Zombie Comments

The last post brought out some deniers submitting comments. They seem to think they may have some “surprises” in store for me. Not so; they’re just reviving *other* zombie arguments.

What’s definitely *not* a surprise is that they want to change the subject. It was: the use of extremes as cherry-picked starting points to mislead people about the trend. But they want to talk about other things … I guess that mud isn’t working for them any more.

The surprise might be for them, because I’ll expose the fallacy of their claims in an upcoming post. But that will wait until after the weekend.

10 responses to “Zombie Comments

  1. One of the important things helping me decide whose arguments were correct is the prevalence of denialati zombie argument–say, the periodic re-litigating of “CO2 saturation”, which was state-of-the-art science in 1905, or the current rash of tropical tropospheritis. It’s one thing to reconsider established views with a skeptical eye; it’s quite another to raise discredited hypotheses afresh without even understanding them thoroughly, let alone considering the data that led to their rejection. When a group persistently does the latter rather than the former, it’s pretty powerful evidence, IMO, that they are probably not arguing in good faith.

    Of course, the good folks over at Skeptical Science have elevated the debunking of zombie argumentation to a structural principal.

  2. The surprise was supposed to be the big bad 2016 La Niña… with a dash Maunder Mini sprinkled on top. Professor Curry recently told me to wait until the AMO goes negative.

    There is one huge surprise. It’s October and for some unknown reason Arctic sea ice is growing. Who knew that could happen? Admit it… none of you; it’s that darn surprising.

  3. There’s one thing these guys succeed at beyond their fondest hopes. They waste your time and mine, and they provide cover for ignorance and inaction. They don’t have to care if they are right. They are successful, for now.

    So infuriating and dangerously difficult to overcome.

  4. skeptictmac57

    Most zombie argument purveyors have (just) enough depth of knowledge to know better, but are motivated to ignore the arguments against their positions.
    But there are masses of people (most) who have not immersed themselves (they don’t know better) in the complex world of AGW facts and research, and to them, if they hear one of these zombie ‘facts’ spouted by their favorite political pundit (not a scientist of course) then they latch onto it as ‘the truth’. Once that happens, they have become anchored to that idea, and it is very hard to pry them loose from it. Of course, it also just coincidentally has to agree with their political views.

  5. If we’re on the topic of future topics, can we discuss the influence of non-volcanic aerosols. I’m thinking about the old joke about reversing global warming by repealing The Clean Air Act, and whether China’s aerosol cleanup would sadly allow an increase in warming.

  6. Arctic sea ice has been observed to reach its minimum every September since quantitative estimates have been available. So it’s no surprise that there is more October ice. The North Pole has turned away from the sun. There’s more freezing weather in October than there was in September.

  7. methane madness

    Slightly ot but South Australia just had its first landfalling sub-tropical cyclone (cyclone Cleopatra…. queen of de nial), amusingly all media avoids referring to it as a cyclone plus we had our strongest tornadoes, uprooting the biggest power pylons

    • Which led to a confusion between wind and wind-power in the minds of our conservative politicians. “If wind knocked the power pylons over, and that is a bad thing, then surely wind-power is a bad thing too.” Thus went their illogic.

  8. See, we really need a fleet of ship that can drag a big chain of wind generators out into the ocean and wrap them around each of these tropical cyclones, and drain the power out of them for productive use …. Think Big!