International Journal of Inactivism (now supplanted by Decoding SwiftHack)


Face the science… face the science…

Filed under: Alan Caruba,climate conspiracy theories,Roy Spencer — stepanovich @ 03:32

cite as: F. Bi. 2008. Face the science… face the science… Intl. J. Inact., 1:109–111

Alan Caruba, who apparently still thinks that the Heartland 500 list is a “petition”, wrote on this blog,

Why splash about visiting MoveOff sites when you can get it direct from the source? Come visit or if you are particularly masochistic, you can visit my blog at

Nice to watch you nibble around the edges instead of confronting the actual science. It would so boring if we had to talk about that.

Well, I just visited his blog. I was trying to find some science to confront, but I couldn’t find any. What I did find was the same old nonsense and opinionating; take this blog entry:

Recently, Dr. Roy Spencer, an atmospheric scientist who formerly worked for NASA, testified before a Senate committee. Free now to speak without the impediments of bureaucratic oversight, Dr. Spencer told the committee, “I am pleased to deliver good news from the front lines of climate change research.

“[…] we now have new satellite evidence which strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive than is claimed by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…the warming we have experience in the last 100 years is mostly natural.”

Let’s see. Spencer’s testimony was made on 22 Jul, while he had been churning out inactivist ‘news’ as early as 2005. Did he mysteriously become free from the shackles of “bureaucratic oversight” between then and now? (Also, this is the same Spencer who argued that mainstream scientists have leftist bias and that most scientists agree with himself.) Caruba goes on:

Read that again, “mostly natural.” The notion that human beings have had any impact on the Earth’s climate, while absurd when compared to that of the Sun, the Oceans, and other natural factors, is now headed for the trash bin of really bad ideas.

It’s always amazing how global warming ‘skeptics’ incessantly doubt the mainstream position, while they unquestioningly hail every bit of ‘news’ coming from the inactivists as definitive proof that Greenism Is Doomed.

We have in this nation, an army of so-called scientists who devote themselves to conjuring up this kind of hogwash because it means a paycheck. The environmental scam has put their children through college, put a new car in the garage, and provided a vacation for the whole family. All they have to do is keep churning out idiotic, useless, and very expensive “research.”

I thought Caruba just said that global warming’s a conspiracy to attack capitalism. Jeez, can’t you guys just decide on one conspiracy theory each and stick with it?

Those getting this money are going to dine out on your hard-earned dollars and eventually tell you that various species of ticks and mosquitoes are known to transmit these diseases. This, I assure you, is already well established and well known, but you have just forked over $2.25 million to be told the obvious. […]

[…] In the meantime, I will give thanks to the sensible folks who, decades ago, before the advent of environmental charlatans, set up a mosquito eradication program to protect people from this well known transmitter of a variety of nasty, nasty, nasty diseases.

Yep, no more research needed. We already Know all the answers. There’s no global warming, and even if there is it’s completely natural, and in any case global warming is a type of mass hysteria and it’s a scam concocted by climatologists to earn money and it’s a leftist plot. Also, DDT is good for you… and given enough nukes, all bugs are shallow.

All hail skepticism!

(And again, where’s the science I’m supposed to confront? I’m still looking for it.)



  1. Not exactly connected to this topic (except tangentially), but it looks like you got another plug — this time from ScienceBlogs’ Denialism. I check that one on a semi-regular basis (it is to medical issues what Deltoid is to climate, although it does cover the subject as well); you’d probably get a bigger kick out of their denialism meta-studies, most of which are summarized here or here.

    Comment by Brian D — 2008/07/28 @ 21:53 | Reply

  2. Brian D:

    Thanks! And I like the cartoons. 🙂

    Comment by frankbi — 2008/07/29 @ 05:41 | Reply

  3. Just found you through Denialism as the previous commenter mentioned. You are officially in my blogroll.

    Comment by The Chemist — 2008/07/29 @ 17:09 | Reply

  4. The Chemist:

    Thank you, and welcome to this blog!

    Comment by frankbi — 2008/07/29 @ 17:23 | Reply

  5. I have spent a lot of time trying to engage the AGW deniers in a serious and gentlemanly discussion of the scientific issues. So far, I have encountered pretty much the same reaction where-ever I go: first they start off spouting the standard mythology; I probe that mythology with detailed questions regarding the evidentiary support for their claims; they bluster; I present documentation contradicting their claims; they start getting mad; I ignore their anger and continue pressing — in a very civil manner — on the scientific issues; they get really mad and resort to name-calling; I give up, wish them well, and resume my search.

    So I went over to Mr. Caruba’s blog and posted a question asking if he was interested in a ‘gentlemanly discussion’ of the scientific issues. He said no.

    That was quick. I am coming to the conclusion that there aren’t any AGW deniers who wish to discuss the matter in a reasoned and gentlemanly fashion.

    Comment by Chris Crawford — 2008/07/31 @ 16:27 | Reply

  6. Chris Crawford:

    Ah well… I’ve come to the conclusion that Caruba’s completely hopeless. He doesn’t even care about basic fact-checking, and his idea of “science” doesn’t even pretend to look scientific. Just lots of conlibertarian talking points sprinkled liberally with artistic license…

    Comment by frankbi — 2008/07/31 @ 18:43 | Reply

  7. I have been “officially” (what ever that means) banned from Caruba’s blog. AGW deniers have a number of strategies and one of the most important is never to engage in debate, especially if it involves anybody with real knowledge. Facts to quote Caruba are “boring” and according to him it is OK to publish any old unsubstantiated nonsense. He seems to embody one of the central tenets of Mein Kampf, namely if something is wrong, but it is repeated often enough, that people will eventually beileve it and it will become “true”.

    Caruba is an anachronism, completely at odds with the world he lives in. He is also a rather unpleasant neocon who supports the Bush/Cheney et al cabal currently in control of the US.

    Caruba is (was?) a member of a science writers organization. I complained to them about his work, copying some of the things he has written and he now no longer seems to clainm membership! If he was ejected because he wrote unsubstantaited rubbish, scientifically nonsense then I am not surprised.

    Comment by Rod Campbell-Ross — 2008/08/17 @ 04:44 | Reply

  8. Rod Campbell-Ross:

    Member of a science writers organization? Now that’s a new one. So I gather he is (or was) somewhat like Gina Kolata?

    Comment by frankbi — 2008/08/17 @ 05:02 | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: