Climate Debate Daily: Pluperfect Rubbish

Wed, 2008-04-23 16:13Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Climate Debate Daily: Pluperfect Rubbish

The top link on the energy industry lobby site, International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), points eagerly to another promoter of scientific doubt, a site called Climate Debate Daily (CDD).

According to the Times Online, the CDD “rounds up news and gives equal voice to the dissenters and the activists and as such is a great place to go for varying interpretations of the latest happenings.”

This is rubbish or, in the deathless prose of one of CDD's editor's “pluperfect rubbish.” CDD clearly exists not to resolve the “debate” about global warming, but to encourage the notion that a legitimate argument actually exists.

The aforementioned editor is Denis Dutton, whose very readable blog includes the runaway horse graphic inset. In the CDD website, Dutton, an Associate Professor of Philosophy, pronounces himself “skeptical” of global warming.

You would think that a highly intelligent individual who was truly skeptical of something that could change forever the shape of the planet might follow up with a round of reading - with a legitimate attempt to access the best scientific sources and to resolve the doubts in his own mind. Dutton, instead, rounded up funding from a wealthy (and “skeptical”) friend and started a website - that just happens now to be the darling of the denier crowd.

Dutton himself is whithering in the face of information that he finds hard to swallow. In a very entertaining post on the fraudulent efforts of the “great” pianist Joyce Hatto, Dutton dismisses the excuses of her husband and partner as “a farrago of nonsense.” The idea that Hatto was not involved in misrepresenting her life's work is, Dutton says, “a palpable absurdity.”

He says worse of Hatto, probably with just cause, but I'll stop there. It is palpably absurd - it is farraginous nonsense - that the Climate Debate Daily is designed to settle an argument. As with any debating club, it exists not for the sake of some higher truth, but for debate itself. And when that debate is based primarily on an industry-funded campaign to keep the public confused about a global health risk - well, again, you would have thought that an intelligent interlocutor - even a philosophical one - would have chosen this occasion to take the whole thing a bit more seriously.   

Previous Comments

This is an excellent site to get good information on what is really going on in the heated Global Warming Debate.
With the Debate growing and reaching the general population, it is critical that all the science be reported and not just the propaganda pushed by the AGW industry.

A year ago, there were just a few places with unbiased reporting, now there are hundreds and the movement toward sanity is growing daily.

Now that thousands of scientists are coming out of the shadow of fear spread by political correctness and special interest groups, we are finally hearing the truth about AGW.

Thank you to the author for highlighting this excellent site.

“This is rubbish or, in the deathless prose of one of CDD’s editor’s “pluperfect rubbish.” CDD clearly exists not to resolve the “debate” about global warming, but to encourage the notion that a legitimate argument actually exists.”

Nonetheless, the fact that such a debate actually does exists is in itself prima facie evidence that the debate exists.

Of course, you, Al Gore, or the rest of the AGW church may not like that fact, and you would prefer everyone docilely and unquestioningly capitulate to your pronouncements – but we live in a free society. Absolutists don’t get to dictate what we are allowed to debate.

The fact that there is a debate surrounding Global Warming should tell you that, so far, your arguments have been unconvincing, and they don’t seem to be getting any better. That is all the more reason to hold your claims up for scrutiny.

Furthermore, the fact that you are so eager to supress open debate is an excellent basis to suspect your claims are dubious. And indeed, the more we dig, the more your claims shown to be weak. Hence your aversion to open debate.

The problem is that most of the “debate” around global warming is the same as the “debate” about “Darwinism”. Creationists claim there is a debate, scientists tell them to get lost and stop making shit up. Same thing here- some right wing echo chambers promote the idea that there is a debate, but in reality the science is pretty much settled.

If the debaters actually had some data and science, things would be different, but mindlessly repeating the same lies and misdirection from some website is not the same as evidence.

If we all accepted the “settled Science” and agreed with the “Overwhelming Concensus”, the earth would still be flat and at the center of the universe.
Saying the debate is over will not make it go away.
Until it is settled, the debate will continue.
Unfortunatly for the AGW side, the climate just isn’t cooperating any more.
Kinda takes the fun out of it for the realists.

Spare us your Gore fetish.

Gore fetish? Exuse me?!
I’m not the one who embarked on a cross-country “pilgramage”, to take part in Gore’s Scientology training seminars and write his fawning, unctuous praises.