When the public learns about huge faults in the skeptic scientist accusation, combined with the faults in the IPCC, the result may send AGW into total collapse.
Guest post submitted by Russell Cook
I’m preaching to the choir here when I say appearances of people hiding AGW’s problems beg for clichés – the emperor has no clothes, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, nothing to see here, move along. But I’m not a scientist, nor do I have a scintilla of expertise to say with any authority that the IPCC is wrong and skeptic scientists are right.
The one thing I can do is offer an ordinary citizen’s informed view of what the barrier is preventing skeptics’ viewpoints from being heard, and how that barrier can turn from the paper-thin success story it is into a cancer that has the potential to wipe out the entire ideology of AGW.
Notice that I said ‘informed view’. I watch the mainstream media, but I also read sites like this one, while a large chunk of the public does not. Therein lies the problem, as evidenced by this example: On October 12, 2007, the PBS NewsHour aired a glowing broadcast about Al Gore winning the Nobel Prize, in which IPCC scientist Michael Oppenheimer offered scary scenarios rivaling those in Gore’s movie. Two days prior, a UK judge ruled there were nine errors in the movie and it could only be shown in UK schools “with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination”. Yet, I defy anybody to locate a solitary mention of this in any NewsHour broadcast.
See the problem? From my extensive digging through the NewsHour’s broadcast archives, Michael Oppenheimer has appeared on the program eight times and three other IPCC scientists have appeared there on six occasions collectively, all speaking at length about AGW with no rebuttal. How many times have skeptic scientists been allowed a similar opportunity there? Zero. Our friend Pat Michaels appeared once briefly in a taped segment to give his thoughts about ClimateGate…. four months after that event was breaking news.
The nothing to see here, move along tactic works fine as long as the bulk of the audience doesn’t know legitimate skeptic scientists exist.
The keyword is ‘legitimate’, and that’s where the barrier comes in. When a large portion of people around the world learn about global warming through Al Gore’s movie and through internet repetitions of its details, or from viral regurgitated details from anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan’s 1997 The Heat is On and 2004 Boiling Point, then the perception is there are no legitimate skeptic scientists.
The Gore / Gelbspan / internet repetitions are one-and-the-same. Skeptic scientists are accused of being in a fossil fuel-funded conspiracy to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact“, and this mimics the old tobacco industry conspiracy. Everybody remembers how well that one turned out.
The key to the whole accusation is the “reposition global warming” sentence – it’s in Gore’s movie, it’s in two of the three global warming nuisance lawsuits, and was spread out as far as the eye could see on the internet beginning largely in 1996. When I first stumbled onto the phrase in late 2009, my google searches yielded seemingly endless amounts of accusers using the phrase, though lately all of my online articles about it have ‘tainted’ the search results rather noticeably.
Here’s the big problem I found: That accusation is based on a 1991 memo no one was allowed to see, using an out-of-context sentence, promoted by a person who was not a Pulitzer winner despite accolades to the contrary, who was credited with finding the memo by Al Gore, but Gore had the memo collection in his own possession four years earlier.
And just days ago, Gore mysteriously contradicts himself again in Rolling Stone about who found the memo. He also slams the mainstream media, who’ve been largely responsible for creating and maintaining the barrier keeping the public unaware about skeptic scientists. But, that’s a rather old ruse to to prompt left-leaning journalists to say to themselves, “I’m not going to be duped into diluting the importance of this issue by giving equal time to skeptic scientists”. None of the current media people are insulted because they say, “I’m not that guy.” It’s been a very clever tactic, of course dependent on reporters intuitively knowing all skeptic scientists must be accepting fossil fuel money. Seventeen+ months of research on this allows me to point out these problems in my latest article, “Pt II: Is Gore’s Accusation of Skeptic Climate Scientists Still a Hoax?”
The thing to consider here is that AGW promoters absolutely, positively do not want to see the kind of debate that occurred at last November’s US House testimony between Richard Lindzen and Ralph Cicerone. Otherwise, it becomes abundantly obvious that Lindzen’s level of expertise is not something that would be paid for and pre-scripted in an Exxon conference room. And most critical of all, no reporter must ask in response to such an accusation, “There is proof that he’s literally paid to make that stuff up, right?”
Their mantra is ‘settled science’ / ‘corrupt skeptics’ / ‘the media dilutes the issue by talking to skeptics’. This only works when there is faith in that whole system, as in the US investment banks circa 2007 and Bernie Madoff’s ponzi scheme.
Wipe out the faith in this mantra and what happens?
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Not likely. Too much solid science supports the notion that the huge increase in CO2 since the 1700′s is affecting earth’s climate. More likely that skeptics to this will slowly find something else to rally against as the evidence to changes in earth’s natural systems continue to mount.
====
The current rally is against uninformed opinions driving economies.
First things first.
The way I see it is that the problem of children’s ignorance is the teachers themselves. They have been infected by this awful scam. Teachers, per se, are not renowned for their original thinking.
I see that BJ Edwards has invaded the WUWT site.
I would like to warn everyone that this troll has battled with the likes of Delingpole (of the UK Daily Telegraph), and lost. He/she is now attempting to infriltrate our most illustrious message board.
Take care in what you say!
It is no secret that the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia (home of Phil Jones) was founded with money from British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell. Even Wikipedia’s history of CRU includes that. It’s a strange world indeed that the AGW enthusiasts are in fact funded by Big Oil and that’s OK, but the skeptics are vilified by the cries of tainted funding.
This is what the BBC wrote apparently in response to a complaint recently from a UK MEP (Member of the European Parliament) :
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2011/06/flying-porkies.html
“Thank you for your correspondence concerning the Climate Change page on the BBC’s Weather website. Firstly, it is worth pointing out that in terms of impartiality, the BBC has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.”
This is the BBC that used to make superb science programs like Horizon which even at age 8 I would stay up and watch even though it was past bedtime 🙂 And now that same series was given to Paul Nurse’s recent shameful program.
My own position is “undecided”, I suppose lukewarmer ? – certainly of the opinion that its not worth billions of my tax £s spending on it. The lack of coverage of the debate though means I visit places like this to get an even handed balanced exposure to the debate – which in turn may lead me to be more skeptical.
What I would like is for the BBC to restore my faith – I actually DO like it as an organisation despite what others may think. What I want is an honest, open, even-handed debate exploring all arguments and all avenues. What I get though is driven by the attitude shown in the quote above.
Self-defeating nonsense.
I think the best argument against the “sceptics are funded by big oil” lie is to remind the “believers” in this lie that “big oil” is actually having difficulty in supplying customers rapidly enough and does not need to promote itself or its products at all. Propoganda is a waste of money for them.
I hardly see any adds like “go well, go Shell” – prominent in the 70’s anymore – in fact I can’t remember any recent oil adds.
How many of your neighbours picket their local gas station ? Pronably none.
People have voted with their economic decisions. As my brother once said to me in the 70’s “anyone who thinks people are going to give up their cars is nuts”
With the proliferation in vehicles and car companies I’m kinda thinking he might have been right. Even the greenies drive cars – OK they’re Prius but they still burn fuel.
Hugh Pepper says:
June 25, 2011 at 2:27 pm
The NULL hypothesis stands. The AGW proponents hide thier formulas and refuse to debate.
Which brings us to the political arena, where the AGW proponents have made thier stand.
They will more than likely be up on charges as soon as the political winds are finished shifting the other way. Matter of time. The pols won’t save them, but will be more than eager to throw them under the bus to save thier own careers. Bet on it.
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 12:51 pm
“Too much solid science supports the notion that the huge increase in CO2 since the 1700′s is affecting earth’s climate.”
I ask you for the 1,000,000 time: do you have some reasonably well-confirmed physical hypothesis which goes beyond Arrhenius and which enables explanation and prediction of some phenomenon that can be classified as CAGW. No such physical hypotheses means no science. You know that none exist. So, please give up this nonsense about solid science. There is none.
Things would be better for us sceptics if only the people writing these blogs were comprehensible. I think I get the gist, but it’s not easy.
Let us take a lesson from these climate warriors – make the message clear, simple and repeated ad infinitum.
Hugh Pepper says:
June 25, 2011 at 2:27 pm
“There is an accepted process which you and other “skeptics” are able to join, if you so choose. If you have well researched evidence to support your case, present it.”
Once again, Hugh Pepper, aka “the computer,” reveals that he has no clue about scientific method. Science is the critical enterprise par excellence. Some scientists propose hypotheses and all scientists criticize the hypotheses, including those who proposed them. There is no symmetry between a scientist proposing a hypothesis and a critic. Criticism based on observational evidence must be supplemented by criticism based upon logic and scientific method, something that not one pro-AGW scientist has the least inkling of, including Hugh Pepper.
$100 Billion spent on the study of Global Warming, and what do we have to show for this vast sum?
Can’t predict an earthquake, volcano or even the weather next season with the Global Models.
The smart ones got out of boat a while back. The greedy, the arrogant and the just plain dumb sail into a cruel storm of public anger.
The end for AGW will come faster than previously imagined.
R. Gates says:
“…Too much solid science supports the notion that the huge increase in CO2 since the 1700′s is affecting earth’s climate.”
The huge increase in CO2 began in the 1700’s? Does that mean that the only way to save the planet is to turn the clock back, as far as our technology and population size is concerned, to that of the 1700’s? If that is what you want, count me out. I’ll take my chances with a little warming.
Hugh Pepper must be very new to the “debate” or he would know that the sceptical scientists have been battling for years to have their work published. He should know that the so called prestigeous journals will not publish papers questioning the “settled science”. Like much of the MSM they are in thrall, for whatever reasons, of the AGW hypothesis.
As rbateman points out above; the hypothesis is being falsified not by scientists but by nature itself. As the rate of emissions diverge ever more with the temperature the hypothesis is no longer sustainable. It has failed. Now the race is on to find some explanation for the temperature slowdown without referring to the sun, clouds or oceans because those have been the drivers of temperature up til now but the warmers know it’s CO2 and nothing else.
The sceptics have a problem having their voices heard. The AGWers have a problem because their hypothesis has failed.
I think it goes beyond simple exploitation of the subsidy river, etc. I think Big Oil, and anyone else with relevant expertise and skin in the game can conclude fairly rapidly that the “replace oil with renewables” mantra is a no-hoper fantasy. So, in a sense and to a degree, Big Oil etc. have little to lose by letting that train wreck proceed, because fossil fuels will be the de facto necessary fall-back.
But the risk is that in the process, the train wreck will harm so much of the economy that demand and infrastrucure are compromised and suppressed for decades to come. Given that there is little that Big Oil or anyone who is vulnerable to the demonization Alinsky tactic can do in the short term, it may just be that they’re keeping their powder dry. Only those like the Kock bros. who are secure enough and far-sighted enough to defy the hate-mongers can overtly oppose Greenism and Climate Pseudo-Science. Big Oil is probably re-assessing the risk factors very frequently now.
It’s on balance probably just as well that Big Oil doesn’t weigh in at this point, though the atmosphere and optics suitable for putting some real money into skeptic science is fast approaching, if the House sticks to its guns.
typo: Koch bros. I mis-spelled it phonetically, sort of.
I came across this quote the other day attributed to Georg Lichtenberg which for me sums it all up.
He writes
“The most heated defenders of a science are those who cannot endure the slightest sneer at it, are commonly those whose have not made very much progress in it and are secretly aware of this defect.”
So many quotes apply. Here’s one:
It isn’t what we don’t know that gives us trouble, it’s what we know that ain’t so.
—Will Rogers
R Gates.
I often find that the way something is expressed can make a difference to people’s understanding of an issue. This might help you in your confusion and anxiety.
Let’s say that we currently have 400ppm (a bit high but a nice round figure and generally acceptable to all parties) of CO2 in the Atmosphere.
Now pay attention!
400 divided by 1,000,000 then multiplied by 100 = 0.04 by my figuring that is
1/ 25th PART OF ONE PERCENT….
OK, once again let’s be generous…let’s say that the amount of CO2 has increased in the modern era by 100ppm.
100 divided by 1,000,000 then multiplied by 100 = 0.01 or
ONE HUNDREDTH PART OF ONE PERCENT.
Now maybe, just maybe, if you were to conduct an experiment in a sealed black box in a top laboratory; you ‘might’ just be able to detect a change in the infra red absorbption characteristics of the ‘modified atmosphere’.
But in an open system, such as our planet, where conduction, radiation, and convection are free to take place, where the average temperature at 300hPa is between -30 and -60 degrees C…
where the Arctic and Antarctic regions are in frigid darkness for three months of the year, and where ocean currents can transport heat thousands of miles….
…a change in atmospheric composition of ONE HUNDREDTH PART OF ONE PERCENT is….
I’m hunting for the right word here….NEGLIBIBLE.
(by the way 300hPa is the air pressure at the cruising height of airliners. That turbulence you experience is the earth’s natural cooling system at work.)
Now R Gates does that make you feel any better?
No? …Tsk, you know I didn’t think it would!
Big oil and Maggie created CRU, against coal. Coal is abundant practically everywhere and cheap resource. Accusing ‘skeptics’ of being funded by big oil is propaganda deflection to avoid scrutiny of their interests. The clever bit came when this combination roped in the greens to push their agenda for them, and they’ve been easy enough to keep distracted.
charles nelson says: June 25, 2011 at 5:10 pm
“Now maybe, just maybe, if you were to conduct an experiment in a sealed black box in a top laboratory; you ‘might’ just be able to detect a change in the infra red absorbption characteristics of the ‘modified atmosphere’.”
No such experiment needed. Just look at the Earth’s outgoing IR spectrum. The top graph. See the big chunk missing around 600-700 cm^-1? That’s what trace GHG’s do. It isn’t minor.
Not only R. Gates but also the APS, AAAS, AMS, NAS, Royal Soc, CSIRO,,, and most, if not all, scientific/technical representative bodies have official positions recognising the science behind global warming.
The MSM would be at fault if they ignored these authorities and followed a few bloggers instead.
The commenters here at WUWT would be better advised to put their efforts into convincing these representative bodies to change rather than mouthing off at poor old R. Gates and the MSM. Many WUWT commenters are members of professional bodies. Are the WUWT commenters making an effort to influence their own professional body?
Why has no-one explained the ‘Keeling’ graph relationship to the ‘UAH’ satellite measurement of average global temperature??
With a constant increase in CO2 concentration (Keeling graph) and a varying (dip, then increase, then plateau of) average global temperature (UAH data), surely the premise that CO2 drives global temperature is debunked…
With out accelerated warming, AGW is without any scientific foundation.
The global mean temperature data shows no accelerated warming due to increase in human emission of CO2 as shown in the following graph.
http://bit.ly/lUQBhX
The IPCC interpreted the data by comparing the global mean temperature trend for one period that has only one warming phase with the trend for a longer period that has both a warming and cooling phases, and it then declared accelerated warming. This is fraud.
http://bit.ly/b9eKXz
The AGW scare has no scientific foundation.
Nick Stokes says:
“No such experiment needed.”
That is the mantra of the alarmist crowd. Models trump experiments in their world. Not in ours.
“reposition global warming as theory rather than fact”,
And from the Alarmist side…
“ behaving as if climate change exists and is real”
From a British Think Tank
Warm Words :How are we telling the climate story and can we tell it better?
“To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken.”
http://www.ippr.org/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=485