Re: [asa] Confirmation bias among GW dissenters, but ...

From: John Burgeson (ASA member) <>
Date: Mon Apr 27 2009 - 15:56:00 EDT

The report Fred is talking about is easily googled. Fred failed to
give a citation, which is a common (but reprehensible) tactic of many
in the anti-IPCC crowd.

The researchers in this case, Tsonis and Swanson, have said publically
that their work is being seriously mis-interpreted.

Also, a spokesman for the libertarian Cato Institute said the
organization is using the work of Swanson and Tsonis to buttress
claims in an upcoming advertisement that says scientific debate over
global warming is not settled. Apparently, scientific integrity is not
a foundational principle of this particular organization.

A link to one news report on this is at

There are others.

It does the anti-IPCC crowd no good to lie. It reminds me of some of
the ICR tactics in the past.


On 4/27/09, <> wrote:
> The two things I know for sure about global warming are that it’s on the
> minds of the educated public as a major problem demanding action, and that
> there’s a large element of Christian conservatives who only take seriously
> the evidence against it. How seriously can I take the following claims that
> “there has been no global warming for at least a decade,” and “we are in a
> cooling trend” that is predicted to last another 20 or 30 years?
> Fred
> Typical excerpt from a recent GW dissenter's mass email:
> UK’s Christopher Monckton is a former science advisor to the Prime Minister.
> He was invited by the Republicans to speak after Al Gore’s testimony about
> “Global Warming” last week. But at the last minute the Democrat majority
> cancelled his appearance. No dissenting voice was to be permitted on Earth
> Day. Monckton said,
> “Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade.
> Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling. Waxman
> knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore's
> mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, 'the Armageddon
> scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view”.
> The truth is, C02 is not enough of a tail to wag the climate dog. “Green
> House Gases” are abundant in our atmosphere, the greatest is water vapor.
> But there are many other factors to climate that together far outweigh any
> C02 effect (not the least of which is cyclical changes in the Sun). Two
> months ago the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, released an in-depth
> study on Global Warming. If any institution “wanted” there to be evidence
> for global warming, this the one. Yet their report admitted we are in a
> cooling trend, and further predicted that it will last another 20 to 30
> years. They then claimed that after 30 years of cooling, global warming
> would come back with a vengeance! But the truth is we’re cooling now, the
> models predicting warming have been falsified, and these folks haven’t a
> clue as to what the climate will be doing 3 decades from now.
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with "unsubscribe
> asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 27 15:56:36 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 27 2009 - 15:56:36 EDT