you wouldn't understand them, even if you had read them.
Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is stupid, because you've accumulated the Sum Total Of All Human KnowledgeTM from Wikipedia.
go back to sucking at Limbaugh's teat, eh?
Stereotyping: another trait of the fundamentally religious. Like I said, you know you've won the argument when this is all the other side has to offer.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | May 11, 2008 6:23 PM
Is there a billboard down there in Troll-land saying, "Go to Pharyngula - they'll feed you till you pop!"?
no, it's a billboard that just says:
Better fishing will be had where there are the most fish. Find a popular blog, and drop your line there.
simple.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 11, 2008 6:25 PM
nobody here takes you seriously.
I take that as high praise, since no one at the Dishonesty Institute would take me seriously either. You're in some pretty "select" company, dude!
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | May 11, 2008 6:26 PM
Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is stupid
we haven't even gotten to "disagreement" yet, and yet it's pretty easy to judge your intelligence level.
go figure.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 11, 2008 6:27 PM
"First, there are numerous climate scientists who disagree with this hypothesis. "
Good, then you should have no problem giving us the top three reasons for their disagreement.
Posted by: Stuart Weinstein | May 11, 2008 6:27 PM
I take that as high praise
indeed!
time to go start your own blog, eh?
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 11, 2008 6:28 PM
we haven't even gotten to "disagreement" yet, and yet it's pretty easy to judge your intelligence level.
Yes, because (of course) anyone who isn't a True Believer like you must be an absolute moron, because only a moron would not believe in (insert religion here). Congratulations. You're a Global Warming Fundamentalist.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | May 11, 2008 6:32 PM
GWIAS #45,
Already more than 600 words and still you haven't said a thing...
I mean, anything additional to your web handle "Global Warming Is A Scam".
Your web handle already contains all your argumentation. It's fine. We understood, interesting point of view. Maybe next time.
Posted by: negentropyeater | May 11, 2008 6:34 PM
Already more than 600 words and still you haven't said a thing...
I suggest taking some remedial readhing comprehension courses.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | May 11, 2008 6:41 PM
Nick responded to a post containing the point in question (scientists withdrawing from IPCC) by equating everyone who is not a member of the Global Warming Death Cult with Holocaust denial. - GWIAS
A bare-faced lie. And a pointless one, since the evidence it is a lie is visible in the sequence of comments above. Here is the whole of post in which I responded to that point, #52:
Did the IPCC add anyone's name to the report without their knowledge, or against their known wishes? Those are the actions of the Heartland Institute which are being objected to.
Where is the reference to Holocaust Denial, liar?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | May 11, 2008 6:45 PM
Good, then you should have no problem giving us the top three reasons for their disagreement.
Perhaps, since it is your side that is making the extraordinary claims and demanding that the rest of us make sweeping changes in our lives, you could give us the top three reasons for your "scientists'" agreement with Global Warmism.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | May 11, 2008 6:47 PM
I believe the experts since they back their claims with published peer-reviewed articles, and it makes good sense to me regarding the physics, although I am relatively layman. The opposing side never has had any coherent argument, it's all over the place: it's not warming, it's because of the sun, an ice age is coming instead (currently in fashion), it's warming and it's humans but it's not worth doing anything... quite contradictory stuff there.
Most (but not all) of the stuff is propagated by fossil funded think tanks too. All the above people happily mixing at the Heartland institute's expenses-paid conference in New York.
There are probably some honest scientists who really are sceptical about global warming, but majority of the "scepticisim" seems to be just paid stuff or by people who have fallen for that.
Nothing is absolute in this world, I have high degree of belief in what the vast majority of climate scientists state as their certainty about the matter, which is quite high, though not as high as in some other things like evolution or HIV.
So, GWIAS, just one question, do you really think Heartland is acting honestly with the list they are publishing?
Posted by: mz | May 11, 2008 6:50 PM
GWIAS,
You're wrong. In so many ways
Global climate change is solid, well evidenced science. Name three actual, peer-reviewed scientists who disagree. Three. Seriously, learn to read for comprehension. You've got the basics down, now move up to the next level. Start with this and come back when you learn something.
Posted by: LanceR | May 11, 2008 6:52 PM
A bare-faced lie. And a pointless one, since the evidence it is a lie is visible in the sequence of comments above. Here is the whole of post in which I responded to that point, #52:
Did the IPCC add anyone's name to the report without their knowledge, or agai