His choices are interesting but I think he hits the highlights. After all he has fake experts Pat Michaels and Steve Milloy, and of course Christopher Monckton. I might disagree with the inclusion of a nobody like Sarah Palin. She's a twit more than a real purveyor of disinformation like Marc Morano, or S. Fred Singer. He has included Inhofe so I guess that's Morano-inclusive.
What do you guys think? Any glaring omissions?
And check out my piece at the Guardian on how to spot a climate change denialist.
- Log in to post comments
Yeah, I'd have replaced Sarah Palin with Michael Crichton. Or maybe George Will.
And check out my piece at the Guardian on how to spot a climate change denialist.
Nice.
The third point is one of my favs.
I love that he called Melanie Phillips "Genuinely Scary Spice".
Is it just me, or did he pick the most ridiculous photos possible of all the honourees?
Have a look at the comments after Monbiot's article - Grade A loons most of them, and of course perfect examples of the kind of thinking that you wrote about in your excellent Guardian piece.
This is a really great top ten list, I especially like the captions on the cards. Anyone can post lists to our site http://www.toptentopten.com/ and then link back to your site. The coolest feature is you can let other people vote on the rankings of your list.
Wouldn't being dead kinda disqualify Crichton?
His (Chrichton's)stupidity lives on after him, since you can unfortunately still buy 'State of Fear' - just a penny on Amazon (overpriced). Personally, I think we should make it a top twenty, because then we could have Lomborg in there as well.
It is truly a shame that your blog spreads complete lies based upon Politically influenced Pseudo-Science. If you actually knew anything about Climatology, or had been well acquainted with the most esteemed professionals emanating from within such relevant fields (Such as I have been for the past 12 Years), you would most certainly be singing a different tone in regards to Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change.
The Data does in fact run contrary to your beliefs, and whether it be from Monitoring Stations, Core Samples, or other numerous aspects of Meteorological and Paleo-Climatological studies, it all points towards a wide range of Historic Climate Fluctuations.
You see, your entire Philosophy of absurdly vague terminology, such as that of "Climate Change", runs completely against the very facts of Global Patterns. A Climate, and more specifically the Earth's Climate, never remains static, it ALWAYS changes. So if you are attempting to do anything forceful in Nature to resist this change, then it is YOU in fact who are having an Anthropogenic effect upon this Planet. Ironic, is it not?
Go out and conduct some real science for once, study Oceanic and Arctic Oceanic Basin Current Patterns, Upper Atmospheric Jet Streams, Urbanization Heat Islands (The actual reason behind Monitoring Station Temperature Increases), Glaciology, Helio Astronomy and Physics (Solar Cycles and Gamma Ray Patterns), and the likes.
Your attempts at clumping together all of the Scientific Fields of Study, is truly equating to a cop out of the most immense and devastating proportions. Grant money is now being doled out to anyone and everyone who claims to be conduction a study, when in all reality, they simply wait around to blame their observed effects on a pre-conceived cause.
This is NOT Science, this IS Politics. Learn the difference.
MarkH,
No surprise that you would embrace the Moonbat.
Bats of a feather...
Okay, "Analyst", you've made some very bold assertions. Now it is time to back it up. Where's this science and data you claim? Published in the prestigious SGIMIAB journal? Where is this research being done? UMYASS? Show me the data.
You are correct... this is politics. Right-wing nuts who don't like where the science leads drag politics into the mix.
Either Christy or Spencer for being unable to calculate satellite data, allowing denialists to say for ten years that satellites showed no warming.
Shrub may have stopped denying ultimately, but spent a good part of his administration in denial.
Pielke Jr. isn't a denialist but generally works to damage understanding of the consensus. Several others are similarly more harmful than true denialists - Tierney, Bailey, and Easterbrook stand out.
I've got to go with Roy Spencer and Christopher Horner, though Anthony Watts is a once in a generation combination of stupidity and dishonesty.
Lance, you consider S. Fred Singer and Pat Michaels good company. Your judgment is flawed.
The Analyst, your crazy rant is a beautiful example of what I'm talking about. You clearly don't have the first conception of the science, and you further demonstrate the mad conspiracy mongering behind the denial of it.
"The Analyst", I challenge your entire statement. Since you claim to be more familiar with this material, than the authors of this blog, I have a simple question for you that should be trivially easy for a person who understands the basic physics and "Helio Astronomy":
If the luminance of the sun increased by 1%, how much would the temperature of the earth increase, all other factors held constant?
Analyst - 'esteemed professionals emanating'(WTF?) - fruitbat crazy or an escapee from Dickens. I think this is what they call a 'case study' of what Mark has been writing about.
For more loony tunes, have a look at this article in the Guardian about the New York 'conference' http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/12/climate-change-scepti… , classic stuff. As are the comments section afterwards - most grade A delusion.
David Bellamy? David 'Vast herds of wildebeest' Bellamy!!? The guy that was right up there with David Attenborough as one of Britain's best TV naturalists is now a climate change denier? How are the mighty fallen!
Over at DeSmogBlog I have encountered a near identical troll calling himself 'geologist'. 'geologist' starts by claiming to be led by the science, but is of course claiming the exact opposite of what mainstream science has determined. However, 'geologist' soon exposes his true nature, becomes objectionable and resorts to name-calling.
And here we have 'TheAnalyst', another poster exhibiting troll behaviour [trying to derail the discussion], by introducing accusations of political bias and listing many of the denialists' arguments as if we are complete idiots. Now, despite this being my first visit, it is perfectly clear that a number of those posters here have an evident grasp of the realities, one that isn't shared by either 'geologist' or 'TheAnalyst'
Perhaps 'TheAnalyst' could explicate and expand how the Urban Heat Island operates far away from urban areas, say in boreholes, the Pacific Ocean, Western Antarctica, in the Arctic and elsewhere.
While he is about it, if he could explain to us complete morons why many thousands of dedicated scientists have got it wrong and he has it right. After he has completely reinvented the scientific study of the climate, he could win himself half a dozen Nobel Prizes!
Of course, I am expecting ISI peer-reviewed science to support his claims. I'm not holding my breath!
Failing that, perhaps 'TheAnalyst' should add a postscript 'sponsored by' 'Peabody Coal' or 'the Scaife Foundation'!
MarkH,
Where did I endorse Michaels or Singer?
At least they are scientists. Moonbat is a screeching alarmist dimwit masquerading as a "science writer". He says we have to reduce CO2 emissions to ZERO by 2030 or weâre all doomed. Think about what it would take to eliminate all CO2 emissions in the next twenty years. Now youâre getting an idea of how he earned the âMoon Batâ moniker.
He wants all residents of the planet to be issued âcarbon rationâ cards. Thereâs an egalitarian idea! He once said that transatlantic travel was equivalent to âchild abuseâ but of course hasnât curtailed his international travel. I suppose his trips to spread his alarmist claptrap are worth abusing a few thousand kids.
I have never endorsed Singer or Michaelsâ, although both are trained scientists worthy of respect while Monbiot is a frothing political hack.
That you have thrown in with this nut speaks volumes about your judgment in scientific matters.
As the saying goes, [citation needed]. I've read plenty of Monbiot's stuff, and I'm pretty sure he does no such thing. In Heat, his target is a 90% reduction in UK emissions by 2030, to balance out the expected increase in emissions by the developing world in a fair manner.
What is it with Singer? He used to be a credible scientist, say, in the early 1970s, no?
Did he get blood transfusion from Gordon Edwards or something?