{"id":360126,"date":"2025-01-02T17:46:50","date_gmt":"2025-01-02T16:46:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=360126"},"modified":"2025-01-02T17:46:53","modified_gmt":"2025-01-02T16:46:53","slug":"the-errors-and-misstatements-in-climate-denialism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=360126","title":{"rendered":"The errors and misstatements in \u201cClimate Denialism\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Andy May<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The featured image is by Josh, used with permission.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are 20 clearly false statements and three additional problematic statements in Tinus Pulles\u2019 \u201cClimate Denialism<\/a>.\u201d Most of them stem from disagreements on how to interpret existing data. However, some are due to his lack of understanding of what we wrote or, intentional distortion of what we wrote. What is puzzling is I was asked to peer review this paper months ago and I sent in the review in October. Nearly all the errors you will see in the list below were pointed out then, yet they remain in the paper. To nearly everyone familiar with climate science literature and our paper, these errors are obvious. I find it more than a bit alarming that even the grammatical errors I pointed out in the paper last October are still in it. Why such a flawed paper was published is a mystery. Peer review is not working as intended.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pulles appears to believe that dangerous human-caused climate change is an undisputed fact. He also repeatedly conflates \u201cclimate change\u201d with \u201cdangerous man-made climate change.\u201d Human-caused global climate change has never been observed, either directly or statistically, only modeled. The paper is critical of our paper from earlier in the year\u00a0(May & Crok, 2024)<\/a>, but that paper makes it clear that human-caused climate change is not an existential threat, and the incidence and magnitude of recent extreme weather events have not exceeded expected natural variability as shown in the recent\u00a0IPCC AR6 WGI<\/a>\u00a0report on page 1856 and elsewhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two citations in Pulles, (Hoofnagle & Hoofnagle, 2007)<\/a> and (Diethelm & McKee, 2009)<\/a>, are editorials and not academic articles. Further both are slanderous attacks on climate skeptics and compare them directly to people who deny the Holocaust occurred and other similarly abhorrent groups. In fact, Hoofnagle mentions the World War II Holocaust five times. The Holocaust is a historical fact, I have visited Auschwitz\/Birkenau personally and know its horrors, I defy anyone to take a tour of Auschwitz\/Birkenau and leave without tears in their eyes, I don\u2019t think it is possible. On the other hand, the hypothesis that climate change is mostly man-made and potentially dangerous is based entirely on theoretical considerations and model projections, these are research topics that Hoofnagle and Hoofnagle admit they do not \u201cunderstand \u2026 worth a damn.\u201d It is disingenuous in the extreme to conflate denying the Holocaust to climate skeptics who are simply challenging a popular scientific hypothesis in a time-honored traditional way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I normally have no problem with the phrase \u201cclimate denier,\u201d if it is clearly defined as one who is skeptical of the idea of dangerous man-made climate change but citing editorials that directly compare May & Crok to denying the Holocaust is beyond the pale of normal civil discourse and has no place in a respectable academic journal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If alternative views on climate change are simply dismissed thoughtlessly as \u201cdenialism,\u201d then normal scientific discourse is no longer possible. May & Crok<\/a> make a good case that climate change is not a grave threat for mankind. It would have been more interesting if Pulles had made a similar argument for the opposite viewpoint. Readers of both could then make up their own minds. Instead, Pulles only attacks May & Crok with vacuous ad hominem arguments and says little of substance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Climate skeptics acknowledge that dangerous human-caused climate change is possible but see no observational or statistical evidence supporting such an assertion. The currently available evidence tends to dispute the idea as explained in May & Crok<\/a>. To skeptics, or \u201cdeniers,\u201d if you prefer, the idea is clearly open to scientific debate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors claim our article belittles scientific evidence by saying \u201cAR6 claims,\u201d \u201cthey believe,\u201d or that \u201cwe need evidence.\u201d These phrases are hardly belittling and fairly normal and respectful language when challenging a new scientific idea. In a debate one must establish that they understand the opposing view and restate it in a clear way. They claim May & Crok ignore thousands of pages of evidence. That many pages wouldn\u2019t be needed if real evidence of dangerous man-made climate change existed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It seems to me the author bears the burden of proof and has not delivered. His clearly false statements do not help his case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is just a quick summary of the most egregious problems in \u201cClimate Denialism.\u201d The detailed description and documentation of each error and problem, plus a bibliography is in a separate document<\/a>. I peer reviewed \u201cClimate Denialism\u201d and wrote a detailed critique of the paper very similar to this one. The errors I point out below were nearly all in my October 2024 review. After the paper was published, I downloaded the final version and updated my review document to match the published version, very few changes to the October original were needed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key problems in \u201cClimate Denialism.\u201d<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. Climate change \u201cdeniers\u201d are directly compared to deniers of the Holocaust and other abhorrent groups in the two main sources used in the paper to define \u201cClimate Denialism.\u201d The Holocaust is a historical fact and dangerous man-made climate change is a hypothesis; they are not comparable.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Pulles claims \u201cdeniers,\u201d and May & Crok, specifically, deny science or climate science. I know of no man-made climate skeptics who deny science and certainly May & Crok do not deny science or climate science. Pulles conflates \u201cscience\u201d and \u201cclimate science\u201d with a popular climate change hypothesis that he never really defines. This confirms my opinion that the \u201cconsensus on climate change\u201d means whatever it is needed to mean at the time.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Pulles claims that denialists try to disprove \u201ca scientific consensus.\u201d Science is the methodology civilization invented to challenge a consensus opinion, quite the opposite of the author\u2019s meaning. What is the purpose of science, other than as a methodology for challenging a consensus opinion?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Pulles claims \u201cdenialism\u201d is a \u201cweapon of war against climate policies.\u201d Scientific debate is not a war or a weapon. Scientific debate is a healthy thing.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. Pulles claims the peer review of May & Crok was weak, but all proper procedures were followed and the paper passed peer review three votes to one.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  6. Pulles erroneously claims denialists perform no work in the field of climate science. Judy Curry, Dick Lindzen, Willie Soon, Ole Humlum, and many others would be very surprised to hear this. This is an egregious error and insulting to the hundreds, perhaps thousands of climate skeptic peer-reviewed papers.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  7. Pulles erroneously claims the imbalance of net radiation at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is known to be 0.7 W\/m2<\/sup>. He further claims that the global average imbalance does not change. That is the \u201cdistributional effects [changes in Earth\u2019s surface due to weather] will not disturb the global averages\u201d due to the law of conservation of energy. This unsupported assertion has several problems, first the satellite data shows an imbalance of\u00a04.3 W\/m2<\/sup><\/a>, which is clearly impossible. The various TOA imbalances in the literature\u00a0(0.6, 0.7, 0.9, etc.)<\/a>\u00a0are all assumed because the data are not accurate enough to determine a value, although since the world is warming, recent values (since 1980) are likely positive. Second since Earth\u2019s surface has considerable heat storage capacity, just changing the energy residence time in the climate system a small amount can have a huge impact (see\u00a0here<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0here<\/a>\u00a0for more details). In reality the energy imbalance must change continuously, how much is anyone\u2019s guess. The ocean oscillations, like the PDO, the AMO, El Ni\u00f1o, and La Ni\u00f1a (ENSO), testify to this constantly changing quantity of stored energy. The \u201cglobal averages\u201d are indeed affected by changing heat storage, look at 1945 to 1976 in figure 1 of May & Crok for an example and compare to figure 2 of May & Crok (download the complete\u00a0final submitted version<\/a>\u00a0here). While the incoming solar radiation has varied very little recently, the\u00a0outgoing longwave radiation<\/a>\u00a0from Earth\u2019s surface varies with temperature refuting Pulles\u2019 assertion about an unchanging imbalance.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  8. Pulles erroneously claims that current warming is clearly due to anthropogenic GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions, but this has not been established except in climate models. The basis for the statement is a correlation between CO2<\/sub>\u00a0and warming (his figure 3), yet earlier Pulles admits that correlation is not causation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  9. Pulles claims that a disputed paper,\u00a0Chen, et al.<\/a>, shows that McKitrick\u2019s criticisms of the atmospheric fingerprint are incorrect. In fact, Chen, et al. mostly confirm McKitrick\u2019s conclusions, but try and say they don\u2019t matter and can be assumed away. For Ross McKitrick\u2019s detailed criticisms of Chen, et al. see\u00a0here<\/a>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  10. Pulles claims that if McKitrick is correct, it does not disprove that human activity is the main cause of global climate change. There is nothing to disprove, no one has proven that humans are the main cause of climate change. The human impact on climate has not even been detected.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  11. Pulles admits that climate models are inaccurate, relative to observations, in the tropical middle troposphere (see\u00a0here<\/a>) but erroneously claims that the \u201cextra\u201d heat must be somewhere else. Why? There may be no extra heat, the radiation imbalance at the top of the atmosphere is clearly unknown and constantly changing, we don\u2019t even know if it is positive or negative. Further, as noted above,\u00a0outgoing longwave radiation is increasing<\/a>\u00a0in a manner consistent with warming, and there is little change in incoming solar radiation, there is no \u201cextra\u201d heat that we can detect.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  12. Pulles erroneously claims that May & Crok state that the AMO is purely due to natural causes. In fact, we say that human-caused warming from 1976 to the present day might have been boosted by a natural AMO cycle. If true, this invalidates the IPCC idea that humans have caused all the warming since 1976.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  13. Pulles erroneously claims that Mann (2020<\/a>\u00a0&\u00a02021<\/a>) provide evidence that the AMO is not a natural phenomenon. Mann conducted a climate model study that showed the AMO might be a result of volcanic activity and anthropogenic emissions, but he provides no evidence other than model runs.\u00a0Mann et al., 2020<\/a>\u00a0admits that internal variability contributes to the AMO.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  14. Pulles erroneously claims that the residuals after detrending the AMO and HadCRUT4 have no structure and may be due to random noise. Both sets of residuals not only show structure in figure 2 of\u00a0May & Crok<\/a>, the residual structures match each other. This statement is clearly false.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  15. Pulles writes \u201cthey conclude that the \u201cdetrended\u201d data show no trends.\u201d\u00a0<\/em>This is false, there is no such conclusion or statement in May & Crok.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  16. Pulles erroneously claims that ocean oscillations go up and down and can never contribute to warming trends. That depends entirely on the period of the oscillation and the beginning and ending dates chosen. This is false.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  17. Pulles erroneously claims that\u00a0Pielke Jr.<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Lomborg<\/a>\u00a0have been debunked but provide no evidence. I do not know of any articles written by them that have been debunked, they both receive a lot of criticism because they are skeptical of the dangers of man-made climate change, but they\u2019ve not been debunked.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  18. Pulles erroneously claims that modern warming is unusual in Earth\u2019s history. There are many examples of much more rapid and severe warming in the past, especially the very well documented\u00a0rapid warming ~11,700 years ago<\/a>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  19. Pulles claims that the Little Ice Age was regional, as if that means it doesn\u2019t matter. All climate changes are regional, including the current \u201cglobal\u201d warming. The Little Ice Age caused glaciers to advance nearly everywhere in the world except in Antarctica, but the advances were not synchronous. While this claim is true in the strictest case, it does not matter in the intended way.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  20. Pulles erroneously claims that plants evolved in an environment of around 250 PPM CO2<\/sub>. Modern vascular plants\u00a0evolved during the Devonian Period<\/a>, ~400 million years ago when CO2<\/sub>\u00a0was 1,000 to ~4,000 PPM, many times higher than today. It appears this error stems from a misunderstanding of his primary source\u00a0Ort, 2015<\/a>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  21. Pulles erroneously claims that more CO2<\/sub>\u00a0will not result in improvements in plant growth,\u00a0numerous controlled experiments<\/a>\u00a0have shown this is false. Especially C3 plants, such as rice, soybeans, wheat, most trees, and grasses, thrive in more CO2<\/sub>\u00a0than we have today.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  22. Pulles erroneously claims that May & Crok were \u201cgiven permission\u201d to publish their article in\u00a0AJES<\/em>, but in fact, they were invited to write a paper explaining the scientific basis for denialism.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  23. Pulles erroneously claims that the peer reviewers of May & Crok were \u201cclearly not familiar with the existing science.\u201d This is not true and not documented in the paper.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  24. Finally, this assertion, \u201cThe many flaws and misrepresentations in the paper should have resulted in rejection\u201d<\/em>\u00a0has no foundation. No flaws or misrepresentations in\u00a0May & Crok<\/a>\u00a0are identified in \u201cClimate Denialism.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    It is a shame that the institution of peer-review has been corrupted to the extent that papers filled with obvious falsehoods can pass simply because of ideological bias. I was a peer reviewer for this paper and pointed out all the above problems to the editor in October, but the paper was published anyway, with the falsehoods left in. My full review of the paper, slightly updated, can be downloaded here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    It is amazing that papers like this get published (see other examples here<\/a> and here<\/a>) when all-to-often serious and carefully researched papers are rejected. Pulles and May & Crok interpret the same facts differently in many cases, but in many of the points listed above, Pulles is clearly in error. It is shocking that these obvious errors were pointed out in detail months ago, but the editors of AJES still published the paper as is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Hoofnagle and Hoofnagle, who admit they do not understand climate models \u201cworth a damn,\u201d write \u201cGlobal Warming denialists like Richard Lindzen [try] and explain why mainstream scientists won\u2019t publish their BS.\u201d Science is clearly taking a backseat to bias and misinformation. This is to the detriment of scientists everywhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    These problems with Climate Denialism are discussed in more detail, along with additional problems not listed here, in a downloadable detailed critique <\/em>here<\/em><\/a> that contains a full bibliography. The detailed critique is extremely similar to what I sent in to the editors of AJES in October. For a list of other critiques of May & Crok and our responses, see <\/em>here<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    There are 20 clearly false statements and three additional problematic statements in Tinus Pulles\u2019 \u201cClimate Denialism.\u201d Most of them stem from disagreements on how to interpret existing data. However, some are due to his lack of understanding of what we wrote or, intentional distortion of what we wrote. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":360130,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691829997,691818056,691821960,691832400,691827037],"class_list":{"0":"post-360126","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-carbon-dioxide-co","9":"tag-climate-change","10":"tag-climate-denialism","11":"tag-ipcc-ar6-wgi","12":"tag-peer-review","14":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0we-also-have-to-pay-attention-to-the-problem-of-continued-fossil-fuel-development-photo-jeremy-durkin-rex-shutterstock.webp?fit=1200%2C600&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1vGu","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":411446,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=411446","url_meta":{"origin":360126,"position":0},"title":"Orwellian Sacking of Editor for Allowing Debate Over Climate Change","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/11\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Special Issues Editor of the American Journal of Economics and Sociology has been sacked from his position for daring to allow debate over the impact of climate change. Environmental Engineer Dr Marty Rowland was removed from his position for publishing a paper by Marcel Crok and Andy May. The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"cancel culture\"","block_context":{"text":"cancel culture","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=cancel-culture"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/AQN7_5YirC2_wOg0JyM5RAu4rRFuXJfrVwGhqZl1yvMJ8upLHATg4uS-146si6Qvod4aEYXuRAEuJQxH03BIrmBk-3jBd4IwymfLn0A9iRhmPPoXf75HYCTBijZnaL_.jpeg?fit=1200%2C683&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/AQN7_5YirC2_wOg0JyM5RAu4rRFuXJfrVwGhqZl1yvMJ8upLHATg4uS-146si6Qvod4aEYXuRAEuJQxH03BIrmBk-3jBd4IwymfLn0A9iRhmPPoXf75HYCTBijZnaL_.jpeg?fit=1200%2C683&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/AQN7_5YirC2_wOg0JyM5RAu4rRFuXJfrVwGhqZl1yvMJ8upLHATg4uS-146si6Qvod4aEYXuRAEuJQxH03BIrmBk-3jBd4IwymfLn0A9iRhmPPoXf75HYCTBijZnaL_.jpeg?fit=1200%2C683&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/AQN7_5YirC2_wOg0JyM5RAu4rRFuXJfrVwGhqZl1yvMJ8upLHATg4uS-146si6Qvod4aEYXuRAEuJQxH03BIrmBk-3jBd4IwymfLn0A9iRhmPPoXf75HYCTBijZnaL_.jpeg?fit=1200%2C683&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/AQN7_5YirC2_wOg0JyM5RAu4rRFuXJfrVwGhqZl1yvMJ8upLHATg4uS-146si6Qvod4aEYXuRAEuJQxH03BIrmBk-3jBd4IwymfLn0A9iRhmPPoXf75HYCTBijZnaL_.jpeg?fit=1200%2C683&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":277286,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=277286","url_meta":{"origin":360126,"position":1},"title":"The Epistemological Crisis: A Misguided Dive into Supposed Climate Denial and the Danger of Constructed Narratives","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/09\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The epistemological crisis occurring is one of a failing expertocracy forcing its viewpoints and worldviews through an onslaught of propaganda and censorship on a populace that can see the contradictions and flaws in those viewpoints.","rel":"","context":"In \"Censorship\"","block_context":{"text":"Censorship","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=censorship"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/image-156.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/image-156.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/image-156.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/image-156.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/image-156.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":250937,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=250937","url_meta":{"origin":360126,"position":2},"title":"Swiss Politician Calls On Making Climate Denial A \u201cCriminal Offence\u201d\u2026Obstructs \u201cEffective Measures\u201d!","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/04\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Alarmed Swiss green politician: Challenging\u00a0 alarmist climate change claims and questioning the urgency to act drastically should be made a crime\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0climate-crisis-classes.jpg?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0climate-crisis-classes.jpg?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0climate-crisis-classes.jpg?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0climate-crisis-classes.jpg?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0climate-crisis-classes.jpg?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":434509,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=434509","url_meta":{"origin":360126,"position":3},"title":"British Regulator OFCOM to Investigate Broadcaster Climate Denial","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"26\/03\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Apparently \u201cdangerous climate lies\u201d like claims there is no climate emergency should not be allowed to go unchallenged in TV programmes.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/0-trial-of-Galileo-Galilei.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/0-trial-of-Galileo-Galilei.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/0-trial-of-Galileo-Galilei.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/0-trial-of-Galileo-Galilei.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":259017,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=259017","url_meta":{"origin":360126,"position":4},"title":"Climate Hypocrisy Wednesday Part Two: It\u2019s Not Hypocrisy if Your Heart is Pure","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"25\/05\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Social \u201cscientists\u201d love to create post hoc rationalizations for their preferred policies. The motivated reasoning behind the following paper is laughable. The citations of Oreskes, Mann, and others bring the information bubble within which the author lives into sharp focus.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/00Social-scientists.jpeg?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/00Social-scientists.jpeg?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/00Social-scientists.jpeg?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/00Social-scientists.jpeg?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/00Social-scientists.jpeg?fit=1200%2C630&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":222388,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=222388","url_meta":{"origin":360126,"position":5},"title":"Cardinal Czerny: The Time for Climate Denial and Populism is Over","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/10\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Exodus 23:1 tells us: \u201cYou shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness.\u201d","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-258.png?fit=750%2C477&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-258.png?fit=750%2C477&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-258.png?fit=750%2C477&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-258.png?fit=750%2C477&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/360126","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=360126"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/360126\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":360133,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/360126\/revisions\/360133"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/360130"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=360126"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=360126"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=360126"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}