Note – this will be pinned as a top post for a few days. Other posts will appear below this one.
UPDATE: Josh weighs in with a Friday Funny.
UPDATE2: McKibben has a Forrest Gump moment with his latest propaganda video
I’m doing something I’ve never done before, I’m asking every reader of WUWT to write a letter to the editor this weekend. I don’t take this step lightly, but given what I’ve observed the last few days, I think it is time to stir the power of our collective WUWT community for the common good.
Readers may recall the debunkings I regularly put forth any time paid activists like Bill McKibben, Joe Romm, David Suzuki, or Brad Johnson (and others) try to make claims that human induced climate change is making our daily weather “more extreme”. You know and I know that this is “garbage science” (even worse than “junk science”) because it is an attempt to twist science to strike fear over climate into the hearts of the average citizen. It is an act of desperation, rooted in the fact that the modeled warming scenarios described by the scientist activist high priest of the global warming movement Dr. James Hansen, just have not come to pass. Climate feedbacks don’t seem to be strong, climate sensitivity doesn’t seem to be high, there’s been no statistically significant warming in the last decade, and thus the only thing left is to blame bouts of normally occurring severe weather on climate change. The level of thinking sophistication here isn’t much different from blaming witches for bad weather in medieval times, but the sophistication of telegraphing this message to the weak-minded is far more sophisticated than in those days.
And, yesterday, we saw a message similar to calls made during those dark times “she’s a witch, BURN her!” in Steve Zwick’s rant on Forbes.com where he says:
We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. … They broke the climate. Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?
The level of delusional fail here is off the scale. If this were an isolated incident, we could simply laugh it off as the hateful rantings of a person afflicted with climate derangement syndrome. But there’s more.
Yesterday, it entered my children’s school (see below), and this week, we saw a survey on “extreme weather” conducted by Yale, use a phrase in the press release that is straight out of a propagandist organization, Bill McKibben’s 350.org. The heat is on to make climate all about the weather for propaganda purposes, and there’s no data to support it. It is a lie of global proportions. We need to step up. Here’s what I found in my children’s school yesterday:
At my children’s school yesterday, they had a book fair. In that book fair was this display from the publisher of a new book INsiders – Extreme Weather.
Of course you know what book I picked up to look at first, and it took me all of about 15 seconds to find this (I highlighted the relevant part digitally):
“Some scientists”? I think the author really meant “some activists”.
To be fair, there are some very good sections of the book well rooted in science, for example this one on lightning:
I know the author, H. Michael Mogil, who is well rooted in science, and who is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist. I can’t imagine him fully signing off on the climate=severe weather idea as McKibben et al put it. But, I think there was pressure from publishers to include the section on climate linkage, and I think he hedged his statement as best he could. My point is that is it beginning to pervade children’s books.
Also this week we had this poll released from Yale University, which got a ton of press thanks to it being carried in the Associated Press. It even made my own local newspaper.
The poll itself is a logical fallacy, with sloppy questions like this one:
I give it a thorough debunking here with a strong emphasis on the reporting bias introduced by our technologically saturated society. Anyone with a cellphone can report severe weather now and within minutes it can be known worldwide.
Here’s a quote from the lead author that was carried in news stories, bold mine:
“Most people in the country are looking at everything that’s happened; it just seems to be one disaster after another after another,” said Anthony A. Leiserowitz of Yale University, one of the researchers who commissioned the new poll. “People are starting to connect the dots.”
At the time, I didn’t note the significance of the “connect the dots” meme, but one of our sharp WUWT readers pointed out that this is the new catchphrase of Bill McKibben’s 350.org movement.
In tips and notes this morning, Nick Ryan confirmed this for me with this letter from McKibben he posted.
Subject: Good news.
From: organizers@350.org
To: nick_ryan@xxxx.xxx
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:57:30 +0000
Dear friends,
Good news this time.
At some point every one of us at 350 has thought to ourselves a little despairingly: is the world ever going to catch on to climate change? Today is one of those days when it feels like it just might happen.
A story on the front page of yesterday’s New York Times described a new poll — Americans in record numbers are understanding that the planet is warming because they’re seeing the “freaky” weather that comes with climate change.
And the story ends by describing the next step in this process: May 5, the giant Connect the Dots day that people are joining all around the globe: http://www.ClimateDots.org
When the zeitgeist conspires to help our efforts, we need to make the most of it. Two weeks is plenty of time to organize a beautiful photo for May 5, one that will help spread this idea. Are you in a place where flood and rain have caused havoc? Ten people with umbrellas can make a memorable “climate dot” for all the world to see. You’ll think of something appropriate for your place — and you can find lots of examples and ideas here.
This movement is growing quickly, and with not a moment to spare — new data from scientists like Jim Hansen at NASA shows that our carbon emissions have already made extreme weather many times more likely. We can’t take back the carbon we’ve already poured into the atmosphere, but if we work together hard and fast then we can keep it from getting steadily worse.
Earth Day is coming up this weekend, and there will be thousands of events across the US. Each one of them is a great place to spread the word about the big day of action on 5/5. When you’re on the front page of the Times it’s a sign that the message is starting to get through — but only one American in 300 reads that newspaper. Now it’s up to all of us to make sure that everyone around the world gets the message, and Connect the Dots day on 5/5 is our best chance to do that. Please join us.
Onwards,
Bill McKibben for 350.org
P.S. It is key to remember that these photos from May 5 are not just for their effect on that day. We need a bank of images showing the human face of global warming — pictures we’ll use for the hard and direct political work of the next few years. If people don’t know there’s a problem, they won’t try to solve it. So let’s show them on 5/5. Here’s a heartbreaking example, from some local activists in Texas:
Climate Activists in Texas
Clearly, due to the timing and the reference he made to “People are starting to connect the dots.”, the poll conducted by Anthony A. Leiserowitz of Yale University is just a tool that is connected to this 350.org “climatedots.org” campaign, it isn’t science, it is blatant advocacy disguised as science of the brand Dr. James Hansen practices.
So looking at what is going in total this week, I think it is time for us to exercise our own rights to free speech, and thus I’m asking WUWT readers to write letters to the editor to your local newspapers and magazines to counter what will surely be a blitz of advocacy in the coming days.
This tactic is used by these NGO’s so there is nothing wrong with it. It is free speech in the finest American tradition. There is one hitch though, and that’s the newspaper editors back-channel.
You see, one of the perks of being a journalist in the TV and radio news business is that I’m privy to how things work. In print media, editors have established a back-channel to alert each other of potential letter writing campaigns, such as those form letters like we see from “Forecast the Facts”.
The key is to make this your own letter, in your own words. While I can suggest topics, the letters need to be written in your own words for them to be accepted.
You can start here with this essay, and draw from it.
Warren Meyer made some excellent points yesterday in his Zwick rebuttal at Forbes:
A Vivid Reminder of How The Climate Debate is Broken
I really liked this part, which speaks to reporting bias (like we have with severe weather):
In the summer of 2001, a little boy in Mississippi lost an arm in a shark attack. The media went absolutely crazy. For weeks and months they highlighted every shark attack on the evening news. They ran aerial footage of sharks in the water near beaches. They coined the term “Summer of the Shark.” According to Wikipedia, shark attacks were the number three story, in terms of network news time dedicated, of the summer.
Bombarded by such coverage, most Americans responded to polls by saying they were concerned about the uptick in shark attacks. In fact, there were actually about 10% fewer shark attacks in 2001 than in 2000. Our perceptions were severely biased by the coverage.
How to write a letter:
1. Go to your local newspaper website, locate the guidelines for letters to the editor. Typical letter policies limit letters to 200-250 words.
2. Do your research, craft your letter carefully. Cite facts, cite statistics such as I offer on WUWT. Use your own words, don’t quote me, though quoting people like Professor Grady Dixon “…it would be a mistake to blame climate change for a seeming increase in tornadoes” is fine.
3. [added] Readers are submitting content ideas in comments, have a look at those. Fr example Steve E. writes: Dr. Roger Pielke Jr’s posting on the IPCC SREX Report, “A Handy Bullshit Button on Disasters and Climate Change” here: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2012/03/handy-bullshit-button-on-disasters-and.html is also a good source for letter content.
4. Send it, being mindful of length and guidelines.
Thank you for your consideration. – Anthony
Hugh Pepper says:
April 20, 2012 at 11:30 am
” Physics is still physics and chemistry is still chemistry. Neither respond to the positions of letter writers, no matter how numerous. SO far, the PR approach has been working. There is just no accounting for willful ignorance.”
Hugh Pepper, I hate to break it to you, but what happens inside a climate model is neither physics nor chemistry.
Rio is the endgame. Every sceptics attention needs to be on it. Who is attending, who is driving the agenda, where is the money coming from, and the go for their throats.
I suspect our friend will also have password to share around that time. No other time matters as much in stopping what is an attempt at a global coup d’etat.
This is a long document and I don’t see any references made to the established scientific facts regarding climate change. You jump right into this by talking about “paid activists” and your objection that they claim “human induced climate change is making our daily weather ‘more extreme.'” Viritually every significant scientific membership organization in the U.S. — organizations like AAAS, NAS, and AGU — as well as many international bodies — the Royal Society comes to mind — has issued a statement endorsing the fact that the Earth is warming and humans are significantly responsible for that. (In fact, I can’t think of an scientific body which has reached the opposite conclusion; perhaps you know of one.) You’re welcome to disagree with them. It’s just that I’d like to know if you’re on record agreeing with any of them or not, and why. Because then it helps me put into perspective whether the “paid activists” might be on the right or wrong track. Activists are typically known for their opinions. Scientists, on the other hard, work with hard facts. So, do you agree with any of these scientific organizations’ statements, or not?
prjindigo says:
April 20, 2012 at 11:46 am
“Hate to have to tell you all this but it is quite simply true that any excess energy we put into the atmosphere WILL cause an increase in the energy of the weather of the planet. Simple thermodynamics. ”
That means that the long term decline in hurricane activity indicates a cooling?
As Iwas taught in Marine Boot CAMP in 1969, “Sir!, Yes Sir!”
Pleased to do so even though I suspect the probability that my ‘local’ paper, the Washington Post, wil publish my letter to approach 0 as a limit.
Great article here: http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_2_apocalyptic-daze.html
“Over the last half-century, leftist intellectuals have identified two great scapegoats for the world’s woes. First, Marxism designated capitalism as responsible for human misery. Second, “Third World” ideology, disappointed by the bourgeois indulgences of the working class, targeted the West, supposedly the inventor of slavery, colonialism, and imperialism. The guilty party that environmentalism now accuses—mankind itself, in its will to dominate the planet—is essentially a composite of the previous two, a capitalism invented by a West that oppresses peoples and destroys the earth. Indeed, environmentalism sees itself as the fulfillment of all earlier critiques. “There are only two solutions,” Bolivian president Evo Morales declared in 2009. “Either capitalism dies, or Mother Earth dies.””
http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z159/BMAONE23/CONNECTTHEDOTS.jpg
here is a good connect the dots
One letter to the Scotsman, another to the Glasgow Herald and another to the First Minister.
McKibben writes,”Two weeks is plenty of time to organize a beautiful photo for May 5, one that will help spread this idea. Are you in a place where flood and rain have caused havoc? Ten people with umbrellas can make a memorable “climate dot” for all the world to see. You’ll think of something appropriate for your place — and you can find lots of examples and ideas here.”
I say we send him bunches of photographs of mild, balmy weather, of people out enjoying this marvelous spring, of folks frolicking on the beach, etc. Let him connect those dots….
I’m working on it–but along the way I discovered that Jeff Masters has gone farther off the rails in a similar matter http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html
I commented there as follows:
The garbage science about Gorebal warming is the reason I no longe trust anything from The Wunderground (I used to think that was a poorly picked name, but the more I read here and about Ayers and Dohrne and their current work, the more I see the perfection of the choice.
I don’t trust NOAA, NASA, TWC, Wunderground, or you for anything except current raw data (I have not caught you futzing with that yet) as long it tracks with what I or somebody I trust can see.
And your current efforts drove me to write just now; the distrust is several years old since I discovered your PWSs a mile or two away from me consistently report temperatures significantly higher than what I see. (I reported them and you did not address the issue.)
It will be interesting to see if this article sees the light of day–I’ll post a copy at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/20/a-request-to-readers-write-a-connect-the-dots-letter-this-weekend/ in case a question comes up about what I said.
Actually there is a correlation between extreme weather and climate change. Both have always existed and always will. Causation may be another issue. Correlation does not always mean causation. In the early 80’s, I had a professor in organizational behavior who said that there was a near 100% correlation between the number of PhD’s in a state, and the number of goats in that state. He said it was a challenge to carry his goat when he moved from California to Ohio.
Unfortunately, the editors of our local paper do not post letters from those who oppose the claims of CAGW. I have written at least ten letters and even a letter asking as simple a question as what is the base line temperature for determining ‘too warm’ doesn’t get published.
One example would be the floods in Queensland Australia that occurred in 2010/2011. They had floods that were just as severe in 1893, and those were at a time when the CO2 was about 100ppm less than today (1893, 294.7 – today 394.45).
So how can activists insist that we return the world to the arbitrary value of 350ppm, when weather was just as extreme with lower levels?
Use their own data.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext.txt
Pick an event, show the CO2 level for that year, and ask them how something that extreme happened with such low levels of CO2.
Hugh Pepper says:
April 20, 2012 at 11:30 am
“There is just no accounting for willful ignorance.”
A perfect quote from a no-account, who never has a scientific source backing his willfully ignorant belief system.
. . .
Phil C says:
“So, do you agree with any of these scientific organizations’ statements, or not?”
I’m with Prof Richard Lindzen, who points out that activists have taken control of these organizations.
The proof is in what they are doing, and not doing. These organizations tightly control access to their membership lists. They absolutely do not allow anything but the most biased polls to be conducted; and they presume to speak for their membership without allowing the members to have any say in their public statements. Members are absolutely not allowed to communicate with other members through the organizations’ membership lists.
Occasionally these organizations are forced to back down from their egregious and unscientific public positions. But the fact is they do not allow members, who know better, to have any input. Why not?
WUWT readers know that there is serious controversy over just about every aspect of the climate issue. It is all controversial. The science is far from being settled. Yet organizations like the AMS, the APS, etc., all take unequivocal stands that human emissions are the primary cause of ‘climate change’. They know there is no testable evidence supporting their anti-science pronouncements, and they know that a majority of their members do not share their views. So why do they do it? The answer is that the activists control the message, not skeptical scientists, who are the only honest kind of scientists.
Finally, Phil, you are just making the typical appeal to a political — not a scientific — authority.
prjindigo says:
April 20, 2012 at 11:46 am
“Hate to have to tell you all this but it is quite simply true that any excess energy we put into the atmosphere WILL cause an increase in the energy of the weather of the planet. Simple thermodynamics.”
I hate to have to tell you this, but you have no understanding of thermodynamics whatsoever. Weather is a “heat engine” and heat engines are driven by the CONTRAST in termperatures. The greater the contrast, the more powerful the “engine” can be. If there is no contrast, there is no action, no matter what the absolute temperature.
The mainstream AGW science tells us that the poles will warm more than the temperate zones, and the temperate zones more than the tropical zones, in response to the added radiative forcing of increased greenhouse gases. This will reduce the contrast in temperatures, reducing the potential for severe weather.
If the proponents of AGW theory were really interested in arguing the science, they would point to the documented DECREASE in severe tornados over the past century as supporting evidence of their theory. For tornados require a great contrast in temperatures to form. (They require some other conditions as well.) They are most common over the central/southeastern US in the spring because that is where and when you get the sharpest temperature gradients — between the still cold heartland and the warm Gulf of Mexico. The awful spring tornado seasons of 1974 and 2011 were notable for unusual cold over the central US from long-lasting snowpack, not for unusual warmth over the Gulf of Mexico.
i did call npr during pledge week to inform the phone monkey that there would be no donations until they stopped contributing to the global warming hoax. i’m sure they’ll get by from others who aren’t so judicious – like maybe H. Michael Mogil and others who compromise integrity for pennies.
falsus in uno, you know.
Well I would like to help you out, but I’m going to be busy with something more important this weekend; the annual celebration of Vladimir Lenin’s birthday. It is traditional to celebrate by planting trees, and taking care of private property in other ways; like working to get rid of private property so that nobody can make hay out of exploiting natural treasures..
So Sunday April 22 is the date we celebrate Lenin’s birthday; so I’ll be doing that by having a big barbecue in the Weber grill that I have in my backyard, in case someone wants to put an official GISS weather station; excuse me, that’s a climate station, in my back yard.
As an avid reader of Forbes, when James W. Michaels was editor, I never recall anything remotely similar in tone or substance to that which was recently published
“According to the New York Times many of his former writers and editors remember Mr. Michaels as much for his brutal assessments of their work as for his incisive teaching….A staunch contrarian, he did not let public opinion dictate the magazines views.” (source Wikipedia)
Today, Forbes is but a whisper of its proud past. Often the size of a pamphlet instead of its signature bound predecessors, it is clear they can no longer afford or attract the first rate, visionary authors whom once graced its pages.
A sad story indeed.
Hugh Pepper says:
April 20, 2012 at 11:30 am
“But none of this changes the science, advanced by thousands of working scientists who have published their findings in the accepted fashion.”
Are you under the illusion that there is a scientific consensus supporting a link between increased CO2 emissions and extreme weather events? If so, you are simply incorrect.
It is growing wearisome to have the “97%” and “consensus” trotted out to support all sorts of extreme alarmist positions for which there is no such consensus.
The part that is “widely agreed by working scientists” is also agreed by most of the people on this website. The parts that are debated – climate sensitivity, magnitude of feedbacks, usefulness of computer models, links with extreme weather events, etc – absolutely do not benefit from a uniform consensus, and it is intellectually dishonest to keep pretending that they do.
Would it be worth also sending a copy of that “Good News” letter from 350.org to newspapers everywhere? They might not print it but at least the editors will know the stories and pictures (10 people with umbrellas) coming in on May 5th is organized and fake.
What about quoting from it in comments and give a link to it maybe? Let the average reader know they’re being played for suckers by this crowd. People don’t like being manipulated.
What about bringing that letter to the newpaper readers’ attention earlier than May 5th? Would it nip it in the bud to post it whole or in part in comments prior to the day as a sort of in-coming bullshit alert? Reading that letter made it crystal clear that negative stories on that day will all be a set up. So, can we use their own letter against them in advance?
In the wake of ClimateGate I, II, and eventually III, people are also starting to connect the dots.
The counter-offensive is up and running in Canada.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/04/19/vivian-krause-suzukis-funding/
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/18/suzuki-isnt-special
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/04/18/david-suzukis-smoke-mirrors/
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/16/the-david-suzuki-foundation-wait-a-minute-doesnt-that-have-something-to-do-with-david-suzuki/
I don’t know, I had to cancel my subscription to my local paper a couple of years ago after the editor decided to print a letter from a disgruntled state worker who only got a four percent raise insteasd of her customary six percent. It was a darn shame too, as my grandfather spent a lifetime setting type for that newspaper. But what the heck, I’ll give it a try. In my past life I had a number of letters printed in the AJC.
the only propaganda that can have any long term effects is the indoctrination of children.
until you get rid of the public schools, you expose your children to fatal infection and make them vectors for a pandemic of suicidal delusion.
blame the parents for their default – it’s too late, of course. there’s really no scapegoat that can absolve parents of their failure. they are guilty, guilty, guilty – and prepared to continue on the same path – oh, they find a million reasons to be lazy and neglect the most important years of education of their own offspring. but they learned at school that they can blame and rant as an alternative to minimal competence and marginal responsibility.
if you have a kid that grew up green, socialist and cannibalistic – prepare to reap what you sowed.
Anthony, this is my letter to the UK Daily Telegraph.
Sir, the lack of global warming and sea level rise and Arctic ice loss in the last 15 years, contrary to the alarmist predictions has caused the activists to rethink their strategy for scaring the life out of us. They are switching to try and link every extreme excursion of the weather (droughts, floods, hurricanes etc) to man’s activities. The main stream media has a poor record of checking such claims (most bought 100% into man made global warming) so I beseech the editors on your undoubtedly respected journal to please look carefully into the science behind the next batch of apocalyptic claims from the environmental activists. Greenpeace and World Wild Life Fund have huge budgets for propaganda and newspapers including yours have a bad tendency to just recycle their press release output with little questioning. This time round, the public deserve better from their press.