SkepticalScience.com - Climate Myths Sorted by Taxonomy

Of course, it’s impossible to discuss climate science findings without also being confronted with the endless repetitive cross-fire from the bullhorns of naysayers and their bias driven unidirectional skepticism and disconnected-from-physical-reality lies.  

As a result the folks at SkepticalScience.com made a point of studying contrarian claims and then explaining the real science, that climate science “skeptics” consistently choose to ignore.

Republicans have a hubristic confidence in their own self-interest, and because they’ve convinced themselves that they possess God in their back pockets, it’s okay for them to disregard fundamental geophysical evidence and facts.  It's lunatic thinking, still here we are.

The real tragedy is that nobody is interested in learning.  They only know their personal wants and by their actions and words, they appear to lack intellectual integrity, how else could they so easily refuse to listen, let alone learn lessons, all the while shamelessly repeating the same juvenile nonsense over and over and over again.  

What kind of nonsense you ask?  Well, take a look,

SkepticalScience.com, Climate Myths sorted by taxonomy

• It's not happening
• Temp record is unreliable
• Hockey stick is broken
• Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
• Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
• Dropped stations introduce warming bias
• It's Urban Heat Island effect
• 1934 - hottest year on record
• It's microsite influences
• Satellite error inflated Great Lakes temperatures
• Satellite record is more reliable than thermometers
• It's cooling
• We're heading into an ice age

Observations regarding Sept 7th, Anonymous Comment

I received the following comment which didn't pass muster. 

I accept constructive comments and challenges.  If you want to challenge what I've written do so.  But yelling about rationalists being like a Nazi cult, and such further disconnected from reality ranting ain't an intelligent discussion. Your comment is being REJECTED!

That doesn't mean I'm not willing to discuss it:

COMMENT READS: After looking at the name calling dialog by the two attackers of Dr Holmes 

Can you offer any specifics we can calmly discuss?

and their ferocious need to out him and chastise him for his work and opinions. 

Hold on.  There is a YouTube Channel that goes under the name of Frolly1000  - it spews slander and scientific ignorance (lies and misrepresentations) along with a load of contempt.  It has to do with his politicizing climate science and scaring people out of learning about it in a serious constructive manner.

What’s wrong with outing such a malicious fraud?  

Why shouldn’t we be curious about who the character is behind such a devious attack on serious honest scientists and the work they have done? 

I agree with Dr.Holmes, this climate hysteria has become more of a cult or religion. 

Diary July 31, 2019, Considering Jim Steele's deceptive bullshit.

This past winter and spring I spent a good deal of time dissecting Jim Steele’s malicious game of deliberate deception in his Pacifica Tribune’s “What’s Natural?’ column and it was taking its toll.

On the one hand, I like the work of studying others’ writings - investigating and searching out new information, double checking my own assertions and recollections, learning, relearning and taking the time to examine, recognize and expose the ‘mechanics of deception’ in action.  In that way it’s my classroom and a positive exercise.

On the other hand, it’s profoundly depressing coming face to face with these real life intellectual zombies that never ever seem to change.  They pompously cry for debate, yet try having a serious constructive dialogue with them.  First comes the attitudes of superiority, then the dismissal, then avoidance, then insults and derision, then they run and hide, but never an adult discussion.  

And no one seems to care much!  Free pass for all.  So they get away with it, over and over like a spreading pathogen, and no one seems capable of doing anything about it.

Ask questions, make challenges, explain the simple and well understood science of Earth’s climate.  Write and rewrite, present evidence, teach, reason, strive till you're blue.  Yet not a word is heard, not a lesson is absorbed.   Absolutely nothing gets incorporated into their understanding.  Utter hopelessness.

Contrarian arguments today are exactly the same as they were ten, twenty and more years ago.  It’s like the immortal words of Homer Simpson: “No Marge, I didn’t learn a thing.”

What's Natural about Polar Bear Habitat Destruction?

Steele Which Narrative to Believe?

This review of May 1st What’s Natural? will take the form of a direct letter to Mr. Steele.

Jim Steele,

I thought your title “Polar Bears. Which narrative to believe?” was apropos considering your freewheeling narrative. You ask which narrative to believe?  Indeed, that is the question.  So, lets get on with it.  Why should we believe your’s?

In the first column (4/17/18) of this double-bill, you use an Inuit word in a way, which I found out, locals of Nunavut found foreign.  Yes, I shared your column with a few.  That got me to thinking that perhaps your usage was simply a gratuitous prop to impress your audience.  Or what?

Then you drag a scientist from the middle of New York City into the middle of the Nunavut Polar Bear controversy - though said scientist has never spoken on the topic in any way.  He’ll tell you frankly: “I know nothing about it.” 

Why did you need to fabricate words to put into Gavin Schmidt’s mouth?  Simply to set him up as the straight-guy for your zinger punchline:  

“If you dare disagree with models of gloom and doom, you are attacked as an ignorant denier.”