Home » 2015 » June

Monthly Archives: June 2015


Influential Climate Skeptic Refutes Theory of Gravity by Sitting Down in Chair

The influential Financial Post ran a piece last month by Ross McKitrick, an economist and famed climate change “skeptic” (and ultracrepidarian), that turns logic on its head.

The disinformative article continues a long standing pattern of climate change misinformation by the behemoth media organization. (The Financial Post is the business section of the National Post, owned by Post Media Network, already a Canadian news Oligopoly, and growing.)

McKitrick’s main contention is this: The scientific consensus among climate scientists is not real because that consensus does not exist among non climate scientists.

Seriously. Though nicely veiled with a lot of rhetoric and introductory cherry picking, he actually argued this.

Twice.  And the Post printed it worldwide, as if it was analysis and not a farce, gussied up to look otherwise just as one might try to pass off a cute bovine as a playboy model using rouge lipstick, a dress, wig and glasses. Except, when it comes to climate change, apparently, it works.

First McKitrick argued that a survey of meteorologists, who are not climate scientists, showed no such consensus. Then he literally proclaimed the “consensus” on climate change isn’t real because meteorologists didn’t agree, when the “consensus” on climate change very specifically (and relevantly) represents the consensus of climate scientists.

It’s not possible for McKitrick to not know this. (His piece also lightly references it.) So the piece either represents blatant – if cleverly argued and thus effective – deception, or McKitrick is so blinded by belief he discards any relevant facts that get in the way, even when those facts are the ONLY relevant ones.

Just, in fact, as it is here, when the consensus of climate scientists means a consensus (who would have thought) OF climate scientists.

McKitrick then does the same thing again with respect to a Dutch survey of various types of professionals. And, remarkably, he once again clearly proclaims,”so, no consensus.”

And – as the consensus, once again,  and the only relevant thing for this issue, is a consensus of climate scientists specifically – once again either represents quackery, or self deception over the issue: A self deception the Post wants to not only share, but impose upon its readers world wide who are looking to it for relevant information and analysis.

What McKitrick then does is even worse, and almost harder to believe. After irrationally using a survey of various professionals including a very large number of decidedly non climate scientists to refute a consensus of specifically climate scientists, he actually critiques the lack of expertise of the respondents of the non climate scientist survey he just used (many of whom are scientists of some type, or feel they have some interest in the climate change issue), as a way to further attack the scientific consensus of climate scientists – literally arguing that climate scientists don’t know what they are talking about by citing the answers provided in a survey of non climate scientists.

This is like refuting the fact of a consensus among train engineers by relying on a survey of train aficionados, not train engineers, then criticizing the expertise of the consensus of train engineers on top of that, by pointing out the train engineering mistakes of the train aficionados. It’s mind boggling. It would be a horrible dinner argument; one on planet zealot.  Yet, along with many other of McKitrick’s “arguments,” it occupies a place in a major global media source, one that received “support” coverage and mention around the globe.

The entire premise is a farce, masquerading as editorial journalism and news. And though slightly more complex and rife with nice sounding prose, it’s little different logically than the publication of an editorial news piece refuting the theory of gravity by describing an experiment in which McKitrick placed a bowl on a table top, saw that it did not fall, and then proclaimed “see, no gravity.”

See, no logic here in “refutation” of the climate change consensus; only belief driven attempts to come up with rhetoric and claims, no matter how illogical, to seemingly fit a predetermined or desired conclusion.

But this story – the bigger, more important one – unfortunately isn’t being shared nearly as often as the false story “refuting” the climate change consensus among climate scientists; that the climate, and the secondary systems that drive climate, are changing as a result of our geologically relevant long term atmospheric alterations.

And it should be.