{"id":498,"date":"2007-11-13T14:07:30","date_gmt":"2007-11-13T19:07:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/archives\/2007\/11\/bbc-contrarian-top-10\/"},"modified":"2007-12-26T17:17:21","modified_gmt":"2007-12-26T22:17:21","slug":"bbc-contrarian-top-10","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/archives\/2007\/11\/bbc-contrarian-top-10\/","title":{"rendered":"BBC contrarian top 10"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

There is an interesting, if predictable, piece<\/a> up on the BBC website devoted to investigating whether there is any ‘consensus’ among the various contrarians on why climate change isn’t happening (or if it is, it isn’t caused by human activity or if it is why it won’t be important, or if it is important, why nothing can be done etc.). Bottom line? The only thing they appear to agree about is that nothing should be done, but they have a multitude of conflicting reasons why. Hmm… <\/p>\n

The journalist, Richard Black, put together a top 10 list<\/a> of sceptic arguments he gathered from emailing the 61 signers of a Canadian letter<\/a>. While these aren’t any different in substance to the ones routinely debunked here (and here<\/a> and here<\/a>), this list comes with the imprimatur of Fred Singer – the godfather to the sceptic movement, and recent convert from the view that it’s been cooling since 1940 to the idea that global warming is now unstoppable<\/a>. Thus these are the arguments (supposedly) that are the best that the contrarians have to put forward. <\/p>\n

Alongside each of these talking points, is a counter-point from the mainstream (full disclosure, I helped Richard edit some of those). In truth though, I was a little disappointed at how lame their ‘top 10’ arguments were. In order, they are: false, a cherry pick, a red herring, false, false, false, a red herring, a red herring, false and a strawman. They even used the ‘grapes grew in medieval England’ meme that you’d think they’d have abandoned already given that more grapes are grown in England now than ever before (see here<\/a>). Another commonplace untruth is the claim that water vapour is ‘98% of the greenhouse effect’ – it’s just not<\/a>. <\/p>\n

So why do the contrarians still use arguments that are blatantly false? I think the most obvious reason is that they are simply not interested (as a whole) in providing a coherent counter story. If science has one overriding principle, it is that you should adjust your thinking in the light of new information and discoveries – the contrarians continued use of old, tired and discredited arguments demonstrates their divorce from the scientific process more clearly than any densely argued rebuttal. <\/p>\n\n<\/div> ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There is an interesting, if predictable, piece up on the BBC website devoted to investigating whether there is any ‘consensus’ among the various contrarians on why climate change isn’t happening (or if it is, it isn’t caused by human activity or if it is why it won’t be important, or if it is important, why […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-498","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-climate-science","category-reporting-on-climate","entry"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t