In the comments of my post about global warming skepticism, David introduced me to a site I was unaware of, Skeptical Science, which is furnished with this comic:

Nice work!

Skepticism is good.

Strike that, skepticism is great. I am a skeptic of everything I consume. I accept nothing at face value, and as a result I am utterly perplexed by the current crop of climate change skeptics denialists and their absurd misappropriation of the evidence.

Now, in case you haven’t guessed, I am no climate scientist. And neither are you. And when you aren’t an expert you ought to trust those who do know what they are talking about - right?

Not the skeptics denialists. They call it an “appeal to authority”, which is fair enough. The authority could be corrupt, or just plain wrong. This is where the rot sets in, because the skeptics denialists don’t take into account that man-made global warming is a scientific consensus, despite what certain barrow-pushers claim. It is the consensus of thousands of climate scientists worldwide.

Some scientists disagree, sure.

I, for one, think that is terrific, because isn’t that what science is all about?

Instead the scientific community is treated, by certain individuals with dubious motives, as involved in some kind of bizarre conspiracy, deliberately toiling to mislead the public.

A great example of this comes from Tim Blair, who claimed on Q&A during his failed performance that “we need to separate science from scientists”, but, presumably, not including the ones who follow his pre-conceived idealogical lines, because both Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt make numerous appeals to authority of their own.

People who don’t follow Andrew Bolt’s pied piper routine are cast as “followers of the Green faith”. In fact, I consider denialism to be the faith. It is too similar to creationism to be ignored.

Climate change skeptics denialists…

1) …ignore/misrepresent science that doesn’t fit in with their theory. A great example of this is Andrew Bolt’s peddling of the infamous 1998 graph - even the slightest bit of research will tell you that the graph is deliberately misleading, yet Bolt continues to parade it as “proof”. Andrew Bolt knows how dubious this evidence is, but his job isn’t to actually disprove global warming - he’ll leave that other people - but instead to poke holes in the evidence. If he can get even a kernel of doubt into people’s minds, he’s done his job.

But the great thing about science is that bad science is disproved by scientists, not by agenda driven bums like Bolt. If global warming can be disproved scientifically - and I pray it will - then it will be done by the scientists. Instead, the evidence for global warming continues to get stronger, and evidence against continues to grow weaker (much like the way the evidence in support of evolution continues to strengthen).

Another great example is the Great Global Warming Swindle. The film is riddled with numerous deficiencies, inaccuracies and falsifications (including invented graphs), but that doesn’t matter to the climate change skeptics denialists who continue to cling to it because its central hypothesis agrees with theirs.

I, on the other hand, don’t pay any attention to documentaries that are so flagrantly inaccurate - even the ones which have a central hypothesis that I agree with. That kind of idiocy has no place in public debate - except as a model of what not to do - because it doesn’t do anyone any favours. TGGWS completely discredited itself, but like Bolt’s writing, its job wasn’t to be accurate. It was to create doubt in people’s minds.

What kind of method is that?

2) …exhibit blind faith. Andrew Bolt’s many followers have shown absolutely no ability to think for themselves. They’ve decided that God created the world in seven days global warming is false, because God Andrew Bolt tells them. And when asked for the evidence, they all turn to the Bible same old rubbish that he is writing. And can’t come up with anything new. Reading Andrew Bolt’s comments section today was to re-read everything he has ever written on the subject of global warming. It’s astounding that people continue to parrot what he writes, even the stuff that has been soundly discredited (for example, the aforementioned 1998 graph).

3) …attempt to discredit scientists. This is a big one, because it is exactly what the creationists try to do. Is it any surprise that it is the scientists standing in the way of mainstream acceptance of what they both believe in? So how do they combat this? By trying to discredit scientists, of course. Over a hundred years since Darwin’s death, the creationists are still doing their darndest to discredit him.

Now, there are many other similarities but I don’t have the time to list them all here. Perhaps you could suggest some in the comments?

So, I am posing some questions to skeptics out there, assuming they are going to bother posting here.

1. Why are you a “skeptic”?

2. Do you agree with Andrew Bolt’s tactics, which I’ve outlined at length above?

3. Do you understand how big oil is actively muddying the debate? Do you agree with these kinds of tactics, and do you think you can get fairer information from oil lobbies than non-partisan scientists?

4. What evidence, if any, would it actually take for you to accept that global warming is man-made? Or are you like AWH, and don’t accept anything because the “leftists” do?

To reiterate, I completely support skepticism, and I think it is healthy, and important. But when does skepticism become denialism?

And why have I written this?

Because I’d like to see if deniers are able to present strong, non-partisan, rhetoric-free reasons for why they believe what they do.

Why do I believe the scientists? Because they present a strong case for man-made global warming, while the denialists continue to present the same shoddy graphs, rhetoric, muddying techniques, conspiracy theories and partisan rubbish. I wish to God that GW was all a myth but, alas, on the whole I’m afraid the evidence points directly to it.

Answer away, and I’m back to ten word posts tomorrow. Promise.

Yesterday Jamaica’s Usain Bolt sprints across the line in 9.71 seconds to break the world 100-metre record … and Melbourne’s Andrew Bolt was even quicker with a wild and wilful misinterpetation of an analogy:

The Bishop [of Stafford] is … arguing that men who imprison and rape their daughters are really no worse than leading scientists who dispute the causes and dangers of global warming, which is further proof that this cleric is as stupid as he is hysterical.

Actually, that wasn’t what his Bishopness was arguing at all. His exact words were that the actions of Austrian incest freak Josef Fritzl “represents merely the most extreme form of a very common philosophy of life: I will do what makes me happy, and if that causes others to suffer, hard luck.” He didn’t liken them at all; he didn’t standardize their actions or use one to absolve the other. Nor did he refer to scientists, as Bolt claims, but rather to the general public. The bishop was simply suggesting that self-serving attitudes result in harm to others, whether on a local or a global scale.

Not so you’d notice from Bolt’s post, seeing how he snipped this quote:

“In fact you could argue that, by our refusal to face the truth about climate change, we are as guilty as he is – we are in effect locking our children and grandchildren into a world with no future and throwing away the key. We are right to be disgusted at these crimes. But mere disgust is too convenient. There are lessons for all of us to learn.”

…down to this…

“In fact you could argue that, by our refusal to face the truth about climate change, we are as guilty as he [Fritzl] is…’’

He also overlooked the fact that the Bishop’s remarks were clearly understood and appreciated by a director of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, a charity that works with victims of child sex abuse. At least someone there is able to read and comprehend an analogy, not jump off the deep end, arms flailing, because if references both kiddy-fiddlers and carbon-squanderers.

Git.

Within three minutes of being asked if I would like to become a regular GrodsCorp contributor, I channelled Woody Allen for help and developed an ulcer in my stomach and called myself a shlemiel.

The pressure was on. The pressure to integrate myself into the GrodsCommunity as a worthy contributor meant that my debut post would have to be original, witty and instantly win the hearts and minds of lefties everywhere and incur the wrath of RWDB elsewhere. It also had to be Sydney-specific, to establish myself as the Sydney correspondent.

What better way to do that than to somehow invoke the gloomy spectres of Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt, I thought first to myself. No, was my immediate second thought. That was too easy. I needed something more illustrious. Something that was not going to sully my inaugural post. But it nevertheless had to be something to cause a widespread outbreak of collective frothing and foaming at the mouths of wingbats everywhere.

As I turned a corner onto Oxford Street in Sydney to a cafe on Thursday afternoon, deeply troubled by my personal circumstances, I was confronted with banners on lamp posts so large that I immediately knew what I was going to write. Only it wasn’t writing so much as pasting an image for all the global warming warmening sceptics out there.

EARTH HOUR banners adorn all of Sydney. OK, just Oxford Street in this instance.

There’s a LOT of them.

Tada. That’s my grand entrance out of the way. Sure, it was original, but the witty part failed miserably (and yes, I’m pre-emptively putting the boot into myself. Must I explain everything?). At least you cannot get any more Sydney than seeing a photo of Oxford Street, Darlinghurst, home to the gay community, kinky adult shops and nude live shows, and a liquor store beautifully named Lick Her Shop.

It’s raining, it’s pouring in Melbourne. Global warming has been definitively debunked.

I guess the wingnuts were right all along: Al Gore is a fatty boombalada.

And who said Australia signing Kyoto wouldn’t put pressure on the US?

I was a bit pissed that I missed The Great Global Warming Swindle on ABC TV the other night while I was overseas but I’ve had a great time reconstructing the doco and the subsequent Tony Jones debate through my blog RSS reader. John Surname has posted a very amusing clip of some crazy dude from the debate on YouTube and even remixed his comments into a funky song.

Check ‘em out.

UPDATE: Make sure you watch the video very carefully at the 50 second mark. The man sitting behind the nutter in the audience is having a big ol’ scratch of his nuts. Top stuff.

Proving yet again that he has no idea what he is talking about, ex-lefty and moron Tim Blair has written yet another ghastly opinion piece in the 100% unbiased Daily Telegraph.

The basic idea behind this waste of ink is surprisingly stupid, even for him. For some reason, he asks us to imagine that various quotes about Global Warming are instead attributed to Islam, where, suddenly, they make sense….or something. It really is a bad idea. The basic feel of the piece is that Tim was sitting up the night before, smoking crack, racking his brains trying to think of something to write. Or maybe it was a bet gone horribly wrong.

Typical stuff really, Sideshow Tim tries to discredit Global Warming using Bolt-style methods, but he does give us some cracker quotes.

There are plenty of reasons why climate changelings overwhelmingly emerge from the left. The main one would be that, having failed to constrain capitalism by any other means, the left now seeks to impose barriers in the name of science (well, almost science; it more closely resembles a type of liberation theology).

Oh yes, that must be it. It’s another evil leftist plot to control the world! More truths of the left!

In fact, the left stands to lose far more, given extreme Islam’s hatred of their pet causes (feminism, gay rights, art, tolerance, music, diversity, everything).

Meaning, of course, that Tim opposes feminism, gay rights, art, tolerance, music, diversity and everything. Maybe Tim should be glad that we on the left want Islam to take over, and Australia to adopt Sharia Law, because he won’t have to put up with any of those horrible things anymore.

Music? Who needs that?
Gay rights? Why do those fags deserve anything?
Diversity? I don’t want a bunch of darkies living in my street!
Tolerance? What’s that?

This has been John Surname, for GrodsCorp - trying to take away your personal freedoms since 2004.

Update - Tim Blair wrote the piece on a plane, which explains the ludicrousness of it. The high altitides had a devestasting effect on his brain.

In the last ten days there’s been so much to blog about but I’ve been locked in a battle between my final university submission due on Tuesday and the new kitten, Napoleon, who is determined to use my keyboard as his personal highway. Let’s do some GrodsNibbles.

1) Lachlan Connor, Independent
We successfully shot six more episodes of LCI: Preston (as Billybob has started to call it) last Saturday, managing to rope in Greeny and a very hesitant mate of J,The’s to fill new roles. J,The’s mate was concerned that he had never acted before and would look a fool. We simply showed him the first six episodes and he felt much better. Because of this uni work the new episodes won’t be edited until next Wednesday (with a massive hangover, I’d wager) so episode seven, due Tuesday, will be delayed a day or two. Tony T. of After Grog Blog will be well pleased with episode seven. Head over and peruse his blog to find out why.

2) Climate change and Howard’s hot air
It’s been interesting to watch the Howard Government desperately scrambling to change their line on global warming over the last couple of weeks. Times like these are a reminder that maybe John Howard’s not such the smooth political operator he’s often painted to be, caught once again in a half-snooze somewhere between public opinion, his personal, outdated ideology, and secret dreams of quiet afternoons at the retirement home in front of the telly with a blankey and a warm malted milk. Unfortunately, I despair that the overwhelming majority of Australians who say they are in favour of moving to renewable energy sources will have a sudden change of heart when threatened with higher energy prices.

3) Victoria Decides ‘07
God, I hate it when the media calls elections “[insert region] Decides ‘[insert year]“. Anyway, the Victorian election is shaping up to be an absolute fizzer in the lower house with the only real question being what minor change will be made to Bracksy’s majority. Ted Baillieu is about as interesting and engaging as… well… something that is really, really uninteresting and unengaging. There was a brilliant story, I think in the paper the other day, where Ted jumped on a train to get to a policy announcement and apologised to some passengers for the media intrusion. A lady said to him, “That’s okay, we’re just trying to figure out who you are.”

Priceless.

The upper house will be interesting to watch with a wide open race for the minor parties and control. I fiercely desire any outcome except for anything to do with Family First. If Steve Fielding’s band of sneaky, duplicitous morons take balance of power I’m moving to Adelaide. At least I can vote for Kate Ellis there.

I love elections and usually get nerdlingerly excited about them but this one mostly makes me want to go back to writing my honours for the 12th hour in a row.

4) $90 million for school chaplains
Attention: Kim Beazley. Your job is to provide voters with an alternative to the government. There is so much wrong with this policy that I thought even a bumbling fool such as yourself couldn’t screw it up. At least you could’ve waited a couple of minutes after Howard announced it to give it your unconditional support. Extra big Christmas card from John and Janette this year, Kimbo.

Following its lawsuit filed against major car manufacturers claiming damages for their products’ contribution towards global warming, California has sued itself for building the infrastructure necessary for those vehicles’ operation. Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger said:

We believe that the combined CO2 emissions from the vehicles sold by these companies have significantly added to total global warming and have subsequently affected Californians’ way of life. Therefore, they’re sued. But we must consider the fact that it was this government that built world-class freeways and other road infrastructure, without which many of these cars would never have driven a mile. Therefore, we’re sued.

Global warming: terminated.