Science Denier? or Deceiver?
For example, Wikipedia's entry on
Oh dear, talking of science and then using the very unscientific term scientific consensus? For there to be a "consensus," implies that the science isn't settled. Surely confirming that there is no Law of Anthropogenic Global Warming; no Law of Climate. Again from Wikipedia (virtually contradicting their denial entry above):
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. (Emphasis added - Link)On the supposed "consensus" and the "settled science" Professor Ian Plimer wrote, in his book How to Get Expelled from School
The IPCC’s Summaries For Policymakers are released before the body of the report. If journalists were inquisitive and had some scientific knowledge they could easily show that the Summary for Policymakers…… is not a summary at all but states pre-ordained conclusions.
What journalists did not do was to read the 987-page Working Group 1 IPCC 2007 report.
If they did they would have found that the words “uncertain” and “uncertainty” appeared more than 1300 times and that there are 54 “key uncertainties” that acknowledge limits to the prediction of climate. The IPCC itself shows that the science is not settled, that there is no consensus and that little is known about the controls on the climate. But all this is hidden in the small print and journalists have just have not bothered to read what might contradict their own opinions. (emphasis added)The Alarmists' arguments began when the accepted term was Anthropogenic (or Man-made) Global Warming (AGW). The Alarmists tried to use the double whammy of saying that sceptics didn't accept the falsified AGW hypothesis at the same time implicitly trying to blacken sceptics with an implied link to the Holocaust deniers.
At an intermediate stage, the term morphed into Man-made Global Warming, then just Global Warming and then, after a stall in the temperature rise, moved to Climate Change. Unfortunately, the Alarmists tag of denier kept getting further from the truth.
Let's examine the stages and the sceptics' (at least from this blogger's POV) agreement or denial:
Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming (CAGW):
Sceptics, generally believe the science is still out. Until recently, it has been generally accepted that Planetary Warming of 0.7-0.8ºC occurred during the 20th century. However, more recent papers show this maybe not be the case. In a paper presented at the European Geosciences Union in 2012, greek scientists Steirou and Koutsoyiannis concluded that the global temperature increase during the last century is between 0.4°C and 0.7°C where these two values are the estimates derived from raw and adjusted data respectively.
Steirou, E., and D. Koutsoyiannis, Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization, European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2012, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 14, Vienna, 956-1, European Geosciences Union, 2012. (link)
|UHI Image - NASA|
Man-made Global Warming (AGW)
Global Warming (GW?)
Climate Change. (CG? err...forget it)
This shows how the Alarmists' use of the Term "Climate Change Denial" is so idiotic.
To term a person a climate sceptic is simply to reinforce that he or she surely is a scientist; for all good scientists........are sceptics. (bold added)So are we sceptics, or in fact are non-alarmist scientists deniers? Bob (in Taxing Air) continues:
Most people termed 'climate sceptics' or 'deniers' by their opponents, and all true scientists in general, are in fact climate 'agnostics'. This is to say that, in advance of analysis, they have no particular axe to grind regarding the magnitude of the human influence on global climate. Rather, they just want the facts to be established and for the interpretations then to fall where they most logically live .So, we see, at least from this blogger's point of view, the sceptic is NOT a Global Warming Denier, not a Climate Change Denier, definitely NOT a Climate denier.
Who are the real deniers (or deny pretenders) of Climate Change?
As has been previously pointed out on this blog, Dr David Deming from the University of Oklahoma gave evidence to the Senate enquiry that lead IPCC author (not mentioned by Deming but lated outed by Overpeck) Jonathan Overpeck emailed Deming saying that they had to get rid of the MWP to scare the populace into accepting the AGW hoax. (link and Link)
In other words the IPCC through one of their lead authors were saying - (for convenience) that they:
- DENY the existence of the Medieval Warm Period;
- DENY that fact that there was a Roman Warm Period,;
- DENY the Minoan Warm Period Data;
- DENY the fact that warming occurs BEFORE the rise in atmospheric CO2.
- IS it the sceptics who know climate changes?
- IS it the Sceptics who know the planet has warmed since the Little Ice Age?
- IS it the Sceptics who examine all the science?