Normally I have only one, but this has been an extraordinary week. Thanks to the conflict of interest so aptly and unashamedly demonstrated by the IPCC and Greenpeace, warmist Mark Lynas has publicly embraced “denialism”.
Here’s his stunning statement:
Well, if the ‘deniers’ are the only ones standing up for the integrity of the scientific process, and the independence of the IPCC, then I too am a ‘denier’.
His eyes, opened.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
.John 8:32
“…And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
Amen.
My comment to Mark Lynas would be the same as what Bruce Willis says in Die Hard…
OT, but can someone in USA explain the meaning of “The White House stands opposed to changes in the subsidies or tariffs, so they will likely go untouched before they expire at the end of the year” to an Englander in http://politics.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/0438215/US-Senate-Votes-For-Repeal-of-Ethanol-Subsidies?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot+%28Slashdot%29
My rendition:
Certainly says what those “climsci” people are–they’re the true deniers (of the scientific process; of truth; of honesty, etc.)
The unraveling of AGW is accelerating and exposing many of the participants as the unethical charlatans they are.
They are being confronted in person locally at climate events and thoroughly shamed on world wide blogs.
Even in deep green Oregon their propaganda sessions are being hobbled with insurmountable truth.
Here is a splendid example:
From: Gordon Fulks gordonfulks@hotmail.com
“Hello Everyone,
Several of us attended the second of two Oregon Global Warming Commission (OGWC) “Keep Oregon Cool” sessions in Portland tonight. Because it was a beautiful cool evening in Portland and because people are growing tired of the Global Warming rhetoric, attendance was poor at this event too (about 20 people in addition to the organizers). In fact, we were about a third of the attendees, which gave us considerable leverage. Chairman Angus Duncan had hardly gotten into his talk when a woman I had never met before started questioning him about the cost of alternate energy. Then a young fellow interrupted him also. When Angus did permit questions but still refused to answer them, Kathleen took him to task from across the room, and we had a mini-confrontation develop. It was wonderful.
When their formula called for us to break into smaller groups based on interest, I went over to the “Transportation Fuels” table hoping to find someone who could carry on an intelligent conversation. I really did not want to get stuck with the usual greenies who have strong opinions but no knowledge and no interest in acquiring any. So I asked if anyone had a technical background. I got the usual blank stares and no answers. So I quizzed everyone individually. Even those chosen to lead the discussion had no expertise, but one thought that Angus did! I challenged that. Hoping that someone might have an open mind or something interesting to say, I sat down briefly. But they were not interested in a reasonable discussion, and I was not about to let them proceed without questioning every bit of nonsense. When the organizers tried to gang up on me, I told one to leave. It all dissolved in an angry scene that left organizers frustrated.
I then tried another table where the discussion seemed mildly polite and thoughtful. The leaders were initially more careful to avoid pure rubbish. But they were trained to bring the discussion back to the propaganda points they wanted to push. I kept blunting those such that they made no progress. When Mike came and sat down with us, he explained that he had no expertise but then showed considerable knowledge and wisdom. That worked beautifully. We overwhelmed the moderators and kept pressing them.
These were entirely propaganda sessions designed to convert more people to the faith. That did not happen tonight. The propagandists went home knowing that they face opposition from people who are much more knowledgeable and determined than they are. Our aggressive behavior worked very well indeed. Having more than just one or two people there gave us a much bigger impact.
Thanks to Chuck, Kathleen, Mike and three others whom I don’t know by name.
Gordon
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD
Corbett, Oregon USA
P.S. It occurred to me tonight that the formula Angus Duncan is using is very similar to what was proposed some months ago by a similar group attempting to convert people. I refused to participate on the advice of Richard. We both realized that the proposed meetings would not permit any fair discussion of Global Warming. When the organizers realized that we were wise to their game, they immediately dropped out of sight.”
Corinthians
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
Mark Lynas is right on the money and right on scientific method. At some point, the indefensible becomes indefensible. Now, let’s add some others. Simulations cannot be treated as evidence…this could go on forever…
Like I said in my last post. “OK then, here we have a model of a new super duper aircraft. We are unfortunately leaving out the details and function of the left engine, tail fin and right wing that we do not have right now but, trust us, just build it, wait until 2100, and you will see that it flies just fine.”
Let’s hope that this is the first warmist of many to embrace scepticism.
Lynas is showing integrity here. The absence of that quality in most Greenshirts gets up our noses.
I salute him.
Tell me again, what I am supposed to be in denial of?
Quote of the week extra bonus.
By the way Charlie boy the weather / climate is not getting weirder according to recent peer reviewed evidence. No trends >>> here, here, here & here.
Long live the Qeen. Long live Prince William and Harry.
Mark’s not made the whole leap yet, chaps. He has, however, become somewhat more spatially aware. He’s just about to recognise that there ought to be a Health & Safety “MIND THE GAP” notice displayed prominently in the space between actual observational science and many postnormal climate “sciences”.
It takes a long time for a “warmist” to confirm, by revision, where these boundaries really do lie compared with where he so long believed they were. Give him time and he will get to where we are.. his priority is at least the integrity and veracity of the science and strict adherence to the traditions of the scientific method. Rest assured, with these priorities rather than an ideological agenda, he will get here soon enough.
If the ‘deniers’ were the only ones standing up for the integrity of the scientific process, that would be ‘stunning’. Presumably I would need to trade in my BSc tag to a DEn tag in the future.
Nuke says:
June 17, 2011 at 8:33 am
You deny their warmista propaganda and rubbish, Nuke. That’s it. Congratulations.
I’ve just spent 45 minutes following links from here to there and back and found this insightful comment:
From Dr. Judith Curry:
“. . . a key element in this is the reaction of the warm-green side of the debate to even relatively moderate criticisms of the IPCC. You are ignored by the IPCC and vilified by its defenders, which makes you realize that there was even more there to criticize than you originally thought.”
http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/17/an-opening-mind-part-ii/
(from the last paragraph)
“Better late than never” my mother would say as I came home.
Dear “View from the Solent” — please refer to this link:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/16/oh-my-senate-votes-to-end-ethanol-subsidies-7327/
The subsidy is to the blenders of the gas-a-hol and the tariff is on importation of the same ethanol for that purpose. Both were to support domestic corn-to-ethanol production. With these items set to expire, the administration does not want to get in line to offend or lose additional votes (this is basically a RED state area – Republican) in the plains states (middle of USA, from Nebraska to Ohio and from Dakotas to Kansas).
The requirement for ethanol blends remains, but the protection will go and the subsidy for blenders will end. Other subsidies exist for ethanol production. Hope this helps.
View from the Solent says:
June 17, 2011 at 8:08 am
OT, but can someone in USA explain the meaning of “The White House stands opposed to changes in the subsidies or tariffs, so they will likely go untouched before they expire at the end of the year”
==================================================================
Yes, it is a bit OT, but it may be worth a post for itself.
Now, I’m not that current on the specifics of the law, so others may be able to enlighten you more than I can.
Currently, the U.S. subsidizes ethanol production. Subsidize——–The government pays extra for people to make it. We do this with many things, as does, I’m sure, the U.K. Recently, the Senate voted to stop doing that for ethanol. Which, in my estimation, is a good damned deal! But, this would be largely symbolic if they’re set to expire at the end of the year anyway. As far as tariffs go, I’m not aware of us applying tariffs to ethanol, but it could be that we are. This would necessarily raise the cost of the imported ethanol, in which case, I’m for the tariffs.
There’s plenty more to be stated, but then this thread would take an entirely OT direction.
Hope that helps.
View from the Solent says:
June 17, 2011 at 8:08 am
OT, but can someone in USA explain the meaning of “The White House stands opposed to changes in the subsidies or tariffs, so they will likely go untouched before they expire at the end of the year”
====================
There was a preview of this week’s vote here:
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1311596120110613
I hope it helps. It seems to be mostly about the 45 cents/gallon blending credit which helps to keep the bioethanol industry profitable. The White House supports the industry for “energy security” reasons, which is why they’re opposed to changing the subsidies.
BTW, I think your question is very much on-topic.
I think he’s questioning integrity of the IPCC, not the science itself. Still, the more, the merrier.
James Sexton says:
June 17, 2011 at 9:12 am
=====================
OK, maybe the actually reality of renewable fuels is a bit off-topic, but real quickly – there is still a 54 cents a gallon tariff on imported ethanol (which really PO’s the Brazilians).
Before we get all excited about this new convert, let’s recall some of our other friends that denounced the contents of the e-mails, only to quickly jump back to their alarmist ways.
Has anything been said on the BBC yet?
“The White House stands opposed to changes in the subsidies or tariffs, so they will likely go untouched before they expire at the end of the year”
===========================================
Somehow it’s better to pay people to convert food to fuel….
…than it is to punch a hole in the ground
Which is a moot point, because you have to buy it at the same place,
so the seller is getting paid no matter what
This is not the first time this type of thing has occurred.
When the glaciers melting in 2035 item cam to light I did a little (a lot actually) digging, if you look at the trail it does not look like the 2035 date was a ‘mistake’, rather selected and planed by the WWF in co-operation with a carbon trading firm.
For some reason these linkages were never widely realized.
(You may need the wayback Machine for some of these links, they may have ‘cleaned up’ things; the target date would be Jan 25, 2010)
—
Does this look ‘sloppy’ mistake to you?
“The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.”
From the World Wildlife Fund web site:
www. panda. org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/problems/people_at_risk/personal_stories/about_cw/cwscientists/
“Climate Witness Science Advisory Panel (SAP)
Prof. Dr Murari Lal, specialises in global and regional climate variability, scenario development, regional environmental change, …, water resource management; Environment and Carbon Trading Group Halcrow Consulting India Ltd., India”
Did you catch that:
“Environment and Carbon Trading Group Halcrow Consulting India Ltd., India”
See also:
www. halcrow. com/html/documents/pdf/india/halcrow_india_environment_brochure.pdf
Carbon Trading is part of the Environment Division, now that is a surprise.
From the CRUs own website we know the World Wildlife Fund funds the CRU.
bottom of this page:
www. cru. uea. ac. uk/cru/about/history
I wonder where a charity gets the money to fund climate research.
The WWF funds the CRU
Murari Lal->WWF->CRU
Murari Lal-> Halcrow Consulting->Carbon Trading
How about we skip the pawn:
Carbon Trading-> Halcrow Consulting-> WWF->CRU->IPCC
Simplifing..
Carbon Trading->WWF->CRU->IPCC
Carbon Trading->CRU->IPCC
Carbon Trading->IPCC
Carbon Trading->IPCC->Carbon Trading
Or
Carbon Trading->Pachauri ->Carbon Trading
I see an employee of a Carbon Trading department, working for the World Wildlife Fund, submitting bogus content to the IPCC, just to scare people into implementing Carbon Trading.
There is nothing ‘sloppy’ there, just business being business.
Looks pretty clear cut and well planned to me.
Brent Hargreaves says:
June 17, 2011 at 8:28 am
“Let’s hope that this is the first warmist of many to embrace scepticism.”
I don’t think that Lynas has embraced scepticism. He has merely reacted strongly and appropriately to yet another self inflicted wound by the IPCC which has developed a real problem with pedalplunkia — habitually shooting oneself in the foot.
There’s nothing dreadfully wrong with letting someone who knows about renewables edit a report on renewable energy. But it is very important to make sure that the result is a consensus of all rational views on the subject and not an propaganda vehicle for one particular viewpoint.
It’ll be interesting to see what the report says. My gut reaction is 80% renewables by 2050? Whatever these guys are smoking, it is surely illegal and one should not drive while under its influence. I’d like to be wrong about that actually, but I doubt that I am.