It’s all about science, right?

Warmists only care about science?  Here are some of the warmists comments I have found in the media and on blogs.   This doesn’t look much like science.  More ad hominem attacks and guilt by association.

Andrew: liar, liar, the sea is on fire.

His term as President expires shortly, however Klaus has already planned out a busy retirement by joining forces with the Cato Institute, the notorious libertarian think tank and one of the principal agents in denying climate change. He is both a Eurosceptic (against the European Union) and climate change sceptic.

Roberts claimed a cabal of international bankers were behind the climate change “scam”. This revelation ultimately lead to conservative columnist Andrew Bolt repudiating both Roberts and the Galileo Movement due to the implied whiff of antisemitism of his claims.

“At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers.”

climate debate that is foreign to reality. They seriously believe it is being masterminded by a few evil industrialists and a PR wizard, at least that’s what their readers should believe.

One type of skepticism flows from self-interest. In 2011 alone, the fossil fuel industry spent about $300 million on lobbying activities

Over and over we must take Michael Mann and other climate scientists at their word that these lawsuits are purely to harass them.

Global warming skeptics and/or deniers get their funding from oil and/or coal companies.

Bleating bias – the panel skewed toward the widely held scientific consensus that climate change is real and humans are causing it – the infiltrator proceeded to hijack the panel

My comment:  Sometimes warmists make those nasty skeptics and their attacks look like slackers, don’t they?  How can we have a civil discourse with this type of behaviour?  Where is the science?

(Updated after original posting)

Added 3/9/2013:

“It’s almost like a family with an alcoholic father who flies into a rage if alcohol is mentioned. And so the rest of the family decides to keep the peace by never discussing the elephant in the middle of the room.”

If I don’t identify who made the statement above, you can’t tell which side made the comment, can you?


24 comments on “It’s all about science, right?

  1. Lazarus says:

    -snip- (Again, you know better. Give it up. I can snip all day long.)

  2. Censorship is the refusal to allow certain ideas to be presented. Civility is requiring them to be presented without insult. It’s not the same thing.

    I know you have your own little kingdom. You are free to allow any behaviour you like in your own little kingdom.

    I would point out that you are under no requirement to post comments in my kingdom if you do not like my kingdom rules. If you are that uncomfortable with the entire thing, perhaps you need to find a place to be rude to your heart’s content.

  3. Lazarus says:

    No it wouldn’t help – censorship by restricting free speech never does.

    I already do have my own little empire and I would never tell people what they cant say. In fact I would encourage people to express themselves in any way they want because if they get involved in ‘uncivil discourse’ it is there for all to see and such behaviour always shows others what they are really like.

  4. The name of my blog comes from the blog “Watching the Deniers”. I made that clear. I cannot change the name of the other blog. The term is insulting over there and it is meant to be.

    As for prior comments, I attempted to be lenient in comments. However, this lead to a less than civil tone and the constant use of the term by some posters.

    It is unlikely I will delete the previous comments. The ruling was not retroactive.

    Yes, I have read 1984. And Brave New World, and Atlas Shrugged. How about you?

  5. Lazarus says:

    Reality check says:

    “No one is banned.”

    Glad to hear it. But not allowing someone to post if they don’t pass your ‘civility’ test sounds a lot like banning to me.

    So are you going to edit out the word ‘denier’? What other word are you going to replace it with that means some one who denies scientific consensus?

    • I am not going to edit out the word “denier”, I am deleting the entire comment.

      Terms for use on this blog:
      Climate change advocates
      Climate change questioners
      Those seem accurate and value neutral. Please use them.

      You can avoid the situation altogether by addressing the actual science or comment without designating as belonging to either side.

      (I agree that I am banning uncivil discourse. That is not the same as censoring–you can present your idea, just politely.)

      • Lazarus says:

        So censorship is fine by you if you don’t like a English word with a clear definition, a word you used yourself here;
        (Not to mention it is used in the title of your blog)!

        I notice ‘warmist’ and ‘alarmist’ isn’t in your list of approved words, BTW have you read 1984?

        Are the posts with ‘warmist / alarmist’ going to be deleted? I find these words uncivil without a clear definition of who they refer to and perhaps even after that if I do not find your definition un-polite. -snip- (Inappropriate).

  6. Tony Duncan says:

    (when you can comment civilly, you will be allowed to post)

  7. What would you prefer I call you? I only use “warmest” because it was handy. I can go with climate change advocate, if you prefer.
    There are NO appropriate uses for the world “denier” when it comes to climate science. There are people who follow one belief or the other. Both sides claim to have the truth. Both sides skew data to their advantage. Both have pretty graphs. That is one of the problems with this whole debate. Use of the term denier indicates you have no respect for someone else’s view on science and it is derogatory.
    You may use skeptic or climate change questioner, or any other similar term. If you insist on using the term “denier”, you may not post. You choose.
    The rule about no ad hominem was only directed at those use the attacks. You were not one, so it was not directed at you.

    • Lazarus says:

      So I see you have started banning people instead of allowing free speech. It is of course your blog and you are entitled to repress people and ideas as you wish but lets not pretend it is anything other than censoring people you don’t agree with.

      And the sad thing is that you really do seem to think accepting science is a matter of belief devoid of facts, so in effect you are OK with repressing belief.

      • No one is banned. Certain terms are banned and insults directed at individuals. Anyone whose comment was snipped can resubmit the comment minus the banned terms and insults. Common courtesy is not banning–it’s a requirement for scientific discourse and it is expected here. I am allowing your comment because it’s pretty common for people to scream “censored” when in fact they are simply not allowed to be rude.

  8. Tony Duncan says:


    I have been very clear that I ONLY use the term denier to describe people or sites that are not willing to be skeptical of ideas as long as they oppose ACC. I have no problem calling people or sites skeptical if they actually are skeptical accross the board. I cannot in good conscience use the word “skeptic” to describe people or sites that are not being skeptical. if you can suggest another word that accurately describes those sites, that is not “denier”, I will be happy to do so on your site.

    I think your “rule” banning ther use of the word “denier” would only be reasonable is you also banned the use of the words “warmist” or “alarmist”. I am sure people who use those terms think they are descriptive, in the way i feel my use of the word “denier” is descriptive..
    If you can point out instances where I have innapropriately used the term “denier” when it was innacurate, I would be happy to change that. As I have now said repeatedlty, I do not consider Curry., or either Pilke’s to be deniers and therefore, though i often disagree with their posts, am happy to call them skeptics.
    I have not used ANY ad hominem attack on this site. I am very familiar with them as I have constantly been subject to that on sites that “oppose” ACC. In every case unprovoked. I do not use ad hominems as I am actually interested in understanding accurate information, and don’t care why people hold their opinions.

  9. Tony–You were warned about the use of the term “denier”. It appeared five times in your last comment. You may repost your comment using the term “skeptic” or you may cease to comment on this blog. It’s up to you.

  10. Tony Duncan says:

    an fairly good explanation of the scientific method in theory If you talk to most scientists they will say it rarely follows that pattern,
    I stragnely enough hardly ever see denier websites come close to using ANY of the above steps except for step one.

    the path i have often seen taken is this

    1. Discover that there is a scientific theory that could be distrubing to deeply held political beliefs

    2. try to find any uncertainties or mistakes in the theory or in anyone who suportst the theory .

    3. use every sort of rhetorical tool to magnify the mistake or uncertainty and heap ad hominem attacks on the supporters of the theory.

    4. When new research shopws that the uncertaintly or mistake is either negigible or does not impact the consequences of the theory. either double down and recycle old discredited ideas, or invent new ways to try to keep the uncertainty gap enough to sow dought.

    5. When a hypothesis agiasnt the theory is shown to be completely wrong, insist that there is some other reason for why the theory is wrong and that scientists have never considered this possibility.

    6. Lie and make up shit about some aspect of the theory that takes a long time to point out how the objection is wrong.

    7. Imply that there is a vast conspiracy, and that scientists are basically incompetent and willing to throw their ethics out the window for a fairly modest salary and inflate research money to imply that it is actual income of scientists.

    8 deny saying their is a conspircay while presenting hypothesis that are clearly only feasible if there is a conspiracy.

    9. Assert that scientists don;t use the scientific method and are not allowing true reaserach to be published, all the while peresrnting unpublished data as if it is absolutely valid wihtout submitting it to analysis by qualified experts.

    I could go on, becuase the list is so long, but I am happy to point out specific instances of all of these. Of course I just did this off the top of my head, so it is possible that every single one of thses is not common practice for all deneir sites and commenters.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Most warmist websites will not even show uncertainty bars associated with their calculations, and will try not to admit that any uncertainty whatsoever even exists in the numbers which they are putting out. Sites such as wattsupwiththat will use error bars all the time, and explain why they are there and what they mean.

      Skeptical sites are not all “perfect”, but most of the stuff published on the most popular skeptical blogs is quite scientific. They show the calculations, algorithms, and uncertainty measurements. The reason the most popular skeptic blogs are the most popular is NOT that they have the best propaganda machines, it is that the articles published there tend to be written scientifically, yet in a way which the average person can at least have a shot at understanding.

    • The problem with Pete’s Scientific Method list is that it specifically mentions ‘hypothesis’. Once a hypothesis becomes accepted theory then number 7 does not really apply. Of course it could in theory, if you excuse the pun, but I can think of no occasion in modern science when a Theory has ever been rejected, can anyone? What does happen is that new research that doesn’t specifically confirm parts of the theory only modify it, so that uncertainties become less, unknowns become known or better specified.

      So the reality is that we have a Theory that is about 150 years old and becomes stronger and more refined with every credible peer reviewed paper published. One specific example, Mann’s hockey stick is now 15 years old and can be considered superseded by many other similar graphs refining and adding to the information, which now very recently stretches back to the last ice age. It is inconceivable that new research will turn up anything significantly different that a ‘hockey stick’ graph.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Theory is still hypothesis, it has merely stood the test of time. LAWS of physics are still hypotheses, they have simply stood the test of even more time. That does not necessarily mean they will not ever be rejected by better future hypotheses.

        For example, Newton’s Laws are still around, but thanks to quantum mechanics, anyone with a scientific education fully realizes that Newton’s Laws are not “correct”, they are just fantastically good approximations on a macroscopic scale.

  11. Thank you PeterB. This is an excellent explanation of what scientific method is all about.

  12. These are quotes from the warmist camp. It contrasts to the complaints leveled against skeptics–skeptics call warmists names, imply guilt by association, etc. Most of the time, one can substitute warmist/skeptic and the comments remain the same. Another he said/she said. It’s why civil discourse seems impossible.
    You should take it up with James Taylor if you have problems with his presentations. I suspect you want me to say he was not using peer-reviewed data. He uses data subjected to statistical manipulation same as the warmists do. If there is a specific question, send it my way.
    I have made my position clear on this–the only information that would be acceptable to me to convince me warmists are correct is the RAW temperature data, the algorithms used in the manipulation of the data and the reasons for the use of those algorithms. Without raw data and the algorithms used, you are asking me to accept on FAITH that the climate scientists have this right.
    The links you have provided are interesting but again, the data is manipulated, this time by skeptics. Statistics are a wonderful tool for getting whatever answer you want. The best one can do with these graphs, etc, are compare the warmest version to the skeptic version. That is basically what I am forced to do–compare the reasoning behind the graphs, if any is given. Then compare several sources of graphs for the same period.
    My contention in this debate is if climate science is SCIENCE, then the raw data and algorithms should be available without using FOIA. Then one could see if the conclusion makes sense. If you have a source for this information, please let me know.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      The basic scientific method is:

      1. Form a hypothesis to describe observed phenomena
      1a. Describe how your hypothesis differs from a suitable null hypothesis

      2. Design an experiment to test your hypothesis

      3. Gather raw data from your experiment

      4. Analyze the data using explainable, justifiable steps in your analysis

      5. Determine whether or not your analyzed data support your hypothesis

      6. If your hypothesis is tentatively supported, make ALL information available to other scientists so that they can attempt to replicate your experiment and analysis.

      7. If your hypothesis is not supported, either by your own work or by the failure of others to replicate your work, reject your hypothesis and start over.

      Generally, the skeptics seem to do a better job of following this than the climate scientists, who tend to fail miserably when it comes to 1a, 4, 6, and 7, in my personal opinion.

    • Reality check

      It can not have been easy writing so much without managing to adequately address any point while creating more confusion – congratulations this must be an achievement in itself.

      Lets take things slowly to see if I can actually get a straight coherent answer.

      What exactly is a ‘warmist’? I can see no definition on your blog for the term and the spell checker doesn’t recognise it. Is it these new-age environmentalists? Does it include the majority of the population that accept the conclusions of the scientific method? Or does it even group in actual scientists if you don’t agree with their findings? Or do you have a better definition so we can all clearly understand who you are referring to and who is exempt?

      “These are quotes from the warmist camp.”

      I still no idea what the point of the post is. Is it that you don’t agree with these quotes or is it that you think ‘warmists’ should not have the right of free speech?

      The reason I mentioned James Taylor is that in the comments on another post you avoided giving an opinion on his behaviour and still duck it here. I had clearly shown that he with his Heartland hat on misrepresented scientific research, mainly because the authors of that research said as much. So how about a clear answer, what do you think of this behaviour? This has nothing to do with what you believe on the subject in question. Are you willing to unambiguously criticise people and groups who do this?

      Fourthly, you have expressed and continue to express the merits of Non-Peer Review, even to the point of suggesting it is a better way to gain understanding of a subject, but you have never once submitted a link to this Non-Peer Reviewed information that you can recommend worth anyone’s consideration. So can you please provide some links to information that you feel confident in recommending because you ignore every one I ask your opinion on.

      “the only information that would be acceptable to me to convince me warmists are correct is the RAW temperature data”

      I’m a bit confused here. Don’t you know that in almost every case this information is freely available?

      Skeptics have had this for years and have never managed to produce anything other than a clear warming trend.

      But what is the point of you having this data? You are not qualified to really do anything with it. Do you know how to remove the urban heat island effect for example?

  13. Lazarus says:

    I don’t understand the context of this post – any clues?

    BTW since you refused to clearly state an opinion on Heartlands James Taylor misrepresenting real research I saw these links and wondered if this is what you mean by the non peer reviewed science?

    It is so difficult because even though you recommended that method to learn about this topic you never provided any examples. The second link was mentioned on Watching the Deniers so I thought you might even have posted on it;

    So is this the sort of thing you recommend as non peer review?

Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s