Arguments
A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
Posted on 18 August 2011 by John Cook
Lately, I've been receiving more emails than usual asking about recent climate myths (or depressingly, confusion about very old climate myths). Often the responses to these myths are already available at Skeptical Science but it seems people are having trouble finding it. So I'm planning to add a number of features making our information more accessible. The first step is a resource of Climate Skeptics. It features a number of prominent climate skeptics - click on any photo and it will show quotes and articles from the skeptic, a list of their climate myths (along with the SkS rebuttals, of course) and all relevant SkS blog posts.
The short URL is http://sks.to/skeptics
Over time, we'll be adding more skeptics. If you'd like to help us build the resource, please contact me.
I also plan to break up the skeptics into separate groups (including scientists) but the resource need to be bigger. This is just a first step.
They've all earned their place on this 'honours board' with ideas ranging from the fanciful to the outright false. I approve of Gore's recent straight-talking speech, and his turn of phrase could be used for all manner of wacky, self-contradictory hypotheses that this crowd have dreamed up. I don't really care if the likes of Salby has some academic baubles in his past, he should have known that the misinformation he promoted was the inconsistent garbage it clearly was. He was out of his field and out of his depth, yet his misinformation contributes to a delay in dealing with the problem. That makes him no better for climate science than Monckton, or colourless, odourless Tony Abbott!
You're absolutely right about Monckton though...
Actually the good news is that there is a big boost in the number of students studying physics in the UK. It's become a 'cool' subject due to 'The Big Bang Theory' comedy series and the 'Brian Cox' effect.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/8708742/A-level-results-maths-and-science-surge-due-to-Brian-Cox-effect.html
Monkton is a ready made caricature, he is also a huge embarrassment to many skeptics that there is a tendency in some places to complain that using him is a ruse to make all skeptics look foolish. I think of him as a Terry Prachett character come to life.
There is a certain hierarchy with the likes of Lindzen at the top with Ridley and Salby not too far behind while the bottom is most crowded.
[dana1981] Armstrong is on our 'unpublished' list, meaning we have him on our radar and some information added, but not enough to make his entry worth making public yet. We've covered Armstrong previously here and here.
There's more interest in analyzing the work of actual scientists than there is in debunking the likes of Abbott who debunks himself!
[dana1981] Like Armstrong (see comment above), Watts and McIntyre are on our 'unpublished' list. Hopefully at some point we'll have the time to complete their entries and add them to the public list. Ditto for adding Wegman eventually.
For me the pictures, let alone other info people have suggested, risk moving this more and more into the "witch hunt" domain.
I'm happy enough for a page with names to aid navigation, I'm even quite fond of the "Spencer slip ups" type badges - but please, please be careful that SkS doesn't slip from "these are people who [also] do bad science" to "these are bad people"...
[dana1981] Mann does not purvey climate myths and therefore does not belong on the list. You would be well served to read some of our entries on the hockey stick.
e.g. I think Spencer and Lindzen both agree that the CO2 rise is anthropogenic and the greenhouse effect is real, Salby disagrees with both of these.
What I would expect to emerge would be a highly fractured and inconsistent body of knowledge. This can then be contrasted with the level of consistency of the consensus position (while still representing the areas of uncertainty).
A good graphical representation of this would help: perhaps throw in an equal number of consensus scientists, and for each pairwise comparison tot up the number of points on which they agree and disagree. Then refine everyone represented by a point in a 2d plane with number of points of disagreement as a distance metric. The graphviz tool 'Dot' can do this for you. It's a lot of work though.
Not sure what would emerge. Are there any skeptics who argue for a high climate sensitivity? Or at least any who don't argue for low sensitivity? So on some issues, the skeptic community might be more clustered.
[dana1981] You are correct, we have also started a database of "skeptics" debunking "skeptic" myths.
[dana1981] On the aforementioned 'unpublished' list, though I got his entry ready for publication last night. We must have neglected to publish it. We'll add him to the sks.to/skeptics page shortly.
I'm skeptical of Mann, Gore, and I'm skeptical of that Postma guy. At the real skeptic sites they've already discussed him, questioned his work, they do that, even though he was skeptical of AGW.
[DB] "At the real skeptic sites they've already discussed him"
At real skeptical sites, like Skeptical Science, all is viewed through the lense of the science itself, not through ideology nor climastrology (no mythical "cycles").
If you are skeptical of Mann, then you have a lot of reading to do, beginning with all of his actual science publications. You should also have a very firm grasp of what PCA is, how he used (or misused) it, as well as all of the myriad, gross weaknesses in McIntyre's and Wegman's and other's attacks.
You should also recognize how silly the attacks on him are. They are all focused on one ten year old graph that has been validated and reinforced repeatedly over the intervening years, while all assaults on it have been utter failures. Science has moved on, and anyone who says "Mann! Mann! Hockey-stick" is lost in denial.
If you're so skeptical, actually look and educate yourself.
And I know you haven't based on what you said about Mann. That particular case is absolutely cut and dry, and for you to say what you have says you don't know and don't understand, and since all of the information is readily available, that means that you just haven't bothered to look, or to do so with a properly skeptical eye.
Please get a clue.
However, I am starting to notice a pattern where you say completely false things and then seem to avoid looking at or responding to any evidence to the contrary cited. If you think that is skepticism then you are doing it wrong.
Oh, and "discussing" Postma isn't being skeptical, it's being just on this side of rational compared to the (-Snip-). Holding up "discussion" of Postma as a demonstration of true skepticism is a complete joke.
[DB] Tsk. Too far.
Monckton: 'Now, this is a graph from the IPCC showing their projected temperature rise based on CO2 increases.'
Audience member: 'No it's not. That graph isn't in ANY IPCC report. You created it.'
Monckton: 'Ok, they didn't make the graph itself, but I developed it entirely based on formulas and values in the IPCC reports.'
Another audience member: 'No you didn't. You assumed feedback effects were linear and would all be completed within 20 years... both of which contradict IPCC statements.'
Monckton: 'Put down the damned cell phones and just listen!'
:]
[dana1981] We've also got a plan to do a page/series on "skeptic" falsified graphs, like the Monckton IPCC figure you reference. So many ideas, so little time...
There is a bit of hope for Muller ... he does not seem to have yet totally sacrificed his scientific integrity like some of the others.
You are exceedingly polite and civil toward these people - many of whom have received funding and support from carbon energy industries - both directly and indirectly. To me, it appears their scientific ineptitude is a poor cover for their ethical shortcomings.
O.K. the 'Climate Change' search had a lot of government sites, which would get top billing I assume, but there were some of this site's standing. I wonder if there are any marketing people among the sks readership who could advise accordingly. Just a suggestion - how about a sydicated weekly newspaper column that deals with, say, one climate myth a week and put photos of any prominent skeptics who believe in it. It could also offer an advice feature entitled 'Ask Uncle John(?) about your climate change worries.' This could have a link to sks when more depth to the answer is required than there is room for?
From a personal perspective, I often find that the contributers to this site rely on argot too much. For instance, when perusing the science related to specific myths one finds reference to the PDO (Post Dump Olfaction?) and such like. This site is an excellent reference for anyone concerned about the subject of Climate Change, but I wonder if it would be even better if it put things more in layman's terms.
"Too far"
In this case, I disagree. Postma is an absolute [-snip-], no better than some of the recent posters on this site with his own version of made up science. Using that as an example of skepticism, as if not buying into every obscenely ridiculous denial argument is a banner to be waved is not, to me, palatable. I thought my choice of words appropriate to the situation (actually, they were an insult to RVIs everywhere).
How about "Climate Mythologists?"
Ryan, actually we DO exercise scientific skepticism here.
Really? I note you address climate change scepticism in an assertive and evidence based fashion, But to be honest I’ve never noticed any sceptical publications or ideas being flagged up here. Apologies if I miss the point.
[DB] "But to be honest I’ve never noticed any sceptical publications or ideas being flagged up here."
Eh? You've lost me.
Oh, I agree, that one's "wackier than a 3-dollar bill" (or your euphemism of choice). But this forum is a lesser place if we start bandying about some of the more colorful and pointed descriptive terms that are commonplace in lesser venues than this. We need to model the behavior we expect of others.
/point
May I suggest that when you divide it into categories, you include such titles as "Political Idealogues", "Good Scientists Gobe Astray" and of course "Climastrologists"?
It would be horrible to piant people into the denialist corner who may not be beyond redemption.
#10 Les - I agree with you, in that it is a very fine line between calling out skeptics for their BS and a witch-hunt. However, unlike witches, these people have earned their right to be on this dunce's list, and the more these people are shown to be spouting garbage, the better.
I think CBD means real skepticism, the kind the scientists use, not pseudo-skepticism (ie only skeptic of evidence for AGW, and accepting without any critical evaluation any evidence against the theory). The site seems to exist largely to bunk the pseudo-science with real evidence, because there is so much of junk out there.
Did you have some peer-reviewed science paper that you think is missing from discussions?
(a) Skeptics who are merely doing poor science (eg: Roy Spencer, Murray Salby), but who do publish in journals.
(b) Spin doctors who have never published in any scientific journal.
You may also like to add in links to funding by coal and oil companies, so called "think tanks", and people like the Koch brothers.
ps: want to add Willie Soon as well ?
Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
Let's stick to the science... I do not like where this is going.
The way I see it the common or garden agw denialist is getting more infrequent these days. Instead, and much more insidious, are those who, grudgingly, accept the science on global warming, but deny the need for any action, the 'we can adapt' crowd.
Perhaps you could divide the rogue's gallery into these two types.
Simply a great idea.
And in the face of all this, you think Skeptical Science has personalized this.
Quite frankly, your rule 12 looks like the play book of the denier community. And you have the gall to insist that not only should deniers be able to libel climate scientists and launch vicious attacks against climate scientists, but they should also have the advantage of effective immunity to any challenge by keeping the spotlight very carefully of them.
CBDunkerson at 01:41 AM on 19 August, 2011
Ryan, actually we DO exercise scientific skepticism here.
Really? I note you address climate change scepticism in an assertive and evidence based fashion, But to be honest I’ve never noticed any sceptical publications or ideas being flagged up here. Apologies if I miss the point.
Response:
[DB] "But to be honest I’ve never noticed any sceptical publications or ideas being flagged up here."
Eh? You've lost me.
What I mean is that if we take skeptic proposals to be something that opposes the currently accepted viewpoint on climate change, it appears that this site uses scientific evidence and methodology to debunk such claims, but I have not noticed you posting skeptic material with the comment that “this is interesting, it may be right” I know it’s not your role to do that, and in addition amongst the masses of material on this site, I may have missed it, but that essentially is my point.
I am not up to date with his thinking, but aren't some of his skeptic comments been superseded recently, or is he still plying them?
See, the thing that most 'skeptics' don't seem to understand is that REAL skeptics are PART of the climate science community. There are different views of how data should be interpreted, which analysis methods yield the most accurate results, and so forth. The sort of rigorous ongoing debate with detailed research and explanation of methodologies which characterizes actual science. As opposed to, 'some guy with a blog says that photons can only travel in packs - so therefor global warming is a lie'. We discuss those too, but just to debunk them.