AGW denialist lie almost suckers me

I saw this article yesterday and immediately began to wonder if there really was some new data that could change the projections on human-caused global climate change. As a supporter of science new data always has to be considered and evaluated. Science is not dogma, like religion, that never changes (one of science’s virtues, but denounced by religious types since their “truths” are eternal). So I had to consider the article, but something just didn’t smell right.

So I started a little research yesterday. The first thing was there were no other confirming articles from known reputable sources. A finding as big as this would be front-page news in any science journal and unlike denialists I don’t believe scientists would attempt a coverup. So lack of confirmation is a clue, but not decisive.

But already the title probably just got to me a little: ” … reveal Met Office report quietly released …”. Note the use of “quietly” lending an air of conspiracy, that some scientific group was forced to release real results but, of course, tried to keep it quiet. The right, or denialists, or religion, would use such a tactic (I’m sure in the unlikely case the Daily Mail ever does a retraction, they bury it), so naturally they attributed it to science, even another doggie treat to the “conspiracy” wingnuts.

Now the facts are that the “announcement” by the Met office were utterly routine and got the same amount of attention as usual especially as the fresh set of data showed no such thing as “Global warming stopped 16 years ago”. But even that phrase “stopped 16 years ago” is suspicious, a precise date that warming stopped – impossible! Have they ever seen any of the data? It’s noisy as can be so to assign a precise “stopped” date is absurd. Especially as I’d just seen an article indicating September 2012 was the hottest September on record and have been following the record drop in Arctic ice. Strange to think warming all came to an end 16 years ago. And if it had been 16 years ago why do we need a new data set now to confirm that, couldn’t this claim have been made last year? (Turns out they’ve been making the same claim over and over, despite getting it debunked, including that has-been idiot George Will who is desperately trying to court the wingnuts).

So without much more data the smell from this article just escalated and I was pretty sure it had to be some denialist propaganda.

So who is the Daily Mail or Mail Online (I haven’t found yet, but is this Murdoch? but still looking). So I checked another section today of MailOnline (instead of their “science” section). Now I see denialism about Romney’s flub in the debate. In fact the MailOnline is freaking out as much as FauxNews is. Ah, the picture is beginning to form. Published by Associated Newspapers Ltd., who’s that? It appears not to be Murdoch but instead another billionaire, Viscount Rothermere, supporter of the conservative party in UK and David Cameron. So now we’re getting somewhere finding out who is making this absurd claim.

But finally this article, from a credible source,  appeared today with rather complete and direct debunking of the MailOnline lies. In fact it seems there is relatively little rebuttal needed since this is an old tactic of an already discredited lie. Probably few in the climate change community even paid any attention to the MailOnline propaganda any more than any reasonable person would pay attention to any “claims” of FauxNews or RushBot.

So it appears that just my unfamiliarity with a right wingnut propaganda organ in the U.K. allowed me to be briefly suckered in. But here’s the thing. What if I were a way more casual reader, not already skeptical of this type of claim? Would I have taken the time to look for rebuttals? Would I have read the article carefully, looking for the dog whistles that show it’s propaganda? Of course not. Some “low-information” person would glance at the article and leave with the take-away, certain they’d read the truth. Interesting, some of these idiot Repugs making really stupid statements get fooled exactly the same way; they’re pre-programmed to be gullible and also with their gnat’s attention span they do no work to try to find the truth.

So this is why the right wingnut media continues to put out these stupid lies – just on the hope they can occasionally catch someone gullible. And it almost worked for me.

Advertisements

About dmill96

old fat (but now getting trim and fit) guy, who used to create software in Silicon Valley (almost before it was called that), who used to go backpacking and bicycling and cross-country skiing and now geodashes, drives AWD in Wyoming, takes pictures, and writes long blog posts and does xizquvjyk.
This entry was posted in musing, whine and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to AGW denialist lie almost suckers me

  1. webeasy2010 says:

    You and I both blog what we please, so I imagine someone some where will eventually question our facts or motive. But since we are both straight forward and our rants not too far out, I think we can defend what we say. I have absolutely stayed off politics this time, but I did feel better about Obama after last night. In an interview with Honey Boo Boo yesterday she was asked who she would vote for. She replied Marack Obama. Cute, but scary some moron would ask this 6-year-old such a question. Keep after it Doug, good job. Oops I am signed in under Webeasy, not From Nona with Love.

    • dmill96 says:

      The climate change thing bugs me more than most of the political stuff because it’s not an argument about policies, or beliefs, or values. It is argument between one side which uses evidence and logic and reason, and another side who denies all of those things, not just the specifics. I actually look for contradictory information because I think there will be some. The details of the AGW phenomenon is changing and over time it hones in to a more accurate model. In fact, it is the models, not the data (or even its analysis) that I’m most suspect about, simply because I know how hard computer modeling is + we do not have any past experience (like sometimes happens in economics) with AGW. The non-human climate change in geological history is somewhat relevant to understanding what we’re doing but it’s not only greenhouse gases we’re changing, it is many other things at the same time (such as degradation of oceans and altering their biology, at the same time as we need them as a carbon sink).

      I really wonder what the other side is thinking. Don’t they have children? The wealth they gain from selling a few more barrels of oil isn’t going to save their grandchildren from the collapse of the ecosystem. But, of course, we saw that too in the bankers in the 2003-2008 period; at first they couldn’t see how stupid they were being, then once they began to realize it they couldn’t stop because they were addicted. By the time nature hammers the Koch Brothers and FauxNews and Inhofe it will be too late to do anything. Some of the denialist crowd wants the rapture and armageddon but the collapse of the biosphere is not the one they’re expecting and not one that can be fixed by divine intervention.

      And to your point about asking a 6-year-old about anything in adult world and contemporary, yes, I take this as a sign of the times, along with much of the rest of TV, at how dumbed-down our society has become.

  2. dmill96 says:

    Here’s another source about this story, not quite as strong debunking of the MailOnline as the other. http://www.belljarnews.com/2012/10/17/did-global-warming-stop-in-1998-new-study-says-it-may-have/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s