Slamming the Climate Skeptic Scam

Mon, 2009-06-15 10:36Jim Hoggan
Jim Hoggan's picture

Slamming the Climate Skeptic Scam


Updated: June 15, 2009




  • climate change is real;
  • it is caused by human activity; and

























So please read on.

Read everything.





Only by the lowest ranks of so-called climate experts:

The most “science-challenged” slice of this group is still saying it.

how “those who stand in denial of climate change have failed in the last 15 years to produce a single, peer-reviewed scientific journal article that challenges the theory” is a “lie” and “so ridiculously wrong”?

I googled that exact phase and your comment in this thread is all that came up. 

No assertions, just show us the links to the papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.


What complete balderdash, this no different that holding forth that no single peer revied study has denied that the Pope in Rome is God’s vicar on Earth.     Peer review has nothing to  to with either validating or invalidating a theory.  

Scientific theories are self-affirming or self-denying, opinion isn’t worth a damn in this process.     Netwon’s F=ma is true not because they held a poll in which a self appointed authority, first decided who could vote in the poll,  and counted only the votes of those they selected to vote for their idea.    F=ma is true because it works every time for the intended purpose.  

Anyone who does not understand this is either ignorant or fraud.    Science is non authoritarinan and has nothing to do with human opinion.   Opinions do not count.


Chris Maddigan wrote:


Falsehood.  It is clear from the abundance of statements issued by leading scientific acadamies of every developed nation in the world–the overwhelming majority of which combine stern warnings with graphic illustrations detailing very explicitly what is highly likely to occur should we fail to heed the scientific warnings (yet variously worded due to a variety of threats to highlight and issued independently of each other so variously stated)–that there is no other way to summarize these scientific opinions other than to say that they confirm that anthropogenic warming is threatening the planet in ways we can only begin to imagine.  

Only a deluded person would come away and conclude therefrom that “almost all acadamies are far more limited and guarded as too [sic] what they say about AGW.”  

The only dissenting organization–The American Association of Petroleum Geologists–withdrew its statement of dissent in 2007.  This leaves us with the handful of noncommital statements with limited and guarded words of which you speak, which are few and far between but are vastly outnumbered and, hence, effectively negated by the overwhelming number of statements in concurrence with the conclusions of the IPCC.  To cite the many examples is beyond the scope of this comment, so here is the link:

Given that every leading and respected scientific academy from around the world concurs with the conclusions of the IPCC and has issued strong statements of endorsements expressing their agreement, the remark that the IPCC’s scientific accolade amounts to a “Peace Prize which is basicaly [sic] a prize awarded for outstanding political correctness” is uninformed and thoroughly discredited by his own cited sources (e.g., “the statements of almost all academies”) and therefore utterly irrelevant. 


Why bother googling your dubious claim if you can’t even offer a single concrete example yourself?  You expect people to take your “word” for it??  Come, now…the burden of proof is on you, the denier–not on me or on any other to furnish evidence.  

Otherwise, your claim is dismissed as an unsubstantiated claim. So show me the evidence. (Remember: substandard scientific journals that are not listed in the ISI whose articles are editor-reviewed are unacceptable as evidence, since they are considered low-grade and non-peer reviewed).


I am highly skeptical of your skepticism and have no need to convince a denier whose mind is made up and who denies that he is even a denier.  I don’t doubt your sincerity, but it is not you who are skeptical of your claims, it is I.  Deniers are not skeptics–their minds are made up.   

I don’t think you are being willfully deceitful but that you are deceived.  You obviously cannot distinguish legitimate scientists from paid contrarian scientists hired by public relations firms. You offer unsubstantiated claims concerning the existence of peer-reviewed studies challenging the consensus but fail to offer examples openly for our scrutiny–which is then refuted by your own argument in the next paragraph (e.g., “It is not peer review that leads to the truth but open public scrutiny.  Peer review just perpetuates group think.”)

This to me reflects an individual who is brainwashed by think-tanks and PR campaigns.  Your comment on peer review indicates that you are unacquainted with the scientific method.  Peer review is an indispensible part of the scientific process, without which we cannot have the necessary safeguards to filter out scientific fraudulence and shoddy works of questionable value.   So it’s not that you are lying–you frankly just don’t know what you are talking about.  Please do your homework and come back when you are better informed. 

Hear, Hear.

Again,real approaches to real probems. Well said.

There was no scientific consensus of imminent global cooling in the 1970s. That’s a line thrown out to muddle the picture, dragged back in and then thrown out again and again..

The adoption of an insincere moral tone and appeals for ‘fair play’ is an old trick used by people who want to create a false picture of equivalency, especially when there are no grounds for complaint. You make claims and allegations, but provide no credible evidence of wrongdoing. It’s a variation on the old ‘balance’ trick.

In fact, please state what evidence for AGW actually would convince you. A finger from the clouds with a booming voice, perhaps? If are a skeptic, what evidence will be enough? Or are you just a denier, for whom there will always be something wrong, even if you have to dig, dig, dig for it until you find it, and if that doesn’t work, make it yourself?

I’ve found quite the correlation between untenable biblical literalism and climate change denial, though one must wonder how much of the religious belief is sincere and how much is conformity internalized.

One constant smear from deniers is ‘socialist’ or leftie. I’ve had fun on some forums linking those remarks to pro-climate science statements from Schwarzenegger (Republican), the US Navy (so many commies there!) and a statement from the Vatican (that hotbed of rabid Bolshevism ;). I don’t get any response, other than anonymous downward thumbs. I wonder why…?

I’m agnostic to all belief cults be they original sin cults or AGW cults but you are entitled to your own faith - just not your own definitions.

We’ve been hearing this tripe for years. How the best science is found in oil company think tanks, truck stop research projects, misquoted scientists whose retractions are ignored, the unrecognized genius of people who’ve never done any actually relevant science in the discipline. And somehow thousands of qualified scientist from diverse countries and backgrounds are all part of a ‘religion’.
It all seems absurd, like a Monty Python sketch…

[Cardinal Inhofe] “Nooobody expects the Denier Inquisition. Our weapon is fear. Fear and ignorance. …Our two weapons are fear and ignorance – and a fanatical devotion to the Pump. Let me start again… Nooobody expects the Denier Inquisition. Amongst our weapons are fear, ignorance, and a fanatical devotion to the Pump. Cardinal Singer, will you read the charges.” [Opens scroll]

[Cardinal Singer] “In the name of our Holy Mother Corp, you are charged with the crime of Accuracy, with Corruption of Profits, and with Treason against their Most Exalted Interests. How do you plead?”

[Scientist] “What? Are you mad?”
[Inhofe] “I see. So be it. Cardinal Fang, get…the cherry-picker.”
[Scientist] “The cherry-picker! No! Not that!”

Back in reality, I still see nothing but the same old debunked talking points.

Thank you for blowing smoke.

Thank you, ascienceteacher, for a simple, clear and true statement. CO2 is a by-product of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are dirty and make us sick, probably a good reason to get rid of them anyway. Then of course we have to deal with overpopulation, plastics pollution, acidification of the oceans… Let’s stop the bickering and get to work.

You have the American people arrayed against billions of dollars of corporate interests who have bet the farm in bringing this cash cow in.

This site is probably funded by Goldman Sachs, GE, Google and an array of corporate interests who spend billions cultivating ignoramuses whom Stalin refferred to as the useful idiots

The hype is promoted everywhere by these corporate interests and the schools double down on the hype with a propaganda campaign that would do Herr Goebbals proud.

Still its all failing and the global warming corporate hucksters will not meet anyone in open debate so they put up slick websites like this one instead.

The rhetoric becomes more panic stricken each day which is only helping to unravel the con game. Nobody but the penniless idiots and believe this garbage the corporations paying the bills don’t believe it

Actually that’s not what happened. What happened is that the political hucksters in all countries needed more control over the population so they convened this “scientific body.

They invited a lot of people to join and enjoy the swell benefits of belonging to the faithful group. The real scientists wrote esoteric reports that no one understood and the politicians “summarized” it to say whatever they wanted it to say. The people who cried foul and challenged these summarizers that inverted everything they said they were kicked off the panel

RE: “I trust the ethics of scientists (the group of people least likely to have them in my opinion) ”

Why do you hold this opinion; is there any scientific basis for it or is it simply your belief?

To me your statement leads more credence to evidence that AGW as an expression of cultism similar to that expressed by the devotees of Jim Jones or even Charlie Manson; as the other great installers of confidence and faith they knew how to pull the strings of the gullible.

Conservation is the practice of using the earth’s resources for maximum utility. In the end everything changes - nature abhors not only vacuums but also “sustainability”


This seems fanciful; it would take months for oceans to respond to small changes in local environments and by that time sea currents would take the water halfway around the world in largely unpredictable.

Otherwise its a great excuse for the failure or your sandwich board doomsday religion

Great insight; how would government school unions be useful in inculcating habits in the children that their parents don’t share?

I admit that I had a cakewalk compared with my parents but I still put in 60 hour weeks as a norm and had at best a couple of weeks off each year to get things done on the homestead.

Would the teachers unions set a far better example than I did as a parent on the virtues of self-sufficiency, solid work effort, self-sacrifice, and being accountable to those with whom you interact.

Go to church, live the life of the ascetic, and above all get off the internet. You can learn how to live on herbs, roots, and an occasional squirrel. You can heat your hut with dried human dung and embrace nature fully by getting off the grid. You will need to get out of your cities and apartments and embrace the vigorous life. Try western North Dakota in January. Bring mittens

But certified skeptics don’t believe these certified cult priests.

Is this how science is now don’t; not by proof but being “certifiable”?

But shouldn’t we be paying a lot more obsequious service to God and what God experts say we should give him? After all Earth isn’t much when we compare it to our immortal souls.

Is earth more important to you than the almighty?

RE: “The waste of natural resources is awful.”

Who are you saving them for? Surely not the human blight on the planet. Which “natural resources do you want to save? I’m not aware that polar bears and whales are big consumers of oil, iron, coal, etc.

RE: “The biggest problem is the size of the human population. This needs immediate action.”

Would you offer to kill yourself in order “save the planet”, if so Ill be more than happy provide the means to do it rather painlessly.

Just think of the powerful message you could offer in service to “the planet” if you came out with the statement that the world just has too many people like you and you are going to do your best to correct this imbalance and then simply shoot yourself in the head.

I could video the whole thing and put it on you-tube and perhaps inspire all of the planet’s greenies to follow your powerful leadership in correcting this problem. Think of the mass suicides you could inspire among all of the dedicated greenies - it would be a wonderful inspirational message to us all

Of course as your body molders in the ground, the decay will emit carbon dioxide as it rots; you would need to pay your carbon taxes up front. The polar bears have set up a fund for this because humans would just use the taxes to consume more of earths precious resources. Such taxes are safer in the hands, the paws, the flippers, etc of the animals who are the only creatures who would use it to live “sustainably”

RE: “The charm of the CO2 man made global warming is that it might lead to burning less oil. This is absolutely necessary.”

Why is it necessary to burn less oil? I can understand why YOU might want to burn less, its expensive; but both Barack Obama and I can afford to use as much of it as we want. OK we all have to pay for Obama’s oil but nonetheless there is a market price for oil that reflects its scarcity.

If it gets real scarce only a few of us will be able to afford it and those who can’t afford it will simply die early off as prices for everything you need into order to live will explode.

This will cull the lower classes and interrupt their ability to breed and thus not be able to generate more evil human spawn - that should make you all delighted right?

In the Earth history was 3 or more ice ages when climate was changed totally. Researching polar directions of ancient pyramids all around a world show, that a North Pole all the time moving from Canada and Greenland to modern position of North Pole. Also, in those periods the Earth was underwent much more temperature changes than from human energy sources and without human at all. So, have sence to take into consideration those facts.

Good points, Kids need to be toughened up. They need to learn how to be productive. They need to learn that nothing is “sustainable”;

Nature despises “sustainability” The spoiled children of a people that built a great nation with unparalleled liberty must learn that it is all “unsustainable” Nature destroys every creature that surrenders to her. Nature is always destructive of individuals, of species, of eco-systems, of continents; of planets, of stars; of galaxies; of the universe itself!

Our children will learn that they are not really entitled to a “minimum wage.” They will learn that getting a useless college degree entitling them to a government job at wages that are based upon fantasy is also unsustainable. They will learn that governments that borrow money from their competitors can do so for one or two generations at best before the chips are called in. Governments are only viable to the extent they can live off the productivity of their citizens nations of unproductive citizens die. Nations that pay 4 to 10 natural costs of energy will die because they cannot compete. “Policies” can not change this fact.

Governments can not and never have produced wealth, they can only consume wealth; Governments who try to do this are no better off than a snake that tries to sustain itself by swallowing itself, tail first

Are you nuts?


The Heartland “Institute” is wrong. Why? See here…

“A global map of 31-year MSU/AMSU channel TMT trends shows large regions of significant warming over eastern and central Asia, and northern Canada, cooling over the southern oceans, with moderate warming over most other regions. A map of channel TLT trends shows a very similar pattern, but with more pronounced mid-latitude warming.”

Pray its all true. If it isn’t socialism is in for a very bad end.

But channel TLS shows sharp cooling over the same period - maybe we should ignore that. Additionally Channel TTS is flat which is the most significant issue. Oceans are the integrators of atmospheric temperatures and are therefore the only reliable indicator of climatic trends. They appear to be flat. The other trends are either increasing or decreasing by small deviations from a norm. ie noise.

For you greenies who took art classes and the like when the rest of us were studying real science, integration has nothing to do with buses in Selma Alabama.

Politicians worry about money, environmentalists worry about money, taxpayers worry about money.

Polar bears do not worry about money; they worry about their next meal. You could go up to Churchill in Canada, bath yourself in honey and walk out into the tundra and at least solve the Polar Bear’s worries.

Here is some wonderful news for you if you follow my advice; you will no longer need to “worry about the climate”

I think the human kind is more of a blessing when in the right mind. The ironic the amount of ignorance that people exhibit, when they know very little about how the world works, you should give us a little more credit, I mean, we created the computer. :)

The whole point being made here is that many “sides” to the global warming debate don't represent legitimate scientific positions as so much as acting more like fun house mirrors, deliberately distracting and misdirecting the public. 

There's surely room for legitimate debate on the issue, but when “professional deniers” object for the sole sake of clouding public opinion, that's deeply wrong. 

A scientist who strays, even momentarily, off the path of absolute certainty or who wanders from hard science into policy is immediately dismissed as someone with an axe to grind.

No scientist would ever claim absolute certainty. The very nature of the scientific method precludes such an attempt. A theory or model can only be subjected to continuous attmepts at falsification, never proven (see Popper or Kuhn). This does not mean to say that scientists are not in pusuit of truth, only that in our pursuit we can never be absolutely certain of our conclusions. This is why we have a scientiffic consensus, the idea being that if many scientists have attampted to falsify a theory or conclusion many times than it must hold some (perhaps high) degree of explanatory relevance.

Perhaps you mean to say A scientist who strays, even momentarily, off the path of credible peer-reviewed science or who wanders from hard science into policy is immediately dismissed as someone with an axe to grind.

Your statement is correct, but it does not go far enough. Real science in fact produces no truth. Nothing of science deals with truth. Instead it deals with hypothesis and theory and as science progresses it does not refine truth but rather destroys all that some might currently pretend is the truth. Quantum theory is not true; it is false. It simply works well for the purposes we use it. It fails at everything. We cannot advance in physics/chemistry until quantum theory and all known theories are discarded.

We are incapable of ultimate understanding, or would those who argue that we are hold also that nature has created only one god-like creature (humans) capable of it? Presumable of this small subset hold only that a select few who earned PhDs on college campuses and work for some government are only those among the chosen few.

Oddly, this sounds very theocratic. Kings and priests as the holders of ultimate truth and by so knowing are the only people fit to rule us.

And particularly well put. Thank you.

I also wonder about the last part of that statement regarding the intersection of science and policy. Specifically, should there be a separation and how should it occur? 
It seems clear that if one conducts research with the intent of pursuing a particular conclusion <i>a priori</i>, with an axe to grind as you put it, then one will often find loads of circumstantial evidence to support any conclusion. These reseaerches should be considered mouthpieces and nothing more… But does this mean that real scientists can/should have no input for policy? That any scientist who proposes relevant policy solutions has an axe to grind? I wonder what Dr. Suzuki would say about that… or Dr. Oppenheimer… or a research economist for that matter… It seems these should be precisely the people that we should be listening to for policy guidance.

A few years back the Marshall Institute or Fund ( I am a little weak on correct names here) proposed to organize a fund to develop research and”scientific facts” that would tend to disestablish
climate science. The idea they had, and their articles are quite open and found today still
on the net, was to foster uncertainty. And this is exactly what they called it: uncertainty.
They did not propose to fund original or new research, and theirs was a political and not
a scientific pursuit. They represent interests who did not want to see the claims of climate
science   accepted as certain, so they were  going to foster uncertainty, plain and simple.
They are one of the small group of very well funded  groups  that are listed commonly
wherever the dissemination of science fraud is  advocated.  The weird thing is, if they are
so obvious, and they are, wny does  anyone pay attention?

Global Warming Denial is now the moral equivalent of Holocaust Denial. It deserves the same amount of respect (zero).

Bruce M


Who exactly is in denial that the world has not warmed in the past 150 years?

Could you please provide some links to statements made by people who claim that the world has not warmed at all in the past 150 years?

Kudos! The PR industry badly needs some self-policing if it is to retain any credibility at all. This blog does not appear to have a trackback but I referenced it in this post: at The Post-Normal Times.


When someone says (my emphasis):


how is he denying that it has warmed over the past 150 years?

You realize that quoting Tim Ball as a climate authority automatically casts doubt on your own credibility in this argument. 

Don't be disingenuous. What we're discussing here is man made climate change. 

Wow Bruce, what an impressive contribution. Now let’s take this a bit further: what would you recommend we do with these people: take away their jobs? punish them? Put them in jail? Kill them? Treat them as terrorists?

I think the holocaust was real, but if you would ask me to prove that… I really couldnt. I  simply believe it. (And I have seen the sorry fate of some people who dared to ask questions about it).

I also think the earth has been warming lately. But I do not think that this will go on indefinitely, and nor do I think that it will be a big problem and nor that humans have much to do with it. Does that make me a denier? Do I deserve the same treatment as a holocaust denier?

I think you are missing the point: you still refer to RealClimate when two prestigious scientific committees have made clear that there are reasons to consider anything that comes from this site with suspicion. These people are in deep trouble, because although they use the word 'science' very very often…. if they do not give access to their raw material they violate that science themselves. You wouldnt buy a car from a salesman who doesnt allow you to look under the hood. In science such behaviour is much much worse and that is precisely what Mann et al have been doing fact that most of the proxy evidence shows local temperatures rather than global temperatures made them less certain about the pre-1600 data. It did not, by any stretch of the imagination, say that Mann's conclusions were wrong.


the hockey stick is one small part of the climate argument, and certainly not the only. you can lose the hockey stick (tho i don’t think it’s necessary) and still have heaps of evidence for human induced climate change. in fact, this is why there is a “scientific consensus:” because thousands of scientists, working with different areas of research, are consistently finding confirmation of the base principles of climate science: a) climate change is happening, b) human’s are having a big impact on climate and c) a and b are bad news. 

this, actually, is how science works. many different and independent bits of evidence, cross-referenced and corroborating, give a full picture. all of this feeds back into climate models, and the kicker for a scientific theory is when it becomes verifiably predictive: that is, the theory predicts X, Y, Z and then X, Y, Z actually happen. As with climate change (reduction in glacier size, changes in animal migration patterns, increased frequency of storms etc etc etc).

if you like graphs, here is my favourite:

This shows you what the climate looked like over the last 400k years, and it’s relation to CO2 (scroll up). Note that the past 10k years have been relatively warm & stable. also, human civilization coincidently developed during this 10k years.

if you like human civilization, then you’ll want to avoid those big spikes (hot) and big dips (cold) … both of which mean instability, meaning bye bye agriculture systems, meaning bad news all around. 

denial of climate science is similar to denial of evolution: picking little bits of conflicting information doesn’t invalidate the rest of the evidence, which is overwhelming. 


You say “you can lose the hockey stick (tho I don’t think it’s necessary) and still have heaps of evidence for human induced climate change”. Can you tell me why the IPCC have ‘lost’ the Hockey Stick graph then if it isn’t because it’s totally discredited?

You claim there’s “heaps of evidence for human induced climate change”. Please show me, not another computer model, but an actual/real high CO2 related to temperature chart in either the last 420,000yrs or recent please?

You claim also;

a) climate change is happening - where?
c) a and b are bad news - like what type of bad?

Can you show the chart you omitted regarding “climate looked like over the last 400k years, and it’s relation to CO2 (scroll up).”

You say “human civilization coincidently developed during this 10k years… if you like human civilization, then you’ll want to avoid those big spikes (hot) and big dips (cold) … both of which mean instability, meaning bye bye agriculture systems, meaning bad news all around..”

I agree Hugh the cold is bad news (less plants and therefore less animals and men) but we’ve survived through 400,000 yrs (not 10,000yrs) of cold spells. However I disagree the hot spells are ‘bad’. They are ‘very good’ in fact for all - they lead to the greatest growth of plants, insects, animals, fish and man. The last warm Medival period was 2 Degrees warmer than today, how was it ‘bad’?


The previous post was NOT suggesting any kind of punishment for global warming OR holocaust deniars.  He was merely equating the level of their credibility.

I’m glad to see that you acknowledge that the earth is warming (pretty hard for anyone to deny that anymore, though the deniars certainly tried for a long time), but your faith that humans have little (if anything) to do with it isn’t based on evidence.  Therefore, I’ll give your GW denial the same level of credibility I give the holocaust deniars.  You are free to believe that, but I won’t take you seriously until you present an extraordinary amount of evidence that contradicts the extraordinary amount of evidence supporting the human factor of GW.

Hey Computer Scientist, if you’ve got ‘extraordinary amount of evidence supporting human warming’ can you give it to the IPCC because they haven’t got any!! All the IPCC have got are computer-game simulations of CO2 driving temperature. That’s it!

Nobody has got any link science between CO2 and temperature going up in 420,000yrs, in fact all the geological evidence points in the oppostite direction!

As for the temperature records the last 7yrs have hardly changed despite a 20% increase in CO2. Same now as from 1940 onwards.

Likening me to a Holocaust denier suggests to me you need to grow up before someone gets hurt. If you can’t debate without dragging it down the gutter go see a stress manager ok and while you’re at it brush up on your climate science.

How do you know how warm the earth is?

I know how warm my backyard is but I haven’t instrumented the earth for temperature and neither has anyone else.

Of course the earth is warmer than it was “before” but its also colder than is was “before” It always depends on just which “before” suits your purpose doesn’t it. I don’t have faith in anything - show me. Why do you have “faith” that humans need to be taxed and controlled to hold back the tide, tame the tempest, or modulated the temperature to your desired setting.

I see only extraordinary PR and outright fraud but Zero evidence of anything.

The issue of whether people who “dare to ask questions” about “the Holocaust” should be put in prison, as can happen and has happened in some Western European countries deserves consideration in its own right more than instrumentalization for extraneous purposes.

The idea that it might be appropriate for people who share the political analysis of this blog to start thinking about demanding legal prohibition of the view that there can be, or is, no proof of a causal connection between human activity and climate change is something I examine in an article on Paul Crutzen’s recently publicized proposals to fill the stratosphere with sulphur to mitigate climate change.

The article is on line at


Citizens of Lafayette, Colo., have filed a class action lawsuit against the State of Colorado, the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) and Governor John Hickenlooper requesting immediate enforcement of Lafayette's Community Rights Charter Amendment to ban fracking. 
In November 2013, 60 percent of Lafayette voters approved the Community Rights Amendment, which allows citizens to prohibit harmful activities, such as fracking. Following the passage of the Lafayette...
read more