denial loud and clear

[realthog]

There've been one or two very good reviews of Denying Science lately, and there's some further exciting stuff in the pipeline. But there's been another from one of the science deniers, this time from someone called Alan Caruba, who runs a blog called Bookviews by Alan Caruba. It says at the top that " Alan Caruba is a charter member of the National Book Critics Circle and has been reviewing for more than five decades", but beyond that I know nothing about him.

I tried to leave a comment on his blog, but for some reason OpenID wouldn't accept my LJ info. Since I don't belong to any of the other eligible social networks, I thought I'd instead post my responses, brief as they are, here. First, Caruba's capsule review:

The vast global warming fraud, perpetrating since the 1980s, has caused a lot of people to be turned off by claims said to be based on scientific investigation and findings. Suffice to say the alleged data supporting global warming, now called climate change, was found to be utterly corrupt. So naturally, along comes John Grant’s book, Denying Science: Conspiracy Theories, Media Distortions, and the War against Reality ($25.00, Prometheus Books). Unfortunately, it is just Grant’s reality as he continues to rail against “deniers” of the discredited “science”. The book is one long rant against what he regards as “unscientific” ideas regarding a wide range of topics. Suffice to say there is no such thing as a “consensus” among scientists because science exists to be both challenged and expanded with new findings. The book is essentially rubbish. Caveat emptor.

The response I tried to post in his comments section was:

Suffice to say the alleged data supporting global warming, now called climate change, was found to be utterly corrupt.

This is quite simply untrue.

Suffice to say there is no such thing as a “consensus” among scientists because science exists to be both challenged and expanded with new findings.

This is the point that was notoriously made a couple of years back by AGW-denialist Daily Telegraph pundit James Delingpole to the President of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse; it was a fine example of a scientifically unqualified journalist telling a top scientist what the nature of science is, and made Delingpole look such an idiot that the clip from the interview went viral, offering innocent merriment to millions around the globe. Yet you repeat the point almost word perfect as if it were established fact.

I begin to think that, every time you a start a sentence "Suffice to say", it's an indication that you're about to tell a whopper.

The book is one long rant against what he regards as “unscientific” ideas regarding a wide range of topics.

Lemme think: "unscientific" ideas like creationism, antivaxerism, faith healing, The Secret, recovered-memory syndrome, AIDS denial, eugenics, Social Darwinism, denial of the relationship between tobacco smoking and lung disease . . . If you were to be intellectually honest, you'd spell out all these and the other examples of science denialism that my book covers, so that your readers might evaluate for themselves how much of established science you yourself reject. That you choose not to speaks for itself.

Comments

[deliabarry.livejournal.com]

I did a bit of poking around. His other blog, Fair Warning, is one big screed against AGW, and he flat-out called it a lie. So I asked him for some documentation of that, from peer-reviewed journals only, of course. Comments are moderated, so I don't expect it to ever see the light of day. :)

Best of all? He lives in South Orange. I bet he voted for Governor Soprano.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

His other blog, Fair Warning

Many thanks for doing that extra piece of research! I guess I should have done more nosing around myself, but I spent so long trying to post my comments on his review site -- and was so bemused by my inability to do so! -- that it never occurred to me.

one big screed against AGW, and he flat-out called it a lie

I wonder why the (excellent) publicist at Prometheus bothered sending him the book, then? All across the relevant areas of science it's a complete waste of time sending review copies to denialists; ask Paul Offit. If the denialists think they're going to hate a book enough, they'll go out and buy it, and one might as well get the extra sales.

So I asked him for some documentation of that, from peer-reviewed journals only, of course.

I would love to hear if you ever get a response! There have been either two or three (can't offhand recall which) AGW-denialist papers in genuine peer-reviewed journals (rather than bogus peer-reviewed journals, of which there are several). The appearance of one of the two/three caused half the editorial board of the journal in question to stage a walk out; the associate editor in question, it was discovered, was an AGW denialist who'd simply ignored the advice of his own peer reviewers that the paper was a stinker. Of course, that publication gets cited over and over by the deniers as "proof".

Governor Soprano

I thought Christie's voice had broken?

[stevegreen.livejournal.com]

Paul, can I please suggest you don't use slip into a red font for your quotes (italics does the job)? For those of us who don't have a white template, it's almost impossible to read.

Caruba sounds like an arse, btw.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

Paul, can I please suggest you don't use slip into a red font for your quotes (italics does the job)? For those of us who don't have a white template, it's almost impossible to read.

Sorry you're having a problem. There are problems, too, with using italics, though -- as here, for example, when I'd be stuck for differentiating my own comments from my Caruba quotes.

I've had the same colour difficulty on other sites. The method I use is to block the relevant text, as if in preparation for copying it. That usually produces a different pair of colours and almost always a clear contrast.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

I find as a general rule that when someone says "suffice to say" it usually doesn't.

Chesterton (another scientifically unqualified journalist) was fond of that point about science as well, and it has just enough truth in it to sound persuasive to even less scientifically qualified erks like me. Science does get challenged with new findings, that is what it's for. Using it as a cover for a pack of lies, though, is definitely not cricket.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

I find as a general rule that when someone says "suffice to say" it usually doesn't.

Yep. It's a phrase that has the same sort of role in life as "With all due respect", isn't it? Or (the US Frightwing broadcaster) Rush Limbaugh's "I have the statistics right here in front of me", which indicates definitively that he's about to start pulling some bogus figures out of his . . . er, out of thin air.