What do these things have in common?

Ok, something a little different and being a Sunday, in honour of the Sabbath, I have decided to be a little bit lazy and just post one of my videos. Some may be offended by the title when they see the content and I am more than happy to discuss it and whether I think they personally are idiots or not.

I was prompted into this direction by some recent discussion here on my blog and others about the link between religion and climate change denial and about what constitutes pseudoscience. This video isn’t meant to be an educational thing in any way in that I have made it purely to generate discussion and to suggest that many of these things have something in common. None of them are grounded in science. I made this video some time ago and in hindsight would have included a lot more climate deniers because climate denial deserves a special place amongst the other crackpot beliefs I feature.

About these ads


Filed under Uncategorized

21 responses to “What do these things have in common?

  1. john byatt

    You have found your calling Mike

    Buggar, now you have me worrying if I am going to come across as “the moon is half the size of the sun” guy

    newspaper stars columns 2012?, What the hell,

  2. john byatt

    Obviously the suface temp anomaly alone is not revealing the true picture

    with an anomaly of just 0.8DegC this has been the outcome for 2012,


  3. john byatt

    He does come up with some good stuff

    Horatio Algeranon | December 20, 2012 at 7:26 pm | Reply
    “My favorite things”
    – by Horatio Algeranon

    Curry and Roses and jumping white horses
    Painting Whitehouses, divining with dowsers
    Skeptics with foolishness hung with their strings
    These are a few of my favorite things

    “Blog Science” phonies and short trend balonies
    Ding dongs and ding bats and blogging with Tony’s
    Theories that fly with the moon on their wings
    These are a few of my favorite things

    Graphs from fake skeptics with BS statistics
    Skep-fakes that stray like erratic ballistics
    Sea-ice recoveries that melt into springs
    These are a few of my favorite things

    When the blog bites
    When “tee hee” stings
    When I’m feeling sad
    I simply remember my favorite things
    And then I don’t feel so bad

    • That’s classic. I’m not so sure I’m happy about the earworm I have now though. I’m going to watch one of the shows that the deniers wouldn’t dare. Frozen Planet.


  4. klem

    “..climate denial deserves a special place amongst the other crackpot beliefs..”

    Um, what do you think the deniers believe in your world exaclty?

    • Well Klem, where to begin? There are so many different types of deniers all with different beliefs but there are some common threads.

      Let’s start with the belief that non-expert opinion is as scientifically valid as expert opinion. So many deniers believe Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, Christopher Monckton, Pat Michaels and numerous others, who have no climate expertise and in the case of “Lord” Monckton and Anthony Watts, no scientific credentials at all, to be experts in climate science. To me that is akin to going to a retired dentist for orthopedic surgery in the case of the “scientists” or in the case of Monckton and Watts, to Bozo the clown..

      Next, the belief that peer review is corrupt or unimportant. This is a funny one because a fair number of deniers on one hand will complain about peer review but when they are told of a peer reviewed paper (usually misrepresented) that supports the denier position, peer review is suddenly king.

      How about the belief that downloading some data into Excel and producing a graph to pass the eyecromoter over is “doing science”?

      How about the belief that every major scientific institution on the planet and hundreds of thousands of scientists are in a giant conspiracy?

      How aboout the belief that reading the abstract of a paper is enough to ascertain all that the paper has to offer?

      How about the belief that “paywalling” is a plot to stop ordinary citizens from accessing information?

      How about the belief that “climategate” is proof that scientists are corrupt?

      Would you like me to continue?


  5. john byatt


    Follow the comments today, a piece by STEPHAN LEWANDOWSKY

  6. john byatt

    I notice that they are already quoting the draft copy of AR5 as proof that extreme events are not increasing. It is their authority at the moment. let us see how long that lasts.

  7. john byatt

    I thought that this comment from TCS party member came under the heading of not even wrong,

    Bill Koutalianos :
    31 Dec 2012 10:43:32am
    Stephan Lewandowsky’s apparently limitless capacity to embarrass himself is hinged on his reliance of the UN IPCC as an authority in climate science. IPCC’s reputation has been damaged by two decades of exaggerations and failed projections. Lewandowsky talks of peer reviewed science here in apparent ignorance of the fact that IPCC’s claims of 100% peer reviewed science were exposed as substantially false, only a couple of years ago. IPCC now admit they use “grey” literature, including literature from “green” lobby groups. Is Mr Lewandowsky OK with that? Since the 2010 IAC critical review of the IPCC’s procedures and processes and since Donna Laframboise exposed other elements of the IPCC’s workings in her book “The delinquent teenager who was mistaken for the world’s top climate expert”, I hear very few of our politicians mention the IPCC by name nowadays. Even the World Bank has now sub-contracted doomsayer climate science out to others. Surely a body’s reputation and credibility are relevant, before we accept their claims of 99% certainty. Mr Lewandowsky would apparently recommend otherwise.

    • Reading this crap day after day makes me tired. I wonder sometimes what the point is of rebutting them a lot of the time. Anyone who is prepared to take what these clowns say at face value is beyond help anyway. Next September’s ice and the seemingly endless stream of climate disasaters will continue to erode their position. We’ve already seen in the last 5 years a general shift form outright denial to the position that we need to adapt. It’s not perfect but it does signal an erosion of their idiotic position. The CSP and their ridiculously moronic members barely rate a mention in the grand scheme of things and that gives me an idea…..


  8. john byatt

    You can post under any name at ABC unleashed and even sock puppets are tolerated on the same email address, tested that

    Here might be a sock puppet in action

    maus :
    31 Dec 2012 10:37:54am
    Well your understanding of it is flawed so what hope for the rest of the planet. The IPCC does not agree with you on increasing natural disasters. What is there to understand beyond that?

    Alert moderator

    john byatt :
    31 Dec 2012 11:10:22am
    You are referencing a draft copy, the science of increasing extremes is fairly new as far as the peer reviewed science goes but should make it into the final AR5,
    The science of SLR in the AR4 was only up to about 2003 so a lot has been learned since then.
    If the new research does make it into AR5 then I have no doubt that the deniers will point to the information and say that they (scientists) have changed the claim
    this is the whole idea behind review of AR5 to try to ensure that we have the most up to date confirmed science.

    Alert moderator

    Ravensclaw :
    31 Dec 2012 12:12:10pm

    Where did Maus state a draft copy?

    The IPCC peddles grey literature as alarmist fact. IPCC credibility!


    Alert moderator

    • No doubt. They seem to have the time to post comments incessantly everywhere I wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve all got sockpuppet accounts. I have anti plagiarism program that I run all of my students’ work through. It basically searches the web for keywords and phrases and it is very good even picking up poorly paraphrased sections. I can probably run blog comments through it and find sock puppets but I’m not sure I could be bothered.


  9. john byatt

    I have always been lousy at pattern recognition so probably would have been ambushed by the tiger in days gone by

    “Pattern recognition combined with post hoc reasoning can lead to a strong form of magical thinking. Basically, people are prone to see patterns where there are none (such as in occurrences of “bad luck” and “good luck”) and then attempt to attribute them to some sort of correlation (such as the clothes worn that day). This has been correlated to a feeling of loss or lack of control.[1]
    In simple cases this can lead to basic superstitious beliefs (such as not walking under ladders[2]) but when applied on a more sophisticated and larger scale it may serve as the impetus for such major cultural artifacts as religion or conspiracy theories.
    A perfect example are people seeing images of Jesus or Mary in wood grains and in grilled cheese”

    I saw jesus in a turd in the dunny once but that was on the Chaser program