Anarchoblogs

If we could turn stupidity into energy then we would solve all of the worlds energy problems. If we could turn stupidity into energy then denialism would be new Saudi Arabia. Why? Read the comments on any global warming thead and the gish-gallop of stupid and shit is staggering. Take this thread in the Guardian for example, reading though it there is sooooooooo much shit on offer...MMGW

As the phrase goes; there are lies, damn lies and statistics. If you don't know much about statistics then it can be used to confuse and obfuscate. A classic of denialist obfuscation is the meme that there has been no warming since 1998. When you plot the temperature changes over time it looks like nothing much is changing:The argument then goes; well as there's been no warming since 1998,

This is a great debate:An actor takes on the Fox news lies machine and gives them some! Great stuff. This is how we need to take the denialist shills on; this is not an academic debate any more - the nutters won't let it be - 'cos they'd loose on facts. Nope; it about taking the idiot-fuckwit-neo-con pricks down. Hard. (The Fox news presenter was not expecting to be taken to the cleaners!!)

It's would seem so. For some time now there have been strong links between climate change denial and evolution denial(aka creationism). The same right-wing creed that promotes the anti-science ideas of creationism also seems to be at work with evolution. The same legal attempts to force educators to promote creationism, is also being used to promote climate change denial; see here and here.

Climate change deniers like to complain about the rack of 'real science' and 'real debate' on the issue - yet when it happens, they seem to avoid it? Could it be that a 'debate' as a media spectacle where at least they stand a small chance gaining ground is of more interest that the scientific world where they simply have no traction. It's spin over substance.One of the deniers, Anthony Watts

The guardian is apparently going to stop calling climate change deniers, deniers but will instead call them 'climate change sceptics'. Bad move people - you need to call it like it is. I have argued why deniers are deniers several times here. That still stands. However there are a couple of people that I would be happy to call a sceptic. Here's the critera to be included...Be a Relevant

There is an interesting mini-row developing around the statement by the Institute of Physics in response to another row over the hacking of emails. The first statement, which as seized upon of the denailopshere as proof of their claims, was then followed by a second statement that clarified that the Institute of Physics was not doubting the science of global warming. This then followed with

This is a great article on the issue of climate change and I'd recommended reading the whole thing. Here's a few selected quotes...On the nature of denial;The climate deniers come with a few built-in advantages. ... Their success can be credited significantly to the way they tap into the main currents of our politics of the moment with far more savvy and power than most environmentalists can

More on how pundits deny climate change despite admitting they don't understand the science. If you watch this video:You see an interesting debate between two people about climate change. What is most interesting is the comment by right-wing pundit Bill O'Reilly at the end; "I'd fail both your grad classes." He's saying, "I don't understand what either of you are saying." Which is fine, but

I am constantly gob-smacked about how denialists are elevated to the level of Uber-expert when it happens that their view coincides with the denialists one. You see this trick over and over, a selected repetition of the accolades of the pet denialist to add gravatas and authority to what ever they say next. Take the example of Nils-Axel Mörner who is introduced as...Sadly, the media is not