I’ve been largely staying out of the blog wars, but thought I might delve back in for a while and highlight a relatively new venture in climate “skepticism”. It’s a blog called Climate Skepticism and is run by a number of the more prominent UK-based (or mainly UK-based) climate “skeptics”. Okay, maybe they’re aren’t that prominent, but they seem quite vocal and are certainly some of the more prominent UK-based “skeptical” voices on social media.
I thought I would highlight some of their more recent articles. They discussed our new Consensus on Consensus paper in a post titled Cook and Lewandowsky tell the truth, but that is accompanied, on their homepage, by a doctored image of Stephan Lewandowsky and John Cook with their pants on fire. They then have an article about one of the co-authors of our consensus paper called dog bites man: climate careerist in bald faced lie shocka. Apparently this person said something in an interview that illustrates that they don’t know how science works and hence shows that they are a f**cking fraud. I actually asked in the comments if all those associated with the site where happy with the tenor of this post. Apparently they all were; proud even.
This then lead to me getting my own post called to whom it may appall, because I called the earlier post “appalling”. Apparently I said something stupid a few years ago on another blog, and this then makes me a failed w**nker. Charming. The piece de resistance, however, is a post where they discuss how Katharine Hayhoe is trying to connect. Katharine Hayhoe apparently says that she is trying to connect with the very people who most doubt her research. However, she has also blocked a number of the people who are associated with this new venture. This apparently makes Katharine Hayhoe a dishonest, hypocritical, liar. This is despite the fact that the claim that she is trying to connect with her doubters, comes from the summary of an article about her; it doesn’t appear to be something that she has ever actually said.
So, I must admit that I’m quite pleased that I’ve blocked – on Twitter – a number of those associated with this site, and banned some from here. I’d be pretty happy – given the chance – to ban and block the lot of them. If this is the calibre of climate “skepticism” in the UK, it would seem best ignored.
I’ll finish by mentioning that I was commenting today on Lucia’s blog and noticed that some were complaining about how I run this blog and that I also block some people on Twitter. I can only really speak for myself, but I do quite enjoy discussing science with other people. I especially enjoy discussing science with the general public, and learn quite a lot doing so. However, I’m not a politician, or a public servant, or a salesperson, so I don’t have to put up with people who can’t bother even trying to be civil. The same applies – I suspect – to many other scientists who choose to engage publicly. If some would like to engage with scientists on social media, but get upset if they get moderated on blogs, or blocked on Twitter, maybe they should try harder to be more civil.
I’ll stop there, but I will add that I didn’t write this so that we can all pile on to a bunch of UK-based climate “skeptics” who seem to think that their new Climate “Skepticism” site is something of which to be proud. I think I mainly wrote it for the record; to illustrate what one has to put up with if one decides to engage publicly in what is clearly a contentious topic. A few years ago I would have been utterly flabergasted that anyone could write posts such as those on Climate Skepticism. Now it barely raises my eyebrows. I find that a little disappointing, to be quite honest.