Is this desperation on the deniers part to cast doubt on AGW science?

Question

Recently, we've had to endure more propaganda from the gelatenous misinformationist regarding Lord Monckton of Brenchley's faux scientific paper (from non other than their typical source of information - blogs). This guy was trained as a journalist, but to a denier he is the second coming.

The blog claims that he is speaking for the APS, which he is not. The APS even posted a re-affirmation to this faux scientific opinion.

http://www.aps.org/

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

How can anyone deny the reality staring at them?

Answer 1

Here is more information on the Peisner study that is claimed in the earlier answer to "debunk" the consensus of scientists on global warming:

http://norvig.com/oreskes.html

The consensus was quantified in a Science study by Prof. Naomi Oreskes (Dec. 2004) in which she surveyed 928 scientific journal articles that matched the search [global climate change] at the ISI Web of Science. Of these, according to Oreskes, 75% agreed with the consensus view (either implicitly or explicitly), 25% took no stand one way or the other, and none rejected the consensus.

Benny Peiser attempted to replicate the study, and found 34 articles that "reject or doubt" the consensus view--that is, 3% rather than the 0% that Oreskes found in her sample. Note that Peiser has altered Oreskes' original category from "reject" to "reject or doubt" so it is logically possible that both are correct. Also, there were several other differences between the studies: Peiser included "all documents" in the database rather than just scientific articles, and he included Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities as well as Sciences. Peiser was kind enough to share the 34 articles that he says reject or doubt. A discussion of the 34 argues that probably two to five of them should count, and the two best examples are editorials, not scientific publications (which is probably why they were not included in Oreskes' study).

When faced with a controversy like this, the great thing is that you can do your own research. If you suspect Oreskes or Peiser (or both) might be biased, you can look at the data yourself.

So that's what I did. Of the 34 articles, I would say that #10 and #27 clearly reject the consensus, but they are editorials, not scientific papers (and #27 is from an oil industry trade association). #1 and #6 doubt, but again are not scientific papers. #7, #17, #31 and maybe #22 doubt, and #15 says that both greenhouse gases and solar activity are roughly equal contributers to warming; so I counted it as "doubt." So overall I would say that Oreskes is correct; that Peiser has not shown a peer-reviewed scientific paper that clearly rejects the consensus. I would also say that Peiser is correct in that he found at least 4 papers that place some doubt on some of the premises of the consensus, but he is widely wrong in claiming 34. Update (June 2007): Peiser has backed off his claims, and now says there is actually only one out of the 34 papers that rejects the consensus, and that one is an editorial, not a scientific paper (and therefore was not included in the Oreskes study).

---

Wow there is one editorial (not a valid, peer-reviewed scientific paper) that opposes the consensus of scientists.  I guess it's time to resonsider!  (ROFLMAO!)

Amazing what scraps of misinformation people will cling to to justify their fixed beliefs.

Answer 2

"The blog claims that he is speaking for the APS, which he is not. The APS even posted a re-affirmation to this faux scientific opinion. "

Specifically, which blogs?

"The APS even posted a re-affirmation to this faux scientific opinion. "

Faux scientific opinion it is not. Mistakes in Monckton's paper? Yeah, there are, but his opinion, along with a number of other scientists, is not "faux", and science is in a sad state when people (lay-people mostly) start calling legitimate scientific articles (legitimate does not mean error free, and scientific article does not necessarily mean peer reviewed) faux science. You, Richard, probably do not understand a majority of the article by Monckton, but proponents do not like Monckton, so they delve into character assassination techniques.

Monckton is a scientist. Scientist does not mean PhD in a science, or masters degree or whatever. Monckton, as anyone who understood, at least in part, his article, has a fairly good understanding of the science. Again, this does not mean his article is error free.

Answer 3

Unless he is citing peer reviewed scientific studies he can claim just about anything. I can post a blog saying up is down and down is up. Then somebody else can cite me to validate their point of view. Just because something is written down does not make it true.

I have gotten into debates with fundamentalists that attempt prove their believes via certain religious texts. I point out to them I could write on a piece of paper I am God and then go proclaiming to the world that indeed I am God. And if anyone dared question this claim I can simply point to the piece of paper that said I was God supposedly proving my claim. This my friend obviously is circular logic.

Thanks for taking these destructive elements to our society to task. Keep up the good fight. : )

Answer 4

The problem on this whole issue is personal perception and how the individuals mind functions. Look at this quote from the author Robert Heinlein:

Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

Robert A. Heinlein

This is one of the most observant pieces of work on how human minds work I have ever seen. Now we can stretch this observation to further clarify mental capabilities by considering inductive minds and deductive minds.

Now an inductive mind can and will only operate on data that has been presented to it to work with and if it can not reach a conclusion with existing data it will wait for more to be provided. Now it is capable of rejecting a piece that does not fit up to a point and it is quite good at selecting pieces to fill in the picture it was told to make like filling in the pieces of a puzzle where two have been mixed and you only give them the picture for one.

The deductive mind on the other hand can easily complete the puzzle you give them the picture for and the other one as well because it is capable of not only working out the second picture from the shape of the pieces but can even tell you what the content of any missing pieces should be.

Now Lord Monckton  is a deductive thinker as are most deniers and can not help that his mind fills in the gaps automatically with relevant data from other sources. The inductive mind waits for data to come in to complete a picture, the deductive mind searches out and tries information from a variety of sources until it finds something that meshes in. This is why those who deny AGW are able to do so because they have acquired lots of supposedly irrelevant data that contradicts the AGW position. The inductive minded faithful accept what is given them because they have nothing available to them to contradict what they are told to believe by self-proclaimed experts and the media.

Answer 5

Randall - you seem a bit confused about peer review.  It's typically anonymous (it's not Mann saying "Here Jim, check this out for me"), it's generally done by multiple people (before publication and many more who subscribe to the journals after publication), the hard-built reputation of prestigious journals are not going to be thrown away by editors allowing bogus papers to be printed, and scientists (including climate scientists) love nothing more than to argue and disprove each other when they see a weakness.  Your idea that research scientists from all over the world are some sort of love-each-other clique only shows that you've never read the scientific journals and never been to a scientific conference.

Yes, the deniers (as opposed to the legitimate and somewhat reasonable doubters/skeptics) are desperate.  One by one, over the past decade, feasible alternatives to AGW hypothesis have been thrown out after scrutiny.  So now they'll jump on any journalist article or political pundit op-ed that supports their view. And when they stoop to the level of clear deception (e.g. making false claims about the APS), you know that there isn't any legitimate evidence to support their position.

Answer 6

Since the global warming topic has become little more than a political posting--- please let me add to it.

While the "gang" here continues to post questions on the validity or non-validity of GW-- normal Americans have realized that we must do something to break the oil cartels-- that something is a plan by Boone Pickens for wind power. Lest you think his plan is "pie in the sky" let me point you to two articles-- the first shows Texas as the leader in wind energy; and the second is about 5 billion dollars to be spent on new power transmission towers to bring the wind energy from West Texas into the major cities in Texas.

This is being done for economic and political reasons and NOT for GW-- although renewable energy sources are the goal in both cases.

Just remember--- "you can't plow a field by turning it over in your mind."  Eventually you need a tractor!

Answer 7

"Peer review" has become a joke - - using the same data, Bradley, Schmidt and Mann write three separate papers all coming to the same conclusion and they "peer review" each other's work.

And one doesn't have to be a scientist to see that when one side makes contradictory claims, logically at least one of the claims has to be incorrect.    

As for desperation - - it's desperation to call the other side in a debate "deniers."

Answer 8

Just look at Gore ,does he live as if he new he was destroying the world...

Answer 9

This is what the APS has to say:

"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters...

How do you interpret "considerable presence"?  One or two people as believers have said in the past?  I do not think so.  

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS.  That is just pure propaganda meant to take away the debate from the science.  If everybody agrees, you should too, and there is no need to question the science.

Further down in the article we see a political motivation:

"Whether or not human produced carbon dioxide is a major cause of impending climate change (as is being debated in the two articles of this issue), the issue of energy “production” by our Earth-bound societies must be faced."

What does that have to do with the science of AGW?  When resources become scarce a free market will take care of itself.  There will be a demand for alternative energy.

Edit:  The AGW hypothesis is catastrophic warming.  The statement of the APS is clear.  There is no overwhelming consensus as the pro AGW propaganda states.  There is no empirical evidence for an overwhelming consensus.  Only Oreskes, and she has been debunked by Peisner and Shulte.  In the meantime no one has been able to replicate Oreskes study.

Answer 10

Well first let's be fair - the only person I've seen citing Monckton is a self-proclaimed geologist, not a self-proclaimed gelatinous mould.

Regardless of who cited Monckton, it is total despertation.  He's a politician and business consultant with a degree in journalism.  No science background whatsoever.

But more importantly, his arguments are just wrong.  I mean it's possible he's some kind of Renaissance man who does it all, including being a brilliant amateur climate scientist.  But once you dissect his arguments (as I did in my answer to the question linked below), they fall apart immediately.

What really bugs me is that the person citing Monckton claims to be a scientist (geologist) yet gets his information from a right-wing think tank press release about a newsletter entry by a journalist.  And then he ignores the answers which point out the flaws in this reference.  It says a lot about the way deniers think.