WaPo: Global warming deniers are just like those damn creationists

Leave it to the Washington Post to twist climategate into knots, so it’s the scientists who were caught green-handed are actually the good guys. Chris Mooney, a science journalism Knight fellow at MIT, writes today’s column with the promising headline, “On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up.” But, soon enough, we remember what WaPo is all about.

Mooney begins by telling us the the latest polls show trust in scientists dropping sharply. But, you don’t learn that it’s because people now understand many global warming academics and scientists have not been pursuing the truth about global warming, but instead grants, peer pressure, and their own agenda. No, he says, it’s because the scientists have not communicated well enough their message of global warming. Apparently, the world has not yet heard enough about the “fact” of global warming.

The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights that in a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when science comes under attack.

No, those emails didn’t say anything about the manipulation of data, the deletion of emails, the fear of the Freedom of Information Act, the “tricks” in the programming, propagandizing Wikipedia, the hiding of the medieval warming period and the last decade of cooling, did it Mr. Mooney?

And poor Michael Mann, the Penn State University climatologist at the center of the global scam; he complains that he’s had to defend himself and the science largely alone: “I haven’t had all that many other scientists helping in that effort.” Could it be they don’t want to back the sneaky Mr. Mann, and it could it be they know the data is flawed and the science is not really settled. Heavens no. It’s simply “that scientists had never been trained in how to talk to the public and were therefore hesitant to face the media.”

And remember the hurricane season of 2005? Apparently the message that they were due to global warming didn’t get drilled into our heads enough.

Consider another failure to communicate from the global-warming arena: the scientific fallout after a devastating trio of hurricanes — Katrina, Rita and Wilma — in the fall of 2005. Just as these storms struck, a pair of scientific studies appeared in top journals suggesting, for the first time, that global warming was making hurricanes more intense and deadly.

Notice he said that “for the first time” studies suggested that global warming was to blame for more deadly hurricanes. No mention that they were also some of the last hurricanes we’ve seen in the gulf since the doomsday predictions of Al Gore, the media and I’ll bet the author.

We haven’t even got to the best part yet.

Looking for another way to attack skeptics, and conservatives while he is at it, he compares the climate change “deniers” to creationists who deny evolution.

If the global-warming battle has any rival in its intensity, its nastiness and its risk to scientists if they do not talk to the public, it is the long-standing conflict over the teaching of evolution. Science’s opponents in this fight are highly organized, and they constantly nitpick evolutionary science to cast the field into disrepute.

The scientific response to creationists has long been to cite the extensive evidence for evolution. In book after book, scientists have explained how DNA, fossil, anatomical and other evidence indisputably shows the interrelatedness of all species. Further, they have refuted creationist claims that evolution cannot explain the complexity of the eye or the intricacy of the bacterial flagellum. Yet such down-in-the-weeds messages probably miss most of the public — polls repeatedly show that a large portion of Americans have doubts about evolution.

Let’s see if we’ve got this right. It is the global warming gang who has science on their side, and it’s the skeptics who stubbornly hold on to faith. We are the flat-earthers, insisting “the science is settled” and Al Gore, the UN, East Anglia and the rest of the useful idiots are the ones who are open, honest and welcoming of skeptical analysis in order pursue the truth?

And you thought 1984 was fiction.

Possibly related posts:

  1. Washington Times: man-caused catastrophic global warming theory is dead, and it needs to be buried
  2. More hurricanes, fewer hurricanes, stronger hurricanes…more BS
  3. If only Global Warming were dinosaur science…
  4. ABC remains silent on climategate
  5. The Tip of the Climategate Iceberg

31 Responses to “WaPo: Global warming deniers are just like those damn creationists”

  1. I did warn you yesterday about it being a bit old over here, and it seems in the majority of the US. Just how long before the ‘alarmists claim that this is because of the ‘carbon reductions’ LOL.

  2. Schiller Thurkettle says:

    Chris Mooney has a great deal of personal capital invested in portraying himself as the world’s foremost expert on science journalism and science communication. In the course of making that investment, he proclaimed his commitment to the global warming cause, relying on the supposed ‘consensus’ of climatologists.

    Joining a cause and proclaiming a consensus are improper for scientists and science journalists alike–something Mooney should know. And now he’s in a position to change his mind when the evidence changes — the responsible thing to do. But nope — he’s now an apologist instead.

  3. Taruni says:

    1.It is time the WaPo and the NYT were relegated inti insignificance.The once reliable Newspapers are now competing with the yellow press and have also become truth deniers.
    2.We should ensure their views are only known to and available to those misguided enough to spend their good money to buy and read these “spread the lies sheets and curry favour with the ruling powers for own financial gains”
    3.Jettison the lot and quote them very very sparingly and only to expose their diabolism.

  4. IloiloKano says:

    “Further, they have refuted creationist claims that evolution cannot explain the complexity of the eye…”

    Uh, no they haven’t.

  5. irving says:

    This is just more of the same pack mentality, the “anyone who does not believe is a bad person” stuff that they’ve been using to push global warming for years. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with conformity uber alles.

    Facts will never change the minds of the uber conformists. The best response is ridicule. Sarcasm is good too. “Thanks Mooney. We got it. And we’re very very sorry for daring to believe the evidence over the paid experts on your side.”

  6. gofer says:

    Gore launched a $300 million dollar campaign to raise awareness of global warming. That sounds a lot like product promotion. Billions have been spent over decades and people have had enough of the doomsaysers. Just like clockwork, we are now entering another cooling period. They ran out of time before this happened and now they are in a panic. History will document this as the “Age of Insanity.”

    You would think sane people would show some relief at the lack of warming in this decade. If you point it out, they get angry. They must have their doom so they can “save the world.”

    Average global temps mean nothing. Temps are going up and down at the same time and arriving at an average conveys no meaning in reality as to what is actually happening. What meaning do you get out of averaging temps of Miami and St. Paul? If an increase was shown over a period, what would it mean in reality? It’s an futile exercise and in reality there is no such thing as global temperature and no way to calculate it meaningfully.

  7. gofer says:

    I read an explanation of how the eye formed and it sounded like something a sixth grader came up with. Apparently there was a light sensitive spot on the skin that over millions of years formed into an eye. My question always has been…why two of them and why aren’t they in the middle of the chest or in the back of the head and why isn’t there one on the back of the head? Would be really handy. Where’s the “software” that ordered the placement and development of the eyes, ears, nose? Must have been tough for “creatures” to survive for millions of years without the organs needed to SURVIVE.

    A lot of “scientists” have developed the god-syndrome. They obviously think there is no possibity that anything exists in the universe that is smarter than them. In the fairly new field of climate science, apparently they have learned it all. The field is so new, not one AGW scientist has ever graduated a University course in climate science.

  8. lumpy says:

    Mooney should walk across campus to speak with Prof. Richard Lindzen, a meteorology prof at MIT, who recently wrote:

    The main statement publicized after the last IPCC Scientific Assessment two years ago was that it was likely that most of the warming since 1957 (a point of anomalous cold) was due to man. This claim was based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn’t reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.

    Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.

  9. artwest says:

    As someone who is completely non-religious, I don’t think I’m at all like a creationist. For that matter, as someone who is – if I have to put a label on myself – Liberal and vaguely Left-ish, I don’t conform to any of the usual stereotypes of a “denier”.
    I’m not anti-science, quite the reverse, I want proper science – something conspicuously absent in climate “science”.

  10. damocles says:

    “why two of them”
    Depth perception.

    “and why aren’t they in the middle of the chest”
    Higher up means a better vantage point.

    “or in the back of the head”
    Turn round.

    And there you have it. Any other questions?

  11. Yertizz says:

    So, who are the ‘deniers’ now?
    And how does it feel to be on the receiving end for a change?

  12. Roy Hogue says:

    Poor old Michael Mann, defending himself all alone. Seems like he contributed to the cheating all alone. No one made him do it. So what’s the problem, Dr. Mann? What’s the problem? Defend yourself if you can and be glad you live in a place where you can put up a defense!

  13. Roy Wagner says:

    4 Classes of un-truth:
    Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics, and Peer Reviewed Science!

    These Global Warming Fraud Perps are destroying the credibility of REAL SCIENTISTS. Why are not the REAL Scientists Speaking up?

  14. Steve Mennie says:


    Hey..is Gofer just a username…or are you really a gopher who can’t spell? I’m only asking ’cause your comments suggest that maybe you really are a gopher.

  15. mandas says:

    The title of this post is meant to be (and I am making an assumption here) a criticism of ‘believers’ for daring to compare ‘deniers’ with creationists. The really funny thing is that a couple of creationists turn up and start to discuss how evolution is all wrong.
    I think they call that …’irony’.

    • artwest says:

      Equally untrue is the straw man that all warmist are socialists but no doubt on an equivalent thread questioning that idea a bunch of socialists would turn up.

      The problem always was with AGW that people’s pre-existing politics would predispose them to enthusiastically embrace one side of the issue or another, not because they had dispassionately examined the issues.

      In my opinion, those on the political right who reacted against AGW out of emotion just happen to be luckier than those on the left who embraced alarmism equally uncritically. I don’t think too much smugness is deserved by anyone who didn’t critically question their prejudices before coming to a reasoned position, regardless of their start or end point.

  16. mandas says:

    True artwest – but then, I’m an environmental scientist who has just happened to study the evidence.
    How did you come to your position?

  17. mandas: “but then, I’m an environmental scientist ”

    Yes, ‘professor’ and we know how little you know your subject. On another thread you exposed your ignorance by stating, “if CO2 reaches 3.83% of the atmosphere, we will all be dead.”

    I’ll take scientific commentary from a 4-year-old over you any day, mandas. I’ll keep an eye out for your BS in future. I always enjoy a good laugh.

    • mandas says:

      So tell me John, what’s incorrect about my assertion re CO2?
      You do know that CO2 at concentrations of 5% is considered directly toxic to humans? No?
      Did you know that at concentrations of 2% it can cause breathing problems and acidosis if exposed for only a few hours? No?
      Here’s a hint – do some research and actually know a little about the subject before you put fingers to keyboard or open your mouth in the future. I know its not a habit you are used to, but it does tend to stop you looking like a fool.
      I tend to think that a 100 fold increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause a few problems – but then again, I’m a warmist.
      Thanks though, for explaining where you get all your science advice from. I thought it was a three year old – glad you corrected me.
      And you ‘know how little I know my subject’ huh? Difficult, since I didn’t actually explain what my ‘subject’ is (it’s wildlife science by the way).
      And your subject is ……?

    • Steve Mennie says:

      So..it appears that John O’sullivan has left the building. And we still don’t know if he really is a bonafide lawyer.

      • mandas says:

        Hi Steve
        Nice to see someone else having fun shooting fish in a barrell. Wish they would give us a challenge.
        I know I should base all my opinions in evidence, so this will just be a hypothesis – untested but based on observation – its not yet a theory.
        John O’Sullivan is not a lawyer at all. He has written a couple of short crime stories, but that’s as far as his legal experience goes. As for being a ‘legal advocate’ – I have absoulutely no idea what that means, and he won’t say either. I’m going with someone who spends a lot of time complaining about legal issues on blog sites.

        • Steve Mennie says:

          Hi Mandas..
          Yeah, it’s an eye-opener to actually interact with Glenn Beck’s audience. Sometimes spending time here feels like being in the bar scene in StarWars. I am so naive..I didn’t know they really existed. You’ve certainly given it a good shot and I commend you.

          Yes, I’ve been unable to really find anything about John O’Sullivan other than that he is a self labelled ‘legal advocate’. I scanned one of his short stories and it is written in the full blown purple prose style that he fancies here. I figured the jig was up when he pointed me to Prison Planet to get the ‘facts’ regarding AGW and the international socialist plot to take over the world. I actually know a few lawyers and none of them would reference Alex Jones and Prison Planet for anything and definitely not to glean information regarding international governmental corruption. And this offering of money for whistleblowers to come forward at Penn State..pretty slimey in my book.

          I surfaced from these depths for a day today and read some normal blogs that show a reality based interest in the subject..man it’s scary returning to the asylum to attempt to wrestle something approaching sense from CottShop. It has been instructive tho’…in a weird and twisted sorta way.

          cheers back

  18. Steve Mennie says:

    Here’s an analogy I’ve found helpful when talking about concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere…Denialists are fond of pointing to the tiny fraction of the atmosphere that is CO2 as if that by itself proves that AGW is a hoax.

    So think about this..It’s not mine but it works..If you are consuming 2500 calories a day and are relatively active your weight should remain the same over time. If you increase your caloric intake by 25 calories per day – 1% – and don’t increase your level of physical activity, you will gain 3 lbs. in a year. In ten years you will have gained 30 lbs. By increasing your intake by 1%. Tiny incremental increases, can over time, bring about big changes.

  19. ColinM says:

    Gofer, I read an “Creation” explanation of how eyes came about and it sounded like something a psychotic lunatic made up. This incredible, omnipotent being just willed them into being (along with everything in the entire universe of course) and then became obsessed with petty feuds between Middle Eastern tribes and smiting (and sometimes BLINDING – there’s irony for ya!) those who didn’t bow down to his will. I’ll take the evolution version any day thanks.

  20. Wesley Bruce says:

    Actually most creationists have been climate sceptics for decades but they have their own battles to fight so stayed quiet. I’ve recommended caution to a few creationist leaders my self. Yes I’m a young earth creationist. The dating errors stuff up both sides longer data sets and all the tree ring work. However until the negative feed backs came out we could not assess which side was more adversely effected.
    Data manipulation is the norm in dating circles, embarrassing dating results are never published. Only those that fit the paradigm see publication.
    Blocking creationist papers in peer review has been the norm for 100 years. We have our own journals now.
    Several people have proposed new peer review systems to deal with the Climategate peer review manipulation. The creationist journals have been using these tools for about a decade. I can vouch that they work. Generally we’re on your side. Please be nice to us.

    • mandas says:

      Thank you Wesley, for this wonderful gift……
      Creationists are climate sceptics? Really? I’m a sceptic, but even I’m 100% sure we have a climate. What are you actually sceptical about? Do you require evidence before you accept something as true? What are your standards for evidence?

      “Data manipulation is the norm in dating circles, embarrassing dating results are never published. Only those that fit the paradigm see publication.” Never has a phrase been more aptly written!!
      So tell me about your creationist journals.
      Could I read some of them?
      Could I get a paper published on Hubble etc about observations of galaxies from over 13b light years?
      How about a study of Australian Aboriginal culture and the Lake Mungo burials of 30,000 years ago?
      What about something on coral reef growth rates?
      Metamorphic rocks? Sedimentation?

      Or, would that not fit the paradigm and contain embarassing dating results?

    • Steve Mennie says:

      …”Blocking creationist papers in peer review has been the norm for 100 years. We have our own journals now…”

      The creationists have their own journals now..isn’ that ducky. I think I’ll start a journal to publish ‘peer reviewed’ papers supporting my thesis that black is white..sorta like ‘the new red is green’..

  21. Wesley Bruce says:

    How come you can post away but when I post it fails? My failed attempts to post made me think this comments string was closed. I bet this on just works to spite me. lol. Maybe its blocked by html tags. I tried on in the post.

  22. Wesley Bruce says:

    Yep it wont take links. Just tried one. Interesting How do you carry on a debate without being able to cite evidence via links. Mmmm.

This website is for sale for $10,000. Contact us if interested.