The blog post where I dismiss climate science

I’ll admit I was very inspired by this very amusing post over at Genomicron and this brilliant piece over at the Guardian. In short, here is my guide to writing a blog post denying climate change.

In this paragraph I’ll attempt to appear a sincere seeker of truth

In this paragraph I’ll explain some of the basics of climate science, but with extensive use of “scare quotes”. It will be a highly distorted version of the science: the “big picture” may be correct, but wrong on more detailed aspects.

I’ll note that for years I’d accepted the mainstream consensus on climate change, however out of sheer intellectual curiosity I decided to look into the issue myself.

Fortunately, my background in engineering/economics/physics or some other non-climate science related profession that requires maths has given me an understanding of the scientific method.

This how I establish myself as an authority.

At this point I will make reference to my intellectual journey, which in most instances involves extensive Google searching. I’ll note that after several days of trawling the Internet I was amazed to find blogs and web sites offering alternative views on climate change.

My use of search terms such as “climate change and fraud” will prompt Google to produce only the most authoritative materials. I will then muse why such information is not more accessible to the general public.

Here I will take down the IPCC in a paragraph

At this point I’ll take cherry pick quotes from the IPCC report and/or actual scientific research:

[Cut and paste text here…]

In this paragraph I’ll feign mock surprise that the claims in the quote appear to be exaggerated, as my own careful reading of blogs offering alternative explanations cast doubt on the claims of “experts” (natch, more scare quotes of course).

This is probably the appropriate time to make reference to the work of Steve McIntyre, a retired physicist or professor of geology. I might choose to include an image showing the famous “Hockey stick” and question it’s reliability. I’ll describe it as “broken”, without understanding what that means. However, it is an effective meme, and it’s stuck in my brain.

I’ll then post a link to Watts up with That? post that tears down climatologist (boo hiss!) Michael Mann and his stick (Ha ha! Did you see my pun!), pointing readers to bloggers more qualified to dismiss the science.

This is how I help repeat the same discredited claims.

This title indicates my distrust of “science”

Here it is appropriate to mention the “liberated” Climategate emails as proof that the workings of science have been corrupted. I’ll quote some very selective parts of said emails:

[Oh look scientists said nasty thing…]

I’ll feign surprise that scientists could act so un-professionally.

I’ll then move on to discuss how the “peer review process” is now “totally corrupt”. I’ll talk about the government funding of science, and allude to the fact that research funded by governments must be tainted.

Sometimes I’ll resort to Latin phrases. Ipso Facto sounds good. As does Caveat Emptor. I heard a very prominent sceptic uses Latin, therefore my post will sound much more authoritative.

I’ll dismiss the notion of scientific consensus as a kind of popularity contest.

I will make exaggerated claims about the stifling of alternative views: that scientists questioning this new “orthodoxy” have been shunned, picked on and called nasty names. Over 1 BILLION [cough] scientists [cough] have signed the Oregon Petition, stating they do not believe the planet is warming! What further proof do you need!?!?

I’ll throw in the line “They laughed at Galileo!” – but never “They laughed at Darwin!”, because that would betray my genuine doubts about evolutionary theory.

Here I will talk about Nazis, because it always about Nazis!

It is now at this point I usually descend into complete and utter paranoia, claiming the IPCC is the tool of socialists, lizard people and shadowy cabals. I’ll resort to Godwin’s Law and compare scientists with Nazis.

Or communists.

Or Nazis.

Or maybe both.

Clearly both were bad, so scientists must be equally bad.

Or I could term scientists eco-fascists, eco-terrorists or warmists.

By now I’ve worked myself into a rage, demanding that scientists be charged with FRAUD!

I will resort to even more UPPER CASE!

People such as myself – angry, white males feeling threatened by a loss of status – ARE ANGRY AND NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS LYING DOWN!

Andrew Bolt at the Herald Sun understands my rage, he writes articles carefully constructed to provoke my sense of grievance and entitlement.


Here I just MAKE STUFF UP because I’M SO ANGRY!

My conclusion will be an appeal to personal liberty, god and small government

I’ll note the age of the Earth – except of course if I’m a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) – and that the climate has always changed.

However if I am a YEC, I’ll note it is presumptuous to claim humanity has any control over the climate. After all it is THE LORD who RULES THE HEAVENS:

[Appropriate Bible quote here…]

But then I might tone down the crazy creationist talk, as drawing attention to my support for other forms of denial might undermine my credibility.

My post will then end with an impassioned defense of liberty and how global warming is really a scam designed to raise taxes and limit your/our freedom.

I’ll end my post with a question.

Shouldn’t we just hope for the best and do nothing?

16 thoughts on “The blog post where I dismiss climate science

  1. Ha, ha! This blogpost is like a blogpost-length, satirical version of David Aaronovitch’s book Voodoo Histories!

  2. bgood2creation says:

    Hilarious! I think you got all the bases covered.

  3. adelady says:

    Well I’d give this A for effort, but B+ for content.

    How on earth could you have so many paragraphs without mentioning the sacred Second Law Of Thermodynamics?

  4. Adam says:

    This post will point out the hypocrisy of Al Bore and that it is all about money.

  5. Tim says:

    If you were Nova the Latin word of choice would be “ergo”… she uses is with monotonous regularity.

    Nice work here! I like that you’ve made the point that most of these blokes are google/coffee table experts. Much the arguments they make demonstrates their total lack of understanding of scientific methodology – that fraud, to the level that these deniers assume has occurred, would have been discovered long ago and that if the geologists, physicists or statisticians of the world who have provided a rebuttal to climate science were to be taken as credible, it would be the scientific community whom would have celebrated the genius of their work first and not the deniers.

  6. DaveMcRae says:

    Very good – loved the CAPS work 🙂

  7. Mark Laughlin says:

    Clever satire and use of irony. However, making fun of anyone who disputes human-induced/CO2 “global warming” will not make the scientific research go away. 10,000 yr analysis of Arctic ice temps at Greenland did not show correlation with human/CO2 but rather with sun energy fluctuations. Earth is still in the mini-ice age. Humankind documented increased “success” and quality of life gains during much hotter periods in the past. When research showed patterns of global cooling … apologists used “new speak” to explain it must have been caused by Chinese coal burning. (Which they had previously listed as one of the causes of global warming.) If someone can help me understand these contradictions, would appreciate it.

  8. zoot says:

    Mark, if you look over in the right hand column you’ll see a heading “BLOGROLL’, under which there is a list of sites.
    If you visit them, all of your questions will be answered since all of the scientific knowledge you need is contained in those sites. Most of it is explained in terms that an intelligent layperson can follow.
    But I must warn you – you’ll need an open mind. With that one handy attribute you’ll discover there are no contradictions. You have been fed lies, and you have swallowed them.

    • Mark Wynn says:

      Thanks, still looking. Nobody ‘feeds me.” That includes people on both sides with agendas.
      “… intelligent layman …” remark noted. Perhaps I can call on you next time I’m struggling with a concept in Scientific America.

      • zoot says:

        This has the potential to get very tedious very quickly. I notice your nym changes (usually a sign of bad faith). Anyhoo, here goes:

        Which of those sites on the right deal with 10,000 years of Arctic ice temps in Greenland? Using the information you found on those sites, how did you come to the conclusion that the research “did not show correlation with human/CO2”?
        And I repeat, if your source is one of the usual suspects (Andrew Bolt, Ian Plimer, George Pell, Jo Nova et al) you have been lied to.

        I readily admit to an agenda – I want my grandchildren’s grandchildren to inherit a planet on which they can comfortably live.
        What’s your agenda?

        • Mark Wynn says:

          Visited john byatt’s link. Thanks, always welcome links that others believe important. Did not see a valid refutation of the “10,000 year” temp argument, only an argument against recent year temps and conclusions. Did find the final paragraph valuable “food for thought.” Which if I may be overly simplistic … so what if it might have been warmer in the past, there’s 7B of us now and if the ice melts and the climates change we’re all in deep doo doo. That I can understand … along with other big issues surrounding fossil fuel as our world energy source — wars over oil reserves, over food, etc. China is already strategically sewing up oil, rare earth metals, etc. The latter issue forced Japan to relinquish longtime claim over disputed islands. (You won’t read that, but I know a Far East businessman ….) I’m not a luddite on this issue; find it useful to learn what others can tell me by pulling your chain. Useful discussion, thanks. More productive than listening to choir.

  9. john byatt says:

    What paper are you talking about Mark ? The driftwood study or this study at

    Many studies show that when one half of the Arctic was warming the other half was cooler, this sounds like something that you picked up at WTFUWT

    we all know that changes to TSI warm and cool the planet
    volcanoes can cool the planet
    We also know that enhanced greenhouse effect warms the planet, that is what is currently happening.

    The Arctic is in a death spiral and will reach an ice free day within the next few years and an ice free summer within twenty years.

  10. Fergo says:

    Bolt and McCann a pair of like minded troglydites Still trying to drag themselves into the 20th century (21st was too great a reach)and looking for a wormhole to take tghem to 2007 to try to prevent a Labor victory that they are still getting over. This colours all their jaundiced views

Leave a Reply

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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: