Batshit crazy #climate denial letter in #Manchester Evening News #gishgallops

So, some nameless Einstein has recycled a whole bunch of conspiracy theories, fake science and sprinkled them with inaccuracies. And, naturlich, it’s the lead letter in the Manchester Evening News today  For no good reason beyond procrastination, I’ve decided to go through it painful paragraph by painful paragraph….

It’s responding to this one which went in on Tuesday, btw-

letter tuesday

The letter is thirteen paragraphs long, which is extraordinary by MEN standards (usually you’re told to keep it under 200 words.  The rules are, it seems, flexible).  Here’s a refutation.  Bear in mind that the letter is a classic gish gallop

Gish gallop is a term for a debating method that focuses on overwhelming one’s opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments; it is considered a fallacious technique.[1] The term was coined by Eugenie C. Scott and named after the creationist Duane T. Gish.[2][3]

The Gish gallop allows a debater to hit their opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate.

See also this video-

Was this a good use of my time?  Nope.  Was it a good use of yours in reading this?  You have to be the judge, no?

letter today

  1. “They were very pessimistic about now and in [sic] the future.”

Perhaps because they are woke?!  So are climate scientists.

boat our end

  1. “Facts about climate change and many untruths.”

Indeed, none of the former and plenty of the latter present in this letter. Classic attempt to claim high moral ground. #Fail.

  1. Climate change has happened.

Old tactic: set up a strawman and pretend that some people don’t know it/agree with it.  Tedious and sad.

  1. “Claim man’s influence unprecedented… patently not true.”

Great Acceleration?


Anthropocene, much?

  1. Ice ages had C02 levels 14 times higher than todays”

No google search has found this claim anywhere. Just made up? The “best” I’ve found is a claim they were ‘800 percent’ (i.e. 8 x higher)

Meanwhile, read Scripps on this.  And skeptical science on the whole ‘lag’ nonsense.

5a. C02 “only” at 385ppm.  Nope, 410ppm and counting. If you can’t even get this right, what does this say about your respect for evidence and your basic, um, competence?

And of course, the rate of increase is higher.  In the 50s and 60s we were going up at 0.7 to 1ppm each year.  Nowadays its 2 or 3ppm per year.

“That growth rate was 50 percent faster than the average over the past decade, driving CO2 levels 45 percent above pre-industrial levels and further outside the range of 180-280 ppm seen in recent cycles of ice ages and warmer periods.”


  1. Environmental movement has long sought…

Well, on its own parameters, it’s failed, hasn’t it?!  Also, don’t ALL movements try to ‘dictate’ how the world is run?

  1. United Nations. Agenda 21. [Black helicopters. Sovereignty. Whatevers]

Conspiracy theories about New World Orders

Before the early 1990s, New World Order conspiracism was limited to two American countercultures, primarily the militantly anti-government right and secondarily that part offundamentalist Christianity concerned with the end-time emergence of the Antichrist.[8] Skeptics such as Michael Barkun and Chip Berlet observed that right-wing populist conspiracy theories about a New World Order had not only been embraced by many seekers of stigmatized knowledge but had seeped into popular culture, thereby inaugurating a period during the late 20th and early 21st centuries in the United States where people are actively preparing forapocalyptic millenarian scenarios.[4][6] Those political scientists are concerned that mass hysteriaover New World Order conspiracy theories could eventually have devastating effects on American political life, ranging from escalating lone-wolf terrorism to the rise to power of authoritarian ultranationalist demagogues.[4][6][9]

  1. “Surprise surprise it’s the UN who organise the world’s climate summits!”

This would be in green ink with CAPITALS if they let that happen in newspaper. Who else?  The League of Nations? The Holy Roman Empire?

  1. Democracy  I am sure the writer believes very strongly in democracy, and has been out there protesting about all the various coups launched to install the ‘right kinds of government’… oh yes.
  2. The US GAO has “revealed the staggering amounts of more than $10bn per year invested in climate change propaganda and funding to US Universities”

Um? Source?  Can’t find nowt on google.  Just made up??

  1. “Mostly about money and tax”.. “makes us all poorer through higher taxation on cars”

Um, negative externalities much?  More cars is more wealth? Seriously?  Air quality in Manchester is appalling already. For example.

  1. Less money to look after our children and our children’s futures

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.  Because trashing the planet, acidifying its oceans, wrecking its habitats is exactly how we should be looking after our children’s futures. Oh yes.


About manchesterclimatemonthly

Was print format from 2012 to 13. Now web only. All things climate and resilience in (Greater) Manchester.
This entry was posted in Letters to the MEN. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Batshit crazy #climate denial letter in #Manchester Evening News #gishgallops

  1. Laura Collier says:

    So it seems the article published does not relate to your comments but is in favour of divestment from fossil fuels. ?

  2. Nope, there are TWO letters that appear in the article, and the comments refer to the second letter, published on Friday. Thanks.

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 )

Connecting to %s