Jo Nova Responds to New Scientist's "Denier-gate" Story

Alarmists at the New Scientist, sensing their reputations are in big trouble following all the recent mounting scandals (including Climategate), have decided to respond by creating "Denier-gate" out of thin air (as if they hadn't done that years ago). However, Jo Nova does a phenomenal job of parrying the ad hominem attacks against climate skepticism by turning the tables on the global warming cultists. She keeps bringing them back to the fundamental question: Is CO2 in its current quantity within our atmosphere warming the planet? Let's talk evidence, not "debate's over," not bluster, swearing, name-calling, etc.

The answer from alarmists is: "DENIER!! How can you question the CONSENSUS? The debate's over!" Get the picture? Where is the scientific debate?!? Without the name-calling?

And spot the appearance of the mythical “HUGE body of evidence”. Can anyone at New Scientist find that one mystery paper with empirical evidence showing that carbon causes major warming? Just ONE? That’s major warming, not minor. And that’s empirical, i.e., by observation, not by simulation.

This is the paragraph where New Scientist proves it has become Non Scientist:

“If we are going to judge the truth of claims on the behavior of those making them, it seems only fair to look at the behavior of a few of those questioning the scientific consensus. There are many similar examples we did not include. We leave readers to draw their own conclusions about who to trust.”

Alarm bells are ringing from Galileo’s grave. We’re trying to figure out if the world is warming due to man-made carbon right? New Scientist’s method is not to look at the evidence, but to look at the behavior of the sceptics. Did you see the black hole of ad hominem that this once esteemed journal just stepped into? Logic and reason were reduced in a flash to a naked singularity. Follow its reasoning through the black hole, and you don’t emerge on the other side.

Did you see the black hole of ad hominem that this once esteemed journal just stepped into?

Who to trust indeed? Let’s trust people who can reason, and scientists who don’t hide their data. It doesn’t matter how “sceptics behave”; it matters whether the data can be independently analyzed and interpreted; whether the conclusions are robust. But, since the data is g-o-n-e , no one can verify anything. So in a way, it does come down to “trust”: In the new quasi-religious form of science, you have to trust those who hold the global data. Isn’t postmodern “science” an awful lot like the old religions?

[From New Scientist becomes Non Scientist « JoNova]

Jo Nova's Skeptics Handbook, Vol. I and II

First, every skeptic should read and practically memorize these volumes, so that you can deftly parry any stupid, leftist global warming attack uttered by global warming cultists (those bits of "science" that they've learned from carefully selected sources like the mainstream media, politicians, and alarmist scientists).

Next, every global warming believer should challenge their own religious orthodoxy and read these volumes. We've heard all of your alarmist arguments before (since the news media trumpets this baloney from sunup until sundown). Now it's time to monitor your own thoughts and feelings as you read these wonderful pamphlets and expose your brains to something other than the "consensus" view; in other words: REAL SCIENCE. That stuff that the U.N., NASA, EPA, NOAA, Al Gore, and the media have neglected to tell you.

Send your friends these links. Save the PDFs for self-study. Spread the word. Our U.S. news media isn't doing the job it once did; it picks advocate positions and attempts to propagandize the public. This is why we need bloggers like Joanne to expose this hokey shit for what it is.

Joanne does a great job of covering all the relevant points (much better than I ever have here in this blog); like me, she's doing all this for NOTHING, because she hates seeing real science hijacked by politics. You'll notice good coverage of ad hominem attacks (i.e., labels like "denier" used to associate climate skepticism with the evils of the Holocaust), which you can also read about in Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit.

This booklet has captured attention around the world.

Donors have paid for over 160,000 copies so far in the US, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden and soon in Germany. Volunteers have translated it into German, French, Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish, Turkish, Portuguese Danish, Japanese and Balkan. (Versions in Dutch, Spanish, and possibly Italian are on the way). Updates are placed here, along with translations, as well as places to read comments and links to the web-pages where each part of the handbook will be discussed.

[From The Skeptics Handbook « JoNova]

Who is Jo Nova? Here you go:

Joanne has 15 years of experience in explaining science as a professional speaker, TV host, radio presenter and book author.

Making sense of science.

Jo Nova is a science communicator, she’s presented science on TV, radio, on stage, in cartoons, exhibitions, reports and now in her blog which over 200,000 people visited in 2009.
After winning prizes in her science degree in molecular biology, Joanne joined the Shell Questacon Science Circus and spent five years touring Australia first as a performer, then as manager of the half million dollar exhibition with a team of twelve. As an associate lecturer at ANU Joanne helped to develop the Graduate Diploma in Science Communication in its earliest years.

[From About « JoNova]

Searchable Climategate Email Database and Chronology

In the wake of the death of global warming, this is a nice site to see.

If you want to peruse all of the emails leaked in the Climategate scandal, you can go here to this new site and do just that. This information has all been made available for you via whistleblower or hacker action (no one knows for certain); this information WOULD NOT have been made available via the FOIA, as we've seen is the pattern with climate alarmists (they hide and destroy the data).

Anyway, go and search for the word "skeptic" and enjoy. You'll see just how intolerant of contrary opinion these ivory tower a-holes are.

http://www.EastAngliaEmails.com

While you're at it, Jo Nova does a great job of placing Climategate within a 30-year chronological perspective:

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/climategate-30-year-timeline/