Denialism is denialism

DaveScot, at ID creationist Bill Dembski’s place, is on a climate change denial binge. Dave writes:

that antarctic sea ice is at a record high (at least since 1980 when measurement started). The new high is REALLY high. It?s 50% greater than the old record set in 1995. In case anyone is laboring under the misapprehension that antarctic sea is retreating, it ain?t. The 30-year trend is up 2.5% per decade.

He seems to take this to mean that:

As the northern hemisphere warmed the southern hemisphere cooled.

But no!


Temperature is rising globally, it’s rising in the Northern hemisphere, and it’s rising in the South (though, as predicted, not as fast as in the North).

The immediate error is in thinking that greater ice extent is a consequence of cooler temperatures. In fact, ice extent is a result of both temperature and of snowfall. Theory predicts that Antarctic snowfall should increase as temperature rises, and in fact it does, which increases ice extent even as temperatures rise.

Dave illustrates a broader error in closing with this apt thought:

Repeat after me:

CO2 is plant food?
CO2 is plant food?
CO2 is plant food?

But then, so is bullshit, which doesn’t mean we go spreading around excesses of the stuff. And DaveScot’s post shows why.


  1. #1 humorix
    February 24, 2009

    Since the world is world, the Earth has no droplet furthermore or at least. The water moves in sea currents. The volume of an ice cube is superior has his volume in water.
    When the ice bottom the sea level falls.

  2. #2 Dan McLaughlin
    February 24, 2009

    Politically correct does not equal truth, whether you are a scientist or not. 32,000 scientists have signed a petition against the Kyoto protocol. PhD climatologists are speaking out against the idiocy of the IPCC, including a lead scientist of the 2001 assessment.

    You are, in fact, asserting that there is no evidence against the claim that there is impending climate catastrophe, an assertion that is patently false. You are as much of a denier as those you charge with denial. There is a large and growing body of evidence, and no, the case is not closed. It is irresponsible for a scientist to use emotionalally charged responses such as “denier” as in “holocost denier” to smear those who do not agree. It makes you unprofessional and much less respected.

    Climate science has become victim of political funding and has become divorced from real science. It is merely a play thing for politicians. Shame, shame.

  3. #3 Josh Rosenau
    February 24, 2009

    First, opposing a particular policy option is very different from disagreeing with the basic science. Second, the Oregon petition does not eliminate duplicate or fraudulent signatures, nor does it restrict itself to climate scientists. It is meaningless as any sort of measure of informed scientific understanding.

    Second, I didn’t say anything about “climate catastrophe,” so it is false to claim that I argued there was no evidence against it. There is substantial agreement among relevant professionals that the earth is warming, and that that warming is a result of human activities.

    Third, “denier” is a term used by lots of people for lots of purposes. I didn’t call anyone a “holocost denier,” nor a Holocaust denier.” didn’t even use the word “denier.” I referred to “denialism” and “climate change denial,” terms perfectly appropriate for people who deny that climate change is happening, or that it is being caused by human actions.