Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. blog comments powered by Disqus

Calgary Crazies hijack local Newspaper

Edmonton Journal columnist Graham Thomson published a rather insightful article on the recent political attacks on climatologists in the Calgary Herald (25 May 2010). Two days later, the Calgary Herald prints two angry letters by coordinated climate change deniers. These letter-to-the-editor scientists repeat the zombie arguments and hollow statements of the Friends of Science as part of their network’s echo chamber: Hot air believed to turn into fact by repetition. Extreme political Ideology wrapped in fact-free pseudo-skepticism.

We wonder why the Calgary Herald grants overrepresentation to such cultists that take an extreme partisan stand on climate science and that constitute only a small minority of the Alberta population and close to zero percent of the world’s population affected by global warming. This creates a false, non-existing balance and gives these neanderthals undeserved publicity, which supports their agenda. In reality,
97% of publishing climatologists consent on the fact the Global Warming is real and manmade. This consensus is not based on beer-table opinion however on numerous disparate lines of evidence consolidated over decades of research. Every year, several thousand of peer-reviewed climatology articles are added to the broad body of science. The Calgary Herald, by printing the creationist denier barkings, also does injustice to Graham Thomson and the quality of his article - and questions its own credibility.

FoGT analyses both letters in the following!


The letter [not petition] published in Science (7 May 2010) was signed by 255 members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel prize winners.

Weirdo Bill Chestnut claims that 15 minutes of (faith-based) research is enough to demonstrate...he dismisses the large body of peer-reviewed literature, which he does not know. This reflects his ignorance and
removes all facts from the equation.

Weirdo Chestnut considers the 255 members unqualified...first of all, what are weirdo Chestnut’s scientific qualifications to dismiss decades of climate research in 15 minutes? Why does he not protest the denial columns by CanWest’s opinion writer
Lorne Gunter? Why does he not protest the pseudoscientific sputa of fake-expert Lord Monckton, a charlatan that holds an undergraduate degree in journalism? Because both agree with his political agenda - classic cherry picking and hypocrisy. And in stark contrast to his fruit-fly scientists, both gentlemen have not demonstrated the ability to perform scientific work.

More cherrypicking: “I looked up the qualifications of a number of” [but not all] his sample may not be/likely is not representative. He then goes on that there is not a single climatologist amongst can he know this when he has not checked everybody [another classic denier’s scheme: lack of fact-checking...also referred to as lack of rigour] - ignorance works in a debate but not in peer-review.

What Chestnut also holds back is that the signed letter was explicitly referring to attacks against ALL scientists, not only to climate scientists.

Weirdo Chestnut considers the following spin-doctoring and prejudical opinion - without giving a single fact.
From the letter in question:”.
..Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling.”
We consider this conspiracy thinking as absurd paranoia of cultist dimensions.

Weirdo Chestnut continues the deniers’ attack tradition the scientists denounce in their letter:
“...We also call for an end to McCarthy- like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them.”

We are at a loss how weirdoes and rabbit brains such as the Friends of Science can be a non-profit organization, donations to which are a tax write-off.


Well, first of all, the MWP was a REGIONAL event, not a GLOBAL one [for the Friends of Science: it constituted a regional temperature anomaly and not a global one]. In fact, during the middle ages, while some North Atlantic regions were warmer, the world as a whole was cooler than today. This was published in Science (Mann et al. 2009). More reconstructions are summarized for example in the IPCC reports and on the NOAA website.

So the published data crazy Lorne H. Reed demands are ubiquitous. But we wonder about the peer-reviewed publications that support crazy Reed’s fairytale of a global medieval warm age, as claimed.
Second, the only (however regional) graph that shows T-change deniers like crazy Reed harp on, ranges from the MWP to 1905, but not to now. There has been a huge increase in T-anomaly since then.

And now to crazy Reed’s next, faith-based claim
‘Man’s production of carbon dioxide does not significantly affect global temperature.’
Again, it carries the handwriting of the Friends of Science. A recent
audio file exists on that one - very entertaining is the discussion following the talk: runs very well in iTunes!

We conclude:
The letter scientist Reed
cannot does not elect to distinguish REGIONAL from GLOBAL in order to cause confusion and take away from the credibility of the broad body of science.
Just like weirdo Chestnut, this letter scientist argues from a position of ignorance - he does not know the peer-reviewed literature - and celebrates this handicap.
The letter scientist only attempts to attract publicity for his political agenda but does not care about facts.

The letter scientist is advised to submit his ideas to a peer-review journal to get some credibility.

Infinitus est numerus stultorum!