Anthony Watt’s blog Watt’s Up With That featured a guest post by Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, on 24 February 2010. A link is in the references section at the end.
Her post is a clever piece of propaganda, clad as a sweetness-and-light approach to skeptics. Makes a change from all-out attack, I suppose. She starts with a blurb about how Climategate and subsequent revelations of IPCC advocacy have led to a loss of public trust. She goes on with her own “history” of Climate Change opposition, casting aspersions on its origins. It’s a very long posting.
As one who is encouraged by the growing number of people who distrust Climate Change science, I was stunned by the number of responses to her post that took this lady seriously. However, a few of them saw the real point of her guest post, which is revealed in this extract:
“The failure of the public and policy makers to understand the truth as presented by the IPCC is often blamed on difficulties of communicating such a complex topic to a relatively uneducated public that is referred to as “unscientific America” by Chris Mooney.”
Says it all, really. Her real position is that the truth of the IPCC’s conclusions is not even in question! We, poor dumb-arsed people simply don’t understand it because the IPCC lack communication skills! So she appeals to skeptics for more understanding to bridge the gap.
The IPCC’s conclusions are not truths or even approximations. The best of them are wild exaggerations. The worst are simply false. And Anthropogenic Global Warming, the major position of the IPCC, is utterly unproven. When pressed for the evidence, all we get is argument from ignorance. “We can’t explain it if we discount man-made CO2 from our models, so therefore that’s the cause”.
Climate research can only earn credibility by being scientific. If that happens, then trust will follow.
Any attempt to build trust in Climate Research while it remains fundamentally untrustworthy is despicable.