Quote of the Week – bonus edition

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.

47 thoughts on “Quote of the Week – bonus edition

  1. .John 8:32
    “…And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
    Amen.

  2. My rendition:

    Here’s his stunning statement:

    Well, if the ‘scientists’ are the only ones standing up for the integrity of the scientific process, and the independence of the IPCC, then I too am a ‘scientist’.

    Certainly says what those “climsci” people are–they’re the true deniers (of the scientific process; of truth; of honesty, etc.)

  3. 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.”

  4. 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.

  5. 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…

  6. 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.”

  7. 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.

  8. Quote of the week extra bonus.

    Prince Charles – Herald Sun – June 16, 2011
    “All the evidence shows that we are living in an increasingly unstable world,” Prince Charles told industry figures gathered in Canberra.

    “And yet we continue to test it to destruction and to allow the deniers of human-induced climate change to prevent vital action being taken.”

    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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. Nuke says:
    June 17, 2011 at 8:33 am

    Tell me again, what I am supposed to be in denial of?

    You deny their warmista propaganda and rubbish, Nuke. That’s it. Congratulations.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. I think he’s questioning integrity of the IPCC, not the science itself. Still, the more, the merrier.

  17. 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).

  18. 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.

  19. “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

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. View,
    To answer your question, No, nobody in the USA can explain that statement, though some before me have described the situation pretty well. This is something we’ve become accustomed to here in the USA.

  23. 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’.

    Um … yes Mark, “integrity of the scientific process” has been pretty much the default “denier” position for some time now. Glad to see you have finally caught up.

    Incidentally Mark, I fear you may have been deleted from rantin’ Joe’s Xmas list this year along with “disinformation McIntyre”, Revkin (who probably hunts Hobbits out of season or some such) and of course our gracious host. Not to worry – that’s what you get fur askin’ awkward questions about the proposed path from here to Unicorn Utopia. Here in the cold dark caves we welcome newcomers (just don’t grab at the Mammoth rissoles) .

    Full rant from Uncle Joe’s green rubber asylum here

  24. How can we possibly have 80% renewables by 2050 given the abysmal state of renewables?

    It would take cutting the population by 90% and covering the Sahara with NASA grade solar receivers to give us 80% renewables.

    It jus isn’t logical, unless their plan coincides with planned forced population reduction.

  25. Bushy says:
    June 17, 2011 at 8:20 am

    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.”

    A good analogy, but perhaps not the best example – “The Fairchild A10 Thunderbolt is designed to fly with one engine, one tail, one elevator and half a wing torn off”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II – and it’s a 40 year old design…

  26. From Mark Lynas’ column:
    “But what I don’t want are recycled campaign reports masquerading as ‘proper’ science leading the assessed scenarios – and the media – because their originator has managed to lever himself into a pole position on the team of lead authors. That stinks. And it stinks doubly because the Greenpeace report was originally co-authored by the European Renewable Energy Council – an industry lobby group whose prospects depend on state subsidies which can be expected to be further increased once its views are given the ‘official’ stamp of approval from the IPCC.”

    Now THAT, my WUWT friends, is a solid indictment of the products, processes, and participants in the incestuous world of the AGW activists; UN-IPCC, GreenFleece, etc. !!!!!!!!!!!!! Coming from Mr. Lynas, it emphatically shows that the topics raised here on WUWT by the host of most excellent contributors (a Lynas h/t to Steve McIntyre!) are getting far broader exposure and consideration. Individually and collectively, by focusing on honesty, integrity, open disclosure, and independent replication or falsification of claimed analyses, YOU are having a major impact in the scope and direction of weather, climate, atmospheric, solar, and exosolar research and discussion.

    I humbly stand in awe and applaud you all !!!

    WUWT – The little engine, that could…..

  27. Jimbo says:
    June 17, 2011 at 8:42 am

    Quote of the week extra bonus.

    Prince Charles – Herald Sun – June 16, 2011
    “All the evidence shows that we are living in an increasingly unstable world,” Prince Charles told industry figures gathered in Canberra.

    “And yet we continue to test it to destruction and to allow the deniers of human-induced climate change to prevent vital action being taken.”

    Err… “Evidence of a politically unstable world in which those in the bubble, Charles being just a minor one, continue to test to destruction the patience of the victims of the greatest theft in human history”.

    Perhaps Charles might spend a couple of years living anonymously on an English HMG pension and thereby demonstrate his commitment to all things green dying alone in the cold, another anonymous victim of the the robbery. No, I guess he got his answer from HMG and whipped out the royal credit card to pay for the fuel. Must be nice to have that option.

    I can’t believe that anyone in Aus is listening to this scammer (or his useful Aus idiots). I guarantee that your newly closed (carbon tax and all that) wealth mines will re-open within a decade under new ownership and Charles, for one, will be a major shareholder in the newer world order. Contracts with China intact – Charles gets to carry on giving “green” speeches using his newly (Aus) wealth backed bank account.

    Try it this way – a guy wandering the streets of London with his opinions would be just another “cardboard box citizen” without the backing of his mother and their collectively stolen wealth.

    They named him correctly – Charles – and he should remember his family name sake… and his eventual fate.

  28. I see Mr Lynas punching nails into thick oak boards covering the windows trying to save his people from the heretic horde out there in the big scary, and utterly doomed, world. Only to find out that, while frantically hammering crooked nails into obviously rotten boards, shutting out the, non warming, sun light, he’s freely walling himself in with the eaters of rationality, the hippie climate communizt zombie horde. And it’s hungry!

  29. @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” to an Englander…
    —–
    REPLY: What that means is, even though the US Senate has approved a law to rescind these subsidies and tariffs placed upon imported ethanol, Pres. Obama won’t sign or act on the legislation as it will die a natural death on its own, after which time it is unlikely that the subsidies & tariffs shall be renewed. He’s straddling the fence on this one.

  30. Mac the Knife says:
    June 17, 2011 at 11:56 am

    I humbly stand in awe and applaud you all !!!

    WUWT – The little engine, that could…..

    = = = = = =

    Mac the Knife ,

    I second your sentiments about WUWT!!

    But, reconsider . . . . WUWT is the new MSM . . . . so he is the big engine that could. Sorta. :^)

    John

  31. I recommend the blog from Babbage of the Economist on this topic. Much good explanation of how this works from the viewpoint of various people. And a wonderful interview of Ravendra Pachauri. RP asserts that extreme pronouncements signed by him are just great because they lead to dandy debates and intellectual activity. I’m not sure everybody expects that is what the IPCC is for, but in any case welcome to the site of some dandy debates and intellectual activity. http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/06/ipcc-and-greenpeace


  32. C.A, says:
    June 17, 2011 at 11:22 am

    How can we possibly have 80% renewables by 2050 given the abysmal state of renewables?

    It would take cutting the population by 90% and covering the Sahara with NASA grade solar receivers to give us 80% renewables.

    It jus isn’t logical, unless their plan coincides with planned forced population reduction.

    It just isn’t logical, unless their plan coincides with mass murder and genocide.

    There! Fixed it for ya.

  33. philincalifornia says:
    June 17, 2011 at 9:27 am

    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).
    ======================================================================

    lol, Ok, I appreciate the info……not only are we subsidizing, we’re also engaged in protectionism………strange isn’t it? We won’t protect our steel industry. Do we tariff PC’s? Automobiles? Or anything else that would be particularly useful and could add meaningful jobs? ……sigh…….. But yes, for those that may have been confused by my statement, I wasn’t stating that it isn’t a worthwhile discussion, but rather deserving of its own post. It goes to the heart of why some of us are engaged in the climate discussion. If our policy makers didn’t act on all of these absurd notions by the climatologists, then I would probably spend my extra time doing something else. :-)

  34. C.A says – “How can we possibly have 80% renewables by 2050 given the abysmal state of renewables?

    As I understand it, the statement on % renewables refers to supply, not demand. If renewables are currently, say, 1% of global energy supply, all you need to do to achieve the “80% renewables” target is to cut non-renewable energy supply by 98.7% (give or take a couple of nukes). ie, you don’t need to build new renewables, you only need to close non-renewables. The target is even easier to meet if you count nukes in renewables, but the hair-shirt brigade campaign vigorously against the word “easier”.

  35. Seems to me that “climate change deniers” could fall into several categories:

    Type one: “The Earth’s climate has never changed, and never will!”

    Type two: “The Earth’s climate used to change, but it doesn’t any more!”

    Type three: “The Earth’s climate never used to change, until humans came along and changed it!”

    Types one and two seem extremely rare, if they exist at all. There does seem to be a group (some call ‘em a “team”) which believes type three. So perhaps “climate change deniers” exist – but it ain’t us!

    Best,
    Frank

  36. James Sexton says:
    June 17, 2011 at 3:26 pm
    =========================
    I agree. It is an extremely worthwhile discussion, very well deserving of its own thread.

    Furthermore, and in actual fact, there is a new revolution starting (started) in commercial synthetic biology that doesn’t involve bioethanol, mostly around here (no surprise).

    Google “Solazyme IPO”.

    Is anyone here old enough to remember biotech IPOs ?? Here’s one hit:

    http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2011/03/solazymes-ipo-turns-up-interesting.html

    This wasn’t just a regular IPO. This was a full oversubscription, in a garbage market.

  37. People who drop out of mind-control cults sometimes benefit from Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, to help them sort out false beliefs about themselves, and to help them reintegrate into a predominantly reality-based society. I think that establishing an organization to promote the mental health of “Jack” Warmists would be a worthwhile project. But good luck in getting tax-exempt charitable status from the feds!

  38. Lynas is a bit slow on the uptake. He should have reached this conclusion when the original hockey stick (still prominently used) was debunked and found to be a fabrication based on questionable statistics and gross statistical overweighting of a handful of tree rings purporting to show temperature.

  39. To get to 80% renewable is easy. It involves two major parts:
    1) Buy, at outrageously expensive prices, enough windmills and solar panels to meet 50% of our current energy needs. This would be done by the government and would require either much higher taxes to pay for it, or it would increase our collective debt by a rather substantial margin.
    2) With the resulting depression for the financial mess the governments created, world energy requirements will fall by 1/3, allowing the newly ‘right sized’ global economy to survive on 80% renewable energy sources.

Comments are closed.