This was spoken aloud in the Victorian Parliament in 2017. wtf? It’s a literal talking point found in the fringes of the internet, where conspiracy theories go to die. It was spoken by Bernie Finn, he’s from a mainstream political Party.

In his rant he repeated a talking point about the film An Inconvenient Truth, you might have heard it before?

I recently went to a meeting in Ballarat, didn’t know too much about it except it was called ‘Community Conversations – The Reality of Climate Change’. I went along to listen to the eminent Professor Peter Gell on cutting edge science of climate change. I was in for a surprise when there were some committed semi “professional” climate deniers who hijacked the event – or at least took more time than their ideas merited.  Michael Spencer and Alan Barron both stood up and repeated dusty climate denial talking points to an audience that had moved on years ago. 

One thing they both said was a classic, the same that Bernie Finn alluded to, that a judge found an Inconvenient Truth to be wrong. It is absurd on ts face because its a film and what they argue is that if this propositions true then it leads to climate science being false is obviously stupid. So I did some googling and found that one of the speakers, Alan Barron, had used it before. It was an  interview on ‘the Sustainability Hour’ a radio show from Geelong and heard it again, it’s  a good example of the way in which climate change bullshitters work.

At the 5 min mark, when Alan Barron – the bullshitter in question – just beginning his interview, he says that he was watching the film an Inconvenient Truth that lead to him do his own “research” leading him to a conclusion that “ so called science for global warming was at best very dubious and at worst simply contradicted by the facts”. He cites a finding by a judge in the UK that there were nine inaccuracies as a pivot to support his conclusion that “it was wrong to say carbon dioxide drives climate change and it simply doesn’t, it’s a myth”.

This is a very tricky move by Barron because he’s misrepresenting the judge’s findings. He’s implied by omission to make it sound as if the judge concurs with Barron’s finding that the “science for global warming…[is] contradicted by the facts.”

Let’s stop there. From the very onset of the interview with Barron uses deception and the interviewers ignorance of the judge’s ruling to make it look like Barron personal views have some credibility, when in fact his views are contradicted on what the judge found.

What’s interesting about this is that the judge found that apart from some minor errors (yes nine) the film was “substantially founded upon scientific research and fact” and that he agrees with the propositions that the film “advances four main scientific hypotheses each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC.”

Those IPCC conclusions, as per judgment are:

(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise (“climate change”);

(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (“greenhouse gases”);

(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and

(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects.

He says these “propositions are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world’s climate scientists.”

This completely contradicts Alan Barron’s mischaracterisation of the judgment that gives no weight to Barron’s view that “science for global warming was at best very dubious and at worst simply contradicted by the facts”.

Elsewhere, Barron says that the IPCC has an “alarmist stance” and that:

30,000 scientists reject the notion of human induced climate change. I’m not an advocate of conspiracy theories, but why one side of science is ignored and all the media focus given to the alarmist position, borders on the incredulous.

As for the IPCC report, how many people have actually read it? The IPCC Report while containing both pro and con papers, virtually ignores the evidence against the notion of human induced climate change and pushes the idea of catastrophic global warming due to human activity – based not on hard evidence (there is none), but imperfect computer modelling.

He also says that,

The science does NOT support the fanciful notion that man’s carbon emissions cause global warming.

All of which contradict what the judge says and what credible scientists, instutions  are saying. Alan attacks the credibility of the IPCC because it’s the only way he can forward his argument. He undermines peer-review and the IPCC  by pushing a conspiracy theory. In the process he deploys a technique called the Gish Gallop:

…the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it’s unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.

Alan Barron is not interested in the truth but peddels, pardon my french, bullshit. Barron is a “climate change bullshitter” like countless others. He’s also a men’s rights activist, who started a group and website with by line “Men Championing Patriarchy” and wrote “A Men’s Manifesto”. So he’s basically ‘that unlcle’ who you see once a year at an awkward family BBQ that has listened to too much right wing talk-back radio.

The best way to defeat climate deniers like Malcolm Roberts is easy:

How to talk to conservatives about climate change:

Defeat their candidates.
Enact bold climate policies.
Save the world despite them.