International Journal of Inactivism (now supplanted by Decoding SwiftHack)


Evidence of no evidence

Filed under: International Climate Science Coalition,Joanne Nova — stepanovich @ 19:50

cite as: F. Bi. 2008. Evidence of no evidence. Intl. J. Inact., 1:168

Well, I’ve been busy lately, so I’ll just point you to a cartoon by Australian ‘journalist’ Joanne Nova on the last page of her The Skeptics Handbook. It’s captioned thus:

Duh. After 50 billion dollars it [climate change research] says “Give Up. Go Home. CO2 didn’t do it”.

Now, I’ve been hearing this “50 billion dollars” figure quite a number of times, but can anyone tell me where it came from and how it was derived in the first place? Well, page 2 of the handbook says,

Non believers [of global warming] don’t have to prove anything.

Oh, sorry. I shouldn’t have asked.

* * *

(Via the inimitable International Climate Science Coalition, who obviously don’t have to prove anything either.)



  1. Woot! Those Handbooks are worth reaming point by poiint – thanks 🙂

    Comment by greenfyre — 2008/11/14 @ 06:01 | Reply

  2. I wish I could type … sigh

    Comment by greenfyre — 2008/11/14 @ 06:01 | Reply

  3. The handbook contains false claims like “Look at the Southern Hemisphere, temperatures recorded by satellites since 1979 show things are flat”


    “The Urban Heat Island effect means that thermometers in cities are really measuring urban-development warming, or car-park-climate-changes, not global warming. Satellites have circled the planet 24 hours a day measuring temperatures continuously for nearly 30 years. If the temperatures were still rising, they would see it.”

    Even though the surface and satellite records show a warming trend..

    Comment by makron — 2008/11/17 @ 00:35 | Reply

  4. greenfyre:

    The points have already been refuted over and over again, but of course the inactivists will simply repeat them because they’re not ‘satisfied’ with or ‘convinced’ by the refutations or something.


    The handbook contains false claims

    It’s OK, because They Do Not Have To Prove Anything. Hah.

    Comment by frankbi — 2008/11/17 @ 03:13 | Reply

  5. Franki

    “The points have already been refuted over and over again”

    Yes, that’s what would make it fairly easy to just collate them to refute the handbooks in their entirety in one easy posting; no muss, no fuss, no bother …

    I must be sane to make this sort of offer …. 😉

    Comment by greenfyre — 2008/11/22 @ 16:35 | Reply

  6. (Fat Man: no linkspamming.)

    Comment by frankbi — 2009/04/20 @ 07:00 | Reply

  7. Sorry guys I’m new here, and I’m lost. I can’t see any science here, only sneering. Perhaps you can point me to the science.

    Comment by David Shipley — 2009/12/17 @ 00:18 | Reply

    • Well, in order to understand the science, first you need to understand the concepts of “logic” and “evidence”. And it’s pretty obvious that you don’t.

      Comment by frankbi — 2009/12/17 @ 11:58 | Reply

  8. (Mark E. Gillar: Try providing independent sources to your figures of $50bn, $79bn, or $30bn, or whatever. Or you can stop spamming talking points.)

    Comment by stepanovich — 2010/04/11 @ 13:01 | 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

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: