There's pathological denial and there's super-duper-pathological denial.
In comments to my post at On Line Opinion OLO editor Graham Young has now written 20 comments denying that Peiser admitted to making multiple errors.
"And when we pressed him to provide the names of the articles, he eventually conceded - there was only one."
Apparently Young reckons that's a fabrication, though for some reason Peiser hasn't called them on it.
Over at his own blog, Young seems to have perfected the art of denial. After he wrote this post insinuating that the IPCC was up to no good in releasing the Summary for Policy Makers before the full report, I pointed him to this explanation of the process. Young responded with "I won't be going across to check out your link". Of course not, it's more efficient that way.
Globally, January has just been reported as the warmest month in recorded history and was 1.08 C above the 1951-1980 average according to the NASA web site. This beats the previous record (1.01 C) in February 1998 during a severe El Nino year. These are the only two months to have exceeded 1.0 C. The denial/blame it on the sun lobby are sinking fast into metaphoric quicksand. Their shrill cries are becoming more mute by the day as the empirical evidence grows of the human fingerprint on this warming episode. It will be amusing watching them grasp at any straws they can in their futility.
Quite a few of the usual suspects have gone after the SPM with the claim that the underlying science is being made to fit the summary. They've predictably jumped straight for scientific fraud as the most likely option too. Steve McIntyre posted something on this on Climate Audit and Lubos Motl also made some very wild claims too. He's hoping that this will somehow be illegal!
Is the idea that the language is being changed for consistency and comprehension, rather than the science as they claim, beyond their abilities, or are they biased, or is this an honest mistake?
I agree with Jeff's subtext, but I'm not exuding positive karma into the multiverse for denialists to go away - I'm hoping for some leadership in this issue. Sure, we can choose adaptation, but no one is stepping up on that front, either.
Best,
D
People like Young eventually lapse into this pattern of repetitive denial that just becomes boring over time. It's like watching a mangy lion pace at a zoo.
It's like, "Yea, there he goes again."
Alas for the denialists, even John Howard has deserted them.
He's recently gone on the record accepting that global warming is real and caused by human actions and calling for emissions trading to address the problem.
Pity he's about six years behind the times.
Well, given how much coverage global warming is getting in the Australian media, I can't see how Howard could ignore it any longer. I was visiting relatives in Western Australia a couple of weeks ago, and I was surprised how much coverage there was on the subject - things had certainly changed since I last was in Australia, 3 years ago.
Ktistjian, when the water shortages reach the point where urine-drinking (sorry, "potable reuse")is on the agenda, it tends to concentrate the mind.
I think it is right to kick the shit ouf of the Deniers. Justice now, foregiveness later. Much later. When the grants dry up many of these types will just turn to advocacy of the trade part of cap and trade which the corporations are using to keep on keeping on. The truth is not in them.
Tim, Graham Young is spot on. His site is an eclectic forum for constructive debate (or at least, it was until they let the work experience kid pick the BB06 list); yours is a ghetto wherein you perform for the worseless applause of your moronic audience. The only difference between you and Andrew Bolt is the flavour of your ideology.
Well that was wacky enuff for me!
Graham, Tim Lambert is spot on. His site is an eclectic forum for constructive debate (or at least, it was until they let the work experience kid pick the BB06 list); yours is a ghetto wherein you perform for the worseless applause of your moronic audience. The only difference between you and Andrew Bolt is the flavour of your ideology.