The Science Show

On Australia’s The Science Show hosted by Robyn Williams entitled Attitudes to Climate Change Stephan Lewandowsky was interviewed by RW. The description to the show ran as follows:

“If 95, 96 or 97% of scientists say that human activity is driving the world temperature higher, why is it that some people reject the view of the overwhelming majority? Stephan Lewandowsky  has studied scepticism. In the field of climate science the so-called sceptics he says are not sceptical, they are rejecting the evidence for ideological reasons, and a personal world view.  He says extremist market ideology leads people to reject climate science. They are rejecting the enlightenment, and all that has been achieved over hundreds of years. He says there is a false consensus effect and the media has done a terrible job at representing climate science. News Limited publications in Australia systematically misrepresent climate science. Denial is a way of wishful thinking. He says solutions need to be highlighted along with new entrepreneurial opportunities as climate changes and the challenges increase.”

In answer to the first question is it perhaps that people do not believe the most often quoted 97% figure? Has RW or the Science Show’s staff ever researched where that number came from? Would they continue to quote it if they did? I will now redo the comments above attributed to Lewandowsky as he should have responded if he was aware of what was really going on and was himself of a different ideological bent.

“In the field of climate science the so-called warmists he says are not sceptical, they are  rejecting the evidence for ideological reasons, and a personal world view. He says extremist socialist ideology leads people to reject climate science. They are rejecting the enlightenment, and all that has been achieved over hundreds of years. He says there is a false consensus effect and the media has done a terrible job at representing climate science. News Limited publications in Australia systematically misrepresent climate science. Alarmism is a way of wishful thinking. He says solutions will be identified along with new entrepreneurial opportunities to allow the market to respond as climate changes to meet any challenges as they arise.”

There you go Stephan. Now you got it. All it takes is the eyes to see the evidence does not point to CAGW. Not even close. But you have to check your ideological proclivities at the door and allow your mind to work like a parachute.

RW went off the rails on this episode of The Science Show which perhaps would present Stephan an opportunity to practice his profession and examine RW’s psychological attitudes(aberrations) in likening skeptics to pedophiles, asbestos promoters and drug pushers. Name calling tends to be used as a retort to being called a name or as a curtain covering the ignorance behind. In this case, it does serve to highlight the paucity of evidence possessed by the self proclaimed wizards of climate knowledge. In light of the light evidence for CAGW RW’s invocation of some of the most vile characters imaginable is perhaps understandable as an expression of the frustration of a lost cause even as it is inaccurate. Does RW need apocalyptic angst to make him happy? Is there a support group for that? We don’t want him to suffer alone with his cark.

The image from AIT that is on the site could be labeled: Image: Al Gore incorrectly demonstrating changing atmospheric carbon dioxide and its relationship to temperature in An Inconvenient Truth.  This was one of the 11 errors identified by a judge in a British court case that resulted in the requirement that AIT be shown only if students were apprised of the errors beforehand.

But why bring that to anyone’s attention?

The restraint shown in my response should not be misconstrued as nonchalance toward highly objectionable content that would not likely be expressed face to face with another human being. Would it RW?