The industry of denial

Dr. David Deming in the Washington Times: “With each passing year, it is becoming increasingly clear that global warming is not a scientific theory subject to empirical falsification, but a political ideology that has to be fiercely defended against any challenge. It is ironic that skeptics are called “deniers” when every fact that would tend to falsify global warming is immediately explained away by an industry of denial.”

via Quote of the Week: the industry of denial | Watts Up With That?.

Leave a Reply

13 Comment threads
22 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
Notify of

That about sums it up. As I mentioned in another post, some people think that insults or lame excuses count as empirical evidence. The only important thing is what the true empirical evidence says, and it doesn’t agree with the wild predictions of the AGW hypothesis. A maximum of 17yrs of AGW warming followed by 16 to 23 yrs of no warming, and no tropospheric hotspot as evidence of positive feedback from water vapour – how does it work when there’s been less warming than actual warming, and the centrepiece (water vapour) of the theory has failed to eventuate?

Richard C (NZ)

Beware the big lie! (from The Big Lie, a 1951 anti-communist propaganda film produced by the US Army). It begins with the quote by Adolf Hitler:

“The great masses will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one”

The antithesis being (while we’re quote mining):-

“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened” – Winston Churchill

Hence we find ourselves in this situation:-

“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.” – Vaclav Klaus, Blue Planet in Green Shackles

Not all of the ideological defenders are fierce mind you. Born to be mild ‘Scooter’ Nuccitelli comes to mind.


Hi Magoo, as you say only true empirical evidence matters. As reported previously on this blog:

Test of a decadal climate forecast, by Myles R. Allen, John F.B. Mitchell and Peter A. Stott, published online by Nature Geoscience on 27 March

Shows that climate predictions from 1996 incorporating AGW have been remarkable accurate.

Richard C (NZ)

Truncate the data – in true warmist fashion – back to 2008, ignore the diverging trajectories of which the simulation is consistent with the modelers own falsification, pick the widest uncertainty bounds you can find, overlook the cyclicity of the observation data that the simulations don’t mimic, refer to a superseded model’s results.

But otherwise – apart from all of that scientific trivia – remarkably accurate in ideological terms.


Do you have a link to the full paper so I can read it?

The climate models were accurate from approx. 1980-1997 (17yrs), but haven’t been since.

IPCC AR5 Temperature Anomaly pg TS79:

All the models predicted continuing temp. rises beyond 1997 and the empirical evidence shows it’s not there. The temperature has flatlined for between 16-23 yrs according to the multiple sources given by skeptical science:

Hard to see any correlation between the models and the empirical evidence there. Perhaps I’m missing something.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Do you have a link to the full paper so I can read it?”

The original “paper” is a Letter dated 5 October 2000:-

Myles R. Allen, Peter A. Stott, John F. B. Mitchell, Reiner Schnur, and Thomas L. Delworth. (2000). Quantifying the uncertainty in forecasts of anthropogenic climate change. Nature. doi:10.1038/35036559

The topic of RT’s post is also a Letter “updating” the original Letter:-

Test of a decadal climate forecast, by Myles R. Allen, John F.B. Mitchell and Peter A. Stott, published online by Nature Geoscience on 27 March.

Richard C (NZ)

The “update” is paywalled – which has been noticed:-

Myles Allen Was Wrong Before He Was Right!!! LOL, Yeh I’d Hide That Behind A Paywall, Too!!!

“Myles Allen, Oxford University’s Professor of Geosystem Science, said that until recently he believed the world might be on course for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century.

But he now says: ‘The odds have come down,’ – adding that warming is likely to be significantly lower. Prof Allen says higher estimates are now ‘looking iffy’.”

In the same vein as suyts space (disappearing the data), and in addition to my reply to Nick up-thread, my dissection in comments of what Richard T provided in the post above this thread-header:-

Richard C (NZ)

DEMING: The real deniers of climate change Foolish doom-criers stand fast despite a chill The Northern Hemisphere is experiencing unusually cold weather. Snow cover last December was the greatest since satellite monitoring began in 1966. The United Kingdom had the coldest March weather in 50 years, and there were more than a thousand record low temperatures in the United States. The Irish meteorological office reported that March “temperatures were the lowest on record nearly everywhere.” Spring snowfall in Europe was also high. In Moscow, the snow depth was the highest in 134 years of observation. In Kiev, authorities had to bring in military vehicles to clear snow from the streets. Cold-weather extremes are a natural climatic variation, and this is exactly the point. If the world were experiencing a climate crisis owing to global warming, there shouldn’t be a single record low temperature anywhere in the world. The Associated Press has assured us, though, that this cold spell is not only consistent with a warming globe, it is actually caused by global warming. The proffered explanation is that cold weather in Europe is a result of melting sea ice in the Arctic. If… Read more »


I think some of you need to watch the Thin Ice documentary
Do you really think that the scientists shown working in basic and often trying conditions are lying and committing fraud? Pay particular attention on the section about the role of oceans in the carbon cycle before spouting off about short-run trends in surface temperature measures.


I think you really need to look at the fact that there is no tropospheric hot spot and as a result no empirical evidence of positive feedback from water vapour. As this is essential to triple (approx.) the tiny warming effect of CO2, I’m wondering if you can explain how the temperature can rise beyond 1.2C max. per doubling of total (not just man’s) atmospheric CO2 without it?

Here’s the line of reasoning that disqualifies AGW:

1/ Where is the tropospheric hot spot (hint: it doesn’t exist)?

2/ If it doesn’t exist then what evidence is there for positive feedback from water vapour?

3/ If there is no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour then how can it warm beyond 1.2C max per doubling of total atmospheric CO2?

4/ If it can’t warm beyond a max of 1.2C per doubling of total atmospheric CO2, what evidence is there for anthropogenic global warming?

5/ Why does the empirical evidence presented in the form of the various temperature records reinforce the expected results of no positive feedback from water vapour?

Richard C (NZ)

>”Pay particular attention on the section about the role of oceans in the carbon cycle before spouting off about short-run trends in surface temperature measures”

Well yes, and the thermal cycle too. The “short-run trends in surface temperature measures” are entirely consistent with the role of the oceans as the planet’s greatest heat sink and accumulator of energy, the energy output of which lags the input by over a decade in general terms. The atmospheric temperature has stabilized (the “standstill”) but so too now has OHC because there is simply no longer elevated levels of energy input to the ocean to be released after the lag from maximum input.

BTW Simon, does ‘Thin Ice’ explain the standstill? I hear climate scientists are “puzzled” by it.

Richard C (NZ)

Let’s be clear Simon, anyone making a prediction for the globally averaged temperature of the planet in 2100 is not doing so in the capacity of a scientist. WAG (wild arse guesser) yes, scientist no. Even those acting in their best scientific capacity are in complete disarray as to the last 400+ yrs, e.g. from AR5 SOD Chapter 8: Radiative Forcing citation – Jones, Lockwood and Stott (2012) 4. Discussion and Conclusions (page 11):- [25] How much change there has been in historic TSI is still open to much uncertainty. One very recent study produces a reconstruction that gives an increase in TSI since the Maunder Minimum of 6 W m2 [Shapiro et al., 2011], over twice as large as even the L00 TSI reconstruction, while another study claims that the very quiet Sun in 2009 is characteristic of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum [Schrijver et al., 2011], supporting the small increase seen in K07 and L09. In view of that gaping uncertainty, I suggest you take a long hard look at JL&S12 (linked above) Figure 2. “Forcing factors and their estimated tropospheric radiative forcings as diagnosed and estimated from the… Read more »

Alexander K

Simon, it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility if scientists were (and are) fooling themselves – all sorts of extreme bias, such as the confirmation variety, can get in the way of empirical evidence. Holding scientists to a higher standard of veracity is fair when those same scientists are determining policy and wreaking havoc upon national economies.


An alternative hypothesis is that the vocal minority that think they know better than the scientific community do not know what they are talking about.
Scientists are are taught how to remove bias from their analysis. Scientists don’t set policy either, politicians do that. Recent havoc within national economies have nothing to do with greenhouse gas mitigation policy.

I think this graphic is particularly relevant:


“Scientists are are taught how to remove bias from their analysis”

Some do, some don’t. Scientists are human and as such are subject to bias. Sometimes Scientists are just plain wrong. But nice try with the appeal to authority.


“Appeal to authority”, David?

Let’s see, when your car won’t start, who ya gonna call? The AA, or your wife’s hairdresser?

If you find yourself out of breath and suffering chest pains whilst driving across town, are you going to stop at a Beaurepaires and ask them for an opinion on the health of your heart?

It’s certainly true that some scientists have been consistently proved wrong regarding their opinion re global warming. Let’s name a few: Lindzen, Soon, Carter, Michaels and Singer.

Guess what they all have in common? They are paid by the fossil fuel industry for their spurious “research”…

Richard C (NZ)

>”It’s certainly true that some scientists have been consistently proved wrong regarding their opinion re global warming. Let’s name a few: Lindzen, Soon, Carter, Michaels and Singer” Proved wrong RRO? ‘Solar irradiance modulation of Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) temperature gradients: Empirical evidence for climate variation on multi-decadal timescales’ * Willie Soon a, * David R. Legates b, * a Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA * b College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics Volume 93, February 2013, Abstract Using thermometer-based air temperature records for the period 1850–2010, we present empirical evidence for a direct relationship between total solar irradiance (TSI) and the Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) surface temperature gradient (EPTG). Modulation of the EPTG by TSI is also shown to exist, in variable ways, for each of the four seasons. Interpretation of the positive relationship between the TSI and EPTG indices suggests that solar-forced changes in the EPTG may represent a hemispheric-scale relaxation response of the system to a reduced Equator-to-Pole temperature gradient, which occurs in response to an increasing gradient of incoming solar insolation. Physical bases for the TSI-EPTG relationship are… Read more »


I wonder which scientists were proven wrong with this:

Everything else is wrong as a result. But that’s ok, look the other way and accuse those who expose the screw up as ‘deniers’ in the pay of the ‘fossil fuel industry’. Anything but admit the mistake and it’s implications, even when it hasn’t warmed for more than a decade and a half.

Richard C (NZ)

Hey realityrulesok, here’s some reality for ya:-

Global Lower Atmospheric Temperatures: 44 of the Latest Climate Models vs Reality,

Total precipitative H2O (running 30 day average) compared to Mauna Loa CO2 data in red.



Who are you going to go to for your opinion of atmospheric physicists?
Oh I see, a propaganda site bankrolled by a convicted money launderer.


So RROK puts quotes around Lindzen’s research, because he may have at some stage received som money from the oil industry. In fact, many climate scientists have received money from the oil industry, including the UEA Lindzen’s “research” includes Lindzen has published papers on Hadley circulation, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, hydrodynamic instability, mid-latitude weather, global heat transport, the water cycle, ice ages, seasonal atmospheric effects. His main contribution to the academic literature on anthropogenic climate change is his proposal of the iris hypothesis in 2001, with co-authors Ming-Dah Chou and Arthur Y. Hou.[6][7] He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council at the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy. Educated at Harvard University (Ph.D., ’64, S.M., ’61, A.B., ’60), he moved to MIT in 1983, prior to which he held positions at the University of Washington (1964–1965), Institute for Theoretical Meteorology, University of Oslo (1965–1966), National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) (1966–1967), University of Chicago (1968–1972) and Harvard University (1972–1983). He also briefly held a position of Visiting Lecturer at UCLA in 1967.[8] As of January 2010, his publications list included 230 papers… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

So for all that “science” stuff, Lindzen received $100,000,000 (approximately) from Big Bad Evil Oil.

This achieved exactly what for who?

realityrule what on Mars are you spouting off about? You warmists get increasingly wild in your statements and predictions as the empirical evidence proves you wrong, wrong, wrong. That is the reality that rules!


Specious argument RROK.

Richard C (NZ)

Mike Hulme, UEA Climatologist and IPCC lead author “‘self-evidently’ dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking…scientists – and politicians – must trade truth for influence. What matters about climate change is not whether we can predict the future with some desired level of certainty and accuracy. Climate change is telling the story of an idea and how that idea is changing the way in which our societies think, feel, interpret and act. And therefore climate change is extending itself well beyond simply the description of change in physical properties in our world… The function of climate change I suggest, is not as a lower-case environmental phenomenon to be solved…It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change – the matrix of ecological functions, power relationships, cultural discourses and materials flows that climate change reveals – to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come.” H/t itchybeard [Followed by ozboy] How about Jerome Ravetz: “…climate change models are a form of “seduction”…advocates of the models…recruit… Read more »


ravetz is of course the Marxist philosopher who, along with Funkowitz, invented Post Normal Science.

He had a bit of a recantation on WUWT after Climategate.


Well, it is still snowing in France, 2 weeks after my ski touring trip. Late Spring snow killed a group of Snowboarders in Colorado. The weather in the south of England where I am now has been unseasonably cold. NZ has received early snow and I have pictures of snowmobiles up at Mt Hutt

I guess I am just cherry picking, weather is not climate etc etc. I am sure a sneering Gen Y type will explain all this to me in due course.

Hey Clint, am I right?

Richard C (NZ)

On the bright side (for us in the SH because shorter becomes longer):-

Just think, in less then 2 months the days start getting shorter.


Well, here is some more dishonest cherry picking from me

Cold and snow wave grips the USA, nearly 10,000 cold and snow records set in the last six weeks
Posted on April 23, 2013 by Anthony Watts

Paging Seth Borenstein! 9787 new cold and snow records since March 13th

By the way, I met an old school friend in London at the weekend. Hadn’t seen him for a couple of decades, he told me that winters were getting warmer

He has worked at the BBC for 35 years, nuff said


Some more dishonest cherry picking from me.
Snowing in Reykjavík


“Global Warming Has Stopped”? How to Fool People Using “Cherry-Picked” Climate Data” Peter Gleick, Forbes The problem with this argument is that it is false: global warming has not stopped and those who repeat this claim over and over are either lying, ignorant, or exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth. Here is a tiny sample of the false claims, gleaned from various blogs, comments to my previous Forbes posts, op-eds in the Wall Street Journal, news stories, and statements from pundits who spread climate misinformation: “The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.” “Current pause in global warming” “lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.” “There is no credible (statistically significant) data that says global warming is occurring” “fifteen years of warming, then fifteen of cooling” “The last decades “rate of warming” is flat.” “Forget global warming…no warming in 15 years.” I could find a hundred more variations, but you get the idea. These statements are scurrilous deceptions and falsehoods. So presumably we can add to… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”So presumably we can add to the list of people………” – the Umweltbundesamt – UBA – (German Federal Department of the Environment)

‘Baffled German Government Concedes! “Global Warming Has Stopped…Warming Pause Is Remarkable…Unexpected” ‘

By P Gosselin on 5. Mai 2013

Green Radio of the Umweltbundesamt – UBA – (German Federal Department of the Environment) recently had a radio interview with Henrik Kirchhof, some climate expert for the UBA I guess. Topic: Why has there been no warming in 15 years?

The German government finally concedes.


Peter Gleick’s got a long way to go in the grief cycle if he’s stuck in the denial phase.


You would think he might get the hint by the number of negative comments he’s getting on the Forbes article

Richard C (NZ)

‘German Ministry Of Environment Identifies, Targets American And German Enemy Skeptics In 123-Page Pamphlet’ Written by P Gosselin, NoTricksZone. “You’ll recall that the UBA are the ones who recently admitted being baffled by the 15-year global temperature stagnation that has taken hold.” [See previous related comment above] Only alarmists are cited as honest sources Just a look at the references cited at the back of the pamphlet on page 116 already tells the story. Sources cited include radical environmental groups Germanwatch, Greenpeace and, ultra-alarmist institutes like the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and dogmatic outlier scientists like Stefan Rahmstorf, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, and Naomi Oreskes, just to name a few. UBA has black list of American skeptics According to the UBA, all the climate doubt stems mainly from the USA. Beginning on page 100, the UBA lists the Americans responsible for “spreading doubt and false information“, among them: ExxonMobil, Fred Singer, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, Frederick Seitz, Joe Barton, and the Heartland Institute. The UBA cites the Union of Concerned Scientists and a one-sided Die Zeit smear from November 2012 as its reliable sources for this information. The name “Rahmstorf” appears… Read more »

Post Navigation