Like several commentators, I am picking out a trend in Internet communications that indicates that there is a tribe of “doubt believers” out there, proselytising for their cause : bringing down the Science of Climate Change.
These evangelists often write and reply to web posts with statements of alarmingly high confidence levels, assuming authority they cannot possibly claim, sometimes using anonymity to cloak their network connections.
Here are just a few examples :-
“In serious debates, nothing demolishes credibility as readily as inconsistency and exaggeration.”
“No offence, but I think demanding that scientists who support the anthropogenic climate change viewpoint should demand that their theory is backed by real science should have priority over gimmicks.”
“Oh, I see. So they agree that there were problems with the data, but they won’t question the conclusions. What a scam. War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.”
It is a deliberate group activity, an organised effort that picked up speed in November 2009, as evidenced here – effectively the instructions to Climate Change sceptics about how they should argue against the Science :-
“Climategate: A Brief Summary of The UN’s IPPC Global Warming Science Scandal, Fraud, Conspiracy : …A fair summary of these Machiavellian gyrations and subterfuge, as revealed by the publication of secret emails and data files, would be:  First, a real attempt by a small group of scientists to subvert the [scientific] peer-review process and suppress dissenting voices. This is at best massively unethical.  Second, a willingness to manipulate the data to make a political case. This is certainly misconduct and possibly scientific fraud. This, if it proves true, should make these scientists subject to strong disciplinary action, even termination of their tenured positions.  Third, what gives every appearance of an actual conspiracy to prevent data from being released as required by the Freedom of Information Acts in the US and UK. If this is proven true, that is a federal crime.”
You will find these same three accusations used as arguments again and again, without any validity or basis whatsoever – including, sadly, in the Institute of Physics submission to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee :-
It looks just like it was crafted by a Climate Change “sceptic”, or as I would put it a “Climate Change Science Obstructer”, only with slightly more erudite words.
The “clarification” from the Institute of Physics doesn’t help :-
These accusations simply should not be made without any kind of proof. The content and sceptical analysis of the electronic mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia do not constitute proof that the accusations hold any kind of weight.