How not to reason backwards, as shown by Watts Up With That
Update 2011-06-11: Marc Morano asks me if there is a "weblink" for the below diagram, which he'd "like to post to stimulate discussion". Well, Marc, here it is. If you're really passionate about good, rational discussion, I suppose you can always put up a post about the diagram on your Climate Depot blog, preferably with a big blaring headline at the top of the home page, written in a neutral tone. And of course, turn on the comments section over there (otherwise you can't have a discussion, can you?).
Marc also calls the diagram "pure fantasy". Well, it's quite obvious we disagree!
Oh, and I've posted the diagram at a few other places, and the response so far has been mostly favourable.
* * *
The goons at the climate inactivist blog Watts Up With That? are still trying to interpret every word uttered by a Democrat, and every blade of grass ever touched by a climate scientist, as 'proof' that climate science is merely an elaborate hoax to impose a Communist World Government orchestrated by the ghost of Lenin or something. [cached: 1, 2] Never mind that all the efforts by inactivists to dig up, fish up, and even pilfer data have failed to uncover even a single trace of such a plot, or the 'massive PR engine' (postulated by Tom Fuller) which supposedly backs it.
But the conspiracy theorists aren't giving up:
Ed Reid: The FBI ultimately got Al Capone for tax evasion. Whatever it takes.That is, if there's no evidence of a Marxist plot behind global warming, it's because the evidence is hidden deep within the Ivory Towers of Mordor or some such, and the correct thing to do is to keep digging, digging, and digging for this 'evidence' until it miraculously shows up. Or, as Michael Tobis puts it,
your opponent is presumed guilty until proven guilty.And this I think is the main difference between mainstream science and so-called climate 'skeptic' 'science'.