By Jon Ray @ Greenie Watch
He is the author of the famous 97% claim and a most energetic defender of Warmism. And he certainly is a crook Cook. He makes a great pretence of science by reporting known facts but ignoring or leaving some things out. He then pretends that he has proven global warming.
But his latest is a superb example of psychological projection. He takes some well-known examples of psychological defence mechanisms and purports to find examples of them among climate skeptics. But exactly those same mechanisms are common among Warmists. An excerpt:
I’m a cognitive psychologist interested in better understanding and countering the techniques used to distort the science of climate change. I’ve found that understanding why some people reject climate science offers insight into how they deny science. By better understanding the techniques employed, you can counter misinformation more effectively.
Every movement that has rejected a scientific consensus, whether it be on evolution, climate change or the link between smoking and cancer, exhibits the same five characteristics of science denial (concisely summarized by the acronym FLICC). These are fake experts, logical fallacies, impossible expectations, cherry picking and conspiracy theories. When someone wants to cast doubt on a scientific finding, FLICC is an integral part of the misinformation toolbox.
He points to no specific examples of each fallacy among skeptics so, very briefly, let me point out how those fallacies apply to Warmists:
* Fake experts: Al Gore
* Logical fallacies: Some extreme weather events imply a general increase in extreme weather events
* Impossible expectations: No change is too small to be worth noticing. Even temperature changes in the hundredths of one degree mean something. No change is small enough to prove temperature stasis
* Cherry picking: Looking at only a short run of temperature records. The Central England Temperature record goes back to 1659 and shows no trend
* Conspiracy theories: Big oil is behind climate skepticism
Perhaps most amazing in Cook's latest screed is the way he refers to his own 97% paper. He accurately describes it as showing that:
"Among the papers stating a position, 97 percent agreed that humans are causing global warming"
He completely skates over the fact that two thirds of the papers he examined took no position on global warming. So only ONE THIRD of all scientists, and not 97%, agreed with global warming. It's typical Cook. He quotes facts but ignores their full implications.
And, as far as I can see, that goes for all of the other claims in his paper. For instance: He wades in to the uproar generated by the David Rose article which questioned a paper by NOAA's Tom Karl. He implies that Rose is wrong and the Karl paper is right. So there has been no C21 temperature "pause". He "forgets" to mention that, in the Fyfe et al. paper, some prominient Warmist scientists also distanced themselves from the Karl paper. Cook is so unbalanced it is a wonder he doesn't fall over.