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.

DID I MENTION I WAS ANGRY!

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?

Putting climate science on trial: deniers should be careful for what they wish

Climate Science on trial
Mike Faraday
1 April 2013

WASHINGTON – The trial of several prominent climate scientists begins tomorrow in the US Federal Court. Prominent Republican Senator James Inhofe, who has been agitating for criminal charges to be brought against scientists for violating Federal laws and misappropriating public funds, is confident that the Federal Court judge overseeing the trial will confirm his allegations.

Said Inhofe “Global warming is the biggest swindle committed against the American people. I’m confident the court will find these individuals guilty of manipulating data and misappropriating funds for personal gain.”

The National Academy of Sciences released a press release today stating that the trial was “an unfortunate phase of the scientific debate” and that it had “every confidence the scientists currently on trial will be found innocent of all the charges laid against them”.

Contingents of media around the world have descended on Washington to report on what many are calling climate sciences equivalent to the famous “Scopes Monkey” trial.

 Sources: AAP, Washington Post; The New York Times; The Times; The Age

Imagine if these events came to pass: terrifying? Most certainly. But are they within the realms of possibility? Unlikely.

Still, the political pressure on scientists is obviously increasingly, as prominent Republican Senator James Inhofe is actively calling for criminal charges to be laid against scientists. Inhofe’s office released a report detailing the alleged crimes of climate scientists.

As one would expect, his office uses the leaked CRU emails as evidence of malfeasance on the part of scientists:

“The scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, may have violated federal laws. In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC-backed “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes…”

Other commentators have been aghast, claiming this is a “new form of McCarthyism“. I agree. It is an attempt by a powerful public official to bully and harass individuals. Even if it doesn’t come to criminal charges, it does cast an ominous shadow.

The report authored under Inhofe’s name lists seventeen scientists. Obviously is intended to intimidate them. Said one of the named scientists:

“I am worried about it, I have to say,” said Raymond Bradley, director of the climate science research centre at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, who is also on the list of 17. “You can understand that this powerful person is using the power of his office to intimidate people and to harass people and you wonder whether you should have legal counsel. It is a very intimidating thing and that is the point.”

All the deniers need to do is bring political pressure to bear on scientists. No need to actually prosecute them.

What if criminal charges are laid?

As worrying as these developments are, it did make me think “What is the worst that could happen?”

Watchers of the debate are familiar with the calls of the more rabid deniers for scientists to be “charged” and “put on trial” to “answer for their crimes”.

So, let’s consider for a moment that Inhofe is successful in his attempt to criminalize scientists.

What would happen?

Obviously the distress felt by scientists working in good faith would be enormous. They would not only have professional reputations questioned, but every aspect of their personal and public lives would be scrutinised by an army of angry deniers. It would be a very ugly spectacle.

And yet, I believe if climate science was “put in the dock” (so to speak) it would not only be complete vindication scientists, but the science itself. It would be an embarrassing reversal for the denial industry.

Precedents for when reality and fantasy collide in court: Kitzmiller and Irving

There are other court cases we could consider  guides to what will happen. Not precedents in the legal sense, but historical examples of when cranks are forced to play by the rules of evidence.

The two best examples in my mind are Kitzmiller v Dover and the Irving v Penguin:

• Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District – this 2005 US case was an embarrassing defeat for the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. The attempts by conservative members of the school board to introduce ID were soundly defeated, In addition ID was scrutinised as a “science” by the Judge and were found to be nothing more than dressed up creationism. For years creationists had been hoping to “put Darwinism on trial”, believing it would vindicate their beliefs. They got that day, and where soundly defeated.
• David Irving v Penguin Books Limited and Deborah E. Lispstadt – notorious Holocaust denier Irving brought a libel suit against Penguin books and historian Lispstadt for publishing the book Denying the Holocaust. Irving was named as a “holocaust denier”. At the heart of the trial: a debate over the historical veracity of the Holocaust. The results for Irving where disastrous:  his reputation as a historian completely destroyed and he was forced to pay the others sides legal costs.

For the deniers it may be a case of be careful for what you wish for. As the Kitzmiller and Irving trials showed, level playing fields aren’t necessarily a good thing if your evidence is at best flimsy.

The deniers would be forced to back up their claims of conspiracy theories and manufactured data. One has to wonder how well their evidence would stand up under true scrutiny?

Much as Irving and the ID movement found out, the end result would almost certainly be a complete and utter rout.

Of course, after their defeat they’d claim it was all part of “The Conspiracy”.