'Skeptical Science', Shouting, and Joe Romm's integrity – a test

Washington DC USA

Climate activist Joe Romm at a 350.org rally in Washington DC (Photo credit: 350.org)

Over at Climate Progress, the alarmist organ of the Center for American Progress, Joe Romm is fond of citing an offhand remark from this WUWT story as “proof” of my alleged evilness.

“Scientists” Pull a Snow Job on Reporters in Teleconference

The offending phrase that gets Romm all riled up?

Forbes supports our position. A number of alarmists have been organized to team up on the comment section to defend the undefensible. Please add your voice of support to shout them down in the comments section.

Problem is, I never wrote that update paragraph at the top of the article, Joe D’Aleo did.

Joe Romm has cited the “shout them down” phrase in his references to WUWT and my name no less than 13 times in his blogs:

False Balance Lives: In Worst Climate Story Of The Year, PBS Channels Fox News

MIT Climate Scientist’s Wife Threatened in a “Frenzy of Hate” and Cyberbullying Fomented by Deniers

Hot Dog Bites Skeptical Man: Koch-Funded Berkeley Temperature Study Does “Confirm the Reality of Global Warming”

Climate Secret: NSF Quietly Closes Out Inspector General Investigation with Complete Vindication of Michael Mann

Comment here on comments and the new design

Scientific American & Lemonick pull a Charlie Sheen — or a Richard Muller, which is much the same

Yes, the false accusation that Gore was exaggerating came from none other than Roger Pielke, Jr.

What kind of media analysis could possibly conclude the Washington Post covered climate well in 2009?

Berkeley temperature team explains attack on its initial findings by WattsUpWithThat was pure fabrication

Bombshell 1: Climate science deniers claim to have full access to Berkeley temperature study work-product — and are now working with the Berkeley team!

Deniers finally concede that “the rate of atmospheric CO2 growth has been increasing.”

Inhofe, Horner, McIntyre and Watts fabricate another phony “despicable smear” against Michael Mann

Anthony Watts urges WattsUpWithThat readers to disrupt Forbes blog: “shout them down in the comments section”

Last week, I finally had enough of his shenanigans and emailed him, and he made a change to the most recent story for which I thank him, but the other stories remain unchanged. He also suggested in his reply email that I make a note on the blog entry that it is D’Aleo’s words, not mine, and I’ve done that.

Also last week it was revealed that Joe Romm had concerns over accuracy of the blog posts at Skeptical Science: Skeptical Science gets Romm-Bombed

Romm wrote to John Cook, and Cook summarized in their secret offline forum :

“Just got this email from Joe Romm: You must do more post vetting. More errors are creeping into posts and it will start making people like me wary of using them.” – John Cook [Skeptical Science], December 2, 2011

So in that spirit of accuracy, I would think that Joe would want to go back and correct his 12 other mistakes on that “shout them down” phrase he is so fond of using. We’ll see.

But here’s a test to see just how much integrity he has. You see it seems there has in fact been a coordinated effort on the part of Skeptical Science to do exactly what Joe Romm accuses WUWT of doing. Here’s some of that dialog as posted by PopularTechnology.net:

============================================================

“I posted over at Politico just recently. Hey, we can tag team it a bit if you like, use time zone differences.” – Glenn Tamblyn [Skeptical Science], February 10, 2011

I think this is a highly effective method of dealing with various blogs and online articles where these discussions pop up. Flag them, discuss them and then send in the troops to hammer down what are usually just a couple of very vocal people. It seems like lots of us are doing similar work, cruising comments sections online looking for disinformation to crush. I spend hours every day doing exactly this. If we can coordinate better and grow the “team of crushers” then we could address all the anti-science much more effectively.” – Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

“Rob, Your post is music to my ears. I’ve been advocating the need to create a “crusher crew” for quite some time. I was not however able to get much traction on it with fellow environmental activists here in South Carolina or nationally. Like you, I spend (much to my wife’s chagrin) many hours each day posting comments on articles. One of haunts was the USA Today website […] The bottom line, would you be willing to patrol articles posted on the USA Today website?” – John Hartz [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

This started a new forum discussion entitled, “Crusher Crew“.

“Badgersouth and I were just discussing the potential of setting up a coordinated “Crusher Crew” where we could pull our collective time and knowledge together in order to pounce on overly vocal deniers on various comments sections of blogs and news articles.” – Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

May I suggest first on our list as being the *#1 Science Blog* “Watts up with that”? They get a few people come there to engage from time to time but rarely a coordinated effort.” – Robert W. [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

“I think it might be better to start out with smaller fish. Build a community and a team. Find some methods and strategies that work. Then start moving up the denier food chain with our targets set on WUWT. I could see this expanding into a broad team of 100 or more people (outside the scope of this SkS forum of course). […] We just need to raise our collective voices to drown them out. I would venture to guess that most people here know of 4 or 5 regulars on comments sections that would be interested in coordinating their efforts. I know probably 10 or 20 people who would like to help with this.” – Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

This eco-strike squad was highly endorsed by John Cook,

The Rapid Response Network would be a good way to coordinate this kind of activity, identifying new articles, logging responses, supporting each other. Can i suggest if a group engage in this, that they use the RRN as beta testers to he’ll me develop and refine the system?” – John Cook [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

References:

From the Skeptical Science “leak”: Interesting stuff about generating and marketing “The Consensus Project” (Tom Nelson, March 23, 2012)

Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online (Skeptical Science, March 25, 2011)

===============================================================

I had to chuckle at this admission:

May I suggest first on our list as being the *#1 Science Blog* “Watts up with that”? They get a few people come there to engage from time to time but rarely a coordinated effort.”

Even more hilarious, is this comment left by Skeptical Science author and moderator on Romm’s first essay where he bring the “shout them down” issue up:

Rob Honeycutt says:

I think Anthony Watts relishes his position as a climate thug.

Given the evidence cited above for his own behavior, that’s a classic case of projection by Honeycutt if I’ve ever seen one.

So now the integrity test for Joe Romm is: will you condemn Skeptical Science for actual organized behavior of the same kind that you condemn me of from an off-the cuff comment made by a guest blogger?

So, as it turns out Joe D’Aleo was right, there is an organized effort “…to team up on the comment section to defend the undefensible.“. Maybe he didn’t phrase the call to action well, but all D’Aleo was doing is urging people to exercise their right to free speech if they choose to disagree. There’s no organized effort. I’ve received no complaints from Forbes or any other online venue.

We’ll see how Mr. Romm handles this integrity test when it comes to pointing out the “drown them out” calls of his own misbehaving friends. If he has any integrity he’ll condemn the Skeptical Science organized practice in the same way he has condemned WUWT and me for that offhand remark by D’Aleo.

Ball’s in your court Joe.

================================================================

UPDATE: Joe D’Aleo responds in comments:

Joe D’Aleo says:

Guilty as charged. I posted that in frustration after many attempts by me and others to post comments refuting obviously flawed claims on numerous blogs that were blocked by moderators. That site, like WUWT was not restrictive, which I encouraged people to respond to. Obviously if readers did not agree with me, they would not /should not do so.

Many times after failing to have my comments appear on some blogs and sites, I have resorted to sending an email with facts, charts and diagrams to the author to try and educate them. SInce you can’t do that in comments and a picture says a thousand words, it may be more effective, but my guess is that they just discard.

Downside then is my argument is never seen by the knee jerk commenters with their litanys…”obviously shills for big oil”, ” 97% of scientists agree”, “deniers are anti-science” , “it is far worse than we ever thought”, “the climate is nearing the tipping point”, “deniers don’t care about the air and water”……that fill the comment section.

Any comments that get through ignore the facts I present and attack my integrity, reasons for not believing, and intelligence. They go ad hominem.

As more soylent green says so well, since this i not a scientific debate and never was is “shout them” down really inappropriate?

By the way a skeptic was invited to give a talk in New England on natural factors and a professor organized a group to come in and disrupt the talk – not wait for the Q&A session after with tough questions but to try and make it impossible for the speaker to present his case. I experienced that kind of resistance twice in talks in Vermont where a group tried to convince the museum to cancel my talk and the second when a talk at a college was constantly interrupted with challenges ironically to pictures of bad climate sites. The person involved kept insisting these were not real sites. It was in the early days of surfacestations.org and I used stations from Anthony, Roger Pielke Sr. and the late John Daly.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
beesaman

So the ‘team’ is alive and going from blog to blog ‘crushing’ dissenting voices.
Sounds familiar to another climate team according to those pesky leaked emails.
I wonder what the Vice Chancellors, Directors and public sponsors of the ‘team’ would think about these anti-democratic and anti-free speech tactics being propogated in their name?

grumpyoldmanuk

They might well think that such activities help sustain the flow of grants and are therefore to be tacitly encouraged?

Andrew30

“Ball’s in your court Joe.’
The ball will pass Joe by because Joe has the wrong kind of Racket in his hands.

Andrew30

“Ball’s in your court Joe.”
When Joe holds Court he is involved with a Racket Influenceing Climate Organizations (RICO), you can’t pay ball with that kind of Racket.

DBCooper

Psychologists call it projection. That’s when someone looks at their own failings and, instead of acknowledging them, they accuse others of their own shortcomings.

Dave

I’m sure William Connolley will be willing to help them out.

cui bono

Oh, dear. Sad, sad, sad…
“I spend (much to my wife’s chagrin) many hours each day posting comments on articles.”
“It seems like lots of us are doing similar work, cruising comments sections online looking for disinformation to crush. I spend hours every day doing exactly this.”
Aren’t they interested in getting to the next level in D&D anymore? Maybe they could clean up their homes before their mothers find out what a mess they’ve made of her basement.
The mercy of it is these idiots couldn’t organise a hit squad if their grants depended on it, poor things. Bless.

Jeremy

Nobody really cares what Joe Romm, John Cook or these other eco-zealots say. I suspect your readership come here to read interesting science articles not to learn about antics of the wackos out there on ineffectual blogs. Of course, perhaps I only speak for myself so just two cents.
I do however think it important what Huff Post, Guardian, BBC, NY Times etc write, as I suspect the media have a bigger influence on the thinking of ordinary citizens but these ineffectual and disreputable blogs only ever preach to the choir.

DirkH

“Crusher Crew”. Oh bless their adolescent hearts. There has to be a Marvel hero called crusher.
Yes. Two of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusher_%28comics%29

Sean

Joe Romm is living proof that climate change is increasing species diversification. He is one of many example of a new species of primate, homo moronicus, which although it is closely related to homo sapiens it lacks much of its cognitive capacity.

Otter

‘romm’ and ‘integrity,’ will only ever be used in sentences like the one I have just finished writing.

Jimmy Haigh

What a sad, pathetic and pitiful bunch of nonentities. Why don’t they get a life?

What I find interesting in their admission that they “spend hours daily” trawling for posts they want to crush. Who pays them? How are they earning a living? Or are they like many of the Greenpeace “foot soldiers” elsewhere – living on Social Security benefits?

Mat

Anthony you are a better man then me as I would have ripped him after 3 repeated mis-tellings of the truth !

OpenMind

Could very well backfire, because if that crew starts showing up here they might very well just get a real education and switch……….

catweazle666

Given the way government and public concern for AGW is dropping like a brick down a well, perhaps they should rename their “Crusher Crew” the “Volkssturm”.

A. Scott

There was only one real “Crusher” … Reginald Lisowski

😉

Anthony. I admire your good-natured response to these attempts to darken your reputation and end reasoned push-back at climate-alarmism, but when I encounter sentiments like this “. . raise our collective voices to drown them out ” . . . it’s hard for me to smile patiently at the mis-guided opposition.
It makes my stomach turn.

Paul Deacon

“Crusher crew” has to be good for a cartoon by Josh…

banjo

Maybe the `crew` have a `crush` on you…eeeew!

jorgekafkazar

Joe who?

Oh, man, maybe the kids fom Skeptical Science can get together as th’ Klimate Krusher Krew. They could have cute uniforms & awesome symbols for their various subdivisions with lots of things like propellers in circles (to symbolise the Power of Wind!) or sweet looking lightning bolts (to symbolize Static Electricity!) or skulls (to symboliçe the Necessary Reductions in Population!). they could use ALL CAPS to show how serious they are about KLIMATE! & when they have meetings, mom can bring down Doritos® & Mtn. Dew® (& can you boys please not use the clothes iron to reheat your pizza? I’ll go down to Goodwill & pick you up a microwave for the basement.).

Roy Jones

The details of their exchanges are interesting, but we already knew the basics from the PBS astrotufing.

wayne

Thanks dbc, projection, that’s the word that accurately fits so many cases over the last few years when dealing with AGW proponents, they get confused, frustrated, and then here it comes every time. I was having quite a time finding the proper word for it, seems to be one of their favorite tactics.

Frank Kotler

I think Joe Romm’s got a point. I’m sure Joe Aleo meant “refute them with scientific arguments”, but “shout them down” is what came out. This isn’t doing anybody any good, whichever “side” is doing it. Apparently Anthony said something horribly incorrect on PBS the other day. I’d love to learn what he said that was incorrect, and what the correct information is! All I hear is that he shouldn’t have been allowed to speak at all. I don’t expect a “civil dialogue” to develop at this point – too much fun to “shout them down and hurl insults. Pity.

David Ball

Is this all they can find to hang their collective hat on? One phrase that Anthony never even said? Desperate much?

pokerguy

“Nobody really cares what Joe Romm, John Cook or these other eco-zealots say. I suspect your readership come here to read interesting science articles not to learn about antics of the wackos out there on ineffectual blogs. Of course, perhaps I only speak for myself so just two cents.”
Disagree. Not only are their machinations and rationalizations and projections as fascinating as they are disturbing, Anthony does us all a service by calling them out on their conduct. Half the time I honestly think they don’t realize the depth of their own hypocrisy (which gets us back to (“projection”).

Kaboom

The rank hypocrisy of the environuts (and the Left generally), is simply breath-taking.
I believe that we might be seeeing the long-awaited commencement of the collective head-exploding (and not in a 350.org sense, either).
Good times, good times!

D Marshall

@Kaboom It’s very clear to me that projection is not at all restricted to any single group.

3x2

[…] Given the evidence cited above for his own behavior, that’s a classic case of projection by Honeycutt if I’ve ever seen one. […]
It seems, to me at least, that we should have stopped treating these individuals as adults a long time ago. It isn’t just projection. They are classic doom mongers – changing the bill board as the date for the latest ‘end of the world’ event passes. Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption …
‘Deniers’ are simply those who don’t ‘believe’ as they do. There is no ‘science’ behind it other than whatever ‘paper’ seems to promote their world view at the time.
In short, you waste too much of your valuable time promoting these fools. Were it not for WUWT and other ‘denier’ blogs promoting Joe’s rants, SKSBS and Lewsers internet survey news – they would have a dozen people discussing their latest tablet from the mountain.
Starve them of publicity and they will wither on the vine.

Alex

Unfortunately no matter who happens to be right and who happens to be wrong when this whole thing is over the true loser will be the scientific reputation. I’m not so silly as to think that the side that wins has to be the moral side. In a debate that is as dirty as this it will be won mostly by personal attacks, media exposure and by being loud. The science will be a distant second when it comes to convincing citizens and politicians who to believe.
The only profession that will potentially suffer as much as scientists will be the journalists involved. Politicians are expected to be slimy and partisan but, for some reason North American’s maintain this idea that journalists and scientists can be objective.

Merovign

More than a little sick of the “anti-science” trash-talk. We’re anti-corruption. Unless they’re trying to say that corruption (and just plain poorly-thought-out proofs) are *good* science, in which case they should say so openly.
And by corruption I’m referring to the dependence on grant money which itself depends on specific kinds of results. I’m also referring to the “club” of climate scientists who protect each other and attack everyone else, evidenced by the “hacked” e-mails and the various exposes of figures like Gleick and Mann and the leaks and open postings at SS. And don’t forget the open politicization of science leading not just to bad science but to open excuses for bad science (Post-Normal Science being a recent talking point in that area, also see continued defense of “An Inconvenient Truth” despite numerous errors).
Science: Whatever the insiders say it is.
Anti-science: Actually checking the numbers.
We’re told that cherry-picked trees, ignored UHI, and heavily-adjusting numbers from often dubious sites are “overwhelming” and we should shut up.
No.

Or we could always concentrate on reporting (and doing) sound, rigorous empirical science, and leave the name-calling and other childish jackassery to the usual array of climate clowns. I’m not interested in “engaging” with blinkered zealots who think that model outputs are more important than observed data, and incapable of understanding logical reasoning even if they are capable of reading a thermometer.
The IPCC states that temperature responses should “scale linearly” with forcings, and argues that the single most important forcing is anthropogenic GHG emissions (of which CO2 is, in their view, far and away the most important). Those are testable scientific statements taken verbatim from the AR4 WG1 report. The implication is that there is a causal, positive linear correlation between delta CO2 and delta T, or in other words, that the average global temperature should scale linearly with anthropogenic CO2 emissions. In layman’s terms, this means that when human CO2 emissions go up, temperature should go up, and when human CO2 emissions drop, temperature should drop as well.
I don’t dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that, ceteris paribus, increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations should positively impact atmospheric temperatures. But the key words is ‘should’, because according to observations it doesn’t work that way. Insofar as we can tell from temperature records (to the extent that these are reliable) and (reliable) proxies, it never has. Global temperatures are at present stable despite skyrocketing CO2 emissions and aggregate CO2 concentration. There is no statistically significant correlation between delta T and delta CO2 over any time frame for which records or proxies exist – except for the Law Dome and other ice core data over the past MY or so, and in those records delta T clearly and demonstrably precedes delta CO2. This tells us that if there is indeed a causal linkage between the two phenomena, it points in the direction opposite to that posited by the IPCC. The AGW hypothesis as posited by the IPCC, et al., is therefore falsified by observed data. Theories that do not, or cannot be modified to, explain observations are by definition falsified and any credible scientist would junk them and start over. In fact, no credible scientist would craft an hypothesis that doesn’t BEGIN by explaining observed data, and making testable predictions about what ought to happen (and we all know what happened to the predictions made by the IPCC on the basis of their hypothesis).
The probable reason for the disconnect, of course, is that ceteris is never paribus. CO2, while undeniably a GHG, is very much a bit player in the atmosphere and the larger global temperature game, a long way behind that big ball of fusion in the sky and all of the myriad things it does to our little planet. Pointing to CO2 as the be-all and end-all of temperature drivers is like looking at the corpse of a motorist ejected from a car at two hundred kph face-first into a bridge abutment, shouting, “Look! He had a hangnail when he died!”, and on the basis of this correlation instituting a massive, world-wide campaign to stamp out the scourge of hangnails. Pay no attention to the big concrete block.
That’s the scientific argument. Here’s the policy argument. The data demonstrate that there is no causal correlation between delta CO2 and delta T, meaning that T is independent of CO2 (or that it is nonlinearly linked to CO2, which from a policy perspective amounts to the same thing). Thus it is not possible to alter T in a desired direction by altering CO2. The fact that there is no linear correlation between the two phenomena means that there is no logical basis for policies aimed at controlling T by controlling CO2, because there is thus far no evidence that we have any idea at all how they fit together, if they even do. And yet, politicians are still talking about taxing carbon as if this will cool the planet. It won’t – but it will certainly cause bureaucracies to expand, and generate revenues to support those expanding bureaucracies. And it will (further) bankrupt whole societies, while serving as a source of endless amusement to the large number of carbon-belching states that do not have the west’s best interests at heart.
Anyone incapable of understanding these simple concepts is not worth your/our time. They can “crush away” as much as they like; the natural world doesn’t care. Nor do I. You can’t reason somebody out of a position they weren’t reasoned into, and frankly it’s a waste of energy to try.
Especially when you haven’t seen all the Gangnam Style parodies yet! I recommend this one:

Now, wasn’t that more fun than der crushing und der shtomping?

Stephanie Clague

They are losing the argument AND they know it AND they do not like one little bit AND they are lashing out in the only way someone who has lost the argument can,its the urge to lash out in anger. The great thing about the truth is that it can be temporarily stifled and suppressed and trampled on but its triumph is an almost physical law and those who tell the truth can be ignored and then laughed at then attacked but in the end they will be listened to. It cannot be stopped any more than time can be stopped, its as inevitable as the coming dawn. The lesson is tell the truth even if it seems to hurt in the short term, search for the truth and never stop looking and never stop asking the awkward questions and never mindlessly follow the herd. How do you know you have won the argument? When the other guy loses it. The sceptics are winning.

Merovign

Also, they’re not going to have a moment of introspection comparing their open plan to “gang up” on us with our supposed plan to “gang up” on them (sorry, I never got the e-mail, guys!), for the same reason they keep making excuses for Gleick and he’s, last I heard, back in the field now.

Caleb

The creation of a “Crusher Crew” is wrong for two reasons. First, it is basically “astroturfing;” the attempt to look like “grass roots majority” when you are not. Second, it attempts to silence differing views, not with reason and clearly stated points, but rather with noise of great volume.
One joy of WUWT is the simple fact I learn a lot. I get to see several sides of an issue. I often am corrected, and have my mistakes pointed out, and I have discovered this does not make me “smaller,” but broadens my mind and in fact makes me “bigger.”
It is only when a person is primarily concerned with their own ego (and the money and power attached to such egotism,) that vanity drives them to halt all further discussion. As always, selfishness leads to smallness. Narrowness. Short-sightedness. Investing in policy sure to lead to poverty and pain. Etc.
End of Sunday sermon.

oldseadog

Message for Joe Romm:
Why do you have to “shout them down”?
If you have sound arguments, reasoned debate will carry far more weight.

Jim Clarke

I expect that Joe Romm will not say anything against Skeptical Science. For people like Joe, morality is secondary to the noble cause. His side can do no wrong no matter how wrong his side is.

eric1skeptic

Anyone else notice that right after SkepSci regular Tom Curtis demolished Lewandowski’s junk science, he disappeared from that site? Of course the mere fact that I noticed this “proves” that I believe in conspiracies, that the moon landing was faked and that AGW is a “hoax”.

JPeden

“If we can coordinate better and grow the “team of crushers” then we could address all the anti-science much more effectively.” – Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011
“Or, hey, why don’t we all just convert to Radical Islam? Mecca is the center of the world!”

AndyG55

I haven’t see any evidence of the “crusher” team anywhere.. do they exist?
Where are they on this thread..?
I think the trouble for them, is that when they do poke their nose in, they get well and truly slapped, because open debate is encouraged on WUWT, and open debate is the VERY LAST THING that they want.

noaaprogrammer

“I’ve been advocating the need to create a “crusher crew” for quite some time. I was not however able to get much traction on it with fellow environmental activists here in South Carolina or nationally.”
I think that deep down, they feel insecure in their scientific knowledge to be able to effectively “reason us down.” They know they have to resort to falacious reasoning – appeal to authority – ad hominem – etc.

dave38

Sean says:
September 30, 2012 at 11:50 am
Joe Romm is living proof that climate change is increasing species diversification. He is one of many example of a new species of primate, homo moronicus, which although it is closely related to homo sapiens it lacks much of its cognitive capacity.
yet another effect of global warming!

rogerknights

“He also suggested in his reply email that I make a note on the blog entry that it is D’Aleo’s words, not mine, and I’ve done that.”

I’ve suggested for over three years that the names of guest-thread authors be made more prominent, to avoid this sort of mis-attribution, which still regularly occurs, especially because WordPress automatically inserts “posted by Anthony Watts” near the top of these guest threads. I.e., they should be in large type, centered, and boldfaced–and maybe capitalized for good measure.
REPLY: I have an account setup now for “guest blogger” which handles the issue. – Anthony

Crushing free speech mob handed.
There is a word for these people.
Fascists.

Jimbo

Where is the “Crusher Crew“??? They seem to have gone Awol or a very disorganised indeed.

DirkH

AndyG55 says:
September 30, 2012 at 1:18 pm
“I haven’t see any evidence of the “crusher” team anywhere.. do they exist?”
For a while Rob Honeycutt and Dana Nuticelli appeared in tandem on notrickszone. At the time I didn’t know that Honeycutt was an SkS admin. Well, after a while and more or less heated debates they left.
It might have been one of the raids of the Crusher Crew. But they didn’t say “WE ARE THE CRUSHER CREW… HERE TO CRUSH YOU” or something. They gotta work on that.

BillyV

“shout them down” is the only way they can respond today, as the “science” that has been cited (over & over) will not withstand the scrutiny in the manner which science over the last century has been normally subjected. Try as hard as they can at science publications, it must be coupled with lots of colorful hand waving, and drama, because in the final analysis, there is just no signal there to indicate warming has deviated one bit from the historical pattern since the last ice age and they know it. Talk about denial. The natural noise in the “air” obliterates any so called signal and they have been successfully called on it numerous times. So the only thing left is to ignore the message and shoot the messenger. Shoot- is very close to the spelling of “shout” and I have a feeling of what their real preferences would be.

Gunga Din

So they’ve launched the “If you can’t dazzle them brillance, baffle them with bullsh*t” campaign. (BBS for short)
Question: Did this come from the super-secret section of SkS that was accidentally left open to the public? The one where they talked about needing to form a conspiracy?
REPLY: Yep, one and the same – Anthony

OpenMind says: “Could very well backfire, because if that crew starts showing up here they might very well just get a real education and switch……….”
They make their presenses known here on occassion, spouting the usual nonsense.
Switching is not in their natures. There could be a mile of ice on their heads and they’d still blame carbon dioxide.