Nature: You can NOT be serious!

"Nature", which imagines itself to be the international weekly journal of science, published an absurd piece [2] trying to make out that the bullies in the global warming scare movement are in fact a naive group of timid waifs being rolled over by a powerful movement that dominates the media. Try telling that to David Bellamy, one of the best and most popular media biologists, banned from TV for his disbelief in anthropogenic global warming!

There's a really good deconstruction of Nature's cowardly piece over here [3] on Talking About the Weather, but a few additional remarks are in order. To give you the flavour of the thing, here's a sample of the Nature article:

Climate scientists are on the defensive, knocked off balance by a re-energized community of global-warming deniers who, by dominating the media agenda, are sowing doubts about the fundamental science. Most researchers find themselves completely out of their league in this kind of battle because it's only superficially about the science. The real goal is to stoke the angry fires of talk radio, cable news, the blogosphere and the like, all of which feed off of contrarian story lines and seldom make the time to assess facts and weigh evidence. Civility, honesty, fact and perspective are irrelevant.

Worse, the onslaught seems to be working: some polls in the United States and abroad suggest that it is eroding public confidence in climate science at a time when the fundamental understanding of the climate system, although far from complete, is stronger than ever. ... Officials ... should be ready to defend scientists where necessary, and at all times give a credible explanation of the science.

Talking About the Weather will show you why, in painstaking detail, it is untrue that the climate realists who disbelieve the scare are the powerful side in this dispute. For an extra example, I have identified a billion dollars paid by no less than BIG COAL itself [4] to alarmists for alarmist research and development. Make no mistake, the mainstream media was, until Climategate, completely owned by the scaremongers and the carbon traders who stand to make a fortune in confiscating your and my money when the carbon cap and trade schemes get going. But I have a different question for Nature, an important one that they seem to have completely overlooked, so I am going to put in big letters:

What "Science"?

Please go over to Nature and have a look, but I assure you, the article contained no science whatever. And if you take the trouble to real a few dozen or more of this sort of article from the alarmists, you will see this pattern repeated time and again: sceptics are lambasted for ignoring 'overwhelming scientific evidence' or something along those lines, but no actual evidence will be given.

This is for the simple reason that there isn't any.

Models, yes (models that have failed every predictive test ever given to them, by the way).

Falsified temperature data showing that we live in the hottest decade ever, yes.

Deliberately fudged satellite sea level data adjusted so that it "shows a trend", yes.

Allegations that we face some kind of 'tipping point' beyond which irretrievable disaster will ensure, despite the fact that the planet has endured 4 billion-odd years including super volcanos, CO2 thirty times today's levels, meteorite strikes, passing supernovae, and so on, without ever hitting a 'tipping point', yes.

But scientific evidence, no.

Time and again you'll be told how the "deniers" ignore "overwhelming evidence" - but that evidence is apparently too hard for your puny little mind because they'll never bother actually telling it to you.

That is the key question to ask whenever you read an article like Nature's: Do you have any evidence, or are you just blabbering and hoping we don't notice?

To the editors of Nature: You say "the onslaught seems to be working": well the sceptical articles that compose the "onslaught" on places like Wattsupwiththat almost always contain some actual relevant facts or argument or scientific analysis. If you took their actual arguments to task instead of throwing around vague allegations against unnamed persons, or if you actually showed us the clear scientific reasons for believing what you want us to believe, then your remarks might be other than laughable.

I invite anyone who thinks I am being unfair to Nature, to feel free to post some evidence here in the comments.