Two of Australia’s worst alarmists are in the climate science news this morning. Firstly Andrew Glikson launches a nasty attack on sceptics, this time portraying them as “Orwellian”:
Ideologically dominated or totalitarian societies – such as George Orwell’s famous “1984” Ingsoc – are marked by:
- attempts to alter reality (“2 + 2 = 5 if the party says so”)
- elimination of history (“He who controls the past, controls the future”)
- rewriting collective memory (“Oceania is at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia”)
- The corruption of logic through aleration and elimination of language “Newspeak”
- mind control (“thought crime”). (source)
Glikson then claims that the science on solar effects and cosmic rays are “unsupported mechanisms” despite the fact that research is still ongoing and very far from conclusive, lumps in the fringe group of Sky Dragon slayers with the majority of sceptics (who accept the scientific basis of the greenhouse effect), and claims that the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than the warming we would have had in the late 20th and early 21st centuries if something hadn’t stopped it. Follow that?
Nowhere is there any introspection as to the horribly corrupted and politicised state of climate science, any criticism of the actions of the IPCC, for example in accepting grey literature where it boosts their pre-conceived agenda of man-made warming, but strangely ignoring peer-reviewed papers which challenge that agenda, or any acceptance that the consensus side of science has been anything other than squeaky clean.
Bishop Hill responds here.
And secondly, our very own Eureka Prize Winning author of the (Un-) Skeptical Science website is the subject of Josh’s pen, for having been discovered (again, by Bishop Hill here and here) rewriting articles but leaving critical comments unchanged, adding responses to those comments in order to give the impression that silly sceptics hadn’t read the articles to which they refer. See image.










Recent Comments