Well, on this blog we have often tried to point out that a conglomeration of atheists is no likely to be more intelligent, more sane, more rational than any other grouping (*), but recently we have had a fair bit of evidence that being an “atheist” says very little about a person. Atheism is an open club, there are no vows you have to take (**), there is no entry test and it is pretty much all self-certified – if you say you are an atheist, you are an atheist. There is no doctrine atheists must follow, no common political ideology and, sadly, no reasons that any particular atheist should be even remotely scientifically literate (for example Al Kafir Akbar<\/a>, discussed<\/a> previously<\/a>). Everyone is born an atheist, some are converted to a religion then escape, others just remain atheists.<\/p>\n It seems we have a new entry to the ranks of literate but scientifically challenged atheist. Brendan O’Neill is the person who claims to be an “avowed atheist” and is “as atheistic as it gets.” I have no idea how Brendan sees there being a sliding scale of atheism, it has always struck me as being reasonably black and white(***).<\/p>\n Not content with repeating himself ad nauseam<\/em> (see heather’s previous posts<\/a>), writing in CommentIsFree<\/a> today, Brendan has now joined in on the side of Climate Change Deniers. In a breathtaking display of scientific illiteracy (as well as some apparent linguistic illiteracy), Brendan launches an attack on anthropogenic climate change that would make the discovery institute proud. He seems convinced that his limited reading on the subject has imparted upon him a greater understanding than the majority of the worlds scientists. Like all kooks, he feels that the few newspaper articles he has read, has allowed him to have a unique insight that no amount of scientifically trained people (students and professors) have managed to spot. He is amazing, and I am sure he will be on his way to Stockholm in the very near future. Or not. Add into this weird approach to science, the fact he is attacking things no on their science but on their presentation (or more importantly his interpretation of it), and you can see he must spend a lot of time at UncommonDescent<\/a>. Even his arguments seem similar to the crackpot ones they use. As soon as he uses the “less than half of scientists support global warming” we will know the truth…<\/p>\n In what appears to be nothing more than an attack on the idea of using polar bears<\/em> to highlight climate change, Brendan writes:<\/p>\n How did the polar bear, one of nature’s most vicious beasts, become the doe-eyed poster boy for the green lobby? You can’t open a newspaper or switch on the box these days without seeing one of these knife-clawed monsters floating on a bit of broken ice, staring forlornly into the camera lens and seeming to say: “Help me. Pleeease.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I assume there is a healthy dose of poetic licence there, as I haven’t seen one of these images and I read several newspapers daily.<\/p>\n However, I take issue on the “one of nature’s most vicious beasts” bit. By what crackpot criteria has he used to judge this? It seems, this is solely based on the fact polar bears will attack humans. Oh no! The evil creatures. Kill them all. Use up more fossil fuels so their habitat collapses – who cares about any other repercussions as long as the hideous, cruel, vicious polar bears die.<\/p>\n From this inauspicious start, Brendan degenerates into drivel (****). In a nutshell. he seems aggrieved that the environmental lobby has the temerity to use a polar bear to show how the Arctic ice is melting. He makes no suggestion of an alternative, but seems mortally offended that a carnivore be shown to be suffering. After meandering around (obviously he has a word count to achieve) he finally sort of gets to his point:<\/p>\n It certainly wasn’t hard evidence that polar bear numbers are in serious decline that forced them into the forefront of climate change campaigning. Rather, the alleged plight of the polar bears is a manmade morality tale, an anthropomorphic story every bit as silly as Bambi, designed to induce guilt and shame amongst the population. Only this cartoonish view of wicked humans and innocent bears is being taken seriously by a great number of adults who should know better.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Well really? What a wonderful biologist Brendan is, he has mixed his amazing knowledge of polar bears with climatology and discovered this new truth. All Hail Brendan. (Yes, I know this is an appeal to ridicule, forgive me). Anyway, explaining his hidden evidence, Brendan continues: [links as in original]<\/p>\n You’d never know it from all those sorry photos of sad polar bears, but global polar bear numbers have actually increased over the past 40 years. In 2001, the polar bear specialist group<\/a> of the World Conservation Union found that of 20 distinct polar bear populations, one or possibly two were declining, while more than half were stable and two subpopulations were actually increasing. In its more recent study<\/a> of 2006, the group found a less rosy picture, but not much less rosy. It discovered that of 19 polar bear populations, five were declining, five were stable and two were increasing; there wasn’t enough data to judge the fortunes of the remaining seven populations. The global polar bear population has increased from around 5,000 in the 1960s to 25,000 today.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here we see real<\/em> science at work. I can’t get my head round how Brendan thinks this supports his argument but I will try.<\/p>\n First off, his second link is to a book review on his own website. It is up to you if you find that a valid source of data, we shall, for the purposes here, assume it is.<\/p>\n Please, anyone, tell me how that shows improved circumstances for the polar bear? The closest thing to a “good point” he makes is the apparent data that the bear population has increased five fold in the last forty years. I cant find something to verify this, but will take it as read for now because it still doesn’t support his argument.<\/p>\n What is really funny is that if you follow his first link, you get to a web page (PDF<\/a>, sorry) from the Fall 2007 issue of the Wildlife Professional, written by Real Scientists<\/strong> which (after a lot of interesting, but unrepeatable information) come to this conclusion:<\/p>\n For polar bears, habitat loss is the most critical single concern. The symptoms of climate warming on polar bears are becoming clearer. Highly specialized species are particularly vulnerable to extinction if their environment changes, and polar bears fit that prescription. If the population of the planet is truly concerned about the fate of this species, we need to collectively reduce greenhouse gas production significantly and quickly.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Even here, I am not doing them justice but there is too much information to post here and lots of it depends on context. They are saying that polar bear populations are under threat. It is pretty clear.<\/p>\n Sadly, Brendan seems unable to do basic research into his own sources of data. It seems when the Wildlife Professional wrote:<\/p>\n Against this extensive backdrop of long-term studies that document the negative effects of continued climate warming on sea ice and polar bears, and projections by the IPCC that those trends will continue, the press continues to cite minority contrarian opinions as if they have equal credibility<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n They were talking about Brendan. If only he had been able to read through his sources.<\/p>\n The rest of his post is just hyperbole trying to attack environmentalists – not because they are wrong (although he thinks they are) but because they have tried to use polar bears as an example of a species under threat from climate change. It is painfully inept arguing and it amazes me that the Guardian allows this sort of post in CiF. If they pay for this nonsense, I will certainly be looking for a new job!<\/p>\n As always with this sort of post, half the crazed humour lives in the comments. It warms my heart that lots of the comments quite rightly take Brendan to task on his gibberish (especially his choice of dominant source – I wonder if he was sponsored?), but there is a helping of idiocy.<\/p>\n PinkTaco<\/a> brings out the standard denial crap with:<\/p>\n Look how the eco-nazis wail and moan when you threaten their sacred cow (or bear). The facts are as follows:<\/p>\n – Polar bear populations are growing or stable. http:\/\/epw.senate.gov\/ [longassed url]<\/a><\/p>\n Let’s stop this misanthropic, self hating that deludes us into thinking we have the ability to influence climate. Is there a list of words somewhere that these fools have to use in their rants? PinkTaco uses the word “facts” but fails to understand what it means. I love the froth at the end – “misanthropic, self-hating” “left wing political pressure group” “impose Socialism by the back door.” Priceless. And wrong.<\/p>\n Also, Brendan seems to have grown an equally clueless fanboi called “BlueToffee” who goes out of his way to defend Brendan’s special brand of stupid. For example, this bit of weird<\/a>:<\/p>\n Right, but don’t you ‘feel’ a bit of confirmation bias here? First we have ‘global warming’, but then it emerges that the Earth may not be warming as was predicted by the models. So now we have global warming = volatility (not warming, per se), but what does that mean? Where I grew up in W. Canada we have always had ‘volatile’ weather; tornadoes in the summer, extreme blizzards in the winter, and a strange weather phenomenon that propels the local temperatures up to the +15-20 C mark in the middle of winter, before the place plunges into a deep freeze. This is how it’s always been. Now, with the new ‘science’ any incidence of volatile weather can be attributed to “global warming” – it’s all very convenient.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So because it is nicknamed “global warming” but in reality the weather varies it must be wrong? Wow. Thinking makes your head hurt.<\/p>\n Anyway, enough for now – thanks for reading this far – I think the case on Brendan is sealed and his is going to spend a long time being ridiculed on this blog. Either that or he will learn some science, some research skills and how to proofread.<\/p>\n Hopefully Heather can ridicule him with a shorter one next time \ud83d\ude42<\/p>\n —<\/p>\n [*] short of Young Earth Creationists, maybe?<\/p>\n [**] which kind of puts paid to claims of being an “avowed atheist<\/a>.”<\/p>\n [***] actually, I am not convinced he is an atheist – but as I said, it is a self-certified title…<\/p>\n [****] putting paid to his claims of being one of the countries sharpest social commentators. Unless the country he means is Antartica. Even then…<\/p>\n\n
\n– Polar bears have existed for tens of thousands of years and have sucessfully weathered all manner of climate changes since.
\n-Global Warming is not man made. Any suggestion that there is some kind of tipping point is absurd.<\/p>\n
\nThe environmental movement is nothing more than a left wing political pressure group that seeks to use lies and weasel words to impose Socialism by the back door.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nShare this:<\/h3>