"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

Pa ElGrande · 01-01-2019 10:28AM

Akrasia wrote: »

Realclimate was started by actively publishing climate scientists Gavin Schmidt,
Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and
Caspar Ammann. . . .

Michael Mann . . he of the discredited hockeystick fame and revealed in the climategate emails, speaking of his activity on realclimate.org

Phil, Tim,

I only learned of Keith's recent health issues when I was talking w/ Malcolm today. Please pass along to him my wishes for a speedy recovery. We need him!

Meanwhile, I suspect you've both seen the latest attack against his Yamal work by McIntyre.

Gavin and I (having consulted also w/ Malcolm) are wondering what to make of this, and what sort of response---if any---is necessary and appropriate. So far, we've simply deleted all of the attempts by McIntyre and his minions to draw attention to this at RealClimate.

any insights and/or advice you can provide would be extremely helpful. If you're uncomfortable doing this by email, I can be reached most of the day at my cell phone 814-777-3136. Will be in a meeting most of the day, but can run out of the room as necessary.

I would think it is probably best not to bother Keith with any of this. He just needs to get well, and I suspect it would be better for his wellness not to even know about this, we expect lots more attacks like this over the next several weeks as the U.S. senate debates cap & trade legislation.

thanks for any help w/ this.

mike

--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

source

Pa ElGrande · 01-01-2019 10:55AM

Here is another climate propaganda outlet, the Tyndall Centre in the UK.

The Social Simulation of the Public Perception of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change

Dennis Bray and Simon Shackley
September 2004

We suggest that, in the realm of the public, forces act to maintain or denounce a perceived reality which has already been constructed. That is, an issue introduced by science (or media for that matter) needs continual expression of confirmation if it is to be maintained as an issue.

In this paper, we explore under what conditions belief in global warming or climate change, as identified and defined by experience, science and the media, can be maintained in the public’s perception."
<snip>
As the science itself is contested, needless to say, so are the potential policy changes. So how then do people make sense or construct a reality of something that they can never experience in its totality (climate) and a reality that has not yet manifest (i.e. climate change)?
<snip>
To endorse policy change people must ‘believe’ that global warming will become a reality some time in the future.
<snip>
Only the experience of positive temperature anomalies will be registered as indication of change if the issue is framed as global warming.

Both positive and negative temperature anomalies will be registered in experience as indication of change if the issue is framed as climate change.
<snip>
We propose that in those countries where climate change has become the predominant popular term for the phenomenon, unseasonably cold temperatures, for example, are also interpreted to reflect climate change/global warming.

source

01-01-2019 11:18AM

dense wrote: »

Correct. Rising CO2 has coincided with a decrease in loss of life from climate events.

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/045.htm

I would say that the drop in deaths due to natural disasters is entirely due to aid agencies that simply didn't exist in earlier times.

So called Climate change has nothing to do with this at all.

Pa ElGrande · 01-01-2019 11:51AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrRYtRkCKms

Another great video from Tony Heller. He makers an observation that ice ages begin about when CO2 levels have peaked and end when CO2 levels are at their minimum. He also points out that the start point for certain trends seems to suit the narrative for people pushing an agenda.

dense · 01-01-2019 12:12PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I would say that the drop in deaths due to natural disasters is entirely due to aid agencies that simply didn't exist in earlier times.

So called Climate change has nothing to do with this at all.

That may be the case, but it still shows that less people are succumbing to drought and floods than before so called man made climate change reared its head regardless.

Do you think natural disasters drought, floods etc are increasing and such an increase has been attributed to so called man made climate change?

There is little enthusiasm even from the IPCC in attributing natural disasters to so called climate change. Or an increase in them.

Even if they had been increasing and attribution been settled, wouldn't it be a little ironic that aid agencies primarily funded by developed countries being blamed for causing climate change are also responsible for drastically mitigating the death tolls from it?

That's what the eco activists are calling for but it seems it's already happening if climate change events are already happening, with aid agencies from developed countries reducing the death tolls from weather events allegedly caused by their use of fossil fuels.

Conversely, inaction by agencies can also lead to false claims that climate change is happening, just look at how the mismanagement of rivers and flood plains and planning directly contributes to floods here and elsewhere.

Akrasia · 01-01-2019 12:18PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Climate is changing and it has changed in the past and a lot more violently than now

So what?

Humans didn't exist a million years ago and climate is changing much faster now than at any time in the history of our species.

You might as well say it's hotter in the centre of the sun than it is on Grafton Street. It's just as relevant to humans now as the temperature on earth when there was one single continent and dinosaurs roamed around.

Even if the climate was changing for completely natural reasons at the pace it is today , it would still be in our interest to try to do something to slow it down

dense · 01-01-2019 12:31PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Humans didn't exist a million years ago and climate is changing much faster now than at any time in the history of our species.

Changing much "faster"?
How much "faster", 40% faster, 50%?

What's the scientific consensus on the correct speed it should be changing at Akrasia?

We got a "fast" climate problem; that is something only an activist would come out with.

Akrasia · 01-01-2019 12:41PM

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Michael Mann . . he of the discredited hockeystick fame and revealed in the climategate emails, speaking of his activity on realclimate.org

More 'bizarro world' nonsense. Michael Mann is a highly respected climate scientist and the hockey stick is the opposite of discredited. It has been independently replicated multiple times. The gold standard in science

Meanwhile Ross McKintric has zero credibility outside of conspiracy theory science denialist blogs.

Akrasia · 01-01-2019 12:46PM

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrRYtRkCKms

Another great video from Tony Heller. He makers an observation that ice ages begin about when CO2 levels have peaked and end when CO2 levels are at their minimum. He also points out that the start point for certain trends seems to suit the narrative for people pushing an agenda.

You can 'prove' anything if you're prepared to lie and distort the science

Akrasia · 01-01-2019 12:51PM

dense wrote: »

Changing much "faster"?
How much "faster", 40% faster, 50%?

What's the scientific consensus on the correct speed it should be changing at Akrasia?

We got a "fast" climate problem; that is something only an activist would come out with.

Nature can adapt to climate change if it happens slowly. The current pace of change is absolutely devastating to biodiversity and a major contributing factor in the current mass extinction event.

Pa ElGrande · 01-01-2019 12:55PM

Akrasia wrote: »

You can 'prove' anything if you're prepared to lie and distort the science

You can't.

dense · 01-01-2019 01:02PM

Akrasia wrote: »

More 'bizarro world' nonsense. Michael Mann is a highly respected climate scientist and the hockey stick is the opposite of discredited. It has been independently replicated multiple times. The gold standard in science

The hockey stick is the gold standard in science, seriously?

It has been independently shown to be arbitrarily cobbled together cherry picking from various dubious proxy sources many times.

You yourself even question the reliability of data prior to the instrumental period when it suits you, yet now you're saying that proxy data derived from bristle cones and single trees is as reliable as records from thermometers and should be seen side by side bolted onto the same graph.

That's an inconsistent position to hold.

Akrasia · 01-01-2019 01:04PM

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

You can't.

What?

Akrasia · 01-01-2019 01:06PM

dense wrote: »

The hockey stick is the gold standard in science, seriously?

It has been independently shown to be arbitrarily cobbled together cherry picking from various dubious proxy sources many times.

You yourself even question the reliability of data prior to the instrumental period when it suits you, yet now you're saying that proxy data derived from bristle cones and single trees is as reliable as records from thermometers and should be seen side by side bolted onto the same graph.

That's an inconsistent position to hold.

No, independent replication is the gold standard.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/amp/

You wouldn't know what that is because your side of the 'debate' have never had a single element of their theories scientifically validated or replicated

dense · 01-01-2019 01:06PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Nature can adapt to climate change if it happens slowly. The current pace of change is absolutely devastating to biodiversity and a major contributing factor in the current mass extinction event.

You said it's changing too fast.

This is nonsense if you can't tell is how fast it is changing. You are just describing feelings you have, that is all.

So is it changing 10% faster than it should be? 50%?

Pa ElGrande · 01-01-2019 01:17PM

The Rules of the Game Principles of Climate Change Communications

Prepared by: FUTERRA Sustainability Communications Ltd
Prepared for: Climate Change Communications Working Group
Date:February 2005

Then this arrived in 2006.

Conclusions and recommendations

Many of the existing approaches to climate change communications clearly seem unproductive. And it is not enough simply to produce yet more messages, based on rational argument and top-down persuasion, aimed at convincing people of the reality of climate change and urging them to act. Instead, we need to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement.

To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken.

source

Pa ElGrande · 01-01-2019 01:27PM

Akrasia wrote: »

More 'bizarro world' nonsense. Michael Mann is a highly respected climate scientist and the hockey stick is the opposite of discredited. It has been independently replicated multiple times. The gold standard in science

Meanwhile Ross McKintric has zero credibility outside of conspiracy theory science denialist blogs.

Steve McIntyre continues to point out . . .

3/ in our papers, we did not take a position on modern warm period vs medieval warm period. We pointed out gross errors in Mann's methodology, defects in the most critical proxies, and false claims about skill and robustness (what Mann called his "dirty laundry" in a CG email)

4/ none (NONE) of our specific criticisms of Mann's methods, proxies and false claims has been rebutted.

source

dense · 01-01-2019 01:48PM

Akrasia wrote: »

No, independent replication is the gold standard.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/amp/

You wouldn't know what that is because your side of the 'debate' have never had a single element of their theories scientifically validated or replicated

So it's a case of having your cake and eating it then.
Thought so.

Akrasia · 01-01-2019 02:54PM

dense wrote: »

So it's a case of having your cake and eating it then.
Thought so.

You're making less and less sense

Akrasia · 01-01-2019 03:01PM

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Steve McIntyre continues to point out . . .

They can say that because theyre liars and liars get to say whatever they like and gullible people who 'want to believe will lap it up.

Pa ElGrande · 01-01-2019 03:50PM

Akrasia wrote: »

They can say that because theyre liars and liars get to say whatever they like and gullible people who 'want to believe will lap it up.

Yet all the evidence to date shows it is clear that anthropogenic global warming is mild and net beneficial to the climate, the biome and human society. Our token contribution of CO2 verges on the miraculous in its renewal of the planet and all the billions of mouths that bounty feeds.

Akrasia · 01-01-2019 04:14PM

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Yet all the evidence to date shows it is clear that anthropogenic global warming is mild and net beneficial to the climate, the biome and human society. Our token contribution of CO2 verges on the miraculous in its renewal of the planet and all the billions of mouths that bounty feeds.

All of the evidence? You're completely brainwashed by those denialist blogs and YouTube videos. You're exactly like those creationists who say there isn't any evidence of evolution.

Pa ElGrande · 01-01-2019 04:23PM

Akrasia wrote: »

All of the evidence? You're completely brainwashed by those denialist blogs and YouTube videos. You're exactly like those creationists who say there isn't any evidence of evolution.

Back when the climate was perfect there were less than 2 billion people on the planet most of which lived on the equivalent of a dollar a day and were only one bad harvest from starvation with little reserves and subject to environmental catastrophes like the great frost of 1740/41.

Since then the welfare of the human population have improved immeasurably as outlined by Jordan Peterson in answer to a question put to him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBbvehbomrY

Pa ElGrande · 01-01-2019 04:53PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Realclimate was started by actively publishing climate scientists Gavin Schmidt, Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Caspar Ammann.

It's run as a voluntary non profit site and this is what they have to say about Fenton communications

It's run as a voluntary non profit site and this is what they have to say about Fenton communications

RealClimate is not affiliated with any environmental organisations. Although our domain was hosted by Science Communications Network (and previously Environmental Media Services), and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, none of these organizations were in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor SCN nor EMS ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither did they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. This information has always been made clear to anyone who asked
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/

This says nothing about any person(s) or organization(s) in the background who may have brought these entities together, influenced their partnership, and/or funded them for their shared purposes, and it certainly does not actually exclude various kinds of possible non-cash "support" from SCN and/or Fenton Communications or intermediates to Realclimate. Here is another observation about how this company operates.

It’s called “black marketing,” and Environmental Media Services has become the principal reason Fenton Communications is so good at it. EMS lends an air of legitimacy to what might otherwise be dismissed (and rightly so) as fear-mongering from the lunatic fringe. In addition to pre-packaged “story ideas” for the mass media, EMS provides commentaries, briefing papers, and even a stable of experts, all carefully calculated to win points for paying clients. These “experts,” though, are also part of the ruse. Over 70% of them earn their paychecks from current or past Fenton clients, all of which have a financial stake in seeing to it that the scare tactics prevail. It’s a clever deception perpetrated on journalists who generally don’t consider do-gooder environmentalists to be capable of such blatant and duplicitous “spin.”

The first rule of this game is that it’s strictly pay-for-play. For a price, you too can promote your product by maligning the competition with junk-science smear tactics. To Fenton Communications, you’ll be a “client”; down the hall at EMS, though, you’ll join the ranks of its “project partners.” And nobody will be the wiser.

source

So maybe realclimate has "final control" in editorial terms, but notice that nothing has been said to exclude a multitude of potential interactions between realclimate and SCN or Fenton Communications and their unnamed benefactor(s), supporters, string-pullers, etc.

Leveraging the public’s trust in non-profit, do-good front names, Fenton
Communications uses front groups to kick back support, money, and media coverage which benefits other for-profit clients.

source: THE FEAR PROFITEERS: Do ‘Socially Responsible’ Businesses Sow Health Scares to Reap Monetary Rewards?

Finally if the contributors to realclimate did not have a meeting of minds and understood what is expected of them it is unlikely given the track record of SCN that services would have been provided to them in the first place and it is why anything that contradicts the narrative is deleted from that site.

dense · 01-01-2019 06:19PM

Akrasia wrote: »

You're making less and less sense

Not at all.

Your inconsistent position on the reliability of historic data has you bound to say that.

Have you worked out your feelings regarding the speed of climate change you were trying to describe earlier?

Quantify the speed by which you believe it is changing leading you to claim it is changing "too fast" for your liking. Is it moving 20% "too fast"?

This alarm is all in the heads of the alarmists who cannot analyse what they are being told, and are left swallowing whole emotive suggestions put about by political scientists.

The very same thing happened with your immediate acceptance without question of the conclusions arrived at in the Resplandy and Scripps paper.

Rigorously peer reviewed junk science that still hasn't been corrected or retracted.

Thing is it could have been peer reviewed by the guys at Realclimate. I did log on there to ask if anyone there had been involved in anonymously reviewing it prior to it being published, but guess what, the mods didn't publish the question as it's an alarmist blog, so yeah, for all we know Gavin Schmidt and co were part of the vigorous peer review process that passed such alarmist junk science.

01-01-2019 06:35PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Bloody hell they're multiplying.

If you mean those who can see through the FUD and are checking the facts behind the hype, then yes, they're multiplying.

Akrasia · 01-01-2019 07:00PM

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

This says nothing about any person(s) or organization(s) in the background who may have brought these entities together, influenced their partnership, and/or funded them for their shared purposes, and it certainly does not actually exclude various kinds of possible non-cash "support" from SCN and/or Fenton Communications or intermediates to Realclimate. Here is another observation about how this company operates.

So maybe realclimate has "final control" in editorial terms, but notice that nothing has been said to exclude a multitude of potential interactions between realclimate and SCN or Fenton Communications and their unnamed benefactor(s), supporters, string-pullers, etc.

Finally if the contributors to realclimate did not have a meeting of minds and understood what is expected of them it is unlikely given the track record of SCN that services would have been provided to them in the first place and it is why anything that contradicts the narrative is deleted from that site.

Ok, that's another part of the grand conspiracy so. Nothing to do with a group of professional climate change researchers taking the time to explain the research and refute the organised campaigns of misinformation from the energy industry.

You're calling Gavin Schmidt and the other contributors to realclimate liars and puppets of some shadowy environmental organisation with absolutely zero evidence other than what Richard Lindzen, a proven liar and someone who has been found to have taken large sums of money from the energy industry
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/13/peabody-energy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding

Its laughable, Trumpian even for Lindzen to accuse RealClimate of having a hidden agenda. He accuses others of the things he has done himself

The names of a number of well-known contrarian academics also feature in the Peabody filings, including Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Soon has been funded almost entirely by the fossil fuel industry, receiving more than $1.2m from oil companies and utilities, but this was the first indication of Peabody funding.

Soon and the Smithsonian did not respond to requests for comment.

Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer, two contrarian scientists who appeared for Peabody at hearings in Minnesota last month on the social cost of carbon, were also included in the bankruptcy filings.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/13/peabody-energy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding

OleRodrigo · 01-01-2019 07:21PM

I think smearing the likes of Freeman Dyson and Jordan Peterson with ' climate change denier ' , speaks for itself. When you run out of intellectual steam, shutting people down with name calling is the next option as rational thinking gives way to feelings.

You don't need to be a trained climate scientist to be an expert in scientific methodology.Its the same across all disciplines - data is gathered, analysed and tested, a hypothesis is formed and is challenged. The rigour is far more thorough in certain disciplines, such as particle physics. This is why we should pay attention to an accomplished Physicist when they weigh in on a subject. ( To illustrate, look up how much certainty was required in the Higgs Boson experiments ).

There are anomalies with regard to the effects of CO2 and also with future predictions of temperature increase. While there there are clear economic incentives among certain actors for the accelerated push of alternative energy sources, such as China and its advantage in the production of solar panels, there are also clear reasons not to destabilise the geopolitics of energy supply, which has little to do with fat-cats lining their pockets, as some would have you believe, but the continuation of our energy dependant civilisation.

dense · 01-01-2019 07:38PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Bloody hell they're multiplying.

Hopefully more and more people are realising thats there's no evidence that alleged human caused catastrophic global warming has been responsible for any detrimental weather or a rise in deaths as a result.

Akrasia wrote: »

There aren't enough extreme events to allow us to come to firm conclusions, and the only way this can be solved is to wait for more storms to happen and therefore more data to analyse.

The narrative is that man made global warming is causing climate to change, but as you can see, it's not even causing quite enough difference from what we've always had to determine whether it's even happening or not, never mind those pushing it not being able to quantify it beyond their emotional language.

You yourself are very sceptical of the alarmist stuff anyway, just like those you are now saying are "multiplying":

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I've stated several times I don't go all-in on the alarmist position, I just think it would be wise to be cautious with emissions.

Pa ElGrande · 01-01-2019 08:28PM

Akrasia wrote: »

You're calling Gavin Schmidt and the other contributors to realclimate liars and puppets of some shadowy environmental organisation with absolutely zero evidence . . .

They can only follow a specific narrative . . anything else and they will suffer the consequences.

Speaking of Dr. Willie Soon, in 2015 he and others were targeted by Greenpeace (annual turnover of about $400 million) along with others, like Roger Pielke Jr and Dr. Roy Spencer. in an attempt to suppress any dissent in the United States in the run up to the Paris agreement 2015 which the Obama administration signed.

In late February, 2015, Dr. Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon was accused by a Greenpeace activist of failing to disclose conflicts of interest to an academic journal. The accusation was false, but it was repeated by liberal reporters for major media outlets in the U.S. and U.K. and then became the basis for a coordinated campaign against global warming “skeptics” by liberal advocacy groups, Democratic U.S. senators and a congressman, and their allies in the mainstream media.

This page presents background information and facts about the controversy as well as links to some of the attacks on Dr. Soon as well as articles defending him. Dr. Soon's biography and a partial list of articles he has written for peer-reviewed journals is at the bottom of this page.
Neither the editors of Science Bulletin nor the Smithsonian Institution, Dr. Soon’s employer, have said Dr. Soon violated their disclosure or conflict of interest rules.

Kert Davies, the source of the accusations, has been making similar attacks against Dr. Soon and other climate scientists since as long ago as 1997. He is not a credible source.

Grants supporting Dr. Soon’s work were vetted and submitted by the Smithsonian, not by Dr. Soon. Grant dollars went to the Smithsonian, which kept around 40 percent of the money for oversight and overhead.

The amount of industry support Dr. Soon received, variously reported as $1 million or $1.2 million, includes the Smithsonian Institution’s 40 percent share and was received over the course of ten years.

By agreement between donors and the Smithsonian, Dr. Soon wasn’t even aware of who some of the donors were, making a conflict of interest impossible.

Disclosure of funding sources is not a common requirement of academic journals in the physical sciences field. Most climate scientists – alarmist as well as skeptical – do not disclose their funding sources.

The Smithsonian’s investigation into its grant-making process is being led by John Kress, Interim Under Secretary for Science, kressj@si.edu, and Charles Alcock, director of the Center for Astrophysics, calcock@cfa.harvard.edu.

source

Analysis of Greenpeace Business Model
By Willie Soon, Patrick Moore
December 14, 2018

Greenpeace is a very successful business. Their business model can be summarized as follows:
Invent an “environmental problem” which sounds somewhat plausible. Provide anecdotal evidence to support your claims, with emotionally powerful imagery.

Invent a “simple solution” for the problem which sounds somewhat plausible and emotionally appealing, but is physically unlikely to ever be implemented.

Pick an “enemy” and blame them for obstructing the implementation of the “solution”. Imply that anybody who disagrees with you is probably working for this enemy.

Dismiss any alternative “solutions” to your problem as “completely inadequate”.

At each of the four stages, they campaign to raise awareness of the efforts that they are allegedly making to “fight” this problem. Concerned citizens then either sign up as “members” (with annual fees) or make individual donations (e.g., $25 or more) to help them in “the fight”. This model has been very successful for them, with an annual turnover of about $400 million ($0.4 billion). Although technically a “not for profit” organization, this has not stopped them from increasing their asset value over the years, and they currently have an asset value of $270 million ($0.27 billion) – with 65% of that in cash, making them a cash-rich business. Several other groups have also adopted this approach, e.g., Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, WWF and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

source

"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

Comments