[BPSDB] Even by the impressive standards of the Daily Mail, Richard Littlejohn's column contains a spectacular amount of idiocy, but in today's paper he surpasses himself with some of the most ridiculous nonsense I've ever seen written on the subject of climate change in a "credible" mass media publication. I've reproduced some of his Conservapedia-style ramblings below, annotated with my own facts, rebuttals and thoughts.

"From the New York Times, December 12: Soviet scientists on board an icebreaker drifting just 300 miles from the North Pole have concluded that the world is getting hotter."

Good for them. Of course scientists usually conclude such things by aggregating large bodies of evidence from multiple disciplines, but never mind.

"This news will be welcomed by ‘global warming’ campaigners..."

Yes. Clearly people campaigning against climate change will be pleased to see more evidence of it.

"...except that it first appeared on December 12, 1938, and has just been republished on a website run by a former TV meteorologist, who treats the whole ‘climate change’ racket with a healthy dose of sea salt."

So let me get this right, a global consensus of 21st century scientists from every developed nation on Earth isn't worth listening to, but the internet ramblings of a retired TV presenter are? I assume that he's referring to this blogger.

"The Soviet scientists also concluded that the warmer weather was almost certainly down to the rays of the sun."

Although as Littlejohn should know, this 70-year-old theory has sadly failed to stand up to empirical evidence. Still, why bother with recent research when scientists from the 1930s were so obviously right?

"And they added it would be rash to prophesy the duration of these higher temperatures, since the Ice Age was followed immediately by a period of much hotter summers than they were experiencing in the Thirties — the warmest decade of the 20th century, as it turned out."

Huh?! Now this assertion really puzzled me. The 1990s were the warmest decade, so where on Earth has Littlejohn gotten this idea from? Googling the phrase "warmest decade of the 20th century", of the top 20 results eighteen give a date - fifteen refer to the 1990s, and three refer to the 1930s. If you actually look at these three links though, they refer to the local climate in Sioux Falls and Iceland, although the former isn't clear that it's referring to local climate unless you look at the index page of the site.

So I can only assume that Littlejohn is either a) really, really bad at Googling, or b) cherry-picked evidence that he thought (wrongly) supported his views while stubbornly ignoring the mountain of references pointing the other way. In short, classic denialism.

"We even had snow in October... Tibet had suffered its ‘worst snowfall ever’. [...] There was snow in Las Vegas this week. [...] In Canada, there’s 30 per cent more ice than last year..."

And all this means... nothing, because projections of climate are based on gathering data over long periods of time, not by cherry-picking individual weather events.

"...and the polar bears, who are supposed to be on the brink of extinction, are breeding at an alarming rate."

I'm not going to get into arguments about Polar Bears in this post, but whatever you believe this is a stupid statement that fails on so many levels. Firstly, this is pretty much irrelevent to the science of climate change. Secondly, what the fuck is "alarming" about the rate at which they are breeding? Is an army of polar bears sweeping down into Canada, dispossessing people of their land and driving long trails of refugee humans down to Texas? No. And thirdly, polar bear populations are dependant on a lot more variables than just temperature - the introduction of hunting quotes might have something to do with this.

"None of this has in any way deterred the ‘global warming’ fascists. They dismiss this glaring, incontrovertible evidence as a ‘blip’ and continue to insist the world is burning up."

It's basically Godwin's Law isn't it. If you believe climate change is real, then you must be a fascist. But what amuses me most of all about this statement is that Littlejohn has provided no meaningful evidence. He has related one meaningless anecdote, presented the findings of some 1930s scientists as gospel, cherry-picked a few extreme weather events, and then gone off on one about polar bears. His arguments have all the intelligence and precision of a monkey opening a coconut.

Richard Littlejohn attempting to construct a coherent argument.

"Whenever they are presented with evidence which contradicts their world view, they either ignore it or fiddle the figures to pretend it doesn’t exist."

Ignore it? What, you mean like you pretended that all those references that show the 1990s were the warmest decade in the 20th century didn't exist? And by fiddling the figures do you by any chance mean establishing the long-term trend rather than simply saying "pah, there's snow in Tibet, it must be getting colder!"?

"Nay-sayers are portrayed as deranged bay-bee killers and dismissed as ‘deniers’ — an offensive slander designed to equate sceptics with those nutters who insist the Holocaust didn’t happen."

To be fair, he's not exactly helping with the whole nutter issue. Screaming that scientists are evil fascists while completely ignoring search results you don't like and perhaps failing to even check what the data you're using actually refers to is not a good way of demonstrating that you're at all credible. In fact, some would call ignoring evidence you don't like denial.

Now if you thought Littlejohn had already lost the plot, in this next bit he sets fire to the script and eats it.

"‘Global warming’ gives them a reason to believe, provides meaning and purpose to their dismal little lives. As the wise old G.K. Chesterton observed, when people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.
In an increasingly secular Britain, ‘climate change’ is the new religion. You don’t get much fuss about ‘global warming’ in the Islamic world."

This incredible little rant - even by Littlejohn's standards - wouldn't look out of place on Fundies Say the Darnedest Things. I think what amuses me the most is the "dismal little lives" comment, which ultimately says more about him than his targets. Or maybe it's the idea of a columnist in a deeply Islamophobic newspaper appealing to the common sense of Islamic fundamentalism.

"And it’s no coincidence that so many of those most active in the great ‘global warming’ crusade used to sign up to communism and the more extreme, headbanging fringes of Far Left politics."

We were fascists a minute ago, now we're communists. That's quite a shift.

"They tend to overlook the fact that the Earth managed perfectly well for millions of years before they were born and will manage quite nicely millions of years after they are gone."

Absolutely true. Of course for much of that it wasn't habitable for human beings, but it certainly managed.

"Given that we are told ‘global warming’ presents such an ominous threat to agriculture, and the exhaust gases of cattle contribute greatly to the non-existent hole in the ozone layer..."

The what? I wasn't even aware of this conspiracy theory before - if you know where on Earth he's gotten this idea from then please leave a comment, because I'm deeply curious"!

"I wonder if I could get a grant for it."

No. Because to get funding for science you have to be able to demonstrating an understanding of what you're talking about, and present a coherent picture of what you want to do, and judging by this stream of bilious bollocks, these two things are beyond you.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

(I don't write much on climate change denial because I only have so much patience for any one conspiracy theory, but for one of the best blogs on the web on the subject check out Island of Doubt)