“Climate Craziness of the Week – New Scientist: The Denial Depot Edition“. New Scientist has printed a number of articles about “denialism”. Anthony Watts thinks it’s a “sanctioned hatefest” and that New Scientist is now “nothing more that a political science mouthpiece.” Anthony makes sure his readers can get to the articles and bombard the comments.
Why are any articles critical of climate change denial proof that the publication is corrupt, while supportive articles are always evidence of courageous reporting. Confirmation bias is a funny thing.
So why do so many people refuse to accept the evidence? What are the clear lines between scepticism and denial? How does denialism satisfy deep emotional needs? Do smokescreens really work wonders for big business? Is it easy to send a lie flying around the world, and almost impossible to shoot it down? Must we let denialists be heard, and respond with patience, vigilance and tireless rebuttal? Is calling an opponent a denier is illiberal, intolerant and ineffective?
That’s some uncomfortable reading there Anthony. Unless you can convince yourself to dismiss it as a “hatefest”.
Wott's Up With That? 
Anthony and his followers have an involuntary reflex action to the word “denier,” as they accuse anyone who applies that word to them as comparing them to holocaust deniers. Of course, no one ever mentions the holocaust. It’s nothing but wordplay to them, which they use to avoid addressing the science. You cannot go through a scientific conversation with any of these people without them shifting the argument to the choice of words you use. Every time I have tried, just one little slip in the conversation from your side, no matter how trivial, and that’s all they talk about after that. The science conversation is then over. You’re accused of making a comparison that you never did.
They claim to be “skeptics” but never seems to be skeptical of the pseudo-science they cite that cannot get published. Meanwhile, they are instinctively skeptical of any published scientific literature that doesn’t meet their pseudo-science standards.
[It’s a convenient escape hatch for them, isn’t it? – Ben]
I just left a comment at that article on WWUT. Be interesting to see the response, or if it gets censored. It’s awaiting moderation.
Here’s what I posted.
“tired old comparisons of today’s skeptical public to tobacco industry campaigns”
More than true comparisons, they are often the same people. And these 32 organizations who have helped deny the science of tobacoo dangers, and now the science of climate change.
1. Acton Institute
2. American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
3. Alexis de Tocquerville Institute
4. American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
5. Americans for Prosperity
6. Atlas Economic Research Foundation
7. Burson-Marsteller (PR firm)
8. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW)
9. Cato Institute
10. Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)
11. Consumer Alert
12. DCI Group (PR firm)
13. European Science and Environment Forum
14. Fraser Institute
15. Frontiers of Freedom
16. George C. Marshall Institute
17. Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
18. Heartland Institute
19. Heritage Foundation
20. Independent Institute
21. International Center for a Scientific Ecology
22. International Policy Network
23. John Locke Foundation
24. Junk Science
25. National Center for Public Policy Research
26. National Journalism Center
27. National Legal Center for the Public Interest (NLCPI)
28. Pacific Research Institute
29. Reason Foundation
30. Small Business Survival Committee
31. The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)
32. Washington Legal Foundation