This is quite something. It is sort of a reverse “he who must not be named” meme, and we have a prominent meteorology dean dissing climate colleagues:
“When I listen to some of my colleagues who make the pronouncements they do, they come across as speaking on behalf of the Deity. This doesn’t work with Senators.” – John Snow, former Dean of the College of Geographic and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Oklahoma
That is from this article by the Texas State Climatologist, Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon at his blog, here’s the setup:
John Snow, former Dean of the College of Geographic and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Oklahoma, is one of the people working on this. Two weeks ago, he met with staffers of two representatives from Oklahoma. With both sets, the response was the same: “Don’t talk to us about climate. Now, what can we do for you?”
Curious about this, John N-G asked Snow – why? He writes:
They were perfectly willing to talk about weather and weather observations. They were even willing to talk about seasonal and interannual variability and long-range forecasting (which fall under the broad category of climate prediction and have major impacts on agriculture). But the basic message was consistent: Don’t use the c-word.
My first guess was that these were Democrats who had become shell-shocked at lack of success and loss of political capital with the pre-Copenhagen climate bill. But no, these were Republican congressmen who, as a matter of basic principle, were avoiding taking any active role in climate policy altogether.
I found it rather disconcerting to hear that my current profession (climatology) was viewed by our leaders as being so evil that it should be treated with the same respect as Lord Voldemort himself. So I asked John about why he thought the c-word had become so politically incorrect.
“I think it’s related to how some in our community laid out the climate change agenda and didn’t do a good job”, Snow said. “We need to get our own house in order for how we present the issues.”
Full article here
It occurs to me this man doesn’t take awfully much time absorbing what is going on in the world.
It all flipped when Anthropogenic Global Warming toting climatologists
made I.P.C.C. mean “Internationally Perceived Communication Con”.
And they won’t stop. They have no one to blame but themselves.
jae says:
May 11, 2011 at 7:01 pm
[———It appears to me that Snow doesn’t have a frigging clue about reality. That comment is so disgusting that I cannot think of an adjective that is “low” enough to do justice (fortunately, I guess). —-]
——————————————————————————
Jae. ‘thems were exactly my sentiments’ as well when I read it – couldn’t have put it better.
Douglas
Banjo @ur momisugly May 11, 2011 at 6:21 pm
– brilliant, thanks for the laugh. I’ll go whack the jug into gear myself (a kiwi).
When morons roam, even the slow become disconcerted.
Apparently those Republican congressmen had an inkling of which side of the “debate” Snow cheers for and headed him off at the pass. Pretty smart of them, I’d say. Note how they’re disparaged as “avoiding taking any active role in climate policy altogether.” If I had to guess, I’d say that means they don’t support limits on “carbon.”
its snowing in our snowy mountains looks like a cold winter for australia . I feel sorry for all the global warmers out there in wolly world
That’s because when they speak, they exhale dangerous polluting carbon dioxide. Less speaking=less pollution.
JPeden says:
May 11, 2011 at 6:39 pm
“it seems fairly likely that by now no one can be sure what anyone else is even saying.”
Certainly bodes ill for any conspiracy theorists! Plausible deniablity is no longer an option….
Observations trump theory every time.
As a “climate realist” I am delighted that “climate” has become a dirty word in political circles. However, knowing politics as I do, the above tactic by republicans is just another way for them to achieve the same tax-raising ends as Democrats, but by using different words.
Instead of raising tax, and reducing what you can and cannot do for the purpose of tackling climate change, it will be for the purpose of preventing crop failures, or to mitigate against droughts, or floods.
All stuff that people are happy to avoid. So in reality, what they are saying is, we are no longer tackling the old scam of man-made climate change… We are now tackling nature itself! GIVE US YOUR MONEY AND YOUR COMPLIANCE!
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
It would seem this Snow person with a name that reminds one of cold got his cummuppence in short order. This hopefully is the new and politically correct method of dealing with people that have a problem with scientific truthfullness. Licking his wounds and throwing spite will not help his muddled and precious agenda. Some navel gazing and contemplation may help his unfortunate obsession, but I doubt it.
Thank you senators, take no prisoners.
Theo Goodwin says:
May 11, 2011 at 5:41 pm
“When I listen to some of my colleagues who make the pronouncements they do, they come across as speaking on behalf of the Deity. This doesn’t work with Senators.” – John Snow, former Dean of the College of Geographic and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Oklahoma
That is because they are speaking on behalf of the Deity. CO2 is a sky god.
========Perfect !
CO2 is a sky god.
we need that on t shirts:-)
Katherine says:
May 12, 2011 at 12:22 am
Apparently those Republican congressmen had an inkling of which side of the “debate” Snow cheers for and headed him off at the pass. Pretty smart of them, I’d say. Note how they’re disparaged as “avoiding taking any active role in climate policy altogether.” If I had to guess, I’d say that means they don’t support limits on “carbon.”
—————————————————
It may also mean they will do nothing to stop the EPA.
With the current lawsuit, this aspect is frightening.
What it means is that nobody in their right mind is going to go out on the climactic limb with the political winds shifting.
The C word? BS detector? So we can now agree that BS and C are both fertilizer?
C as in CO2, plant food. Who would have guessed?
It’s not a dirty word back in dear old Blighty! I see our wonderful Wet Office is smothering itself in the slimey stuff. An article to the Western Morning News (Devon, Cornwall & Somerset), says that the House of Commons Transport Committee reommends another £10M of hard pressed taxpayers money should be handed over to them to improve “computing power for decade long forecasts” (I kid you not! That’s the calibre of twits we have in office), on the grounds that it is small fry compared to the £280M/day cost to the economy last “ultra cold” winter. Committee Chairman Ms Louise Ellman (Socialist MP for Liverpool Riverside) said that “Ministers must look again at the resources available to the Met Office”. (She’s not kidding “look again”, they’re getting more whilst schools, hospitals, defence, & the elderly are getting less!) AND would you Adam ‘n Eve it? The Wet Office strangely “welcomed the committee’s findings & it’s “acknowledgement” of the quality of our short-range forecasts!” (It’s probably going to snow tomorrow, etc., etc, probably). The Wet Office said “The recommendation on additional funding recognises the potential for longer-range forecasts to provide useful advice on all timescales!” Ms Ellman went on to proclaim that “Every airport operator must now be pushed to plan properly for bad weather so that people are not left stranded & without basic supplies in terminals for days on end!” Well in that case they’d better ignore the Wet Office forecasts & speak to Piers Corbyn. Essentially Ms Ellman seems to be claiming it’s the airport operators’ fault. She also said that “A culture change in the rail industry is needed to ensure that passnegers are looked after during periods of disruption. In future, any failure to provide information about service disruption during severe weather should cost the firms money.” So there you have it. It’s cost them less revenue due to cancelled services, whilst they still pay for the line useage, etc, it costs them more in pay & overtime & equipment to clear lines, etc. What she means is that Big Guvmnt should levy a tax on them as “punishment” for a state funded failure! The socilaist rhetoric says it’s all private industry’s fault that they couldn’t handle “extreme weather” causing transport disruption because they have been spoon fed hard-pressed taxpayer funded (£234M) Wet Office long-range forecasts, from a £34M super-water-cooled-puter with the carbon footprint of a small town, & industry can’t handle the “ultra cold” weather as a result. Simples! At least the paper’s editorial comment notes the irony of this & that whilst better preparedness & plans are needed, the Wet Office is one of many organisations telling everyone we’re in for warmer winters! When you condition someone to respond a particular way, don’t be surprised if they cannot respond differently when the opposite of what they have been conditioned to, happens!
Real Climatologists are reaping what they have sown. Astrology and Cosmetology are now perceived to be more scientific than Climatology. And compared to the “climate research” of Mann, et al., Jones, Steig, and others, they are!
But mitigation was the preferred alternative for advocates of action at the national level. The choice presented to Congress had been presented as either making drastic changes with massive economic implications, or condemning the world to catastrophe. In effect, this was no choice at all: if you choose to condemn the world to catastrophe, are you not evil?
The problem these Climatologists have is after working with their ‘models’ for so long, they think they can actually control the weather. Maybe the politicians know better for once.
So originally the theory was that climate change would lead to less snow, but now the theory is that less Snow might lead to acceptance of climate change?
After over 30 years of parading the political agenda of climate change policy before the public, some climate ‘researchers’ have come to realize that all of their work is subject to critical review via the Internet (sympathetic ppers notwithstanding). Eventually any error is susceptible to the glaring light of day, and once revealed, will remain as conspicuous as a turd in the punchbowl.
The only way to protect their professional reputations and careers is to eschew any connection to the flawed ‘science’ of the past.
When you build your own personal strawman that has the public make “climate [fill in your own descriptor]” synonymous with taxes (or a general “wallet-ectomy”) and/or disaster, don’t be surprised when politicians run away when they see you coming.
Politicians and business leaders don’t want to know about “problems” (they have plenty already), they want to know about “solutions.” They had been given “cap and trade” as a “solution” that solved the “climate crisis” and generated revenue at the same time (a win-win). Unfortunately, after the “rubes” who were to pay the bills got a load of it all, they saw that not only wasn’t there a solution, they weren’t even sure if the “problem” was really a problem.
Republicans cannot stop the EPA at this point because both the Senate and the President have veto power over that. After defunding the ‘Czars’ and having the President ignore that entirely, I’m not entirely sure they can even defund the EPA.
The Deity presumably that means El, no sorry Al
“… Snow said. “We need to get our own house in order for how we present the issues.””
Only part of the problem. They need to get back to doing real science rather than promoting non-scientific myths as activists.