Deniers — Raise Your Hands
Posted by Jeff Id on July 16, 2009
I get mad at people in the media regularly these days but I’ve held my self back for about a week. — Good job Jeff. Of course all good things must come to an end, I found this dude on the web writing for money apparently. Someone needs to hold on to their checks, but I don’t care if their papers go bankrupt so they can spend as they wish.
I knew I was poking the bear when I sent my most recent column (Climate skeptic arguments don’t hold ice, July 14) to my editor here at the National Post. The [Financial] Post publishes almost weekly columns about the fiction of climate change so understandably some readers are well persuaded that the whole global warming house of cards is already tumbling down. The torrent of e-mails and some 48 on-line comments later and I have a new appreciation of just how fiercely some hold on to their denier status.
I don’t think I can reply to John in a comment so I’ll do it here, the guy is an over the top warmer who has no concept that there may be a little gray area in science, or perhaps that even ‘super-weatherman certainty’ is overstated. Here’s what John’s selling.
A major talking point amongst the skeptics is a certain indignation over how “global warming” became “climate change”. Some people think this was a marketing move by the international forces of socialism to protect our Coke-like franchise. Actually, the terms are irrelevant. The general theory has been roughly the same for 150 years.
Reeallly. Global warming theory has been around for 150 years. I don’t recall reading that CO2 increases lead to moisture feedback in the system in any 150 year old papers? I don’t think we had the sensors or quantum math to determine the absorption spectra of CO2 either? Considering we’d barely started recording thermometers back then and we shipped them by horseback, perhaps he means someone conceived of the planet warming 150 years ago.
Here’s a beauty:
No small number of people were very angry about the term “denier” insisting that it lumps skeptics in with holocaust deniers. No apologies here. “Denier” is a term that accurately describes people who refuse to acknowledge established facts.
Well, don’t call me a denier. I’m not …yet. The idea that the science is somehow settled is partially the basis for the URL of this site. Scientific FACT he says. I wonder what in his credentials allow him to determine FACT, not that I put much too much weight in credentials anyway. Credentials demonstrate a foundation of knowledge which can be obtained through other methods and in the end science doesn’t really care what degree you have. “Fact” though, I don’t think that accurately describes a science which doesn’t even know the actual temperature and is still having fits about whether the all important moisture feedback may even be negative!
There’s a particular outrage amongst many skeptics about the notion that their arguments and many of the people who champion the cause are so routinely dismissed by other scientists and the media. On this and other issues I am often remonstrated for failing to give due credit to “the other side of the story”. It’s a phenomenon Thomas Homer Dixon has identified as “the unbalance of balance”; the idea that minority opinions deserve not just consideration but equivalence.
I’m not sure that the opinion of skeptics is the minority anymore. It certainly is a DEEP minority in the realms of government funded leftist scientists who’s salaries depend on global warming, but to the rest of us I don’t think Mr. Moore or the elite media is qualified to dismiss us. So apparently not only are those who point out inconsistencies being automatically assigned minority status by John, but we can’t have a voice until we pass the glass wall created by the unwilling media.
This dude is so far gone he even compares skepticism of global warming to a religious argument against evolution.
Creationists frequently invoke the same argument insisting that their religious objections to the theory of evolution are of equal merit to the theory itself.
As I wrote to the few polite people who wrote to me (okay aside from comedian Rick Mercer there were two) Occam’s Razor requires you to decide whether the established theory – while still not complete – is accurate or if the world’s scientists, all of the national scientific associations, almost every government and the media are involved in a massive conspiracy.
And to what end? Oh right, one world government and global serfdom. How could I be so blind?
It’s an extraordinary statement about society in general, that this type of individual is paid to speak his opinion.
Here’s a quote from his article linked in the first paragraph.
All right, let’s talk temperature. A popular skeptic assertion is that warming has stopped; they insist that 1998 was the warmest year, which is true because 1998 was an especially aberrant year. But take a look at the graph below: Does that look like a cooling trend to you?
Here’s his NOAA (strongest trend you can find) temperature graph.
Don’t forget that most of the signal above is actually created by corrections to the data (black line below). Whether they’re right or wrong, the signal is the correction added right onto the temperature graph.
Well John, let’s have a look at what even the furthest left most wishful for warming scientists on the web are saying.
And perhaps a graph of satellite data which doesn’t experience the visually unreasonable corrections of NOAA data.
Now this graph is UAH which is satellite data that represents the lowest trend I’m aware of and isn’t necessarily correct or incorrect either. The UAH will warm again have no fear, but today there is cooling shown, it does exist and I wonder…
………Does this make Dr. John Moore the anti-science denier?