Friday, June 04, 2010
Scepticism's Evil Twin
There's scepticism. And then there's plain complete batshit-crazy denialism.
One requires looking at the evidence, considering it, addressing any inconsistencies or deficiencies, and then accepting the evidence, modifying it or rejecting it.
The other involves cherry picking data, quote mining, vast global conspiracies, repeated lies, and misrepresentation.
One considers what the evidence (if valid) tells us we should believe.
The other considers what evidence (valid or not) our belief tells us we should accept.
One requires that we shift our worldview to accomodate new findings.
The other requires that we shift our findings to fit our worldview.
One occurs to a large extent in the scientific community. The other largely takes place on blogs and internet forums.
After the whirlwind tour of not-a-Lord Monckton to Australia last year (who lies about being a member of the House of Lords, lies about having won a Nobel Prize, and lies about having been a 'scientific' advisor to Margaret Thatcher), financed by the mining industry, and supported by a warm up act of Australia's own purveyor of lie after lie Ian Plimer (getting something wrong once could be an honest mistake, repeating that mistake over and over is either lying or senility), we are now having to put up with one of the big hitters of Climate Change Denial, Anthony Watts. Really? The best the deniers can come up with is a weather reporter? Oh, take that consensus of climate scientists!
Sadly, he apparently can only muster up a second rate support act in David Archibald, who famously authored what has been called The worst climate science paper ever of all time anywhere" (and then appears to have published nothing else on the subject in the peer reviewed press).
Monckton takes scientist to brink of madness at climate change talk
Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
Good news for Pacific islands becomes bad news for global warming