Salon writer Paul Rosenberg on why “deniers” are winning

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Salon writer Paul Rosenberg has created a gem of an article in which he claims, that the right direction in which to accept climate risks is “180 degrees away from where so-called “common sense” would take you.”

The strange thing is Rosenberg argues this is a good thing – that only by rejecting so called “common sense” can you orient in the “right direction”, to understand and appreciate Lewandowsky’s argument about uncertainty and risk.

As far as I can tell from reading his article, “deniers” are apparently winning the battle for public opinion, because most people can’t perform this impressive feat of mental gymnastics.  Only special people (I assume Rosenberg means the sort of people who regularly read his articles), people who understand and appreciate Lewandowsky, can attain the required mental flexibility to utterly reject common sense. Or something like that.

I’m looking forward to Rosenberg writing an article on why black is white, why you should throw a pinch of salt over your shoulder whenever a witch gives you the eye, and why we don’t need all those stinkin observations to do model based science.

Full article:

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/19/why_climate_deniers_are_winning_the_twisted_psychology_that_overwhelms_scientific_consensus/

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate News. Bookmark the permalink.

125 Responses to Salon writer Paul Rosenberg on why “deniers” are winning

  1. Follow the Money says:

    “One reason global warming opponents still have the upper hand is basic confusion over the nature and significance of uncertainty. “There are numerous instances in which politicians and opinion makers stated that ‘there is still so much uncertainty, we shouldn’t invest money to solve the climate problem,’” Lewandowsky explained to Salon… “This is shown to be wrong by our analysis, because uncertainty can never be too great for action. On the contrary, uncertainty implies that the problem is more likely to be worse than expected in the absence of that uncertainty.””

    This reads like these suckers completely fell for the profit-strategizings of the insurance company faction of the global warming money machine. Increased “uncertainty” means more possible damages. If one can increase rates due to “uncertainty” on a fiduciary basis, such as relying on climate “experts” validating it, even pushing more of it, one can increase revenue more and more. The insurance companies have been pushing “global weirding” and other such uncertainties and new strangeness, because they are not reliant on actual warming alone as factors to increase rates. They just need some “experts” to cover for them with something sounding scientific. Lewandowsky, I believe, does not know he is talking “insurance talk.” Also, the writer, by say “global warming” from the get go, is a total amateur. The “uncertainty” code word for increased profits (which I don’t think Lew. gets) is much more than “warming.” It is “weriding,” “cooling”, everything, all the pains the latest jargon imply. Also again, the writer is an amateur because he does not see, regardless of any opinions about science, that Lew’s “Recursive Fury” paper reads as if he is having a mental breakdown.

  2. Bob Diaz says:

    So he wants us to ignore “common sense” and the fact that NONE of the IPCC models have ever predicted anything correctly. (Start Sarcasm) OK everyone ignore common sense and send me $100 or better yet $1,000, you know that throwing money at some guy is crazy, but ignore that so you can you orient in the “right direction”. Do it for the children !!!!

  3. Follow the Money says:

    As a comparison, note the IPCC reports do not revel in increased “uncertainty.” Do they ever use such language? The UN Carbon Development Mechanism does not profit by having their scientific arm proclaim “uncertainty.” They just need a nice 3degree mid-target in the range of model projections for warming to try to carry a stable price for offsets. Lewandowsky’s “uncertainty” talk is peculiarly an emanation of insurance company financial interests within the current climate “crisis” discourse.

  4. Just the other day, there was an article in Salon about cell phones and electromagnetic fields in general causing cancer. A real bastion of science, that rag is.

    “Deniers” believe in conspiracy theories, says the psychologist who thinks all “deniers” are part of some secretive cult funded by “big oil.” When is that guy going to crawl back under the rock?

  5. bevothehike says:

    He actually says that uncertainty is more important than facts when it comes to science. Stop feeding this pigeon, he isn’t worth bringing to the day light.
    “But the growing sophistication of the scientific community is a cause for continued hope — if they can accelerate their learning curve, and follow the right path. They no longer mistakenly assume that the facts can “speak for themselves,” and they’ve gotten much better at developing ways to communicate lucidly about complex challenges and uncertainty.”

  6. jorgekafkazar says:

    This age has finally taken liberalism (or what passes for it) via reductio ad absurdum to its ultimate destination: societal insanity.

  7. Ian Bach says:

    SOO WRONG

    These nut jobs who believe in co2 will change thhings tomrow the next day and the next

    But they just keep getting more dire

    WHY? Ok so burn all fossil fuels today its 0.8% or 800 ppm thats if man kind burned all oil reserves know to man today.

    So we have had as much as 5000 to 1500 ppm in the past when life on earth made land and flourished

    But the TV tells me we burn all of the reserves know to man (this was on Bill Moyers few seconds ago for me) prob was a recording.

    Today’s %399.47ppm
    Today’s 0.0399%

    ok so lets say today ).004% is present co2 levels or 400 ppm

    Burn all today is 0.08% or 800 ppm

    Life Flourished on Earth at 15-20 times today’s levels went from nothing on land to plants then animals

    15 x 800 = 12,000 ppm
    20 x 800 ppm = 16,000 ppm

    Yet the climate ologists or the news says if we burn all know today we go into run away heating?
    at what level 800 ppm?

    Wait you just said life made land fall 16,000 ppm for plants 20,000-15,000 ppm for animals?

    And you say there is a problem why????????????

  8. Ian Bach says:

    drunk someone check my math on last post start was bad i think

  9. Chip Javert says:

    A Solon article quote cuts to the issue for me: “The reason ‘consensus’ has not appeared to work in society at large to date isn’t because it’s ineffective — it’s because there is a well-funded countermovement out there that takes every opportunity to mislead the public into thinking that there isn’t a consensus[.]”

    Unfortunately, the vast majority (95%+?) of adults do not have the educational background to evaluate the scientific, statistical and computer modeling issues to independently reach an informed opinion on “CAGW: yes or no”. Previously, society tended to rely on the alleged perception of scientific group consensus (the experts).

    However, Solon (nor the IPCC) never address head-on the fact there has been no warming for 17+ years; a time-frame warmists previously stated was statistically significant. Mother Nature’s data is now front and center in the CAGW public debate, and the concocted 97% consensus argument is rapidly losing credibility (as, I believe, is all of science).

    A population with high unemployment, cancelled or expensive health insurance, declining real incomes, never-ending foreign wars and their college graduate kids living in the basement have a lot to distract them, but sooner or later Mother Nature will win this argument.

  10. bushbunny says:

    When the likelihood of being in a car crash, his solution would be ban all cars. Obviously any severe climate change and not caused by human activities, there is little we can do but adapt.
    They are slowly backing down, and moderating their early hypotheses. Well Australia is not having it. And roll on July 1st when the renewed senate will have some sway on carbon tax repeal. But – there are a few things that are not popular at present and this is increase the age pension to 70 years. And giving parental leave and payments to women who earn $100 k plus a year. This is a stumbling block. Personally speaking, a professional woman who earns this much would likely not give up work to have a child or do it without any government welfare scheme to assist her.

  11. Ian Bach says:

    oops 20k ppm for plants 15-20 k ppm for animals

    k = 1,000

    so where is the problem?
    if it is 800 ppm or 0.08%?

  12. Ian Bach says:

    drunken math is bad thing why i dont drink often

    8,000 ppm for plants
    8,000 to 6000 ppm for animals

    DOH oh 400 todays ppm x 15 or 20 x

    DOH

    ok im not only dumb arse co2 nuts r worse still

    they say at 800 ppm we ALL DIE

    what???…on BILL MOYERS ON PBS just now?

    noooo !!! stop making dumb people wrong quests wrong experts please stop the insanity !!!

  13. Lord Jim says:

    Well he got the bit about uncertainty right: the models are uncertain, the paleoclimate reconstructions are uncertain, the supposedly observed empirical effects (like flood, famine and fire) of CAGW are uncertain, even the arguments from expert opinion are uncertain. The whole thing is just one massive pile of conjecture.

  14. philincalifornia says:

    …… that turned out to be wrong.

  15. Louis says:

    I noticed a long time ago that many academics were devoid of common sense, but I had no idea that they sought to rid themselves of it on purpose. I guess when you think you’re special, you don’t want to associate with anything considered “common.” I plan to hang on to what little common sense I have. It took me years to develop it, and it has saved me from falling for scams that I would sometimes fall victim to when I was young. My common sense tingles whenever these alarmists tell us to “trust the science” or “trust the consensus.” It’s just another way of insisting that we trust them to interpret the science for us because they have some snake oil they want to sell us.

  16. Interesting that both Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman based their insights in physics on thought experiments in which they tried to visualize how the physical world works–a process strikes me as applying common sense.

    You have only to read Feynman’s lectures and Einstein’s 1905 paper on estimating Avogadro’s number to see how they applied common sense to problems in science.

    Read Lawson’s 1916 translation of Einstein’s popular book on the theory of special relativity. (Title: Relativity: The Special and General Theory) Today we would use a space ship rather than a train to illustrate the theory, but apart from that, you can see that Einstein based his analysis on common sense.

    The notion that science is so abstruse that you have to suspend common sense or to oppose common sense is a nonsensical mystical approach to science.

    Of course some discoveries are surprising an counter-intuitive, but these discoveries are mostly new facts rather than new theories. When a fact seems opposed to common sense, then according to Feynman we should review the theory, not adjust the fact to fit the theory.

    By his essay, Paul Rosenberg displays a romantic view of science that has little relation to how scientists actually work, unless of course they are second-rate or out-and-out hacks.

  17. John West says:

    By his logic we should be preparing for alien invasion with all earnestness. I can’t think of anything we’re less certain of than whether we’re alone or not. The risk is off the scale horrendous end of the world catastrophic consequences to our inaction in preparing for alien invasion. LOL.

  18. Colin says:

    Ian, how’s the head this morning?

    That little lot made me laugh out loud!!

  19. jones says:

    I think therefore I am not……

  20. Ian Bach says:

    still little drunk from lunch with contractor friend
    But glad i made someone besides me laugh hehe

    Ok he is lil more solber 5 hours after 4 drinks
    Why Co2 is BS in 5 data sets
    1 – “Co2 Today is 400 ppm or 0.04%”
    30,000 ppm is health and safety code limits for co2 30 min standard safe wont pass out from not enough o2 basiclly
    2 – “Plants made land at 8,000 ppm 20x todays lvl”
    3 – “Animals made land fall 8,000 ppm to 6,000 ppm”
    4- “Ice Ages can occur even at 2,000 to 8,000 ppm? 450 mil years ago today?”
    5 – “Burn all oil today we get 800 ppm or 0.08%”
    But wait we had ice ages at 3 to 10 time that?
    no way u are fucking with me right?
    Sorry no your wrong we are right you all suck….. “no” global BS
    Take your global warming, …stick it up your solar powered arse hole !!!
    http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/14/co2-nears-400-ppm-relax-its-not-global-warming-end-times-but-only-a-big-yawn-climate-depot-special-report/
    Check SkepitcalScience.com the place where the COO@ nuts look
    Link here for future nuts
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
    They will say well yes that is true but the sun was dimmer and the water in the ocean was colder we know from ocean sediment layers.
    OK and our Sun (closest Star) is really inactive now but you say I should be afraid “VERY AFRAID” noo u can not have it both ways dumbies?
    My favorite Burt Rutan on Global Warming
    “An Engineers views of Climate Science”
    http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
    CO2 Nears 400 ppm – Relax! It’s Not Global Warming ‘End Times’ — But Only A ‘Big Yawn’ –…
    http://www.climatedepot.com
    Like · · Promote · Share

  21. CodeTech says:

    In computers we have “fuzzy logic”.

    In climate we have “fuzzy science”.

    Sure, why not.

  22. Ian Bach says:

    That was actualy from a facebook rant 1 hour ago once i was lil more solber
    the I had to say ohh by the way
    nd our sun currently going in a cold spell but I should worry? what? and they will say no its in a hot spell>

    WAIT they are wrong…why he are in a solar maximum that is not total output
    that is after a 7-11 year polar magnetic polar shift yes it is at a maximum BUT IT IS STILL ALMOST NO SUN SPOTS AND WAY THE F COLD ATM

    The Sun controls tem,p on EARTH Period mother FUckers
    The ocean and poles are the regulators keeps temps in check and even

    yes it goes up and down with solar output and max and min and NOT BY CO2
    I checked it out I knew it before I got all tghe lil perfect stats. yes it is BS even the debunkers step on their own BS when they says well su was colder what no ……!!!…now they want totalk about the SUN??

    Thier computer models do not calculate the Suns min and maximums at all……ugh people suck …oops “Dumb” people Suck” they make more dumb people
    95% of people are dumb
    People who believe in global warming 95%
    Scientists who believe in global warming 75%
    Then I said ….
    oh astro physicists who believe in global warming even less
    Solar physicists they will say off the record or on? JK
    Less for solar Physicists maybe 25% think co2 is a prob
    they they dumb ones

    [Left as submitted. Mod]

  23. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    When educated people go crazy and become fixated on some “supremely important idea” they almost always begin to produce a “push of jargon” that excites them and so is self-reinforcing. When talking to such a person for the first time it may take a while to realize that person is a loony because they still retain the appearance and manners that make a good first impression. And you may even, at first, blame yourself for not understanding what they are talking about.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  24. Alan T. says:

    This impressive feat of advanced reasoning is what George Orwell called doublethink.

  25. HGW xx/7 says:

    Like I have said before many a-times, hippies used to shout “Don’t believe the man”. Now that they’re in charge, they drive around Priuses and Leafs with bumper stickers that read: “Don’t believe everything you think.”

    Leftist filth.

  26. james says:

    It seems that they are very good at going a 180 away from common sense.

  27. policycritic says:

    Then perhaps Mr. Rosenberg can answer this question: If the signature for Global Warming is more snow and cold–like what’s showing up in the northern NV and Idaho right now, the end of April!–then what’s the signature for Global Cooling?

  28. RTB says:

    We are at war with Eurasia……we have always been at war with Eurasia

  29. Ian Bach says:
    April 26, 2014 at 9:53 pm
    “SOO WRONG…”

    I vote to make Ian the head of the new climate skeptic organization.
    Now he was making some common cents.
    I think he just penned the first PR.

  30. Alex says:

    I couldn’t believe what I was reading in the comments section of that article. I had to turn off my screen because there was so much bile, venom and spittle hitting my face. I washed my face and posted this comment. I’m not going to that website again and anyone who suggests I should is a cruel, vile person

  31. Mac the Knife says:

    The strange thing is Rosenberg argues this is a good thing – that only by rejecting so called “common sense” can you orient in the “right direction”, to understand and appreciate Lewandowsky’s argument about uncertainty and risk.

    Clearly, emphatically, metaphorically, and realistically. rejection of facts, data, solid analyses and common sense is not the ‘right’ direction. It is the left direction. It serves the left socialist democrat agenda…… so it is a ‘good thing’. Just ask Mr Rosenberg. He’ll tell you…..

  32. Eric Worrall says:

    policycritic
    Then perhaps Mr. Rosenberg can answer this question: If the signature for Global Warming is more snow and cold–like what’s showing up in the northern NV and Idaho right now, the end of April!–then what’s the signature for Global Cooling?

    More snow and cold of course, or abnormally hot weather, or suspiciously normal weather. Once you do the 180 degrees from common sense, and realise that any uncertainty whatsoever is a reason to panic, especially if you don’t know anything about the area of uncertainty, I am sure it will all be clear :-).

  33. Sean OConnor says:

    “Using that approach we showed that as uncertainty in the temperature increase expected with a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels rises, so do the economic damages of increased climate change,” Lewandowsky continued. “Greater uncertainty also increases the likelihood of exceeding ‘safe’ temperature limits and the probability of failing to reach mitigation targets. Likewise, in the context of sea level rise, larger uncertainty requires greater precautionary action to manage flood risk.”

    Phew! Good thing the science is settled now and there’s no uncertainty anymore!

    I shall sleep soundly in my bed tonight.

  34. Mac the Knife says:

    Ian Bach says:
    April 26, 2014 at 10:00 pm
    drunken math is bad thing why i dont drink often

    Ian,
    This AGW stooooopidity makes me want to drink to excess as well.
    Mac

  35. Christopher Hanley says:

    “They [Oreskes & Lewandowksy] are currently working together on a paper on the effects of denial on the scientific community …”
    ==================================================
    Blair’s Law coined by Australian journalist Tim Blair:
    “the ongoing process by which the world’s multiple idiocies are becoming one giant, useless force”.
    It’s settled science.

  36. 4TimesAYear says:

    Says volumes about alarmists, doesn’t it? ;)

  37. garymount says:

    I hereby take the CCC pledge to increase my fossil fuel usage year over year. :-)

  38. ImranCan says:

    I have spent over 2 decades working in the energy industry where my bread and butter job involves day after day analysis of risk vs. reward vs uncertainty. I know this subject matter and yet I only managed to read about 30% of that article before I just switched off. It is psuedo-intellectual garbage. Classic ploy …… just keep twisting words and concepts until everyone is utterly confused and make out you are so clever because everyone else is somehow so stupid. Intelligence is demonstrated by the ability to take something complicated and make it simple, not by taking something simple and making it complicated.

    And yet the author somehow manages to title this masterpiece of obfuscaton “The twisted psychology that overwhelms scientific consensus” . The irony is inescapable.

  39. sleepingbear dunes says:

    The more the data goes against them, the more imaginative they have to be. What else do they have left but their imagination. I just keep waiting for any of their projections to be right. This is not a good time for warmists.

  40. cedarhill says:

    This article along with the one with on the IPCC as a political devise may finally convince any denier doubters the alarmist are not nuts, not stupid, etc. They’re just extremely dedicated to pushing their agenda using the methods honed over the last century. I.E. fear, crisis, spin and any means necessary. Their road always lead to totalitatianism

    Out and out lies may start becoming very common (e.g., ‘…you can keep your plan’). Any means necessary.

    It almost seems, imho, Paul Rosenberg’s article is a good introduction to the imposition of Newspeak. Oh, and it also explains why they’ve been pushing “it takes a village”, “pre-pre-kindergarten”, and common core. I’m betting their Big Brother will hold the title of Secretary-General.

  41. Dodgy Geezer says:

    @Christopher Hanley
    “They [Oreskes & Lewandowksy] are currently working together on a paper on the effects of denial on the scientific community …”

    Look after them! They are an exceptionally good resource for our side!

    I am reminded of a large war about 70 years ago, when the UK were considering assassinating the political leader of their enemy, who had also appointed himself Supreme Military commander. In the end they did not, since his incompetence was assisting them materially in the war. The same situation applies.

    I suggest setting up a fund to keep these people producing ‘scientific’ papers.

  42. M Seward says:

    Methinks the reason the “deniers” are winning is because “writer/activist” clowns like Paul Rosenberg and obsessed psychobabblers like La Lewny keep butting in with their counterproductive drivel. Coming on top of a foundation of fraud like the Hockey Stick and ‘hiding the decline’ it’s like kicking an own goal then calling the crowd names for laughing and booing. It’s not what you expect for your ticket price but at least you are witness to the whole ridiculous carry on.

  43. Dyrewulf says:

    The entire thing is reminding me of the WIzard of Oz, when they finally get to meet the ‘Wizard.’ “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!”

  44. katarax fred says:

    I would enjoy watching these people twist in the winds of Climate Fury as facts ultimately neutralize this caustic cause. Unfortunately their rantings are not blithering soliloquies in an empty theatre, and I do not possess the soaring intellect needed to ignore them. So it takes it’s toll.

  45. katarax fred says:

    I would enjoy watching these people twist in the winds of Climate Fury as facts ultimately neutralize this caustic cause. Unfortunately their rantings are not blithering soliloquies in an empty theatre, and I do not possess the soaring intellect needed to ignore them. So it takes it’s toll.

  46. Bosse J says:

    Of course the CAGW people must argue going against common sense. How else would they convince people and nations to commit economic suicide?

  47. JP says:

    The guy really can’t think straight. I quote: “uncertainty implies that the problem is more likely to be worse than expected in the absence of that uncertainty” That is one of the most nonsensical sentences about uncertainty that I’ve read all year.

  48. Hot under the collar says:

    Only ‘special’ people … can attain the required mental flexibility to utterly reject common sense. They cite Lewandowsky, Hayhoe, Nuccitelli and Oreskes.
    Your not wrong.

  49. Lord Jim says:

    Rosenberg: “the scientific community … no longer mistakenly assume that the facts can “speak for themselves,”

    Ummm, he means facts like ‘despite an almost exponential increase in co2 there has been little to no warming over the last 20 years’.

    Yup, wouldn’t want /that/ fact speaking for itself!

  50. richard says:

    “Salon writer Paul Rosenberg on why “deniers” are winning”

    The good news is i see more of these type of headlines and the MSM had nearly a 20 year start on alarmism before the internet fought back.

    Don’t they know, the Tortoise always wins the race.

  51. james says:

    If you read the comments under that article you know common sense is that common.

  52. james says:

    sorry isn’t that common

  53. tango says:

    goody

  54. chinook says:

    Elitists never stop trying to control others, the message and everything else. Facts don’t matter in bizarro-world, especially when facts are in short supply. How much climate science is being conducted with pre-determined conclusions, then just figuring out how to fill in the blanks afterward? After decades of being relatively unquestioned since people have a tendency to want to believe scientists and now that heretic skeptics and joe public are not swallowing the bilge hook, line and sinker, elitists want to shut down all discussion and debate or at least shut down skeptics asking questions.

    ‘During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act’ – George Orwell

  55. mpaul says:

    I fear that we have met our match in this man, Stephan Lewandowski. His intellectual powers are formidable. He has in infiltrated our secret communications channels (public blog sites) and has discovered our true and most confidential plan: to restore the tobacco industry to its former glory. He is on to us and our mission has been compromised. I have been directed by the Surpreme Leader at Exxon Mobil to initiate the Stockholm Protocol. All cells must comply immediately. There is but one question: what’s the frequency, Kenneth?

    (I know, I know, it was in the appendix to the World Domination meeting minutes from last fall. But I put them up on iCloud, and then when I upgraded to iOS7 all my files got meessed up. Maybe someone could email me the frequency).

  56. Ian Bach says:

    I love some of the comments here and the references I will be checking out tomorrow night.
    Thanks for great links all !

    I have been a Environmental Inspector / Consultant for 25 years 5 years in Haz Mat prior to that and continuing so 30 years in Haz Mats
    Green Peace wanted to ban Chlorine? (now big backers of co2 debate)
    Sorry co2 is also not a Haz Mat
    30,0000 ppm is level for 30 min exposure. Basically at those levels you will not have enough oxygen to breath, lungs cant make use of it properly
    co2 does not cause cancer, nor does water the 95% of the greenhouse gas
    Sun drives global temps PERIOD
    Poles and ocean are Earths regulators Period
    Greenhouse gasses feed our system and keep it stable
    Cloud busting is Bull $%^& also, but people still believe in it? what?

    “The Earth is Flat” We once had a scientific and public “Consensus” on that as fact
    “the Sun revolves around Earth” We once had a scientific and public “Consensus” on that as fact

    THANKS,
    Mac the Knife says:
    April 27, 2014 at 12:41 am
    THANKS,
    J. Philip Peterson says:
    April 27, 2014 at 12:28 am
    THANKS,
    Colin says:
    April 26, 2014 at 10:59 pm
    Ian, how’s the head this morning?
    That little lot made me laugh out loud!!
    THANKS,
    Head finally clearing up – No wonder I do not like to drink often – Ian Bach

    Thanks,
    “Christopher Hanley says:”
    April 27, 2014 at 12:43 am
    “They [Oreskes & Lewandowksy] are currently working together on a paper on the effects of denial on the scientific community …”
    ==================================================
    Blair’s Law coined by Australian journalist Tim Blair:
    “the ongoing process by which the world’s multiple idiocies are becoming one giant, useless force”.

  57. John S. says:

    Only special people (I assume Rosenberg means the sort of people who regularly read his articles), people who understand and appreciate Lewandowsky, can attain the required mental flexibility to utterly reject common sense.

    The Emperor’s New Climate Theory?

  58. Greg says:

    and to quote Douglas Adams, “…goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.”

  59. AJB says:

    Just remember that without the silent P, Behavioural Psychology would have an acronym in common with something much closer to the truth. The P actually stands for purest. Its practitioners are all members of the ancient order of witch hunters and ducking stool operators. Mind your leg, Paul Rosenberg’s is obviously already wet.

  60. Andrew says:

    “Ian, how’s the head this morning?”

    It still made more sense than the warmists.

  61. Ian Bach says:

    My Blog
    I compiled the best of my Arguments and thought experiments
    “WHy co2 is BS in 5 Data sets”
    http://ianbachusa.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/why-co2-is-bs-in-5-data-sets/
    I took all my best arguements and if you think made a decent post, pass on the link
    if you like it let me know please thanks! – Ian Bach

  62. Ian Bach says:

    HeHe thanks “Andrew” Head not hurting the sugar rush is what messes with me and my pancreas most.

  63. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    ‘Deniers’ are winning for one simple reason: Empirical data trumps bullshit.

  64. John Boles says:

    Projection: S. Lewandowsky uses projection to project on to us skeptics all the bad stuff that he is doing. Blame transfer. Yeah, that Salon article is over the top nuts.

  65. “…the right direction in which to accept climate risks is ‘180 degrees away from where so-called ‘common sense’ would take you.'”
    Oh I get it, now he thinks telling the truth will work for them.

  66. ArnoldG says:

    Excuse my language, i am not a native english speaker, so expect some errors :)

    In my opinion this is kind of smart in my opinion, i have read a couple of articles about his papers here and on other blogs on the last few weeks. Including his rebutals and his response video.

    It seems to me that at the current moment he is using “AGW” as a marketing tool, with himself as a product. I would like to point to http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rfmedia.html his piece about the media attention he had received at that time. Also if you read the responses to people not finding the email from “him” he seemed to be very amused http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/ccc2.html.

    Also one more point, in a response on http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyRecFury.html a certain “John Cook” (i suspect this is the john cook we al love and know) wrote:

    John Cook at 11:05 AM on 6 February, 2013
    No, this wasn’t conceived as a two part project – the intense reaction to LOG12 was not anticipated (although in hindsight, perhaps it should have been). What took us aback was the complete lack of self-awareness in those promoting the conspiracy theories.

    So it seems that there was a pre conceived plan (yes you may call me a conspiracy theorist, after all i dont KNOW this but am making a assumption based on my judgement) and it seems that “we” fell for it.

    After this he has been using his new found “celeb-status” to get airtime and use that to bash deniers.

    It even got him his own wikipedia site, and as you can read it is only filled with info regarding this paper.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephan_Lewandowsky

    Maybe somebody can explain to me why we regards this man as worthy of attention, since he neither does any work on climate nor was he high-profile. In my opinion this man is a non-issue and a detractor.

    Regards,

    Arnold

  67. Blarney says:

    It’s the good old “credo quia absurdum”:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum

  68. Steve B says:

    Why are not people like Rosenberg and Lew the Stew in an institution for the mentally diminished? 100 years ago that is where they would have found themselves.

  69. ed k says:

    When the ipcc was forced to acknowledge that there has been no global warming in 17 years there was a distinct radicalization of those whose livelihood or political views were dependent on a warming climate. The cold winter and rebound of artic ice has increased their radicalization and turned up the volume of their frustration. The term denier has been a scarlet letter to marginalize, that tactic seems to be losing steam .

  70. metamars says:

    While I view Rosenberg as basically a smart guy, he’s quite an ideologue. So much so, that he lapses into irrationality without being aware of it, or else he’s just plain dishonest (when it’s expedient to be so). He’s also not good at conceding errors.

    You can view some arguments I had with Rosenberg at, when I had just recently opened my eyes to climate skepticism:

    http://www.openleft.com/diary/20532/the-real-climate-fraudthe-socalled-skeptics

    and

    http://www.openleft.com/diary/20526/golden-oldie-a-deeper-look-at-global-warming-denialist-attacks

    He’s hardly the only lefty who shows no interest in understanding the implications of tribalism, careerism, group think, etc., on scientific claims that happen to buttress some points of ideology and/or group ‘worthiness’ (“reality based community”, my foot!).

    Also, he shows no interest in figuring out the nuances within the claimed 97% consensus. As you can see, I drew his attention to these non-trivial issues YEARS AGO.

    But, he has an axe to grind, and grind it he will.

    ==========================

    Somewhat off topic, but here goes:

    IMO, sceptics are playing with fire, by assuming that the likes of Rosenberg, Lewandowsky and Oreskes can be ‘safely’ battled by climate blogs, occasional FOIA requests, etc. CO2 catastrophism is a PLUTOCRATIC agenda, and those guys seems to usually get their way. (Note how, e.g., the middle class of the United States was gutted in just 40 years.). Rosenberg, et. al., are either useful idiots, or else the equivalent of “go along to get along” Germans circa 1930’s.

    If the plutocrats give them some power, and maintain the fiction that “the cause” is saving the world”, then don’t be surprised if you (as a skeptic) end up on the rack.

    OK, we don’t do the rack anymore, we do waterboarding, tasing, and other more modern forms of torture. But the point remains: the CO2 catastrophism religion should be crushed, as not doing so might lead to some very nasty consequences. And that means educating the public, even without $$ from Exxon Mobil and the like.

    And I do mean (in the Us) in blue states, not just red states.

  71. Richard M says:

    If one believes this kind of nonsense they should immediately respond to those Nigerian emails. After all common sense tells you its a scam but we just can’t trust common sense. We could get rich.

    Or, just run down to your local casino and gamble your life’s savings. There’s a lot of uncertainty in the outcome but you could become rich which would make your life much better. Can you take the risk to avoid this wonderful future?

  72. John Bochan says:

    Lew’s uncertainty papers have a supplemental that contains a supposed linear model of the relationship between temperature (T), transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS, what Lew states ‘often called Charney sensitivity’???). This section appears to paraphrase and to torture what would be an introductory chapter of any elementary textbook on linear systems. e.g. Lew’s “effective time constant” is just the function centroid, his forcing F due to doubling CO2 is a simple ramp function imag(-ln x), why not say so? This is demonstrated by his vagueness of definitions; he states the lm can be “of any complexity”, ok, I choose C, a convolution operator ill-defined by Lew, to be C(t’) = (0 + 0i)t’ for all valid t’; this is linear and allowed by Lew’s specifications, it contains everything I know about the temperature response to system forcing. Oops, infinities!

    Quote from the salon article:

    “Basically, we tried a new mathematical approach that is called ‘ordinal,’” Lewandowsky said. “An ordinal method allows us to address questions such as: ‘What would the consequences be if uncertainty is even greater than we think it is?’ That is, ordinal questions refer to the order of things, such as ‘greater than’ or ‘lesser than,’ but don’t address absolute questions such as ‘how much.’”

    When anyone says “new math…”, hoist the red flags. Really, ‘ordinal’ or ‘rank’ processing is new mathematics? More likely, he meant to say “we found a matlab function called ordinal that we haven’t known of or used before”.

    Overall my impression is that Lewandowsky is playing parlour tricks by implementing a subtle variation of the bayesian doomsday argument, the original and mother of all hockey sticks. Not having read the paper, I am only guessing; the dead giveaway is his term ‘ultimate time scale’ at which, I assume, 100% of consequences (must) have occurred. Rank the consequences by their probability functions wrt to the temperature lm, by whatever method Lew chooses (the ranked probabilities will end up looking like a hockey stick). Now we don’t know what current rank of consequences we are at present nor the ultimate time; greater uncertainty implies we may have underestimated the current ranking, which means we are a lot closer to ultimate time (100% consequences) than we realise. The greater the ranking, the faster we approach catastrophe, hence the importance of greater uncertainty.

    When someone renames or relabels familiar things so they appear to be new terminology, and then claims some familiar processes as ’new’, isn’t that the definition of a crackpot?

    A Measure for Crackpots from 1962: Fred J Gruenberger http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2006/P2678.pdf

    Memorable quotes from this 1962 article seem to have been specially written for all things climate science.

    The scientist says “I did thus and so and observed its effect; you are free to repeat my steps.” The crackpot often says, “This is revealed truth; sorry, but I and only my followers are the only ones who can obtain these results”

    In general, the scientist tends toward phrases like “It appears that…,” “It would seem plausible that…” and the like. The crackpot is generally dogmatic and arbitrary and seems to imply “Agree with me, or lie forever beyond the pale.”

    The charlatan and the boob are both intrinsically opposed to a search for truth; the last thing they want is public verifiability and controlled experimentation. In fact, when outsiders crassly insist on such tests – and the result fail to support the claims – the non-scientist calls on a marvelous array of excuses as to why the uninitiated have perverted their domain.

  73. Bill Illis says:

    The more uncertainty there is, the more we should act. The more uncertainty there is, the more risk that things will turn out on the bad side and, therefore, the more reason we should act now. That is the logic I guess.

    But how much uncertainty is there? Well, we don’t even know that much. We are completely uncertain about how much uncertainty there is.

    We would normally call that situation a state of randomness.

    If you look at the paleoclimate, that is exactly what the CO2 versus temperature history is. It is more-or-less a random set of correlations.

    Here is a large set of CO2 versus temperature datapoints going back through history. It is just a random +40C to -40C per doubling. Normally I would call this no uncertainty because there is NO correlation. CO2 cannot possibly be +40C per doubling or -40C per doubling either.

    Starting at 0-10,000 years ago, then to 200,000 years ago, then the past 5 million years, 25 million years, then 50 million, then 750 million.

    http://s28.postimg.org/eucaualr1/CO2_sensitivity_last_10_Kys.png
    http://s13.postimg.org/65wbml0p3/CO2_sensitivity_last_200_Kys.png
    http://s23.postimg.org/3jnbzr9cb/CO2_sensitivity_last_25_Mys.png
    http://s17.postimg.org/s2rwfp95r/CO2_sensitivity_last_50_Mys.png
    http://s28.postimg.org/lovsbgt5p/CO2_sensitivity_last_750_Mys.png

    This is the most observation points ever used, and it is not uncertainty, it is Zero correlation. Either that, or other factors have a much larger influence on the climate than CO2 does.

  74. JohnWho says:

    “180 degrees away from where so-called “common sense”

    Atmospheric CO2 causes a warmer atmosphere = “Global Warming”.

    “Global Warming” is a changed climate = “Climate Change”

    “Climate Change” could be either cooling or warming, hence “Climate Change” could = “Global Cooling”.

    Therefore, according to the Warmist/Alarmists, the warming caused by increased atmospheric CO2 is causing us to cool.

    Yep, 180 degrees out from common sense.

    :)

  75. northernont says:

    This salon writer is fully indoctrinated in the cult of CAGW. Using terms like denier will only backfire on these Trotskyites. Another reason why I refuse to play into their attempt at controlling the narrative, by calling CAGW by its proper name of global warming and not climate change.

  76. Jim Clarke says:

    “This is shown to be wrong by our analysis, because uncertainty can never be too great for action.”

    On the contrary, when uncertainty is great, the only wise action is based on what little we are certain about. Take the stock market for example. Uncertainty is very great about the value of any stock or small group of stocks 10 years from now. So what action is prudent? The gradual purchase of a highly diversified portfolio of investments, because that action has been shown to be the most rewarding no matter how ‘uncertain’ the future of any given market is. One would have to be an idiot to argue that we should invest all of our money in the Acme Corporation because it has the most ‘uncertain’ future.

    In the face of great uncertainty, it is a fool who acts on what is unknown. It is a wise man who acts on what little is known and seeks to know more. Right now, we know that increasing CO2 is having little impact on global climate and that little impact is almost all positive. Lewandosky’s argument would require that we take action to prevent both catastrophic global warming AND catastrophic global cooling, because the uncertainty is high for both of them. Even more, we must take immediate action to safe guard us against all possible negative outcomes, especially the ones that have the most uncertainty, like giant asteroids, alien invasions, a zombie apocalypse, the Yellowstone Caldera and your mother-in-law coming to live with you, to name just a few of the uncertain possibilities.

    ” On the contrary, uncertainty implies that the problem is more likely to be worse than expected in the absence of that uncertainty.” (Isn’t this a definition of paranoia?)

    Let’s test this argument using the weather. The further into the future we go, the more uncertain we are about the coming weather. Does this fact alone mean that the coming weather is more likely to be worse than the current to near term weather, simply because we are less certain about it? Obviously not! In fact, the weather could not care less about our certainty in it, and the same goes for the climate! Furthermore, this argument implies that the weather is more benign now than 200 years ago because we are better able to predict (we are more certain) what it will be in the days ahead! Lewandowsky’s argument suggests that all we really need to do to avoid catastrophic global warming is become more certain about our climate forecasts. If ‘uncertainty’ implies that it will be worse than expected, than ‘certainty’ implies that it will be better than expected! Right?

    The Mad Hatter from Alice in Wonderland has come to life, and he publishes in scientific journals about climate change.

  77. Bill H says:

    Rosenburg couldn’t beat his way out of a wet paper bag.. Roesnburg is parroting the insurance companies profit song of uncertainty about major catastrophic damage coming SOON! All while they are statistically clearly declining for now.. as they make their rates skyrocket.

    I wonder who his big money contributors are and how much he is being paid by to produce his swill..

  78. John says:

    I even think we even have to review the hypothesis claiming fossil fuels are not renewable in the first place. I suspect that hydrocarbon fuel especially natural gas are regenerated faster than first thought. Basically by converting from wood fuel to coal and from pastureland (don’t need as many horses) back to forest we are creating a natural global sink for CO2 and creatin of future hydrocarbons.

  79. john says:

    If deniers are winning, why is it that the US government is taking actions to shut down so many coal plants, and make it economically impossible to build new ones? Natural gas, thank goodness, is quite low in price these days, due to tracking. But ten years, twenty years from now? Who knows?

    When natural gas gets back to prices seen in 2005-2007, we won’t have the coal plants to generate electricity in their place, and electricity prices will be substantially higher than they would have been.

    Meanwhile, of course, US CO2 emissions are an ever-shrinking percentage of world wide emissions, as China (especially) and India grow their emissions. Look at the first graphic here:

    http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2012/12/climate-change-strategies-including.html

    In 2002, the US emitted about 50% more CO2 than did China; by 2011, China’s CO2 emissions were almost double those of the US, and Chinese CO2 emissions are still growing very fast.

    Here is an International Energy Agency presentation on energy use and growth for the next couple of decades:

    http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/conf_WEO2013_Birol_v20140227ok.pdf

    Winning doesn’t necessarily mean putting legitimate doubts about warmist alarmist into the public mind. It also has to do with policies that usually end up irreversible.

  80. Chip Javert says:

    ArnoldG says:
    April 27, 2014 at 5:39 am

    Maybe somebody can explain to me why we regards [Cook and/or Lewandowsky] as worthy of attention, since he neither does any work on climate nor was he high-profile. In my opinion this man is a non-issue and a detractor.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    The reason these people get our attention is they engage in absolutely ruinous activity: annual spending on global warming research & remediation of the non-existent problem is estimated at $350,000,000,000 (0.5% of world GDP), AND THEY PROPOSE TO SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE SPENDING.

    This money (mostly tax dollars) could be much more productively spent solving real problems (starvation, malaria, etc). It currently generates a huge wave of global warming pseudo-science – sort of like replacing cosmology with astrology.

    The historical mechanism for controlling academic & scientific bovine excrement (no other name quite fits) is supervision through academic peer review to ensure compliance with the scientific method. However, this self-regulating mechanism has been corrupted by political intensity and the sheer tidal wave of money demanding yet more documentation of non-existent CAGW.

    This is a ludicrous and dangerous situation, and that is why we pay attention and respond to guys like this.

  81. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:

    Paul Rosenberg is a California-based writer/activist, senior editor for Random Lengths News, and a columnist for Al Jazeera English.

    Rosenberg’s profile at Al Jazeera is here, where he is described thus: “Paul Rosenberg is the senior editor of Random Lengths News, a bi-weekly alternative community newspaper.”.

    Nothing in his profile suggests any scientific training or background, which in Lewandowsky’s normal bizzarro reality would disqualify him from even holding an opinion, let alone discussing it publically, but I guess exceptions are made for unqualified individuals supporting the consensus. Some other gems from his recent opinion columns for Al Jazeera (isn’t that owned by Big Oil?) include:

    [20 Dec 2013 07:18]
    The day after the US marked the 50th anniversary of John F Kennedy’s assassination, President Barack Obama achieved what could be his most significant foreign policy accomplishment – an interim nuclear weapons deal with Iran.

    To be fair, Obama had to act quickly before Jimmy Carter ran over to Iran and negotiated a nuclear deal for him, as he did with North Korea.

    And on the subject of that pesky “blance” in reporting:

    [16 Oct 2013 09:33]
    As the government shutdown drama unfolds, perhaps the single greatest asset that GOP has on its side is the so-called “liberal media”, with its ideological bias toward “balance” that prevents it from honestly reporting that the shutdown is a entirely Republican creation—which would dramatically intensify the pressure on Republicans to fold.

    There is ample material in Rosenberg’s writings for another Lewandowsky study on “conspiricist ideation”; they should do lunch sometime. Activist/Senior Editors for alternative community newspapers don’t make a lot of money so I’m sure Rosenberg would appreciate Lewandowsky’s generous practice of free psychological disorder diagnoses.

    Perhaps we could take some of these ideas to the people who manage federal workers’ retirement funds: the more uncertain a stock’s prospects are, the more you have to buy. This will no doubt encourage many more people to ignore what their common sense tells them and just believe. “Use the consensus Paul. Let go … trust me.

  82. Ralph Kramden says:

    I wonder if these are the special people that can actually see “The Emperor’s New Clothes”?

  83. David in Cal says:

    Greater uncertainty about risk also means greater uncertainty about whether any particular step wil do any good.

  84. Ian Bach says:

    Rosenberg, Lewandowsky and Oreskes sound like the jerks i came across this past year I looked at as much data as I could. Them and cook….the nuts all “Quote” skeptical science I laugh tell them no link a reputable source not a group think tank sources….please

    ohnWho says:
    April 27, 2014 at 6:27 am
    “180 degrees away from where so-called “common sense”
    Atmospheric CO2 causes a warmer atmosphere = “Global Warming”.
    “Global Warming” is a changed climate = “Climate Change”
    “Climate Change” could be either cooling or warming, hence “Climate Change” could = “Global Cooling”.
    Therefore, according to the Warmist/Alarmists, the warming caused by increased atmospheric CO2 is causing us to cool.
    Yep, 180 degrees out from common sense.

    Cheeers to John Who

    OK so here is my opinion what we need to do and fast, now……

    We need to aproach this from a advertising publicist point of view.
    Physics sis now deemed kinda cool, maybe almost sexy lol..thanks “Big Bang Theory”
    But I know aerospace engineers, test pilots (yes I fly), and they do no have comic books, none I know

    We need to make it cool to be a rational thinker
    Lord know James Randy knew and tried this…….it is not easy
    We still have 95% dumb people
    We need to teach rational thinking in grade school, High School, and colleges, and require it !!!
    From the fry cook at McDonalds to the aerospace engineer would have such a better life with that knowledge and ability.

    Maybe people will finally stop believing in levitation, talking to the dead, ghosts, aliens, lizard men, and all the other BS that a weak mind can be enthralled and entranced by.

  85. ferdberple says:

    the likelihood of being in a car crash, his solution would be ban all cars.
    =========
    the most dangerous appliance in the home is the bathtub, because it causes the most injuries and deaths. Rosenberg and Lewandowsky are arguing that we need to ban bathtubs.

    the problem for Rosenberg and Lewandowsky is that they have lost sight of common sense. they are so consumed with “saving the world from itself” they have lost sight of reality.

  86. gnomish says:

    The ability to unhinge one’s mind in order to swallow a contradiction bigger than one’s head is completely essential for any type of consensus. The only way for an individual to perform such a feat is to join a group.

  87. rabbit says:

    The fact that Rosenberg divides the debate into deniers and non-deniers demonstrates he does not understand the situation.

  88. phlogiston says:

    Rosenburg like Lewandowsky is a watermelon-fascist thinking himself clever to disguise his genocidal loathing of political conservatives and climate rationalists (whom he labels as deniers) in technical and psycological language. But this trick makes him no less a fascist.

    The trace gas CO2 essential to life has existed at levels of 1000-20000 ppm for most of the last half billion years history of multicellular life.

    In the recent glacial Pleistocene CO2 levels have at times fallen close to the 170 ppm threshold at which plant photosynthesis starts to be inhibited. Indeed plant evolution has reacted to this harmful stress by proliferation of C4 plants which utilize CO2 more efficiently.

    In the last century CO2 has increased from 280 to about 400 ppm. And these morons are telling us that this change is a threat to humanity and the planet earth itself.

    This catastrophist ideation delusion feeds into pre-existing misanthropic-Malthusian psycosis, namely a need to wage a war to the death in a tribalistic manner on those they dislike, who are enemies of the people because they don’t read the Guardian or the salon.

  89. F.A.H. says:

    He is just a little late. HIs doublethink was predicted for 1984: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength.

  90. Ian Bach says:

    Thought experiment #1

    During the day the Sun heats earth,
    If there is clouds at night the heat is trapped in,
    If there is no clouds the heat dissipates fast and we get colder nights,
    The co2 levels are roughly the same all over the planet,
    So we know it wasn’t the co2 that held all that heat in at night it was water vapor
    Water vapor is 95% the greenhouse gas and is not distributed evenly

    Conclusion co2 is not driving the heating and cooling, … water vapor and the Sun’s output is.

    End Thought Experiment #1

    The Sun control the heating, not co2
    The Oceans and poles act as regulators and can delay the Sun’s actions
    Long trends of solar activity are what effects the overall Temps
    Climate models do not have the Sun’s output in their models, they also do not use long solar trends in their models
    If a climate model goes into runaway greenhouse effect at 2x present co2 levels,
    Than the models must be thrown out,
    since we know that in the past, Earth has had 15-20 times present co2 levels
    The models are not working throw them out, start over……….Ian Bach
    http://ianbachusa.wordpress.com/

  91. dp says:

    I think the belief that skeptics are winning are misplaced. The same people who gave us Obamacare and still in place working to give us ObamaClimateCare, and all evidence points to their success. It is not enough to win the hearts and minds of the people – you have to win at the ballot box. Look at the current European elections – the majority government likely to emerge will still be profoundly green. UKIP, should it win, will be a toothless front runner without coalition support, and that seems unlikely.

    This, as the climate hysterics have always known, was never about science – it is all about politics, and this is an area where the skeptics demonstrate miserable skill. It is long past time to turn the whack-a-mole conversation away from Lew, Mann, and the boyz and towards identifying and supporting candidates that hold a science-based non-alarmist view of global climate. There’s not much time, and we cannot allow the alarmist pop-up weasels to keep us distracted.

    Perhaps this political focus can be a central part of Anthony’s push for a common voice organization. Without some political success we’re doomed to four more years of whack-a-mole skepticism which on analysis is nothing more than preaching to the choir.

  92. phlogiston says:

    Another contradiction here is that the far and even moderate left, a large part of the CAGW movement and essential to its survival, is itself profoundly conspiracy-obsessed. Their opinion writings are filled with wailing about the evil world dominating web of banks, governments, corporations and billionaires. Eli Rabbet’s blog is a good example of this, with its liking for terms like “capitalist imperialist pig”.

    One imagines that objective Lewandowsky would make these left wing conspiracy ideators the subject of his next study.

  93. Pete says:

    Mr. Rosenberg’s self-description: “Paul Rosenberg is a California-based writer/activist, senior editor for Random Lengths News, and a columnist for Al Jazeera English.”
    _____
    That information alone raises serious questions of dubiosity in re the quality of his thinking.

    According to Wikipedia, Al Jazeera English is owned/controlled by the House of Thani, the ruling family of Qatar, whose source of wealth is … oil.

    So much for Mr. Rosenberg.

  94. John Whitman says:

    We are winning? No, we are forcing a long delayed scientific self-correction of climate science by exposing the failed CAGW theory to the public.

    Paul Rosenberg’s irrational article ‘Why climate deniers are winning: The twisted psychology that overwhelms scientific consensus’ and irrational articles like it are the reasons that the broader climate science can now more easily accelerate its self-correction of the incorrect CAGW supporting research methods emulated by the invalid assessment processes of the IPCC.

    John

  95. CD (@CD153) says:

    Follow the Money says:
    April 26, 2014 at 9:19 pm

    “Also again, the writer is an amateur because he does not see, regardless of any opinions about science, that Lew’s “Recursive Fury” paper reads as if he is having a mental breakdown.”

    …..either that or he has been smoking something that he shouldn’t have.

  96. “‘Deniers’ are winning for one simple reason: Empirical data trumps bullshit.”

    Common sense tells me skeptics are not likely to win. The pause will not last. Very soon temperatures will go up or they will go down. If they go down for a time, they will then go up. Or they may continue going down for an extended period. Warmists will declare they were right decades ago when they said CO2 causes cooling and it is worse than we thought. Either way the Climate Changers will point and say, “We told you so!”. Followed by global carbon taxes, etc. Once the new controls are in place they will be permanent.

  97. Mac the Knife says:

    john says:
    April 27, 2014 at 7:40 am
    If deniers are winning, why is it that the US government is taking actions to shut down so many coal plants, and make it economically impossible to build new ones? Natural gas, thank goodness, is quite low in price these days, due to tracking. But ten years, twenty years from now? Who knows?………..
    Winning doesn’t necessarily mean putting legitimate doubts about warmist alarmist into the public mind. It also has to do with policies that usually end up irreversible.

    john,
    Well said!
    Regardless of how ludicrous some of the AGW extremists may seem, they are achieving their retrograde agenda through manipulation of public opinion and governmental action . They are ‘winning’ greater regulatory control of the US economy everyday…. because AGW believers are in administrative control.
    Mac

  98. highflight56433 says:

    phlogiston says:
    April 27, 2014 at 8:14 am “Rosenburg like Lewandowsky is a watermelon-fascist thinking himself clever to disguise his genocidal loathing of political conservatives and climate rationalists (whom he labels as deniers) in technical and psycological language. But this trick makes him no less a fascist. In the last century CO2 has increased from 280 to about 400 ppm. And these morons are telling us that this change is a threat to humanity and the planet earth itself.”

    Agreed. The genocide is the end game. The CAGW fraud is the latest avenue. The morons are the sheeple who ride the trains to the genocidal end game; soon to be coming to a neighborhood near us all.

  99. Resourceguy says:

    Memo to “special” Solon readers: There are examples of counter-intuitive relationships in science and other disciplines such as quantum mechanics in physics and comparative trade in economics. But running from model error with excuses and name calling is not a characteristic of any of these and other theories that work in repeated trials and testing.

  100. wws says:

    “When natural gas gets back to prices seen in 2005-2007, we won’t have the coal plants to generate electricity in their place, and electricity prices will be substantially higher than they would have been.”

    I’m in the Nat Gas biz. Music to our ears!!!!

    You don’t think anyone in the oil and gas biz sheds any tears over those coal miners, do you? Heh. Nothing like having the government take out all of your competition for you.

    (now if you’re just a ratepayer, then you should be crying, because you are going to be raked over the coals soon. But by then, it will be too late for you to do anything about it. Thank you, Obama!!!)

  101. RobRoy says:

    “Cognitive dissonance”
    I believe this would be a diagnosis of anyone who might eschew common sense.
    BatSh!t crazy to the average Joe.

  102. RobRoy says:

    It’s funny ’cause the alarmists are “winning” too. The Earth is fine.
    Alarmists are so entrenched in their dogma that they won’t accept that ” catastrophic anthropogenic CO2 global warming” is not real. The theory is bust.
    This is good news for everyone.

  103. Stacy Pearson says:

    Rosenberg has clearly taken a page out of physicist Leonard Mlodinow’s book “The Drunkards Walk…How Randomness Rules our Lives” Somewhere in the introduction Mlodinow chimes in on the Global Warming Alarmist bandwagon, explaining that it is in essence precisely the randomness of certainty that is to blame for our having taken so long to come to grips with the nature and dangers of CAGW. The signs he says have been all around us, but owing to our lack of understanding of the random order of the universe, we have until now been unable to see it. And so goes his theory. It appears the contagion has spread to Rosenberg. It is heartbreaking in a way, when such otherwise great minds (Mlodinow…not Rosenberg) become entangled in a deceit of their own making.

  104. richard says:

    something to look forward to.

    2008
    “Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was “the intelligence failure” in Iraq,[17] while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration “misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq”

    2025

    Al gore later said that the biggest regret of his career was “the intelligence failure” on co2 while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2025 that his administration “misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from co2″

  105. Frodo says:

    Louis said
    “I noticed a long time ago that many academics were devoid of common sense…”

    Yup, as I have mentioned earlier in a previous topic, raw intelligence has nothing to do with wisdom/common sense. For some people they are inversely proportional. Maturity is the same way. Raw intelligence, wealth (especially at a young age) , and power have nothing to do with maturity, in fact, having those things can work against the formation of maturity in a person. I believe a 19 year old, illiterate farmer 200 years ago was far more mature than the typical American adult today (including myself). Kind of explains some things, doesn’t it? There are plenty of scientists, professors, and other people in academia today with high IQs and the basic maturity level of a child. I think some of them might be in the CAGW movement.

  106. Jeff Id says:

    Some people have made a nice living out of an intentionally defective thought process which can only be described as wrong-think.

  107. rbissett777 says:

    “Time and tide wait for no man.”

    “The notion of ‘tide’ being beyond man’s control brings up images of the King Canute story. He demonstrated to his courtiers the limits of a king’s power by failing to make the sea obey his command.”

    How far we have fallen. Now our leaders have lost all sense of humility as they assure us they have the power to turn back the rising seas. We miss you King Canute!

  108. ArnoldG says:

    Chip Javert says:
    April 27, 2014 at 7:50 am

    ArnoldG says:
    April 27, 2014 at 5:39 am

    Maybe somebody can explain to me why we regards [Cook and/or Lewandowsky] as worthy of attention, since he neither does any work on climate nor was he high-profile. In my opinion this man is a non-issue and a detractor.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    The reason these people get our attention is they engage in absolutely ruinous activity: annual spending on global warming research & remediation of the non-existent problem is estimated at $350,000,000,000 (0.5% of world GDP), AND THEY PROPOSE TO SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE SPENDING.

    This money (mostly tax dollars) could be much more productively spent solving real problems (starvation, malaria, etc). It currently generates a huge wave of global warming pseudo-science – sort of like replacing cosmology with astrology.

    The historical mechanism for controlling academic & scientific bovine excrement (no other name quite fits) is supervision through academic peer review to ensure compliance with the scientific method. However, this self-regulating mechanism has been corrupted by political intensity and the sheer tidal wave of money demanding yet more documentation of non-existent CAGW.

    This is a ludicrous and dangerous situation, and that is why we pay attention and respond to guys like this.

    I do live in the Netherlands so i do know what you mean here, and on the AGW issues i totally agree. But it was not the point i was making.

    What i don’t understand is why this guys, i do understand that this guy is anoying. But in my opinion we as a group are making him more important then he deserves to be. What happend until now is that there was a lot of noise. That is why i am asking, somewhere i must have missed a reason why he gets al this attention?

    -Arnold

  109. Brian H says:

    The IPCC’s uncertainty results from trying to force uncooperative data into the boxes of its preconceived fixes and solutions; when they don’t fit, it’s called by the wrong name. The proper term is “falsification”.

  110. john robertson says:

    Its projectile vomiting disguised as projection.
    The question is not Why Sceptics are winning, rather the real question this Salon Stroller is asking;” Why am I such a Loser”.
    The comments at that article are revealing, sad demented folk congratulating each other on their supreme wisdom.
    The German Video quote,previous posting, is gold.
    We have spent $28.3 billion for electricity worth $2 billion.
    This is the kind of realization that will begin the real discussion.
    Which in my opinion is about to truly begin.
    As for the alarmists desperation, it is very strange that the 17 years of no statistically significant warming would not prompt a sigh of relief and gratitude that we have more time to address the end of the world, than they imagined..Of course the divergence of their chosen indicators might cause sensible people to reexamine their assumptions.

    Another fool or bandit confirming my supposition,CAGW is an Intelligence Test.
    Buy this.. we can sell you…

  111. Merovign says:

    Uncertainty can never be too great for action. The prospects of my new business are infinitely uncertain. Therefore, *everyone* should put money in my new business now.

    Unmarked bills and precious metals preferred.

    Seriously, if the last couple of years of middle school were replaced with having a job and paying bills, the modern Western world would be about 73% less dumb. +/- 34%, because of uncertainty.

  112. Bob Layson says:

    I am myself an atheist but isn’t there a parallel to the academic alarmist consensus in the College of Cardinals declaring: ‘Sorry Dr Luther but the theology is settled’.

  113. Jtom says:

    Ian Bach, perhaps you will appreciate this: Exhaled air is about 42,000 ppm. We should all pledge not to ‘poison’ any AGW believers by giving them CPR should the need be indicated.

  114. stas peterson says:

    Rosenberg and Lewendowsky are examples of persons over schooled but under educated, All they can do so issue multiple sonorous phrases, collectively devoid of any meaning. This is also commonly referred to as Psycho Babble or Newspeak.

    Rosenberg’s Salon article is an obvious example of nullity of meaning passing as profundity. Its appeal to other readers of Salon as being incomprehensible gibberish, that they must not want to admit they don’t understand, lest their peers criticize them as moronic or imbecilic. So they marvel at the fineness and coloration of the verbal diaretic creation, and marvel at how well the Emperor’s new florid metaphors and sonorous sounds clothe him.

  115. len says:

    JohnWho says:
    April 27, 2014 at 6:27 am
    “180 degrees away from where so-called “common sense”

    This is the problem:- the cool weather is “the cold sun” not by an increase in CO2. The “deniers” have won, thanks to the sunspot activity (or lack of).

    The “alarmists” will say that the increase in CO2 is the cause of cool weather but this has to be forcibly rejected.

  116. Peter Fraser says:

    I believe it was George Orwell who said: “Only an expert would say such a thing, no ordinary man would be such a fool.”

  117. Ian Bach says:

    Jtom says:
    April 27, 2014 at 3:23 pm
    Ian Bach, perhaps you will appreciate this: Exhaled air is about 42,000 ppm. We should all pledge not to ‘poison’ any AGW believers by giving them CPR should the need be indicated.

    OSHA is 30,000 ppm for 30 mins but that is workplace. I think Burt Rutan mentions at what level Apollo 13 went as high before the made the fix for it. He also mentions what level you pass out at
    I think i have heard at some lvl the oxygen wont be adsorbed well enough by the lungs even if was at normal levels for oxygen i think it is 17-21% is normal

  118. Eamon Butler says:

    I want Ian Bach to write the script for the next Al Gore movie. Well done sir. You made me chuckle too.
    Eamon.

  119. “Deniers” are winning? Really? Maybe on this forum.

    Only moments ago I heard an interview of John Holdren on NPR. There was no hint that “deniers” even exist. Holdren was introduced as the nation’s leading scientist. He was well spoken and confident. He made it clear that the entire executive branch of the US government is focused on climate change as the main environmental concern for the world. No mention of the current pause. It’s CO2 and we are in a race to meet the 2020 reduction target or we are in for it. Not able to find that interview transcript, but…

    Statement by John P. Holdren on Approval of the IPCC’s Climate-Impacts Report, Mar 30…

    “Climate change is a global threat, touching every region of the world and every sector of the economy.

    The IPCC’s new report underscores the need for immediate action in order to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change. It reflects scientists’ increased confidence that the kinds of harm already being experienced as a result of climate change are likely to worsen as the world continues to warm.

    The report highlights the widespread and substantial observed impacts of climate change, and its growing adverse effects on livelihoods, ecosystems, economies, and human health. Importantly, it also concludes that effective adaptation measures can help build a more resilient global society in the near term and beyond.

    The IPCC’s findings reinforce the importance and urgency of work already underway across the U.S. Government to implement President Obama’s Climate Action Plan—with its multipronged focus on reducing U.S. emissions, boosting climate-change preparedness and resilience, and working across borders to develop global solutions.

    Today’s approval follows more than five years of collaborative work by hundreds of physical and social scientists from the United States and around the world to comprehensively assess what is known about the global impacts of and vulnerabilities to climate change. More than a dozen U.S. Government researchers contributed to the report and Federal investments enabled many of the peer-reviewed scientific studies that underpin its findings.

    I applaud the many expert contributors to this report, which today stands as the most comprehensive and authoritative synthesis of knowledge about global climate-change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability ever generated.

    The Obama Administration is committed to continued participation in IPCC activities and to the rigorous use of scientific information as a foundation for action to address the threats from climate change.

    I look forward to this Administration’s ongoing collaboration with international partners to finalize the IPCC’s full Fifth Assessment, set for release later this year.”

    Show me where we are winning. Can we vote our way out? Which candidates stands for climate science reality? Can we litigate out way out?

  120. Eric Worrall says:

    Robert Bissett
    “Deniers” are winning? Really? Maybe on this forum. Only moments ago I heard an interview of John Holdren on NPR. There was no hint that “deniers” even exist. Holdren was introduced as the nation’s leading scientist. He was well spoken and confident. He made it clear that the entire executive branch of the US government is focused on climate change as the main environmental concern for the world. …

    Yet alarmism is slipping worldwide. The political establishment might still be giving climate alarmism lip service, but few politicians really care. America is desperate to avoid having to pay climate “reparations”. Europe’s commitment to green measures is splintering, as the economic pain of expensive energy takes its toll. Even green Germany is having second thoughts – they are building new coal generators. Canada and Australia both have openly skeptical prime ministers. In Britain, the openly climate skeptic UKIP party is polling 30% of the vote – they have risen through the polls by promising to cut people’s electricity bill.

    Green policies ultimately carry the seeds of their own downfall. When a government really attempts to implement their nonsense, there is only so much pain people take before they reject the lunacy at the ballot box. America simply hasn’t hit this “green limit” yet. You will know when it has.

  121. Clovis Marcus says:

    We have been here before.

    To some extent the last time it happened it increased by scepticism. Does anyone else remember “The most important video you will ever see” where the present had 4 quadrants:

    Global warming is not catastrophic – do nothing
    Global warming is catastrophic – do nothing
    Global warming is not catastrophic – do something anyway
    Global warming is catastrophic – do nothing

    And he managed to make the third option look good because he discounted the cost of action to practically nothing. Better known as “What if we made a better world for nothing” argument. Looking at it again from today’s perspective we can assess the cost of action – like moving to renewables, taxes and carbon trading (big) better and the effects it has had on emissions (small) and the argument falls apart. Perhaps that is why this is no longer being pushed and is being re-phrased in pseudo scientific language.

    My argument is that with increasing uncertainty drastic action is more likely to provoke unintended consequences…

  122. A glimmer of hope elsewhere. Not so much here. A study came out a few days ago confirming what many already knew…

    “A recent study by professors Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin I. Page found that the U.S. now resembles more of an oligarchy than a democratic republic.

    “The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.””

  123. dbstealey says:

    Robert Bissett,

    Interesting that the professors leave out the elephant in the room: enviro groups like the WWF, Greenpeace, etc. Not only do they pour more money into politics than businesses do, but they have something that businesses do not: millions of obedient single-issue voters.

  124. Are sceptics ‘cockeyed optimists’ or delusional about who’s winning?

    April 30th…..
    “Washington Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee is not waiting for the state legislature to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, but instead has issued an executive order to implement a cap-and-trade program, eliminate coal power and fund green energy projects.

    “This is the right time to act, the right place to act and we are the right people to act,” Inslee said. “We will engage the right people, consider the right options, ask the right questions and come to the right answers — answers that work for Washington.”

    Inlsee argues that more action is needed if the state is to meet climate goals passed by the legislature in 2008. Those goals call for the state to lower its carbon dioxide emissions by certain amounts by 2020.

    The governor’s office is now imposing a cap-and-trade system to lower carbon dioxide emissions in order to meet state goals. Inslee has created a “Carbon Emissions Reduction Task Force” to design the state’s carbon trading system. The task force held it’s first meeting on Tuesday and will give its final recommendations to the governor in November.”

Comments are closed.