Cut and paste denialism

I think most skeptical bloggers would agree that one common tactic one sees from denialists is whole-hog cut-and-paste rebuttals without attribution. For instance, on finds when arguing with evolution denialists that they'll just cut-and-paste tired creationist arguments into comment threads.

We wrote briefly about the latest attempt by global warming denialists to suggest that the scientific consensus does not support climate change. To start with, it was little more than a repeat of the previous debunked attempts, and was hardly original.

Well, for more proof they can't think originally, write originally, or do anything other than rehash debunked arguments, check out Lambert's coverage of Shulte's reply to criticism that he's engaging in more typical denialist nonsense. It's a cut-and-paste job from Monckton without attribution! Not only is it total nonsense - nearly every citation is miscategorized or misrepresented - but it's almost word-for-word lifted from another global warming hack's writing, without attribution or citation.

So continuing the long tradition of hack responses to criticism, the latest global warming denialist nonsense looks just like the same nonsense that was debunked in years past, and just like the kind of nonsense one sees from creationists.

And one can't help but love the irony. Here's Schulte's last paragraph.

The author of the statement has been less than courteous, and less than professional, in having failed to verify the facts with me before thrice having used the word
"misrepresentation" in connection with a draft of a paper by me which he or she cannot have read at the time. Worse, the author of the statement has used the word "foolish" about me when he or she had not done me the usual professional courtesy either of contacting me or even of reading what I had written before making haste to comment upon it. I should not expect any properly-qualified and impartiallymotivated scientist to behave thus.

If the statement was indeed authored by Oreskes, I expect her to apologize for her professional discourtesy to me, and I invite the Chancellor of her university to enquire into the matter and then, if she be the statement's author, to ensure that she apologizes promptly and unreservedly.

Ahh, "less than professional" accuses the denialist who plagiarizes in his response. I think Oreskes handled it just right. After all, does one really have to see each rehashing of a crank argument to know that it's nothing other than the usual misrepresentation and dishonesty?

More like this

Following on from Oreskes' reply to Schulte, the endocrinologist replies with an open letter over at SPPI, a contrarian mouthpiece. Schulte notes: I drafted the paper because I had become concerned that patients were being perhaps unduly alarmed by media reports of catastrophic climate change and…
Schulte has published a reply to Oreskes' response. While Schulte claims not to be a contrarian, Kevin Grandia has been looking at his links with Christopher Monckton. Meanwhile, John Lynch posts on Shulte's reply and commenter "Chris" (who is, I suspect, Christopher Monckton) threatens lawsuits…
Last year Christopher Monckton was threatening legal action if Naomi Oreskes did not apologize to Schulte: By making the allegations his own and endorsing them with such lamentably unscientific enthusiasm, however, he has exposed himself to the legal action which may well follow if Oreskes does not…
This sounds so familiar. A few years ago, a historian of science, Naomi Oreskes, reviewed the literature on climate change and concluded that there is a unanimous consensus in the published work that anthropogenic carbon is a major contributor to global warming. Now a denialist has re-analyzed…

Hey Mark,

I do remember talking to you about GW and how it's not sane to think you can predict the future - I even related that predict-the-future idea to (what else) new age thinking. And now, what do we see but a scientist who's learned how to turn salt water into hydrogen which, eventually, can be used for fuel. So all your hand-wringing, name-calling, and insistence on "moderating" our behavior (thanks, but no) is as pointless as I first suspected. And my desire not to recycle, ride a bike, or cow-tow to the environmentalist way of thinking is redeemed.

It's time to get off your soapbox, buddy, because, despite your best efforts at turning us into aggressive cowards, like you, America has done it again.

Cranky? You betcha.

Dear Mark,

I'm sorry - I'm feeling real good right now (probably too good) - and I want to say I'm not totally mad at you but a new wage culture that's developed around me that can't see the horizon because of the darkness some insist is this reality. It's not. America is the land of promise - a promise that, once again, just may have been fulfilled.

Again: I'm sorry. But this is a great day to be a citizen of this great nation.

Take care,

"Sam"

Thoroughly off-topic Sam. Nor did I say I could predict the future.

The issue isn't absolute knowledge about the future but rather uncertainty combined with knowledge of the past. Our knowledge of paleoclimate is the concern more than anything, combined with evidence of a warming planet. We don't know exactly what will happen, but as we are living inside the test tube, we should be careful how our little climate warming experiment proceeds.

But I did tell you something was going to happen - and insisted you should have more faith in your country to find it - just as it has. And, if it has, then all the predictions of ice caps melting, polar bears dying, etc., is just bogus. It was a power-grab and nothing more:
a way to exalt one way of thinking - a scared, new wage, environmentalist viewpoint - over one that's more realistic: A traditional, positive, can-do American viewpoint.

And I did know - exactly - what will happen: what I said will happen. It's you who always wants to run to doubt when it's unwarranted. All this "we live in a test tube" crap. I've never lived in a test tube - I live on the earth - and it's ways have been pretty well-established in my lifetime. It's the attitudes of new wage losers that are the new, unattractive, wrinkle in it. Give it up. It's over. Your attitude is counter-productive (doing nothing but making the other cowards troublesome and dangerous) and who needs that?

It's about time you guys start acting like Men, and grow a set, instead of this silly the-sky-is-falling-so-we (the cowards) are going to "moderate" your behavior. Who do you think you are? Don't you know that attitude, alone, is going to inspire rebellion in a free country? I don't want the wimpy likes of you "moderating" a damn thing I do. You want to ride a bike and wear a goofy-looking helmet that makes you look like a special needs child - marking you as one of society's 'weak links' - go ahead. But to insist *everyone* do it - for any reason - is going too far. You're asking for a fight. Demanding one, even. And it's a fight you'll lose.

To not see that is your major failing, as a scientist, and as a human being.

If you feel the Earth has been "well-moderated" in your lifetime, then congratulations on being a well-fed white man in the Northern Hemisphere. I'm sure the refugees from the former Kiribati would disagree.

It's pretty easy to predict the future.

For instance, if I drop this pencil from my hand I can predict with a fairly high degree of certainty that it will fall to the ground.

Do all denialists live in "Magic World"?

Do all denialists live in "Magic World"?

Yes.

It also helps to be under the influence of various mind-altering chemicals.

But I did tell you something was going to happen - and insisted you should have more faith in your country to find it - just as it has. And, if it has, then all the predictions of ice caps melting, polar bears dying, etc., is just bogus. It was a power-grab and nothing more:
a way to exalt one way of thinking - a scared, new wage, environmentalist viewpoint - over one that's more realistic: A traditional, positive, can-do American viewpoint.

Hmmm, ice caps melting and polar bears dying so far so good (thanks ted). If it was a power-grab, where is the power? And what makes you think I'm scared? Or haven't in every post on this topic said the answer isn't to live in a quonset hut but to use technology to address the problem? I don't know who you're arguing with, it isn't me. Further, this is a post about plagiarism and misrepresentation of the scientific literature, stop hijacking the thread.

And I did know - exactly - what will happen: what I said will happen. It's you who always wants to run to doubt when it's unwarranted. All this "we live in a test tube" crap. I've never lived in a test tube - I live on the earth - and it's ways have been pretty well-established in my lifetime.

If you look at the data its ways have been changing during your lifetime. And why do you think it's impossible that humans can not have impact on climate? Where is your data? You hate new agers and woo, I know, but where is your proof of a completely imperturbable earth? The fact is human life on this planet is not special, we are not each beautiful and unique snowflakes, loved by a bearded guy in a sky or some Gaia earth mother goddess. Life itself is an experiment with an unknown conclusion. It's far more unrealistic and dangerous to think that everything will always be fine, we're protected from all evil, and everything will stay the same forever. We have some data that suggests rapid changes in the climate may be on the horizon. It would be safe, and conservative to prepare for the eventuality that increasing global temperatures will adversely affect our civilization - mainly coastal cities and agriculture.

It's the attitudes of new wage losers that are the new, unattractive, wrinkle in it. Give it up. It's over. Your attitude is counter-productive (doing nothing but making the other cowards troublesome and dangerous) and who needs that?

What attitude? This is an article about scientific misconduct. Where have I ever advocated this luddite anti-modern new age philosophy? Who are you talking to?

It's about time you guys start acting like Men, and grow a set, instead of this silly the-sky-is-falling-so-we (the cowards) are going to "moderate" your behavior. Who do you think you are? Don't you know that attitude, alone, is going to inspire rebellion in a free country? I don't want the wimpy likes of you "moderating" a damn thing I do. You want to ride a bike and wear a goofy-looking helmet that makes you look like a special needs child - marking you as one of society's 'weak links' - go ahead. But to insist *everyone* do it - for any reason - is going too far. You're asking for a fight. Demanding one, even. And it's a fight you'll lose.

Again, where have I done a single one of these things? When have I advocated anything but investment in technology, increasing fuel efficiency, encouraging new technology through investment etc? I don't think we're going to fix the world by making everyone ride a bike - this is not possible in this country, we've grown too much into a widely-distributed population. We have to instead focus on adapting our infrastructure to technologies that have a lower carbon imprint - hybrid, electric, etc., and a phase out of fuels like coal and oil. I realize that the bicyclists in San Francisco are just about the most people in the world - you and my brother share similar feelings about them. But where have I said everyone should be forced to ride a bike? Encouraging them wouldn't be bad, if only to correct the obesity problems.

To not see that is your major failing, as a scientist, and as a human being.

Sam, see a psychiatrist. I'm not kidding. The voices in your head seem to be getting louder.

Can we call him a troll now? He doesn't answer any questions, he rants on endlessly arguing with the voices in his head, and never modifies his stance no matter the evidence. Actually, he actively AVOIDS evidence so as to keep his delusions.

Seriously, Sam. Get help. I'm starting to worry about your safety.

I was going to do my usual bit - arguing every topic thrown at me, by everyone, at once - but I want another public concession on this blog by a, so-called, unbiased science guy. Actually, I want a series of concessions (the first two, by LanceR & Co., felt so good) because, I think, it's about time for Mark's head, and his own denial, to go on the chopping block:) so I'm going to debate the ethics y'all exhibit here, one topic at a time, and prove - once and for all - you're not just cruel and wrong-headed but just plain wrong. Only nine posts before this one - shouldn't be hard. Here we go:

I'm "thoroughly off-topic", am I, Mark? What? I "hijacked" an *important conversation* by writing the very first post after the thread was up for over twenty-eight full hours without a peep from anyone else? Really? Is that the truth?

Let that be the basis for your first concession, based merely on what's been said during this thread, so far:

Were you, Mark, being disingenuous with that answer?

Yes or no?

Here's the definition of disingenuous for help:

1. lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.

Hey Shammy,

All you have to do to "prove" Mark wrong is to point out where he advocated anything close to the Luddite, technology-rejecting viewpoint you're so eager to attribute to him. Anywhere on this blog. Anywhere at all.

You can't, of course, because that MarkH doesn't exist anywhere outside of that bubbling cauldron of crazy you call a skull.

Do you actually compose your posts or just let the drool randomly hit the keys?

I was going to do my usual bit - arguing every topic thrown at me, by everyone, at once -

In other words, even you (you utter, blabbering nutcase) recognize you have no evidence, and you get utterly pulverized by fact every time you try to argue with the real world (since the "facts" as you perceive them are filtered through near-infinite layers of insanity and right-wing talking points).

MarkH gave you a simple challenge. That you can't answer it says everything that needs to be said. Only reason I'm saying anything at all is I keep hoping personal abuse will drive your useless ass off once and for all.

PS: I can't believe you're still waving around that one tiny concession over a detail that was simply left out and didn't even make me wrong, or you right, in any way like it's some kind of major triumph. That is probably the most laughably pathetic thing I've seen all year.

By minimalist (not verified) on 12 Sep 2007 #permalink

PPS:

Yes, you hijacked the thread, and you are off-topic. Let's make this very simple for your addled mind:

1. This is Mark's blog.
2. He wrote the post at the very top.
3. That post sets the topic for the thread.
4. Your comment had nothing to do with it.

Thus you are indisputably off-topic. You don't get to set the topic of conversation just because you get the first comment.

I realize this may be new to you since you don't actually bother to read or comprehend Mark's posts, and this has little to no chance of getting through to you, but I felt it had to be made clear.

I'm sure that on some other blog, "E.L.F. Fighter Steve" is hopping mad that he can't post about the invisible, organ-stealing elves under a topic like "What Susan Made For Dinner Tonight", but that's life.

Enjoy your inevitable banning, weasel.

By minimalist (not verified) on 12 Sep 2007 #permalink

Enjoy it then, minimalist, because, as you admit, it was a concession - from you to me, not the other way around.

This is a simple case of public lying (one you, minimalist, don't have the values to mind - thus, I pity your parents: They were either too stupid to raise you right or you're merely a bad seed. Either way, they have my sympathies.). Unless I'm talking to men of honor (who are difficult to find) truth is a hard thing to get online. I know the tactics of Leftist liars pretty well by now: throw up false charges to buy time (like Mark did) or don't let your debate partners be heard at all; keep changing the subject, etc. It's like I've been compiling my own Denialism Deck, but on false liberals. (Remember: I didn't leave the Left because I hated liberalism, I left because, when faced with the Bush Administration, the Left decided he was such a monster - which was one of their first mistakes: demonizing an American president - that they could stop living up to liberal ideals.) But I'm up to the challenge, and, now that your punk ass has joined the thread, your name can be added to the list of people whose heads are on the block. (I KNOW you're unethical in the way you debate - and you're a cruel person. From the first day I told you my story of death and cultish-thinking, you've been like a court jester for evil, just waiting for someone honest to finally enter and slap your silly mouth shut. Well, I'm here, idiot. The noble savage, ready for battle.) But, right now, it's Mark's turn:

Let the man answer the question - it was made straightforward and plain, precisely because of charges I'm a rambling fool. You, nor he, can claim not to understand the question or the challenge:

Were you, Mark, being disingenuous with your answer?
Yes or no?

"this has little to no chance of getting through to you, but I felt it had to be made clear."

You felt? What happened to "This is Mark's blog."? (Oops!) Like I said, you're the Court Jester for Evil.

But I did tell you something was going to happen - and insisted you should have more faith in your country to find it - just as it has.

I'd just like to point out the irony of this coming from someone who rants about new age thinking all the time. "Faith" that "something" will happen sounds pretty darn woo to me. Is this the libertarian new age perspective?

Pointing out the plagiarism and hypocrisy sure did bring out the troll. Don't feed the troll. Finger the plagiarist.

By Hank Roberts (not verified) on 12 Sep 2007 #permalink

Heads on the block? Attacking a person's parents because you disagree with that person's position? Where the h*ll do you think you are? ThunderDome?

Sam, you are an arrogant bully. You have no interest in actually discussing any topic, just in promulgating your insane rants. In case you're unaware, the people here are the ones *ON YOUR SIDE*! We don't like New Age woo any better than you. But you simply must be top dog, and insult everyone with a slightly different position. You're a bully. You may want to consider what that does to your relationships with people.

And I think your doctor needs to readjust your medication. You've swung too far the other way.

Sam, I do not even know what answer you're referring to any more. I am not routinely disingenuous, so I'll guess no. This thread is too off topic and was not an open thread for you to go nuts on Sam.

Discuss plagiarism, Schulte etc., or be disemvowelled (and eventually banned). I don't appreciate the hijacks.

So, I try not to get all kerfluffled over sideshows like this, figuring they're mainly meant to distract the bloggers from whatever the creeps are doing that _does_ make a difference in the world. But on topic, did anyone approach the plagiarist yet with the evidence?

By Hank Roberts (not verified) on 12 Sep 2007 #permalink

Fine:

I have a blog, and will be taking on the ethics of denialism's so-called science community, with links to this page, shortly. Feel free to discuss it there - since a thread that was *completely empty for over 28 hours* isn't deemed an appropriate enough venue for anything but Mark's point-of-view on anything - even a topic addressed directly to him.

One thing, for Davis, before I go:

"Faith" was a bad choice of words. (I'm an atheist.) How about "based on past performance, you should have been confident the U.S. was going to come through"?

Don't bother with the blog, folks. I've been following it for a while, trying to figure out what Sam has been babbling about... and I still have no idea. He sounds like a typical Rush Limbaugh dittohead with paranoid schizophrenia. Definitely off his meds.

Here's a 3 paragraph taste for you - minus the links:

As my readers know, because of my personal experience with occultism, I've become an, admittedly, strident voice against cultism, cultish-thinking, and the occult generally. My way was, partially, inspired by the anger I see exhibited by such icons in the field as James Randi, Richard Dawkins, and many of the physicians in England and elsewhere. I thoroughly endorse this anger because I know, first hand, the corrosive effect these beliefs have on individuals and society. Unfortunately, except for Dawkins and a few others, it's become abundantly clear to me that one group that hasn't joined the fight - beyond chuckling about it - is scientists.

Consequently, I've been spending time on Mark and Chris Hoofnagle's denialism blog, and (the very famous) Orac's Respectful Insolence blog - and it's been quite the experience. Why? Because I never suspected (as an atheist, a Republican, or a layman who likes science generally) how consumed science people can be with a new wage Leftist outlook. They actually believe they're too smart to be duped into being one with them.

Now, of course, they'd argue they aren't new wage Leftists because they don't care, say, for vegans and P.E.T.A., but that's just covering their asses as scientists. They don't have nearly as much of a problem when it comes to authoritarian measures, and messages, related to Global Warming - Mark Hoofnagle has even spoken often of his Stalinist desire to "moderate" others behavior - nor are they above allowing new wagers (who want to control the rest of us as well) to spread that message for them. As a matter of fact, like people suffering from Irrational Bush Syndrome (as he continues to beat the pants off Democrats), they think new wagers are merely "stupid", and a phenomena worthy of a laugh, as the occultists continue to invade science and medicine with abandon. And the scientist's debating tactics are, often, exactly the same.

Specific enough for you, LanceR, or are my meds still off?

By Anonymous (not verified) on 12 Sep 2007 #permalink

Mark Hoofnagle has even spoken often of his Stalinist desire to "moderate" others behavior - nor are they above allowing new wagers (who want to control the rest of us as well) to spread that message for them.

Stalinist?

If you want to know what the hell is wrong with the US Bill of Rights it's that for an entire segment of the population, it's produced this view that "moderating" behavior is Stalinist.

Oh, please -- beneficent global warming -- fall upon and exterminate us; and the quicker the better.

Ted,

"If you want to know what the hell is wrong with the US Bill of Rights it's that for an entire segment of the population, it's produced this view that "moderating" behavior is Stalinist.

Oh, please -- beneficent global warming -- fall upon and exterminate us; and the quicker the better."

Ah - doesn't like the Bill of Rights, and he follows it with an anti-humanist statement - both, very new wage-y.

This is gonna be FUN!!!
depp=true
notiz=[disemvoweled for trolling - last notice before ban]

Deliberately misunderstanding someone's statements. Not unusual for a deluded f*ckwit like Scam.

I've tried to pin you down before, so I know this is useless, but...

Define Stalinist. Define Conservatism. Define fascism. Explain in what way Bush "continues to beat the pants off Democrats". Are you living in the same world we are? Put up or shut up.

I vote for dismevowellement of the troll. He can go get his own soapbox somewhere else.

Specific enough for you, LanceR, or are my meds still off?

No, not specific at all, because you still cannot present a single example, in Mark or Chris or Orac's own words, of exhibiting this sort of behavior.

You cannot, and you never will, because they don't exist outside of the sockpuppets in your otherwise empty, crazy little head.

Boring, insipid, and insane as usual. Ho hum.

By minimalist (not verified) on 12 Sep 2007 #permalink

Has anyone emailed the authors about the plagiarism?
I'd think both would be interested.

By Hank Roberts (not verified) on 12 Sep 2007 #permalink

The original authors, Peiser and Monckton, might care.

I doubt the plagiarist would.

Then again, when all of these people are trafficking in the same sort of evasive, dishonest nonsense, maybe they're just satisfied that this bollocks is being propagated in any format.

In a way it makes our job easier when they directly crib from one another: just point out where it's been refuted before, laugh at the plagiarism, and move on. Much better than having to deal with new crackpot arguments all the time.

Anyway, Lambert hasn't updated since that post (on the 9th); if anyone should alert Peiser and Monckton, it should be him. I'll keep an eye peeled for updates.

By minimalist (not verified) on 12 Sep 2007 #permalink

I am particually annoyed by a variation on this cut-and-paste, the broken record argument. The denialist makes a claim, which I then counter. I counter it extremally well. I do it so well, the denialists arguments are destroyed, and they have no choice but to sulk off and terminate the discussion. But then, a week later, I see them repeating their origional argument - unaltered.

You are demonstrating why denialism has to do with facts, and everything to do with ideology (as do some of your commenters).
Science has a high regard for facts, and for history - we don't want to waste our time, we want to add to knowledge.
Ideology is about a narrative - this is why the world is, this is how our enemies are to blame, this is how to win the current argument. If you bind yourself to the complex web of reality and history, you reduce your ability to appear to win the next argument and convince bystanders that your enemies are their enemies. Arguments need to be simplified to a key sentence (with no qualifications), the pace has to be fast (look at all the 3 and 6 word quotes coming from Climate audit, for example), and history and attributions have to be minimized, because you don't want your 'enemies' to be able to refute your argument like they did last time.
It's the same level of debate as in Grade 2, for much the same purpose, and explains why denialists will rotate the same 4 arguments that are mutually incompatible and disagree with known reality. Reality isn't their concern, it's just a distraction.