New Yorker mag hits skeptics as ‘way too amateurish’ to hope to convince anyone of warming junk science

The New Yorker reports:

For weeks leading up to the release of the report—several more will be issued in the next few months by other working groups of the I.P.C.C.—the denialosphere was working overtime. A group that calls itself, wittily enough, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, published its own report, twelve hundred pages long, explicitly modelled on the I.P.C.C.’s but reaching entirely opposite conclusions. The N.I.P.C.C., as it happens, is sponsored by the Heartland Institute, which, in turn, is funded by a coven of tobacco companies, fossil-fuel producers, and right-wing foundations.

The goal of organizations like the N.I.P.C.C., it seems, is not to convince anyone that the science of global warming is faulty—their tactics are way too amateurish for that—but, rather, to provide cover for those already predisposed to prefer fairy tales over facts. This group turns out to be not only numerous but, as recent events have demonstrated, also quite powerful.

Read more…

2 thoughts on “New Yorker mag hits skeptics as ‘way too amateurish’ to hope to convince anyone of warming junk science”

  1. “Now if that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black…LOL They are the biggest bunch of hypocrites and amateurs ever!”

    Psychologists call it ‘projection’.
    The name calling and fanaticism are telling.
    A fanatic is so because he/she actually has doubt about his/her belief. Name calling indicates a lack of verifiable evidence for the name caller’s position.
    Jon

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.