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?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I see many lukewarmers, CAGW proponents and some sceptics banter around the word conspiracy, often with derision. Statements like, “Really?, The entire climate science community is involved in attempting to establish a one world government. Scientific journals, and esteemed associations all involved as a conspiratorial cabal to redistribute wealth and control energy production and output…get real” Many times the posters reference is summarilly dismissed. Troll tactics require this.
This idea that a conspiracy exists, mainly due to the efforts of AGW proponents, with help from the MSM, and also misunderstanding by many of those who are sceptical of AGW. I think few would argue that the definition of the conspiracy embodies secrecy, and ‘evil intentions’. In fact the 3 out of the 5 contextual uses listed in the dictionary utilize this terminology in the definition, along with words like ‘corrupt’ and ‘illegal’.
The reality is quite different IMO. The reality is that anyone who has spent the time to research the “Green Agenda”, which would include the complex ties of many international organisations (UN, IPCC, WWF, WMO, IMF, Greenpeace, etc, etc.) must come to one of two conclusions:
1. The goal is in fact to establish a one world government run by unelected officials.
2. Somebody is attempting to foist the idea that a one world government is imminent, when in fact it is not.
Given the scope and depth of such an undertaking the likelihood of #2 above being true is slim at best. I would be interested in comments illustrating why a person or persons would attempt this type of deception.
My point is this: nothing has been done in ‘secret’. We have heard from IPCC, UN officials, along with the captains of industry. They have said publicly and repeatedly what their agenda is, and it is #1 above. Al Gore, Mr. Wirth, Hansen, and all the rest have been complicit in furthering this agenda. The people responsible are unnamed, for the most part, and naturally own the media.
Thank god for the internet or this might well have been a conspiracy: done in secret behind our backs to wake up one day and find our lives quite different. As it stands, it is not a conspiracy. It is up in your face, eyes wide open, and as many above have stated succinctly above, a grab for power, control, and filthy lucre.
Your definitional argument doesn’t quite wash, as this is a case of “hiding in plain view”, plus heavy reliance on Big Lie techniques. By making what is obvious seem implausible, the Strong-Stern-Schneider plans can proceed without needing to do more than keep the MSM compliant. Which has been fairly easy so far, with the worrying partial exception of Fox News, which happens to (probably as a result) outdraw the next 3 or 4 competitors combined.
Nick Stokes…is that mighty chunk of the spectrum down entirely to CO2 or all the ‘greenhouse gases’? A term I hate for it’s loaded, ‘sealed’ box implication?
Gaylon says @ur momisugly June 25, 2011 at 7:48 pm “The goal is in fact to establish a one world government run by unelected officials.”
So you are trying to argue that you are not engaging in conspiracy theory antics by writing that above? Interesting…
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 12:51 pm
What a pile of crock that is, R. Gates. Your whole argument is one big lie. And I’ll give you evidence: Remember the recent Hockey Stick Michael Mann proposed for sea level changes? No? well, here’s the reference:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/23/reduce-your-co2-footprint-by-recycling-past-errors/
Willis did an excellent job of refuting it, but it was Mann himself that destroyed his own theory. If you’ll click on the above link and take a look at the figure “North Carolina Sea Level Rise from Tidal Gauges and Kemp 2011 (Sand and Tump Points)” then notice the year the curve begins to rise:
~1880 (arguably as early as 1870, perhaps even 1860!)
This curve didn’t start to rise in 1950, or 1960 or 1970, when AGW people tell us the globe started to experience excessive CO2. In fact, the curve for the Hampton Roads tide gauge had been on the upswing for at least 80 years before the seminal year of 1950 these AGW clowns posit is the approximate time when global warming took off. Stated another way, 1950 is about in the middle of the of the curve, certainly not at the beginning.
So what does that tell you? Does it say that Mann’s supposed Global Warming started at the end of the 1800′s?? I’m pretty sure Mann doesn’t want you to consider the obvious, which is (if his curve is anywhere near accurate), that sea level rise (and hence warming that causes the rise) started way, WAY before the middle of the last century when CO2 took off.
So there goes your entire argument wherein you say–”CO2 since the 1700′s is affecting earth’s climate” when in reality, humans haven’t been significant contributors to CO2 since the middle of the 20th Century (again, starting somewhere between 1950 and 1960).
So I’m calling you out for abject fabrication–your argument that somehow mankind’s CO2 from the 1700′s and the 1800′s is supposed to be the reason for our Global Warming (or is it just Climate Change or is it simply Climate Disruption) simply isn’t supportable.
And you say “Too much solid science…”.
Such a statement, sir, is laughable!
But keep it up–it’s statements like yours that are sinking the AGW cause; making false claims and bogus analyses is the best way I know to lose an argument.
RockyRoad says @ur momisugly June 25, 2011 at 9:18 pm “when in reality, humans haven’t been significant contributors to CO2 since the middle of the 20th Century (again, starting somewhere between 1950 and 1960)”
Sorry, just a bit fuzzy about this, but when exactly did the industrial revolution start? It was a tad before 1950, no?
RockyRoad says @ur momisugly June 25, 2011 at 9:18 pm And I’ll give you evidence: Remember the recent Hockey Stick Michael Mann proposed for sea level changes?…If you’ll click on the above link and take a look at the figure “North Carolina Sea Level Rise from Tidal Gauges ”
Citing one location isn’t proof of anything, pro/con. To claim it is simply shows you do not understand the science you seek to dismiss.
What ios\\s this post about?
Some `insiders’ point that the author has forgotten to explain?
What is this post about?
Some `insiders’ point that the author forgot to explain?
Charles Nelson,
It includes all GHG’s. But in that band, especially the upper end (near 666 cm-1), CO2 is dominant. This plot shows the breakdown. It’s reversed from the other one – in wavelength rather than frequency. So relative to the blue plot, the “missing chunk” is at the right end – starting at about 14 microns. The blue plot doesn’t correspond to an observed spectrum, but plots the amount that goes from ground to space without absorption. The observed spectrum, of course, includes what has been reradiated.
And “Smokey says: June 25, 2011 at 7:21 pm
“Models trump experiments in their world. Not in ours.”
This is not a model. It is an observation of the real world.
R. Gates could easily start by looking at the Vostok ice cores on the internet-the changes in temperature precede the changes in CO2 by 6-800 years. So far not explained but sufficient to cast doubt on any idea that the reverse is the case. Anybody who states “the science is settled” is clearly not scientific. Einsteins ideas are still regularly tested-in the last couple of years by observing that bursts of radiation that had travelled for 13 billion years arrived at Earth eleven minutes apart for very short wavelengths as predicted and some very clever satellites with super gyroscopes confirmed the presence of gravity waves. If one of these tests does not confirm his sums it is back to the drawing board. Climate science is kindergarden stuff-the absorption spectra for infrared on atmospheric CO2 are saturated. If R. Gates can understand that he will understand there is really nothing else to discuss and all the pretty graphs and studies on Arctic ice are good fun but irrelevant. Try to remember that Amundsen sailed a wooden boat across the top of Canada in 1903 and then sailed across the top of Russia. Geoff B
Dan in California says:
June 25, 2011 at 2:52 pm
It’s a very familiar tactic of the environmentalist (warmist) crowd – projection. Project your own vices upon your enemies, make them look bad instead.
As for you, R. Gates, I am tired of the dogmatic way you repeat your mantra of misleading nonsense. Go to sleep.
Nick…look at that graph you referenced me to…then in your minds eye scale up or down those individual ‘bands’ in relation to their proportion of the total volume/mass of the atmosphere…..oxygen nitrogen helium co2 water vapour methane
Let’s accept that CO2 does have an absorbption spectrum as displayed but as it comprises ONE 25th part of ONE PERCENT of the atmosphere, the extra energy absorbed/trapped could only be fractional.
So I stick with NEGLIBIBLE as my term to describe CO2’s ability to capture/trap heat.
More importantly I assert the total dominance of the water vapour, convection system as the engine of climate and thereby refute the ‘greenhouse theory’ on the grounds that the upper regions of our atmosphere are ‘radiatively coupled’ with SPACE which is well known to be rather cold.
And also on the aesthetic semantic grounds that the very word ‘greenhouse’ invokes a rigid and impenenrable atmospheric barrier, an image which is entirely misleading when one considers just how ‘fuzzy’ the atmosphere actually is.
Put it a different way, there’s plenty of cold to go around. No shortage of cold whatsoever.
Vast tracts of the world are frigid dismal wasteland or ocean, even in their short miserable summers!
Anyone who has ever flown long haul will have noticed the in-flight display, the one that tells you where you are, your speed and the temperature outside the cabin….
the average temperature at 300hPa is -35C over the Equator and -60Centigrade over the poles, that’s cruising altitude…that turbulence you sometimes feel is the plane hitting air as it rises cools and falls…that is the earth’s amazing natural thermostatic control at work. It’s capacity to cool dwarfs CO2 warming like an elephant would an ant!
So…you really don’t have to worry about CO2 Global Warming. Honest.
And if you suscribe to current ‘peak oil’ theories you’ve got absolutely nothing to worry about whatsover…!!! Well Climatewise anyway.
The AGW failed with the general public because the predicted consequences just aren’t happening and every time the alarmists do drive a stake in the ground with a near term prediction they get it spectacularly wrong. Who forgets the shameless prediction of worsening hurricanes made while Katrina and Rita victims in 2005 where still trying to get back to their homes and then for the next 6 years and counting there was relatively little Atlantic hurricane activity. Or the prediction that UK kids wouldn’t know what snow is like then the UK gets hammered with a series of hard winters the so-called climate experts failed miserably to predict.
The general public doesn’t need a PhD in climatology to hear screechy panicked predictions and then see the predictions fail spectacularly. The purveyors of doom then become regarded with about as much respect as the proverbial guy walking up and down the sidewalk with a sign saying the world is going to end.
The BBC no longer mentions Global Warming. Now that is a REAL change…
.
Well said, Dave Springer! Most people I know make no claim to being able to work out the climate physics, but they are not fools. They evaluate the experts by checking on the accuracy of the predictions they make. Enough years have now elapsed to make a useful number of these evaluations possible, and every passing year advances the public’s confidence in their BS detectors. In their experience, there is little difference between the used car salesman saying “You have to sign straight away, I can’t hold this one for you”, and the warmist saying “This is so important you have to take action immediately!” when the most lurid of his predictions are for 50 or 100 years in the future. Unfulfilled promises and rush tactics are deal breakers for most people.
charles nelson says:
June 25, 2011 at 5:10 pm
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.
——
I have no confusion and only have anxiiety about paying my kids continually rising college tuition.
Ralph says:
June 26, 2011 at 9:27 am
The BBC no longer mentions Global Warming. Now that is a REAL change…
.
——-
Wonder what this would be then:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/
Moderate Republican says:
June 25, 2011 at 9:57 pm
“RockyRoad says @ur momisugly June 25, 2011 at 9:18 pm “when in reality, humans haven’t been significant contributors to CO2 since the middle of the 20th Century (again, starting somewhere between 1950 and 1960)”
Sorry, just a bit fuzzy about this, but when exactly did the industrial revolution start? It was a tad before 1950, no?”
So AGW started the moment the first steam engine was invented in your opinion? I know you’re being deliberately obtuse; or let’s just say a troll; but if you really believe that i have some carbon credits for a bargain basement price for you…
R. Gates says:
June 26, 2011 at 11:08 am
Quick challenge for you…
Find the words ‘global warming’ on the page you linked.
The BBC uses ‘climate change’ now.
Sharpen up!
Moderate Republican says:
June 25, 2011 at 9:57 pm
Sorry, just a bit fuzzy about this, but when exactly did the industrial revolution start?
====================================================================
Right after it starting warming up a little from the Little Ice Age …….
…..we couldn’t continue to do things the same way as in the past, we had to figure out how to be more productive……….or die
You might say the Little Ice Age was the greatest catalyst to human ingenuity and invention…..
Nick, while your spectrum graph is mathematically correct, aborption in situ acts differently. How much re-emitted far infrared goes down to heat our head, and how much is re-emitted away from our head? And what if water vapor and other greenhouse gases are saturated, as might be the case over an evaporating, water vapor-filled sea surface atmosphere? Where does the left over far infrared go?
Nature is messy and only loosly follows what we think is possible.
Pamela Gray says: June 26, 2011 at 11:45 am
“Nick, while your spectrum graph is mathematically correct, “
Pamela, you seem to think that this graph is the result of calculation. It is not. It is simply the observed spectrum of upward IR at a height of 20km. And it has a large dip at frequencies where GHG’s absorb. So we know they have an effect.
I can’t understand why you anti science skeptics have such difficulty understanding the nature of cause and effect when it comes to the connection between rising CO2, rising temperature and catastrophic global warming.
If you can understand the following simple analysis perhaps you can see why the CAGW science is fully settled and the consensus of 98% of climate scientists agree with Schmidt, Hansen and Mann:
Let’s say I am an unbiased scientist from another planet and have never observed the behavior of primitive wheeled earth vehicles at a “stoplight”. I performed a study on vehicle behavior at the light boxes from my geo-synchronous obit and can see a clear correlation between the wavelength of light emitted from the light box in the 650 nm range and the wheeled vehicles motion under the light box. The vehicles always come to a stop when the box is emitting in the 650 nm range.
My conclusion: The 650 nm wavelength interacts with the wheels of these vehicles causing them to stop rotating. No other conclusions are either logical or required. The major forcing is the wavelength and what must be a theoretical 650 nm force field.
Well, a small minority of my space traveling collogues have suggested there may be other forcings but I point to my data and beat them over the head with my charts. I have already reported my conclusions back to the home planet “Goretex” and cannot be contradicted. If they don’t stop this insubordination I will have them demoted. They want to be transported to the surface of the blue planet to observe the 650 nm behaviors up close. They actually suggest that they see movement INSIDE the vehicles and have high-resolution photos of this. What nonsense.
Anyway, I think even the slowest of you anti science skeptics can see my point.
QED
aaron edwards says:
June 26, 2011 at 5:54 pm
If you can understand the following simple analysis perhaps you can see why the CAGW science is fully settled and the consensus of 98% of climate scientists agree with Schmidt, Hansen and Mann:”
Could you please help me out here?
CAGW means CATASTROPHIC Anthropogenic Global Warming
I know the computer models apparently talk about catastrophies that await us if we do not do something fast. But check out the five graphs of temperatures from 2002 at
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/status-on-global-temperature-trends-216.php
On the average, they show essentially zero slope. Furthermore, the first five months of 2011 have been one of the coldest 5 months since 2002 so if these graphs were updated, the slopes would probably average in the negative range. I fail to see what is catastrophic about the warming since there has not been any lately. I do not care if a million scientists say the warming is catastrophic. Science goes by what is observed.