Ross McKittrick writes in with this:
A bracing essay at Pointman’s. I particularly like this bit:
The problem the alarmists had, was that there was never anything substantial to hit back at. They had the equivalents of the big guns and the massive air support but there never was a skeptic HQ to be pounded, no big central organization, no massed ranks of skeptic soldiers or even any third-party backing the resistance.
Every one of the skeptics was a lone volunteer guerrilla fighter, who needed absolutely no logistical support of any kind to continue the fight indefinitely. The alarmists never understood this, preferring to think that there simply had to be some massive hidden organization orchestrating the resistance. While they wasted time and effort attacking targets that only existed in their head, each of the guerrillas chewed on them mercilessly in their own particular way.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/the-climate-wars/
…And there was me thinking we were all funded by ‘Big Oil’…. (except that I seemed to be missing out on any funding…)
Jim Hansen (alarmist) is missing his target on nitrogen dioxide emissions as well as being MIA to answer why oil sands pollution is so low in a relative way (compared to other polluters). Note the brown blob south of the great lakes. It would be great to see a whole image of North America.
http://business.financialpost.com/2012/03/02/oil-sands-pollution-comparable-to-large-power-plant-nasa-data-shows/?__lsa=540b92af
While we’re on a roll, can I draw everyone’s attention to Donna Laframboise’s blog ‘No Frakking Concensus’ in which she links to a book which contains a pretty explosive criticism of our friend Rajendra Pachauri by an Indian High court judge in 1996.
It implies that, as we say in the UK, he shouldn’t be put in charge of a whelk stall (translation for our overseas cousins; whelks are a small shellfish popular in the East End of London, and bought from small market stalls set up in shopping areas…)…
Anyway, you get the picture…
They believed that once they had control over global climate science and politized it the debate would be over.
Or the leftist belief to take control over the means of production?
Big Climate suffered from its own sense of self importance and such hubris would lead to so much human folly in making ridiculous predictions that would ultimately out them as non-scientific charlatans and snake oil merchants. They need to be globally notorised and outed for that now. We need to know and place their faces and their names with their gross exaggerations. Not just Gore, Mann, Jones, Hansen, Pachauri, and now Gleick that strode the world stage with their nonsense, but the local versions in countries like Australia. Chief among them Tim Flannery who was made Climate Change Commissioner on the basis of his alarmist spruiking for the cause. Not only about lack of rainfall in future, but spouting alarmism over sea level rise, only to turn around and buy estuarine waterfront property himself.
Here he is for all to see and ridicule globally- http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/weather-forecasting-is-obviously-not-professor-tim-flannerys-forte/story-e6freuzi-1226285558977
as an area the size of France is inundated with water, some areas breaking all rainfall records since 1886 (bearing in mind only the beginning of European settlement in 1788)- http://www.news.com.au/national/state-of-high-alert-as-water-rises-across-nsw/story-e6frfkvr-1226287889865
If this man had any shred of scientist left in him, or sense of moral decency or remorse like Gleick he’d make a public apology and resign as Climate Change Commissioner forthwith. Either that or come on this forum and explain his past statements and behaviour resulting from those.
There is one name that is now sullied beyond all others and no true scientist will want to be associated with it an any way shape or form from now on. That is the derogatory term- ‘Climatologist’, for it now represents the description of anyone who would be so presumptuous and full of human hubris to take such a mantle. A mantle now of ignorance and scientific shame given that so many of its wearers have claimed the climate science is settled and anyone who disagrees are akin to Holocaust deniers. You wear the brand of Climatologist from here on and you wear its rotten, anti-science stench.
“I’m Spartacus” .
*grin*
Ya know what is sad about the whole mess of climate?
There are those, such as Dr. Mann, who think we are in a “Climate War”. Those types of thinkers want to muzzle anyone who disagrees with them because they are sure they are correct, and everyone else is wrong. The problem is, the science put forth by the proponents of said “Climate War” is so shoddy, that under examination, fails. Rather than admit how shoddy this is openly, and try to rectify the mistakes so that the evidence bears scrutiny, they keep repeating the shoddy science. IF Dr. Mann had used the Sargasso Sea proxy data, it would have shown his original paper to be totally false. For some reason, he omitted this data, even in his newer paper.
The resolution of proxy data is not definitive enough to prove that we are warmer presently than in the recent past….(Last 12,000 YBP). If anyone thinks that proxy data shows a 30 year trend with high certainty, I have a bridge to sell. There are resons for error bars in stats, and in most cases anything that falls within 1 or 2 sigma has the same probability of happening as the “Dark Line” that is shown.
The idea that physics can’t show a cause and affect to some happenings shows that we don’t know WHY as of yet…….but on observation we KNOW it is happening. We must keep looking for the why, and the current loudest folks have stopped looking.
The supporters of the “Climate War” will loose the war because their intel (knowledge) is limited by their blinders.
By “missing targets” I thought you were going to refer to all of their missed predictions…
We can’t all be scientists but we can all play our part…
If AGW comes up in conversation, spread the seed of doubt.
If possible, add comments to media articles mentioning AGW.
If you see bias, look for a ‘Complain’ button.
If you can rate other people’s comments, do so.
If you browse something that Anthony should see, shout.
If you get polled forget the science, pick whichever answer seems worst for them.
If you find yourself on an alarmist site, leave them a little something to show you are diappointed. Vent spleen if you must, but despite rumours to the contrary the opposition are actually human beings who will find nice people a lot harder to shrug off than nasty people.
It could maybe be better expressed as “Warmists lack targets”. So they invent them. The Massively Funded Carefully Organized Skeptic Conspiracy is a perennial fave. Blasting hallucinations has only unintended consequences, however!!
Great minds think alike (anf fools seldom differ).
I posted the following at RPjnr’s site last week
“The problem here is that Gleick and many contributors to the more alarmist blogs (DeSmog particularly) appear to believe their self-constructed narrative of the ‘skeptic / denier’ has to be true.
They seem to find it impossible to consider that reasonably intelligent and scientifically literate people can see the same data about recent warming and the future projections and honestly hold the opinion that it is not an existential crisis about which something* has to be done now. Therefore anyone who disagrees with them MUST be in the pay of big business and part of the denial machine whose sole purpose is to spread disinformation. As such, any action against them is justified and justifiable, even when it turns out that the ‘well-funded’ organisation promoting the disinformation has a lower annual budget than the IPCC’s annual travel expences budget (and apparently none of it comes from ‘Big Oil’).
* Something, in this case, usually seems to involve building wind turbines or solar power plants that cannot provide adequate and reliable power on anything like the scale of the fossil fuel plants they are meant to replace. The one proven technology that could provide a low carbon, abundant energy future in the middle term, nuclear fusion, is also against the beliefs of many for ideological more than technological reasons.”
Isn’t one of the first rules of war to know and understand your enemy? The likes of Mann and Gleick seem to be unable to do this, instead only being able to see conspiracies in the shadows.
“”It’s left us completely flabbergasted,” said Babul.
“We’re stuck. I am completely at a loss as to what’s going on.”
[…]
“There’s this whole body of work, including my own, that’s based on the old assumptions, so changing the picture completely would mean going back to scratch and starting again,” he said.”
“Newly-discovered ‘dark core’ challenges understanding”
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120303/dark-matter-dark-core-discovery-120303/
Can anyone imagine a climate scientist saying that?
timg56 says: March 2, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Correct in all you said, in addition…..
President Johnson had “Operation Phoenix” 1967 – 1972. Johnson’s regime systematically exterminated anyone suspected of being a Viet Cong (South Vietnamese Communist). By the Tet Offensive there were no more Viet Cong. Operations in South Vietnam were being conducted by the NVA with the support of a few “recruited” to the cause.
Col. Harry Summers related a conversation he had with his corresponding NVA officer at the Paris Peace Conference. Harry said something to the effect: “We never lost a battle”. The reply was something like: “That may be so, but that is beside the point”. (I must have loaned out my copy of Summers’ book “On Strategy”; it is missing from my book shelf.)
See here about why we “lost” the war, in the words of a senior NVA Colonel:
http://www.viet-myths.net/BuiTin.htm
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
Global warming may be real, but the cause is not CO2 or green house gasses. NASA scientists have said the temperature of the surrounding planets are also rising (this fact is of course, suppressed by the MSM). Its solar warming.
Such is the skeptics’ nature that they don’t even believe what each other are saying, so it is truly not possible to organize them, which is why it is such a ramshackle bunch of diverse thoughts with no basic science to bind them. A sad situation, but what can you do?
Jim D.
This is no problem, this can be helped… its already out in German:
The Warmists scare: ISBN 978-3-86805-604-4 on German Amazon.de.
– unrefuted/unrefutable-…..
Once the English version is out, then we are a step further, can unite
and bring the Warmist elephant down to its knees
No problem just a matter of time…3 years max.
JS
Paul Vaughan said @ur momisugly March 3, 2012 at 8:40 am
Fascinating Paul; thanx for the link! As to your question: Can anyone imagine a climate scientist saying that?. Yes, I can! OTOH I can’t imagine a climate “scientist” saying it.
Joachim, from the title it looks like the skeptics are missing the target again. It is the science they have to talk about, not conspiracies.
To Jim D.
From the title: One should expect posts with hard core numerical content for all the
Skeptics number crunchers….. but there are also generalists and newcomers who
dare to speak / + should speak about general topics because we need every hand to
chew the Warmists down to their deserved size…. and you can also do your part….
JS
A true story from the UK – 2015
As the CAGW scam finally unravels, many former ‘climate scientists’ find themselves applying for the dole. One fellow applies for a job in ‘Y Mart’ as an environmental officer
On his first day, expecting a huge role in saving the planetshere, the supervisor hands him a broom.
‘My God, dont you realise, I am a professor of climate science, with a fellowship at the Royal Society’
‘Sorry sir. I didnt realise. We will put you on a two day training course, starting tomorrow’
jeunesse global says:
March 3, 2012 at 9:09 am
References, please! I’ve seen some, but I haven’t seen any since Earth’s temperature plateaued.
Further to my above post, here is an interesting reference to the fall of the Berlin Wall, written by Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace.
http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues/the_log.cfm?booknum=12&page=3
The Rise of Eco-Extremism
Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance.
Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.
These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. Some of the features of eco-extremism are:
• It is anti-human. The human species is characterized as a “cancer” on the face of the earth. The extremists perpetuate the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest of nature is good. This results in alienation from nature and subverts the most important lesson of ecology; that we are all part of nature and interdependent with it. This aspect of environmental extremism leads to disdain and disrespect for fellow humans and the belief that it would be “good” if a disease such as AIDS were to wipe out most of the population.
• It is anti-technology and anti-science. Eco-extremists dream of returning to some kind of technologically primitive society. Horse-logging is the only kind of forestry they can fully support. All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and “unnatural’. The Sierra Club’s recent book, “Clearcut: the Tradgedy of Industrial Forestry”, is an excellent example of this perspective. “Western industrial society” is rejected in its entirety as is nearly every known forestry system including shelterwood, seed tree and small group selection. The word “Nature” is capitalized every time it is used and we are encouraged to “find our place” in the world through “shamanic journeying” and “swaying with the trees”. Science is invoked only as a means of justifying the adoption of beliefs that have no basis in science to begin with.
• It is anti-organization. Environmental extremists tend to expect the whole world to adopt anarchism as the model for individual behavior. This is expressed in their dislike of national governments, multinational corporations, and large institutions of all kinds. It would seem that this critique applies to all organizations except the environmental movement itself. Corporations are critisized for taking profits made in one country and investing them in other countries, this being proof that they have no “allegiance” to local communities. Where is the international environmental movements allegiance to local communities? How much of the money raised in the name of aboriginal peoples has been distributed to them? How much is dedicated to helping loggers thrown out of work by environmental campaigns? How much to research silvicultural systems that are environmentally and economically superior?
• It is anti-trade. Eco-extremists are not only opposed to “free trade” but to international trade in general. This is based on the belief that each “bioregion” should be self-sufficient in all its material needs. If it’s too cold to grow bananas – – too bad. Certainly anyone who studies ecology comes to realize the importance of natural geographic units such as watersheds, islands, and estuaries. As foolish as it is to ignore ecosystems it is adsurd to put fences around them as if they were independent of their neighbours. In its extreme version, bioregionalism is just another form of ultra-nationalism and gives rise to the same excesses of intolerance and xenophobia.
• It is anti-free enterprise. Despite the fact that communism and state socialism has failed, eco-extremists are basically anti-business. They dislike “competition” and are definitely opposed to profits. Anyone engaging in private business, particularly if they are sucessful, is characterized as greedy and lacking in morality. The extremists do not seem to find it necessary to put forward an alternative system of organization that would prove efficient at meeting the material needs of society. They are content to set themselves up as the critics of international free enterprise while offering nothing but idealistic platitudes in its place.
• It is anti-democratic. This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of radical environmentalism. The very foundation of our society, liberal representative democracy, is rejected as being too “human-centered”. In the name of “speaking for the trees and other species” we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism. The “planetary police” would “answer to no one but Mother Earth herself”.
• It is basically anti-civilization. In its essence, eco-extremism rejects virtually everything about modern life. We are told that nothing short of returning to primitive tribal society can save the earth from ecological collapse. No more cities, no more airplanes, no more polyester suits. It is a naive vision of a return to the Garden of Eden.
***************
Apologies for being somewhat OT – a bit more on East Germany and the Berlin Wall, and the global warming scam:
In July 1989 our group of four Canadian businessmen were in a long meeting with our East German counterparts in a very warm room in East Berlin. Our counterparts were very professional, and our interpreter was extremely capable. She wrote no notes, except for numbers, and spoke for several minutes at a time, translating long technical discourses with obvious precision.
The meeting, however, was going nowhere. The West German heavy equipment we were being asked to review was so primitive, compared to its West German counterparts, that there was no chance we would ever use it in Canada.
Our hosts had provided some soft drinks (aka soda pop), unrefrigerated and without ice, on the meeting table. I picked up one small bottle and noted it was called “Prick Cola”. Our trip leader, Wayne, was droning away to my immediate left, aided by our capable interpreter. God it was hot and boring. I took the bottle of Prick Cola in my hand, covered the word Cola, and started to fiddle with it in a slightly distracting way. When I saw Wayne look down at the bottle and focus on it, I made a quick 1cm upward thrusting motion, right in the middle of his speech. He let out a loud guffaw, and then quickly regained control and continued with his talk.
To this day, I wonder who they named “Prick Cola” after – my bet is Erich Honecker, the man who built the dreaded Berlin Wall, and ruled brutal East Germany in its final days.
How does this all relate to global warming?
As Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, said (above), “the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.”
I have no personal experience like that of Patrick Moore with the radicalization of the environmental movement. I was involved in the environmental movement in the 1960’s when we wanted to stop municipalities and industries from discharging raw effluent into rivers and the atmosphere. That was largely accomplished in the 1970’s and 1980’s as Moore correctly states. Since then, the environmental movement has become increasingly radical, and increasingly irrelevant. Perhaps the global warming scam is simply another manifestation of this radicalization, as former leftists try to gain political power by other means, since their economic models have so obviously failed.
Their problem is that their climate models are no better than their economic models. The climate models, based on (false) strong positive feedbacks to CO2, have grossly over-predicted global warming, and there has been NO net global warming for a decade or so. There is no evidence that strong positive feedbacks to CO2 exist, and significant evidence that such feedbacks, if they exist, would have to be small and negative.
This is spot-on….however, the parties which have the most to lose (trillions) can wield stupendous resources, change and make or re-interpret laws and hound skeptics to the ground under various pretenses. The scam was working perfectly for the Warmists, but the chaps who think that they can predict climate, couldn’t predict the impact of the Web…even while they were using it… and how blogs would democratize information and would kick the feet under the compliant mainstram media. Their most logical counter-attack then will involve censorshiop; creative legislative and maybe even extra-legal ways to shut down, control, impoverish or otherwise disable bloggers.
Allan MacRae, that’s a very important point to remember, the collapse of the socialists in the West due to their unsustainable narratives, as streams of refugees, unjustifiable brutalities by communist and socialist regimes and finally, the economic collapse of those systems.
Your comments and Pointman’s excellent piece triggered a few memories. Thinking back to the late 70s and early 80s, I recall how the leftists I knew personally began getting exercised over pollution, logging and other environmental issues. It confused me and it confused the few genuine environmentalists I knew, because this switch happened as if out of nowhere and made little sense. There were no parallel environmental movements or policies in the communist world and, after all, anyone who had been in a communist country, knew what utter disgusting and poisoned disasters those countries had become. This rather sudden “migration” of socialists masquerading as libertarians and peace lovers into the CAGW’s political arms explains their tactics and strategies as well. The authoritarianism, shutting-off of debate, threats, slimy propaganda targetting children and repetition of obvious lies are all hallmarks of restrictive regimes, but seem to work remarkable well in democratic environments as long as government bureaucracies, universities, unions, established media and entertainment industries and monopolistic corporations, banks, UN and government-sponsored NGOs and other tightly-controlled entities are involved.
O, and many of those leftists who switched from pacifism and defending communists dictatorships and moved onto labour rights and environmentalism are in academia, education or the media now.
If I may take the liberty to re-post something scary by Pamela Gray which is even more relevant here than the post I took it from, “New Study Shows A Clear Millennial Solar Impact Throughout Holocene.”
In case any of us here thought attepts to shut down bloggers would be impossible and that the idea of such heavy-handedness is silly conspiracy mongering, this is what she alerts us to:
The Other Pamela Gray says:
March 4, 2012 at 8:53 am [“New Study Shows A Clear Millennial Solar Impact Throughout Holocene.”]
Anthony et. al. Haveyou seen this? Austrailia is proposing s Super Regulator of speech. Straight out of Orwell.
Late yesterday afternoon, I read something that sent chills down my spine.
Mr. Ray Finkelstein QC, a left-wing former Federal Court Judge with no media experience, at the request of the Gillard Government, issued a 400 page report which calls for a Big Brother Super-Regulator to ‘regulate’ political speech and – among other things – impose new laws with the power to stop climate change realists from speaking up.
Its “recommendations” will sicken every single Australian: They actually call for a Big Brother Super-Regulator to censor not just the newspapers and TV, but websites, personal blogs, and even what you say on Twitter!
This is a proposal that would seem right at home in North Korea or Zibmabwe. I never thought – as dark as things seemed- we could stoop this low here in Australia.
It is clear from the report, in particular paragraphs 4.31-4.42, that silencing climate realists is a major reason for these regulations: it is unashamedly explicit in this (and even uses the dirty trick of using polls from – wait for it – 1966 as evidence the media is pro-climate skeptic, and that – wait for it – only the ABC is unbiased!)
The size and scope of the proposed Super-Regulator is breathtaking. They will have the power to impose a “code of ethics”, force you to print views you don’t agree with as part of a ‘right of reply’, take you to court, and even make you take pieces down! Even personal blogs that get only 40 hits a day will be covered! To make matters worse, the SuperRegulator “would not have to give reasons for its decisions” and the decisions “would not be subject to appeal.” Even climate change websites in other countries like Watt’s Up With That will be covered by this!
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/03/censorship-comes-to-australia/
With apologies to the moderators….
Aaaand another thing. Here in Canada, our otherwise very good Conservative government is inexplicably trying to table a bill to allow the police to monitor individual accounts suspected of accessing child pornography without having to go through the bother of going before a judge, showing due cause and obtaining a warrant. This bill would also require ISPs to spend a lot of money to maintain databases and to keep surfing data for a long time.
The good news is that even though our justice ministry presented the proposal as a justifiable measure to protect children and even hinted that only pedophiles could object to it, Canadians are in an uproar and are not buying this scare-them-and-shame-them tactic. Having thousands of newly hired desk cops munching on donuts all day and fishing around the internet, soon interpreting on their own what child pornography may or may not mean, targetting “problem” people and ignoring favoured ones and soon enough expanding the scope of their investigations into other “very important” areas sent the proverbial chill down our spines. Let’s make no mistake about it, our hard-fought rights which resulted in the break-up of MSM’s monopoly on information and opinion are under steady assault from many areas, under many rationales and guises, sometimes even by otherwise friendly sectors and for justifiable causes, and only vigilance and open discussion can keep the “Huns” from the gates.