Cut and paste denialism

I think most skeptical bloggers would agree that one common tactic one sees from denialists is whole-hog cut-and-paste rebuttals without attribution. For instance, on finds when arguing with evolution denialists that they’ll just cut-and-paste tired creationist arguments into comment threads.

We wrote briefly about the latest attempt by global warming denialists to suggest that the scientific consensus does not support climate change. To start with, it was little more than a repeat of the previous debunked attempts, and was hardly original.

Well, for more proof they can’t think originally, write originally, or do anything other than rehash debunked arguments, check out Lambert’s coverage of Shulte’s reply to criticism that he’s engaging in more typical denialist nonsense. It’s a cut-and-paste job from Monckton without attribution! Not only is it total nonsense – nearly every citation is miscategorized or misrepresented – but it’s almost word-for-word lifted from another global warming hack’s writing, without attribution or citation.

So continuing the long tradition of hack responses to criticism, the latest global warming denialist nonsense looks just like the same nonsense that was debunked in years past, and just like the kind of nonsense one sees from creationists.

And one can’t help but love the irony. Here’s Schulte’s last paragraph.

The author of the statement has been less than courteous, and less than professional, in having failed to verify the facts with me before thrice having used the word
“misrepresentation” in connection with a draft of a paper by me which he or she cannot have read at the time. Worse, the author of the statement has used the word “foolish” about me when he or she had not done me the usual professional courtesy either of contacting me or even of reading what I had written before making haste to comment upon it. I should not expect any properly-qualified and impartiallymotivated scientist to behave thus.

If the statement was indeed authored by Oreskes, I expect her to apologize for her professional discourtesy to me, and I invite the Chancellor of her university to enquire into the matter and then, if she be the statement’s author, to ensure that she apologizes promptly and unreservedly.

Ahh, “less than professional” accuses the denialist who plagiarizes in his response. I think Oreskes handled it just right. After all, does one really have to see each rehashing of a crank argument to know that it’s nothing other than the usual misrepresentation and dishonesty?