BraveNewClimate

Sceptics

6 Responses

1. 

   Spot the recycled denial VI – Chris Kenny « BraveNewClimate.com, on January 2nd, 2009 at 7.00 Said:

   [...] Spot the Recycled Denial series [...]
2. 

   Last March of the Global Warming Denialists « Stephen Leahy International Environmental Journalist, on January 6th, 2009 at 2.54 Said:

   [...] Great blog by Aussie scientist on the endless denial claims: Spot the Recycled Denial series [...]
3. 

   Frank, on April 29th, 2009 at 7.46 Said:

   Some of my colleagues disparage the IPCC warnings about global warming because they say the models do not use a sufficient range of economic assumptions.

   Please would you tell me where can I find a table (not a figure) of the lowest tropospheric CO2 concentration (presumably derived from the emission scenarios) for each year or decade used as an input for the 23 (?) different IPCC models in the 2007 report. I have spent hours searching the web and the IPCC reports without success.
4. 

   Admiral visions of a future now past « BraveNewClimate.com, on May 3rd, 2009 at 20.08 Said:

   [...] Spot the Recycled Denial series [...]
5. 

   A necessary interlude « BraveNewClimate.com, on September 24th, 2009 at 0.03 Said:

   [...] Spot Recycled Denial [...]
6. 

   jim rogers, on January 1st, 2010 at 8.03 Said:

   Open letter to Ian Plimer.

   Dear Ian,

   I enjoyed your book Heaven + Earth, and your considered discussion of the possible causes of climate variability of the age of the earth, even though it was at times a much repeated list of facts and message, but why dissipate your scientific facts and scholarly quotes from the literature with so much religious preaching? Your religious proselytizing does you no credit. You often mention caustically in name or in general those who zealously preach with hidden agendas and twisted use of the truth. Unfortunately I’m left wondering why you watered down your science with religious, pious, inappropriate innuendo and non-scientific pronouncements involving religious beliefs. As you don’t say why you do this, I’m left to speculate. Maybe you want to ingratiate yourself to some hierarchy of true believers, or be a papal knight, or feel guilty and in debt to your God for previous sins, or have some other agenda. How could I or anyone know what lead you to mix your religious faith with the hard science you base your major arguments upon? It was a weird thing to do.

   You have succeeded at the moment in making me a climate change fence-sitter yet to make up my mind, but I’m not just sceptical of the other side of the debate, for I’m also now skeptical of your agenda as well. The many criticisms of your book’s accuracy which several have addresed in print are concerning, and makes me wary of your data. It leads me to not have faith in your dogmatism. Your religious advocacy makes me very wary as well. You may not care if readers find your message mixed. Maybe you feel superior and vindicated already, though you seem to despise others who think themselves superior, so hopefully not. I think it was a very big mistake to dilute the science you so heartily believe in with your religious views. Having accused your opponents of allowing non-scientists too much say and power in the debate you talk about God and the spiritual life, and lie down in bed with non-scientists like a cardinal and a pope. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

   “…pagan emptiness and fears about nature have lead to hysteria and extreme claims about global warming…….Today they [pagans] demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.” [George Pell]. So are those opposing you are all pagans, or only some of them? Pathetic type-casting, isn’t it.

   “It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure……” [Benedict XVI]. Pity he doesn’t use the same impartial rules of thought in coming to so many other absurd proclamations, edicts and dogmas! By his own definition and yours he is a hypocrite in thousands of ways. Why quote a pope (a religious fanatic by definition) as a final arbiter at the end of your science book?

   You quote two men who do all they can to perpetuate many things that many abhor, including vocal and powerful efforts to stop all contraception, including condoms in AIDS-rife parts of the world, thereby helping condemn a countless number of gullible, guileless people to a horrible death, their families to suffer without parents, or the children themselves to die painfully. Do you find this admirable? No-one of course can be assumed to also hold all the beliefs of those they quote once or twice in other contexts, but, how is a reader to know when you choose to quote religious figures from the Catholic hierarchy in a science debate? Pell has previously talked of evidence that shows contraception doesn’t stop HIV infection, using the type of poorly conducted “science” you claim to abhor. Have you aggressively corrected Pell on this, or do you agree with him? How is a reader to know?

   “The global warming movement has a collective of prejudices with a perceived moral ground.” I agree about much you say on this. However, by association you lump all who fear global warming in with those who are “environmental romantics” who “hate industry, love Nature, idealise peasant life, believe capitalism is wicked, think people in modern society lead depraved shallow lives and have forgotten the true meaning of things, don’t like cars or supermarkets and hate the average person taking cheap long hauled flights to warm areas on holidays.” etc, etc, etc. The vitriol is palpably vivid. I don’t believe the majority of concerned people are in this mould you describe. You are as guilty of collective generalizations as any of your opponents. You also accuse opponents of being spiritually shallow. How woefully judgmental and shallow of you, accusing from your own moral plateau on high.

   “Mother Nature does not build gardens of Eden..” you say, though of Australian Christians 38 per cent support Genesis according to the recent Nielsen poll (so it isn’t just nutty Americans) and another 47 per cent favour the God of Design; only 12 per cent of Australian Christians believe in Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Australian Christians may believe the bible is all literally true (25 per cent), 52 per cent put their faith in telepathy, clairvoyance, psychic healing, etc., 41 per cent believe in telepathy, 32% in UFOs, 35% believe in witches, and the list goes on in the poll! And you accuse atheist environmentalists of shabby thinking!! You should keep atheists on side, as so many scientists you hope to convert to your anti-global warming side are also atheist. Remember creationist Christians here in Australia and elsewhere won’t believe your facts and dates, so won’t support you, unless very confused in their beliefs. Mock atheists spiritual worth and depth if it makes you feel superior, but don’t be surprised if some or many take exception to your pathetic moralising in this regard.

   You talk of “the urban atheistic religion of Environmentalism.” Environmentalism from the dictionary means: “advocacy of the preservation, restoration, or improvement of the natural environment; especially: the movement to control pollution”. No mention of all your add-ons. Perhaps your vitriol here is as much against atheism as environmentalists! You seem to be running a not so subtle background agenda here, advertising and pushing some of your religious views on your readers, which is bizarre, irrelevant to your scientific message and an absurd distraction from your data against the global warming movement. You may feel “Religion is not about pie in the sky when we die, it is about the present” but many feel it is ultimately based upon pie in the sky ideas, created by human minds for human societies, and has no factual basis. Religion is many things including a tool used to create moral codes, but if the basis is myth and is still mistakenly being espoused and perpetuated as true then it should be exposed as being based upon falsehoods, or at least recognised as probably or possibly being so. But then, that would be too open-minded for a religious zealot to admit. At these times you sound like the pot calling the kettle black.

   You say “Some pseudoscience, such as creation “science” is the fruit of an unsound mind.” Many would also say all or much religious belief is the fruit of unsound minds. It isn’t relevant to this scientific debate however, unless thrown into the debate, yet you have thrown religion into your book with gusto for unknown reasons. Why ruin your direct scientific message with religious claims that can’t be scientifically proved?

   You quote “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he never reasoned into” [Jonathan Swift], but this also aptly describes most religious belief which rests on faith not reason. You speak glowingly that “Carl Sagan argued that science is the candle in the darkness..” Sagan also said of religion “You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep-seated need to believe. Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of the astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy.” And you accuse others of selective quoting! Why not quote Sagan on religion if you want to make the end of your book a religious discussion.

   You blithely choose to end your book stating “Human stupidity is only exceeded by God’s mercy, which is infinite” yet you spend your book continually lampooning those who make statement with religious zeal and fervor. How hypocritical is that! Surely you should qualify this, and admit that God may not exist let alone be infinite in anything, or may not be this supposed wondrous, personalised deity. Many who see suffering throughout the world and over history or experience suffering personally think any such Being could not exist due to all the contradictions it would involve. God as many construct him may not be possible. Many think any such Being would surely be either an imbecile or uncaring or malevolently evil. Where is your scientific qualifier? Perhaps you should mention Occam’s Razor could apply to religious beliefs including all or most of the extraordinary and impossible claims within Christianity.

   I’m mystified as to why you as a scientist personally believe in religion which involves so much “mystery, magic and miracles”, without any proof or scientific evidence. You presumably also believe in a second coming (though are modest enough I presume to not know the date, unlike religious believers you quote from the past). All the prophesies of the end of the world that you quote I’d guess are from religious believers. The Inquisition and other dogmatic societies and courts, which you mention as being similar to the dogmatic approach of the horde of current climate change believers, were misguided religious institutions and groups. Religion has a lot to answer for along with any of its good points. Maybe you should be fair and point out all the flaws of religion while you are so busy proselytising. But then, that would be balanced, and religious zealots invariably decry such an approach.

   Interesting science, but pathetic preaching better left to The Catholic Weekly than in your (mostly scientific) book. Your religious beliefs fail Michael Schirmer’s list of fallacies that lead people to believe weird things, or are you too blinkered to see that?

   Yours sincerely,

   Jim Rogers
   25 Albany St.,
   Point Frederick.
   2250