Skeptic movies meet their goal whereas alarmist ones do not

From a submission by WUWT reader Benoît Rittaud and the “avert your eyes” department comes this bit of inconvenient psychology.

The Journal of Environment Psychology just published a (paywalled) paper by Tobias Greitemeyer (University of Innsbruck, Department of Psychology, Austria), entitled Beware of climate change skeptic films. That is the actual title of the peer reviewed paper.

The only problem is that in the study, it turns out skeptic films seem to be more effective than alarmist films.

Abstract
Although there is broad scientific consensus that global warming is happening and that it is human-caused, these issues are denied by climate change skeptics. The present two studies examined to what extent (and why) climate change affirming and climate change skeptic films are successful in affecting people’s environmental concern. Relative to a neutral film condition, watching a climate change skeptic film decreased environmental concern, whereas watching a climate change affirming film did not affect participant’s concern. Mediation analyses showed that watching a climate change skeptic film decreased participants’ consideration of future consequences, which in turn decreased their environmental concern. Possible reasons why climate change affirming films did not affect participant’s environmental concern are discussed.

Of course, in the paper, the possibility that people are able to see whether the propaganda lies on An Inconvenient Truth side or on The Great Global Warming Swindle side is not taken in consideration.

Eric Horowitz, of Psychology Today, reports on this paper here saying: Are We Losing the War on Climate Change Cinema?

He muses:

The results suggest that there may be something about climate skeptic films that makes them more powerful.

Maybe because skeptic films portray facts and truth compared to unsupportable claims?

121 thoughts on “Skeptic movies meet their goal whereas alarmist ones do not

  1. Skeptic films are showing the audience something they’ve not heard before; alarmist films are banging drums we’ve all heard endlessly for years. Of COURSE new information will cause opinions to change while old information will not.

  2. The results suggest that there may be something about climate skeptic films that makes them more powerful.
    ———

    Proves the old addage “honesty is the best policy”

  3. Rob Crawford says:
    July 1, 2013 at 1:23 pm
    Of COURSE new information will cause opinions to change while old information will not.
    ROFL. Exactly, this is the only reason why skeptics are winning. People just look at that new information.
    Well, I trust humans are cleverer then that, but you are entitled to your own opinion.

  4. Does one get funding when one proposes papers like this one(utter rubbish), or does the funding come after one gets tosh like this published.

    This is absolutely absurd. Honestly.

    Tom Riordan

  5. Yeah, no bias here:

    “In the meantime, people should probably be more wary of crackpot climate skeptic films”

    Maybe the “researchers” could figure out that climate alarmist propaganda has been spread so far and wide that only new critical info is likely to have any effect now.

  6. I think they are more powerful, but for obvious reasons: the science behind global warming is actually very flimsey, but as Rob Crawford wrote, the message is beat into our heads that we just sort of accept it. Despite that tepid agreement, very few people really care about global warming as poll after poll shows. I suppose it’s “a mile wide and an inch deep” as the saying goes. Then people are introduced to skeptical ideas, most of the time for the first time, and they are introduced to an alternative explanation or an expose of how flimsey the science is, etc. They see warmists act hysterically, claiming every event is tied to global warming, even natural events. Then people feel lied to and they stop believing anything the warmists think.

    The problem, in my opinion, is that people are not given the whole story through normal channels, the press is not skeptical enough (as they should be) and skeptical information becomes a “forbidden fruit” to them. The warmists are not interested in the truth, they are interested in directing everyone’s opinions to match their own opinions, by any means necessary, and this hurts them in the long run. I think Al Gore’s AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH really hurt the movement as it basically took over the whole thing, making it militant and hyper-partisan.

  7. Social science mmm a name appears on my radar , could it be Stapel , yes !!

    Yes Diederik Stapel , a former professor of social psychology at Tilburg University and before that at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands,

    The same guy that hoaxed every research project he published.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Stapel

  8. His argument that “enviromentalism” is the opposite of skepticism to the claims of IPCC “consensus” science is ridiculous. He is one of the trend that is moving towards staking a position about “climate change” rather than “global warming.” From their point of view, I think they can grade themselves as effectively transitioning to a position where they can claim, falsely, higher moral authority, because they can deny without shame that their positions have changed. Pretty soon they will forget “warming” altogether and stake the money train on “climate irregularities” or similar garbage verbiage. In a few years they will be claiming they always only meant extra CO2 would only do “something,” maybe something very small or nearly undetectable, but that was always their position.

  9. “Although there is broad scientific consensus that global warming is happening and that it is human-caused, these issues are denied by climate change skeptics. “

    Well, not exactly: we skeptics are fully aware that the globe has been warming although not so much recently, however, we do not agree that it is human caused.

    Geez. You would hope that they could properly define the skeptical position . Maybe they watched too many alarmist movies.

  10. Wait, “skeptic” films? There are such things? Could someone name a few of them?

  11. Eric Horowitz, of Psychology Today, reports on this paper here saying: Are We Losing the War on Climate Change Cinema?

    An unbiased scientist or journalist would not openly identify with one side or the other in the act of doing scholarly work. Both Greitmeyer’s and Horowitz’s biases are openly displayed in blatantly assuming that alarmists are the good guys and hold a monopoly on the truth, especially where knowledge of climate science is outside of their area of expertise.

  12. Funny how running around shrieking “BRAWK! The Sky is Falling! BRAWK! The Sky is falling!” just isn’t as effective as a calm and simple demonstration of the facts

    Almost as funny as the way that alarmists are now having to face the downside of having almost total control of the media narrative up until now. There’s no way to keep that kind of thing going forever, especially when the weather refuses to cooperate and do what you said it was going to do. Which is why there’s nothing but downside for them whenever this issue comes up in public, and why they’re reduced to saying “Don’t watch the movies! Don’t read the stories! Don’t listen to any debate! It’s EVILLLL!!!! Close Your Minds to anything but our narrative!!!”

    And that’s all they’ve got. And they’re surprised that it isn’t “effective”????

    Funny to watch people go down with the wreckage of their own delusions.

  13. Global warming is a bit like having to ooh and aah over someone’s new baby.. it’s expected. So many people do the expected and say publicly they have a concern over GW. But present them with some hard evidence and the manufactured expected concern diminishes or goes away.

    JC

  14. Dirty skeptics and their dirty facts.. Its seems even the alarmists are losing heart trying to cobble together another embarrassing inconvenient truth propaganda piece..

    There was no rebuttal to Al Gores crappy movie, it stood alone with nothing but the odd brave voice calling out horrible BS inside..

    Now with the skeptics movie you can compare the two side by side with an honest assessment of the research and the facts involved.. Point and counter point, straight into who’s pulling on who’s wiener..

    Idiots cant pretend to save the world under such harsh conditions..

    Its not so much the funding, its having your name attached to a flop disgrace that could very well be the straw that broke the camels back.. where is Al when they need him?

  15. Anthony: verb and subject do not agree in your headline: it should read:

    “Skeptic movies meet their goal whereas alarmist ones DO not”

    REPLY: that was already corrected prior to your comment, refresh – Anthony

  16. Mark and two Cats says:
    July 1, 2013 at 1:28 pm

    Beware of climate change skeptic films.
    ————————————————–
    If thy brain offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee.

    =============
    …it is better for thee to enter into blissful ignorance with no brain, rather than, having a brain, to be cast into the hell of skeptical objectivity.

  17. “The results suggest that there may be something about climate skeptic films that makes them more powerful.”

    Because you see clearly that you are being manipulated. You see misinformation and half-truths. You check the sources and see over-exageration. You compare discourse and practice of narrators. You hear fallacies. You see IMF, World Bank, UN, EU and all XYZ combinations of the world. Peoples don’t trust in politicians by nature. And, after all, peoples love the truth and hates lies. Just some investigations lines.

  18. James Schrumpf says:
    July 1, 2013 at 1:58 pm

    Wait, “skeptic” films? There are such things? Could someone name a few of them?

    =====================================================================
    Sorry. I can’t name any “films” unless they mean things WUWT’s 24 hr segments that ran opposite Al’s “Goreathon”.
    But I can say you won’t find any of them on the SyFy channel though you may find presentations of CAGW papers that found alternate funding.

  19. Umm shouldn’t that be DO not does? in the header.

    As for the rest of the balderdash read into what you will: nonsense is always nonsense but can be amusing if only to watch others take it seriously.

    Kindest Regards

  20. I think WUWT needs a page to archive lists of movies, books, and other media that express the climate skeptic position — The Great Global Warming Swindle, Fallen Angels, State of Fear, all of those — so that people can offer them to friends who would never read a scientific paper but might embrace ideas presented in a different form.

  21. James Schrumpf says:

    July 1, 2013 at 1:58 pm
    “Wait, “skeptic” films? There are such things? Could someone name a few of them?”
    ================================================================
    I’m with you. I was stumped to name one.

    @Mark and two Cats (July 1, 2013 at 1:28 pm): Brilliant!

  22. Donald Corleone says:
    July 1, 2013 at 1:50 pm “could it be Stapel “.
    Well, the Dutch mega-science-fraudster, Professor Diederik Stapel, who has admitted that he made up his data in 55 science publications, was sentenced yesterday to a social punishment. He has to work for 120 hours in our parks, cleaning up the dirt. Several scientists are disappointed about this mild punishment but it seems to me quite appropriate.

  23. James Schrumpf beat me to it. What are these skeptic films they studied to come to their conclusions? I’m getting tired of them blaming a communications problem for the fact that their lies aren’t getting through to us.

  24. Hilarious. “views on climate tend to be influenced by partisan media rather than unbiased research …. Obviously its bad news if films produced by climate skeptics have a stronger impact… “

  25. I know the answer to this one.
    It’s because the truth is usually recognizable.
    Plus their story just sounds so fabulous.
    2+2 is 5…We’ve always been at war with Eastasia
    I swear more and more it looks like BO is acting like Big Bro.

  26. From the article, Eric Horowitz is quoted as being “a social science writer and education researcher.”
    He writes (my bold):

    This time the climate change-affirming film was a documentary, “Six Degrees Could Ghange (sic) the World,” rather than a fictional film about a world ravaged by climate change.

    Perhaps in his education research he could find the meaning of ‘fictional’. From a review at http://www.altenergymag.com (my bold):

    Six Degrees Could Change the World was produced by the National Geographic channel and was direct by Ron Bowman. Bowman and his expert team of filmmakers have fashioned a terrifying prophecy of our tomorrows if the specter of global warming is not reversed.

    and from Wiki:

    Prophecy is a process in which one or more messages that have been communicated to a prophet[1] are then communicated to others. Such messages typically involve divine inspiration, interpretation, or revelation of conditioned events to come (cf. divine knowledge) as well as testimonies or repeated revelations that the world is divine.[citation needed] The process of prophecy especially involves reciprocal communication of the prophet with the (divine) source of the messages. Throughout history, clairvoyance has commonly been used and associated with prophecy.

    Is it any wonder that people are not getting the ‘message’ when ‘science’ is reported with such loose terminology?

    It’s also difficult to concern oneself with the predictions from the pro-CAGW proponents that are always several to many decades into the future. Present-day concerns such as affording energy costs to survive the current and immediate cold weather may be more pressing.

  27. F.Y.I. — The movies used (per the Horowitz article in Psychology today — link above) in the “study” (lol) were:

    “Experiment” (LOL) #1:
    Skeptic Film: “The Great Global Warming Swindle,”

    pro-CAGW Film: “Children of the Flood”

    “Experiment” (LOL) #2:
    Skeptic Film: “The Climate Swindle: How the Eco-Mafia Betrays Us’

    pro-CAGW Film: “Six Degrees Could [C]hange (the article said “Ghange”, it may not have been a typo; it may mean there will be a “Ghangification of the World,” i.e., the entire planet will be like the River Ganges…. ) the World”

  28. From the abstract:

    “Although there is broad scientific consensus that global warming is happening and that it is human-caused, these issues are denied by climate change skeptics.”

    I don’t see how anything useful can come after a sentence that so mangles the issues. While I have no use for Al Gore, I am not a climate change skeptic; I accept that climate changes naturally all the time, always has and always will. I also accept that the Earth has warmed somewhat since the Little Ice Age–the degree is disputable–and that humans may have contributed to some extent, especially through land use changes.

    The real issues, which this paper apparently ignores, is whether the alarmists can reliably predict future climate–they can’t–and whether the unlikely consequences of their unlikely warming justify currently enacted and proposed mitigation measures–they don’t.

    BTW, Greitemeyer for some reason omitted the strongest evidence that “skeptic” films are effective: 1) the very fact that he felt compelled to warn us against them; 2) his warning was published.

  29. If you analyze the great preponderance of scientific papers counted by the “consensus” crowd as supporting AGW theory, you will find those papers have nothing to do with climate science. Great hoards of biologists, agronomists, economists, oceanographers, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers (and now psychologists) have jumped on the bandwagon to write papers warning of global warming consequences without having a clue to the actual science behind AGW claims.

    Like this paper, the studies begin and end with the assumption that AGW is a proven fact and then go on to project what effect that warming will have on squirrels in the park or whatever other specialty may fall within the author’ actual field of study (which is not climate science). This paper is a bit of a variation on the theme, because it at least doesn’t blame the audience refusal to believe global warming propaganda on global warming. It instead fishes around for any reason other than “recognition of scientific fallacy” for that failure to believe.

  30. Mike Bromley! You made to Vienna (out of the fiery furnace of Iraq)! I’m so glad.

    HAPPY CANADA DAY!! (just what do you guys celebrate — seriously. Canada has much of which to be proud, that’s for sure, valour in battle, medical discoveries, beautiful landscape, and much, much, more. But, is it just a “Canada is Cool” day? Or is there a historical event it is celebrating? Can you BELIEVE an American is so ignorant of your holidays? (smile) YES! I’m sure you just shouted.

    Well, it’s off-topic, but I was looking for a place to say: HAPPY CANADA DAY!

    (so I said it again!)

    Take care.

  31. “The results suggest that there may be something about climate skeptic films that makes them more powerful.”

    Wow, they are proving the biblical adage – the truth shall set you free. Maybe this should get republished in a theology context.

  32. “… strongest evidence that “skeptic” films are effective:

    1) the very fact that he felt compelled to warn us against them;

    2) his warning was published.”

    [Gary Hladik at 3:01] Well put.

  33. Sceptic films make sense, alarmist films do not? That’s my hypothesis for the different effects.

  34. According to Brian Wynne who was the Research Director for the Study of Environmental Change at UK’s U of Lancaster.

    “When the geographer Hubert Lamb, who had been on a special fellowship at the Met Office, left in the early 1970s to establish the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, with the explicit interest in long-term climate changes and reconstruction of past climate states, financial support was not provided by the UK research system. The Met Offie opposition to Lamb’s kind of science found resonance in the reductionist culture of ‘good science’ generally in the UK, and the CRU programme was only rescued thanks to private support from Shell International and The Nuffield Foundation.”

    How soon they forget which is why I adore books written before something becomes controversial. Had to get rid of the real mathematicians and physicist who “overwhelmingly staffed” the Met Office in those days. Get rid of the reductionists and replace them with constructivists and modellers.

    And then proclaim the non-reductionists the real scientists.

  35. i aint got no education, collage to expensive. i aint got no well english ether. i got 5 galloons of petrol, a small generator + a winder air conditonr; so when globel warmning gets to hot i’ll just turn on my a/c . if the worlds gonna blow up thats OK with me cuz i don’t like nobody no more
    signed capt dan, mayor of Stupidville, CA usa …duh…
    b____

    urp!!___

  36. oh I don’t know….cities under water, cruise ships floating down town, hysterical multi cyclones spinning the wrong way…..

    ..it’s probably just because they are filed under fiction

  37. My hypothesis is… in nearly every major disaster movie (which is the category these films fall into in the public’s mind), everything always ends up okay in the end. Yeah, millions of people die — somewhere else … not my family or friends…. . So, the audience always goes home feeling pretty good. And special effects are fun, but, LOL, who believes them? Result: The audience goes home feeling pretty good and completely unconvinced that CAGW is real.

    In “The Day After Tomorrow” (2004), all the main charac [OOOPS — spoiler alert!!] — ters live.

    Here’s the late Roger Ebert’s (who declares his belief in AGW at the end of his review — link below) take on it:

    It is such a relief to hear the music swell up at the end of [The Day After Tomorrow], its restorative power giving us new hope. Billions of people may have died, but at least the major characters have survived. … I am sure global warming is real, … but I doubt that the cataclysm, if it comes, will come like this. It makes for a fun movie, though. Especially the parts where Americans become illegal immigrants in Mexico, and the vice president addresses the world via the Weather Channel. “The Day After Tomorrow” is ridiculous, yes, but sublimely ridiculous — and the special effects are stupendous.

    Source: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-day-after-tomorrow-2004

    ****************************
    Typical example of feel-good ending from “The Poseidon Adventure” below. “There’s got to be a morning after …. It’s not too late, not while we’re living… .”

    And, thus, O Truth in Science friends, there IS hope. All those “average-Joes and Marias” have an endless capacity for hope. They are our hope. No matter how terrible it gets, they are certain that, somehow, some way, it will all work out in the end. Only those whose hearts are hardened by greed or lust for power or for whom it is a their religion or who are mentally ill jump on the CAGW bandwagon (“[Their] logic [does] not serve [them], for [their] hearts are in the lie.” G. MacDonald). The overwhelming majority of the people, well, they just want to earn a decent living and have a little fun. And, because their hearts are not corrupt, their minds are open to persuasion that things will work out, that things, in fact, ARE working out, just fine. The null hypothesis is winning (the P.R. battle).

    The average voter IS persuadable. And they’re not as gullible as some think they are.

    All this to say, the battle for the minds of the voters IS won. The truth is coming out DAILY. It’s just a matter of time.

    That’s why the pro-CAGW priests and their minions are screaming so loudly and madly working their 5 cent magic tricks. Their audience has mostly gotten up and left the theater and those who remain, are jeering them, “Aaaa, right, buddy. Like we can’t see you shoved that rabbit through a hole in the table there. LOOOOSERS! Haw, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaa!”

  38. The wonderful upshot of all this is:

    To get the public to “stop global warming,” the Cult of Climatology has to try** to frighten them so badly that the public doesn’t believe what they’re hearing!

    LOL — CAGW is so OVER!

    [Gail Combs, likely others, too, has posted some great cites proving that intentionally trying to scare people is precisely what the pro-CAGW “scientists” have been doing for years.]

  39. It’s like this boofheads- ”

    The results suggest that there may be something about climate skeptic emails that makes them more powerful.

  40. Janice at 3:07 pm:
    As a Canadian, thanks and Happy Canada Day to the world. Being Canadian we never really shout anything from the rooftops. So, well, un-Canadian. Of course there once was a battle in 1812, I forgot who won. Vimy ridge would come to mind as something Canadians remember, but that would be on April 9th. Naw, we are just “cool”.

  41. Dear Joe Prins,

    “Being Canadian we … are just “cool”.

    Yes, indeed, you are.

    Warm regards,

    Janice

  42. What arrogance and effrontery – all this mollusk’s paper can offer to refute the skeptic argument is a choice bit of ad hominem – calling skeptics “crackpots.” I suppose he thinks that’s evidence.

    @Janice Moore – do you remember how, in the Poseidon Adventure, when the ship capsized its hull was as clean as the driven snow? No barnacles?? (Not to mention that the tidal wave or tsunami or whatever it was that capsized it was as phony as a 3-dollar bill.) (woops – I better be careful – from 1854 to 1889 the US minted a 3-dollar gold piece! But as far as I know, never issued a 3-dollar bill.)

    @gary hladik – a hat tippo – well said indeed.

  43. AGW is a political movement based on a theory thats been carried forth by the lib left political establishment.. Government, schools and the media will vote for their pet cause as sure as they will vote for the next one answer multiple choice question (their next leader)..

    One really only has to look at the (left/right) political orientation of any given population sample to know in advance what the support for this political cause is going to be.. The best one can hope for is your opponents don’t show up on election day, but that hardly makes one a believer..

    Europe loves global warming because there is no functional right wing to oppose it there..
    North America with a functional right wing is and will always be problematic to the cause..

    The rest of the world is either lining up for climate justice free money or extremely amused at the western democracies killing their own economy..

  44. @ Chad W. — Hi! No… but, I just spent quite awhile looking at video clips on YouTube and, so, I saw the pristine hull of little Tommy’s model (that his dad snuck off to the set that day). Good one, lol. Reminds me of some guy that is TRYING to claim that the deeeeeep oceans are warming radically despite no warming of the water higher up. Now THAT is weird.

    How’s the music? How’s the book? I’m hopeful for you (and praying).

  45. Although there is broad scientific consensus that global warming is happening and that it is human-caused…..even though the global climate computer games were 100% wrong about everything

  46. I wanted to say a whole lot but I’ll leave it to Churchill.

    The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”
    Winston Churchill

    PS I am not a conservative.

  47. “…it’s probably just because they are filed under fiction.” [Latitude at 4:06PM]

    You summed up all I blathered on and on about in one sentence. Applause for your witty brevity!

  48. Look guys, when did lies ever win in the long run? A lie may be exposed in minutes, an hour, a day, a week, a month, decades even, but in the end it will be exposed. AGW is based on exaggeration of the effects of warming for the rest of this century. A little warmth and co2 is great. Take a look at the biosphere and remember that we have been coming out of the Little Ice Age. Just look at the temperature jump between 1910 to 1940.

  49. “Great hoards of biologists, agronomists, economists, oceanographers, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers (and now psychologists)…”

    I wonder when the episode of “Hoarders” or “Hoarding: Buried Alive” with the person who has collected such a horde will be on TV? ;-)

  50. I think “The Holy Grail” is an excellent skeptic movie.

    (sound of coconut halves being knocked together, fading to the distance,….)

  51. I think that while it is still too early to genuinely attribute weather and temperature to to climate change, burning tons of fossil fuels such that we have no passed 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2 can’t be a good thing.

  52. Re: Jimbo 4:59PM – No WONDER the Fantasy Science Club is yelling so loudly. LOL. Not a conservative, eh? Well, you are smart enough to be one (just KIDDING) — we’re on the same team, here. Your posts, as I’ve told you before and as you usually ignore) are among the finest on WUWT.

    *******************
    lol, David Ball, yes, when the Truth in Science folks make a movie they use REAL things that produce a realistic “cloppity — cloppity.” The poor ol’ Fantasy Science Club only has model coconut shells made out of paper mache — not so realistic (head shake).

  53. BarryW says:
    “July 1, 2013 at 1:35 pm
    My God, how dare those skeptics use facts against us!”

    LOL:

    Yeah, you’d think the Alarmist science are the religious zealots.

    While the skeptics are the ‘evil’ heritics.

    Quite plain and simple alright why alarmist propaganda isn’t working and skeptic films are.

    Stop piling on the Alarmist over exaggerrated pile of BS.

    Stop using fraudulent data. Stop making false projections/predictions, etc.

    And above all else stop downright lying.

  54. Although there is broad scientific consensus that global warming is happening and that it is human-caused…
    ———–
    What conclusion do you expect AGW climate scientists to come to? No warming = no job.

    Although there is broad religious consensus that god exists and is real?
    Although there is broad military consensus that we need more weapons?

    Conflict of interest is not excused simply because its been ordered from above..
    In fact it compounds the problem and makes any sort of self regulation near impossible..

  55. I hate to be the purveyor of doom, but this isn’t exactly good news. When the warmists believe they are winning, they allow the lesser ones to play their own games. Now that they know that their line isn’t swallowed by the proverbial starving college students, prepare for active suppression of the countervailing view.

    Obama picks now to start his green initiative, despite all of the reasons not to. He doesn’t have the votes to raise money with a carbon tax, but can wreck the economy and has promised to do so. He’s already promised to make Catholics pay for abortions. All of the major newspapers are dependent on government notice publications at full advertising prices, all of the networks dependent on airtime. Obama has used the odious 1917 Espionage act more times than all of the other subsequent presidents combined. He blatantly flouted the constitution to nominate his cronies during non-existent recesses.

    Now that they know no one will believe them if they hear anyone else, prepare for the suppression of the anyone else.

  56. Donald Corleone says: @ July 1, 2013 at 1:50 pm

    Social science mmm a name appears on my radar , could it be Stapel , yes !!

    Yes Diederik Stapel , a former professor of social psychology at Tilburg University …
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Actually he was Dean.

    University World News: Dean may face data fraud charges

    The inquiry found that Stapel, former professor of cognitive social psychology and dean of Tilburg’s school of social and behavioural sciences, fabricated data published in at least 30 scientific publications, inflicting “serious harm” on the reputation and career opportunities of young scientists entrusted to him.

    Some 35 co-authors are implicated in the publications, dating from 2000 to 2006 when he worked at the University of Groningen. In 14 out of 21 PhD theses where Stapel was a supervisor, the theses were written using data that was allegedly fabricated by him……

    One wonders if the social and behavioural sciences are trying for an even worse reputation than they already have. Sure looks like it.

  57. “He blatantly flouted the constitution to nominate his cronies during non-existent recesses.” ~Isgdoc

    Lunch, recess. Same thing.

  58. When the observed data support the AGW theories then they might get a different reaction. Until then forget it.

  59. The thing with CAGW movies is they are per se unbelievable and insist on using those dark monotone voice overs. It’s just p[lain boring and patronizing. There is also the issue of overkill and people sick to death of being told we are all doomed. Almost every documentary about any feature of the natural world has been, for at least the past decade, spoiled by some inevitable return to claims about how humans are screwing the planet. The Bear has given up watching nature documentaries. Sick of the BS, to be frank.

  60. Jay says:
    July 1, 2013 at 3:56 pm

    Hicks dont call gas petrol…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Americans do not call gasoline, petrol, we call it gas, so Danny Boy is not from the USA much less CA but I will agree he is from Stupidville.

  61. Tim Neilson says:
    July 1, 2013 at 4:17 pm

    What the flying duck is “Environmental Psychology”?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Another way to grab grants from the climate gravy train. The ‘Soft” sciences were feeling left out so they invented a new name.

  62. David Ball says:
    July 1, 2013 at 5:07 pm

    I think “The Holy Grail” is an excellent skeptic movie….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    ROTFLMAO, Just throw in a Mel Brooks move for the second skeptic movie in the study. Spaceballs or Blazing Saddles perhaps? Yeah, Blazing Saddles it is so appropriate.

  63. It’s as we all prognosticated. Near the end their voices become shriller – still none of which contain any fact.

    The recent BBC (yeh.. I know) documentary: “ORBIT – Earth’s Extraordinary Journey”, all 3 episodes were full of fact, regarding atmospheric and ocean current changes during different seasons, including – tadaa.. – Milankovitch Cycles. They left out Solar cycles, PDO, AMO and ENSO altogether. It was a very informative series stuffed with facts and a definite must-see. For the BBC to produce such a thing is surprising.

    Here’s the unsurprising thing. One of the presenters somewhere near the southern tip of Greenland, relying on the words of a single, possibly 50 year old Inuit that knows absolutely nothing about the planet he inhabits, says that the ice extent has reduced over the last 20 years. The presenter then makes this bold assertion

    “The existence of the sea ice here in Greenland, is testament to the complex response our planet has to the Sun in whose orbit we travel. But, it’s a very delicate balance. And no-one is more acutely aware of that, than the people who live here.

    [Inuit] tells me that even before the storm [2012], that this year there’s less ice than in previous years. It’s part of a trend all over the Arctic. The area covered by sea ice has shrunk significantly in the last 20 years. A series of warm winters have meant the seas haven’t cooled down as much as normal, so not as much ice has been able to form. There’s little doubt, that the cause of the warmer winters, is us.

    Global Warming can feel like a myth, when back in the UK, we’ve endured a string of very cold winters, but here on the front line, it’s a reality. Those predictions suggest that the Arctic will continue to warm rapidly over the course of this century. It could be that we may prove capable of generating the kind of climate change that in the past, has been created by the changes in the Earth’s orbit.”

    And that’s it – No scientific explanation for that statement whatsoever! Well, it was very carefully worded and the UK has had some recent cold winters. But – they show how this happened earlier through changes in the course of the jet stream brought on by seasonal change!

    I wanted to edit that section from the series, but decided to leave it in and added some real facts and a warning at the beginning of my re-edited DVD.

    It’s no wonder when they bombard you with proven scientific facts and then resort to a pathetic “message” not backed by anything other than the BBC head office wanting to stuff that in there, that they’re no longer believed. Thankfully, none of the series from Prof. Brian Cox included any of that gumpf.

  64. I doubt it is an issue of the public being able to distinguish fact from propaganda. It would be nearly a first in history, after all.

  65. Alex says: @ July 1, 2013 at 5:09 pm

    I think that while it is still too early to genuinely attribute weather and temperature to to climate change, burning tons of fossil fuels such that we have not passed 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2 can’t be a good thing.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Why ever not? Trees were starving from too little CO2 Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California.
    Ward JK, Harris JM, Cerling TE, Wiedenhoeft A, Lott MJ, Dearing MD, Coltrain JB, Ehleringer JR. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Kansas

    Humans are doing Mother Nature a great favor by returning a much needed nutrient to the atmosphere. A nutrient that all life depends on expect for a few minor exceptions.

    Heck, CO2 is needed to regulate human breathing and blood pH. It is as essential as water and O2.

  66. The essential point here is that most persons are not indoctrinated in global warming hype, either pro, or con. They are therefore, naturally skeptical. When someone arrogantly proposes a, “single cause”, cause, as it would seem, how could they possibly be as convincing as persons (still) maintaining that there is a distributed climate effect?

  67. To Janice Moore:

    Looks like none of the Canadians answered your question.
    IANAC (I am not a Canadian), but July 1, 1867 was when
    Canada was formed, by incorporating several colonies into
    one, with a Constitution. It was originally called Dominion
    day. They renamed it “Canada day” in the 1980s.

  68. Some comments have compared the skeptic/alarmist divergence to one like science/religion. This seriously misunderstands the intellectual battlefield. It is actually a modern/post-modern disagreement. Alarmist are squairely in the post-modern camp.

  69. most folks recognize the truth when they see it:

    1) most people don’t see warming as a bad thing. if they did, tropical islands would not be popular tourist destinations. if driving SUV’s will make the winters warmer, they are all for it.

    2) most folks keep hearing about sea level rise, but when they go to the beach nothing has happened. the roads along the coast are all still there. waterfront property is beyond their budget, so why should they worry if some zillionaire’s house washes away in malibu. it isn’t like the zillionaire was forced to buy waterfront.

    3) natural disasters happen all the time. the average person doesn’t believe you can stop them by raising gas taxes and taking the bus to work. if it was so all fired important why are politicians flying to climate conferences in tropical locations?. most folks know that politicians will sell their soul to get elected and will tell any lie necessary to make it happen. it isn’t like you can take a politician to court for breach of promise. election promises are above the law, so the only way you can tell if a politician is lying is to check to see if their lips are moving.

  70. @Janice Moore –
    Yes, the alarmies are getting desperate, methinks – wonder how they will react to Briffa’s apparent defection (left-handed and back-door though it may be, it’s sure to enrage AND scare them.
    Working on second volume of trilogy, looking for more testimonials for first volume so I can send queries on it (have two, but would like to get at least four); not much done on music lately, though I do have four big projects waiting for me: a 10th Symphony, of which only the first movement is complete; two arrangements of string quartets for string orchestra; and a set of pieces for harmonium (reed organ). Not sure you would like 10th Symphony – it’s pretty astringent, but I have written some more conservative pieces.
    BTW – prayers are always welcome and appreciated. For me, it’s as much what they mean for the person doing the praying as what they mean for me. I don’t have to be religious to recognize that.
    We’re getting off topic here – but WUWT doesn’t allow sharing of email addresses, for good reason.

  71. Rob Crawford says:
    July 1, 2013 at 1:23 pm

    Skeptic films are showing the audience something they’ve not heard before; alarmist films are banging drums we’ve all heard endlessly for years. Of COURSE new information will cause opinions to change while old information will not.

    Too much common sense. No PHD for you!

  72. Re: Galane says:
    July 1, 2013 at 5:02 pm

    Thanks for the witty word correction. I deserved that. I will now hoard your horde missive in my “stuck it up my posterior” file.

  73. “Although there is broad scientific consensus that global warming is happening . . .

    No, there’s a broad scientific consensus that it’s STOPPED warming for ten years, and stopped warming significantly for 15.

    “consensus that global warming is happening” means that the consensus believes “the pause” is temporary, but that’s a different thing.

  74. Grandma always said to tell the truth!

    If you do >>>>>> You never have to remember what you said ……..

    Everyone is able to be a skeptic, if they choose, in today’s digital world, no?

    Oh,,,,, the analog days :-)

  75. Alex says:
    July 1, 2013 at 5:09 pm

    I think that while it is still too early to genuinely attribute weather and temperature to to climate change, burning tons of fossil fuels such that we have no[w] passed 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2 can’t be a good thing.

    The additional CO2 has a diminishing returns effect, so it’s not that worrisome.

    If “we” (the west) “do something” it won’t make a dime’s worth of difference in the big picture. Asia won’t stop.

    Rossi’s E Cat gadget may well be a deus ex machina. (Maybe he should have named it DEM.)

  76. I wish that being right about the facts did make it easier to win arguments. Unfortunately, most people have the attention span of one sound-bite and have way too much “faith” in leftie politicians. Otherwise we’d win elections.

  77. Although there is broad scientific consensus that global warming is happening and that it is human-caused, these issues are denied by climate change skeptics.

    As commenters above noted, it’s a strawman that contrarians deny that the globe has warmed over the 20th century and that humans are partly responsible for it. It is this strawman that Obama attacked recently. What a basic blunder–or slimy debater’s trick for alarmists to continue to employ this tactic long after its disingenuous nature has been repeatedly explained.

    Anthony: I was recently contradicted on another site when I said that contrarians believe that half the warming since 1950 has been due to manmade CO2. Could you post a multiple-choice poll to find out what %age of that warming WUWTers attribute to manmade CO2 emissions? E.g., Under 10%, 10-30%, 30-50%, etc. It would be valuable to nail this figure down.

  78. It’s a pity there aren’t more skeptic movies. (Most of the ones from Anthony’s most recent telethon haven’t been posted yet.)

  79. Anthony: I was recently contradicted on another site when I said that contrarians believe that half the warming since 1950 has been due to manmade CO2. Could you post a multiple-choice poll to find out what %age of that warming WUWTers attribute to manmade CO2 emissions? E.g., Under 10%, 10-30%, 30-50%, etc. It would be valuable to nail this figure down.
    ————-
    If ANYONE believes that ANY percentage of the warming is man-made, how much would that be over the last 15 years?

    I think that what ever the answer to the first part of the question the second part will be the same.

    50 percent of zero is ??????

  80. “…the attention span of one sound-bite … .” [J. D. Galt 9:39PM] — Fortunately, that works in both directions. #[:)]

    That “faith in leftists” is, indeed, a problem. Sigh. How LONG will people vote Democrat SOLELY because: 1) their parents did; or 2) they cannot see that to create JOBS is the most pro-labor policy (versus simplemindedly voting for whatever the union bosses tell them to do); or 3) they think only Democrats care about: __ (you name it); or any number of mistaken beliefs about what Democrat policies really do…. well, you already knew all that. Just wanted to affirm that you have a good point. Educating the voter — that will be our salvation. JOBS is the key. CAGW (i.e., higher taxes and costs of doing business) KILLS JOBS (repeat).
    ****************************

    Chad, thanks for telling me about your music and writing. Glad to hear that you are busily working away at your wonderful avocations. Yes, not on topic, so, I won’t comment further, except to say — keep on creating! And, if in the future you have any performances or publishing news to share, pipe up!
    ******************************************************
    Chris R. – Thank you! I appreciate your doing my homework (too lazy — just asked, here!) for me. No more “Dominion Day,” eh? Heh, heh. Don’t like the reminder that they are still under a monarch I guess.
    *******************************
    Teddy Bear (well, what else could the “T” possibly be for? [:)]), “The thing with CAGW movies is they are … just plain boring… .”

    LOL, enjoyed your post and……. mostly, I just wanted to use your adorable pen name. When I read your posts, I picture a cute-but-gruff-looking brown, fuzzy, teddy bear talking. A delightful image.

    ***************
    “… there’s a broad scientific consensus that it’s STOPPED warming … ” [Roger Knights]

    Yes!

  81. Well, Man Bearpig, this WUWT person believes that whatever the % is, it is insignificantly small, far outweighed by natural forces, but, if you had a category that said, say, “.00001% to .0001%” I could check that box.

    There is NO EVIDENCE of human CO2 causing ANYTHING on a global scale.

    Until that evidence is shown, it should be business as usual.

  82. Mindert Eiting says:
    July 1, 2013 at 2:21 pm
    “Well, the Dutch mega-science-fraudster, Professor Diederik Stapel, who has admitted that he made up his data in 55 science publications, was sentenced yesterday to a social punishment. He has to work for 120 hours in our parks, cleaning up the dirt. Several scientists are disappointed about this mild punishment but it seems to me quite appropriate.”

    The state cares for his own. From what I see Stapel was a social engineer, discouraging meat consumption, pontificating about what produces “sustainable” behaviour etc.

    My hypothesis remains that, as the reputation of journalists and politicians alike has reached rock bottom, they use scientists more and more to spread statist propaganda. This will continue until even the last dimwit has learned never to trust a government scientist.

  83. James Cook says:
    July 1, 2013 at 7:31 pm
    “The essential point here is that most persons are not indoctrinated in global warming hype, either pro, or con. They are therefore, naturally skeptical. ”

    Most people own an indoctrination machine – commonly called the Dummy Box or The Eye Of Hell – that they paid for themselves and that they use for several hours a day to receive the daily conditioning. They are as indoctrinated as the typical Jonestown inhabitant.

  84. Alex says at July 1, 2013 at 5:09 pm

    I think that while it is still too early to genuinely attribute weather and temperature to to climate change, burning tons of fossil fuels such that we have no passed 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2 can’t be a good thing.

    I must ask why?

    • Ignoring the question of what makes 400ppm a critical level…
    • Ignoring the positive effects of CO2 (it is good for plants, agriculture and therefore eliminating hunger)…
    • Ignoring the uncertainty in the cause of the CO2 rise (CO2 does follow global T with about an 800 year lag – MWP?)…

    The real question to consider is the benefit of burning fossil fuels compared to not burning them. They aren’t free. They are burnt for a reason.

    People burn fossil fuels because they want cheap energy. They want mechanised transport that can get food through the doldrums.
    They want mechanised agriculture. And clean water pumped to their taps.
    They want computers to share ideas and build a better world.

    Actually, I think that could be a good thing.
    Imaginary nightmare dystopias may cause anxiety but fossil fuels prevent real problems now.
    So Alex, why can’t burning tons of fossil fuels such that we have no passed 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2 be a good thing?

  85. Eric Horowitz, of Psychology Today, reports on this paper here saying: Are We Losing the War on Climate Change Cinema?
    He muses:
    “The results suggest that there may be something about climate skeptic films that makes them more powerful.” D’oh!

    This is a man who cannot see the storm coming. He is as defenceless against reality, as England was against this bunch freebooters, who by the way, lived in warmer times than we do‽

  86. In his 1995 book “The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark”
    Carl Sagan not only exhorted his readers to be sceptical and learn how to think
    critically, he laid his “Baloney Detection Kit” with a fine selection of anti baloney
    tools.

    I have no idea what numbers his book sold in. I bought a copy within days of it
    appearing on the shelves and have read it several times.

    Without actively applying it, I have noticed people on the whole (a very unscientific
    sample!) actually have pretty good baloney filters anyway. Anything which seems
    to go over the top is treated quite suspiciously. Perhaps a century of Hollywood
    extremes has helped tune these filters pretty well!

  87. I guess the viewing public grow weary of all those Schneiderian Scenarios (scary, simplified, dramatic) as one might grow weary of violent, trashy movies out of Hollywood – despite their huge budgets, famous names, and special effects. Especially given that whenever some validation of these scenarios has been possible, they have so often failed to look credible.

  88. Posted over at that Psychology rag:

    Facts vs. Propaganda

    Submitted by PaddikJ on July 2, 2013 – 2:07am.

    The reason why a relatively small band of doughty realists have managed to battle a global propaganda machine – that is outspending them 10,000:1 – to a draw (so far) is probably too straightforward for comprehension by a psychology writer who resorts to phrases like “. . . people should probably be more wary of crackpot climate skeptic films.”: Facts and logic favor the realists, always, no matter how distorted by rent-seeking political interests.

    Realists have no need of adolescent name-calling. The public, smarter than the propagandists suppose; smarter in fact than the propagandists, easily sees through this tactic and logically concludes that the propagandists’ case is weak, and is, in fact, propaganda.

    Hope this clears things up for Mr. Horowitz; always glad to help.

  89. Over at Horowitz’s laughable article it appears that every single comment is from sceptics quite rightly ripping him apart for writing such nonsense.

  90. If CAGW actually WAS a serious problem, we’d be drastically cutting back non essential CO2 production. High on the list of cutbacks would be alarmist movies.

  91. Climate Alarmism, or “Climatism” has been an enormous success as far as ideologies go. But, even in Soviet Russia, Lysenkoism only lasted about 35 years. It must be enormously frustrating and saddening for them to see it fall. They were doing so well for a time, and then things suddenly started falling apart. There will be finger-pointing, blaming and shaming as to why it failed. All part of the process. Truth wins out in the end.

  92. Mike says:
    July 1, 2013 at 7:37 pm
    “Some comments have compared the skeptic/alarmist divergence to one like science/religion. This seriously misunderstands the intellectual battlefield. It is actually a modern/post-modern disagreement. Alarmist are squairely in the post-modern camp.”

    Post-modernity was simply the organized attempt by the Marxists in the 60ies to reclaim the ground they gradually lost after 1917 through the general failure of communist coups in the West on the one hand and through Popper on the other hand. These days they run large parts of government “science” with their post modernity, most notably all of psychology and sociology, but it’s devoid of meaning. It only ever can try to cling to the back of a working economy and suck its blood, and once it sucks too much, the economy dies. The eternal fate of a system of thought that despises producing anything.

  93. I always wondered why climate skeptics are soooo bad. Their films scream propaganda, a 10yrs old would notice it. That being said, it’s of course not better on the other side…
    So I guess that’s the reason then…to smash the head of the public as hard as possible in the opposite direction. But, please, don’t speak about honesty and facts…that’s laughable.

  94. “Although there is broad scientific consensus that global warming is happening and that it is human-caused, these issues are denied by climate change skeptics.”

    And there, in a single sentence, is the reason for the results he finds. Skeptics generally acknowledge that the earth has warmed. That is, they do not deny that global warming has happened, as he states right in his abstract.

    Secondly, most skeptics acknowledge (whether they understand the physics or not–I don’t) that there is indeed a greenhouse effect and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that, all things equal, adding additional CO2 to the atmosphere will raise the temperature by a predetermined amount, though the effect of each additional unit of CO2 added has a lesser due to the effect being logarithmic. That is, skeptics do not deny that CO2 introduced into the atmosphere by humans will cause a temperature increase.

    To take myself as a personal example, I learned both of those facts by listening to both sides of the debate. Yet, here, in an abstract no less, is a claim by a warmist that I apparently believe neither of those facts, i.e., that the earth has warmed and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In other words, the author has not yet learned that he is wrong about the skeptics’ positions on these issues.

    Therefore, should he actually watch a skeptic film, or possibly read this or a million other comments and articles by skeptics, he himself would likely learn something that would make him less concerned that a bunch of raging lunatics (that would be us, of course) are trying to fry the earth for no apparent reason other than ignorance. (Of course, he no doubt has done exactly that, but continues to misrepresent the skeptics’ stance, for reasons of his own.)

    Anyway, is it a surprise that when non-scientists concerned about global warming view the facts of the matter, fairly presented, they are prone to changing their view somewhat in favor of the skeptics’ position? Is it a surprise that, after being assured that skeptics recognize CO2 as a greenhouse gas and recognize a late 20th century warming period, they are also inclined to believe the claim, and relieved to learn it, that the warming apparently ceased over 15 years ago?

    In this case, perhaps the paper’s paywall is in place in an effort to (unsuccessfully) protect its author from ridicule?

  95. jdgalt says: @ July 1, 2013 at 9:39 pm

    I wish that being right about the facts did make it easier to win arguments. Unfortunately, most people have the attention span of one sound-bite…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    In advertising it is called the The seven second rule “Their whole message is all given in the 1st 7 seconds – the prospects’ problem, their solution, their guarantee, and the cost. They have supporting evidence that follows…”

    This is why the warmists use attention grabbers like Hansen’s flooded NYC. It gets people’s attention within that critical seven seconds. It is also why we have in general been losing the PR war. We are amateurs and they have hired top professionals like Stan Greenburg, husband of Ms. DeLauro (D) CT who gave the USA the Food (un-Safe) Modernization Act of 2010. (That is how I stumbled onto him)

    It helps to research the opposition especially since most people have never heard of Stan Greenberg. (old links again)

    Whether you want to win your election, lead your country, increase your bottom line, or change the world, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner can help you find the answer,” GQRR states on its website http://www.gqrr.com/

    Stanley Greenberg
    Greenberg’s work for private sector organizations – including major corporations, trade associations and public interest organizations – focuses on managing change and reform…. Greenberg has conducted extensive research in Europe (particularly Great Britain, Germany and France), Central and South America (Argentina and Brazil), and Africa (South Africa). He specializes in research on globalization, international trade, corporate consolidation, technology and the Internet. For organizations, Greenberg has helped manage and frame a number of issues – including education, school financing, American identity, the economy, environmental regulation, international trade, managed care, biotechnology, copyrights, privacy and the Internet….

    Greenberg has advised a broad range of political campaigns, including those of President Bill Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore, Senators Chris Dodd, Joe Lieberman and Jeff Bingaman; Governor Jim Florio and gubernatorial candidate, Andy Young; former Vice-President Walter Mondale; and a number of candidates for the U.S. Congress. For many years, he served as principal polling advisor to the Democratic National Committee.

    Greenberg works jointly on private sector projects with prominent Republican pollsters in the United States – including Fred Steeper (pollster to former President Bush), Bill McInturff and Linda DiVall – to bring a bi-partisan focus to public issues….

    From another source:

    Greenberg provides strategic advice and research for leaders, companies, campaigns, and NGOs trying to advance their issues in tumultuous times.

    His political work has included serving as lead pollster and strategist to the campaigns of President Bill Clinton, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Bolivian president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, and South African president Nelson Mandela….

    [Old wording was: “As a hired gun strategist, Greenberg—a seasoned pollster and political consultant—has seen it all. In his memoir, he recounts his work with President Bill Clinton, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Bolivian president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, and South African president Nelson Mandela.” – GC]

    Greenberg has been described as “the father of modern polling techniques,” “the De Niro of all political consultants,” and “an unrivaled international ‘guru’.” Esquire Magazine named him one of the most important people of the 21st century. The New York Times writes that Greenberg “acts as a sort of people’s truth squad,” while Republican pollster Frank Luntz says “Stan Greenberg scares the hell out of me. He doesn’t just have a finger on the people’s pulse; he’s got an IV injected into it. He’s the best.”

    “…He is also a strategic consultant to the Climate Center of the Natural Resources Defense Council on its multi-year campaign on global warming…. http://www.dl21c.org/fbevent/616

    Greenberg writes for the Democratic Strategist link and also formed Democracy Corps link and is linked to the London School of Economics (Fabien) Third Way philosophy link (note the Carville Greeburg logo at top)

    (Check out what the “Third Way” actually is link You will find the UK’s Tony Blair, The USA Clintons, and the WTO Pascal Lamy all behind the LSE “Third Way” )

    Greenberg Carville Shrum directed Campaigns in 60 countries link

    Globalization and middle class prosperity by Greenberg

    Even the democratic Underground doesn’t like Greenberg Carville Shrum “Regarding Carville and dirty politics“ link

    (And yes I am rotten at the seven second rule.)

  96. Submitted by PaddikJ on July 2, 2013 – 2:07am.

    “The reason why a relatively small band of doughty realists have managed to battle a global propaganda machine – that is outspending them 10,000:1 …is probably too straightforward for comprehension by a psychology writer…”

    I thought he stated the problem well. It does invite philosophical speculation. It is like a kind of great experiment that has been set up right before our eyes, and if you can only properly recognize the variables and set up, you can see the results.

  97. rogerknights says: @ July 1, 2013 at 9:44 pm
    …..
    Anthony: I was recently contradicted on another site when I said that contrarians believe that half the warming since 1950 has been due to manmade CO2. Could you post a multiple-choice poll to find out what %age of that warming WUWTers attribute to manmade CO2 emissions? E.g., Under 10%, 10-30%, 30-50%, etc. It would be valuable to nail this figure down.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That type of question would have to be very very carefully worded.

    Has it warmed since the Little Ice Age? YES

    Does CO2 contribute to warming the earth? Probably, depends on feedbacks.

    Has mankind contributed to climate change? Yes through land use changes, cutting or planting trees, irrigation… That is what we do change our environment just like a beaver does.

    In the temperature record, has mankind contributed to warming? YES, through siting at airports and areas increasing in urbanization, manipulating adjusting the data, the station dropout issue and the error bar issue.

    Station dropout issue
    On the “march of the thermometers”

    The ‘Station drop out’ problem

    AGW is a thermometer count artifact

    I do not think you would get a simple answer to the question because we are skeptics and know the answer is not only NOT simple but that scientists still haven’t pinned down the list of factors that contribute to changing of the climate. Funds and attention has been diverted to shaping public opinion in the manner the politicians want.

    The IPCC mandate states:

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.

    http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

    It was never about finding out what drives the climate, it was always about making humans guilty of crimes against Mama Earth.

  98. Here is Eric Horowitz website with the article he wrote for Psychology Today about this paper posted: http://www.peerreviewedbymyneurons.com/2013/06/29/are-we-losing-the-war-on-climate-change-cinema/

    Here is what he says in his ABOUT section

    …. I’m Eric Horowitz, a former sportswriter, economics researcher, Peruvian school teacher, and graduate student. At the moment I’m working to improve/ruin the lives of children by doing research on extending the school day….

    I’m a social science writer and researcher. I blog about change at Psychology Today and write about educational technology research for EdSurge. [Education Technology]

    First a cartoonist and now a sportswriter. Scraping the bottom of the barrel?

  99. Skeptics/Climate Realists have been the fly in the Climatists’ ointment. They tried mightily to “communicate climate change”, and it failed, thanks in large part to the internet. Some people you just can’t communicate with:

  100. @Gail Combs –
    In answer to your poll question, based on all the discussion here at WUWT and on all the books and other blogs and other online sources I have consulted, I attribute an infinitesimal negative contribution of CO2 to global warming – something like -0001 percent of it. Why? The negative feedbacks that operate as CO2 increases. The effect of increases appears to be slightly more than self-canceling.

    Of course this is the opinion of a non-scientist layman, but as a sometime historian (Ph.D., University of California, Santa Barbara, 1970) I do have some appreciation of the story that is told by the sources. And I have read enough of medieval and ancient history to see clearly that temps were higher than today in past eras, which I think is among the most damning evidence against the alarmies.

  101. “(And yes I am rotten at the seven second rule.)” [Gail Combs]

    Perhaps (I think you just don’t stoop to that level, myself), nevertheless, ….. you are EXCELLENT at: quality research and passionate and effective teaching. Keep up the good work! #[:)]

    ********************
    So many FINE posts and comments above,….. here are a just few of the more recent ones:

    “This is a man who cannot see the storm coming.” [Perry, 7/2/13, 1:57AM (weird — [:)] — thanks)]

    …. or, maybe he did…..

    “… the … paywall is in place in an effort to (unsuccessfully) protect its author from ridicule… .” [Rod Everson, 7/2/13, 6:54AM]

    LOL. That did a lot of good.

    ” … a bunch of raging lunatics (that would be us, of course) are trying to fry the earth for no apparent reason… ” [out of context, but good! — R. Everson at 6:54AM]

    Beware… .” [from title of discussed article]

    “Mad as a box of frogs, the [climate alarmists] are.” [Catweazle666, 7/2/13, 5:01AM]

    “Facts and logic favor the realists, always,… .”
    [J. Paddik, 7/2/13, 2:13(hey, look at that)AM — and, good — for — you to plant a beacon of truth in the “enemy’s” territory]

    “… as the reputation of journalists and politicians alike has reached rock bottom, they use scientists more and more to spread statist propaganda.” [Dirk H, 7/2/13, 1:06AM]

    Yes. Nevertheless….. #[:)]……

    “Truth wins out in the end.” [Bruce Cobb, 7/2/13, 5:52AM]

  102. Hundreds of “Climate Skeptic” films & videos, the majority of which are Full Feature Length. Collected from various sources, and various streams. Please visit the “Fraudulent Climate of Hokum Science” website, and choose from the links, or see the “Quick Page Menu” button at the top left of every page. Monckton, Singer, Morner, Crichton, Durkin, Bellamy, Klaus, Idso, Coleman, Beck, Hannity, Ball, Plimer, Schmidt, and many many more, including Anthony Watts himself !

    Yes indeed “Skeptic Movies” are more interesting, principally because they are TRUE !

    Click my name to go there now !

    I thank you all for your support over the years. – Axel

Comments are closed.