The Parthenon of Climate

I can’t improve on the description offered by Steve McIntyre on the most recent taxpayer funded %&#@^*! from NOAA: their sponsorship of the display Pillars of Climate at the recent American Meteorological Society’s Applied Climatology and Climate Change Adaptation conference in Asheville.

But I second Steve’s call for a Parthenon where mere mortals can pay homage to the demigods of the atmosphere. Here, in this fortress of turpitude, they can ponder the role of clouds:

Behold, the bust of Mann (modeled of course):

Advertisements

72 thoughts on “The Parthenon of Climate

  1. From CA:

    [From the Pillars of Climate posters] “Pillars of Climate” is an installation that investigates the issues of perception and dissemination of data in climate change.

    This wording clearly shows this to be part of the “spin” campaign that The Team and IPCC have mounted, to make it all about HOW you tell the public and pols, not WHAT you tell them.
    Shame on them.

  2. I’m sure climate science is as sublime as astronomy is in this quote fromThe Clouds by Aristophanes.
    STREPSIADES …But why do they look so fixedly
    on the ground?
    DISCIPLE They are seeking for what is below the ground.
    STREPSIADES Ah! they’re looking for onions. Do not give yourselves
    so much trouble; I know where there are some, fine big ones. But what
    are those fellows doing, bent all double?
    DISCIPLE They are sounding the abysses of Tartarus.
    STREPSIADES And what are their arses looking at in the heavens?
    DISCIPLE They are studying astronomy on their own account. But come
    in so that the master may not find us here.
    http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/clouds.html

  3. WUWT appears to be heading down a spiral of personal attacks. These should be dialed back and instead just speak to the science or lack thereof, rather than putting up silly pictures of people you (and often I) disagree with. Poking fun at these people may be gratifying in the short run, but it hardly encourages real debate about problems with their theories or statements, instead this reads more like an elementary school yard…(not to say that other blogs, etc., aren’t doing similar – but the bar should be higher here)
    WUWT needs to be behave seriously to be taken as a rational alternative.
    In any event I greatly appreciate your efforts and information collected (the temperature probe siting problems is a great example of good research on a shoestring) and find many articles of great interest.
    Thank you.

  4. lol, Anthony, I had the same reaction…..
    Jeez, and they want to raise the debt ceiling? This stuff, we just gotta have!!!! Just can’t figure out why the public seems so angry these days. Stupid, @^#@# imbecilic ….#$%@#@# moronic…q4@#%@!^@ 100% Organic country!?!?!?!? What the heck does that mean and why does anyone think it could possibly be a good thing?
    I just want to know how much that piece of idiocy cost us taxpayers.

  5. According to the 1990 documentary “Greenhouse Conspiracy”, the Parthenon of CAGW consists of four pillars: Records, Causation, Models and Physics. Take any of these out and the roof will cave in.
    Approx. 4 mins 15 secs into this vid:

  6. The important thing in all this is that it provides further evidence that the climatists, not only do no understand the climate, but they also do not understand why their support in the general public is rapidly slipping away, in country after country.
    Some see it as a need for better communication, of making the message even more simple as per NOAA. Others see it a need for social psychologists to analysis why they mistakenly think that the public are deluded.
    The cold hard facts seem to escape their understanding.
    It’s just that the public increasingly do understand why the climate is always changing.

  7. I agree.
    We shouldn’t be giggling at or about Mike Mann until after his e-mails
    are released following the Prince County court’s review this August.
    Later in the year we can have another good giggle when the Virginia Attorney
    General turns loose the Mike Mann data and code his investigation turned up
    … and someone has laid an data/code specific FOI request on him for copies.
    It was a great idea to have each honoree get their own pillar. That way it’s
    easy to pull Mike’s from the exhibition for “aesthetic” reasons later this year.

  8. Fascinating word. I wonder at its origins. Combination of “pill” and “bullocks”?
    Very on-point, in any case. The American version would be much blunter. “Climate Pricks”.

  9. James Sexton says (July 31, 2011 at 12:20 am): “Jeez, and they want to raise the debt ceiling?”
    Heh. That was my first thought on reading this article. Anybody who thinks the government can spend our money better than we can hasn’t seen this!

  10. John Robertson, what those people told us was debunked every time. And they don’t stop telling the same humbug over and over again and pretend special pleading. They are like the Astrologers, Homeopaths, Diviners etc. It is impossible for rational people to react always meekly since more and more bizarre ad hoc elements are added to their outpourings to explain experimental failures or logical inconsistencies.
    [/rant]

  11. If those are the best Pillars of Climate they have, it’s no wonder that climate science is falling down. Without solid foundations, even the most expensive and intricate structure will soon fail.

  12. Unlike the warmista blogs, at least WUWT has a sense of humour. Maybe the others are too wrapped up in their doomsday scenarios?

  13. John Robertson [July 30, 2011 at 11:56 pm] says:
    “WUWT appears to be heading down a spiral of personal attacks. These should be dialed back and instead just speak to the science or lack thereof, rather than putting up silly pictures of people you (and often I) disagree with. Poking fun at these people may be gratifying in the short run, but it hardly encourages real debate about problems with their theories or statements, instead this reads more like an elementary school yard…(not to say that other blogs, etc., aren’t doing similar – but the bar should be higher here)”

    I didn’t see Anthony personally attack anyone. Are you saying that these high profile PUBLIC figures (celebrity Scientists) are above reproach, criticism and even name calling? In the USA where there is free speech (at least for now) and a First Amendment that protects it? How do you feel about cartoons and political ads? Or perhaps you simply are pushing Queensbury rules for us and Alinsky rules for them? There is room for both sarcasm and serious Science.

    “WUWT needs to be behave seriously to be taken as a rational alternative.”

    How is WUWT or any other free speech blog in a competition to be an ‘alternative’? You mean WUWT should perhaps replace the Scientific institutions, receive the grants instead, publish papers, expound theories, propose policy, develop models, give lectures, etc?

  14. Dagfinn says: July 30, 2011 at 11:43 pm …
    Aristophanes. Right. Good one, but a sign of a misspent youth.

  15. John Robertson says:
    July 30, 2011 at 11:56 pm
    I totally agree with John Robertson, If we continue to ridicule the person rather than his arguments then we are going to weaken our cause and not be taken seriously by those who are still uncommitted to either side of the argument. It is a free world and they are entitled to present their views on any subject without receiving personal ridicule. Let us all stick to simply putting opposing views on any of the questionable science that the AGW fanatics offer, after all, this site has been so successful so far in promoting the sceptics viewpoin. Personal attack and ridicule will only serve to weaken that achievement.

  16. John Robertson says:
    July 30, 2011 at 11:56 pm
    I understand your concern, John, but after the Climategate e-mails were published, it became very clear to me that these people (1) have giant egos, (2) have colluded professionally against anyone who doesn’t share their point of view on climate, and (3) have disparaged other scientists in a worse manner than what Anthony has done here (anyone remember Hansen’s “jousting with jesters” comment when people questioned the output from their global temperature analysis program, GISTEMP?).
    Moreover, why the US taxpayer (and the unsuspecting members of the AMS!) should have to help fund this “art/propaganda” is beyond me. If this were funded privately, then I could care less (though it would still be ripe for lampooning!)…

  17. The Parthenon was dedicated to the Sacred Virgin Goddess (some 5 centuries before Christianity). Is there a connection here, to Climate naivety?
    .

  18. Since clouds have been mentioned in this thread and comments, I’ll share with you a bet I just had with myself. And then we can turn this thread into a clouds-and-solar thread 🙂
    So, I was looking at the UK met office satellite photo of the UK and the eastern Atlantic, worrying about the possibility of rain spoiling a cricket match I’m going to, and I noticed that the Atlantic clouds were breaking up, whereas a few days ago they had been thickening relentlessly. So I said to myself, “Svensmark, sunspots, they must be going up right now”, and surely enough when I checked solarham.com there is a gorgeous set of big sunspots in the northern hemisphere, and NOAA shows a fast rise in SSN.
    It’s probably just a coincidence, though; I need to repeat the trick a few dozen times to get evidence of causality…
    Rich.

  19. Very funny post, thanks.
    There is a lot of truth in that humor though. We are now at the stage that every single data point is supposed to support CAGW. If it snows again in Miami Florida like it did in the 70s that will be seen as a sure sign of warming?
    Can heat freeze me?

  20. WUWT appears to be heading down a spiral of personal attacks. These should be dialed back and instead just speak to the science or lack thereof, rather than putting up silly pictures of people you (and often I) disagree with.

    I agree, sort of. There seem to be a few people who’ve transcended professional respect over at RealClimate, and Mann is one of them. Compared to the insults that come our way from them, Anthony’s busted Mann, err Bust of Mann, is more tongue of cheek humor than ridiculae or satire (the posting categories).
    The red dots that make up Mann’s image are a play on the red/blue dots that are used in some temperature anomaly maps. Of course, it would be beneath me to note that they make Mann look like a real hothead.

  21. George Lawson [July 31, 2011 at 3:21 am] says:
    “I totally agree with John Robertson, If we continue to ridicule the person rather than his arguments then we are going to weaken our cause and not be taken seriously by those who are still uncommitted to either side of the argument. It is a free world and they are entitled to present their views on any subject without receiving personal ridicule. Let us all stick to simply putting opposing views on any of the questionable science that the AGW fanatics offer, after all, this site has been so successful so far in promoting the sceptics viewpoin. Personal attack and ridicule will only serve to weaken that achievement.”

    In this ‘free world‘ of yours, please tell me who *is* entitled to receive personal ridicule? (Allowing your strawman just for the sake of argument, since I don’t see this personal ridicule). Everyone except the scientists? Are they in a upper class or something?
    In this ‘free world‘ of yours are cartoons allowed? Political ads? Jokes? Do you have a link to the rulebook handy?
    I got a better idea though. Instead of you trying to change the free speech habits of everyone else to suit your personal sensibilities, you could just start your own free blog and play it straight and narrow to your hearts content. It would be fun. You could rule it with an Iron Fist enforcing speech codes and bringing the hammer down on those uncivilized savages living under a first Amendment. According to your logic this would be very effective in the AGW war, and no doubt millions of the ‘still uncommitted‘ will be beating down your doors. You might even get the Hockey Team to cry uncle and surrender unconditionally.
    /SomeSarc 😉

  22. It is important to understand that those with a left leaning brain are mostly those besotted with the cause of global warming. They also have no real sense of humour, as most people can laugh at themselves when satire or irony is pointed at them.
    These poor souls are the centre of their own universes, in Australia it has been noted that any person questioning the science of the annointed ones is the same as making a death threat.
    This is beyond the pale and many are starting to see Monty python in the entire charade, those that can not laugh at themselves should be pitied.

  23. To all who would disagree with Doc’s approach herein – using humor as a form of communicating ones disagreement with someone on the other side of an issue is a very powerful and simple way to make a point and call into question, – in the readers mind – (if not actually lay waste to their logic) the other persons position on the issue. Humor has been used quite successfully for this purpose for centuries in the most “civil” of societies and by some of the greatest and most gracious of thinkers. IMHO, Anthony is very judicious in his use herein and in this case is “spot-on” in its application.

  24. Has anyone noticed that on the sign it says that the four scientists depicted were “chosen for their unique careers which blend science, communication and activism in Climate Science.”
    Since when is activism an accepted part of scientific discovery and debate? When the activists got involved is when serious climate science became subject to ridicule and late night comedy IMO.

  25. R.S.Brown says: July 31, 2011 at 1:14 am

    It was a great idea to have each honoree get their own pillar. That way it’s
    easy to pull Mike’s from the exhibition for “aesthetic” reasons later this year.

    Look again. I think there are three pillars, and the four faces are presented on the four sides of the pillars. The simplest way to remove a face is with whitewash.

  26. Too bad their “pillars” are built upon the shifting sands of lies, deceit, and ego, and their climate house for which they raise said “pillars” is one of mere cards.

  27. I completely agree with John Robertson. While I find the positions and actions of the AGW proponents disagreeable, at best, these sorts of posts do nothing to further the skeptical position. Stick to the facts and skip the satire and labels such as “alarmists”.

  28. This non-essential piece of tax payer funded fluff is one of the reasons I hope we lose our credit rating. The politicians then need to be held accountable (as in charged with misconduct) for that reduction in our credit rating and be forced to cut spending or be recalled for failure to perform the duties of office.

  29. Lott’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt. As we all know salt dissolves in water. These pillars of climate are not made of anything more durable than salt. With the first cleansing rains of truth they start to dissolve.

  30. “Pillars of Climate” is an installation that investigates the issues of perception and dissemination of data in climate change. The sculpture invites the audience to go beyond ‘face value’ and inspect more closely the integration of humanity, nature and fossil fuels.
    Surely the closer to psychosis the better, but when does Depak Shopra get around to telling “the audience” just what the LSD is going to cost extra and whether it includes S&H?

  31. Paul M. Parks says:
    July 31, 2011 at 7:32 am
    I completely agree with John Robertson. While I find the positions and actions of the AGW proponents disagreeable, at best, these sorts of posts do nothing to further the skeptical position. Stick to the facts and skip the satire and labels such as “alarmists”.
    Right. After all, it’s only a full blown Totalitarian Propaganda Operation the Progressive Obama Communists are waging against the U.S. Constitution and its own citizens. And where has Communism ever caused a problem for free thought and Liberty?

  32. lol, so they decorated four pillars with NOAA’s red and blue temperature dots and, in the vein of typical government funded junk art, couldn’t even spell “career” correctly on their very expensive sign.

  33. I think the parthenon falling down over time is an excellent metaphor for the once “robust” feisty, unopposed alarmists (Pray tell some of our sensitive commenters, what is wrong with the use of the term alarmist – are they not sounding alarm for the planet? Denier is another thing altogether with its historical context and besides it is simply wrong – deniers just deny, They don’t point out where the other side errs fundamentally)

  34. Kenneth W. Russell says:
    July 31, 2011 at 6:08 am
    Has anyone noticed that on the sign it says that the four scientists depicted were “chosen for their unique careers which blend science, communication and activism in Climate Science.”
    Since when is activism an accepted part of scientific discovery and debate? When the activists got involved is when serious climate science became subject to ridicule and late night comedy IMO.

    Exactly right. Scientists may promote any causes they like, but to make scientific inquiry the handmaiden of those causes, whatever they may be, is to vitiate the entire raison d’etre of science itself. Here the whole proclamation (from Steve McIntyre):

    The four scientists depicted in the piece were chosen for their unique carreers [sic], which blend science, communication and activism in climate science. They represent the forward thinking that gives raw data meaning in everyday life.
    The intersection of science, activism and now art is meant to highlight the recent shift towards making scientific data visible, accessible and meaningful to everyone.

    Readers will recognize here the movement to so-called ‘post-normal’ science, in which truth is made subservient to political causes and movements. This is entirely destructive of the scientific ethos. To have our tax dollars supporting it is obscene. Write your Congressman.
    And yes, John Robertson (July 30, 2011 at 11:56 pm), it deserves every bit of scorn and ridicule that can be heaped upon it.
    /Mr Lynn

  35. @ Zorro
    Thank you fror reminding me of my classical education. I hope you (and other WUWT readers) will enjoy this.
    Brekekex. Koax! Koax!
    For we are the skeptical Frogs,
    We publish our thoughts on the blogs.
    And when they’re not true,
    We require a re-do.
    Our enemies, meanwhile, train dogs.
    Cheers,
    Neil

  36. The problem with getting the message out using the MSM was noted some time ago…..
    “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”
    _George Orwell
    The folks at WUWT are the revolutionaries.

  37. As Lord Monckton said, the real purpose of GW/CCh is just GG (Global Governance), as it was evident during the Copenhagen summit and thus it is one of the several “tests” with this aim.
    It has not reached, yet, the level of a “binding agreement” which others UN propositions have already achieved.

  38. I get it. Crumbling edifice of stone monument, toppled statues equates to the Golden Age of Global Warming. The Greeks had thier moment in the Sun, so did the Romans, Egyptians, etc.

  39. “They represent the forward thinking that gives raw data meaning in everyday life.”
    OMG. This is the apotheosis of foolishness. The meaning of raw data is raw data. What they really mean is that they are the Marxist Vanguard that must filter the truth for the masses suffering from alienation.

  40. Perhaps the artist was being a bit clever, in that the quality of the art fully reflects the quality of the science depicted.

  41. Ozymandias
    by Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822)
    I met a traveler from an antique land
    Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
    Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
    Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
    And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
    Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
    Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
    The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
    And on the pedestal these words appear:
    “My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
    Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
    Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
    Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
    The lone and level sands stretch far away.

  42. I think the article should have been titled “The Pantheon”, which is the temple (now a church) built by Hadrian to all of the gods. The Parthenon is dedicated to Athena Parthenos, and the other temples on the Acropolis are dedicated to aspects of Athena, such as Sophitas (the Wise), etc.

  43. Kenneth W. Russell says:
    July 31, 2011 at 6:08 am
    Has anyone noticed that on the sign it says that the four scientists depicted were “chosen for their unique careers which blend science, communication and activism in Climate Science.”
    Since when is activism an accepted part of scientific discovery and debate? When the activists got involved is when serious climate science became subject to ridicule and late night comedy IMO.

    Be carefull what you wish for, sometimes activism is a much needed necessity,
    Ignaz Semmelweis should have used it when he was fighting his uphill battle against the established scientific and medical opinions of his time, it would have saved lives. He could not explain why is proposed methods saved lifes, but his own experiments showed clearly the results, it saved lives of women who where at risk of getting childbed fever. The facts clearly showed that the establishement was wrong.
    Having said that, current Climatology is much like the Vienna medical establishment was in the mid 19th century and act accoordingly with the Semmelweis Reflex, the reflex-like rejection of new knowledge because it contradicts entrenched norms, beliefs or paradigms.

  44. sHx, thanks. That documentary, though made in 1990, remains entirely current and right on the money. The evidence is still bad, the models remain unpredictive, the AGW promoting scientists continue to dissemble, and the physics remains incomplete.
    It was interesting to see that, even back in 1990 it was known that atmospheric CO2 levels trailed temperature during the ice-ages. One has to hand it to the activist scientists and their NGO and ideologically driven PR allies — they have nearly prevailed despite the entire lack of an objective foundation for their claims over the entire time of the debate.
    Watching the documentary was also very worthwhile from a historical perspective — seeing a young Steve Schneider looking very irritated at being closely questioned, insisting that data are unimportant to his conclusions and that it’s OK to exaggerate during a 15 second news sound-bite.
    And observing that even by 1990, near the very beginning of the public debate, scientists were getting penalized when they reported results contrary to AGW. Their grants were cut off and their submissions tended to be rejected. Somehow, the corruption had taken hold in the agencies and journals even by such an early date. Some deep evidence about human psychology is hidden in that phenomenon — the tendency to an inchoate and irrational corruption by appeal to alarm.

  45. Paul M. Parks says (July 31, 2011 at 7:32 am): “Stick to the facts and skip the satire and labels such as ‘alarmists’.”
    Although I have something of a warped sense of humor myself, and quite enjoy such satirical and mocking posts as this one, I can sympathize with Paul’s point of view. Problem is, adhering strictly to the facts and referring to them as what they really are, i.e. bat-crap rabid enviro-nuts, Chicken Littles, snake oil salesmen, and climate scientologists, sounds rather harsh and doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue. So I prefer the catch-all euphemism “alarmists”, which sounds nicer, but we all know what it really means, nudge nudge.
    I am, however, open to more politically correct euphemisms. Might I suggest we refer to adherents of the IPCC’s “alarmist” views as “IPCC-niles”?

  46. McIntyre’s post is a masterpiece of wit. He makes some tie-ins with ancient Vedic traditions. I could not resist pointing out that there is a 7500 year old pendant which shows one of the yogi priests with a huge – I mean huge – erection. Maybe that ties together the Hockey Stick and Pachauri, as both are manifestations of huge erections in their own ways.

  47. dtbronzich, you’re right. I had the same thought that the article should have been titled “The Pantheon”, which is in Rome, not Athens. Both buildings are architectural marvels in their own way, but the Pantheon stands complete rather than a ruins undergoing reconstruction. On second thought…

  48. I would like to know how the recipients of the Pillars were chosen. Was there a vote among members? Was there a committee? ( Was there a committee for the committee?)
    It is fairly well known that many upstanding members of the scientific community thoroughly disagree with Mann’s and Pachuari’s antics and outright deceptions, as well as others who attempt to blend ” activism” with science. ( Anyone else remember Hansen getting arrested for protesting?)
    And to Theo Goodwin, your comment was so funny I was glad I was holding my evening cup of coffee instead of drinking it. Reminded me of a Rorschach painting. ( When you look at the Hockey Stick Graph what do you see?)

  49. LOL, LOL, LOL: This is a perfect demonstration of just how far down the LOSERS have decended in this debate. They have not only lost the public, but they have now lost their own colleagues. Last laughs are, indeed, best laughs!
    The morons STILL don’t see what’s wrong with the NYT “business plan.” LOL.

  50. Surely they mean Pillars of Climate Doom for their house or temple of doom. Where is Indiana Jones when you need him?

  51. Robert says:
    current Climatology is much like the Vienna medical establishment was in the mid 19th century and acts accordingly with the Semmelweis Reflex, the reflex-like rejection of new knowledge because it contradicts entrenched norms, beliefs or paradigms.

    IOW, they’re deniers!

  52. Brian D Finch says:
    July 31, 2011 at 12:22 pm
    Ozymandias
    by Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822)

    Robust!

  53. Two thoughts the image brings to mind;
    They may not of played hockey but they were prone to marrying their sisters, not a pretty picture in the end.

  54. BTW, I think the recently exposed SpongeBob climate cartoons funded by the Department of Education may have many parents finding themselves being characterized as Krusty Krabs for their opposition to climate change measures. This may be more insidious than the ‘Pillars of Climate.’

Comments are closed.