To a general observer, this online cloud of climate change discussion is little better than a pitiful war zone – with much of the most repugnant piles of mud thrown between warring factions – the “Alarmists” and the “Deniers”. Climate science has been hijacked by an ancient ideological and blood-thirsty pastime which also appears under the guise of religion, politics and sport. In that way, I too have been labelled as an Alarmist. Think what you will of me, but for the record, I am not provided a cent for the work I present here and professionally, I am involved in Eddy Covariance monitoring, with a background in Air Quality monitoring and ecology. I am, however, alarmed at how climate change is already affecting ecosystems and how our actions are reducing biodiversity resilience and ultimately the sustainability of life as we know and enjoy it. I am drawn into this spin-off from climate science only because of the Misinformers. If, as with evolution, there was no great harm in contrary belief, my blog space would be more about how I find the world fascinating – it would highlight many interesting species (mostly arthropods and cephalopods) and focus on sustainable farming practices as well as invasive species ecology. That was before I watched Monckton’s presentation and subsequently realised that many people had taken it seriously.
I recently critically reviewed an article by John Griffing, which I followed in a similar style, by looking at a childish parody by Donna Laframbiose. It got me thinking about creating a formal catalogue for such work. What follows is an ever growing list Misinformers, whom I’ve tried to critically explore for their scientific rigour (only because they have decided to enter what has been called a “climate change debate”). I do this only because they have a captive audience, they sound compelling and what they offer helps to encourage paralysis in a time where change is required. Unlike the assumptions of people like Laframbiose, I have no problems with contrary points of view, however, points of view are not necessarily evidence based and when I hear points of view that defy logic, I cannot help but worry over what kind of world I will leave for my children. If you wish to hear what can be done to meet the challenges or the evidence behind anthropogenic climate change, I discuss this elsewhere (the best example is within the Innovation series above). Here, I wish to focus on misinformation.
Christopher Monckton will not make an appearance here. Barry Bickmore has done a great job here. You can assist me here by posting in the comments links to articles or Misinformers and I will do my best to follow this up.
Donna Laframboise and Cloud Screaming
*Note: At the point of time, I’ve grown bored of misinformers (in truth they’re looking sillier by the day). However, certain misinformers have been written about previously and you can find links to posts relating to them in the Tag Cloud >>>
One thought on “Misinformers”
“… These are the same talking heads who are astro-turfing media outlets demanding public debate, but who steadfastly run from our debates. Tragically for our country and future these self interested folks only seek theatrical lawyerly debates dedicated to confusing and obscuring.
When it comes to Serious Constructive Debates – that is, dialogues that respect the confines of truth and honestly representing others and the evidence – these showmen are nowhere to be found. …”
Citizenschallenge’s Hall of Shame