'Climate change sceptics have smaller members, uglier wives, dumber kids' says new study made up by warmists

Are there really no depths to which ManBearPig-worshippers will not stoop in order to shore up their intellectually, morally and scientifically bankrupt cause?

Apparently not, as we see from the latest “study” – based on a petty, spiteful, Stasi-like blacklist produced by an obscure Canadian warmist – outrageously aggrandised by being published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

The study examined 1,372 scientists who had taken part in reviews of climate science or had put their name to statements regarding the key findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Scientists were grouped as “convinced” or “unconvinced”, and researchers examined how many times they had published papers on the climate.

The results showed that “unconvinced” scientists accounted for just three of the 100 most prolific authors on the subject, while papers by “convinced” scientists were more frequently cited in other research.

Well, no s***, Sherlock. And might this have anything to do, perchance, with the fact that – as the Climategate emails made abundantly clear – “unconvinced” scientists were deliberately shut out of the peer-review process by the “convinced” ones?

And how many scientists, with bachelor of science degrees or higher, have signed the Oregon Petition expressing doubts about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)? 31,000 plus.

And how many of the supposed 2500 climate scientists responsible for the IPCC “consensus” were actively involved in the sections to do with AGW? 53.

And how many scientists does it require to successfully falsify – ie prove wrong – a shabby, tired old theory like “Phlogiston”, or “Geocentrism”, or “Dangerous, unprecedented Man Made Global Warming?” One.

But guess how BBC Radio 4 reported the story this morning? Yep. “98 per cent of scientists support global warming theory.” (Hat tip: Nick Mabbs)

Then again, since when did we expect any kind of honesty or decency from the Warmists? Have a look, for example, at this great analysis by the National Post’s Lawrence Solomon on how Warmist propagandists are using their useful idiots in the MSM to exaggerate the level of public credulousness in AGW.

In a New York Times op-ed, which has been much crowed-over by warmists, a Stanford university professor called Krosnick argued that – contrary to the impression given by every other opinion poll in the last three years – the majority of the US public is fully behind measures to ruin their economy in the name of combatting climate change.

In our survey, which was financed by a grant to Stanford from the National Science Foundation, 1,000 randomly selected American adults were interviewed by phone between June 1 and Monday. When respondents were asked if they thought that the earth’s temperature probably had been heating up over the last 100 years, 74 percent answered affirmatively. And 75 percent of respondents said that human behavior was substantially responsible for any warming that has occurred.

For many issues, any such consensus about the existence of a problem quickly falls apart when the conversation turns to carrying out specific solutions that will be costly. But not so here.

Fully 86 percent of our respondents said they wanted the federal government to limit the amount of air pollution that businesses emit, and 76 percent favored government limiting business’s emissions of greenhouse gases in particular. Not a majority of 55 or 60 percent — but 76 percent.

Solomon explains here how Krosnick rigs his questions in order to “hide the decline” in public support for AGW lunacy.

The best question of all, Krosnick found, came from adding an assumption of pessimism:” What do you think will be the most serious problem facing the world in the future if nothing is done to stop it?” When put this way, 25% of the public responded with “Global warming/the environment.” Krosnick doesn’t tell us how many of that 25% choose global warming versus the myriad of other environmental issues, such as air pollution, food and drinking water safety, wildlife and species protection, farmland or woodlands protection.

Krosnick recommends that pollsters ask his 25% question, believing it will obtain a result more useful for policy makers. He also chastises the press for interviewing global warming sceptics along with global warming advocates, saying this creates in the public mind the impression that the science is not settled on global warming. 6% of articles on global warming last year included the views of sceptics, a percentage Krosnick evidently views as too high.

Krosnick gets different results than other pollsters do by asking questions that some might consider bizarre. For example, when people told him that they didn’t believe global warming was happening, he asked them to pretend they did by asking them, “Assuming that global warming is happening, do you think a rise in the world’s temperature would be caused mostly by things people do, mostly by natural causes, or about equally by things people do and by natural causes? He then lumped the pretend response from people who don’t believe in global warming with a similar question asked of people who weren’t pretending about their belief in global warming. The result of the merger of these two groups was: 30% blame global warming on humans, 25% blame global warming on natural causes, and 45% believe humans and natural causes are about equally to blame. In the New York Times oped, Krosnick summarized this finding by pretenders and believers as “75% of respondents said that human behaviour was substantially responsible for any warming that has occurred,” even though many of those 75% didn’t believe that global warming was happening at all.

So when dealing with the Warmist lobby, always remember these helpful tips: sup with a long spoon, know that they’re lying from the fact that their lips are moving, and when they leave, make sure to count your fingers and your silverware.

9 thoughts on “'Climate change sceptics have smaller members, uglier wives, dumber kids' says new study made up by warmists”

  1. Goodness me Delingpole, what a load of absolute clap-trap, what has any persons physique got to do with AGW. You’re pathetic, I’m wondering to myself, have you stopped wetting the bed yet, were you bullied at school? What is it that drives your tangled little mind to resort to spiteful name calling and emotive outbursts.

    Could it be your AGW denial just isn’t working, that the majority of sensible open mined people know full well you are telling them crap.

    Regarding the Oregon Petition, when did Snow White get her degree, was it before or after Elvis Presly got his? And of course, the buring question, how much were they paid to add their names to this concocted list.

  2. Apparently sceptics have body odour issues and may have sisters with questionable morals. Right about the smaller members though.

    Looking forward to your take on Torpnto G20 developments.

  3. During one ambush at my work premises (by a rag tag bunch calling themselves ‘RisingTide’) I was on the receiving end of a tirade of spittle flecked invective from a screaming harpie in hessian. This was carried out under the nose of one of Her Majesty’s finest Plod, presumably in the hope that I would land a fourpenny one on her in retaliation and then be carted off the Black Maria with the eco warriors’ shutters clicking and camcorders whirring in self justification. In the absence of a suitably aggressive counter from my side, the patchouli scented lovely rounded off her monologue with the thrust “you are a horrible, fat, ugly person aren’t you?” To which I replied, “Tell me something I don’t know” and left her to restrained by the aforementioned guardian of the law.
    Small victories, small victories…

  4. “Climate change sceptics have smaller members, uglier wives, dumber kids’ says new study made up by warmists” – good title!

    Is the same also true for UKIP supporters? They are also “envirosceptic.” or is another study in the offing?

    Surely the argument is “why warmists and non warmists are so rude to each other?”

  5. “Patrickdj says:
    June 23, 2010 at 11:37 pm

    Goodness me Delingpole, what a load of absolute clap-trap, what has any persons physique got to do with AGW. You’re pathetic, I’m wondering to myself, have you stopped wetting the bed yet, were you bullied at school? What is it that drives your tangled little mind to resort to spiteful name calling and emotive outbursts.

    Could it be your AGW denial just isn’t working, that the majority of sensible open mined people know full well you are telling them crap.
    -snip-”

    I think you missed the point entirely, Patrickdj, it is the warmists who have levelled those ridiculous accusations and insults at the Realists in the climate debate. It is called an “ad-hominem” attack, and is used when a warmist cannot argue with a realists position so they try and insult the Realist in an attempt to undermine their position. This is not working. And why? because the warmists have lost the argument, it is the theory of AGW that just isn’t working and it’s eco followers that are in denial.

    And I’d rather have Snow White and Elvis on our side than Paul McCartney, Prince Charles and Al gore!

  6. The opposite side of this coin is that, having asked on hundreds of sites, with thousands of alarmist readers, for anybody to name 2 prominent scientists who aren’t funded by government who have said catastrophic warming is real my research has found that no one person has been able to do so. The environment editor of the Independent was able to name one – Professor James Lovelock – & somebody on a site in South Africa was able to name one – Professor James Lovelocj – and that is it. Lovelock has, since the emails came out, largely changed his mind saying that only the sceptics have kept the subject “sane” so that leaves none.

    I regard it as infinitely more important that the common factor in supporters of alarmism is in not primarily their prominence (whether such prominence is a result or cause of them embracing alarmism) but the fact that they are paid by government. The subset of scientists who don’t work for government is considerably larger than the subset of those who do. If it is impossible to name a single member of that group who support catastrophic warming then, by definition, there is no consensus across the whole group. More worryingly that correlation makes it statistically impossible for alarmism to be anything but a government propaganda project because The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”(Henry Louis Mencken).

    As worrying for a free society is the fact that though the spurious government funded NAS research (spurious because it says nothing about the competence of the scientists but is simply a measure of media control) has had substantial coverage by the same media whereas my research (self funded but not as obviously slanted as their’s though granted not so expensively presented) has only been mentioned in 1 newspaper.

  7. James, in your latest DT post you object to the imputation that you believe all “climate science” is a con. You point to Lindzen and Singer as “climate scientists” who dispute CAGW. Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist and Singer an atmospheric physicist. Each may in recent years have been called a “climate scientist”, and they may have acquiesced, but I doubt that in future either they or many like them will be keen to answer to such a discredited moniker. When I were a lad, there were meteorologists, climatologists, etc, no “climate scientists”. “Climate science” is a soft science field invented by CAGW believers for second-rate practitioners of the “hard” sciences attracted by its lack of rigour. It is a field where peer-review has been replaced by “cheer”-review, permitting wilful neglect of the null hypothesis to persist, leading to the cacade of error with which we are now familiar.

    It IS a con.

    🙂

Comments are closed.