Like what Judith Curry saw recently at NCAR’s seminar, he seems to think it is all about communication.
Part of the problem, he said, was that the climate sceptic lobby employed communications professionals, whereas “scientists are just barely competent at communicating with the public and don’t have the wherewithal to do it.”
Yet sceptics are the ones without any MSM support. So where do they get this idea? Full story here
A few things come to mind that he didn’t cover as other possible reasons skeptics are winning:
1. We don’t hide behind FOIA laws, then circumvent them when we lose. If you’d shared the data when asked, Climategate would never have happened.
2. We don’t rewrite history, either by deleting>morphing commentary like Skepicalscience does, or by creating questionable paleostatistical methods to enable pretending the trees tell us last 900 years were flat without any possible natural variance.
3. We don’t call people on the other side of the debate ugly denigrating names like deniers and flat earthers.
4. We don’t keep trying to link weather patterns/weather events to climate in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Burning issue: Hansen’s evidence that the world is hotting up
Moscow, August 2010
Russia experienced its hottest-ever summer last year – for weeks, a large portion of European Russia was more than 7 °C (12.6 °F) warmer than normal, and a new national record was set of 44 °C (111 °F). Raging forest fires filled Moscow with smoke, forcing the cancellation of air services and obliging people to don face masks.
Jim, get a clue, the Moscow heat wave had NOTHING TO DO with global warming. It was a blocking high weather pattern. NOAA’s own work concludes this:
NOAA finds”climate change” blameless in 2010 Russian heat wave
We mentioned this previously on WUWT, now it is officially peer reviewed and accepted.
NOAA: Natural Variability Main Culprit of Deadly Russian Heat Wave That Killed Thousands
Source here
Daily Moscow temperature record from November 1 2009 to October 31 2010. Red and blue shaded areas represent departures from the long-term average (smooth curve) in Moscow. Temperatures significantly above the long-term average scorched Moscow for much of July and August. NOAA credit. – click to enlargeThe deadly Russian heat wave of 2010 was due to a natural atmospheric phenomenon often associated with weather extremes, according to a new NOAA study. And while the scientists could not attribute the intensity of this particular heat wave to climate change, they found that extreme heat waves are likely to become increasingly frequent in the region in coming decades.
So Jim, when you try to tell us that the 2010 Russian heat wave was caused by global warming, people who know better have no choice but to call post normal science BS on you.
h/t to Kevin Hearle
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Maurice Strong, 1992. “It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class—are not sustainable.
Note that Strong takes issue with the lifestyles of the “affluent middle class”. Nowhere does he take issue with the lifestyles of the “affluent upper class”.
This is an important point. It is you lifestyle and your continued existence that are the target.
Read what Hansen, Gore, Strong are really saying. Listen to what they are afraid of. What they fear is that you the middle classes are using the resources of the earth, spoiling the earth so they, the rich can’t enjoy it. They are afraid of you and what you represent.
They want the resources preserved for their use, the “affluent upper class”. The “affluent middle class” be damned, and if one looks at the economy that is pretty much what is happening.
Breckite says:
October 11, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Hmm. I thought science was about discovery, not a game to be won or lost.
Good point. Hansen is counting how many people believe in warming or are skeptical, and using this as a measure of success. Nothing to do with scientific discovery.
True science doesn’t concern itself with how many people believe. Belief doesn’t make something true of false, thus it should not be part of the process. The fact that belief is part of the peer review process strongly suggests that peer review is broken.
Roy says:
October 11, 2011 at 4:26 am
This posting led me to look at the GISS personnel directory and Dr. Hansen’s entry in particular. I am puzzled as to what this phrase means, “The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.”
______________________________
In a butcher shop that would be known as “having your finger on the scale”.
I would bet good money that you were watching The History Channel. That sounds like their typical disaster marathon. It’s hard to tell these days, what with Sy Fy and their endless ghost nonsense and sometimes even wrestling. But then again we cannot rule out NatGeo and Discovery or even the NBC corrupted TWC Weather Channel as well. The question remains as to why anyone would think that airing AGW propaganda on any of these cable channels actually helps their cause.
I hope everyone takes note of this intellectually challenged AGW sycophant. Just imagine the tangled neurons responsible for this person’s straight-faced ability to ‘morally’ conflate Anthony’s private website owned by him with those of public institutions involving professional scientists whose data products are owned by taxpayers. This is what we are up against folks. The AGW cultists are absolutely divorced from reality itself, let alone the Scientific Method, so how can Science be discussed at all?
BTW, which retread troll are you JJThoms? Why don’t you come clean and tell us your previous handle before you get nailed again. Honesty is the best policy.
ferd berple says:
October 11, 2011 at 11:20 pm
Maurice Strong, 1992. “It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class—are not sustainable.
Note that Strong takes issue with the lifestyles of the “affluent middle class”. Nowhere does he take issue with the lifestyles of the “affluent upper class”…..
_______________________________________________
Bingo. You have it. The aim is a return to the middle ages with a class of serfs and a class of aristocrats. They do not want to pull the third world out of poverty , they want to return the middle class TO poverty.
As you said that is exactly what has been done. for example: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html“>The ratio of CEO pay to factory worker pay rose from 42:1 in 1960 to as high as 531:1 in 2000
“Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the ’80s, ’90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007).
we can still safely say that the top 10% of the world’s adults control about 85% of global household wealth — defined very broadly as all assets (not just financial assets), minus debts….. “
What Strong (a billionaire) and the rest want to do is take the other 15% of the wealth….
The other part of CAGW is “sustainability” which is the code word for the UN Agenda 21″ This is the plan that John Holdren’s economists came up with.
It is interesting to note that Agenda 21 is in a Climategate e-mail Global Governance & Sustainable Development (B1)
Here is more on the (B1) scenario IPCC Emissions Scenarios
Here is who Ged Davis is (Shell Oil executive with IPCC connection)
And then there is the Royal Dutch Shell Oil connections. Shell is one of the founders of CRU. The Royal Dutch family owns something like 25%. Then there is
Prince Bernhard and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and how it was originally http://www.ogiek.org/indepth/whit-man-game-wwf.htm“>funded It is all a bit incestuous but the young political activists like Occupy Wallstreet never bother to trace the connections and realize that those they are protesting against are the ones pulling their strings.
Hansen, Jones, Mann, Strong and Holdren are just the well paid front men. The real movers and shakers are in the shadows behind them and we do well never to forget that.
Communication, Jim?
A rose by any other name is still a ‘rose’…..A lie by any other name……….
Hansen shows why scientists are no better suited for creating and influencing public policy than anybody else. He is no longer performing science but performing advocacy.
——————-
JJThoms,
Anthony is correct.
John
Gail Combs says:
October 12, 2011 at 4:51 am
“It is interesting to note that Agenda 21 is in a Climategate e-mail Global Governance & Sustainable Development (B1)
Here is more on the (B1) scenario IPCC Emissions Scenarios
Here is who Ged Davis is (Shell Oil executive with IPCC connection)”
Very interesting. Your mail link didn’t work. Here’s the same mail from somewhere else:
http://www.au.agwscam.com/cru/emails.php?eid=54
B1 scenario, excerpts:
“Active management of
income distribution is undertaken through use of taxes and subsidies.”
“Governance
systems reflect high levels of consent from those affected by decisions,
and this consent arises out of active participation in the governance process.”
So we’ll all be equal and love our masters because they give us the feeling that we can participate. Schellnhuber has written about this in his Great Transformation pamphlet; he warns that with all that participation, care must be taken that in the end the right decisions are the result…
http://notrickszone.com/2011/10/11/german-faz-schellnhubers-wbgu-has-strange-ideas-when-it-comes-to-democracy-compares-proposed-great-transformation-to-bolschevik-revolution/
Gail Combs says:
October 11, 2011 at 6:27 pm
“From the very start in 1972 BEFORE we saw any warming the plan was in place. It has NEVER EVER been about science, it has always been about politics and at the time they KNEW we were due for 30 years of warming!”
h/t polistra:
1975 `Endangered Atmosphere’
Conference: Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born
Mead, Schneider, Holdren and Lovelock
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/highlights/Fall_2007.html
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
jeff d:
Quite possibly there is a scandle in the background in the money stream that’s slowly working its way to the surface of the pond.
C
Global warming killed my snowman army last spring- you missed that as a reason why the realists are winning. With that snowman army, I could have taken over the world and then made you all drive underpowered small cars that don’t fit a family in them and heat your homes with smelly logs and manure from gassy cows.
Hang on, if you all recall “live Earth” where the profits raised went to the Alliance for Climate Protection.
Who are nothing but a green PR company:
The Alliance is a new organization engaged in an unprecedented public education campaign on both the urgency and the solvability of the climate crisis. Building on the momentum of “An Inconvenient Truth,” their objective is to persuade individuals, communities, states, and corporations across the world to begin to quickly reduce their own greenhouse pollution in order to become “carbon neutral.” Furthermore, The Alliance is working to move the USA past a tipping point, beyond which political and business leaders and all sectors of civil society compete to offer policies and programs that will sharply reduce emissions.
I am currently taking a course on “global warming” and entered the course accepting the “fact” that the earth has warmed over the past 100-150 years. The more I have read about weather stations the more I believe nothing of the kind. Some of the data collected in the U.S. was the result of efforts by the Smithsonian. They gave out thermometers, barometers, etc. to volunteers in 1849. Originally the volunteers were to take readings at sunrise, 9 am, 3 pm and 9 pm. Then in 1853 they changed when the readings were taken to 7 am, 2 pm and 9 pm. In 1883 there were time zones created. This changed when these readings were taken. Who knows where these volunteers placed their thermometers. Were there human errors in reading, were they placed on or near buildings, in sun or shade, etc. Did they hold up kerosene lamps near the thermometers to read them at night? If a classroom of 30 students were all given thermometers and asked to do readings at all these times for a period of 30 days would we trust the data without question? People may have entered data on the logs but they also had real lives. Did they miss a day of readings because of a death in their families? Did they have a bit too much to drink occasionally? Did they sleep in and miss the sunrise reading for a few days? How also can you compare thermometer readings read from different angles by different people? On days missed did some of the volunteers just fill in the gaps with what they thought it would have said? This would very likely happen in the classroom scenario if a grade depended on submitting this data to a teacher. The types of thermometers have changed. How can respected scientists even remotely consider any of this pure data? A reading from older thermometers read by humans in 1849 cannot be compared to data transmitted digitally from boxes today with totally different thermometers. How can anyone know that the scales were all consistent? With equipment constantly being improved how can anyone consider it good science to take newer data and compare it to data gathered in the horse and buggy era. The past climate history is pieced together with core samples and tree rings and is all basically speculation since no one was there. Temperature readings may also have started being taken in what was a rural area then it grew into a city with different surfaces. The future predictions about warming are also speculation since no one knows 100% what will happen tomorrow. If we did we wouldn’t have to read a thermometer at all. How can this science and their conclusions ever be trusted when there will never be any consistency of equipment used.