ACM's "Alarmism Machine" map ruffles warmist feathers

Click for PDF

ACM’s Alarmism Machine map has been making waves in the warmosphere.

You will recall Andrew Revkin’s blog displayed a rather nasty map of “organised climate change denial”  – I was so amused by this diagram that I prepared a response (see here).

Revkin then updated his post to include a link to my response, originally with the comment:

“I think some, though by no means all, aspects of the map are spot on.” [No link available – sadly]

This was hastily toned down [why? – Ed] to read:

“I think some, though by no means all, aspects of the map are not bad. But, as with so much of the climate debate, it is an overdrawn, overblown caricature of reality.”

Apparently a storm of protest ensued from the hardcore warmists, who were shocked, shocked I tell you, that Revkin dared publish a link to such heresy. The former editor of Scientific American, John Rennie, firstly weighed in:

Follow the link and take a look at that diagram. It apes the design of what Dunlap and McCright drew but whereas they only listed examples of the organizations that fit into each of the categories they named, the blogger insults them in keeping with his own biases.

Andy, just which aspects of this do you see as “not bad”?

Thank goodness he didn’t see the version of Revkin’s comment that said “spot on”!

ACM even scored a mention on Joe Romm’s blog, with this typical outburst:

Rennie was particularly critical of Revkin’s equating the climate denial machine with a laughable “climate alarmism machine” (whipped up by an Australian disinformer), which equates those who spread outright anti-scientific disinformation (often funded by fossil-fuel interests) with the serious work of climate scientists and governments (and others) who make use of that genuine, scientific work.

“Australian disinformer” – I like it! Actually British ex-pat, Joe, but I won’t press the point. And now Revkin has been forced to defend his publication of a link to my map (my emphasis). Revkin, however, firstly distances himself from the original map still further by stating that he was “insufficiently critical” of it in the original post (despite it having already been toned down), but does include some very interesting comments:

I disagree with Rennie and Joe Romm, who followed up on his criticism, on some broader points.

Here’s the prime question Rennie posed about my original post:

Was Andy implying that those on the climate activism side were an equivalent kind of propaganda machine, even though the case for the reality and gravity of climate change is much better validated by the scientific literature? It seemed unlikely, but he seemed to let his readers think so.

Setting aside the word propaganda, I will readily assert that there has been a longstanding and well-financed effort to raise public concern by downplaying substantial, persistent and legitimate uncertainty about the worst-case outcomes from greenhouse-driven warming and over-attributing the link between such warming and climate-related disasters and other events. Much of this is organized.

But it should be pointed out that there is a climate-style amplifying feedback process, in which a funding agency, a university and researchers highlight the most newsworthy aspect of a new study — even if it’s tentative — and that baton is passed to journalists eagerly sifting for “the front-page thought.” Kind of looks like a hype machine, in some ways.

At least Revkin concedes that there is some organised scaremongering at work in the warmist camp – it is impossibly to deny. But what I find more astonishing is that Romm and Rennie were so eager to criticise Revkin for even publishing a link – you would have thought Revkin’s readers should be able to make up their own minds.

And the funniest part of all of this? The fact that so many people have taken the map so seriously! Geez – it was knocked together in about 20 minutes as a satirical response to an offensive diagram about “deniers”. It was a joke! Yes, it was overblown and a caricature – that was the intention. Exaggeration to make a point. Whist my choice of words was intentionally over the top, the underlying points have more than a grain of truth.

UPDATE: Check out Jo Nova’s version here – much prettier!