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.
Finally, a credible climate science flowchart that doesn’t invoke bogus feedbacks!
Agreed. When you catch them out then “consensus” becomes the default position.
Below is unrelated to climate but is recent and overturns scientific consensus which involved just one bacterium. This is what the Warmists just don’t understand about the utter foolishness of relying on scientific consensus. It just takes one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11886943
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2010/12/01/science.1197258
I always despised deniers; they were generally skinheads with a swastika or neo-nazi symbols tattooed on their upper body or neck.
Then I suggested on an internet forum that the Sun might have something to do with global climate.
I was called a denier and someone told me that they hoped I’d rot in hell.
That made me very upset.
So now they say that the cold Northern Hemisphere winter is caused by the quiet Sun.
No apology. No admission that they were wrong.
And no admission that they could ever be wrong.
Indeed: they were more right than ever.
So now governments whose electorates mostly think that global warming is utter crap are meeting with unelected NGOs in Mexico. And unelected journalists are reporting utter crap about this crappy gathering that voters think is crap.
And taxpayer’s money keeps flowing into the useless renewable energy bubble.
These people have to be held to account for perverting democracy.
Nice! This is precisely the type of outreach that is required in re-educating skeptics and saving the planet (as we know it).
Enhancement suggestion:
Boxes where grant money can be applied for, received, and dissipated, in support of the cause.
Cold hot cold says:
… Cold hot cold. I like the chart you posted.
Paul says:
December 4, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Canada out: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101204/cancun-climate-talks-kyoto-101204/
————————
Who-hoo! I notice Canada’s accused of following the United States in rejecting Kyoto, but since Japan and Russia opted out first at Cancun, Canada could be just as easily accused of following the latter. Of course, that would not fit the Liberal Party’s usual anti-U.S. b*llcr*p. Prouder by the minute to make Canada my home. The only thing that was heating up prior to Climategate was the media’s climate alarmism, and they just can’t seem to bring things back to the boil. In retrospect, the rhetoric of the climate alarmists mirrored the tactics used by G.W. Bush and his allies in trying to garner support for the Iraq invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The attempt to link Al Qaeda and Iraq was like attempts to link global warming to human-generated CO2 (the difference being that the global warming appears to be fictitious).
@Cold hot Cold: LOL!
PKasse
You forgot the poley bears!!!
Just what I was thinking. How about a branch on the top line with the question “Are they children?” If answer is no, then on to “Are they scientists?’ If yes, then a whole set of contingencies, including school curriculums, polar bears, big red buttons….
This flow chart is not robust! It makes a crucial and unfounded assumption that AGW is a fact. One that may well be true, but is yet unproven. There is no mention of the IPCC, the EPA, NASA, and other organizations, including some climate journals. It mentions blogging and the ad hominem attacks, but not the audit function and criticism found in key skeptic blogs. Where is RealClimate and the moderators therein? Where are the models and the money to make them? Oh, thats right, where is the money?
Actually, I think this could be developed into a very complex (and humorous) diagram.
bsfootprint
My suggestion is to number all the boxes with a specific number, say x, then we will say, “oh that is is from AGW DEFENDER FLOWCHART BOX x!”
I think that page would fit full screen on my 17″ HD PC on full page macro.
I would like to see that.
I bet I’m not the only one.
[d]
@bsfootprint
> Have I left anything out?
You left out the “straw man” argument: accuse the skeptic of plagiarism to distract attention from any valid claims he or she has made (e.g. Wegman).
It is just sad to think that after failure after failure of climate alarmist predictions that there are still people out there that think that AGW is anything more then massive fraud designed to fill alarmist pockets and empower watermelons who supports leftist agendas… humanity is doomed.
Yeah, you had the Koch brothers and Holocaust deniers in there but you forgot the “people-who-say-cigarettes-don’t-cause-cancer.”
Hope all is well on the medical front.
I’m just trying to help out a little here for those who like to ponder.
JP Morgan Silver Manipulation Explained
If you’d like to do a little more research, you can check this thread out.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/silvergoldsilvercom-runs-out-all-precious-metals-hours
Silvergoldsilver.com Runs Out Of All Precious Metals In Hours
A few common responses I’ve seen:
1. Alarmists point out that there is no other explanation for current temperatures other than CO2
2. Any request for actual evidence is met by a list of links to alarmist web sites, particularly: “How to talk to a skeptic”:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php
Alarmists seem unable to state for themselves, what they feel the “evidence” that man’s CO2 is causing warming actually is.
3. The old “scientific consensus” …
4. The “insurance” argument … “what if you’re wrong?”
5. Then there’s “surely you can’t deny that man is having an effect on nature ?”
Re: “Have I left anything out?”
Nope. You nailed it.
FergalR says:
December 4, 2010 at 5:39 pm
So now they say that the cold Northern Hemisphere winter is caused by the quiet Sun.
————–
They did not.
“Its the sun stupid” theory is a construct by your team, its not a warmest construct.
The climate science is clear that the cold weather is caused by a shift in Arctic circulation.
There has been some speculation that AGW might be interfering with normal circulation patterns but so far no one is suprer convinced that these circulation pattern changes are permanent or temporary.
By the way: talking of standard tactics. Your team members often make stuff up about the position of climate scientists. And then ridicule them for things they did not say. This is yet another example.
The flowchart should not end so suddenly.
It should keep looping like in Monopoly where it is possible to keep going round and collecting your cash each time you pass go. There is money to be made if you keep the process going long enough to pass Kyoto, Copenhagen, Cancun …etc.
Lew-
Then it should have Obomanation printing money and placing it is george soros’ pocket as well, if truth has broken out……IMHO
[d]
I think that about covers it.
LazyTeenager (5:39 pm),
‘….climate science is clear that the cold weather is caused by a shift in Arctic circulation…..AGW might be interfering with normal circulation patterns…’
Broadly, the Earth has been trending warmer for about 300 years from one of the coldest episodes during this interglacial (LIA)…
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SsZbFvC5SJI/AAAAAAAABLY/uZxh6g17bmE/s400/GISP2_10Ke.jpg
…..but for only about 60-70 years does the IPCC claim that human GHGs (mainly CO2) have been the overwhelming driver of the warming — that warming has been indistinguishable in rate or duration from previous warming bursts (e.g. 1910-1940).
An obvious question for even the laziest teenager: does any global warming trend (whatever the cause) result in the ‘Arctic circulation shift’, or is this alleged shift a unique a product of AGW (as defined by IPCC AR4) and if so, how?
Mr Hanley-
Lazy Teen is a 30 something basement troll.
He’s been called out before.
[d]
You left out:
‘You are on our list.’ and ‘We know where you Live.’
The colors are rather absent, use more alarming tones like yellow, orange and red.