Recycled Chum aka Denier Bait

by Susan, The Policy Lass, November 22, 2011

It’s deja vu all over again in the climate denialosphere.

Perhaps you, like me, have this very strong feeling that we’ve been here, done this, read the emails, saw the inquiry reports and realized it was all just a bunch of climate chum meant to confuse the issue and cast suspicion over the science to protect the interests of a select few among the 1% who reject regulation of their industries and their paid and/or intellectual lackeys who, while they may not benefit directly in bribes from continued burning of fossil fuels, are ideologically or politically biased…

So, more of the hacked emails are being circulated, with the usual bits and bobs cherry-picked to try to mislead the unsuspecting or credulous into thinking there is no global warming, no anthropogenic cause, and nothing to worry about — all of this due to selectively snipped emails that are taken out of context.

In other words, just more denier bait.

I’m shocked — shocked and appalled to my very foundations that scientists might express disdain for the work of their colleagues, question the value of data and methods, and disagree on what data means and how to present it!

I thought that they were just a great big happy family! Imagine my utter dejection at realizing that there are disagreements and debates between scientists when preparing their work for publication!

Wait a minute — we, the public, only see the end product of science and the scientific process. We see the papers after they’ve been published, after they’ve been written and edited and reviewed by peers, after the data has been collected and processed and analyzed, debated over, shared amongst colleagues, after the experiments and field work has been done, and after the first gleam starts to glow in the scientist’s eye as s/he considers what to study.

We never see inside the process and it surprises some that scientists are, well, dare I write the words — human? With biting wit, ungenerous comments, snide asides? Who are concerned about their work being misrepresented by vested interests and hope to ensure that the real seriousness of their findings is conveyed to the public?

I’d like to see the thousands of emails between McIntyre, McKittrick and their ilk on their process and thoughts over the years. And while we’re at it, why not all the emails by the various denier news media types as they discussed story topics? And how about and all those paid shills from the fossil fuel industry and PR corporations? And how about EXXON Mobile’s emails discussing strategy on how to delay climate legislation to regulate their industry?

In the end, there have been eight inquiries into the conduct of climate science and climate scientists and none have found academic misconduct.

More and more we see stronger evidence of the threat to the global climate from continuing the current rate of fossil fuel emissions.

Nothing in this newest pail of denier bait changes the science. None of it questions BEST or the other temperature records.

Ultimately, there is one take-home thought I have about the current release of this recycled chum — there can’t possibly be any link between the release of this rehashed second-tier denier bait and the talks in South Africa?

Oh, no! That would be a crass and cynical manipulation of a the whole process!

For more on this, see the following:

Leo Hickman: The Guardian

Kate Sheppard: Mother Jones

Shawn Otto: Neorenaissance

Jocelyn Fong: Media Matters

Scott Brophy: Say What?

Richard Littlemore: DeSmogBlog

Shawn Otto at The Huffington Post

Get Energy Smart Now

Joe Romm at Think Progress

Peter Sinclair – Climate Crock of the Week