Tax Support of Approved Climate News

Steve Janke: Empowering tax-supported local media to peddle ‘approved’ climate news
Posted: January 06, 2010, 1:15 PM by NP Editor

Internews is an organization devoted to helping out people in areas not served by an independent media:

Internews is an international media development organization whose mission is to empower local media worldwide to give people the news and information they need, the ability to connect, and the means to make their voices heard.

This sounds like a laudable goal, but like many roads paved with good intentions…well, you know where that goes.  In particular, this group has a curious idea of what “balanced” reporting means when it comes to global warming alarmism:

Climate change could be the biggest story of the twenty first century, affecting societies, economies and individuals on a grand scale. Equally enormous are the adjustments that will have to be made to our energy and transportation systems,economies and societies, if we are to mitigate climate change.

All journalists should understand the science of climate change – its causes, its controversies and its current and projected impacts. Start by doing your own research from established sources, such as reports from the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC), the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or from local scientific experts you trust.

Read and report on the latest research from peer-reviewed scientific journals, or at the very least from reputable popular science publications.

OK, so it seems to be a given to these people that global warming is a proven fact.  I suppose that doesn’t make them all that different from much of the rest of the media, but then there is this bit of advice for aspiring journalists:

Avoid false balance. Some journalists, trying to be fair and balanced, report the views of climate change sceptics as a counterweight to climate change stories. But this can be a false balance if minority views are given equal prominence to well-accepted science. For example, an overwhelming majority of climatologists believe that average global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels and that human activity is a significant factor in this.

Of course it’s good to air all sorts of views if they are placed into context. So if you report climate change sceptics’ views, also describe their credentials and whether theirs is a minority opinion.

Oh, so balance is not balance when it is “false” balance, that being when skeptics are given anything approaching equal time without caveats and qualifications designed to make their statements suspect.

Read the full story here.

Advertisements

134 thoughts on “Tax Support of Approved Climate News

  1. “It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world…..” – 1984.

  2. Note to Mods: I have just posted this letter on an older thread, but it may be more relevant here. I will leave it to you to decide.
    An example of “balanced” journalism (NOT) is the local paper in Norwich, the “Evening News”, which has carried little more than a few brief mentions of the CRU emails, and comes down firmly on the side of AGW.
    The following appeared on the letters page tonight:
    After a disastrous 2009, the new year offers new hope in many respects. And while the UN climate talks in Copenhagen ended with a “historic cop-out”, as Oxfam describes it, there is much reason to believe that 2010 will be different.
    The politicians meeting in Denmark’s capital may have huffed, puffed, squabbled and gesticulated, but tens of thousands of ordinary people like me gathered there with a common purpose: solving this climate crisis. We had no other interest besides solving a global problem threatening us all – including us in Norfolk.
    The so-called “Copenhagen Accord” stated “the desire to keep warming below two degrees”, but put in place no commitment, and no method by which to do so. As one observer commented: “If the climate were a bank it would have been saved: not abandoned to the brutality of the market.”
    If temperatures increase two degrees, it will cause sea levels to rise by more than two metres – swamping the Norfolk Broads, flooding the Thames Estuary and inundating our south-eastern coastline. London, Portsmouth, and much of Kent will need vast new flood defences.
    But at least we have the resources to protect ourselves. In developing countries, 300,000 people are dying every year from increased drought, severe flooding, water and food shortages and tropical storms. So, as campaigners like me gathered at Copenhagen, we knew that time was running out.
    While the UN summit ended in failure, our own “Peoples Summit” was a success. In solidarity, in unity, fighting for a common cause, we built huge momentum for the future. We protested, we networked, discussed real solutions and produced better outcomes on our own than any politician could manage.
    We realised that 2009 was not the end but just the beginning. It saw the world’s biggest demonstration against climate change. It saw 1.5 million people gather at Oxfam’s climate hearings held all over the world, to testify against the global warming impacts they are feeling right now. The summit at Copenhagen, far from weakening our resolve, made us stronger. So, we go forward into 2010 knowing that while there is work still to do, in order to get the fair and safe global deal we all need, and while a fresh approach and new direction is called for, we are better placed and better equipped to succeed than ever before.
    James Cracknell, Oxfam campaigner for Norfolk.

  3. “Start by doing your own research from established sources, such as reports from the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC), the American Association for the Advancement of Science”
    They left out wikipedia.

  4. “So if you report climate change sceptics’ views, also describe their credentials and whether theirs is a minority opinion….”
    Got it? A PhD who agrees with AGW has better credentials than a PhD who doesn’t.
    I seem to recall Einstein being in the minority,,,,,,,

  5. Avoid false balance. Some journalists, trying to be fair and balanced, report the views of climate change sceptics as a counterweight to climate change stories. But this can be a false balance if minority views are given equal prominence to well-accepted science.

    This statement actually made me feel sick….
    I remember when it was an undeniable fact that stomach ulcers where caused by stress and hydrochloric acid, only the well-settled science were so wrong on that as well.

  6. “But this can be a false balance if minority views are given equal prominence to well-accepted science.”
    Apparently the UN believes minority views do not deserve equal time. What would Dr. King have to say about this? Or President Obama? There are no “minority views” in science. There are theories and proofs. This is an assault against open-minded journalism and is easily countered by internet publishing.
    These people don’t really understand how viral word of mouth works. These days the public understands that if they want a new perspective, something different from the tired old main stream media – get on the internet. Find an open minded blog. Blogs are the new newspapers giving minority views equal access to the public. Internews – gatekeepers who are panicked they’ve lost their sheep.
    More money wasted that could be put to good use countering poverty, disease and contaminated habitat.

  7. … only while their view remains a minority view… that’s changing, partly due to your own good efforts. If even the BBC is changing tack, well, onward and upward, like a hockey stick curve.

  8. Excuse me? Since when does the Constitution permit taxpayer funding of propaganda? This is BS. I’ve had about all I can stand from the UN and it’s hangers-on.

  9. “Climate change could be the biggest story of the twenty first century”
    How right they are … it’s just developing to a real big one … LOL

  10. The beeb main news this evening reports that this cold spell is weather, not climate. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8447262.stm
    That is true and a fair point, but then they seem to turn a news story about freezing weather into a another brainwashing propaganda story about global warming – or am I getting paranoid about BBC bias? This comes the day after they announce a year long investigation into biased reporting in response to complaints received by the BBC Trust.

  11. The last paragraphs of the article:
    “And all the money that flows in is tax exempt.”
    “It’s no wonder that sometimes it seems impossible for skeptics to gain any traction. The global warming myth is so tied into vast sums ofmoney that few people could afford to tell the truth, or at least challenge the alarmists.”
    “Still, taking the alarmists like Internews out of the list of charities would even the playing field, since I would be surprised if an organization openly skeptical of the global warming theory would earn a charity designation.”
    National Post
    Read more from Steve Janke at his blog, Angry in the Great White North
    Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/06/steve-janke-empowering-tax-supported-local-media-to-peddle-approved-climate-news.aspx#ixzz0bxteGtQ1
    The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

  12. My observation is that the prevailing opinion expressed on this website is that global warming is not being caused by human activity. If this is an accurate assessment, I have two questions. To what extent do you believe you could be mistaken, and, what if anything would cause you to change your opinion?

  13. I am not fan of conspiracies, but this is a big one. As we say, wherever you step, everywhere you step into [snip]. Maunder winters on them, all, and let them heat themselves with “renewables”.

  14. One of the posters on Climate Progress was explicit in that if we find there is no warming, the main deal is social justice. We have raped the planet he says by inventing and using cars, planes and trains and polluted the world. Poor people need to be paid for our indulgences and sins. Last time I checked, America has the cleanest waste water around.

  15. Climate science, the only discipline where the science is actually settled, isn’t that convenient and reassuring and heart warming and…doesn’t need any opposing views, great !
    Search for “settled science” in say Google (except #1) or Yahoo (except #1) or Bing, interesting result indeed.

  16. This is just a rehash of the scientific consensus argument. Science is not determined by consensus of opinion. Consensus is meaningless in terms of science.

  17. Being skeptic on the skeptics…
    It’s obvious that “Internews” is a third world organization (from the pictures on their website) that has to promote global warming in order for the rich countries to forcibly send them money in the form of taxes.
    Not only the money would not even go to them but instead to their governments and armies, and the fact that it would never be used to fix a non-problem, but those people will be made to believe that the earth is warming and so they won’t be prepared at all for when the temperatures will plummet and food crops will fail…

  18. Quoting from the original article: “The global warming myth is so tied into vast sums of money that few people could afford to tell the truth, or at least challenge the alarmists.” Even the smartest people will act dumb when it is in their financial interest to do so. I have found it very difficult to persuade people, who do not have financial ties, of this basic fact. They are so convinced that it is the “deniers” who are well funded by “big oil” that they will not even look at contrary evidence. I believe that if we could get more people to examine the skeptical position – well presented here – the global warming industry would vanish overnight. This is a big “if”.

  19. “But this can be a false balance if minority views are given equal prominence to well-accepted science.”
    I guess that means that all minority views should be restricted – like the minority views of people in areas not served by an independent media.
    Paul

  20. That little blurb is very amateurish and rather contrived. This could be one of those “save the children” organizations that spends most of the donations on fancy modes of transportation, or worse, is a front that sends the money to nefarious organizations. As in, “send money to Nigeria to help me get my inheritance out of the bank and I will give you half”.

  21. 1947, 1963, 1979, 1995 and 2010 were all very cold winters in the UK.
    Is there something that could have a period of about 16-17 years?

  22. Carddan,
    I have two questions. To what extent do you believe you could be mistaken, and, what if anything would cause you to change your opinion?

  23. I see that the BBC (British Baloney Consensus) is doing its bit to spread the AGW gospel on its 10 o’clock news tonight – apparently the effect of this current cold spell in the Northern Hemisphere is dwarfed by extremely high temperatures elsewhere in the world, and the reporter actually referred to global warming and not climate change. He also dragged in the old “this is just weather, climate depends on 30 years of scientific measurement” canard.
    Thank goodness for the blogosphere – if it wasn’t for that the truth wouldn’t get a look-in.

  24. To what extent do you believe you could be mistaken, and, what if anything would cause you to change your opinion? Carddan

    Cardann, my simple thoughts are these:
    To argue that human emissions of CO2 are forcing global warming requires that all the known forces of nature together with their chaotic interwoven processes are fully understood and explained. This has never been done.
    The warm climate of Greenland a thousand years ago allowed the Vikings to settle and farm the land. The conditions in this new green land could not have resulted from human emissions of CO2. 400 years later the when the Vikings had to abandon Greenland when the green turned to white also could not have had anything to do with human CO2 emissions.
    For Mr Rudd to announce that human CO2 is the cause of global warming because Australia, according to the BOM, on average recorded its second highest temperature since 1910 is as delusional as trying to stop the tide.
    If the world’s average temperature continues to increase for another 10 years and then decreases if CO2 decreases I will begin to sit up and take notice. And when just one of the thousands of catastrophes that have been predicted by alarmists eventuates I will start to be concerned. In the meantime CO2 cannot be used to explain everything from hot to cold from droughts to floods and from bush fires to snowstorms. If Australia’s temperature drops below a decadal average this year will Mr Rudd announce that CO2 induced global warming is a myth?

  25. “To what extent do you believe you could be mistaken”
    Personally, absolute zero
    “and, what if anything would cause you to change your opinion?”
    The climate actually did what the computer programs predicted it would do.
    Just once.
    When they stop lying, cheating, and adjusting them – after the fact – to make them appear to work.
    and
    When they stop adjusting the data they feed into the computer programs, to make the programs appear to predict.

  26. ““and, what if anything would cause you to change your opinion?””
    oh and one more thing
    When someone convinces me that we are even smart enough to do this.
    We are not, no where near, don’t even have a clue.

  27. Paul Martin – but beware – 1985 qnd 1986 were also cold ones, they are the winters that the media are currently saying that “this is the coldest since…”
    And 1976, 1995 and 2003 were the hottest summers in the UK that I am aware of and they don’t seem to follow any periodicity.

  28. Carddan (13:43:31) :
    To what extent do you believe you could be mistaken, and, what if anything would cause you to change your opinion?

    #1. Beliefs has nothing to do with it. You want the raw data, confidence intervals, what?
    #2. Nothing less than a global flood.

  29. It seems to me that contrary views should be given more consideration than an established consensus, not less, because it is necessary to be absolutely sure that the contrarian really is wrong. Even if a contrarian is substantially wrong there is often something in his approach to help refine a (hopefully correct) consensus.
    If the consensus is actually wrong then suppressing dissent just delays the date when the right answer is found.
    The only conceivable purpose of giving priority to an established viewpoint and suppressing alternatives is propagandising for some separate agenda rather than a search for truth.

  30. Dave Ward – is that James Cracknell the Olympic gold medal rower? Just one of many celebrity endorsers of the movement, probably a really nice, sincere guy only wanting to do good. The real tragedy of the CO2 obsession is that all this effort and human energy (not to mention money) is being wasted on one single goal: reduce man-made CO2 at any cost. There are so many more things we could usefully be doing …

  31. Alan Haile
    That David Shukman piece is very annoying. But at least the BBC now tell us that they will be happy with a 30 year trend. We’ll just hang on another 20 years and then we will see if we can convince them.
    This “weather is not climate” thing. I understand that one extreme event does not make a climate, but when they start to happen more frequently than before, then maybe? We are now on our third “Britain in the freezer” episode in less than 12 months. (February, December, January)

  32. Why not send a letter of complaint to Internews?
    Dear Internews,
    I am sorry but I really object to the advice given on this page:
    http://www.internews.org/articles/2009/20090316_scidevnet_ejn.shtm
    You are supporting a huge and unjustifiable bias on climate change, where minority views are to be written off. Science does not proceed by consensus (remember Copernicus? Remember Galileo?) I think you will find as time progresses and the climate models are dissected and fouind wanting, that climate sceptics’ opinions become less of a minority view.
    I urge you to get a copy of Bjorn Lomborg’s book “Cool It” to correct some of your bias, and start to deliver fair and balanced reporting, not the travesty that you call “false balance”. Climate change scepticism does not equate to those who believe aliens landed at Roswell or that the face of Jesus appeared in a slice of toast. Please educate yourselves on this topic before you mislead a large part of the developing world.
    Yours sincerely,
    V Milvus

  33. Carddan (13:43:31) :

    “My observation is that the prevailing opinion expressed on this website is that global warming is not being caused by human activity. If this is an accurate assessment…”

    In general, your observation is incorrect.
    The prevailing opinion here is that the globe is warming or cooling, depending on the time frame you choose. Here is a good resource to show the cycles over the past century or so: click.
    The central question in the debate is whether the CO2=CAGW hypothesis [a rise in human emitted CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming] is true or not.
    Climate alarmists hypothesize that carbon dioxide is the primary factor controlling the Earth’s climate. They point to GCMs [computer climate models] as evidence. They also submit as evidence certain peer reviewed studies, although the authors refuse to disclose all of their raw and adjusted data, their methodologies, and their computer algorithms.
    However, computer models, and studies using data and methods that cannot be replicated, are not empirical [real world] “evidence.” Computer models are not evidence of anything. They are only a tool. And the models are not accurate; by inputting all available, actual past climate data [hindcasting], the models cannot reproduce the current climate. In addition, not one of the two dozen or so GCMs was able to predict the flat to declining global temperatures over most of the past decade: click
    I think most folks who follow this site generally agree that CO2 may have some effect on temperature. But it has never been shown by the alarmist side that CO2 has a significant, or even a measurable effect on the temperature. They use an unbelievably high sensitivity number, based on computer models, to arrive at their hypothetical conclusions. But if the climate was that sensitive to CO2, then the global temperature would be rising fast along with rising CO2. But it is not. The global temperature is very close to what it was thirty years ago: click
    So there may be an insignificant amount of warming due to increased CO2. But its real world effect is so small that it can be disregarded for all practical purposes. Other factors have a much bigger, measurable effect on global temperatures.
    Finally, it should be kept in mind that the main proponents of the CO2=CAGW hypothesis are extremely well compensated, and have extraordinary status [at least, until the CRU emails appeared]. Skeptical scientists, on the other hand, have been granted less than one one-thousandth of the funding that alarmists get. So naturally, there are plenty of alarmists submitting research papers on global warming. Fame and fortune are powerful motivators.
    But is there really a crisis brewing? Decide for yourself. Here’s a 30 year global temperature chart that may help: click

  34. Carddan (13:43:31) : reply to quote
    My observation is that the prevailing opinion expressed on this website is that global warming is not being caused by human activity. If this is an accurate assessment, I have two questions. To what extent do you believe you could be mistaken, and, what if anything would cause you to change your opinion?
    unquote.
    Carddan, I keep asking the exact same question on all the alarmist blogs, green journalist blogs of newspapers, alarmist parliamentarians, and so on. I have NEVER received a reply. Not one. The fact that people here are replying to you shows me the difference between this blog and the alarmist camp.
    For myself, I am open to any view that can prove itself, with the negative viewpoint also proved, and historical data also proved, and with all other theories not making any sense. I lean towards looking at all the input from all areas, including historical data from real people living at the time. For instance, the historical data on previous hot and cold periods does not support the AGW theory.
    I also have looked at the geologists records from the rocks and earth records, going back BILLIONS of years, which also do not support the AGW theory.
    Then you have the archaeologists, with their discoveries of cave drawings showing where animals used to live, and remnants of meals buried in tombs showing what grew in various areas, also disproves AGW theory.
    Then there are the astrophysicists, people who are usually brilliant at maths, who look at data coming in from space and the effect of the sun, stars and moon on our system, offering a viable alternative to AGW theory.
    Last but not least are the mathematicians and statisticians, who successfully demolished the hockey stick graphs and showed statistical errors in much of the research of the AGW camp.
    So Carddan, perhaps you should start reading a bit more widely and then we might see you here more often actually becoming a sceptic yourself.
    My impression of the people blogging here is that there are many that would change sides if you could show them sufficient proof.
    That’s the essential problem with the AGW theory. Not enough proof.

  35. Quote: Kenneth Slade (13:14:37) :
    “It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world…..” – 1984.
    Yes, Kenneth, the resemblance to 1984 is scary!
    Who is financing this scam?
    1. The Atomic (fission) Bomb came from national competition between warring nations in the 1930’s and 1940’s that produced the nuclear era of science during the Second World War.
    2. The Hydrogen (fusion) Bomb came from national competition in the 1940’s and
    1950’s that continued the nuclear era of science during the Cold War.
    3. Rocketry for space travel came from national competition in the 1950’s –
    1980’s (Remember Sputnik I on 4 Oct 1957? ) that started the Space Age of science during the Cold War.
    4. Who is behind the Global Climate Warming Fears of the 1980’s – 2010’s ?? It obviously involves leaders of many different countries and organizations, such as Nobel Laureates Dr. Rajendra K Pachauri of the UN’s IPCC, Former Vice-President Al Gore, Norway’s Nobel Prize Committee, NASA, NAS and literally armies of consensus scientists.
    Perhaps we will eventually know the answer. In Nature 407 (2000) 823-824] is this quote about the deep roots of Nazi science in the 1930’s and 1940’s.
    “There is no way of denying that directors, scientists and research assistants in many biomedical Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes put themselves in the service of a criminal regime. They actively supported measures conflicting with human rights and exploited the opportunities to use science conducted beyond all morally acceptable limits for the benefit of their own research.”
    On a happier note, for a humorous Season’s Greetings from a true friend of
    science, see:
    http://tinyurl.com/yfbgsjw
    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA PI for Apollo

  36. Just watched the opening feature on the BBC flagship program Newsnight.
    Good Old Auntie is spinning the weather is not climate meme for all it’s worth!
    Going on about how weather models are subject to probability while the certainty of climate models are bastions of scientific certainty.
    It’s so sad, coming as it does so quickly after the hatchet job surgically performed by Andrew Neil(l) on the Met Office, ex WWF activist, chief.
    Wish that the BBC would just save licence payers money by redirecting its viewers to RealClimate!
    They, at least, are saving money by showing Weather Charts on the Internet sans numbers and icons, relying instead on vague and prettily coloured maps of the UK- without keys!
    Just like the Met Office actually.
    Speak your weasel words as much as you wish, ignore the accuracy with which others, unseduced by your advocacy, told us what to expect months ago; you guys have blood on your hands.
    People and animals have suffered because of your hubristic and consensus supported prejudice. Post-ClimateGate, are you still so uncritical of the evidence?

  37. And I forgot to add, many brilliant meteorologists, independent ones like Piers Corbin, and others (usually retired so they can speak out in safety).

  38. Alan Haile (13:17:55),
    The BBC was in full on global warming denial mode this evening (btw, by denial I mean they are in denial of the cold around them).
    First they started by telling us that we were too stupid to understand what was going on with the weather, then they moved on to “the climate is not the weather” meme and then ended once again with “people are too stupid to understand”.
    Of course while all this was going on, the Met Office guy and the super brain from Oxford where not seriously pushed by the al beeb reporter. He posed a couple questions like how come you cant predict the weather yet can predict climate change, to which he then allowed the other two to answer without any follow up questions (like did any of your models predict any of the cooling we have seen to date, like the snows in April 09 or the cold snap we are in now).
    Of course last night the Met Office guy they had on came out with “because of global warming this cold snap is not as bad as it would have been” when he was asked if the UK would set any new low temp records this winter.
    The BBC is so committed to global warming ™ that they have become advocates and nothing more.
    Mailman

  39. And Carddan, further to the above, what I think is that the Earth is not a closed system, which appears to be the main fault with the AGW theory, the assumption that it is closed.
    Actually, it has a very thin layer of atmosphere protecting us as we travel through space with our sun. All sorts of things arrive on earth, including magnetism from the sun, cosmic rays, and goodness knows what else, all of which could affect climate.

  40. Internews, in its technology section, could report on the invention of a huge whaling vessel that’s capable of ramming a light, sleek, super-powered trimaran.
    People need to know that stuff.

  41. Alan Haile (13:17:55) : “Here is some ‘approved’ news from the BBC.”
    Gotta love the BBC: “David Shukman reports on how one of the longest cold snaps for a generation, fits in with theories of a warming planet and global climate change [strange comma placement by the BBC, not me].”
    FFS, what in the name of Number Watch would not somehow “fit in” with “theories of a warming planet”? If this was an average winter or another mild winter, they’d no doubt tell us these would “fit in” with global warming as well.
    We need a few more like Andrew Neil at the Beeb!

  42. Mailman (15:25:48) :
    Alan Haile (13:17:55),
    The BBC was in full on global warming denial mode this evening (btw, by denial I mean they are in denial of the cold around them).
    You missed the 10 oclock news, the Met Office guy gave the definitive answer to the question ( what is climate ), the answer to this question from the horses mouth is 30 YEARS.

  43. Carddan (13:43:31) :

    My observation is that the prevailing opinion expressed on this website is that global warming is not being caused by human activity. If this is an accurate assessment, I have two questions. To what extent do you believe you could be mistaken, and, what if anything would cause you to change your opinion?

    Fair observation and fair questions.
    Could be mistaken? Yes, that is perfectly possible. The evidence, when examined impartially (and without emotional bias) tells us that the effect we are having is very slight if anything we can measure. This is taking the IPCC’s own findings, right or wrong. The result may be between 1 or 2 C warming in total by the time we run out of fossil fuels. Any exaggeration on this is down to false premises, alarmist spin (often to sell carbon ‘credits’, or just to charge a 100 grand a lecture), or media screeching (to sell advertising). We can deal with that quite easily.
    What would change my opinion? Open and honest examination of the science in all its forms. A lot, and I mean a lot, more real investigation (to tree-ring circuses). Open sharing of data and code, and the raw data, not the ‘adjusted’ kind – adjustments should be open and transparent. Then actual proof that CO2 we re-release (it was there for a long time before being buried) is going to cause any significant damage to the world in any way.
    It’s not much to ask, IMO, given that about $80 Billion has been spent, it’s surprising it has not been achieved yet.
    Here’s hoping I’m not feeding Trolls……

  44. @Carddan:
    When the facts change, I will change my opinion.
    But the facts — actual evidence, does not support the AGW greenhouse gas hypothesis. I can point to the missing greenhouse warming signature in the troposphere, the fact that the ice core data shows CO2 increases hundreds of years after the climate warms, etc.
    I will also repeat that climate models do not produce facts and are not evidence. Opinion — expert or otherwise is not fact. Consensus is not an applicable scientific term.
    Have you heard of ClimateGate? You do know the hockey stick is also invalid, don’t you?
    Thank you

  45. These guys are not advising would be journalists, this is a directive. My blood boils. Maby they should denounce me as a “global warmer”.

  46. Thank you everyone for your responses. I posted the same question, without the word “not”, on Climate Progress and had the following discussion:
    http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/31/science-the-hottest-decade-ends-maunder-mininum-solar-cycle-24-global-warming/
    Carddan says:
    January 7, 2010 at 4:07 pm
    My observation is that the prevailing opinion expressed on this website is that global warming is being caused by human activity. If this is an accurate assessment, I have two questions. To what extent do you believe you could be mistaken, and, what if anything would cause you to change your opinion?
    [JR: The first question is ill-posed, since you haven’t defined it enough to answer. In any case, I focus on the scientific understanding not “opinion.” Were the scientific understanding to change, my “opinion” would change. In the specific case of human-caused global warming, that outcome is doubly unlikely because the preponderance of evidence — which is vast — links recent warming (which is unequivocal) to human activity and to falsify it you’d have to not only come up with an alternative explanation that would explain the unequivocal warming, but you’d also have to come up with a viable explanation for why human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases hadn’t caused the warming. Since you seem to hold an anti-scientific opinion, I will not bother asking you what would cause you to change it.]
    Followed by : Carddan says:
    January 7, 2010 at 4:41 pm
    JR, thank you for your prompt response. In reference to your conviction of beliefs, I believe you are expressing that your opinions are rooted in science and that you have faith that the science is accurate. You are satisfied that science has proven recent warming is caused by human activity until “unproven”.
    I do take strong exception to your belief that I have an unscientific opinion. I posed the identical question to another blog with the word “not” inserted before the word “caused”. I will say that I have much less confidence in the science than you do. Statistics and data can be manipulated to indicate many things and they frequently are by both sides in this discussion. I’m still searching, studying and exploring for the truth. I do not believe that mankind has come close to understanding the underlying physics of the universe or the ability to predict a mechanism as complex as global climate. To believe that the answers are already known is “unscientific” in my mind.
    And yes, I will respond in a similar manner to that other website given the opportunity.
    [JR: You sentence — To believe that the answers are already known is “unscientific” in my mind — is the classic loaded sentence of the anti-science crowd. They key element of what is “known” with high certainty is that if we take no action to restrict greenhouse gas emissions we will destroy a livable climate. The uncertainty really only arises as to whether the impacts will be imaginably catastrophic or unimaginably catastrophic.]
    One side is sure they know, the other is not. I have always believed that wisest man understands he knows the least.

  47. Carddan (13:43:31) :
    My observation is that the prevailing opinion expressed on this website is that global warming is not being caused by human activity. If this is an accurate assessment, I have two questions. To what extent do you believe you could be mistaken, and, what if anything would cause you to change your opinion?

    The prevailing opinion of most of the regular posters here is that there is no valid scientific evidence that CO2 is a significant contributor to climate change.
    The fundamental premise of AGW is that CO2 is a green house gas (generally accepted by all). That the increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is due to human activity, (suspected but not demonstrated). There is equally valid reason to belive that the CO2 increase is a result of temperature increase rather than its cause.
    That the increasing CO2 has a direct causal relationship with increasing global temperatures (ie if CO2 increases temperature will increase also as a direct result of the increasing CO2 concentration).
    This is widely believed to be false. This assertion is based on mathematical models which are highly suspect, (have never been properly audited for methodology, (both math mathematical processes code logic and been validated), use hard coded assumptions that are not supportable, and use input data which is garbage. As a result the models and their output is meaningless and in no way provides any proof at all that temperature changes are due to CO2 increases or that the CO2 increases are due directly to human activity.
    The scientific method demands an assumption that you might be wrong. As Einstein stated it only takes one valid data point the proves the conclusion impossible to toss the whole hypothesis in the garbage pail and go back to the beginning point and re-evaluate the whole chain of logic.
    This is the fundamental difference between the AGW supporters and the “skeptics” The AGW supporters “know” they are right and will not even discuss the possibility that they are not. The Skeptics “think” they are right but are open to valid evidence that they are not.
    The AGW supporters systematically suppress all discussion of their methods and assumptions, model codes and input data quality. Skeptics thrive on discussing all those possible modes of failure in a scientific hypothesis. By doing so the AGW supporters are violating the most fundamental rules of scientific method. As a result the points they raise as “proof” are not only not proof, but are not even science. It is more a sales pitch, with lots of claims but no supporting documentation.
    Larry

  48. Hotrod, I agree with you and many of the other answers given to my questions here. It is informative that at ClimateProgress, challenging their beliefs was called unscientific. On this site, challenging the beliefs brought forth a scientific discussion.

  49. Carddan (16:02:07) :
    I like your method, makes you think, and the…

    “This is the fundamental difference between the AGW supporters and the “skeptics” The AGW supporters “know” they are right and will not even discuss the possibility that they are not. The Skeptics “think” they are right but are open to valid evidence that they are not.”

    …were spot on I think.

  50. “[JR: The first question is ill-posed, […]Since you seem to hold an anti-scientific opinion, I will not bother asking you what would cause you to change it.]”
    “Doesn’t compute.” You gotta love him. ROTFL.

  51. @Carddan (16:02:07) :
    Superbly well-phrased questions to good, old dependable JR.
    You got him to respond without being banned and Twice! Well done!
    I don’t know upon which side the Science will eventually settle but, and I’m only guessing here, it’ll likely favour the side with the best questions. Your questions are top drawer. I’ll watch with interest.

  52. carrdan,
    your little experiment by going on a pro-global warming site just shows how ideology trumps any facts you throw at them> plus the arrogance of this person is incredible and sadly the norm for the pro agw side in that you have to 100% disprove their hypothesis even though there has not been any conclusive proof that increased c02 will increase temperatures as the temperatures have gone down even though c02 has risen.

  53. William Sears (14:07:00) :
    They are so convinced that it is the “deniers” who are well funded by “big oil” that they will not even look at contrary evidence

    It’s doubtful that “Internews” will ever discuss how the esteemed Climatic Research Unit at U East Anglia was supported by British Petroleum. In the 80s in particular a series of CRU contracts supplied BP’s Cold Regions Group with sea ice and navigation data used to exploit the very Arctic they claim is now melting. Could working for “Big Oil” be seen as evidence to the contrary?
    Presumably working for BP compromises what the scientists at CRU have done – making their research a “minority view.” But CRU supplies the foundation for the UN’s IPCC Reports – and thus are given prime time coverage in a dying MSM.
    Is it any wonder that rational minds find man made climate change an exercise in virtual extortion?

  54. royfomr, I doubt JR will let me back in. They don’t seem to like being challenged over there. The posters here demonstrated an exceptional ability to be open-minded and intelligent in their replies. I think I’ll just lurk here if they’ll have me.

  55. Report the majority view, and quash the minority, as if science was a political system. Job App point: The ideal Polyscience Journalist will sucessfully demonstrate the ability to appear impartial, while maintaining the politcally correct concensus reporting as ‘settled’ science.
    Meanwhile, the Politically Correct AGW theory is Gored by an Iceberg, and the crew is playing taps on the deck while the lifeboats are burned to keep warm.
    Ever have that sinking feeling?

  56. Carddan
    Congratulations on your experiment – I hope it shows you that we “deniers” are more interested in finding out the truth than in promoting a particular belief. I like to think that most commenters on this site have enquiring minds rather than fixed ideas and welcome information from many sources.

  57. boxman (14:25:33) :
    “1947, 1963, 1979, 1995 and 2010 were all very cold winters in the UK.”
    They all coincidence with solar minimums

    With the notable exception that 1979 (and also the famed 1982) is pretty much solar maximum.

  58. Carddan,
    An interesting experiment, although I am not surprised at the results. I have previously tried something similar over at Climate Progress, asking the hypothetical question what if the AGW theory proved to be incorrect? What would the consequences be for emerging green technologies, the environmental movement and science in general? The results were disappointing.

  59. The other side of the coin is that warmers are investing a lot of money, since the time when James Hansen was a young new age scientist, and they are expecting for a big, big profit, and they don´t seem to be tired of such an endless expenditure, perhaps due to the fact they are not investing their money but ours, however they consider this our money theirs, their speculative industry was built on the vacuum so naturally it sucks our bucks from our pockets easily, through banking, through plastics, etc., etc. and we are the fools who supply the labour, the “gammas” of their “Brave new world”.
    While they expect for a soon reward we are awakening once again just to watch, we won´t need to do anything, their golden calf will break into pieces, once again (history likes to repeat itself),shattered by the thunderbolts of natural cycles, of these “interesting times”.

  60. Well, I tried one more time with this post but it has been “waiting moderation” for a long time.
    Carddan says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    January 7, 2010 at 8:05 pm
    If anyone wants to hear the other side’s opinion, you can read the responses I received at wattsupwiththat.com when I asked the same questions challenging their opinion that global warming is not being caused by human activity.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/ 2010/ 01/ 07/ tax-support-of-approved-climate-news/ #more-14912
    I believe we need more science and more discussion, not less.

  61. OT, but you may find this interesting.
    I’ve just spent a bit of my evening discussing AGW with Patrick Harvie – a Green Party MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament) on his blog.
    As usual with AGW believers, he’s not interested in facts or science.
    If you’re from Scotland, you may find the conversation enlightening as to the mindset of one of our elected representatives.
    If you’d like to join the conversation, please be polite and respectful. He seems like a nice, if somewhat misguided, fellow.
    http://www.patrickharviemsp.com/2010/01/snow-joke/comment-page-1/#comment-1621

  62. Further to the quote from “1984” (15:22:39) here’s another sentiment that Internews might endorse:
    “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.” Joe Stalin

  63. Carddan (16:02:07) :
    I posted the same question, without the word “not”, on Climate Progress and had the following discussion:
    You posted a question at CP and you didn’t get sprayed by “tommy gun” dhogaza? My, how times change.
    Is he still there?

  64. robert (16:52:26) :
    “…… as the temperatures have gone down even though CO2 has risen.”
    The last decade saw a dramatic rise in the amount of CO2 released to the atmosphere through industrialization of developing countries, especially of China. So you should have stated “CO2 has presipitously risen” or the like.

  65. Aaaaand right on topic: Very often this kind of “news” is just a prop for an agenda, and it is clearly worldwide, and very disturbing. Sometimes I think there is no hope.
    WRT Carddan (13:43:31) :
    My answer would be:
    1. Temperature needs to verifyably rise, enough to matter… for say, more than 2 decades at 0.4C/Decade?
    (Validating this requires free flowing disclosure of all raw data and calculations – and much more realistic calculations than we’ve seen (Certainly no adjustments labeled “artificial” or “fudge factor” ) Another marker here could be steadily increasing new highs around the world, warmer winters, etc. – Instead we’re seeing new Record Lows in great numbers right now, validating theories of oscillation.
    2. The rise needs to be verifyably caused or meaningfully exacerbated by Man’s (miniscule) contribution of C02. – A tall order, since I suspect this is not possible.

  66. Carddan,
    In the past I’ve attempted to post charts at realclimate, climateprogress, tamino, deltoid, etc., just like the ones I linked to above @15:00:13, but they were always censored out within a few minutes; usually they never even saw the light of day. I gave up long ago trying to debate the subject with them, and I don’t even follow their blogs any more.
    So Joe Romm’s lame responses were astonishing to me.
    Romm said:

    …the preponderance of evidence — which is vast — links recent warming (which is unequivocal) to human activity and to falsify it you’d have to not only come up with an alternative explanation that would explain the unequivocal warming, but you’d also have to come up with a viable explanation for why human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases hadn’t caused the warming. [my emphasis]

    First, the long accepted theory of climate change is summarized by climatologist Roy Spencer: “No one has falsified the theory that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.”
    In other words, it is the long held theory of natural climate variability that the new CO2=CAGW hypothesis must falsify in order to replace it, by explaining reality better than the current theory of natural climate variability. Normally this is done by the new hypothesis making better predictions. But the CO2=CAGW hypothesis doesn’t make any accurate predictions at all.
    Romm mendaciously turns the Scientific Method on its head, by demanding that skeptical scientists must falsify his new hypothesis. If that were the Scientific Method, then every crackpot conjecture that came along would have to be falsified. Romm is demanding that skeptics prove a negative, by repeatedly using the argumentum ad ignorantiam: the fallacy of assuming that something must be true [CO2=CAGW] simply because it hasn’t been proven false.
    You gave the right response to Romm when you said, “You are satisfied that science has proven recent warming is caused by human activity until ‘unproven’.”
    And Romm agreed! He said:

    The key element of what is “known” with high certainty is that if we take no action to restrict greenhouse gas emissions we will destroy a livable climate. The uncertainty really only arises as to whether the impacts will be imaginably catastrophic or unimaginably catastrophic.

    Again, Romm assigns incredible certainty to his empirically baseless assumption that an increase in a tiny trace gas will cause catastrophic global warming. But the planet itself is falsifying his conjecture: click
    Joe Romm can argue that way because he censors skeptical comments that refute his beliefs, making his blog an echo chamber of groupthink with others whose minds are similarly made up and closed tight. If Joe Romm was willing to come here and debate, or allow open, uncensored debate at his blog like this site does, his illogical arguments would be quickly deconstructed. That’s why climateprogress, realclimate and the other alarmist blogs must censor scientific skeptics. They have no other choice.
    Anyway, that was an interesting little experiment you did, and you did it well. You got a lot of good responses here. And the contrast between the two sites was stark. I really thought Joe Romm would have had at least one or two plausible arguments. Apparently, I’ve been giving him way too much credit.

  67. My final post at ClimateProgress inviting open minds to read these comments did not survive moderation. I had a hypothesis, the evidence supports it. The irony is not lost on me.

  68. Carddan, I am sorry I am a a little late to the party, but here is my response. I am about 99% CO2 is not causing warming. As to what it would take to change my mind, I have it well documented. A few months ago I decided to test my knowledge so I took on all comers on a thread on another web site. I am providing a link to that web site, but after my last go around, the warmers stopped responding. If you look at my postings, you will see the arguments you need to deal with to change my mind.
    http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=51313&nowrap=true#957891

  69. A bit of Climate SciFI on History channel tonite: “Earth 2100”. All your favorite climate/population/resource/terrorism fantasies in one neat package. Tipping points, ice sheets collapsing, et al. It’s a hoot. 🙂 All part of Armageddon Week. http://www.history.com/

  70. Internews is an organization devoted to helping out people in areas not served by an independent media:
    So give them a dependent media?

  71. Next, our progressive universities will be bringing in a course in gatekeeping. Very selective entry process but gaining gatekeeping credentials will offer graduates high monetary rewards and an open door into an elite coterie of power brokers. :-\

  72. Henry chance (13:45:43) :
    One of the posters on Climate Progress was explicit in that if we find there is no warming, the main deal is social justice. We have raped the planet he says by inventing and using cars, planes and trains and polluted the world. Poor people need to be paid for our indulgences and sins. Last time I checked, America has the cleanest waste water around.

    Sickening. Why bother with the last 400 years of technical and scientific progress. Let’s just retreat to high birth rates, high death rates, short lifespans and brutal ignorance.

  73. You posted a question at CP and you didn’t get sprayed by “tommy gun” dhogaza? My, how times change.

    One neat project that would make an impact on fence-sitters would be to re-post “highlights” of threads from CP & RC where the negative qualities of their leading lights and hatchetmen are on display. Call it, maybe, “Quoted Without Comment” or “Get a Load of This.”

  74. Internews has the following exciting overseas positions open: (free hearing protectors included for those loud explosions)
    From the website:
    Open Positions – Overseas
    * Afghanistan: Broadcast Advisor – Salam Watandar
    * Afghanistan (Kabul): Resident Advisor
    * Afghanistan: Broadcast Journalism Training Advisors
    * Afghanistan: Youth Media Project Manager
    * Pakistan: Chief of Party
    * Pakistan: Deputy Chief of Party
    * Pakistan: Humanitarian Media Advisor
    * Various: Human Rights Journalism Lead Trainer
    This following is clipped from their “Ethical Journalism” link:
    Professional journalism involves selecting what is most relevant and true rather than broadcasting what is unverified simply because it may seem “interesting.” Internews subscribes to the values articulated by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in their book, The Elements of Journalism:
    * The purpose of journalism is to provide people with the information they need to be free and self-governing.
    * Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth.
    * Its first loyalty is to citizens.
    * Its essence is a discipline of verification.
    * Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
    * It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
    * It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
    * It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant.
    * It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.
    * Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.
    Adopted by the Internews Network Board of Directors, November 2001. Revised with updated mission statement adopted by Board, November 2004.
    KB: “Wow, if only the media would adhere to the above guidelines… we would be free of the current oppression, deception, and propaganda. The media has failed miserably to maintain these tenets.”

  75. Soros funded, I just put ‘internews soros’ in google and the whole first page was filled. Anytime I hear about one of these media groups, I always check for Soros funding. It’s usually there. In this case, it’s huge. The donor page linked on the Nat. Post article does have Open Society listed, which is his. He has twice been convicted of stock fraud and is connected with currency manipulations that caused enormous suffering to average citizens. Very invested in global warming, made a great deal of money in the sub prime scandal that cost many Americans half their life savings or more.

  76. “Schrodinger’s Cat (13:38:45) :
    The beeb main news this evening reports that this cold spell is weather, not climate. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8447262.stm
    That is true and a fair point, but then they seem to turn a news story about freezing weather into a another brainwashing propaganda story about global warming – or am I getting paranoid about BBC bias? This comes the day after they announce a year long investigation into biased reporting in response to complaints received by the BBC Trust.”
    ->
    Just because you’re paranoid it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.

  77. Quote:
    “Climate change could be the biggest story of the twenty first century, affecting societies, economies and individuals on a grand scale.”
    Climate change alarmism could be the biggest story of the twenty first century, affecting societies, economies and individuals on a grand scale.
    There, fixed it.

  78. Need to see some change from the BBC ?
    There’s an election coming up in Britain !!
    Time to lobby the Conservative party guys about changes at the top of the BBC, and lobby them hard.
    The Government of the day appoint the executive board members which run the BBC, for some years Labour has been stacking the various Boards with their fellow travellers. The pro AGW position of the BBC flows directly from the kind of people appointed by the current Government .
    Look foreward to some changes there if there is a change of Government and that seems more likely all the time
    The BBC organizational structure consists of the Board of the Governor, the Executive Board, the Creative Board, the Journalism Board, and the Commercial Board.
    The Creative Board, the Journalism Board, and the Commercial Board all report to the Executive Board.
    The Executive Board reports to the Board of Governors.
    The Board of Governors ultimately reports to the Queen.
    The Queen appoints the Board of Governors members with advice from her ministers.
    The Board of Governors has 12 trustee members.
    The Executive Board has 9 directors who report to the Director-General.

  79. One of Patrick Harvie’s hobbies is reading Science Fiction, hmm he’s no doubt refering to MET/Hadley climate forecasts.

  80. If an NGO is funded by the UN, is it still a “Non-Governmental” organization?
    Al Gore mentioned the UN reaching down to the “grass roots” and bypassing governments. Methinks Climate Change was chosen as the big issue because no government can solve it, so it legitimizes the UN.
    Unfortunately I now trust charities as much as I trust corporations. I no longer give them the benefit of the doubt that the money will be used well. Last charity that tried to sign me up, I quizzed the guy in the street for 10 minutes. He kept reassuring me they were doing fantastic work that was really effective. I kept asking how they measured the effectiveness. He kept saying it was really effective… eventually his colleague rang their boss, who didn’t know either.

  81. A bit late on this one. It’s the cold weather.
    A bit OT, but I heard on the early morning BBC Radio 2 breakfast programme yesterday, a newspaper article about UK scientists being very concerned about the Government’s new approach to science, something about not letting scientist study things out of curiousity, but that it must have Government approval before it can be studied! Can’t find it any where & missed which paper it was printed in – it was cold, miserable, & I was half asleep when it was read out! If this is true & the UK Government really are doing this crap, then it’s bye bye real science & hello Joseph Stalin UK style! Didn’t the Soviets screw up their agriculture programme because of political science ideology, with failed yeilded time & time again, having to buy from grain from you Colonials to get them out of a jam? Lisenko or Lysenkovtch???? was the blokes name I seem to recall or something like it who courted Stalin & the Party for favour in the 1950s? Did any Brit out there catch it?

  82. All journalists should understand the science of climate change – its causes, its controversies and its current and projected impacts.
    Love the hubris. *Scientists* don’t even understand all the causes of climate change.
    Alan the Brit — you’ve twigged it: Didn’t the Soviets screw up their agriculture programme because of political science ideology, with failed yeilded time & time again, having to buy from grain from you Colonials to get them out of a jam?
    The bloke’s name is spelled “Lysenko.”

  83. @PaulH from Scotland (17:55:44) :
    And
    @JohnH (23:15:15) :
    If you’d like to join the conversation, please be polite and respectful. He seems like a nice, if somewhat misguided, fellow.
    http://www.patrickharviemsp.com/2010/01/snow-joke/comment-page-1/#comment-1621
    Maybe not so nice after all. Here’s his parting shot
    “OK, you’re really starting to bore me now. You seem determined to just keep bombarding this site all night with huge quantities of self evident rubbish. Once it’s clear that you’re citing material that you can’t possibly take seriously, I think we can call an end to it. If you want to rant about conspiracy theories, go and do it elsewhere.”
    Comment by Patrick — January 8, 2010 @ 12:33 am
    Didn’t realise that Joe Romm had relatives in Scotland!
    I added my two pennies worth as follows-
    Excellents points Paul to which Patrick can only reply. La, la, I can’t hear you! I’m ashamed to be a Scot.
    I think that some more WUWT Scots need to pop into Patricks site and explain a few things.

  84. Stefan (03:49:15), from Adelaide’s Advertiser:

    Less than one cent in every dollar raised by an Australian charity has gone to its intended cause in its first two financial years, documents show.

    The big charities manage to put a lower percentage of donations into the pockets of the executives but pay them very handsomely.
    Rev. Tim Costello, do-gooder and pious believer in AGW, is paid well over Aus$300,000 a year as CEO of World Vision Australia. The head of Australian Red Cross gets nearly four hundred grand, far more than the Australian Prime Minister.
    Many who run charities believe well and truly that charity begins at home (or, at least, in the office) and that whilst we should give until it hurts (and then be more highly taxed in order to give even more), they should get a limo and a nice office and travel first class…
    You say, “Unfortunately I now trust charities as much as I trust corporations.” Unfortunately, I’d say that most large corporations are more accountable than most large charities, so I’d trust charities less. Enron was in the business of making money for its executives, providing energy was merely its cover story. World Vision is in the business of making money for its executives, providing help to impoverished children is its cover story.

  85. I offered J.R. a bet that the current decade will show to have been cooler than the previous one. My bet was $10 000.
    His response is pathetic and hillarious(!) as follows:
    “JR: I’ve been pretty clear that I follow the Nate Silver rule of talking bets with folks who have a presence on the blogosphere. I have bets on this already, and I can’t imagine you’d pay up, since the bet is a rock solid loser.”
    Hahahahaha!

  86. Following my previous commment:
    I threw out the bet to any “Warmists with balls” on the site. J.R. deleted my comment.
    Looks like he’s been taking advice from RealClimate. What a loser.

  87. @Carddan
    Marxism and eugenics both were also considered scientific by their proponents.
    Supporters of eugenics were once so convinced they were right that they killed millions of people they considered unfit or undesirable. Forced sterilizations also took place in the USA.
    Now, back to AGW — the backers of the AGW greenhouse gas seem to not grasp the fundementals of science. The scientific method has been discarded in favor of analyzing trends and using computer model scenarios to see into the future.
    Yet it is an undeniable fact that computer models do not output facts. Computer models do not produce data. An hypothesis must be falsifiable and an experimental outcome must be repeatable in order to be considered as “science.” (Also note — computer models do not qualify as “scientific” experiments, either.)
    I enjoyed the double-think of the poster that said the most informed person knows how ignorant he really is. It’s because I know how much we do not know about the climate that I am highly confident that AGW is not a proven hypothesis.

  88. royfomr (05:11:00) :
    @PaulH from Scotland (17:55:44) :
    And
    @JohnH (23:15:15) :
    If you’d like to join the conversation, please be polite and respectful. He seems like a nice, if somewhat misguided, fellow.
    http://www.patrickharviemsp.com/2010/01/snow-joke/comment-page-1/#comment-1621
    Roy either my cache is causing problems or your post got deleted as well as mine.
    If they did get deleted then he seems not to be used to the arguments being put forward so deletes instead of replying.

  89. Look at some of the funding organizations from their web site:
    “the National Science Foundation, the Open Society Institute, the United Nations Foundation, UNDP, UNHCR, UNICEF, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. Department of State, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the World Bank,”

  90. Dave (05:41:44) :
    I offered J.R. a bet that the current decade will show to have been cooler than the previous one. My bet was $10 000.
    His response is pathetic and hilarious(!) as follows:

    “JR: I’ve been pretty clear that I follow the Nate Silver rule of talking bets with folks who have a presence on the blogosphere. I have bets on this already, and I can’t imagine you’d pay up, since the bet is a rock solid loser.”

    Trying to set up a long-term person-to-person bet of a significant amount with a hostile stranger is “fraught”; it’s such a huge and risky hassle that it’s impractical.
    The way to confront such opponents is to challenge them to take a bet on the opposite side from oneself on a bid/asked prediction market like https://www.Intrade.com. It has a bet available on whether 2019 will be warmer than 2009, which approximates the bet you were proposing. It also has bets on whether 2019 will be warmer than 2009 by 0.2 degrees C (the IPCC’s projection) and whether 2010 will be warmer than 2009, among about ten bets of that nature. They’re under the heading Markets –> Climate and Weather.

  91. 600 years ago people who challenged scientific orthodoxy could end up headless, such as the minority fools who said the earth was not the centre of the universe and orbited the sun, or even that the earth was not flat, or it was not possible to synthesise gold, and this miracle stuff called phlogiston …..
    At least we don’t execute skeptics nowadays although I suspect some of the warmist fanatics might think that a good idea.

  92. PaulH from Scotland (17:55:44) :
    OT, but you may find this interesting.
    I’ve just spent a bit of my evening discussing AGW with Patrick Harvie – a Green Party MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament) on his blog.
    As usual with AGW believers, he’s not interested in facts or science.
    If you’re from Scotland, you may find the conversation enlightening as to the mindset of one of our elected representatives.
    If you’d like to join the conversation, please be polite and respectful. He seems like a nice, if somewhat misguided, fellow.
    http://www.patrickharviemsp.com/2010/01/snow-joke/comment-page-1/#comment-1621
    Unlike JohnH I did manage to post a question, which has been accepted.
    Dena, that was a very impressive post and got just the responses we have come to expect from AGW proponents.

  93. Beth Cooper (20:08:05) :
    Next, our progressive universities will be bringing in a course in gatekeeping. Very selective entry process but gaining gatekeeping credentials will offer graduates high monetary rewards and an open door into an elite coterie of power brokers. :-\
    ERRrrr I think it is already being taught.
    “”The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face. In recent times, however, it has taken on an all new meaning and purpose. In Educating for the New World Order by B. Eakman, the reader finds reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion that there is “…lay, or community, participation (in the decision-making process), while lay citizens were, in fact, being squeezed out.” The Delphi Technique is the method being used to squeeze citizens out of the process, effecting a left-wing take over of the schools.” http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/acf001.htm
    And here is “The Delphi Technique” in actual practice:
    “The break-out sessions are nothing more than the Delphi Technique revisited and a means to divide the attendees and diffuse the conversation. Who ever might be in opposition to the conclusions, policies, or programs the facilitator is advancing is quickly singled out and actively shunned.
    The biggest goal of the facilitator is for him/her to be perceived as part of the group. Once this is done, the facilitator asks for ideas and opinions, leading the group carefully to the pre-determined conclusions and leaving them believing it was all their idea. Only it didn’t work this time. The farmers and ranchers, the cattlemen and horse people stood their ground. The only people shunned and shut out of the meetings were the facilitators.”
    http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2009/05/20/usda-employing-delphi-technique-prepare-to-be-delphi%E2%80%99d/
    I understand some of the meetings got down right amusing, farmers can be a VERY stubborn lot and are not stupid “needing to be addressed at the sixth grade level” as one USDA training manual suggested. The USDA even brought in armed guards!

  94. Carddan (13:43:31) :
    My observation is that the prevailing opinion expressed on this website is that global warming is not being caused by human activity. If this is an accurate assessment, I have two questions. To what extent do you believe you could be mistaken, and, what if anything would cause you to change your opinion?
    That’s easy:
    So little is certain about future increases that I am willimg to wait to see;
    My main interest is for the same bunch of folks to invent a magic elixir to allow us a chance to verify present claims.

  95. Stefan (03:49:15) :
    If an NGO is funded by the UN, is it still a “Non-Governmental” organization?
    Al Gore mentioned the UN reaching down to the “grass roots” and bypassing governments. Methinks Climate Change was chosen as the big issue because no government can solve it, so it legitimizes the UN.
    Reply:
    NGOs are a very clever way to harness the energy of young activists and direct it. Maurice Strong is sometimes credited with coming up with the idea.
    Strong’s early work with YMCA international “…may have been the genesis of Strong’s realization that NGOs (non-government organizations) provide an excellent way to use NGOs to couple the money from philanthropists and business with the objectives of government.” http://sovereignty.net/p/sd/strong.html
    NGOs are not membership steered which makes them so very easy to use for purposes other than what the ordinary membership thinks.
    “Very few of even the larger international NGOs are operationally democratic, in the sense that members elect officers or direct policy on particular issues,” notes Peter Spiro. “Arguably it is more often money than membership that determines influence, and money more often represents the support of centralized elites, such as major foundations, than of the grass roots.” The CGG has benefited substantially from the largesse of the MacArthur, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations. http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html
    A precursor was The ‘Innocents’ Clubs’: http://www.heretical.com/miscella/munzen.html
    “…During the 1920’s and most of the 1930’s Münzenberg played a leading role in the Comintern, Lenin’s front for world-wide co-ordination of the left under Russian control. Under Münzenberg’s direction, hundreds of groups, committees and publications cynically used and manipulated the devout radicals of the West….Most of this army of workers in what Münzenberg called ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ had no idea they were working for Stalin. They were led to believe that they were advancing the cause of a sort of socialist humanism. The descendents of the ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ are still hard at work in our universities and colleges. Every year a new cohort of impressionable students join groups like the Anti-Nazi League believing them to be benign opponents of oppression…”
    I also found this interesting:
    ” The Commission on Global Governance (CGG), was established in 1992, after Rio, at the suggestion of Willy Brandt, former West German chancellor and head of the Socialist International…. In 1991, the Club of Rome (of which Strong is, of course, a member) issued a report called The First Global Revolution, which asserted that current problems “are essentially global and cannot be solved through individual country initiatives.” http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html

  96. This was my post
    http://www.patrickharviemsp.com/2010/01/snow-joke/comment-page-1/#comment-1621
    Patrick, as one of your constituents I am not happy at you last comment. The points raised by Paul are worthy of calm and measured debate, even if you ignore any of the issues raised by the emails released by climategate, there is the issue of the CRU’s lack of proper data security/documentation as outlined by the Harry.txt file. This shows the problems during a period of 2/3 years where a programmer was trying to tidy up a set of programs designed to take the raw data and present it as a database of global temp trends. The lack of proper IT procedures/documentation is shown to be bordering on criminal, if this is the std that the CRU was working to then it brings into doubt any papers based on this data.
    I suggest you take more time to review the issues raised you will see that AGW is no longer a 100% certainty and unless you show that you are also open to this possibility you will be loosing credibility.

  97. Andy Revkin was promoting this crew in his leaving piece for NYT.
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/my-second-half/
    I’m taking a position as senior fellow for environmental understanding at Pace University, situated in the school’s young Academy for Applied Environmental Studies. There’s more background on my plans in the Columbia Journalism Review, the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media and CEJournal.
    I’ll also be working on two books, one for middle school kids on resilience to disasters and another, for adults, on ways to navigate the next 50 years with the fewest regrets.
    Finally…I want to help build networks of journalists and communicators in rich and poor places so that good ideas can be efficiently shared and flawed ones modified. The Earth Journalism Network is one example. Developing Radio Partners is another. When writing my book on the Amazon, I learned about the power of radio (which was an organizing tool for the rubber tappers seeking to gain land rights). But this potential goes way beyond radio. What happens to all those “ one laptop per child” machines? Are they simply dropped off, or are the recipients cultivated as a network?
    http://www.pace.edu/page.cfm?doc_id=14128&frame=news/read.cfm?id=866 “We are extremely pleased that Andy Revkin is joining what we believe is one of the strongest university environmental programs in the nation,” said Geoffrey Bracket Brackett, DPhil (Oxon.), the University’s Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs. “His intellectual expertise and ethical balance will make enormous contributions to helping the Pace Academy in its aim to be a global resource for policy development.”
    Pace awarded Revkin an honorary doctorate in 2007.
    He is starting what will be his third book for adults, about the interlinked issues of sustainability and population, and finishing the second of two books for children on environmental issues. The first has the ironic title “The North Pole Was Here.”
    This is what Revkin is promoting
    http://www.internews.org/
    Climate Leaders Honor Reporters at Internews Earth Journalism Awards
    Nobel Peace Prize winner Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri and Internews celebrated the best in climate change reporting at the Internews Earth Journalism Awards in Copenhagen. Among the presenters were key figures on climate and environmental issues, including Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland; Marina Silva, the former environment minister of Brazil; and award-winning Chinese movie star Li Bingbing, who is also the Global Ambassador for WWF’s Earth Hour.
    “If we are to have any hope of reversing the effects of climate change, then we have a monumental task of educating the six billion people on our planet about how climate change works and what they can do to help,” Dr. Pachauri said. “The media is critical in this effort, since just one reporter has the ability to reach thousands, even millions, of people. These awards help to expand and honour these vitally important efforts.”

  98. @JohnH
    Patrick’s last comment “You seem determined to just keep bombarding this site all night with huge quantities of self evident rubbish.”
    Self evident to who? To him? No awareness nor insight on his part that he might just possibly be wrong, and no interest in engaging in a dialogue to try to understand the other point of view?
    “Forgive them for they know not what they do.”

  99. Stefan:
    Self evident to who? To him? No awareness nor insight on his part that he might just possibly be wrong, and no interest in engaging in a dialogue to try to understand the other point of view?

    He’s probably read one of those “How to answer a skeptic” sites and thinks he knows it all. This is why Lucy Skywalker’s counter-wiki project is so important. All you really knowledgeable folks should get over there and pitch in. (Please post the link again, Lucy.)

Comments are closed.