I’ve been following the online global warming climate change climate disruption debate of late, and I thought it might be helpful to diagram common pro-AGW responses to skeptics.
So: here’s a flowchart I created. It summarizes what I often see while reading pro-AGW/ACC and skeptic blogs, and the often amusing “comment debates” contained therein.
Source at Scribd
Have I left anything out?
Feel free to leave a comment suggesting additions or improvements. Or telling me just what kind of fool I am.
Equal time
Note to flamers: it’s a humor piece. Feel free to create your own ‘Man-made climate change skeptic’ flowchart if you like, leave a comment on this post and I’ll gladly add a link to relevant responses here.
Have I left anything out?
Feel free to leave a comment suggesting additions or improvements. Or telling me just what kind of fool I am.
Equal time
Note to flamers: it’s a humor piece. Feel free to create your own ‘Man-made climate change skeptic’ flowchart if you like, leave a comment on this post and I’ll gladly add a link to relevant responses here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gasp.. thanks, Anthony.
Nail, meet Hammer.
H/T Mr Watts.
[d]
It is amusing, but not funny… it did not make me chuckle, let alone laugh. There are too many anomolies amongst so many of the descripted diamonds that would, and do take pages to describe fully.
Maybe I have lost my sense of humour, but I could perhaps regain it if the Mexican air traffic controllers backed up their Spanish brethren and said ” sorry, we are on holiday”, in a week’s time.
Start –>[Assume warming is bad contrary to all human history] –>{supports AGW theory and IPCC proposals}-(yes?)—->
(no?)—–>
I am always disappointed when even skeptics fall into the trap of letting the warmists get away with assuming warming is bad. Cold is bad. The last time is was really cold with failed crops, famine, and disease in this country we found who was to blame and then hanged them for being witches after the trials in Salem. I guess that stopped them from putting curses on people and causing all that misery.
lol, funny. But yeh, you forgot to include them blather something about a “consensus”. That’s almost always brought up. Probably best fit on the bottom.
Are they a scientist? -> NO -> Then dismiss them because they are not an expert in the field. (Note the irony)
Do *you* blog (pro AGW)? -> YES -> Delete their comments or close the thread when things don’t go your way.
The second one is dedicated to Gavin Schmidt.
works for me……..
Yeah, I had a hard time squeezing it in to a flowchart format. Point taken.
It’s a shame your flow chart is so accurate, even one year after ClimateGate.
Engchamp says:
December 4, 2010 at 3:31 pm
It is amusing, but not funny… it did not make me chuckle, let alone laugh. There are too many anomolies amongst so many of the descripted diamonds that would, and do take pages to describe fully.
Maybe I have lost my sense of humour, but I could perhaps regain it if the Mexican air traffic controllers backed up their Spanish brethren and said ” sorry, we are on holiday”, in a week’s time.
Eh? Is this a bot?
How to deal with skeptics:
http://anhonestclimatedebate.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/dealingwithskeptics3.jpg
How to become a climate scientist
http://anhonestclimatedebate.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/ipccscientist.jpg
Two criticisms:
(1) The “Start” should specify that a person of unknown AGW opinion has been encountered.
(2) Shouldn’t mix singular / plural pronouns (e.g. “he” & “them”).
Nailed it.
Hmm….
I’d like to make some kind of funny comment…but I think the AGW flowchart would be much easier to draft along the lines of ..
do you support AGW > yes/no > if yes go and learn to read
if no > – put that book down and give yourself a medal!
Suggestions for incorporation
1. Always exaggerate your claims. As each one proves to be false, do not admit you were wrong, but instead make wilder claims. The press will love it, and will print anything if it s scary enough. If the revised claims are scary enough, people may forget your previous mistakes! Think Paul Erhlich and Steven Schneider, two highly successful careers based on nothing more than hot air and scarey stories about people dying. Genius!
2. AGW requires positive feedbacks and tipping points. Anything can be a tipping point. Dung from elephants crossing the Alps with Hannibal could have been a tipping point, leading to the Roman warm period, nobody can prove you wrong! It is so easy!
3. Always involve children and emotional blackmail
4. When the science is lacking create a consensus.
5. If a scientists has a good point, that may damage your government funding, cut off their funding stream, and block them from publishing.
6. When things are getting desperate speak to Anderegg et al about writing a paper.
7. Never release data that may be used against you
8. Assume that well groomed facial hair adds to your scientific credibility
9. No matter how much funding you receive from oil companies, always accuse your enemies of being in the pay of “big oil”
10. If in doubt, choose one or all from 1-9 above, though avoid 8. if you are female.
That’s what I get for napping in grade school (and hurrying). I’ll fix it in my next rev 😀
Canada out: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101204/cancun-climate-talks-kyoto-101204/
Good suggestions, I’ll see what I can squeeze in. Though I may have to create a new chart!
Should be “Mann-made” ……. blech
@Cold hot cold: Thanks for the links to similar charts, I’ve added them to the “Similar works” section of my blog post.
You forgot the poley bears!!!
Golf Charley: Thanks for driving that nail into the proverbial deck.
Some people need things explained to them.
H/T
[d]
Hahaha. As a software developer, I will find this flowchart very useful :p.
Level 1. One could challenge skeptics to prove that 2010 is not the hottest year of the millennium. It is also demonstrably the second hottest year of the last two millennia – of all those measured by satellite. Skeptics, unfortunately, have a habit of reading fine print, so you may need to go on to level 2…
Level 2. One could do what my BOM did and alter the minimum temp reading for Kempsey, October 17 2010, which was freakishly cold, so that 3.0 was 3.5 by the end of the day. Who checks these things? Fiddle local but collate global for a sustainable climate panic! But Level 3 is best.
Level 3. Become a lukewarmer or moderate. Criticise your alarmist colleagues for poor communication, flatter and apologise to the skeptics, advancing into their milieu, and be praised for your courage and openness. Promise them a whole bunch of newer and better and far more complex computer models. Like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown, tell ’em it’ll be okay this time. Instead of being sacked for advancing ruinous economic measures based on old and flimsy evidence…you’ll get promoted for advancing ruinous economic measures based on new and flimsy evidence.
Level 4. If all else fails, just go back to being an old-style misanthropic Bolshie and wait for the next lethal intellectual fashion.