They both are absolutely convinced that there opponents are defending progressively weaker positions, whereas the actual evidence indicates that the exact opposite is true.

True. And you hear both of them say things like, Scientists are leaving/defecting in droves, and they’re panicking as their ideology (or theories) collapse around them. What utter tosh. You can only be that ignorant by choice in that you refuse to educate yourself.

A few times I’ve heard people say, “I’ve studied this for a while now and….”, and the next phrase is so wrong at a basic level it indicates they’ve not done any studying at all–rather, their version of studying is reading only that which supports their viewpoint (Fox News reports, AIG, Morris, Gish, Ham, Monckton, Delingpole, Solomon to name a few–even Canada’s Rex Murphy, a commentator who is widely considered to be erudite, is a denialist–he just uses bigger words than the usual denialists).

That, however, was before Murdoch bought the WSJ. Today, their news section is every bit as suspect as their opinion pages. The investor who wants reliable news is better off subscribing to the Financial Times.

No, I’m not clicking on the link just to find out whether this “article” (as the URL describes it) is an opinion piece or an alleged news item.

1. When I read these sorts of articles, I am reminded of a phrase I once heard years ago, “dodging the last kicks of a dying buffalo.” The dying buffalo of climate change denialism is kicking like crazy. Problem is, it’s still powerful enough to cause a lot of damage.

2. I am often struck by how similar the arguments used by climate change deniers and creationists. They both are absolutely convinced that there opponents are defending progressively weaker positions, whereas the actual evidence indicates that the exact opposite is true. I know that deniers hate the be called that, but if the shoe fits…

so what do you expect?

Feynman: Braaaiiinnnssss?