Digital Chum - Virtual fish guts and other nonsense

My favorite hypocrisy

Having dealt with global warming deniers and having read many of their claims (and rants), I’ve noticed a few common hypocrisies. I paraphrase my favorite one below.

Denier Claim #1: Global warming isn’t happening. In fact, temperatures have been declining for the last 30 years.

Denier Claim #2: The temperature record is too unreliable to conclude that global warming is happening.

That’s classic denialism and a good example of how deniers will just parrot arguments they’ve heard without really giving them much thought or taking the time to get more in-depth information.

Of course, if they did that, they might not be deniers.


  1. Bob Igo says:

    My favorite denier argument is: “What the proponents of global warming _really_ want is to attack the American way of life and standard of living.” See, it’s a conspiracy! Even the northern ice cap is in on it! It’s only melting because it’s a damn liberal!

    1. Dan says:

      LOL! Yeah. It’s a denial of reality because it doesn’t fit with their ideology.

  2. Tom Shafer says:

    Then Dan, how about this for some specific data? An analysis of NOAA temperature models ( shows a significant downward trend in polar temperatures this winter with a return of polar ice which will “reach near record highs”. Its points out that while warmists are talking about global temperature anomalies of +0.5°C, the NOAA models predict -2.0°C. Or how about this? A link to 750 peer-reviewed scientific studies which support the growing skepticism of AGW:
    Here is one that refutes the “conveyor belt” theory which has been a foundational cornerstone of all climate models supporting AWG:
    I could go on and on, because frankly I have a near limitless supply of references to studies than more than balance out the laughable science of man-made global warming. And again, it appears to me you always deal in pejoratives and generalities in your posts on this subject. I’ve not seen you reference one shred of scientific study, other than those that have been roundly debunked now, coming from the Climate Research Unit, or from Michael Mann, et al.

    1. Dan says:

      Once again, it seems you’ve written a comment in response to some other article since nothing you’ve said has addressed the point of my post.

      I’m not sure that it’s really worth my time to respond, since you seem to be firmly in the “hit and run” camp of blog commenting. I’ve never seen you post any follow-ups to my responses to your comments, so I have no indications that you’ve ever read any of them. However, since you seem determined to continually fit yourself into the denialist stereotype with your comments, I’ll take a little time to point out how you’ve done it once again.

      As for your first link, it shows temperature predictions for a six-month period. Despite your claims of understanding climate science, you demonstrate that you don’t by seeming to think that a six-month temperature block has any bearing on long-term climate. It’s a classic example of cherry-picking evidence in an attempt to back up your claims. I’m a bit surprised that you actually point to NOAA data, anyway, but perhaps that’s because you can twist this particular data for your own ends. If they were predicting warmer temperatures, you would probably poo-poo them (or ignore them).

      Your second link, I’ve seen before and have checked out a few of the articles. I’ve scanned the headlines and actually read the abstracts for more than twenty of them… which I’ll grant isn’t much in a list of 800. I’m curious about how many of them you’ve read. I’m guessing not many, since you seem to have misrepresented the content of the list in your comment. The list isn’t all about showing skepticism of AGW, but of AGW “Alarm”… not even remotely the same thing.

      Well over 200 of the articles are comments on the socio-economic effects, mitigation proposals, politics, or other consequences of global warming and say nothing about the actual science. Many of the others do not show any skepticism of AGW, but are research papers into specific factors affecting climate (sun, clouds, cycles, etc). No doubt some of the papers do express skepticism and Gosselin’s stated purpose for the list is to provide a resource and prove they exist. He also states that inclusion on the list “does not imply a specific position to any of the authors.” That would seem to indicate that, in many cases, the issue of whether or not a certain paper supports or refutes AGW is left open to the interpretation of the reader. Asking the scientist in question may provide an alternate viewpoint to the position you would presumably take.

      A good case in point is your third link about the “conveyor belt” theory, which you hyperbolically state has been a “foundational cornerstone of all climate models supporting AWG.” I actually had to laugh when I read that. The linked article cites a paper by Duke University Professor Susan Lozier about ocean circulation as evidence that climate models are now all discredited. When asked if this was an accurate representation of the results of her paper, Lozier responded…

      The statement in the linked article that our research “means that all the current climate prediction models are significantly wrong” is clearly nonsense. Our research shows that the Deep Western Boundary Current is not the main conduit for the equatorward transport of Labrador Sea Water. This finding has implications for where physical oceanographers should measure the southward transport of these waters, but has little impact, if any, on climate models. The North Atlantic waters are indeed overturning, flowing equatorward at depth and returning poleward at the surface, but we are now suggesting that the flow at depth is not confined to a narrow boundary current, or “conveyor belt”. The climate models care first and foremost about the return of the surface waters and our research has no bearing in the slightest on those waters.

      You can email her and ask her yourself if you wish ( So it seems that, again, research has been hijacked, twisted, and misrepresented by deniers in an attempt to support their claims… and you’ve hopped right on the bandwagon, touting the misinformation as if it were some silver bullet of climate science denial.

      So, though you may claim to have a “near limitless supply” of references, if the ones I’ve seen from you so far are any indication, they certainly don’t “balance out” the “laughable science of global warming”… which interestingly is somewhat of a pejorative statement, isn’t it?

      It’s quite telling that you seem to think that climate studies from the CRU and Mann (“et al”) have been “roundly debunked.” I’m not sure what your definition of “debunked” is, but if you’re going by the Random House dictionary (which I’m going to assume is fairly standard), then, to quote a favorite movie, “I do not think it means what you think it means.” Perhaps you define “debunked” simply as something that has been shown to disagree with your views.

      Based on your claim that my sources have been debunked, it stands to reason that there really is nothing I could post that would make any difference. Real science, evidently, is not of interest to you, especially when taken in context. While I have read a few legitimate studies that question and critique some of the fundamentals of climate science (CO2, water vapor, etc) and have made an attempt to view them in context of the big picture, it seems that, given your earlier statement that you question global warming for political reasons, you are only interested in denialist shenanigans that support your ideologically cockeyed version of reality.

      You consistently post these links, perhaps thinking that you’ve got a great “ah HA!” accusation of fraud, but a short bit of investigation always shows them to be irrelevant or misinterpreted or misrepresented or fabricated… and indicates that you have become a prime example of the type of person I mentioned in my article… the one who just parrots the denialist arguments without giving them much thought or taking the time to understand them better.

      Though it certainly feels like it when I respond to one of your comments, I’m not interested in doing your research for you, but clearly you’re not doing a very good job of it yourself. It’s amusing to me that when I voice my opinion, you accuse me of speaking in generalities, but when I provide links, you either ignore them or accuse me of using “roundly debunked” arguments. You also seem to respond out of context, never actually responding to my points, but just spamming your links to unrelated articles… which, by the way, is why your comments get snagged by the anti-spam system and have to wait for me to approve them (which I have always done).

      But, as I said in the beginning, all this effort on my part to respond could be moot since you’ve never given any indication that you’ve read any of my responses, including my full blog post in response to your Facebook writeup on December 28th of last year. I don’t know if you ignore them or just don’t have time to respond.

      Perhaps there’s only time for parroting.

  3. Thomas Shafer says:

    Well Dan,… maybe I’ve had it wrong all this time, and I should apologize for my previous exaggerations. Certainly if this is true, we must be experiencing man-made global warming. Data collected by NOAA has shown that temperatures in and around Lake Michigan this year have ranged from 430 to 600 degrees Fahrenheit. Do you know if the Lake is still there??

    1. Dan says:

      Again, a reply with a complete disregard for the discussion topic… and possibly with the most ludicrous link you’ve ever used.

      I’m not sure why you even bother commenting here, Tom. It’s not like you contribute to a discussion or offer anything through-provoking, helpful, on-topic, accurate, or even humorous (aside from the inherent absurdity). Given the fact that you have never responded to replies, it seems even more absurd that you would even take the time to post.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.