I was reading Robert Bradley’s excellent blog Master Resource in which he discusses Ad hominen attacks. But I had to disagree with his assertion that the Ad Hominen attacks must cease. Indeed quite the reverse. Instead it is now my firm belief that the reason we sceptics have so far failed to make our case is because we have failed to undermine the people – NOT EVIDENCE, BUT PEOPLE – behind this scam.
Replying to Robert’s article I wrote:
If you hadn’t noticed, despite the complete lack of any trends backing them up, the failure of their models and the wholesale corruption of the alarmist academics and NGOs … sceptics have failed to win the climate wars by constant regurgitation of the same data and graphs which overwhelmingly proves us right, but apparently goes down like a lead balloon with most journalists, politicians and environmentalists.
For these science illiterates, the whole argument is this: “someone they deem to be an authority in society because they are referred to as a ‘scientist’ says … doomsday warming is happening.”
No end of graphs showing that it hasn’t warmed for 18 years or showing that similar warming and cooling periods are prevalent throughout CET will convince these scientific illiterates.
Instead we have to stop them believing that some academic with no more claim to speak on climate than you or I, should be accepted as an “authority”.
Because for the vast bulk of the population who do not have the education of sceptics, there is little choice but to judge the issue of doomsday warming based on whether those PEOPLE they perceive to be “authorities” say it is true or not.
We will win this war.
It is a simple matter of fact that sooner or later there will be enough climate data that no-one, however scientifically illiterate will be able to reject the evidence. Evidence that already shows doomsday warming was nothing but a lot of headless public-sector chickens scared shitless by an imaginary bogeyman. But this evidence will grow until looking back it will be clear that this late 20th century blip was just another minor and temporary natural upswing in temperature – that and their own stupid cherry picking of data to further scare themselves.
So sceptics will win. That is a fact because with mother nature on our side no one can stop us winning. All we can change is how quickly we win and perhaps more importantly, how many more people suffer from this scam before we win. How many more people die in this holocaust of winter deaths because these rising fuel taxes hit the old and poor hardest.
We have a moral duty to end this doomsday warming scam ASAP
If this were only science, then fine, then it is right to stick to the data and its analysis. But this is a moral question. This is people dying day in day out throughout the winter because they cannot afford to heat their homes because of these loathsome evil people who line this pockets from this scam.
Because it is more than just science, we have a moral duty to call out those individuals. And yes, I am just as much at fault as many others. On my own blog, I had a policy of not attacking individuals. In retrospect, I should have done far more to warn the public about these people. I should not have focussed so much on the data analysis or generalities and should have done far more to attack the appalling morality of those individuals involved.
What many sceptics are failing to differentiate between, is between honest “ad Hominen” attacks and dishonest ones. Because it is not only right but it is essential that the public are made aware of the kinds of people we are dealing with.
For example, stating the Michael Mann is not a proper scientist, is both an “ad Hominen” attack but also an honest description of him. He is someone that falsely claims to be a Nobel prize winner, falsely claims to have been “vindicated” by every inquiry (most did not investigate him at all) and someone who claims to be an “expert” & “scientist” but he does not accept the validity of scientific test showing the climate models failed and he clearly does not understand the statistics he uses and has personally embarrassed the whole scientific community who made his bogus hockeystick their poster-child.
Mike, a head’s up: Links to this site from uclimate produce a 404 error.
In the US the media have mounted an attack on Dr. Willie Soon, perhaps as a distraction from IPCC scandals, or to discredit possible expert testimony at the Senate.
In attacking Dr. Soon, green journalists display a quite stunning world view. Behind their writings you can see their logic:
Climate scientists are paid to publish results supporting Global Warming.
Dr. Soon’s results don’t support Global Warming.
QED Dr. Soon is paid by those against Global Warming.
Seeing all the fame and fortune going to true believers, they can not imagine a scientist motivated by his own integrity. After all, in their view, all published results are bought and paid for.
Green journalists attacking Dr. Soon reveal their operating assumption: Climate science is totally corrupt. . .well, 97% corrupt.
Thanks, I’ll look into it.
It’s a simple fact that any scientist publishing against the “group-think” will be one of the most honest and altruistic people you can meet. Because no one gets rich going against the delusional group-think of the crowd.
And of course it’s a distraction. But what an incredible bunch of immoral hypocrites these journalists are. They publish press releases from greenblob organisations funded by fossil fuel money and foreign governments, they themselves have absolutely no scientific training to judge the scientific dispute and then they take the side of the oil-funded, foreign government funded greenblob against totally honest and upstanding scientists.
I’d sack all these journalists and replace them with someone with a science degree – even if that someone firmly believed in global warming, at least they could write their own articles instead of dull as ditchwater copy and pastes from the greenblob.