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:


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"?




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.  



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."  


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.  



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.



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...?


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]


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


Thank you for blowing smoke.







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) "



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"




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




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


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.



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.


Are you nuts?


The Heartland "Institute" is wrong. Why? See here...


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





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








And particularly well put. Thank you.

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


Bruce M






When someone says (my emphasis):



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).





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. 


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?

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'?



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!



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.


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


I don't think there's any question the climate is changing. The bottom line is, there is little we can do about it but adapt, or die. Adaptation, unfortunatly, is not a strong suit of the human race in general, and Americans in particular: We would much rather subsidize failure and weakness than let natural selection take its course. Part of global warming is our fault: I noticed the temperatures dropped off sharply after Election Day. This is because massive amounts of hot-air and bullshit fumes were no longer being released into the environment. The problem is GWB, not SUVs. Let's deal with it.

This is my first reading of any blog and I'm very impressed with Mr. Hoggan's position on the issues.I am a graduate from Harvard University and Boston College Law School,and a longtime member, since 1987, of many environmental groups. Tropical deforestation and global warming have been the focus of my attention for many years. I've printed out all the stories off the internet I find from ENS and ENN on global warming, and I FULLY AGREE with Hoggan's assessmnet of the PR snowjob the Republicans have used to deny the validity and existence of global warming. Now that I've found this website I d'ont feel so alone. I plan to read all the postings and all the comments on this website over the next few days. Thanks, Mark J. Fiore






read more