Wingnuts and Science: a bad mix

I think I better start following the climate change debate if this is any example of the hilarity coming out of it.

The climate-flavoured asshattery continued apace this week, rising to a screeching crescendo on Thursday when the Drudge Report mistakenly linked to a post at Scienceblogs’ Deltoid with the headline “New Zealand Climate Science Coalition caught lying about temperature trends“.

Drudge apparently didn’t read any further than the headline.  Since the “NZ Climate Science Coalition” sounded like a group of actual scientists instead of, well, you know,  what it really is — a group of anti-climate science wingnuts who’ve just hung a sciency-sounding name on themselves to shore up their credibility — Drudge linked to the Deltoid post. For added goofy goodness, wingnuts blindly reposted the article to “Digg“:

Noting Drudge’s mistake, Tim Lambert added a shout-out to Drudge readers to the top of his post, and incoming wingnuts who were rubbing their hands with glee in expectation of a good lambasting of climate science — on Scienceblogs, no less — were instead greeted with this liver-quivering message:

Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to.  […]

Needless to say, Drudge removed the link — wouldn’t want anyone reading anything but anti-science horseshit, after all — but not  before hordes of wingnuts descended upon Deltoid.  Imagine them reading the link at Drudge, jumping into their virtual ’75 Harvester and barreling over to Scienceblogs, and then… “the screaming tires, the busted glass, the painful scream(s) that I heard last”:

Sorry wingnuts,  ALLCAPS and exclamation marks don’t make it any truer. (!!!)

Deltoid has more.

UPDATE for extra wingnutty goodness: If you click on the image of the Digg link, you’ll see that whoever posted it wrote that the Deltoid article was about pretty much the opposite of what it was really about.  So any wingnut who saw the link on Digg would have been extra excited and ultimately, extra disappointed.  Boo-hoo!(via)

27 Responses to “Wingnuts and Science: a bad mix”

  1. 1 Phatbiker Saturday, November 28, 2009 at 12:32 pm

    The same fucktards that believe that global warming is a left wing conspiracy also believe Obama is a muslim, universal health care is evil and woman do not have the right to chose. The religious crackpots couldn’t care less if it real or not because Jebus is comin’ back (the rapture?) and gonna make things right.
    There probably will be another ice age in 20 or 30 thousand years but is unlikly there will be any humans around to witness it, the way we are screwing up the environment.

  2. 2 JJ Saturday, November 28, 2009 at 12:49 pm

    Phatbiker – To my eternal shame, I don’t really follow the climate change debate and know very little about it 😳 However, it makes sense to me that since we’ve been cranking all kinds of stuff into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, it’s got to be having some kind of negative effect. So I agree with the climate scientists who are sounding these warnings, but I’m happy to leave any “debate” on the issue in their capable hands.

    I have to admit I don’t completely understand what motivates climate change deniers. They remind me a lot of the anti-health care reform types in the states — people so resistant to change that they’ll work against their own self-interest to avoid it.

  3. 3 The Anti-Social Socialist Saturday, November 28, 2009 at 1:35 pm

    Lots of things drive them, and none of them are sane.

    Religion is a big bit of course – it’s either Gawd made the world as it is thus it can never go wrong, or that the Rapture is coming, or that everything was placed here for our use, so if we fuck it up, “God will fix it.”

    Then there is just the simple old fashioned fear, part of the human condition – ignore it long enough or deny it loud enough and you’ll keep thinking that it isn’t happening.
    When that doesn’t work, you get the folks who come in trying to explain that it’s all a natural occurrence for half the ocean to die out.

    Me, I’m relaxed about it. Life will go on, it’s just that us and about 90% of current life on the planet will vanish. that last 10% will fill in the blanks and thrive long after we’re dead.

    I’d take bets on just what animal would give rise to the next civilization here, but I could never collect on it. Favour still goes to Rats; they’re numerous, clever, survivable and dexterous… give them a few hundred thousand years and they’ll be gnawing on the bones of our civilization.

  4. 4 Torontonian Saturday, November 28, 2009 at 2:39 pm

    There’s also Michael Coren today in the Sun.

    He seems to take most of his article from
    the people.

    Oh well, the fertilizer does its work and the
    fruit blossoms and it is sooooooo good to eat.

  5. 5 JJ Saturday, November 28, 2009 at 3:08 pm

    Antisocial – Yeah, from what I’ve seen, Climate Change Deniers seem to come in 2 flavours – Jesus freaks and people who are afraid this will end up costing them money.

    The religious nuts are afraid of science in all forms — ie. evolution. Although I’m pretty sure the bible doesn’t say anything about climate change, their opposition is probably driven more by the fact that Al Gore made a movie about it, and he’s a democrat, therefore it must be Wrong! 🙄

  6. 6 JJ Saturday, November 28, 2009 at 3:27 pm

    Torontonian – Thanks for the link, what a hoot 😆

    Coren says: “These findings, of course, directly dispute man-made global warming theories.”

    WTF “findings” is he talking about? The emails? 😆 But where are the global warming theories that “these findings” dispute?

  7. 7 Janus Saturday, November 28, 2009 at 4:03 pm

    There are days when all I want to do is tear my hair out and then go shoot somebody to make teh stoopid go away.

    Somebody like the assholes who think that the term “greenhouse gases” refers to the “gases” inside a greenhouse!

    Somebody who thinks the term “warming” is not also accompanied by respondent cooling trends, and who thinks that climactic conditions are a thermometer, not a pendulum.

    And someone who thinks the polar ices caps are not melting and the resultant diminishing oceanic salinity is not killing off species who rely on static salt levels, and that, in turn, affects the entire food chain as well as the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere which is manufactures by those life forms that are dying because of the decreased salinity.

    I could go on, but my scalp is already bloody and I’m looking for my gun…

  8. 8 JJ Saturday, November 28, 2009 at 4:11 pm

    Janus – The points you mention are some of the reasons I don’t get how people can deny that climate change, warming, whatever you want to call it, is happening.

    When species of animals start inexplicably dying off, something’s amiss.

    But “global warming” is an unfortunate term — no matter how accurate it might be, people think it means hot weather. Whenever it snows I get the same thing all day long from people: “Duh, so much for global warming!” It used to irritate me enough that I’d say “Well actually, I think global warming can cause weather extremes either way”. And their eyes would glaze over and they’d immediately change the subject.

  9. 9 Shade Saturday, November 28, 2009 at 4:25 pm

    I think some of them are hostile towards science because they don’t understand it and it makes them feel stupid. Lack of understanding ussually evokes fear and then hate in most people.

  10. 10 Mark Francis Saturday, November 28, 2009 at 5:21 pm

    Keep in mind too that there is a real conspiracy to discredit the science. Industry front groups (astroturf like Friends of Science) and funded ‘institutes’ like The heartland Institute, The Competitive Enterprise Institute (see David Frum for one of its talking heads), The Fraser Institute here in Canada, The Cato Institute (and…), work hard pumping out the propaganda in the form of pseudo-science that looks like the real thing, even fooling well-educated persons. On occasions, they’ve even gotten something in peer-reviewed journals, much to the consternation of scientists.

    Indeed, the ‘conspiracy’ talked about is exactly that: The scientists were upset about a terrible paper getting published in a decent journal. The peer review process had slipped up, and they were mad about it. For every bad paper that gets published, there’s a good paper somewhere which didn’t. And instead of learning about something useful, they have to spend time debunking a piece of junk.

    After bitching and complaining in the emails, they then sat down in those same emails and set about the work of using science to prove the paper wrong. You hear from the conspiracy theorists about the former, not the latter, despite them having the emails. If they really are frauds with the power to remove editors, why go about the hard work? Aren’t they supposed to just pick up the phone and use their great dark powers, and then go home early to cigars and beer?

    I could go on and on. I plan to, one day.

    Oh, the journal agreed, and people resigned. For years, the denialists have claimed that they were forced out. They, of course, claim that the paper was fine. Conspiracy!

  11. 11 Bleatmop Saturday, November 28, 2009 at 5:49 pm

    Shade – Further to your point, latching on to the anti-science movement makes them feel smart and empowered. It’s win win, and they get to hate Al Gore too. (Though I still don’t like the guy. He’s gotta be the worst spokesman for science, right up there with Suzuki).

  12. 12 Phatbiker Saturday, November 28, 2009 at 5:54 pm

    Most of these deniers will be dead in the next thirty years, before the shit really starts to hit the fan. They will whine about “taxing” their grandchildren, but don’t give a fuck if there is a survivable planet for them to live on (I guess Jebus will show up by then).

  13. 13 Mark Barkhurst Saturday, November 28, 2009 at 7:33 pm

    I should come to this website more often inorder to maintain my sanity. I can’nt disagree with anything that has been stated in the blog or the comments. This is what we get when we have people like Sarah Palin and her religious mindless followers who buy into her bullshit and lies without question because their dummer than she is. Too bad their is not a pill for stupidity.

  14. 14 JJ Sunday, November 29, 2009 at 12:00 am


    I think some of them are hostile towards science because they don’t understand it and it makes them feel stupid.

    It makes me feel pretty stupid most of the time too, but more than that, it piques my curiousity and inspires me to learn (as much as I can, anyway). However, that’s also why I’m content to leave science to those who know what they’re talking about. A fight with science isn’t a hill anyone should want to die on.

  15. 15 JJ Sunday, November 29, 2009 at 12:28 am

    Mark – Thanks for commenting.

    There’s a “war on science” on a lot of fronts, but especially this one. As I said, I haven’t followed this issue that closely, but it’s hard not to be aware that a concerted effort to discredit climate science has been going on for some time. I first thought it might have been a reaction of “healthy skepticism”, but as the science progressed and the opposition dug in its heels, it became obvious that the “denialists” had some other agenda than ensuring scientific purity.

    David Frum had an interesting piece in the NP yesterday about the Hacked Email Nontroversy, where he points out that even if a scientist behaved in a less than scrupulous fashion at some point, it in no way discredits the whole science or means that all scientists are unscrupulous grifters and bullshitters.

    It’s indeed unfortunate that scientists have to spend so much time & energy debunking all the bullshit that’s being generated around climate change, or they might be further ahead. It has to be frustrating, to say the least.

    I look forward to seeing what else you have to say about this.

  16. 16 JJ Sunday, November 29, 2009 at 12:34 am


    Further to your point, latching on to the anti-science movement makes them feel smart and empowered.

    Which is why so many anti-climate science organizations give themselves scientifically credible-sounding names: ie. “Friends of Science”. (Oh, yeah?? 😆 )

    Wingnuts seem to think that having one’s own opinion = having one’s own facts.

  17. 17 JJ Sunday, November 29, 2009 at 12:35 am


    They will whine about “taxing” their grandchildren, but don’t give a fuck if there is a survivable planet for them to live on (I guess Jebus will show up by then).

    Jebus’ ETA is 2012 😯 😉

  18. 18 JJ Sunday, November 29, 2009 at 12:36 am

    Mark Barkhurst

    I should come to this website more often inorder to maintain my sanity.

    😯 😯 😯 😯

    But this is bat country!

  19. 19 Janus Sunday, November 29, 2009 at 2:59 pm

    “I think some of them are hostile towards science because they don’t understand it and it makes them feel stupid. Lack of understanding ussually evokes fear and then hate in most people.”

    You nailed that one, Shade!

    “Too bad their is not a pill for stupidity.”

    There is, Mark, but it’s against the law to feed someone cyanide.

    And hey…stick around!

  20. 20 toujoursdan Sunday, November 29, 2009 at 4:36 pm

    I tend to believe that peak oil is going to be a bigger catastrophe and that issue still remains off the radar for most people. But there are lots of parallels. When one does read about it there is often denial that the problem exists and/or an almost religious faith that technology is going to save us.

    The ugly truth is that there are 7 times more people on this planet than it can support, all of whom want to consume like middle class Americans or better. It’s not going to happen. When the environmental/societal collapse is going to happen is anyone’s guess, but it’s going to happen.

  21. 21 JJ Sunday, November 29, 2009 at 8:15 pm

    toujoursdan – Definitely lots of parallels. I agree that peak oil is a more immediate problem — from what I’ve read we’ve passed peak oil some time ago and remaining resources will only keep us going (at the current consumption rate) for another 20 years max.

    It’s interesting that you mention overpopulation. One of the things that I keep hearing from conservatives and esp. religious conservatives is that overpopulation is a scam (much like global warming), and that we aren’t reproducing enough.


  22. 22 Shade Sunday, November 29, 2009 at 8:29 pm

    The under population argument they like to use is so they can claim gay people will wipe out the human race for being gay. It’s a silly argument given every country technically has more people then they are equipped to deal with realistically.

  23. 23 Phatbiker Sunday, November 29, 2009 at 10:53 pm

    The conservative christians just want white christens to have more kids (to keep up to those Mooslims). Canada and the USA are thinly populated compared to other parts of the world (China, India, south-east asia). Populations are stabilizing (and ageing) in most western countries. China and India probably puts more shit in the atmosphere in one day than Canada does in a decade.
    You wait, when the oil is almost gone they will come up with something else like carbon eating, oil producing algea ( ) or cold fussion, but will keep it suppressed for now, as not to upset the apple cart.

  24. 24 Bleatmop Monday, November 30, 2009 at 7:04 am

    Phatbiker – But don’t you know that we here in Alberta are going to solve global warming with carbon capture?? It’s true because I heard my Premier say it. And we all know politicians never lie or just say things to make an issue go away!

  25. 25 The Arbourist Monday, November 30, 2009 at 9:35 am

    Steady Eddie is my premier too.

    I just wonder how he breathes being so deep in the pocket of the oil industry. My province drives me nuts

    Speaking of nuttery in general I went to the Deltoid and started reading the responses to the post.

    I felt like I had taken the blue pill or something with the unadulterated crazy that was going on there.

    People with no clue about science, scientific method or even punctuation were frothing at the mouth over how climate change ‘debunked’ or a ‘hoax’. (Of course not using those words, that would required a high school level of education)

    Is looking for informationthat alien a concept to the climate denialists?

  26. 26 Metro Monday, November 30, 2009 at 10:50 am

    My take on the emails, after reading a few of the selected quotes and then going to search for some actual, y’know, context, was:

    “What? This somehow invalidates more than three decades of climate science?”

    Truly, they’re desperate to preserve a delusional worldview and should be given no shrift at all.

  27. 27 Bleatmop Monday, November 30, 2009 at 11:02 am

    Arbourist – I prefer to call him Special Ed.

Wait. What?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change


  • 632,370
[Most Recent Quotes from]


%d bloggers like this: