What do you think of this admission by a leading global warming 'skeptic'?

>>"We skeptics are in a war of credibility with the western climate establishment,<<

So, he begins even with a half truth. Deniers are at war with the world’s (western + eastern) climate science community.

>>…with lots of pictures and a minimum of text and details…<<

Scientific illustrations are used to simplify text. However, if you do not understand the relevant concepts, you cannot understand their graphical representation. This is a clear attempt to give the illusion of sight to the blind and speech to the dumb.

The tactic will not work among educated and knowledgeable people - but that is not its intention. It is meant only to convince the un– and under–educated demographic.

The whole thing is consistent with the modern conservative war against education and science. Stupidity is the fuel that drives the conservative political machine and this is just another PR campaign to recruit more stupid people into the fold.

This irresponsible schemer has been debunked for not getting his facts straight on his paper.

These people are running out of scientific facts to back up their argument so now the only option left is to make their own facts up as they go along.

Their days are numbered and once the truth reaches critical mass, these people will also have to concede that they were wrong and must apologize for deliberate omission of facts and skewing of their reports.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if he wasn't in anyway associated with a corporate interest group that funds such rubbish like reports with just as rubbish like individuals self impressed with their titles being irresponsibly and criminally stifling this all too critical issue that needs to be addressed with honesty and integrity.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/10/dr-david-eva...

Attacking scientists credibility is irresponsible and dangerous. One need only look at the pain, suffering and disease cause by parents being mislead by bad pseudoscience on the internet regarding vaccines. Many cases of decease were cause by people out to discredit real scientists who publish in real journals.

A better approach for Evens would just be to find a natural cause for the warming. He's guessed at gamma rays affecting clouds, so do some research or at least publicize what has been done. Scientific review and critique the works of Harries, Chen et al. Review or replicate that work and publish it if it shows something different. A real scientist with something to share can share it. Attacking others outside of the journals is politics not science.

But it is telling that he sees the need to take his case to stupid and uneducated people, but more educated people can follow the real science. Deniers should really consider that: why is it that he feels he has to talk down to dummies in order to get an audience?

Given the commercial of London underwater, the blatant lies told by Gore, the constant scare-mongering by the warmers including an "uninhabitable earth" and sea rises in the meters, I would say that warmers did it first.

That being said,

Clearly this is not a good solution and just reduces the entire AGW debate to nothing more that a war of catch-phrases. What is truly needed is some understanding on both sides. There are many methods of reducing CO2 emissions that would be supported by both parties. There are many things in which agreement can be reached. I think even most skeptics acknowledge that reducing our CO2 output would not be a bad thing to do. It is like the old pro-choice/pro-life debates. If they spent half as much time working on what they could agree on, teenage pregnancy being a problem, then they would have reduced the entire need for the debate.

Take the carbon tax. How much easier would it be for repubs to support a tax on CO2 if it came with a tax reduction on income tax? How much easier would it be for repubs to support a bill which furthered nuclear power? How much easier would it be to support a bill that gets us off of foreign oil and thereby increases national security instead of one that uses govt intervention to control CO2 emissions?

Funny thing is, I get the impression that you still just want to fight. You have already lost the battle with the methods you endorsed. A change of tactics may be in order.

Linlyons,

Come on now, We are killing mother earth is a pretty compelling catch phrase to the lay person who thinks that Ozone layer depletion is caused by CO2 emissions. Don't act as if the warmer side has not done the same reduction of information into wholly inaccurate sound bites. Both sides have.

Dana,

To further what was said by Alter Ego, I am not a republican, I am a moderate. The entirety of who is in power is not controlled by the dems or the repubs, it is controlled by the moderates. It is the moderates, that my suggestions really appeal to. If the repubs know that the moderate support will go towards this, so will they. It is only by keeping this issue as a completely devisive partisan issue that there is no hope of any change. We have all seen this loud shouting on both sides before. It always leads to either very slow or no change. You of all people should understand that your side has made little to no progress from this and that the near stalemate of the situation has been the cause. You have mentioned many times how little has been done by the US. You should also be able to recognize that fighting for something that only ~50% (note this fluctuates greatly depending on the questions asked and the timing) believe in will always be difficult. A stalemate in this case is truly a loss on your side.

Um, hate to say this Dana, but Industry has been working on solutions to our energy needs. Take for example, ExxonMobil who is working on algae to create a new source for fuel while using the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. How about the other power product companies that are working on carbon capture? How about the fact that vehicles are increasingly getting better mileage?

I could go on, but you only care about change happening now whether the replacement sources are proven or not. Did you know that the solar farm in Australia in the outback creates such a large up draft that planes have to fly around this area? Did you also now that it is usually the environmentalists that block most new forms of energy no matter what the source or if it is green or not?

lordy, he's a bloody politician.

the sad truth is that, other than his stance on global warming, he's pretty accurate.

far to many folks have short attention spans, and cannot maintain focus through a long argument.

Wow. It's hard to take someone seriously when he makes statements like "It omits lots of relevant facts and is excruciatingly economical with words simply because the lay person has a very short attention span for climate arguments," though perhaps he meant it with a different inflection than what seems natural for me to add to it as I read.

Are you absolutely sure this man's not a Poe?

>>>So you're calling anyone who doesn't agree with your view stupid?

No, that's not what Dana said. It seems from the article that that niche is already filled.

Great, here come more armchair scientists.

"To win the political aspect of the climate debate, we have to lower the western climate establishment's credibility with the lay person."

...

I'm just not sure what to say. Why can't they attack the policy they disagree with, not the scientists.

Oh! No! Climate deniers lie! Actually, I am not surprised and I have written a blog on this very subject.

http://kingsgreenpad.ca/?p=1527

edit for JIm z

"These sorts of distortion go unchallendged by the press and constantly spouted by alarmists without any shame.

"Evans efforts are worthwhile and justified IMO. Facts are stubborn things but sometimes they need a little nudging."

Lying is OK, as long as kit serves Mr. z's gods; oil, coal and SUVs. Such hypocracy.

So you're calling anyone who doesn't agree with your view stupid? Isn't that a bit close-minded?

EDIT: Dana, I agree with both you and Expeller on the idea of working together, but have to disagree with your partisan retort. I think you would be surprised at how open minded skeptics and those "Evil Republicans" would be if things were handled differently. People don’t respond well to fear mongering, and perceive alarmist’s rhetoric and doomsday scenarios as irrational exaggerations. And they really don’t like big government or the (false) notion that Capitalism has to end to have a clean planet.

As a skeptic I don’t have anything against sensible CO2 reductions from the perspective that it can’t hurt. I’m also in favor of clean energy, particularly nuclear. Yet it has been environmentalists that have blocked nuclear, which is the best source of large scale clean energy. This is what makes the average person view them as uncompromising kooks, and evidence that they don’t want to work together. Call me old-fashioned, but I still believe that free market solutions always work out better than any government solution.

To get back on topic though, these tactics you mention have been used by both sides, and quite successfully, although that doesn’t make it right. And unfortunately it contributes nothing to solutions.

EDIT for jyushchyshyn: re. lying, do you mean like:

“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”

- Prof. Chris Folland,

Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

or

“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”

- Dr David Frame,

climate modeler, Oxford University

or

"I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."

- Al Gore,

Climate Change activist

or

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."

- Paul Watson,

co-founder of Greenpeace

or

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."

- emeritus professor Daniel Botkin