This is the end.
DenialDepot has now been running for over 18 months and until now I have never dropped the act. DenialDepot isn't going away as such, but I feel it is time to reveal myself and by doing so I expect the nature of the blog to change accordingly into something more serious and thoughtful.
I am in fact a skeptic of man-made global warming, although of course not quite to the extent that the blog has portrayed.
The sole purpose of DenialDepot all along has been to build bridges between skeptics and warmists. They say laughter is the best medicine. I happen to agree. Hopefully some of you will now accept our skepticism of the temperature records, the IPCC, etc more kindly. Reassuringly I have seen a number of warmists recently crossing the bridge which I have helped build over the last 18 months. Of course there are others who keep piling on the vitriol, but the fact that they don't get it just tells me how clueless some members of the warmist community actually are (no offense to the rest of you).
That aside the new face of DenialDepot will be one of reconciliation, concern and mutual discussion about how to fix the IPCC. What's gone wrong? How did it go wrong? how can we fix it? Don't worry the blog will be discussing science too, but we'll get onto the science much later once we've fixed the IPCC together and figured out who is to blame. I am also developing a new font for the blog called 'Times New Concerned' to add a sense of gravity to my words. Thus I will appear very concerned, very sensible, yet at the same time be remarkably indifferent to the threat of climate change.
This first post will be the beginning of a long and admittedly drawn out discussion about words that relate to the IPCC. I will provide a word from the dictionary and commentors are encourages to discuss that word in relation to climate science. Eventually when no-one remembers how this subject started or even what it was about I will make a new post to start the ball rolling again. My intention is not to leave behind a lingering sense that the IPCC is corrupt, but to discuss corruption and the IPCC as two separate entangled threads.
The first subject word for discussion is Ideologue.
What do you think about that word? Is it a good word to describe any climate scientists you can think of? Come on gang, lets just have an open and fair discussion and see if we can come up with any names.
I guess what I am trying to convey, ie the point of this post, is a sense of understanding uncertainty in science. Can we come up with a way to make the subject of uncertainty more uncertain? I am thinking of some kind of simple everyday analogy that will confuse everyone. Suggestions?
Don't forget though that this is primarily about building bridges between skeptics and those alarmists! Not that the IPCC would be competent enough to build a bridge though. Oops sorry, I meant to say my favorite bridge is the Golden Gate Bridge. Oh there I go again with ClimateGate references!
The subject word has just changed to dogma (I am pulling these out of a hat, don't worry it's all fair and we will get to the science shortly). Is dogma a form of ideology? No wait we've already done that word. Funny how this word association thing works because I am now thinking about hide the decline? What's that? Why am I thinking that?
Now for the science. Hmmm have any of you ever wondered just what IS science? Lets just all toss our ideas into the comments and maybe on this blog we will actually define what science is for the rest of the world. I think the IPCC could include some of our comments in it's next report. Yes that's a great idea lets write the next IPCC report in the comments.
Sorry this is all a bit disorganized but my head is swirling with ideas and I am not sure what my point is.
Did anyone read those emails?
So, was this a huge endorsement of Poe's law, or what?
ReplyDeletePanang Curry
Yes, let's name names of those about whose ideological commitments to climate dogma are uncertain but certainly their dogmatic commitment to climate certainty is certain because they never ever mention uncertainty in the IPCC report. I mean, I've done a search for "climate change is uncertain" in the entire AR4 report (ok, I haven't done so, but I'm certain of my result if I did. Go and do it for yourselves like good blog scientists, don't trust my word for it) and when I did that hypothetical search, I'm sure I didn't find a single reference! Even when I switched to "global warming is uncertain" it was highly likely (see, I can use modal language like the best of them, or rather, like the IPCC never ever use because of my hypothetical and obviously exhaustive search) that there were no occurrence. I would graph these results, but that might make them appear more certain than they in fact are and so would taint me with the same ideological dogma as the climate scientists, which, while building a certain kind of bridge, might not be one you'd like to drive over.
ReplyDeleteSo, in an effort to name names, I will begin the list.
• Al Gore - fatness is certain, and he even has no PhD in climate science, not that you need one to be a blog scientist, but he gave up that option when he went mainstream and made a film that made him millions so he could travel the world in his private jet buying energy-guzzling houses and making trillions selling carbon credits. Do you think it is a coincidence that Bernanke has been handing out billions of dollars at the same time as Gore has been getting rich? Perhaps he never actually wanted to be President, since this way he can fly (always fly, of course) under the radar of the mainstream media and their ideological dogmatic position on climate hypocrits like Gore.
• Mr Mike Mann - whose PhD is not even in climate science and so I will not call him Dr, unlike my own qualifications, which are impeccable and available to all to see for a US$50 monthly subscription fee to my website.
I'm sure others can add more and continue to reflect upon the IPCC and ideological commitments to hiding the decline (either together or separately, which would be more scientific, though if you can get them both into the same comment that will make it easier for the rest of us to follow the discussion).
In the interests of objectivity, I will of course remain impartial in the remainder of this discussion and will consider all sides equally according to their level of prejudicial commitment to alarmist warmingism.
ReplyDeleteJudy! I was wondering if it was you. It's so nice to be able to have a small handful of reasonable non-skeptictal climate scientists who are skeptical of global warming with whom we can discuss what a fraud Michael Mann is. I must confess if you had told us from the start your real identity, I would have dismissed you as another money-grubbing alarmist Al-Gore-brainwashed fraud, but I can see that you aren't like the rest and I applaud you for this courageous stand that will no doubt result in your trial and torture and probably worse. Recognizing how completely corrupt the climate science cabal is and how alarmist they are and how no one really knows anything is, I think, a pretty solid foundation for a bridge between yourself and us skeptics.
ReplyDeleteI for one am certain that the uncertainty surrounding the climate is more uncertain than those who claim certain uncertainty believe. Those who claim that bits are certain and bits are uncertain should carve up all the bits and prove the uncertainty of the uncertain and the certainty of the certain.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, just to show I am a true skeptic (not just a denier kind of pretend skeptic), I am very aware that most of those bridges that are being built at the moment will soon get washed away in floods and destroyed in hurricanes. Which doesn't matter in the least, because the bridges aren't spanning both sides of the chasm in any case.
As for the IPCC, because I can't be a lead author I've decided to keep on saying it's corrupt. I'm not involved in it, so I don't know how to fix it or even what's wrong with it. Except I do know it referenced at least one paper by Prof Mann, for whom I have an unrequited 'thing'. Therefore I know it must be corrupt because I'm not a lead author and at least one of the thousands of papers it referenced included Mann as one of the authors.
If the above sounds all mixed up, that's okay. It's the fashion nowadays to mix messages up as much as possible.
Another thought. You mentioned laughter and medicine. You should know that laughter and climate are like oil and water. And some people say that oil is the source of our problems. And other people say that it's all water vapour. And they don't mix well together.
ReplyDeleteAs for medicine, if it wasn't for medicine we wouldn't be discussing climate or the IPCC or bridges at all. The population would only be about 10% of what it is today. No-one would be throwing that carbon stuff up into the air. No-one would have heard of a greenhouse, let alone know how to build one (though I'm not sure what growing plants in a greenhouse has to do with climate, bridges, dogma or ideologues).
Inferno,
ReplyDeleteThank you for a very thought-provoking article, and for being a voice of reason and sanity.
It is refreshing to be able to post here without the censorship and snarkiness of RC. While some may label you a heretic, it is a label that you should both wear with pride and disavow.
As an nuclear engineer (retired) with 65 years experience in the industry, I first became interesting is CAGW after seeing The Great Global Warming Swindle. What an eye-opening that film was.
Since then my concerns have continued to grow, and expanded to include concerns about the uncertainties in a complex system. It led me directly to my theory of the sun as a neutron dessicator, and the issues with fluoride in our water supplies.
Of all the climate blogs, I find yours the most snark free. You treat everyone with respect, and agree with all of their ideas. I expect that in future you will expand on the concepts of ontic and epistemic uncertainty, and indeed the very uncertain nature of uncertainty itself in the presence of unknown unknowns both ontic and epistemic, known and unknown, imagined and real.
My reflections on this topics have culminated in a manuscript that is currently winding its way through my laser printer.
It is clear that we can't even begin to address CAGW without a systematic taxonomy of types and levels of uncertainty, including those that are irreducible, and those that are stochastically uncertain. We need to progress through a deterministic understanding of these processes before we can detect and assimilate the communication of the ever-changing knowledge base on which climate science fraud is based.
This comment of mine is the first in about a dozen that will address uncertainty. We have focussed too narrowly on framing the issues surrounding uncertainty, while mischaracterizing what can be articulated. I will expand on this concept in a future post.
Dirk,
Blog Science Expert Reviewer
56 posts to Blog Professorship
I am so glad you are building bridges between what is laughingly described as right, science, logic and consequential analysis and what has been unjustly described as stupidity, greed, mendacity etc.
ReplyDeleteFinally people are starting to realise that everybody's view is of equal value and the era of the tyranny of the proponents of physics snarking at people's sincere beliefs is over.
That Enlightenment malarkey was sooo last millennium - finally we are moving forward to a stage where what people choose to believe trumps that outdated concept "reality" that has been used to sneer at far too many. Not before time, I say!
Prof. Inferno,
ReplyDeleteClearly you are very confused. Building bridges has never lead to anything good. The only way to progress is to convince other people of the Truth. You were asking what "sceince" is. I would say "sceince" is a way to delude yourself. By focusing on "facts" and "evidence" you are keeping the True Truth away. Please take a rest, read the Bible and come back as your usual self!
Our type of bridge:
ReplyDeletehttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Mackinac_Bridge_Sunset.jpg
Their type:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5c/TacomaNarrowsBridgeCollapse_in_color.jpg
'Nuff said.
"Sorry this is all a bit disorganized but my head is swirling with ideas and I am not sure what my point is."
ReplyDeleteGoddamn it man, I can relate to that! We need somebody with ideas that can get this broken G-D thing fixed, like this guy for example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4D6cHLRLUk
Thanks Mister!
ReplyDeleteWe need to reclaim the word denier. So what if Hitler killed a few thousand jews? Due to his mental state at that moment, he committed suicide and did not have the opportunity to ask for forgiveness. There are even bigger similar incidents in the world. We are oppressed and die in the shackles.
I am a denier and I deny the science of climate.
I'm sorry to say that this post is far beyond my meagre understanding. I will leave the finer points to the experts above.
ReplyDeleteWhat I can say, which I think has a bearing on this article is that how can you invade enemy territory without bridges? What you need is a fast route to commit blitzkrieg against your enemies and kick them while they are down. POW! Take that Phil!
Thinking of some sort of a metaphor for the climate, to make things more certain. Its like when you take a bath and accidentaly pull out the plug. Even though the rubber ducky is yellow doesn't mean white holes don't exist.
good point everyone!
ReplyDeleteMight I just add my appreciation for the polite and respectful tone of this blog.
ReplyDeleteIt's just so much more pleasant conversing here with polite and respectful people than at those awful alarmist blogs where people are not polite or respectful at all.
Politely and respectfully yours,
Adelady
"Even though the rubber ducky is yellow doesn't mean white holes don't exist"
ReplyDeleteGoddamn it Drunken (I like your name bro!) that's beautiful right there. You can be sure that it will be entirely lost on the thermal headcases.
"Yes that's a great idea lets write the next IPCC report in the comments."
ReplyDeleteMy goodness, I'd completely overlooked that sentence Inferno. Here we have an open invitation to remake climate science (and reality as we know it), and just look at what we're goobering on about instead. Well, I for one apologize.
So, let's get to it. First off, let's get it completely straight once and forever that the climate has gone up and down and all around and back and forth and in and out with oscillatory conveculations and periodic harmonic convergences and such for as long as there has been any climate at all, which is to say, way back into the beginning of time, which was just before the beginning of the medieval, extremely scorchingly hot period, before CO2 was even invented by anthorpomorphics.
Secondly, climate scientists are frauds, liars and money hungry scammmers. Some of them started their careers studying the atmosphere of Venus.
Thirdly, the IPCC is a United Nations front group and Pachauri sells air conditioners on the side.
Well, you fooled me. I was going to become a skeptic till you fessed up.
ReplyDeleteWow, I have found a piece on the climate scam which is even more confusing than this post. Which must mean it is even more intelligent (if that is possible?).
ReplyDeletehttp://science.house.gov/publications/Testimony.aspx?TID=15568
I don't know what the whole piece actually means but I have worked out some bits. It states that "Climate Change" is wicked. That the IPCC paradigm is all wrong. But most importantly, "Blogospheric communities can potentially be important in identifying and securing the common interest at these disparate scales in the solution space of the energy, climate and ocean acidification problems. A diversity of views on interpreting the scientific evidence and a broad range of ideas on how to address these challenges doesn’t hinder the implementation of diverse megaton and kiloton solutions at local and regional scales."
Go Blog Science! I think. Some of the words are a bit big and confusing for me, time for my hourly whisky me thinks.
No, no, no. I think it's wonderful. Simplifying the language so that uncertainty means the same as doubt in ordinary language is a terrific step forward. Now when we see the word uncertainty we don't have to look at all the sciency, mathematicky malarkey. We just say it's all doubtful.
ReplyDeleteYaaaay! I'll be much happier reading all those long words in future. I just know that one day all the fancy schmancy, sciency terms will be rewritten as simple, everyday words that I understand, like custard and purple and knitting.
a much relieved adelady
Sledgehammer, all rubber ducks are yellow until you meet a black one.
ReplyDeleteScience works the same way. Everyone thought Newton had the only duck - a yellow one - until Einstein came along with a black duck.
Sigh. We have learned nothing. Nothing!
ReplyDeleteWe need a flag. Any kind of flag, with any kinds of values. As long as it can raise concerns.
Here are three values. Integrity, Uncertainty, and Persistence.
Persistence is underestimated. It's important to persist in carrying over and over again the same message from blog to blog, from thread to thread, from mailing list to mailing list. May Girma and Oliver K. Manuel guide us all.
Climategate,
w
What I really like about your new attitude, Inferno, is that everything has now been clarified and all it took was the appearance of this post. All the doubt, animosity, belligerance, has gone. In a few more weeks, all other blogs about climate on the internet can be shut down.
ReplyDeleteI'm just disappointed you didn't think of doing this sooner. We should have the scientific method done by the end of today, then wrap up the rest of the issues by the end of the week.
Could you give us a few tips about North Korea while you are at it? Perhaps Kim would like to do a guest post here?
Science is for people who don't have the balls to believe in whatever they want.
ReplyDeleteIt's just so much more pleasant conversing here with polite and respectful people than at those awful alarmist blogs where people are not polite or respectful at all.
ReplyDeleteAre you sure you are pulling those words out of a hat, or is it some other dark place where you are finding them?
ReplyDeleteTalking about building bridges, I'm impressed with the new create on London, England. I think it's so futurist and design is totally out of world.
ReplyDeleteI read from this blog site I learned something new, but the comments here make me think differently at times..Premium Directory
ReplyDeleteThis post couldn’t be written any better! Reading through this post reminds me of my previous room mate! He always kept talking about this. I will forward this article to him.
ReplyDeleteClixaa Directory
Members of the nuclear families of members of one's own nuclear family may class as lineal. Thanks a lot.
ReplyDeleteseo backlink building service
with the same ideological dogma as the climate scientists, which, while building a certain kind of bridge, might not be one you'd like to drive over.strategic planning consultants
ReplyDeleteNo wait we've already done that word. Funny how this word association thing works because I am now thinking about hide the decline? What's that? Why am I thinking that?mother of the groom dresses for spring
ReplyDeleteI think the IPCC could include some of our comments in it's next report. Yes that's a great idea lets write the next IPCC report in the comments.
ReplyDeleteReal Estate Regina
Therefore I know it must be corrupt because I'm not a lead author and at least one of the thousands of papers it referenced included Mann as one of the authors.acai berry cleanse
Deleteyou completed various nice points there. I did a search on the matter and found a good number of folks will go along with with your blog.This is really excellent reading material!I agree with much of the views you express in your article. I am impressed with your style of writing and how uniquely you wrote this content. Thank you.myvalentineheart
ReplyDeleteIt was a very great idea! Just wanna say thank you for the information you have diffused.Just continue composing this kind of post. I will be a loyal reader, thanks a lot.
ReplyDeletebest recipes of the world
I will provide a word from the dictionary and commentors are encourages to discuss that word in relation to climate science.Totalbit
ReplyDeleteTo me, you are doing the overeager set. Fuddle on this. ingest at locating In the end, I would one to utilise you for making supposition a very website.
ReplyDeleteaustralian online pokies
These kind of post are always inspiring and I prefer to read quality content so I happy to find many good point here in the post, writing is simply great, thank you for the post
ReplyDeletemobile casino games
Duplass brothers with nearly every appearance they've made with their films on the festival circuit.
ReplyDeletepokies machines
I am impressed with your style of writing and how uniquely you wrote this content. Thank you.
ReplyDeletebest online pokies
feed users can combine several feeds, be able to read them in one place, and filter feeds on a particular keyword, phrase, or limit the number of feed items. We could go on forever with the number of possiblities here, of course.
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing excellent information. Your website is so cool. I'm impressed by the details that you have on this blog. It reveals how nicely you perceive this subject.
ReplyDeleteregistry cleaner download
I'm sorry to say that this post is far beyond my meagre understanding. I will leave the finer points to the experts above.
ReplyDeletenaomi & nicole
I am impressed with your style of writing and how uniquely you wrote this content. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteIt's just so much more pleasant conversing here with polite and respectful people than at those awful alarmist blogs where people are not polite or respectful at all.
ReplyDeleteTennisshop
I learned something new, but the comments here make me think differently at times.. sizegenetics
ReplyDeleteI think the IPCC could include some of our comments in it's next report. Yes that's a great idea lets write the next IPCC report in the comments.
ReplyDeleteTitle Agency Marketing