New Scientist has a barrage of articles on “denialism”, including one from DeSmog Blog misinformer Richard Littlemore, who runs with the tired old comparisons of today’s skeptical public to tobacco industry campaigns. He bashes what he calls “manufactured doubt” while at the same time ignoring the billions poured into the climate industry, including the funding he and his namesake publisher (Hoggan and Associates PR firm, who run DeSmog Blog) receives from that industry. It’s quite the sanctioned hatefest going on there. It is truly sad that like Scientific American, New Scientist has become nothing more that a political science mouthpiece, and a shell of its former self.
Here’s links to all the New Scientist articles on “denial”. They did include one article from Michael Fitzpatrick that is a feeble attempt at balance, but even it too strays into the ugly territory of comparing climate skeptics with AIDS deniers.
- Special report: Living in denial Opinion > Special Report p35 From climate change to vaccines, evolution to flu, denialists are on the march. Why do so many people refuse to accept the evidence?
- Living in denial: When a sceptic isn’t a sceptic Opinion > Special Report pp36-37 There are clear lines between scepticism and denial, but telling them apart can be tricky in the real world, says Michael Shermer
- Living in denial: Why sensible people reject the truth Opinion > Special Report pp38-41 Denialism satisfies deep emotional needs. That makes it easy to encourage and hard to counter, says Debora MacKenzie
- Living in denial: How corporations manufacture doubt Opinion > Special Report p41 If the truth is inconvenient, put up a smokescreen instead. It works wonders for big business, argues Richard Littlemore
- Living in denial: Unleashing a lie Opinion > Special Report pp42-43 It’s easy to send a lie flying around the world, and almost impossible to shoot it down, says Jim Giles
- Living in denial: Questioning science isn’t blasphemyOpinion > Special Report p44 Michael Fitzpatrick argues that calling an opponent a denier is illiberal, intolerant and ineffective
- Living in denial: The truth is our only weapon Opinion > Special Report p45 We must let denialists be heard, and respond with patience, vigilance and tireless rebuttal, says Michael Shermer
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wow. What an epic pile of [snip]!
Afraid for their livelihood it seems.
We all know who the real denialists and liars are.
They are really getting desparate. Sounds like their last gasp.
New Scientist went left.
Projection is one of the core symptoms of Marx induced madness.(The others are narcissism and envy.)
It’s not surprising that the Big-Scares for Big Grants industry is projecting now it’s losing all the arguments. You see the same things said by marxists about economics calling people who want to stop innocent workers being extorted by the state as nasty.
The soviet union is an example of the ecological destruction that happens when so much of an economy is directed by bureaucrats (that’s the narcissism part, the bureaucrat thinks they care more and can arrange the world better than anyone else regardless of how much violence is required).
The last bit Envy is the most important for academics who have been told that only intelligence = wealth, when it’s meeting demand that creates wealth (and that requires social skills they lack).
I notice that all of the listed articles are Opinion pieces. You know the old saw about Opinions: “Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.”
I’d read the article by Michael Shermer yesterday. It left me thoroughly disgusted, and now that I see a lot of similar articles, I doubt I could stomach the rest.
It’s interesting…these are usually the people proclaiming the loudest that there is no objective truth, but clearly that’s not how they feel about “their truths”.
What’s also interesting is that only a few people (“conspiracy theorists”) are skeptical of all the topics associated with “denialism”. Yet, by their simple psychological analysis, most of the people that are skeptical of one should be skeptical of all.
The amount of hypocrisy is mouth dropping…these are the same people that deny their own variety of well-established history to suit their own agenda (two examples that come immediately to mind are the MWP/LIA past climate and the fact that the majority of America’s forefathers were Christians).
As a person that’s about to finish their Ph.D. in a hard science, I know a little about the scientific process. These people have twisted it to something disgusting and made it their golden calf to worship. How sad.
Just my thoughts,
-Scott
Climate Change on Jupiter???
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1277734/Jupiter-loses-stripes-scientists-idea-why.html
Must be all that increased Carbon Dioxide from all the little Jovian aliens driving around montster SUV has caused Climate Change on Jupiter.
Maybe we can send Al Gore out there to help save their planet too.
;>P
I’ve been reading New Scientist’s website a lot 10 years ago but checked it less and less as they came up with a new scenario about how the universe will end or what a black hole really is every other week. So it looks like i missed the whole climate denialist fun. Maybe they should rebrand to “New Dogmatist” or “Weekly Balderdash”.
Still waiting for my “big oil” check. They must be too busy cleaning up the mess they made in the Gulf of Mexico.
I guess I will have to stick with my day job.
Is this really from the New Scientist? If so I hope they will look at this edition in future and hang their heads in shame.
tonyb
This is ludicrous. The term “climate change denialist” has been applied to “those who refuse to accept that climate change is occurring”. The Wikipedia definition is not only incorrect, its absurd.
There is a very odd similarity between this absurd dogma and the “Church” which once dictated “Science”.
I really hope the zealots of this warming mania pull their heads out of the ground before this goes to far and they begin to use the term Heretic.
Off Topic:
What are the drinking over at East Anglia? What ever it is… I DON”T want some….
Yeah, ain’t it awful?
“Living in denial: Unleashing a lie Opinion > Special Report pp42-43 It’s easy to send a lie flying around the world, and almost impossible to shoot it down, says Jim Giles.”
Are they bragging or complaining?
How many years has this been going on now?
And the so called “truth” has not carried enough weight to actually become “truth”.
I say encourage them to scream even louder.
The more hysterical they get, the less people believe.
There’s Klingons on the starboard bow.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/05/scientists-plot-to-hit-back-at-critics/
It’s life Jim but not as we know it.
I found out yesterday that my steer was regulated by the EPA under the American Power Grab Act and the corn was under the USDA. I can NOT give the steer the bushel of corn until Goldman sachs gives me a carbon credit certificate and the approval arrives with proper signatures.
This manufactured coercion follows manufactured hockey stick reports.
Does any one blame me for thinking there is some stupidity out there?
Fred Pearce, New Scientist senior environment correspondent, is the guy at the centre of Glaciergate.
For 11 years Fred Pearce sat on the lie that the Himalayan glaciers would dissappear by 2035 (he made up that figure himself).
Since Glaciergate both the New Scientist and Fred Pearce have ben trying hard to re-establish their credentials with the alarmist movement.
This series of articles is atonement for their global warming sins. They have been forgiven by the high priests of the climate-change religion.
PS You should look at IPCC Chairman Pachauri’s presentation to IAC Review Committee
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/Presentation_%20IAC_review_Amsterdam_14th_May_2010.ppt
Pachauri repeats the lie that the +18,000 papers in the AR4 are all peer-reviewed. Now that should make heads turn.
It would appear that global warming alarmists have trouble with basic numbers.
I used to refer to global warming as neo-Lysenkoism. However, seeing these New Scientist articles, I think the term will eventually be called “Hansenism” as memory of Lysenko fades.
These anti-skeptic articles have an increasingly angry, bitter and desperate tone. It’s not attractive.
Been following New Scientist’s coverage of AGW for some time and watching their coverage become more and more of a joke. A bad joke.
New Scientist should change their name to Mad Scientist.
Lubos Motl has for years called it Nude Socialist.
I like this little piece of spin:
Living in denial: When a sceptic isn’t a sceptic Opinion > Special Report pp36-37 There are clear lines between scepticism and denial, but telling them apart can be tricky in the real world…
The New Scientist was one of my oldest bookmarks until it became obvious it had become a Drudge Report for crank science. Haven’t been there since.
We just need to make fun of these people more.
That is the best they deserve.
Thankfully I saw the light and gave up my subscription to New Scientist years ago. I’m surprised it has any readers left. Perhaps it just has left readers.