More slime from the Lewandowsky-Mann machine, calling for ‘trench warfare’

First, the press release on this new opinion hit-piece masquerading as peer-reviewed science that smacks of desperation, especially in light of the fact that “climate change” seems to be disappearing from grant applications.

Science community considers approaches to climate disinformation

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

Despite overwhelming scientific agreement on the question of human-caused global warming, a major gap exists between this consensus and the public’s understanding of the issue. Writing in BioScience, Jeffrey A. Harvey, of the Netherlands Institute of Ecology, and his colleagues examine the causes of the consensus gap, focusing on climate-denier Internet blogs and the ways in which they use topics such as Arctic sea ice extent and polar bear well-being to foment misapprehensions about climate change among the public.

Harvey and his colleagues performed an analysis of 45 climate-denier blogs, noting that 80% relied primarily on a single denier blog for their evidence, which itself had a single author who “has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears.” This paucity of expertise and evidence is common among such blogs, say the authors, as are personal attacks against researchers and attempts to misstate the extent of scientific uncertainty about crucial issues. Such narrowly framed attacks are designed to generate “keystone dominoes,” say the authors, which deniers can then use as proxies for climate science as a whole. “By appearing to knock over the keystone domino, audiences targeted by the communication may assume all other dominoes are toppled in a form of ‘dismissal by association.'”

Such misinformation poses a particular problem, because “among users, trust for blogs has been reported to exceed that of other traditional news or information sources.” To counteract the blogs’ pernicious effects, the authors argue that scientists must now engage in the “trench warfare” of public debate: “We strongly believe that scientists have a professional and moral obligation not only to inform the public about the findings and implications of their research but also to counter misinformation.” This fight, the authors caution, may require an adaptation of tactics: “Many scientists mistakenly believe that debates with deniers over the causes and consequences of climate change are purely science driven, when in reality the situation with deniers is probably more akin to a street fight.”

To this end, the authors close with a call to action: “Scientists need to more effectively use Internet-based social media to their full advantage in order to turn the tide in the battle for public opinion.” By taking the fight to blogs, YouTube, and other social media, say the authors, scientists themselves may close the consensus gap, an effort they urgently encourage. They further argue that a failure to influence public attitudes may create acute problems for numerous ecosystems; in the absence of greenhouse-gas mitigation, “the prognosis for polar bears and other Arctic biota… is bleak.”

###

Link to the paper: open access, I suggest you read it: https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/bix133/4644513

One thing about the paper, they claim they surveyed “45 climate-denier blogs”, yet offer no supporting data or methodology I can find. There’s no Supplemental Information (SI), and nothing in the paper that shows any data whatsoever. This relegates the paper to being an opinion piece (or rather a hit piece given the open vendetta against climate skeptics that has been displayed by Lewandowsky and Mann). Plus, for a science journal to use the word “denier” is quite troubling. It is mind-blowing to me that a journal would publish “denier” used as a pejorative label with a broad brush. They expose themselves to legal issues of defamation in doing so.

From the opinion piece: “Scientists need to more effectively use Internet-based social media to their full advantage in order to turn the tide in the battle for public opinion.”

Remember that poll about social media I conducted a couple of weeks ago? Here is the results. It suggests that we should be more engaged, especially after the call to action by the Lew-Mann syndicate.

Today, here is a response by Dr. Susan Crockford, who was named in the opinion piece. WUWT was also named, but of course, I was never contacted by any of the “researchers” to ascertain my opinion or my “denial” status.


Polar bears refused to die as predicted and this is how the propheseers respond

The polar bear experts who predicted tens of thousands of polar bears would be dead by now (given the ice conditions since 2007) have found my well-documented criticisms of their failed prophesies have caused them to [lose face] and credibility with the public.

Fig 3 Sea ice prediction vs reality 2012

Although the gullible media still pretends to believe the doomsday stories offered by these researchers, the polar bear has fallen as a useful icon for those trying to sell a looming global warming catastrophe to the public.

Here’s what happened: I published my professional criticisms on the failed predictions of the polar bear conservation community in a professional online scientific preprint journal to which any colleague can make a comment, write a review, or ask a question (Crockford 2017). Since its publication in February 2017, not one of the people whose work is referred to in my paper bothered to counter my arguments or write a review.

They ignored me, perhaps hoping the veracity of my arguments would not have to be addressed. But it has not turned out that way. Now, too late, they have chosen a personal attack in the journal BioScience(Harvey et al. 2018 in press).

Harvey et al. (“Internet blogs, polar bears, and climate-change denial by proxy”) pretends to be a scientific analysis on internet blog posts about polar bears, climate change, and Arctic sea ice but single me out for their peculiar brand of “scientific” smearing because most of the polar bear content on the blogs they examined (80%, they estimate) came from me.

You wouldn’t know from the paper, for example, that I am a professional zoologist with a Ph.D. in evolution (with polar bears in my dissertation), only that the GWPF describes me as “an expert on polar bear evolution” (as if this is probably a lie).

The authors state: “Crockford vigorously criticize, without supporting evidence, the findings of several leading researchers who have studied polar bears in the field for decades.

Anyone who reads my blog or has read my paper knows this is the opposite of what I do.

The fact that I criticize with supporting evidence is precisely why these “leading researchers” feel so threatened and why the paper had to be written.

These misrepresentations alone tell you all you need to know about the motive behind the paper and the accuracy of the rest of their statements about me and others.

The long list of co-authors joining in on this attack includes several psychologists, one of whom has written similar papers before, as well as serial-litagator/climate change champion Michael Mann:

Harvey et al. 2018 in press climate denial by proxy using polar bears_Title

BioScience is an interesting choice for this “Forum” paper: I counted only 4 polar bear research papers in this journal since 2004  but 11 papers on “climate change denial” since 2010 (not including this one). In other words, few polar bear scientists would usually read this journal but many people interested in the “problem” of “climate change denial” would seek it out.

You can read it here (open access).

REFERENCES

Crockford, S.J. 2017. Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus). PeerJ Preprints 2 March 2017. Doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2737v3 Open access. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2737v3


UPDATE: Dr. Judith Curry weighs in.

Advertisements

253 thoughts on “More slime from the Lewandowsky-Mann machine, calling for ‘trench warfare’

      • “they claim they surveyed “45 climate-denier blogs”, yet offer no supporting data or methodology…”

        They provide a number, perhaps pulled out of a hat – perhaps not – but provide no support or backup for their claim by providing links to those blogs, resources, or quoting any of them.

        So am I supposed to believe anything The They Team (Lex/Mann) say? How can I?

        In any debate, the subject is presented, positions declared, and resources/references are quoted and backup provided, if needed. This is sloppy work by Lex/Mann. They know better but do not appear to care to do this rebuttal business properly.

        In my opinion, this arrogant, pusillanimous, and lazy behavior marks them as amateurs, not as REAL scientists. I’m having serous doubts about both their credentials and their credibility.

      • 80% relied primarily on a single denier blog for their evidence
        ===============
        I relied on realclimate.org. every time they censored me for asking a question I knew they were full of crap. They couldn’t answer my questions without contradicting themselves so they disappeared them. And these are the “top” climate scientists.

        Anytime someone can ask a question in science that leads to a contradiction, you can be sure the science is wrong. Somewhere there is an assumption in error. An important piece of the puzzle is missing.

      • “Sara November 29, 2017 at 3:40 pm ”

        What Sara, said!

        With a tiny quibble.
        Since amateurs are more professional than these authors have proven themselves to be, repeatedly; just list them as empty hollow scientists, or perhaps the honorific “Quack” is best.

      • Sara, given the fact that they rarely provide any background or supporting data for their claims in the rest of their “climate science” papers, why should this one be any different?

      • Anything by Lewandowsky and Mann is left-wing political garbage, by definition. So let them bring it on.

    • The issue is the make of the grants committees, not what the grants finance. Without addressing the people problem this will just move onto the next scam. Simply put they give each other grants. This suffocates real progress and forces government research departments, trying to do real work, to bring in vast numbers of PhD students who have no loyalty to the country or institution where the research happens. On the face of it they pay to attend the research institution. However, this payment source is often indirectly from a communist government, such as China or North Korea or a religious source, such as found in the Middle East.

      The Climate Change research scam has consequences.

    • But, but, but … I SAW the photo of a sad-looking P.Bear clinging precariously to an obviously melted fragment of ice in the red-hot ocean. Barely clinging to life as if he were waiting for Al Gore to rescue him from the denial that caused his predicament. Tom Steyer is right. We MUST act NOW. We MUST impeach 45 now ! We must all take action. Tom told me this in a hushed, NPR-voice, with sad-eyes. Tom wouldn’t lie. He carrrreeeess about the planet … unlike Trump-voting deniers who want to wreck the world.

      There. I’ve taken the fight to your blog … to help close the consensus gap. Impeach 45! Impeach 45! Impeach 45! (spoken in a South-Central LA accent).

    • By taking the fight to blogs, YouTube, and other social media, say the authors, scientists themselves may close the consensus gap, an effort they urgently encourage.

      Bring it on, I say.

      Anthony’s WUWT is the top-ranked climate blog in the entire world. Where else should they come to bring the fight to us?

      Here we are, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, Ben Santer, Kevin Trenberth, Phil Jones and all the rest of you.

      Come and get us.

      I dare you.

      I can’t wait.

      Farking incompetents.

      • Oh boy yes that is just too funny. The concept of the halfwit alarmists coming to do battle with us on the internet is sort of like CNN doing battle with the dank meme creators on the internet. If they care to turn up those guys will have their arses carved into the finest wafer-thin pastrami and handed to them on a solid silver platter.

      • They took the argument to RealClimate and it completely failed! RC has probably converted more neutrals to skeptics than any other website.

        Plonkers, the lot of them.

      • “Farking incompetents”….not at fleecing us taxpayers. These folks are just evil. All they do is planned and on purpose, do not underestimate them. I hope every drop of their funding evaporates, heh.

      • Bloody amateurs.

        Actually, while I was going to say no more than that,and referring to the tribe of Alarmists mentioned, perhaps, ” Bloody Lightweights or Bedwetters” would be more correct. Lew/ Mann etc. may be the ones exclaiming ”Bloody Amateurs” It’s a bit like ” if it weren’t for those meddling kids…” Being professional, just means getting paid for your efforts. Sure, there is an expectation of a high standard attached, but, as we can see, it doesn’t necessarily follow.

        All that aside, isn’t their article a clear case of defamation? I have already had ”conversation” with a loonie tune who specifically referred to Dr. Crockford in the derogatory terms of this article. Truth be known, I’d say he never even heard of her prior to this. I do hope that she, and the others defamed by this, are able to take further action.

        Eamon.

    • They still don’t get the problem do they, that the trust is gone because they mix politics with science. Climate Science and it’s “leading” scientists aren’t just reporting facts and data they are trying to dictate actions and the bring in other factors like world social justice, renewable energy and green agendas.

      The big standout is world social justice and how and why that ever got involved. For most areas of science the process of how that gets translated into the wider world is up to individual governments, economics and companies and entrepreneurs. Our entire human history is built on inequality and the inclusion of that into a science field created a situation the field is doomed to fail until it is reformed. We have seen religious groups trying to put themselves at the centre of science and they fail for the same reason.

      The fact they don’t understand why they are failing is actually very funny and I think sums up those in the activist group.

      • Those pushing climate alarmism and pseudo climate science went over the cliff of no return about 2 to 4 years ago. What we are seeing now is an attempt to defy factual physics using an explosive mix of hot air, politics, voodoo science and hand waving – they don’t seem to realize such a mix has a guaranteed tendency to keep blowing up in your face and just accelerates the fall into the abyss. I, almost, feel sorry for them..

    • It’s essentially denigrating (“denier” in the same vein as a WWII Holocaust denier) anyone that rightfully questions whether mankind’s industrial output of CO2 is causing catastrophic Gorebal Warming.

      • I have a rather different take on the term “denier.” While most people would associate the term with “Holocaust denier”, I don’t think that was the original intent.

        The left is generally indifferent (or in many cases, hostile) to the welfare of Jews, anywhere, at any time. They are universally, actively hostile to Israel and Israeli Jews. It doesn’t strike me that any of them would have thought the term “Holocaust denier” was particularly offensive, and thus a useful barb against skeptics.

        This line of thinking actually occurred to me while I was touring the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC. The exhibit in question was an amazingly well done timeline portrayal, showing how Jews in Germany were gradually subjected to Saul Alinsky’s Rule 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” That’s what Germany did to the Jews.

        I think that the term “denier” isn’t equivalent to “Holocaust denier.” In the mind of the leftist, it’s equivalent to “Jew.”

      • Madness isn’t it. In fact the moment somebody even brings up the word “Denier”, I know they’ve lost whatever argument they had. To link being sceptical with Holocaust Denial really is scraping the bottom and is extremely offensive.

      • Yes, I should have put a /sarc tag on my post. I know exactly why they use this odious nomenclature, i.e., “denier”, but as I’ve mentioned to the complete idiots I discuss climate change with, NOBODY “denies climate”.

        That the term “climate-denier” has actually made it to a “real” “scientific” “paper” is reaching depths of stupidity I didn’t think even the warmest of warmism could dredge.

        Again: NOBODY denies climate. Most people with a third digit to their IQ don’t deny this climate changes. Even most CAGW skeptics don’t deny that there is a component to this climate change that is partially due to humans.

        So my point (other than the disgusting reference to the Holocaust) is that the term “climate-denier” is not something anyone serious about science would ever use.

        Hence Lewandowsky and Mann, I guess.

      • Michael S. Kelly,

        You pointed out a fact that has been bothering me a long time. When Stephan ‘slime it’ Lewandowsky says ‘denier’, it means about the same as ‘Jew’ in Germany in 1935.

        This is a serious thing. The paper is meant to be a referrable blunt object for use of SJWs that edit the Wikipedia. This means the fight of the left to remove dissident voice becomes ever stronger.

        You know, Carteret ‘sank’, polar bears died, Himalyan ice melted. They just make their spin the truth left wing believes. They don’t really care what is true, because it is a war. It is a slime war.

      • Michael S. Kelly

        I have a rather different take on the term “denier.” While most people would associate the term with “Holocaust denier”, I don’t think that was the original intent.

        With respect, it absolutely was their original intent. Please take a look at the quotes in this article, notably the quote by Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe in 2007 (first quote):

        http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/02/skeptics-smeared-as-holocaust-deniers.html

      • Phil R. November 30, 2017 at 12:18 pm

        Thank you for that link, and I stand corrected about the original intent. I still think, however, that “denier” is the modern equivalent of 1935 Germany’s “Jew.”

      • True it is an irony that Mann’s hockey stick requires the ‘denial ‘ of past climate change for it to be true .

    • Caligula Jones,
      Obviously, if taken literally, it is someone who de-Nyes the existance of climate. I suppose the implication is that only weather is real and any statistical summaries of weather are not to be believed. Maybe there is something to that conclusion, considering the sloppiness of the handling of significant figures and filtering of diurnal temperatures.

      • He may also have a cycling proficiency certificate.
        And, for all I know, certificates for gallantry and rising in the morning.
        A veritable polymath [I think that is the word].

        Auto – not an acolyte at the Only Proven and Triumphant Church of Man [one ‘N’ only, note] Always in the Wrong, and Global Let’s Kill [or prevent from reproducing] all the Non-believers. ( No ‘d’ word here, Inspector!)

    • –anyone who denies the existence of climate. Not very many in other words. When I am in a position to comment I politely point out that I do not deny climate, I do not know anyone that denies climate and neither do you.

      Of course what it means is someone that denies the certainty of imminent doom based on catastrophic climate change. I don’t even deny the slight possibility of it, just the certainty, as if you could put a date on it.

  1. “Despite overwhelming scientific agreement on the question of human-caused global warming”….there is no evidence that human activity causes ‘Global Warming’ and there is no discernible sign of dangerous ‘Global Warming’.

    • Wrong on both counts and restating it doesn’t change that. Even Anthony and the A-team will disagree with you on your first claim.

      There is “this chasm between public opinion and scientific agreement”. From the op’s link.

      Make it your goal to bridge the chasm ntesdorf.

      • No CO2 warming signal in the satellite temperature data.

        Only El Nino and ocean effects.

        No CO2 warming signal ANYWHERE. !!

        You are yet to produce one tiny bit of empirical evidence.

        You remain EMPTY…,

        and firmly nailed to your perch.

      • Andy… Yawn… learn to read a graph.
        chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/annual-with-forcing.pdf

        Link fails, try a different prefix than chrome extension. .mod]

      • BEST.. roflmao.

        Massively paid AGW operatives.

        Propaganda pap… regional expectations and all. !

        UHI effect judged from lights at night.. so funny. !

        Look at real data…. UAH, or pre-mears-folding RSS.

      • And its an assumption driven FANTASY.. that shows that 2005 may not be any warmer than 1750

        Well done , petal. :-)

      • “tony mcleod November 29, 2017 at 3:36 pm
        Wrong on both counts and restating it doesn’t change that.”
        If the claim is wrong, on both counts, then show the evidence that proves it, otherwise it’s just another opinion.

      • Surely the onus is on the person making the claim?
        Otherwise I could claim anything and send you off on a fools errand to find evidence to refute it.

      • “tony mcleod November 30, 2017 at 7:02 pm

        Surely the onus is on the person making the claim?”

        Such as the claims that ~4% of 0.04% CO2 *CAUSES* warming globally, and that is bad for the planet.

        “Otherwise I could claim anything and send you off on a fools errand to find evidence to refute it.”

        Better people than you have tried me, and failed. It is also rather difficult to refute something effect that isn’t even proven.

    • Causes SOME global warming, but not THE global warming. But if you ask GISS, AGW is 110% ± bignumber of all GW. But that is less than in models was predicted. So uncertainty rules over sure CAGW.

  2. Uh-oh, does this mean no more Mr.-nice-guy from the Warmunists? We’re doomed. Might as well surrender now and get it over with.

    • It means skeptics are winning and warmunists are panicking. No other way to explain a paper this stupidly bad, so easily refuted by Susan’s books. They think she is unqualified and only has a blog?!?

      • Trump-Pence, 2020.
        That has nice ring to it.

        Let’s give Mikey and Co. another 4 years of soiling themselves on top of the next 3.

      • I think this is not panic, more a revenge and an attempt to marginalize. This is pretty much declaring Crockford shall never publish in papers that want to be friends with the authors.

  3. Judith got it right. And to single out Susan Crockford on polar bears was just dumb, when you look at the information in her blog and books. The old WW2 saying applies. You know you are over the target from the amount of flak. Another sign skeptics are winning and warmunists know it.

    • yeah, but now a lot of people that didn’t know Susan…will seek her out….and find out she’s right! LOL

      Amazing isn’t it…after 150 years…they still can’t prove global warming is real

  4. “Despite overwhelming scientific agreement on the question of human-caused global warming, a major gap exists between this consensus and”……….reality

    • First rule of climate ‘science’ , when the models and reality differ in value , it is always realty which is error.

      • Until winter arrives.

        Then even our friends in watermelon costumes will seek extra layers.
        And, very likely, some source of indoor heating.
        We had a few snowflakes [weather, not millennials] here in South London today.
        None settled, and it’s a modest 2C now.

        Auto, well wrapped and with the heating on!

      • It is the “realty” which is in error? Perhaps so — as with temperature stations, the 3 most important things are …

  5. Being attacked directly in a hack piece like this may be slightly better than receiving the “if we ignore her she will go away” treatment (at least you know your accuser). Lynn Margulis suffered both types of attacks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis and triumphed in the end. Take hope- their screeching grows more strident with each diminished grant.

  6. As if Dr Crockford is not someone who fits the definition of a polar bear expert? Who, pray tell, do they rely on who contradicts her methodology or conclusions?

  7. The only evidence of ‘human caused’ anything in this ‘Bioscience’ piece is the article itself is evidence of human caused denigration of real scientists.

    Maybe their defence is that the CO2 level causes smear tactics!

  8. Looks like the data molesters are getting very nervous.

    The fact that this thing got published in a so called ‘peer reviewed scientific journal’ says everything about the depth of the corruption. And that they use the term “denier blogs” says everything about how hopelessly politicized it is.

    If only Trump had time to tweet about this. But cutting off the funding from these sleazy extortionists is a good start.

  9. There is no consensus on the AGW conjecture. Scientists never registered and voted on the matter. Besides science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated via a voting process.

    AGW is just a conjecture, a conjecture based on only partial science. The AGW conjecture is full of flaws. The AGW conjecture depends upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed on any planet ifn the solar system with a thick atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well.

    • I think they were citing the scientists that are paid by the Anthropogenic Warming believers to find data based on what the ministers of climate science want them to believe. I was disappointed in the article because I was hoping to find a link to something substantial but there’s just another hit piece here. We should continue to give them a chance to prove their science is based on honest observations with all the variables accounted for. I continue to have extreme difficulty understanding how they’re right, but I try to remain without prejudice.

  10. It just cracks me up when liberals proclaim that they don’t like the way the public is responding to their alarmism, so they must do more of the same to get a different result.

  11. In the paper we can read the following statement.
    «Pimm and Harvey (2000) provided three criteria with which to evaluate the credibility of scientific studies. First and most importantly, follow the data. They emphasized that the data trails of skeptics generally go cold very quickly.»
    At the same time this paper offer no supporting data or methodology.

    And these people call themselves scientists!

    • Science or Fiction
      Dr Crockford (Crockford 2017) Science
      Pimm and Harvey (2000) Fiction
      Harvey et al (2018) Fiction

    • “First and most importantly, follow the data. They emphasized that the data trails of skeptics generally go cold very quickly.”

      Well, skeptics don’t need data trails, it is the advocates of CAGW who need data trails.

      The job of a skeptic is to evaluate these data trails created by alarmists. Most of the alarmists data trails are seriously lacking in honest data. That’s their major problem. They don’t have the evidence, but claim they do, and the skeptics just point out that they don’t have the evidence.

      If they had the evidence, a true skeptic would acknowldege it. They don’t have it. And the data trails they do have are looking less accurate, not more accurate, as time goes along.

      Yes, the Alarmists are losing the battle, and they are starting to understand it now. Before Trump, they had smooth sailing, but not anymore and the flawed data trails they have won’t help them one bit.

      All Alarmists are invited to come on over here to WUWT and give us your best argument.

      • Tis sadly true…
        When a Climate Scientist lacks credible data to support their predictions they simply model some up

    • I feel particularly annoyed and puzzled by this statement :
      -” They emphasized that the data trails of skeptics generally go cold very quickly.»-”
      because so many of the sceptic sites provide more information in the form of scientific literature than can be assessed thoroughly unless one has no other demands on one’s time .
      To take just one example : the well known “notrickszone” . In November they ran numerous articles , but taking just 5 of these on subjects ranging from changes in scientific consensus to polar ice melting , the various authors amassed more than 200 references , with abstracts , numerous figures , and mainly from mainstream journals of unimpeachable reputation.
      To say that sceptic sites provide no hard information is so , well basically silly , it is difficult to believe that the authors have any credibility at all in the wider world.

      • What matters is the quality of the info not the quantity aka, the scientific method.
        This is why it stays stuck in skeptic sites, come back to reality and submit something for peer review without the usual weak excuses.

      • “notrickszone” is hosted by Pierre L. Gosselin
        who translates and makes postings of German reports.

        The ‘many references’ posts are by “Kenneth Richard”, a person that apparently never sleeps.

        I am, and we all should, be grateful to these two people.

  12. Here’s a hint- they don’t reply to you because (a) you’re a nutter, (b) you’ve got no training whatsoever and frankly engaging you is a waste of everyone’s time, (c) they’re busy people with better things to do. It’s the same reason they don’t engage with anti-vaxxers, creationists etc. These forums are just a place for sad, lonely, overweight rapidly aging middle aged men to come together and feel slightly less down about not doing anything worthwhile with their lives.

    • Bruce, there are two possibilities for thinking about your comment. 1.You forgot the sarc tag thinking it obvious. 2. You need to seek psychiatric help immediately for delusional thinking. Lets hope its 1.

    • A zoologist with a Ph.D in evolution, focusing on polar bears, is “no training whatsoever”? Citation needed on your claims of ‘overweight rapidly aging middle aged men’ as well, please.

      • Clair, I am guessing from your (hopefully real) name with an American bias, but think you just made a very nice double play on ‘Bruce’. Well done.

      • I’m giggling here on the prejudice Bruce has. Sexism, ageism, sad-ism, and weightism combined with the prejudice that Lewandowsky actually produces science. Geez! It got published, it has to be true, right? Lolz.

    • Bruce is just making one of the standard arguments Alarmist make by denigrating the Website and the people who comment here.

      He offers no argument in favor of CAGW. That’s because he doesn’t have a good argument to offer, otherwise he would have used that instead of doing his personal attack.

      This is what you do when you don’t have an argument and you feel like lashing out in frustration.

    • Poor bwuce.

      Your DESPERATION and total lack of any science is vivid in your every post.

      You SAD, LONELY little man-child.

    • Bruce,
      Do you think Mikey Mann has training in sociology or psychology to be an author on this paper?

      The guy is a fruitcake fraud. And everyone around him are complete jokes. They’re simpletons who get triggered and retreat to university-sanctioned safe spaces if actually intellectually confronted.

    • “These forums are just a place for sad, lonely, overweight rapidly aging middle aged men”

      Well, Bruce, out of 6 labels, you pegged me with 1 – I am indeed male. Otherwise – continuing in reverse order – I am recently retired, able to do so just before the SSA full retirement age (not middle aged); in excellent health – Wt. 170 LB, Ht 5’10”, BP <120/65, HR <65, zero meds (not rapidly aging); visited this last summer by my brother & wife, my step-daughter (from previous marriage) and her family, my son and his family. My wife and I also visited her son and family, and just spent Thanksgiving at my sons house (so not lonely); Everyone calls me fortunate for my life situation (not sad).

      Bruce, were you perhaps projecting? Where would you get your ideas what readers here would be like?

      SR

      • I’m guessing bwuce is a pimply faced, scrawny 15 year old low IQ wannabe nerd…(but not bright enough to be one)

        …… living in his granny’s basement, sponging off her old age pension.

      • “These forums are just a place for sad, lonely, overweight rapidly aging middle aged men”

        Bruce, certainly you forgot to add the word “white” in your inane comment.

      • Bruce, were you perhaps projecting? Where would you get your ideas what readers here would be like?

        “Bruce here teaches logical positivism and is also in charge of the sheep dip.”
        h/t Monty Python

    • Your average so-called creationist has far more respect for science than you or these quacks you seem to uncritically adore.

  13. This embarrassing ‘paper’ shows they’re really getting desperate that people are seeing through their junk science. What next a paper linking anyone skeptical of their view to the fossil fuel industry, ‘flat Earthers’ and Moon landing conspiracies? ….. oh wait a minute …

  14. So the denier blogs all rely on a single denier blog..? I wonder who they can be thinking of Anthony? Of course I have no doubt you and anyone with any sense would know that there are many well qualified people who think the consensus is absurd religious quackery, but WUWT clearly is getting so deeply under their skin. More power to your elbow

    • The claim of a single blog is like most climate science claims …. nonsense. What research could the authors have done to claim there is a single blog? There is at least a dozen primary blogs that continually cover different subjects at different levels of detail and probably more.

      The authors have shown they are completely clueless with this one claim. They now look like they can’t even read.

  15. From the article: “Despite overwhelming scientific agreement on the question of human-caused global warming”

    This article starts out with a lie. There is no overwhelming scientific agreement on the question of human-caused global warming. This is wishful thinking or delusional thinking or deceptive thinking.

  16. Quote: Science community considers approaches to climate disinformation

    It’s about time the scientific community spoke out about the damage done to the good name of science. But I’m pretty sure that is the opposite of what the alarmists have in mind.

  17. AW, my special thanks to you for giving higher visibility to Dr. Susan Crockford, her blogs, and books. BTW, I personally recommend her novel about cuddly polar bears, EATEN. A fun speed read. And I seldom read fiction, which this sort of is and sort of isn’t.

      • TA,
        Would you like to head the Coke PR team in this era when much of your corporate income depends on selling water artificially pepped up with CO2, the evil gas of our present times?
        I wonder why Coca Copa Corp is not one of the first to research and publicise the best science about global warming to the depth required to see how fragile AGW theory is. Geoff.

    • Bundaberg Rum still use it though.

      But Bundy Bear is a tropical polar bear, showing that warm is no problem to them. :-)

  18. From the article: “To counteract the blogs’ pernicious effects, the authors argue that scientists must now engage in the “trench warfare” of public debate”

    If only they would!

    Instead, the Alarmists will do like they always do and run and hide and refuse to make their case for CAGW in front of skeptics. They do this because they know the skeptics will destroy their arguments and make them look like fools. That’s why you don’t see any of them on WUWT. They hide over on their own Alarmist websites where they can censor anyone who disagrees with them. A bunch of cowards who can’t stand the light of day.

    • Piling on from the article, these two sentences appear in the conclusion, separated by only one paragraph. Both apparently are describing ordinary citizens:

      “… ‘experts’ on denier blogs in fact typically have little in the way of relevant expertise, and their expertise is often self-manufactured to serve alternative agendas.”

      “[Scientists] can also begin to encourage initiatives that empower citizen participation in scientific research, such as citizen science …”

      Thus, citizens challenging AGW should be shunned, but citizens helping to affirm AGW are very much appreciated. Yep, that’ll boost the devastating punch this paper was already packing ……

  19. The pea that needs to be followed closely here is the integrity of science, which in the good-old-days was just people doing experiments and constructing/testing theories, but is now being morphed into political activism. Not only are some scientivists regularly “taking-a-knee” for their pet causes, but are starting to insinuate that all scientists should do the same. It won’t be long before those who decline are name-called and forced-out of the business.

    • But then they will not go away. They‘ll find some other cause and the process will start all over again.

    • The biggest problem with this saying is that it assumes that the progression is inevitable and will always move from step A to step D.
      Most of the time, they never stop ignoring you.

  20. … the authors argue that scientists must now engage in the “trench warfare” of public debate …

    Once again we have an example of profound illiteracy. These people aren’t nearly as educated as they think they are.

    (Trench warfare) has become a byword for stalemate, attrition, sieges and futility in conflict. link

    Anyone who wishes for trench warfare has ZERO clue about the profound misery of the trenches of WW1. Just being in the trenches, even with no actual military action, meant that you had a 50% chance of becoming a casualty.

    In the first six months of 1916, before the launch of the Somme Offensive, the British did not engage in any significant battles on their sector of the Western Front and yet suffered 107,776 casualties. Only 1 in 2 men would return alive and unwounded from the trenches.

    It makes me sick to think about it.

    • Vicksburg was the preview of what was to come.
      Now, instead of bullets and bombs, they want tree rings and windmills to be slicing and dicing people’s lives.

    • England never recovered from WWI. The sorry state of their government today is best explained by the loss of the better part of a generation in the trenches. “Now It Can Be Told” (by Philip Gibbs) gives a full account of British stupidity and duplicity. Their generals insisted in “maintaining a proactive stance” in the trenches, sending thousands ‘over the top’ in futile attacks on well-supported German positions protected by machine guns. See also “A Very Long Engagement” (2004) for a graphic depiction of what Gibbs talked about.

  21. This is the most telling quote in the piece:

    “Scientists need to more effectively use Internet-based social media to their full advantage in order to turn the tide in the battle for public opinion.”

    Scientists shouldn’t be at all concerned about public opinion. I don’t see theoretical physicists wringing their hands over public acceptance of quantum theory, or astrophysicists trying to “turn the tide of public opinion” on whether information can escape a black hole. That these guys are admitting to a PR agenda belies any pretense of objectivity in their research; after all, if one of these socially conscious scientists these guys are advocating for performs a future study that casts doubt on the certainty of harmful global warming, publishing that study would conflict with the goal of their “battle.”

      • What is, is. We’d like to understand it.
        (Who’s running this year?)

        That’s what scientists’ attitude should be, not slanting “science” to achieve his desired political results.

    • Kurt
      “I don’t see theoretical physicists wringing their hands over public acceptance of quantum theory, or astrophysicists trying to “turn the tide of public opinion” on whether information can escape a black hole.”

      Those guys haven’t got the captains of industry on their Khyber Passes.

      • No they just care about the science and not try to dictate a result. If you got took the stupid politics out of climate science you might actually get somewhere. It’s not up to science to make things fair and equitable, renewable or any other half baked political agenda. There are arguably more ways to weaponize things and destroy the human race in QM than most fields and the “human impact” is no different to climate science.

        Using that example, you won’t find any Quantum Physicists worrying if there work is equitable and fair for the world or should they be activists for a renewable solution. If a QM scientists crosses that line you are no longer a scientist and are an QM activist or Terrorist which depends on your bend.

        The problem is Climate Scientist think they are special a great many science fields deal with things that could end the world and none were stupid enough to go down the path of Climate Science.

    • Dr Michael Crichton (of Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park, and ER fame) wrote about what was happening in the world of climate science. He even wrote about Mann’s deception and M&M’s utter destruction of Mann’s junk science.

      Everyone should read Dr Chrichton’s essay on Why Polticized Science like what Mann practices must be ignored.
      Dr Michael Crichton was probably 10-20 years or more ahead of everyone (his entire life).

      Why Politicized Science is Dangerous
      By Michael Crichton
      http://www.michaelcrichton.com/why-politicized-science-is-dangerous/

      • Classical physics itself is an even better example. The LHC and Ligo have proved beyond any doubt there is at least 1 hidden dimension and both our leading science theories QM and GR are built on hidden dimensions. In the QM field we have deliberately set about violating every Classical law that stood and the only one still under dispute as to whether QM can violate is the 2nd law. Yet I guarantee you that almost all the public and a great many scientists from other fields still think the Classical laws are true and you can just tack this extra dimensional stuff into classical physics, we just haven’t discovered how yet. I would not like to count the numbers of times I get quoted that stupidity.

        Technically, Classical Physics is pseudoscience and the question then becomes is it morally and criminally wrong to still teach it :-)

      • “Technically, Classical Physics is pseudoscience”

        Well it must be quite the pseudo-science to have led to so much technological progress.

  22. 80% relied primarily on a single denier blog for their evidence…..

    One blog whooped theirasses…..must be a damn good blog ;)

    • True, there is far more “evidence” in a single denier blog than in all of the alarmist blogs and social media put together.

    • Which would explain the recent uptick in CAGW trolls like crackerboy … aka I am so tough I type like a special needs patient. That must be his trench warfare he is going to carriage return us to death.

  23. The climate consensus community played the “do not debate” card way too long. The drop in support for climate concern over the last 10 years should have told them that but so long as they had a very supportive president and congress it really didn’t matter to them, the grant money continued to flow. I always thought that those in the community would be much more receptive to debate when the research dollars dried up and that is indeed what’s happening.
    So if there is a sudden willingness to debate, who should be debating? I don’t think it would be productive to make names but it might be best to suggest to them to leave the psychologists out. It smacks too much of Soviet era re-education. Even the impact studies scientists should not be given primacy because their scenarios depend upon model results. They really need the people measuring, modeling and making predictions. I recall when Roger Pielke Sr. had his blog, he had a sort of debate between Kevin Trenberth and Roy Spencer on terrestrial emissivity from satellites over a variety of wavelenbths . It was actually quite interesting and enlightening. You got a pretty good insight into how two people with very different views could come up with very different conclusion looking at the same data. I think that level of interaction over a variety of topics that likely have to take place over few years will be necessary to break the log jam of pre conceived beliefs.

  24. “The 45 science-based blogs and the 45 science-denier blogs…Science-based blogs overwhelmingly used the frame of established scientific certainties.”

    “Science-based” clearly means “parroting”. The science-based blogs are not named, for reasons of modesty. The science-denier blogs are not named because the selected ones are only known to crackpots.

  25. Trench warfare? To quote Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means” TW is the result of a standoff,. There is no advance, no retreat. Just endless carnage on both sides for no gain. But if they want to use it, go nuts, guys

    • Yeah, I doubt these snowflakes have the slightest idea what real trench warfare entails. A lack of understanding of history can be added to their resumes.

  26. “To this end, the authors close with a call to action: “Scientists need to more effectively use Internet-based social media to their full advantage in order to turn the tide in the battle for public opinion.” By taking the fight to blogs, YouTube, and other social media, say the authors, scientists themselves may close the consensus gap, an effort they urgently encourage”

    I “saw” this first on Mr. Kummer’s recent (I felt) oddly “Good news” oriented posting, I believe . . This was one “tell, it seemed to me;

    “We don’t actually need your approval, If we did, we would avoid posting on sites where we knew there would be vehement opposition.” – Gareth

    Sure seemed like a lot of “we” showed up for vehement opposition all of a sudden . .

  27. climate-denier Internet blogs and yet they can show [no] evidence these blogs deny either the existence of climate or that climate changes.

    So what is ‘denied’ then ?
    Well it seems that these blogs carry-out that essential element of science , they critical review the claims being made by others and at times find them to have failed . Their ‘crime’ is to question and worse to ask the type of questions that others would rather not get asked .

    What we see is what has been seen time and again , that if you use science as base this makes no sense, however switch over to religion or politics and think fanatically follower, then it does make sense. And you can understand why what otherwise would be consider not merely a normal approach but a positive one, must be attacked by what ever means.

    Climate doom is the means by which third rate academics, pop-psychologists and those with political axe to grind which they known the voters will reject , have gained far to much power, influence and indeed personal wealth.

    Their ‘science’ is every bit as ‘pretty’ as their physicality and ‘speech ‘ and they are a foul-mouthed bunch that hit every branch as the fall down the ugly tree. I merely hope they live long enough to see their life’s work held up as joke and see their world come crashing down on them . We can only hope that when it falls it does no damage that which we can ill afford to lose . But if it does then its only those who played three wise monkeys over what they knew to be rotten to the core practice, that will be to blame.

  28. Despite overwhelming scientific agreement on the question of human-caused global warming, . . .

    When someone starts with such a statement, I know the rest stinks like a long dead carp.

    Susan C. and A. W. are heroes

  29. “Trench Warfare”.
    Unless I misunderstand my history, “trench warfare” refers (primarily) to the result of a political conflict.
    Not science.

      • OK, fair enough, sge apparently has not published about current polar bear populations. That’s very misleading, especially as she actually states that on her blog and has a very impressive list of publications.

        It’s a bit like claiming that last Wednesday afternoon was the hottest evah Wednesday afternoon in November while it’s raining in downtown Melbourne, therefore CAFW ™ . Nobody would be as disingenuous as to do that, would they?

    • this is from the Crokford paper:

      NOT PEER-REVIEWED
      “PeerJ Preprints” is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.
      Learn more about preprints or browse peer-reviewed articles instead.
      Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus)

      • Jer0me November 29, 2017 at 4:28 pm

        It’s a bit like claiming that last Wednesday afternoon was the hottest evah Wednesday afternoon in November while it’s raining in downtown Melbourne, therefore CAFW ™ . Nobody would be as disingenuous as to do that, would they?

        Well…. apparently, yes they would.

        Ah well.

      • You mean publishing in a journal ????

        Or are you so scientifically illiterate that you didn’t know that was the purpose.?

        No need to answer…… your gullible ignorance is obvious to all.

      • The troll’s are trying to redefine peer review.
        To them it means that the experts that they trust have to agree with it.
        Susan’s work has been more thoroughly peer reviewed than almost any climate science paper, because she makes all of her evidence available to anyone who wants to to review it.
        Whereas the the so called climate scientists keep their data and methods hidden and only show it to those who already agree with them.

    • I suspect not much of Dian Fossey publications on Gorilla’s would have been peer-reviewed either.

      Move to harder science fields:

      None of Einstein’s four famous papers published in 1905 were peer-reviewed.

      On the other hand Peter Higgs did write a paper on the Higgs mechanism in 1964 the editors of Physics Letters rejected it “of no obvious relevance to physics”, one of reviewers alleged to be Stephen Hawking.

      Peer-review is an interesting an animal with very checkered results and I am not sure it means a whole lot.

  30. Well, I’ve said before that the real argument is related to who gets the grant money. If these people are wrong, and it appears more and more that they are, then they won’t be as likely to get the grant money they want.

    For example, I believe Mann’s grants bring in some $3.8 million/year to Penn State, and the University gets to keep half of it. He gets the other half plus his salary and perks. The “denier” meme is a thorn in his side because it means that his grant money will go elsewhere.

    He and his Lexus buddy will use every trick in the book, including trying to destroy the credibility of the work of other people, to keep that money flowing. Attempting to turn this AGW nonsense into some sort of religious experience with help from the ever-helpful ALgore sect is one way to do that. He’s learned which psychological buttons to push (not difficult) and is something of a cult leader.

    The only way he can be discredited and the stop the nonsense is to continue to prove that he’s wrong, no matter how hard he stomps his little feet, how many tantrums he throws.

    At some point, this nonsense will stop, maybe when another 14 feet of snow fall on Boston, but this time, the snow doesn’t melt, because there’s 20 feet across the US/CAN border. You just have to keep presenting facts and not respond to the silliness, but be VERY aware of it.

    • Oh he’s very worried about his grants going forward.

      I imagine he wet himself bigtime when Hillary lost.

    • He gets the other half plus his salary and perks.

      The ‘principle investigator’ (PI) does get a salary. This will be somewhat higher than average for a university professor, and much lower than a VIP in a major corporation. Much of the money goes to others, such as cooperating researchers, graduate students, and technical support staff. An example of the latter is the person that makes maps for reports.
      Usually universities are audited by a federal agency and an agreement is signed regarding the amount that goes to the university rather than the research. Buildings and labs have to be available and maintained, heated, A/C, lighting, keeping budgets & audits, and much other stuff.
      PI’s do not get rich from this work, although there are some perks.

  31. My Heartiest Congratulations to Susan Crockford and Anthony Watts.

    There could be no higher praise for the success of their work in getting alternative views of the details of Climate Science and the Global Warming Controversy out to the general public than to be singled out for vicious attack by the likes of Lewandowsky and Mann.

  32. I am amazed that they use terms like ‘denier’. It tells me that what they really wanted to write was “big nasty poopy face!”
    Is there anything that has not been corrupted by this madness?

    • Not really. Here in oz, we are apparently facing an economic crisis because Climate Change ™ , although when you actually read the report, it states that the perceived risk of climate change is going to possibly cause some economic problems.

      So it’s not Climate Change ™ itself, it’s the risk of tge imagined problems, or really the risk of the problems caused by imagining the problem of Climate Change ™ , specifically because people will buy less coal.

      Now there’s a bait & switch if evah I saw one!

  33. Trench warfare.. ????

    Yep, we notice they just keep digging themselves deeper and deeper.

    As the quicksand that the AGW farce is build on, keeps pouring in on top of them. :-)

  34. “…… “among users, trust for blogs has been reported to exceed that of other traditional news or information sources.” ”

    Yes! This much is quite true.

  35. “Another strategy is to selectively attack prominent lines of research providing compelling evidence of AGW. Mann and colleagues’ (1998) “hockey-stick” graph (see also Mann 2012), in which temperature reconstructions have been made over the past millennium, is a prime example of the latter. “

    So when your research is crap and filled with little statistical tricks…. yeah… you’re little [pruned] Mann.

    I think Little Mann is still smarting from how M&M showed he and his hockey stick were a complete fraud. He got spanked, He continues to get spanked. Everyone in the field surely must know that by now. Those that don’t care are simply as dishonest as Little Mann.

    Man’s day of reckoning is coming.

    Like Matt Lauer’s.
    Like Harvery Weinstein.
    Like Jerry Sandusky.

  36. I would suggest billboard advertising of the political climate scam like the Wall Drug approach. sarc

  37. Climate change deniers ever read Limits To Growth, or any of its updates? The 40 Year Update in 2012 changed their expectations for global population overshoot and collapse from sometime after 2030 to NLT 2024.

    The cause of that collapse remained the same, what Claude Levi-Strauss called the poisoning of the planet. Its food and water resources by our man-made chemical pollutants.

    The only measurement of that increase is the CO2 ppm rating from Moana Loa. It is now well in excess of 400 ppm. Of the other 90,000 manmade chemicals floating about and accumulating in our biosphere, relatively little has ever been disseminated out to my level of ignorance. I’ve seen nothing about detoxifying any of the region destroyed by Harvey, not just Houston.

    Cooked, contaminated, or both? When the microorganisms at the base of all our sea/food chains are unable to adapt to the environment in which they are forced to live, how much longer will us apex consumers?

    [???? .mod]

    • “It is now well in excess of 400 ppm”

      But needs to go much higher.

      CO2 is NOT a pollutant of any sort at atmospheric levels.

      Never has been, never will be.

      It is , in fact, one of the two Fundamental Building Blocks of All Life on Earth.

      There have been many “peak, that is and peak that” farces put forward over time..

      …. and in nearly every case the end was diametrically opposite to the alarmism.

      You have been sold a huge dump of brain-washed propaganda lies and pap.

      And being a GULLIBLE little person without much obvious thinking ability.. you fell for it.

    • “Climate change deniers ever read Limits To Growth”

      I read that back in the 70s. It was complete tosh then. It predicted all sorts of things that never happened. What has happened. is that prosperity has spread bringing billions of people out of destitution. life expectancies have increased. Famines, epidemics, and wars are far less widespread than they predicted.

      ” what Claude Levi-Strauss called the poisoning of the planet.”

      A French intellectual, of course a communist, who claimed to be an anthropologist, which means that he wrote incomprehensible B$ about Indian tribes in the Amazon. He was in no sense a scientist.

      “relatively little has ever been disseminated out to my level of ignorance.”

      You can say that again.

    • I’ve read Limits to Growth, and recognized it for the garbage that it is from the very first.
      The planet isn’t being poisoned, the reality is that even at it’s worst, pollution was never enough to poison the planet, and the planet has been getting cleaned up for 40 years now.
      Of the other “90,000” chemicals, none of them are close to toxic levels. Heck most of them can only by detected using the most sensitive instruments available.

      BTW, those micro-organisms are doing just fine, and are probably better adapted than you are. You’ve already proven that they are more intelligent.

    • Don, have you ever served on a submarine. CO2 becomes toxic around 12000-14000ppm. There isn’t enough biomass on the earth to raise CO2 concentrations to that level.

      • Very true however, astronauts are at risk when sleeping and being poisoned by their own exhaled breath that is why they always sleep with a fan on.

    • Don. Read it. As for “updated” versions. Rehashed garbage is still garbage. You might try reading books by people who have been correct at least occasionally instead of people who are constantly, wildly wrong.

  38. What person believes everything they read or hear about?

    Gullible people do. Most others will want some evidence. Arctic ice melting? An adjusted temperature chart? Lewandowsky saying you’re crazy?

    I don’t believe because I have spent a lot of time and energy looking at the evidence and testing it.

  39. Ms. Crockford: change to “lose” in the following:

    “have caused them to loose face”

    [Done, thank you. .mod]

  40. ‘Such narrowly framed attacks are designed to generate “keystone dominoes,” say the authors, which deniers can then use as proxies for climate science as a whole. “By appearing to knock over the keystone domino, audiences targeted by the communication may assume all other dominoes are toppled in a form of ‘dismissal by association.’”’

    Well you did put up the keystone dominoes to knock over which wasn’t going to be too hard for all us experienced, evil Holocaust deniers remember? When you’re experienced in evil like us we do know not to dabble with blowing up schoolkiddies and tipping polar bears off skyscrapers. Well at least not sharing around the incriminating pictures. That’s fluffy kittens 101 to Dr Evils.

    • They even fail with their metaphors.

      “By appearing to knock over the keystone domino, audiences targeted by the communication may assume all other dominoes are toppled in a form of ‘dismissal by association.’”

      If the “keystone” is knocked down, then the entire “arch” IS in fact in ruins.

      (Relating “keystones” to “dominoes” makes no sense, unless you are using them to build imaginary towers like children do. And in that sense if you remove the “key” dominio holding up the edifice the whole thing DOES collapse.)

  41. Perhaps the panic exhibited by this paper has less to do with facts on the ground and much more to the prior WUWT article pointing out the change in grant funding implying dramatic reductions in Climate Change grant money.

    I expect to see more panicked papers as predictions do not occur and funding dries up.

    • And hopefully all those misemployed in the ‘Climate Change™’ industry with mere sociology, or social science degrees have to get some real productive work.

      They should start by leaning “Do you want fries with that?”

      • The problem is that some of our more respected Universities (e.g. George Mason University) are offering graduate degrees in “Climate Change Communication”
        Clearly in order to even enroll you must believe there is a CAGW problem that you then want to learn how to convince others of.
        This comes awfully close to the logical fallacy of “Begging the Question”.
        Like the authors of the subject article they usually start out with “given that the science is settled…”

  42. Awesome Susan re the book sales! thanks to Anthony for the blog , long my it countinue getting up Mann’s nose!!!!. Haven’t the AGW idiots ever realised that almost any publicity is good publicity? The more they carry on, the more people realise that maybe , just maybe, there are other arguments and evidence. Eventually real scientists will step in and demand an end to the damage that is being done to their profession. It isn’t the debates or different perspectives that are the problem. that is how science advances. It is the unwillingness to be criticised or even to accept that you archive your data so others may he, test, challenge it.
    I became a sceptic (denier is a meretricious insult) because I am a mathematician /statistician by training. No way am i in M&M’s league but I sat down and read what I could from Mann and the M&M critiques and then the increasing numbers of comments on Mann’s dodgy maths. If you have to ignore key tests (eg R squared), use untested methodologies, then you have to explain why. That is called Science. That is not what Mann and his mates have done. The leak of information from the University of East Anglia defined the inappropriate lengths that the AGW crowd have gone to.
    I cannot even trust my own Met office any more. they have closed inconvenient weather stations like Rutherglen that showed effectively nothing ie the weather was just being the weather and bumbling along as usual. Jennifer Marohasy has identified that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology doesn’t even meet the actual requirements of the international standard for taking readings,. they argue of course that their method is perfectly OK but how do we know? I believe Jennifer again because I look at the sampling process and realise its not good enough.
    And then there is the inconvenient evidence that the earth seems to be greening , taking in all that “carbon pollution” and growing more food.
    I do think we need to be concerned about our population growth but funnily enough that largely seems to sort itself out when we educate women and countries start to develop and coal power seems, from personal observation, to be rather less polluting that burning cow dung. Solar panels and batteries will help a bit in developing nations (but only without subsidies) but given solar and wind cannot even produce enough reliable power to renew themselves, ie create new panels, turbine blades) then if we remove coal completely in australia where i live then we will be going backwards a very long way. We here in Oz cannot possibly consider nuclear base load. All those nasty little gamma rays will make us glow in the dark ! (SArc).
    So Michael Mann and mates, don’t bother using social media. I can read and I have a brain and I will continue to research and learn and if sufficient actual evidence emerges then I will change my mind because that is how both science and humans develop. You’re wasting your time on Twitter. 140 (now I’m told 280 characters) does not allow effective debate and challenge, only insult and lowest common denominator stuff.
    So thanks again Anthony and everyone here who contributes. If I am a denier then i rather like the company i keep. It’s so much easier to tell the truth, you don’t need such a good memory! Even Griff is reliably funny!

  43. “We strongly believe that scientists have a professional and moral obligation not only to inform the public about the findings and implications of their research but also to counter misinformation.” This fight, the authors caution, may require an adaptation of tactics: “Many scientists mistakenly believe that debates with deniers over the causes and consequences of climate change are purely science driven, when in reality the situation with deniers is probably more akin to a street fight.”

    NO! NO! NO!
    If the data and the method are verifiable and validated against observation or by replication, that and only that, is all that is required. A consensus is NOT REQUIRED! If all your ‘science’ paper has to offer is an unfalsifiable theory then it is nothing but pseudoscience.
    As for social science — it is garbage! Social science degrees are only offered because they are cheap courses to put together, making lots of money for the institution providing them, as they hand out 10th rate degrees to 10th rate academics.
    Social science is as worthy to society as a secondhand split condom and as scientific as phrenology.

  44. From….many of the usual suspects……… Jeffrey A. Harvey Daphne van den Berg Jacintha Ellers Remko Kampen Thomas W. Crowther Peter Roessingh Bart Verheggen Rascha J. M. Nuijten Eric Post Stephan Lewandowsky Ian Stirling Meena Balgopal Steven C. Amstrup Michael E. Mann

    ” Refereces cited ”

    Their references might be iffy..

  45. Desperation is setting in and no matter how much huffing and puffing they do
    the public just isn’t as pliable as the glory days when scientists were considered above reproach .
    The scary climate salesman aren’t reading the room . Too many proven falsehoods ,
    too many tax payer rip offs .

  46. To counteract the blogs’ pernicious effects, the authors argue that scientists must now engage in the “trench warfare” of public debate

    How many open offers to have a public debate have been left unaddressed by the alarmists? Jeffrey A. Harvey (j.jharvey@nioo.knaw.nl) affiliated with the Department of Terrestrial Ecology at the Netherlands Institute of Ecology, you are being called out. Lead by example.

  47. From the opinion piece:
    Although the effects of warming on some polar-bear subpopulations are not yet documented and other subpopulations are apparently still faring well, the fundamental relationship between polar-bear welfare and sea-ice availability is well established, and unmitigated AGW assures that all polar bears ultimately will be negatively affected.

    There’s a word to describe a person who admits to the evidence but comes to a contradictory conclusion and that word is not scientist.

    • It was once “well established” that the Earth was at the center of the universe, and that the Sun orbited around it. “Just another code word for “consensus,” which in science is what we call “meaningless.”

  48. My favourite quote from the piece is:

    “Rhetorical devices to evoke fear and other emotions, such as implying that the public is under threat from deceitful scientists, are common tactics employed by science-denier groups .”

    So, presumably, “science-denier groups” doesn’t count as a rhetorical device?

    Do these people even bother to read back what they have just written?

    • LMAO. One might rephrase,

      “Rhetorical devices to evoke fear and other emotions, such as implying that the public is under threat from dangerous climate change caused by human fossil fuel burning, are common tactics employed by pseudo-science promoting Eco-Fascists.”

  49. The most amazing thing about this paper is that they provide the evidence within their own paper that they are wrong.

    “the effects of warming on some polar-bear subpopulations are not yet documented and other subpopulations are apparently still faring well”

    So their stance is really “While observations show we are wrong, our models continue to show we will be right and we don’t like to be criticised.”

  50. I can remember back when Alarmists trolls used to reply with links and pages of the IPCC reports. One by one their objections have been fielded. Year after year. Now the Alarmist replies are getting Pathetic.

    Susan Crockford has done good work. I’m grateful.

  51. “Scientists need to more effectively use Internet-based social media to their full advantage in order to turn the tide in the battle for public opinion.”

    Here comes another wave of paid Internet trolls.

  52. This is on reddit in several places. Each thread will have hundreds or thousands of comments, half or more of which are deleted. Pretty funny if you ask me.

  53. Slime correlates as well with CO2 as anything else, though more work is required on the Medieval Slime Period. I think I know just the man to do it.

  54. Stirling is an author and the polar bear issue is dominant… Susan is right, it is precisely because she supports her criticism that they needed to write this paper and she seems to be the true, real target of this.

    The key here is that readers in the eyes of those authors are supposedly unable to read and judge a good discussion when they see one. Readers, for them, are simpletons who cannot appreciate the validity of a demonstration… since they dare to doubt the word of the official experts.

    This attitude is eerily similar to the fake-news accusation western media/think-tanks are using in an attempt to discredit any other geopolitical analysis that do expose the true goals of western actions. There too, readers have been supposedly “had” by the other side propaganda… As if propaganda was the exclusive other side’s evil trademark while truthful information naturally graced our side only. Our side doing false flags and lying? Impossible, right? Readers are denied any intelligence and ability to appreciate how flawed, hypocritical and misleading “our” side can be, despite mounting numerous historical examples, FOI access declassification of documents showing the opposite of what media claimed for months.

    This attack on Susan shows these guys are worried, so worried they cannot even quote Mitch Taylor’s work, a tell-tale that contrary to their claims, science is not to be served in their paper. But, hey, who am I as a reader to figure that one out?

    As usual, the relays from Canadian Press are prompt to help: CBC a member of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists did not miss this new paper… http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-denier-blogs-ignore-science-1.4424956
    No investigation here from them, pure slander on Susan.

  55. Here in England it is currently snowing. Since fully qualified climate scientist David Viner stated back in the year 2000 that snow in England was now a thing of the past, it follows that, by pointing out, in 2017, that it is snowing, I am obviously a climate denier spreading fake news. It goes without saying that I am being paid handsomely by fossil fuel companies to spread the lie that it is snowing in England.

    The problem that the alarmists now face is that English people are quite capable of looking out of their windows.

  56. mann complaining about using proxies (if I understood it right) is pretty funny seeing as his whole existance in climate discussion was based on proxies.

  57. Biology was corrupted half a century ago when the environmental movement took wing. The biological activist icon Ehrlich was foaming at the mouth since the sixties when he wrote his doomsday door stopper Population Bomb. He jumped on the global cooling panic and wrong again, flipped to global warming. He received a prestigious award from the Royal Society for a lifetime achievement of getting binary issues diametrically wrong. They love this guy.

    Susan Crockford and Jim Steele are outstanding honest and brave exceptions to the rule that biological/ecological sciences are now just a branch of the corrupted social sciences. This is why they come up for so much abuse by these clones. Mann and Lewandowski show what they have by the company they keep. I consider smears by these two to be favorable reviews of such sterling scientists as Crockford and Steele.

Comments are closed.