The great big map of FUD

Jo Nova has taken on the ridiculous “Map of Organized Climate Change Denial” promoted by Andy Revkin at the NYT with a map of her own and writes:

Two professors of sociology think they can explain why “Climate Deniers” are winning.  But Riley E. Dunlap and Aaron M. McCright start from the wrong assumption and miss the bleeding obvious: the theory was wrong, the evidence has changed, and thousands of volunteers have exposed it.

The real question sociologists will be studying for years to come is: how was an exaggerated scare, based on so little evidence, poor reasoning and petty namecalling, kept alive for two whole decades?

Climate Change Scare Machine Cycle: see how your tax dollars are converted into alarming messages: 

The key points

1. The money and vested interests on the pro-scare side is vastly larger, more influential, and more powerful than that on the skeptical side. Fossil fuel and conservative-think-tanks are competing against most of the world financial houses, the nuclear and renewable energy industry,  large well financed green activists (WWF revenue was $700m last year), not to mention whole government departments, major political parties, universities dependent on government funding, the BBC (there is no debate), the EU, and the entire UN.

2. Despite this highly asymmetrical arrangement, the skeptics are winning simply because they’re more convincing — they have the evidence. The other team avoid debate, try to shut down discussion (only their experts count), they imply the audience is too stupid to judge for themselves, and then call everyone who disagrees rude names. The dumb punters are figuring them out. Vale free speech.

The evidence changed, but who wanted to know?

When the evidence began rolling in showing how the assumptions were wrong, the graphs were flawed, the thermometers were biased, and the “expert” scientists were behaving badly — who exactly would benefit from risking their career, cutting off the cash cow, being exiled from friends and colleagues, and being called a “Denier” for speaking the truth?

Read more here

About these ads

91 thoughts on “The great big map of FUD

  1. Yup. That’s the long and short of it. Unfortunately, the dupers came out on the long end (cash in pockets) and the dupees came out on the short end (cash out of pockets). A climate skeptic can’t be skeptical about one overriding aspect of this humongous charade–it was all about money; never about the science.

    Thanks, you money-grubbing “scientists” and unthinking activists. The only upside is you’ve made fools of yourself (along with being unwitting tools)!

  2. I take it, after seeing the critical role the financial system plays, we can all agree that the financial system needs reform and supervision?

  3. Dammit, I hit post too soon. Ok, it’s obviously not revenues. That was a reflex to type after ‘cash flows’. Still, I’m not sure what you are tracing through here. Is this something where the cash flow originates with taxes and then flows through the rest of the system? The biggest flow in the flow chart (the arrow for taxes) has no value ascribed to it, which is suspicious to me. But then we can follow it through to values totaling in the hundreds of billions, which makes my suspicion even higher. In some places there are values for assets, too, which means the graph is confounding what the measurement base is. What is the point of origination? What is the unit value at that point? How many units are there of that unit value and how do they distribute over this graph? That is what I am confused about.

  4. I love A. Revkin’s slide show on the same NYT web page. Complaining about our energy consumption but traveling all around the world. Complaining about industrial civilization , but also about extreme poverty in developing (?) countries. No contradiction of course ….

  5. They have done so much damage to world economics … sucked out billions of $ the world over and diverted attention from more pressing issues.

  6. Bookmark this. And post links in all newspaper articles (on the web) about anything concerning Globull Warning, Wind Energy or solar.

    That is a pretty powerfull tactic. Dont be afraid, dont be shy. Just do it, all over the world.

    Every time you see a Globull Warning piece in MSM, post a link.

  7. For a man directly involved in the climategate emails, in what could be interpreted as a conspiracy between government-funded scientists, organizations and the media, Revkin certainly shouldn’t be accusing others of things he participated in on the other side.

    Of course, at least there is actual evidence of Revkin’s machinations, while they’ve yet to uncover the smokin’ gun for the climate change “denial” machine.

  8. The science of sociology was inspired by communism . Party – line is here the highest goal in life and any different opinion will be suppressed . There is nothing new in this world .
    In a way Obama and his combamas are very conservative and are closing their eyes and ears for new points of view . Much to their incomprehension the world will be changing anyway

  9. RockyRoad says @ October 6, 2011 at 10:43 pm

    “Thanks, you money-grubbing “scientists” and unthinking activists. The only upside is you’ve made fools of yourself (along with being unwitting tools)!”
    __________________________________________________________________________

    You are being much too kind. They are in it for the money.

    “…the Freedom of Information Act. The disclosure revealed that Dr. Hansen received between $236,000 and $1,232,500 in outside income in 2010 relating to his taxpayer-funded employment,…. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/03/hansen-rakes-it-in/

    I am sure Phil Jones and Mike Mann probably rake in similar amounts.

    I just found this juicy tidbit about Mr Mann of Pennsylvania State University grant money.
    “NSF Should Review Stimulus Grants to Scientist Involved in E-Mail Scandal

    Washington, D.C. – U.S. Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. and Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., today said taxpayers shouldn’t be funding questionable climate science and called for a review of more than $2.5 million in stimulus grants awarded to one climate researcher who is under investigation for his role in the Climategate scandal that unearthed efforts by leading climate scientists to destroy data, distort research and prevent publication of dissenting viewpoints….. http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=542&Itemid=29

    Seems the house of cards is starting to disintegrate.

  10. The correct bottom up sociological answer to Jo Nova’s “why-question” is that the CAGW-hypethesis was articulated and promoted by white, privileged, middle-aged and heterosexual men in their hunt for prestige and status.

    Gender angle covered and all! ;-)

  11. Hey, they’re sociologists. They have to study things that we mortals see as obvious and self explanatory to maintain the illusion that they do real work.

  12. There are 2 main money flows. One thru the UN for dubious carbon credits,money that ends up in the pockets of developing world businessmen often bankrolled by the likes of Gore.

    The other through national governments from general and CC specific taxes (eg carbon taxes). These flow through primarily as various subsidies (eg on windmills).

    Additionally, there is money from various foundations, Soros etc..

    You need to add politicians. ‘Green’ industry are heavily dependent on subsidies which results in large donations to politicians in order to keep the subsidies flowing.

    Finally I doubt financial institutions make much money from the carbon credits. A few hundred million at most. Likely a lot less Peanuts in the big scheme.

    Its not clear what ! represents – misinformation IMO.

    One other thing, In Australia the government is spending big on media to convince people of the necessity for carbon taxes, water restrictions, desal plants etc. To a degree the media is being bought off by these revenues.

  13. Olaus, I’m pushing the following sociological answer to Jo’s question:

    We are so comfortable and safe in the west that we pay money in order to feel scared. Global Warming Alarmism is like a scary movie: It’s frightening but safe, and not too real.

    The P.T.Barnums of the world know how to make a quid out of such indolence in search of a thrill, and by tapping into big government they have hit the mother-load.

  14. I’ve a very strong feeling that current events in the financial world will totally overshadow this dying controversy [AGW] – it is a patent fact, when people have money in their pockets, this enables them to, hypothesize and worry about abstract threats. That, the politicians have exploited this classic human melancholia – angst about the world, man’s imperfections and all mixed up with the stark and inevitable ephemeral nature of life itself.
    AGW ticked all the boxes, a political fiction, so good, it induced an orgiastic fantasy of, ultimate control and “blow me down” – world government throw in!
    And, how the money men loved it too.

    As we turn towards winter, something stirs – that the loons in the EU have forgotten [the irony lost – in more ways than one slips silently in – like a revenant]. In an Autumnal gloom, harbingers of Winter fast approaching – man turns in on his dark fantasies, with a vengeance, the melancholia returns with the weakening solar influence in the NH.
    The grandiose schemes have been found out, the squabbling and sheer panic is growing, the electorates of Germany and other EUropean nations grow ever restless – they watch the unfolding horror in Greece and idly wonder – “are we next?”
    The foundations of the Utopian ideal of a federal Europe were built on sand, the banks still refuse to admit their real liabilities [Dexia was given a clean bill of health in the summer EU stress tests] and the markets who sensed blood, now draw blood, financial reality cannot be denied for much longer, buy gold, silver and hoard your valuables, its gonna get rough.
    Financial scams [AGW], federal dreams, lies, more lies and absolute lies – all of them have been exposed – markets are funny things and insatiable truth seekers.

    In the end, where does this leave the idiots who believed in AGW? NOT on the list is apt, it will be so far off the list – a black hole isn’t far enough.

    All of us will have other things on our minds.

  15. I think this is Jo’s tribute diagram and Ioved the dark poetry of Athelstan, what can I say but, good luck with that.

  16. Who exactly would benefit from risking their career, cutting off the cash cow, being exiled from friends and colleagues, and being called a “Denier” for speaking the truth?

    There are some but not many.

  17. David Falkner says: @ October 6, 2011 at 11:11 pm

    I take it, after seeing the critical role the financial system plays, we can all agree that the financial system needs reform and supervision?
    _________________________________________________________________________

    Funny you should say that. The tangled web designed to funnel money into the pockets of a few is fascinating.

    Seems a staffer for U.S. Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. one of the two saying …taxpayers shouldn’t be funding questionable climate science and called for a review of more than $2.5 million in stimulus grants awarded to one climate researcher who is under investigation for his role in the Climategate scandal (Mann]… is none other that a VP of Goldman Sachs. He even changed his name to hide the connection. The fact that Issa with such a staffer is willing to change direction on CAGW is VERRRY interesting.

    One of the general partners of Goldman Sachs was Dan Amstutz. Amstutz was also VP of Cargill and later President and CEO of Cargill Investor Services. Goldman Sachs courted Amstutz because they looking for someone to provide direction about ways to operate in futures. The manipulation of that exact same futures market is blamed for the 2008 food riots.

    Amstutz was a key player in the game. He was active in the US Government as Under Secretary of Agriculturer and Chief Negotiator during the Uruguay Round of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade he is considered the Author of the WTO agreement on Agriculture. where he was so successful in advancing the goals of the grain traders that The Amstutz Award is given by the North American Export Grain Association in honor of Dan Amstutz and in recognition of his outstanding and extraordinary service to the export grain and oilseed trade from the United States

    Cargill by the way was the multinational corporation that has recently initiated biodiesel production in the UK. Amstutz wrote the “Freedom to Fail” (1996) farm bill that wiped out US strategic grain reserves. The bill caused overproduction of grain that Cargill bought at below production cost and dumped on the world market bankrupting third world farmers as well as the farmers in the USA. Once the “competition” was eliminated, the next step was the “Biofuel Craze” soaking up all the excess grain reserves. Then Goldman Sachs and the futures market came into play and jacked up the the prices causing the 2008 food riots and record profits for Cargill, Monsanto, ADM and others.

    If all of this was not planned I will eat my hat. Heck Kissinger told us in 1970 the plan was to control food, energy and the money supply. CAGW is just a cog in a much larger scheme and that is why it is so very well funded and backed.

    A decent summary of the tangled web, with references is Getting Used to Life Without Food

  18. At the end of the day, it’s all about conflicts of interest:

    If a ‘climate scientist’ told the truth – that would be a novel experience – he would say: “If I don’t make my story/paper/presentation scary, it will be boring and no one will care and therefore I won’t get funding. That’s why I have to dupe politicians, distort data, exaggerate forecasts of the future, omit important information, ignore natural cycles and cherry pick my ‘facts’ – for heaven’s sake, I don’t want to be put out on the streets, surely you can understand that?”

  19. Siemens is wrong spelled, not “Seimens”. And the Munich Re ist missing, one of the world leading insurance companies, telling scaring stories about damages caused by AGW.

  20. David Falkner says at 11:11 pm : I take it, after seeing the critical role the financial system plays, we can all agree that the financial system needs reform and supervision?

    The financial system is already hugely supervised (and in bed with) governments.As the Swedish film Overdose:The Next Financial by Johan Norberg shows, Hundreds of pages of regulation were added everyday before the financial crisis, which only made matters worse.

    Maybe more competition, not state welfare, is what our financial systems need.

    http://skepticalswedishscientists.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/the-pretense-of-knowledge/

  21. axel…love that vid unfortunately being dyslexic I kept seeing ‘all your bare arse belong to U.S.!

  22. Smokey says:
    October 7, 2011 at 3:17 am

    Excellent analysis.

    In other news, George Soros is a convicted felon. Soros is Mr Moneybags behind the CAGW scam.
    _____________________________________________________________________

    Too bad they don’t dump his rear in jail, instead he gets a reduced fine….

  23. Philip Bradley says:
    October 7, 2011 at 1:27 am

    I think that your post could be summed up in two words: Money Laundering.

    The same people seem to be at both ends of the scheme that removes money from the populace and feeds it into a ‘green energy’/’green tax’ operation that results in flows of money to the people that organize the scheme. See UK Prime Minister keen on green energy and tax subsidies to windfarms whose family are – surprise – making money from windfarms. Or US politicians (and their close aides) setting up carbon trading schemes then pushing for Carbon Trading bills in Congress.

    This is all summed up rather nicely in the Jo Nova’s diagram.

  24. Athelstan,

    I have a very similar analysis.

    The only way out of the developed world’s debt crisis are massive defaults or hyperinflation. The next few years are going to be difficult for most people. CAGW was essentially a phenomena of prosperity and will fade away as prosperity does.

  25. Gail Combs,

    Being a cynic, I am truly surprised that Soros wasn’t able to buy off that last judge in his 4 – 3 appeal loss.

    The reduced fine doesn’t matter to a billionaire; it’s chump change either way. The only thing that really matters is that his criminal conviction was upheld. Soros is a convicted felon trying to make the world communist. If he gets his way, almost everyone else will be a pauper… but not him. His motive is to be the rich puppetmaster, one of the very few elites in a world of abject serfs.

    Plato laid it out more than 2,000 years ago: a small, rich aristocracy, controlling a military force unwillingly supported by a large but impotent unarmed proletariat. The EU is the modern example; an unelected, completely unaccountable bureaucracy in Brussels dictating arbitrary laws to the countries under its suffocating thrall. All they lack is a military force. But that appears to be unnecessary, because the average EU serf has given up and accepted their fate. In America, only the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment stands between Americans and a similar fate. The approaching reckoning will determine whether Americans descend into hopeless serfdom, or fight off Soros’ terrible communist threat.

  26. “David Falkner” asks (re-organized for clarity):
    Q: “What is the point of origination? … Is this something where the cash flow originates with taxes and then flows through the rest of the system?”
    A: “Cash” originates at the Mint, but only as a physical representation of Money, which “originates” with either a government body or a lending institution, and then flows through the public and private sectors, changing hands in various forms.
    Q: “the graph is confounding what the measurement base is…How many units are there of that unit value and how do they distribute over this graph?”
    A: It is a road map, not a graph.
    Q: “What is the unit value at that point [the point of origination]?”
    A: The point is, as with any “flow” system, pressure must equalize. If all the money were in the private sector, no one would care; but we, as a people, are being obliged to subsidize it through our tax dollars.
    Q: “after seeing the critical role the financial system plays, we can all agree that the financial system needs reform and supervision?”
    A: If by that you mean making it so the politicians can force the financial institutions to spend money where they want it, well, wasn’t the mortgage debacle enough for you?

  27. “The real question sociologists will be studying for years to come is: how was an exaggerated scare, based on so little evidence, poor reasoning and petty namecalling, kept alive for two whole decades?”

    Excellent point. But sociologists won’t be studying it, because sociologists have always been leftists by definition. Their jargon is taken direct from Marx. In fact nobody with any “scientific” credentials will study the question.

    Compare: how many sociologists or psychologists have asked why the Soviet Union was able to control the world’s thoughts for 75 years? None. They don’t consider the question to be a question. In their minds Soviet thinking is just default, just the water in the fishtank, so they can’t even find the words to ask why people believed it. Their only question is why anyone dared to disagree with it, and their answer is the same answer Stalin gave. Deniers and dissidents are crazy.

  28. CAGW is but the latest expression of the second oldest money making scheme in the world – extortion. Governments and bullies have learned from our earliest predatory leanings that there is profitability in Fear. All we are seeing today is a highly sophisticated evolution of a very old trick. Liberal socialism enables the extortion by the development and refinement of co-dependency.

    The insurance industry exists because of it. The “military-industrial complex” [/sarc] thrives on it. Its basic Mad Ave 101: first you sell the sizzle (=the Fear), then you sell the product (= the Protection Racket).

    They are all snake oil salesmen.

  29. You forgot existing oil and fossil fuel monopolies.

    Current producers lobby for environmental restrictions that prevent new entry and restrict supply allowing them to extract rents. As production falls off, they can sell carbon credits and collect high rents from their would be competition.

  30. Nick de Cusa says:
    October 7, 2011 at 1:13 am

    Can someone pass on the message to Jo Nova that it’s Siemens, not Seimens? This looks really bad.

    And I thought it was a dryly humorous, tongue-in-cheek way of saying there’s way too much testosterone involved in this mess. That’s my take, anyway.

  31. ” Alexander says:
    October 7, 2011 at 3:04 am
    Siemens is wrong spelled, not “Seimens”. And the Munich Re ist missing, one of the world leading insurance companies, telling scaring stories about damages caused by AGW. ”

    Oh Dear, Alex the not so great !!!

    What about Climate Change Hysteria being misspelt ???

    It should be spelt as it should, the Weather.

  32. “It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”, Thomas Jefferson in “Notes on the State of Virginia” (1790)

  33. when fear mongering predictions, such as the sky is falling glowball warming, do not occur as predicted, eventually all normal and intelligent people reject the fear mongerers and their cause.

    That is why the ‘deniers” are “winning”. Reality is imposing itself.

  34. Smokey says:
    October 7, 2011 at 4:19 am

    Gail Combs says:
    October 7, 2011 at 3:29 am

    Gail and Smokey – I would actually be happy if George Soros and his ilk drained their own private bank accounts to fund the CAGW nonsense. Unfortunately, as Jo Nova’s chart reveals, it is WE the TAXPAYERS who are footing a large part of the bill.

    Just think about it – the Solyndra scandal alone cost us $500 million +. The bungled GLORY satellite project – another $500 million +. Double digit increases in government funding for “climate change research” are costing billions. And to top it all off, the climate scientists got HUGE payoffs of stimulus cash to spend on their projects while ordinary citizens were laid off from their jobs in the private sector. Meanwhile, recipients of this largess, people like Jim Hansen, are PROTESTING energy projects which could bring jobs to the U.S. and Canada AND provide us with energy independence! And unemployment in the U.S. as of today is STILL ABOVE 9.0%!!

    I do find it interesting that certain visitors to this site will argue strenuously over trivial changes to arctic ice or sea level heights, but fall strangely silent when the subject of climate funding comes up. In fact, most of the government/academic recipients (e.g. Mike Mann) of Climate Ca$h will NEVER talk about money so as to give the impression that they are “outfunded” or “underfunded” [LOL].

    The good news? Things will be changing drastically for the government-funded CAGW in 2012…

  35. Smokey says:
    October 7, 2011 at 4:19 am

    Being a cynic, I am truly surprised that Soros wasn’t able to buy off that last judge in his 4 – 3 appeal loss.

    ……If he gets his way, almost everyone else will be a pauper… but not him. His motive is to be the rich puppetmaster, one of the very few elites in a world of abject serfs.
    __________________________________________________________________________
    I am with you Smokey, the older I get the more cynical. I just wish the starry eyed collectivists of what ever stripe would figure out that the world financiers are not capitalists, they love socialism because it is the perfect vehicle to set up a global neo-feudalism with them as the new Aristocracy.

    CAGW is just one of the methods they are using to herd us and it scares the heck out of me when I see the amount of progress they have made in the last two decades.

    As a wise man one said, “if you don’t have the right to own property, you are property.” and I will add if you do not have the right to grow food you will starve to death.

    The United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I)- Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report ,the Preamble says:

    “Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….”

    And that is what I have seen over my life time. Government control of land in the USA is now complete with the 2010 law regulating farmers, the fight over whether we have the right to grow or eat food of our own choice is being fought as I type.

    Another Judge, one who was NOT honest, actually stated:

    “….the plaintiffs’ use of the Roe v Wade abortion rights case as a precedent does “not explain why a woman’s right to have an abortion translates to a right to consume unpasteurized milk…This court is unwilling to declare that there is a fundamental right to consume the food of one’s choice without first being presented with significantly more developed arguments on both sides of the issue.” Gee, I thought they both had to do with the right to decide what to do with your own body.

    As if to show how pissed he was at being questioned, he said his decision translates further that “no, Plaintiffs to not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;

    “no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;”

    And in a kind of exclamation point, he added this to his list of no-nos: “no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice…” http://nonais.org/2011/09/27/wi-no-right-to-produce-or-eat-food/

    That type of decision from a US judge really really scares me! So much for the 10th amendment to the US Constitution.

    It seems the battle is being fought on several different fronts and “They” have all the money, expertise and government power.

    I bless the guy who released the Climategate E-mails and people like Anthony, Jo Nova and the rest and I hope they get a starring role in future history books.

  36. The money chart is nice. But there is a correction to be made: the legitimate governments need to be a separate component from the QUANGOs (quasi-authoritative non-governmental organizations) like the UN or WHO.

    The money comes from where Adam Smith said it comes: the wealth of nations comes from land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship. The govt, using “legitimate authority,” skims a little off the top.

    Because govt has “legitimate authority,” technically it is not “extortion.” Govt is accountable to the citizens, so if we vote to defund AGW, or un-elect politiicians who fund AGW, then we have exercised our control over govt. When Govt gets so big that we cannot tell what is happening, that is a prob. Open govt and FOI mechanisms help us wealth-producing citizens hold our client, the govt, accountable.

    The NGOs get funding from the govts. This is all a game of political favor. If the govt likes you, you get $. Every govt wants to play nice, and keep up with the Joneses, but for a NGO to have big bucks, it has to have at least one govt really contribute. This is a “benefactor” relationship. Mozart, Bach, Haydn, and others did not simply write great music; they were sponsored by some wealthy person who either wanted the status of having a musician in the house, or they liked the music, or both. So, they were supported to do their thing. So, if a govt happens to favor an NGO, they will donate. But as with the house musician, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

    The govt also funds science. This is similar. but usually a little more strategic – to have military and economic advantage, govts support higher ed. This requires universities, which need to have a wide range of disciplines to attract students and resources. hence, land-grant universities, and govt funding of higher ed.

    The international socialists see all of this. They figure out: if we can develop an agenda through academia to be followed by the seemingly benevolent, above-the-fray NGOs, then we develop the scholarly agenda of “rights” and “global warming,” then we can feed the govt the science, and tell the govt who to fund to act on the science.

    So, the intl socialists have to make up some crises. “Overpopulation,” “reproductive rights,” “global warming,” “pandemic,” etc.

    This is how I see the flow chart of money. Of course, this puts me at odds with some of the Watts Up audience, since I don’t buy the “overpopulation” story, and I don’t think we should be encouraging access to abortion, sterilization, and other population-control schemes in these developing countries.

    But maybe the Watts Up readers will, little by little, see how this Brave New World / Logan’s Run stuff is just the same game of the international socialists seeking to get planetary control above the nations.

    So, since it works this way, the nations, with tax base of citizens, need a box separate from the NGOs, who are under patonages – until they finally figure out how to get some true governing power.

    Carbon trading / Cap and Trade would achieve that, as long as it was some global authority deeming how much energy consumption each country could generate, and each nation giving a tax to the global authority.

    That authority reallt wouldn’t have to worry about whether cap nad trade works; it is just a scheme for NGOs to move from patronage status, with no real teeth, to legitimate govt with power to collect taxes from the generators of wealth, us citizens with our land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship.

  37. David Falkner, flow charts are either apolitical or political. The vast majority try to prove a point and are therefor political, even when the attempt is to present apolitical “factual” data and information.

    An apolitical flow chart would be similar to an electrical flow diagram. It is designed to transfer facts delineated by commas into a conceptual flow framework and is thus read with straightforward and sometimes 3-dimensional comprehensive skill.

    A political flow chart is another thing all together. Worse, I am beginning to see “scientists” dressing up apolitical charts with political attempts to persuade versus inform. Mann’s hockeystick, while not a flow chart, attempted to mix facts with his effort to persuade.

    Jo Nova’s flow chart is political, thus is not read nor comprehended in the same way as an apolitical chart. You ask too much of her chart to have it labeled with factual source and cash amount.

    Relating to this post and Jo’s political flow chart, our task is to determine whether or not our political perception of what has happened and is happening matches her perception, not how accurately labeled her chart is. Political flow charts are never accurate. They are opinions about how we think things are being done and how we think things OUGHT to be done. Regardless of which side we are on, we would all do well to keep that in mind when flow charts (or any kind of chart) are a part of a presentation.

  38. Addendum: I would agree that the flow chart is a bit confusing in terms of being able to clearly communicate and colorfully express her perception and opinion of the issue she is addressing.

  39. It seems we humans love to feel anxiety and guilt, and search eagerly for something to hang it on. CAGW, the ozone hole, over-population, etc. Sadly, there really are some dire problems that we ought to give immediate attention to, such as over-fishing and depletion of fresh water sources.

  40. Does anybody have a good resource on how much ‘Big Oil’ has given to green causes, especially to climate-change related causes (is there really a difference these days)?

    ~More Soylent Green!

  41. Most of these comments should have been posted on Revkin NYT site. Here, we are mostly speaking to those who already discern the true state of things. It only takes a second and you will feel better for it. Don’t forget to provide a link back here. GK

  42. Good work Mr. Watts.
    Ayn Rand wrote ” The uncontested absudities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They are accepted by default.”
    This website helps us contest.

  43. The “US vs Them” propaganda has stopped scientific discussion. The so called “green” groups are forcing governments to initiate programs that do not make either financial or environmental sense. Some of the so called “green” programs – such as converting food to biofuel – are a ludicrous waste of money. The biofuel program harms the environmental (there is a fixed amount agricultural land so either virgin forest will be cut down or people in the third world will starve.) and does significantly reduce the amount of CO2 that enters the atmosphere. The conversion of corn to ethanol for example requires 25% fossil energy (if one includes the fuel for farming and the energy for three distillations required to convert 8% water/ethonal to 99.5% water/ethanol. If one includes the fossil energy to plant, produce the fertilizer, harvest, transport, grind up, distill, and to treat the waste water, the corn to ethanol process produces net slightly more CO2 than gasoline. The cost of ethanol from corn is 3 times that of gasoline. If the objective is to raise the price of gasoline to reduce to reduce demand, increase the tax on gas and use the money to construct nuclear reactors.

    There has been no practical discussion of fundamental engineering issues related to “green” alternative energy sources such as wind or solar that are show stoppers and constraints on their use. Facts are facts. There is no magic wand that will make the constraints and costs go away. The fact that those promoting the so called “green” alternatives are not aware of the constraints and costs, is a crying shame. Rather than a scientific discussion the green supporters attack the messenger.

    Hansen’s alarmist book “Storms of my grandchildren” notes the only engineering viable alternative to fossil fuel produced electricity is nuclear. I do not have time to explain why wind power is limited to around 10% of the base load, even if one is willing to pay 3 to 5 times the cost for fossil fuel power generation for the wind farms complete with back-up natural gas power planets for the periods when the wind does not blow.

    The green groups should logically be promoting thorium heavy water nuclear development. There is a vast amount of thorium (thorium is as common as lead) available for fission and that reactor design is fail safe. A breach of the core results in a loss of the heavy water. The thorium nuclear reaction stops if there is breach of the reactor as the heavy water is required to slow down the neutrons to enable the thorium fission reaction to occur. The thorium reaction does not produce plutonium as a by product which is the reason it was not selected or promoted for the standard US reactor design. It is also not commercially promoted as it would competing with the boiling water Uranium 235 enriched reactor design.

    The data shows the planet will warm less than 1C for a doubling of CO2 with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes which will increase rather than decrease the biosphere. The neutral scientists have presented satellite data that shows planetary cloud cover increases (negative feedback) when the planet warms which resist planetary temperature change. The key issue to discuss is how much warming will occur from a doubling of CO2. Due to self feeding alarmist statements, people are not aware that observations and logic appears to support the so called denier scientific position. (The key scientific issue is whether the feedback response is negative (planetary clouds increase) or positive (planet amplifies any forcing change). The neutral scientists do not dispute the fact that some warming will occur. The question is how much.

    China is constructing two coal fired power plants per week to produce cheap electricity to compete with the US. It is a fact that we are losing the industrial competition war with China (Look at trade deficit). We need jobs in addition to long term practical environmental protection.

    Atmospheric CO2 is 0.039%. Commercial greenhouse inject CO2 to raise the CO2 levels to 0.1% to 0.15% reduce growing times and increase yield. Atmospheric CO2 has been at 0.1% to 0.15% (or higher) for most of the period life has been on this planet. Higher atmospheric CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere. The biosphere is and will expand due the increase in the atmosphere of CO2 and warming of less than 1C with most of the warming at higher latitudes.

  44. misterjohnqpublic says:
    October 7, 2011 at 6:21 am

    AGW = intellectual illiteracy

    Fear sells by the bucket to the illiterate
    ===============================================
    Not “illiterate”, but ignorant (and willfully at that too !)

  45. polistra says:
    October 7, 2011 at 4:29 am

    Compare: how many sociologists or psychologists have asked why the Soviet Union was able to control the world’s thoughts for 75 years? None.

    One did, at least indirectly, and his book was even studied in a Sociology course I took back in 1965. David Reisman’s Individualism Reconsidered noted a change going on within America from “inner directed”, individual-based thinking, to “other directed” or group oriented thinking. Back then, this book was considered to be the state of the art as to its methodology and insights concerning American culture.

    But since then, the Communists have managed to infiltrate America’s institutions according to Gramsci’s tactic for achieving its “hegemony” via an inside-out approach – one case of which I witnessed directly around 1984 involving the leader of the San Franciso Communist Party, who i’d known since he was 13, suddenly becoming a Democrat and a University Professor, and as though I wouldn’t notice! – in order to produce functional control over people. So my “consciousness” would probably now be interpreted by Sociologists as “false” – or perhaps even “too white”? And Reisman’s book no doubt is functionally ignored as having never existed.

    The last info I received as to the content of current Sociology “thinking” came from a recent graduate of an elite University and involved such things as her lesbian Sociology teacher advocating in class that all her female students should become lesbians and saying that the poor were becoming fat from having to eat at McDonalds and not having any opportunity to exercise. My source was in fact poor, not fat, and had eaten at McDonalds quite a lot because she’d been very active in high school sports, requiring a lot of travel to away-games from her down-trodden rural school. So things got pretty hot in class when she asked her teacher, “Are you calling me fat?” I don’t think she mentioned to her teacher that she is also part American Indian. The brave new Sociologists wouldn’t have believed that either.

  46. But wait, there’s more….

    Research the names Dunlap & McCright and the people they directly associate with ( http://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2010/webprogram/Session1591.html ), and an eerie common thread is seen, ALL of these folks cite a single source for the “proof” that skeptic scientists are shills of big coal & oil: anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan. No need to trust me on this, you can look it up for yourselves.

    Click on my name above to see why Gelbspan’s accusation has troubles everywhere you look, the biggest of which is that he never shows his “proof” in its full context. Without the perception that skeptic scientists are untrustworthy, the general public then has no reason to ignore their side of AGW.

  47. Frank K. says: @ October 7, 2011 at 5:58 –

    “Gail and Smokey – I would actually be happy if George Soros and his ilk drained their own private bank accounts to fund the CAGW nonsense. Unfortunately, as Jo Nova’s chart reveals, it is WE the TAXPAYERS who are footing a large part of the bill……

    Meanwhile, recipients of this largess, people like Jim Hansen, are PROTESTING energy projects which could bring jobs to the U.S. and Canada AND provide us with energy independence! And unemployment in the U.S. as of today is STILL ABOVE 9.0%!! ……”
    _______________________________________________________________________

    Of course it is the Tax Payer and the Consumer who end up paying the price for all these idiotic schemes. That (and POWER) is behind most of what goes on in the political arena. And by the way the REAL unemployment in the U.S. is above 20% not just above 9% because the US gov’t does not count “Discouraged” workers.

    Here is a bit about Soros and his currency speculation: http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/george-soros-bank-of-england.asp

  48. The Mother Earth / Andy Revkin shows some narrow-mindedness. It is all based in the USA, as well as some of the organizations being defunct. It is an example of a bad conspiracy theory – a narrow focus and a failure to look at alternative points of view.

  49. To thelastdemocrat:

    You wrote: “When Govt gets so big that we cannot tell what is happening, that is a prob. Open govt and FOI mechanisms help us wealth-producing citizens hold our client, the govt, accountable.”

    Indeed. In the USA, total government share of the GDP–that’s Federal and state together–reached 43% last year. Government has become so big that it is teetering on the edge of being completely unaccountable. With sophisticated polling and demographics, Congressional districts are sliced up to virtually ensure that incumbents are re-elected. See, for example, the plans by a heavily Democratic state legislature in Maryland to re-chop up districts to ensure that the only two Republican representatives for the state are unseated–you may Google it.

    This is what makes the US election of 2010 stand out. To have so many incumbents lose their
    seats is amazing. This is a tribute to just how unhappy and disgusted the American citizenry is.
    However, unless the American citizenry remains not just engaged, but HEAVILY engaged, in the political process, the government will simply continue to grow and become more and more unaccountable.

  50. William says:
    October 7, 2011 at 7:55 am

    “….. If the objective is to raise the price of gasoline to reduce to reduce demand, increase the tax on gas and use the money to construct nuclear reactors.

    There has been no practical discussion of fundamental engineering issues related to “green” alternative energy sources such as wind or solar that are show stoppers and constraints on their use. Facts are facts. There is no magic wand that will make the constraints and costs go away. The fact that those promoting the so called “green” alternatives are not aware of the constraints and costs, is a crying shame. Rather than a scientific discussion the green supporters attack the messenger…..

    The green groups should logically be promoting thorium heavy water nuclear development.
    ______________________________________________________________________

    Amen to that.

    China had plans to build 60 in the next decade.

    And the Japanese and Korea were not about to be left out.
    Mr. Fukushima stated that IThEMS is negotiating with Korean Shipbuilders over the potential sale of Mini-Fujis for ship propulsion systems…..

    If China goes ahead with her energy plans the USA is going to be left in the dust and all the greenies will find themselves relegated to migrant Ag labor for the likes of Mr. Soros or Mr. Rothschild who are busy buy US farmland. Civilization runs on energy, the more energy the higher the civilization. China figured that out too bad the greens have not. (I sure hope they know how to drive a hitch of mules…)

    The recent turn of events almost makes me believe HAARP can cause Earthquakes and Floods or Soros & co.are in league with the devil, the latter being the most likely. (snicker)

  51. “The real question sociologists will be studying for years to come is: how was an exaggerated scare, based on so little evidence, poor reasoning and petty namecalling, kept alive for two whole decades?”

    Ideas are
    1. The sociological arguments take precedence over the scientific. (The science is truth, therefore those who oppose are wrong, evil or paid to deceive). It has the effect of silencing any mainstream political opposition.
    2. Getting governments to accept the fundamental hypothesis as truth, and then have all funding to support that “truth”. This has created a huge politicized class who depends on maintenance of the “truth” for its livelihood.
    3. Alarmism is popular, whilst the null hypothesis is no news.
    4. Allowing experts in one area (Climate Science) to dictate their methods, the boundaries of science, public policy and economics.

  52. Gail Combs: And in a kind of exclamation point, he added this to his list of no-nos: “no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice…” http://nonais.org/2011/09/27/wi-no-right-to-produce-or-eat-food/

    If we did, then we would have the right to grow our own marijuana, and make our own ephedrine and methamphetamine. I don’t agree with the ruling, but the most recent was U.S. v. Raiche, Justice Thomas wrote a very good dissent. The first law of this kind was passed in the 1930s to control wheat.

    Also, “freedom to fail”, as you call it, decreased government intervention in agriculture, not increased it. People who couldn’t survive the market lobbied for and received government intervention to protect them. “Freedom to fail” (your name again) was more sympathetic to the 10th amendment that what went immediately before or after it.

    Back to the main thread, JoNova’s graphic is very good.

  53. Gail Combs says:
    October 7, 2011 at 9:13 am

    Another thing to add is that many in the CAGW community (the government climate science elites) will say “we’re not against oil but it should be priced (i.e. taxed) in accordance with it’s “cost” to society”. Of course they’ll say this since they get:

    * six figure government salaries
    * generous benefits (medical, vacations, holidays, paid time off)
    * paid travel and living for conferences and meetings all over the globe
    * generous pensions when they retire

    They can easily afford increases in the costs of food, fuel, housing.

    And they think NOTHING of ruining other people’s livelihoods (read oil and gas, coal, nuclear power, transportation industries) if they think those jobs will lead to increases in CO2 beyond what their theories/models believe is sustainable.

  54. The most perplexing “reason” I have seen for the presence of skeptics is that skeptics are more science-educated than warmists. The more education one has in scientific areas, the Green researchers say, the less he believes or supports the tenets of CAGW. That this “discovery” does not disturb the warmists into their own uncertainty, but provide them with a reassurance that the skeptics have an identified reason to be foolish, astounds me.

    Cognitive dissonance, the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time, is a fact of human social life. We need this to get along in the human world where what you want, need and are able to get are mostly out of your control. Scientific reasoning, however, seems antithetical to dissonance such as this, yet the Gore-Hansen-Suzuki group thrive under its cover, Perhaps that is because CAGW is not scientific but sociological. Creative thinking for managing human behavior needs blind sides and “tricks”; it is the nature of the beast.

  55. “kept alive for two whole decades?”

    I am a pessimist…you should change that to three decades.

    Hell there are still idiots running around that worry about the “population bomb”.

  56. Cognitive dissonance, the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time

    Not quite. Cognitive dissonance is (according to the theory) an aversive motivational state caused by awareness that certain beliefs that one holds – or actions (regarded as following from certain beliefs) – contradict each other.

  57. The Revkin “map” (really just a flow diagram) is beyond ridiculous. How much did ANY of the organizations affect the debate, either before or after Climategate?

    The ONLY effective effort against warming have been three (and a half):
    1.0.) Steve McIntyre’s ClimateAudit
    2.0.) Anthony Watt’s WattsUpWithThat
    3.0.) The Climategate files
    3.5.) Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.

    NONE of the listings on Revkin’s “map” have made one jot or tittle of effect on the public debate at all. They have all been spinning their wheels for two decades, with doing one tiny spec of good (or bad, depending on your POV). All they have been is lightning rods for warmers to point at and speculate on links to some imagined network of climate holocaust deniers.

    The bottom line? All of what Revkin (and the denial deniers) have is a list of non-powerful organizations, at least non-powerful in the climate debate.

    The skeptics would be better off if those organizations just got the hell out of the way and shut their doors, because all they do is enable warming shills/dupes like Revkin to pretend that the organizations have had some effect on the debate – which they haven’t had.

    Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts – on their own (combined) dime – have had 100 times the effect of those organizations. Judith Curry’s blog has had an effect on the dialogue, but no effect on the science. (Since she came over to the middle of the aisle, no other warmers have joined her.)

    And even with Steve and Anthony’s effect, those results pale in comparison to the anonymous person who brought the world Climategate.

    Only Climategate has made any substantial difference, Mr. Revkin. Why don’t you address yourself to THAT? Only Climategate has won people over in droves. And why are you, Mr. Revkin, not addressing the whys and the wherefores of the fact that the best evidence against global warming is THE CENTRAL GROUP OF GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS THEMSELVES?

  58. A humble suggestion for an added box to the chart:

    “Poor People of The World; Need infrastructure, affordable energy, capital, and practical solutions to improve their situation”

    This box to be placed off to the side with no arrows going to or fro, or printed in invisible ink, to represent the current set of priorities.

  59. By labeling the 97% of scientists who describe climate realities around the globe as the “pro scare side, you contribute to a false impression which makes it difficult for your readers to learn the truth. When unpleasant news is made public in an objective fashion (“the Earth is warming”) it will frighten some and mobilize others to take corrective action. In the same vein, if your doctor informs you of a cancer, you can be very frightened (normal) and later motivated to “fight” the disease. If you stay paralyzed in fear, and locked in denial, you will probably die sooner than you would otherwise.

    No serious scientist that I am aware of “implies” that the “audience” is “stupid”. Scientists publish their work and it is up to us, the general public to process their findings. The implications of climate science as it is emerging from the vast mainstream of working researchers, (as opposed to journalists, engineers, educated commentators who do no research and an army of others who have clearly observable biases), are potentially frightening to anyone. But the scientists are not calling anyone “names” as you assert, or denigrating those who disagree with them. They do debunk the disagreers in clear, but nonprovocative language. Monckton, Singer, Michaels, and the others have been soundly debunked by several scientists in the accepted protocol of the scientific community.

    Climate science is physics Anthony. NO one disputes the basics anymore. The planet is warming. The warming is caused by greenhouse gases, including CO2. Humans, all 6.5 billion of us, burn plants and fuel,(dead plants) thereby greatly adding to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Who can argue with this in the face of overwhelming evidence? The implications of this phenomenon are debatable, but there continue to be distressing observations. The polar regions are warming faster than others areas, and the ice is melting with obvious implications for ocean levels, and currents. Some regions of the world are warming more than others and evaporation rates are increasing everywhere, depleting moisture from soils and available surface water. Accordingly, fresh water availability is diminishing in many areas of the world, a problem which is exacerbated by drought conditions, and other extreme weather events.

    The problems we are collectively facing around the world are challenging, and you do everyone a disservice by distorting the situation with inaccurate and inflammatory language.

  60. frederik wisse says:
    October 7, 2011 at 12:35 am
    The science of sociology was inspired by communism .
    I don’t know where you get this stuff from, but it is comparable to the worst rubbish sprouted by proponents of AGW.

  61. Hugh Pepper says:
    October 7, 2011 at 1:00 pm
    ……………………………………….
    /sarc

  62. @Hugh Pepper:

    Do you just copy and paste this into random replies when you can’t come up with something else to say?

    I don’t know many people who believe that 97% of scientists crap. It’s completely bogus. There’s never been a survey of 100% of scientists, or even 100% of the climatologists on any topic.

    You have no credibility when you repeat an assertion that’s been thoroughly debunked. The rest of your post isn’t worth responding too, either.

  63. I like how on the original chart, they listed in the “echo chamber” entities such as “blogs” and “media”.

    Considering the majority of the MSM agrees and defends the CAGW lies, and that blogs such as RealClimate (paid for by NASA, IIRC) constantly refuse to debate the subject, then maybe they should reconsider their chart.

    One needs to follow the money – like Hansen did.

    America is the leader in Climate Research. We have the best scientists money can buy.

  64. Hugh Pepper says:
    October 7, 2011 at 1:00 pm
    “In the same vein, if your doctor informs you of a cancer, you can be very frightened (normal) and later motivated to “fight” the disease. If you stay paralyzed in fear, and locked in denial, you will probably die sooner than you would otherwise.”

    The analogy is false. It compares climate scientists to cancer specialists. However, unlike the case of cancer medicine, there are no competent practitioners of climate science at this time because climate science is in its infancy. All of the billions spent on climate science in the last 40 years has not produced one reasonably well-confirmed physical hypothesis which goes beyond Arrhenius’ 19th Century work and can be used to explain and predict some climate phenomenon.

    There is your challenge, Hugh. Consider what a kind player I am. All you have to do is produce that one reasonably well-confirmed physical hypothesis about climate and I will agree that I am wrong. How easy can something be? But you, Hugh, like all others I have challenged will prove unable to produce even one. You will be unable to show that your climate scientists are not copies of Al Gore, the World’s Greatest Snake Oil Salesman. You cannot produce one. You cannot do it. Why? Because there are none. Your climate heroes have contributed nothing to climate science.

  65. JPeden says:
    October 7, 2011 at 8:19 am

    “The last info I received as to the content of current Sociology “thinking” came from a recent graduate of an elite University and involved such things as her lesbian Sociology teacher advocating in class that all her female students should become lesbians and saying that the poor were becoming fat from having to eat at McDonalds and not having any opportunity to exercise. My source was in fact poor, not fat, and had eaten at McDonalds quite a lot because she’d been very active in high school sports, requiring a lot of travel to away-games from her down-trodden rural school. So things got pretty hot in class when she asked her teacher, “Are you calling me fat?” I don’t think she mentioned to her teacher that she is also part American Indian. The brave new Sociologists wouldn’t have believed that either.”

    Nailed it, J. What you describe, very politely, is what I have observed for forty years now in elite and near-elite graduate departments. But it is not limited to Sociology. It is rampant.

    (Of course, when authorities allowed creation of something called a “Feminist Studies Department,” what the H*ll did they expect? For fear of being labelled a “conspiracy theorist,” I will not point out that the main thrust of communism is to create as many divisions within society and institutions as possible and to make each as dependent on government handouts as possible.)

  66. To all contributors here who are going on about Sociology being a left-wing, communist discipline: the ‘Father of Sociology’ was Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), the man who coined the term ‘survival of the fittest’ and is considered the first Social Darwinist. He shared with August Comte (1798 – 1857) the desire to apply the principles derived from Darwinian evolution to the analysis of human society and the evolution of morality and social institutions. His motivations were to promote utilitarian liberalism and self-sufficiency and to promote human evolution: he regarded the poor and weak as having arrived at that state due to congenital weaknesses in intelligence or other qualities. He therefore opposed public education and welfare reform as these were a waste of money and were a charity coerced by the state from the public. He was anti-Christian and sought to implement a new morality, but was also staunchly anti-socialist.

    Sociology may since have become predominantly left-wing, but this is because the anti-Christian, pro-evolutionary new morality meshed well with the leftist agenda to destroy the Christian institutions underlying Western society. To do this, the left had to argue for the ‘natural’ evolutionary foundations of society and morality, which is what sociologists also were seeking to understand.

    Spencer was also in early years very much an advocate for women (and even children) getting the vote, and was anti-marriage because of his own mother’s unhappy marriage and his perception that marriage subjugated women and was not a partnership of equals, but rather bound couples together even if their natural passions died.

  67. Hugh Pepper says:
    October 7, 2011 at 1:00 pm

    …Humans, all 6.5 billion of us, burn plants and fuel,(dead plants)…

    The above was the only “fact” that I could find in your entire comment. Try harder! GK

  68. If the Fossil Fuel Industry and Corporate America are passing out big bucks, I want to know how to get my share. I am perfectly willing to be a denier for them, because I think AGW theory is a three layer cake of horse dejecta. It’s hard to make money these days. I will deny for food.

Comments are closed.