Scroll To Top

Saturday, December 3, 2016

Denier Irony: Climate denial support group, WUWT, mocks climate "Good Grief" support group

Sou | 9:45 PM Go to the first of 40 comments. Add a comment

The "world's biggest" climate conspiracy support group is today mocking a group that meets once a month to talk about climate change, how it affects them, and what can be done about it.

Some years ago, Anthony Watts set up a support group for climate science deniers called wattsupwiththat - or WUWT for short. He made it a denier-friendly zone that propagates fake news by banning almost everyone who is a friend of science. A few months ago he handed the reins to a nonentity called Eric Worrall from Australia (formerly of the UK), who has been writing several disinformation articles a week - often several a day, to keep up the spirits of dim deniers while global temperatures sky rocket.

This is typical behaviour from climate deniers. They are oblivious to irony. The support group Eric is mocking meets only once a month. The WUWT support group meets several times a day.

Daisy Simmons at Yale Climate Connections reports about the "Good Grief" group:

...this is not a typical support group. This smattering of artists, activists, writers, and others is discussing their feelings about how they each contribute to climate change....

...Photographer Leah Hogsten, who has been attending the meetings since April, says she likes the opportunity to talk with like-minded people – and discuss solutions, too. She also says she leaves the meeting feeling better than when she got there.

“You’ve vented and gotten some worries off your chest, and now you have a better understanding of what you can do as an individual,” she says.
It sounds like a great idea - very constructive.



Compare that to the constant stream of articles that climate disinformers dish out to "support" deniers who are bereft. They are struggling to cope with the fact that not a single one of their number has been able to prove that climate science is a hoax. That's despite thousands, probably millions of dollars given to denial propaganda outlets and politicians.

About the best the disinformers can come up with is "it's a magical bounce from the Little Ice Age" - and lots of talk about Marxist, fascist, Lysenko-driven watermelons. (Why not figs?)


Eric Worrall is outraged


Eric, who only a couple of days ago argued that starving drought-stricken Africans should be left to rot, fakes horror at the Yale article mentioning things that helped victims of the Nazi holocaust. This is Eric Worrall - someone whose every waking effort these days seems to be devoted to forcing the world towards climate catastrophe. At the bottom of his copy and paste, Eric in mock outrage wrote:
The reference to the Holocaust IMO is outrageous – comparing self indulgent climate angst to the hideous mental torment endured by the survivors of a brutal programme of mass extermination insults the memory of the victims of national socialism.
There are more than seven billion people on the planet today. By 2050 there will most likely be more than 9 billion people. If just 10% of people die early because of climate change, that would be 900 million people. If just one per cent died early - that would be 90 million people. That could only be described as mass extermination, and is almost 10 times greater than the number who died in the Nazi holocaust. That number will be higher if people like Eric Worrall and Anthony Watts have their way.


A powerful new strain of fact-resistant humans


There are only three comments so far from the WUWT support group. Nothing worth reporting. Instead I'll refer you to a 2015 study that was reported by Andy Borowitz in The New Yorker last year. (It hasn't been mentioned at WUWT - not even with a "claim" headline.) Andy Borowitz wrote:
Scientists have discovered a powerful new strain of fact-resistant humans who are threatening the ability of Earth to sustain life, a sobering new study reports.

The research, conducted by the University of Minnesota, identifies a virulent strain of humans who are virtually immune to any form of verifiable knowledge, leaving scientists at a loss as to how to combat them....

...While reaffirming the gloomy assessments of the study, Logsdon held out hope that the threat of fact-resistant humans could be mitigated in the future. “Our research is very preliminary, but it’s possible that they will become more receptive to facts once they are in an environment without food, water, or oxygen,” he said.
I'm not sure that hope is anything more than wishful thinking. But who am I to judge? One reason I'm sceptical is this article in another reputable online source, which supports my opinion. The Onion reports the behaviour of Facebook users, and quotes one of them, James Wheatley, 44:
“You can’t just accept everything you see online, which is why I always take a closer look at the claims that are made in every article and make sure that each one of them is backed up by my existing assumptions and personal feelings about the world,” said Wheatley


References and further reading


Sad about climate change? There's a support group for that. - article by Daisy Simmons at Yale Climate Connections

Scientists: earth endangered by new strain of fact-resistant humans - article by Andy Borowitz at The New Yorker

Facebook User Verifies Truth Of Article By Carefully Checking It Against Own Preconceived Opinions - article at The Onion

From the HotWhopper archives




40 comments :

  1. Poor Anthony has tried to quit denial a few times. Sometimes, with a bit of willpower and when kept away from naughty boys like Smokey, he can get as far as lukewarming: but every time he has a relapse and its back to the conspiracy theories. Our good friend Prof Lewandowsky might be willing to counsel him, but I'm not sure Anthony would be receptive.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "They are struggling to cope with the fact that not a single one of their number has been able to prove that climate science is a hoax."
    Perhaps Sou has definite date on the incoming climate doomsday that would prove them wrong?
    Until then, it's the Worst Apocalypse. Ever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah. I don't think that Anonymous understands there's a difference between science and Nostradamus-style prophecies. She or he probably got ready for the apocalypse in 2012 and was disappointed.

      She's also not very observant of global happenings already. It could be she (or he) is a "climate hoax" conspiracy theorist waiting patiently, hoping that someone, one day, will finally disprove fundamental physics.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous is trying to use a straw man and the impossible expectations logical fallacy. Ohhhh I'm scared! :-)

      Delete
    3. "definite date on the incoming climate doomsday"

      I'm trying to figure out how anyone could be so dense as to think that climate catastrophe can possibly limited to one specific date. This is like staring into depths devoid not only of intelligent thought but of anything that could be reasonably described as thought at all.

      Delete
    4. Will say: 1st of September 2036. All the coral will be dead by then, for just one.

      Delete
  3. "Yeah. I don't think that Anonymous understands there's a difference between science and Nostradamus-style prophecies."

    "I'm trying to figure out how anyone could be so dense as to think that climate catastrophe can possibly limited to one specific date."

    The Final Countdown
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/aug/01/climatechange.carbonemissions

    Fellow doomsday travelle Bette Midler has gone all Jim Jones and is out the back preparing the kool-aide as we speak:
    [https://twitter.com/BetteMidler/status/805258245170311168]

    Perhaps Bette has a doomsday date Sou could put in one of her plastic bags and archive it.
    Too funny.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only that Guardian article does not claim to give a "definite date". It merely says:

      "Because in just 100 months' time, if we are lucky, and based on a quite conservative estimate, we could reach a tipping point for the beginnings of runaway climate change."

      There's a lot of 'ifs' and 'coulds' and no date for when catastrophe occurs only a rough guess of when its too late to do much to avoid it.

      I didn't look at the Bette Midler quote: last I heard she wasn't publishing peer reviewed science anywhere.

      Delete
    2. Bette Midler's thoughts on her Xmas shopping? What is that about? Are you on the correct blog?

      Delete
    3. Better trolls please.

      Delete
  4. The Climate Anxiety Doctor Is “In”.
    In the psychological literature, there is an increasing body of research demonstrating the toll that [Doomsday Global Warming] can take.
    [Doomsday Global Warming] can affect mental health both as a result of individual significant weather events, and as a result of more gradual changes in climate.
    Psychologists have found that catastrophic events induce different mental health issues than gradual changes: catastrophic events are more likely to induce trauma responses, major depression, and complicated grief, while gradual changes can cause anxiety, fatalism, and chronic depression.
    [ https://www.hakaimagazine.com/article-short/climate-anxiety-doctor ]

    If you don't believe in doomsday global warming, there is no need for any 'support'.
    Except from falling over with laughter at you folk getting your knickers in a knot.

    No one denies “climate change.”
    “Climate change” is a constant.
    There’s no “climate non-change.”
    Even your baseless epithets are an Orwellian strawman.
    As for this unrealistic future Doomsday Global Warming you profess to see at this website, it sounds like the most unnatural climate I have ever heard of.
    A dystopian future of permanent Anthropogenic Climate Unchanged.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Give it a rest. Either respond to the points made, or go away.

      Delete
    2. Yaaaaawn.... Next.

      Delete
    3. This guy reminds me of Rumsfeld's reactions to people's anxiety that there might be an insurrection developing in Iraq after the US occupation. I am surprised he hasn't done the full "Chicken Little" impersonation: but that probably has painful memories for every Fox News viewer.

      Delete
    4. If Neville Cayley was alive today he'd probably pen "What Denialist Logical Fallacy is That?"

      The anonymous coward above would garner a whole illustration plate all to himself (it's inevitably a him...).

      Delete
    5. Thinking about it, "What Denialist Logical Fallacy is That?" would be a good name for the blog love-child of Skeptical Science, Hot Whopper, and DenialDepot...

      Delete
    6. This one believes in magic. All climate change is causeless: magic.

      Delete
  5. "Even your baseless epithets are an Orwellian strawman."

    This is such a pretentious utterance it belongs in pseuds corner.

    I wonder where it originated? Perhaps here?

    Pseuds corner

    So are you Mark M? Or a plagiarist? Some choice eh?

    ================================================================

    Mark M replied to Dr Brian
    Fri 19 Aug 16 (10:46am)

    Even your baseless epithets are an Orwellian strawman.

    =================================================================

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who knows? Funnily enough, though, MarkM has been talking about HW recently, I happened to notice (re a comment from Harry Twinotter about censorship at Jo Nova's place.)

      Delete
    2. Sou.

      Some of them do indeed read your blog, but I do not see them commenting often. I do challenge them from time to time to come to your blog to comment on "neutral" ground.
      I notice that the comment from MarkM is followed by the usual string of insults inflicted on anyone that dares upset the Jo Nova echo-chamber (like David Appell for example). Ironic considering the moderators continually block my comments for supposed lack of content or for being "insulting" :-)

      Delete
    3. It looks as if Mark M is just a bot, which explains why those comments are devoid of meaning. Here's another one:

      Nobody “denies climate”, even her baseless epithets are an Orwellian strawman.

      No one denies “climate change.”
      “Climate change” is a constant. There’s no “climate non-change.”

      Delete
    4. Doomsday Global Warming cultist elite like Sou hope that if they paint 'unbelievers' as bots, they won't have to actually defend their unrealistic Doomsday prophecies.
      Quite so I am Mark M.
      The very same one who would defend Harry's right to free speech @jonova. And Jammy's (aka Dr Phil?) as well.
      Though I do not envy blog moderators.
      Here is another link Doomsday Global Warming believers support groups should read:
      Climatic Change and Witch-hunting: the Impact of the Little Ice Age on Mentalities
      [ http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1005554519604 ]

      Delete
    5. Amusing how these people cannot even indulge in sock puppetry with any level of competence.

      Delete
    6. Jo Nova sent me an email complaining about my comments on her blog! I wonder what standard she is comparing them to?

      In my reply I pointed out her obvious hypocrisy.

      I would love to reproduce the email (she refers to her blog comments where she attempts to defend her defamation of the Australian BOM quote "they hid the size and used weasel words about the number of adjustments to fool people:"). But emails are private in my opinion.

      Delete
    7. Keep it, don't delete it. (It's something of a cowardly act to write to you, knowing you are a person of good character who is likely to maintain etiquette. I suspect the favour wouldn't be returned if it were the other way around.)

      Delete
    8. I kept a copy because it is interesting. Like the time a moderator called "Fly" put ME into moderation after I was accused of being a shill - comedy gold when these children try to play "blame the victim".

      Delete
    9. Jo Nova replied to my reply. The email is incoherent and is written in several different fonts, like it has been cut and pasted from somewhere. I wonder if she has outsourced her emails like she has outsourced her blog moderation?

      There is no point in me replying. I will just keep a copy in case it becomes relevant in the future.

      Delete
  6. Hola Milli.
    And your responses are examples of what is required?
    @Tadaaa. What heat?
    Perhaps it is the missing heat?
    Have you looked in the Indian Ocean?
    Oh, wait ...
    [ http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2015/05/20/global-warmings-missing-heat-it-may-be-in-the-indian-ocean/]
    Mark M

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No lies, no gobshite, no parroting of phoney institute's output, no misrepresentation of stolen emails, no moronic confusion of short term trends with long term ones, understanding the difference between 'tobacco' scientists and real ones. The odd thing is that it is all very easy for a normal person to comply with. Yet, for the typical climate change denier, an impossibility.

      Delete
  7. Sou. If moderating my comments because I use anon, I use it because it is just easier.
    I dont comment at wuwt, as it is too hard to just comment.
    I read it less than I ever did, as I can't comment without 6 hoops to jump through.
    I'll go away if you want. Good luck with that.
    Mark M.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon/Mark - when moderation is on it applies to all comments, not just yours. Sometimes I put up a notice (like today) and sometimes not. All it means is there'll be a delay before comments get posted. I'll sometimes turn on moderation, particularly when I'm away from the computer for a few hours (like the last two days) and there's a fair bit of spam (advertising). AFAIK all your comments have been up since I posted the last two a few hours ago.

      I don't care what people call themselves here. Happy for you to be anonymous. Some readers have told me they prefer a name so they don't have to wonder whether one anonymous is the same or a different person from another anonymous in a discussion. (Hence the note in the comment box.) In your case, there's no need for you to be too concerned about that. Your style is distinctive enough (and repetitive). In the same thread there aren't likely to be two deniers who are peas in a pod.

      Delete
    2. "...I use anon, I use it because it is just easier. "

      There is nothing difficult about putting MarkM somewhere in the body of text, or alternatively using Name/URL. Sometimes you are MarkM, sometimes you are anon: you got caught indulging in sock puppetry.

      Delete
    3. That's a point, Millicent. Sockpuppetry is frowned upon pretty well everywhere. On the other hand, unless it's done deliberately (like Bob Tisdale boasted about doing here, and some banned people have tried here) I don't have a requirement that people have to use the same handle across different blogs. (Ideally they do, or close enough to so we know who is who, but I can understand that there could be the odd person who doesn't want to be recognised here. E.g. if it means they lose prestige on their favourite denier blog.)

      Delete
    4. I've always understood sock-puppetry to involve not just a different name, but a different name for a purpose - to disguise not just true identity, but to disguise true identity so that one can pretend to have supporters in whatever discussion is taking place.

      I.e., I post as Joe and tell everyone I have a new blog post. Then I post as Jane and tell everyone Joe's new blog post is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Or I post as Joe and claim that I've seen published reports of XXX, others quickly tell me I'm making things up, so then I post as Jane and say, No - I've seen the same reports Joe has seen.

      Simply using different handles isn't sock-puppetry and it's often a result of how individual sites handle handles. Once upon a time I was always 'kto9' (my original AOL screen name from the mid-80s. That isn't available on most places so I morphed to 'ktonine', but Wordpress doesn't like one of my computers and on that I'm stuck with 'oneillsinwisconsin' which has never been used anywhere else - I set it up for a family genealogy project that never got off the ground :)

      Delete
    5. Yes, Kevin.

      It has to be for a deliberate purpose of disguising your identity and pretending to be someone other than oneself for a particular purpose. Steve McIntyre used Nigel Persaud for similar reasons you describe. So did Bob Tisdale here at HW - posing as wuwt.fan.4.6.years arguing for his own WUWT article. So has Stealey using one of his pseudonyms, saying how he missed himself (and censoring people).

      Delete
    6. Deniers also use sock puppetry - particularly around US election time - to pretend that climate change denial is a mass movement rather than just a much smaller number of cranks and shills. The Bloggie awards is the most notorious example.

      Delete
    7. They even indulge in a form of sock puppetry with their multiple phoney institutes which time and time again feature the same tired list of gomers.

      Delete
    8. Agree, Millicent. That's a special case. Pretending to be more than they are and citing their own fakery to "prove" they are right. (Deniers don't check sources, so they are safe on that score.)

      Delete

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.