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.
Curiousgeorge says:
May 14, 2010 at 7:43 am
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.”
And it continues to say that not everybody gives it away.
Ceasefire chaps, the warmers want to make a deal as we have more ammo.
If we are right that the warming is natural, then they have agreed to do this;
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg20627605.900/mg20627605.900-1_300.jpg
There is a misprint, surely the magazine is called No Scientist.
I get this viruswarning when opening this site.
Threat:
HTML/ScrInject.B.Gen Virus
Object:
solar2[1].php
?
OT: Hey, Anthony – maybe the IPCC will send you an invitation?
“We will not have time to hear from every critic of the IPCC,” he said.
“But we will try to put together some public sessions of those who are I would say ‘thoughtful critics’ – very very respectable and highly thought of scientists with criticisms of the organisation – we definitely want to hear that.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10112136.stm
It appears the dangerous AWG argument (opposed to any warming) can no longer be supported by current facts or logic. The current data all supports the assertion that the planet’s response to a change in forcing is negative rather than positive. A doubling of CO2 will therefore result in warming of around 1C as opposed to the 3C to 5C estimate. The warming is in addition primarly at high latitudes where it will be beneficial. The effects of the warming are based on the 3C to 5C plus warming.
If it is no longer possible to win an argument based on facts, name calling and questioning of motive must be used.
John from CA says (May 14, 2010 at 7:58 am): “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.”
I actually prefer to be called a “climate heretic”. It emphasizes the religious (i.e. faith-based) nature of the CAGW creed. However, I don’t expect the “Mannish Inquisition.” 🙂
I stopped buying that rag. I have several time told them that I will never even pick it up for free until they drop their enviromentalism (sic).
Agreed. The worst sign of New Scientist’s delusional behaviour is the open use of a professional public relations rep as a supporter. Openly. A paid “truth shaper.”
Are the staff at New Scientist recovering Trotskyites or similar looking for their next monomaniacal religion?
My daughter used to buy me a subscription for Christmas every year. A couple of years ago I asked her to stop. A year ago I forbade her to ever buy me a copy again.
The science is so poor, the alarmism so over the top and the bias so blatant that they can’t even get me to read a free copy. Shame, I read it from the very beginning, back when it came with a three colour pulp cover.
JF
I have asked several times where I sign up to get my check from “Big Oil.” Maybe they use PayPal instead?
To add, only one thing more, from Mr. Shermer’s piece:
That is the biggest, cleanest psychological projection I have seen in some time. Sincerely felt, I do not doubt. In their religious fervor people like this have absorbed every criticism directed towards them and adapt it for their own, rather than ponder the criticisms’ validity.
I read a very interesting account of creationists by Ron Numbers many years ago, The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. I know you folks don’t like to be compared to creationists, but the parallels are very strong. They cannot accept science when, in their view, it goes against the Bible. [snip] cannot accept science when, in their view, it goes again the free (unregulated) market. Both groups claim that the world’s scientists are in some sort of vast conspiracy. Both groups trumpet work by a few amateurs and jump on any open questions or conflicting data as proof the whole theory is wrong.
Anybody who thinks a computer model outputs facts or is evidence is in denial of the scientific method.
I maybe a flat earther, but at least I am sure which way is up! Not sure about these guys.
I used to subscribe to New Scientist. I haven’t bought it since its awful cover re- Darwin and evolution. This issue confirms that the mag is now a shadow of its former self – banging its eco-political drums wth no thought for objectivity.
Curiousgeorge says:
May 14, 2010 at 7:43 am
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.”
‘and they all stink’ properly completes the saying. 🙂
cheers David
Mike says:
May 14, 2010 at 12:14 pm
That’s a pretty poor representation of the situation. Most reasonable skeptics don’t think it’s a vast conspiracy, they think it’s a case of following the wrong path so long that you can’t see anything else. I think it was Willis that posted a comment here about the statistics of looking for a 95% probability of some facet of man’s contributions causing warming. By the time you reach roughly a dozen studies looking for this, the probability of one of them finding a “positive” spuriously has increased to ~50%! Now consider the number of studies actually be done…way more than a dozen, right? As one who works in academia, I fully understand the pressures and directions of funding. Finding “statistically significant” manmade causes of “climate change” is easy when you’re paid to do so and look at dozens of data sets. As a comparison, 15 years ago nearly 100% of the scientists in the field of microfluidics would have told you that in a dozen years, microfluidics would have revolutionized the world of chemical and biochemical analysis and be the standard way of doing things. Well, what happened? Clearly they were wrong, and part of it because their funding pursuits blinded them to the truth. Is this happening with AGW? Possibly. Is this happening with CAGW? My opinion is a definite “yes”.
Also, do you consider Roy Spencer an amateur? I think that in terms of data analysis/statistics, Michael Mann is more an an amateur than Steve McIntyre…have you considered that?
The stand here on creationism/intelligent design is typically apathetic, but a few people have commented for/against it in the past. However, your post twists that debate too. Do you label Michael Behe as an amateur? Seriously, read his stuff sometime and make your own decisions on it…don’t swallow what your liberal professors or magazines send your way without a second thought.
I’m just so tired of being labeled a conspiracy theorist because my views on CAGW…
-Scott
dp says: May 14, 2010 at 8:30 am “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.”
It’s become more like a smell of its former self, then?.
“From climate change to vaccines, evolution to flu, denialists are on the march.”
I haven’t read the op-eds in question, but one thing I have noticed about the climate debate is the number of sahred claims made by anti-evolutionists and climate sceptics about their respective opponents. Among the claims held in common are:
Media bias, religion/cult, groupthink, no consensus, educational indoctrination, lack of falsifiability, career prejudice, funding corruption, “growing numbers” of anti-evolutionists/climate sceptics, incivility, refusal to debate, accusations of Marxism/Nazism, evolution/AGW as eugenics, genocidal intent, censorship, evolution/AGW as postmodernism, and hoax and fraud.
What is notable about these claims is that they are overwhelmingly non-scientific. A few shared claims can be expected of people who oppose an idea, but there are too many here to be coincidental.
In my view these shared claims serve a particular function. They attempt to explain the fact that evolution and AGW have become the dominant view among the scientific establishment and the major societal institutions.
Does that mean that all climate sceptics are creationists? Of course not. But these shared claims are uncomfortable reminders that opposition to mainstream science contains many factors beyond science.
I know you folks don’t like to be compared to creationists, but the parallels are very strong
Then why do you give such weak examples. Seriously. Fail.
But who reads it anyway?
New Scientist is like MSNBC or Newsweek.
Hey Mike, how’s that trolling working out for you? Looks to me like you’re using the wrong bait.
Mike,
What you fail to grasp is that the faith based belief system is CAGW, not the skeptics. When facts don’t fit their belief system (i.e. models) they deny they exist or torture the data till it agrees with their belief in CAGW. MWP can’t be global because that would disagree with their hockey stick. Feedbacks must be positive or else they can’t get more than a degree or so of warming from CO2.
“Hide the decline” is their approach to science if it interferes with their views. The heat must have gone to the deep ocean because it must be there, because CAGW is the REVEALED TRUTH.
You imply that support for the skeptical position is based on the belief in unregulated freemarkets, yet you fail to grasp that the CAGW position is based on government imposed controls of all aspects of life. The enthusiastic supporters of CAGW are the politicians of the world who see it as a way of increasing their power. No wonder that Al Gore spins tales of imminent global apocalypse. How else to they gain power?
Zeke the Sneak says:
May 14, 2010 at 9:56 am
I find, instead, those “deep emotional needs”in BELIEVERS
And those “deep emotional needs” are commonly, and of course unconsciously, originated in very profound “feelings” like: “Mommy I wanna that icecream!”, “Bad boss doesn’t want me”, or as a consequence that “she” or “he” didn’t look at me!”,etc.
Those are the “feelings”of instinct not real feelings, are characteristical of spoil grown up kids.
However we must say that this applies only to Global Warming preachers, leaders, and “scientists” but NOT in any way to their patrons, bosses or funders, they are perfectly conscious of their inexaustible need of power and money.