AGW deniers, universally known for being totally full of crap, seem to be ramping up their lies and baseless attacks this holiday season.
This is how it works. One denier makes a baseless claim, as a comment on a blog:
Last spring when I was shopping around for a new source of funding, after having my funding slashed to zero 15 days after going public with a finding about natural climate variations, I kept running into funding application instructions of the following variety:
Successful candidates will:
1) Demonstrate AGW.
2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.
3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2.
Another denier blogger at “Bishop Hill” , taking the unsourced, vague, unsubstantiated, anonymous comment as fact states:
This confirms the stories that I’ve been hearing over the last few years.
There you have it. That is all it takes to convince a deep thinking “skeptic”. Not 1 of 48 commentors (at time of this posting) pointed out the obvious, shall we say weakness in this argument.
Then, the stampede starts. (Also see Jez’s post on this here) Deniers, not known for their creativity, start linking to the story, making the same point themselves, etc. Pretty soon, CLIMATEGATE II!
Here is the “climate skeptic” linking to the same comment and going on and on about biases in funding, the corrupting nature of funding only being available for AGW “believers”, etc. And the dopey commentors – skeptics! – take it hook, line and sinker.
Here is an example from Pete:
So much of this is anecdotal and hearsay. There is a very easy way to deal with this in the next IPCC report: adopt the judicial model of majority and dissenting opinions for the major findings and recommendations. Since there is alleged bias in selection of IPCC members that might limit dissent, include links to “amicus briefs” from outside individuals and organizations. Construct a website in which outside individuals could register their name, affiliation and simple support or opposition to specific findings and recommendations.
Ironically, the anecdote he refers to isn’t this BS post he is commenting on, but instead the IPCC report, which is sourced, includes figures, all supported by data that can be downloaded, peer-reviewed scientific papers, etc. But the argument and legend based on a skeptic blog comment gets a free pass. Yup, these people are really critical thinkers.
I made a comment over at ClimateSkeptic asking for a source of such a funding agency. Lets see if anyone responds. We have performed this experiment before at CS; the skeptics usually shy away when asked for facts, citations, etc to support their nonsence.
Still no response to my query. But I noticed two other commenters also had some issues with this logic and science-by-blog-comment approach.
I agree that this post relies too heavily on anecdotes. That story about the funding application, if real, was possibly taken out of context.
How fucking gullible can you get? Did you bother to look up who that commenter was? Did you try to find out whether they were actually a scientist, or if they had ever in fact published a climate-related paper? Clearly not. You just found a statement that fitted in with your retarded beliefs, and parroted it unquestioningly.