Denial Watch - Get Your Science on...

Something I don't get about global warming denailism – why they never bother to support their arguments? By this I mean they (and their supporters) have pumped millions and millions of dollars into PR campaigns, fake grass roots organisations, scientists-in-your-pocket to lend credibility and loads of lobbyists – all used to back the same rough set of three arguments; it's not really happening/the science is not clear so lets not nothing/it is happening but it is not all bad.

But what they have never done is fund some science. I don't mean a conference or opinion piece by a paid denial scientists, I man the think they all claim to be about; the truth – real objective science.

For example recently the Cato Institute published a series of ads pushing the (fake) idea that the science was not settled on Climate Change. Let's pretend that they were right; that ad campaign was not cheap; it must have cost in excess of $1 million as just the New York Times ad costs $150,000. So why not spend the PR cash on financing a expedition to the Arctic to uncover the truth – publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal – then the 'consensus' would collapse under the one thing that can't be ignored; the truth?

I mean Exxon was estimated to have spent around £100 million over the past 10 years – imagine how much science they could have done? Why were they not sending teams to to measure glaciers or uncover the climate sink data of the oceans? I man we heard over-and-over that the climate science we do have is bias and part of some ill-defined conspiracy to fleece research funds; so why did the denialists not simply fund un-bias research?

Could it be because, like the creationists, they know deep down the people with the chequebooks who fund this stuff know they are wrong (as Exxon has admitted) and the PR battle is the only place they have a chance of winning?
-