Flashback, Michael Mann said this on October 5th, 2010:
Our efforts to communicate the science are opposed by a well-funded, highly organized disinformation effort that aims to confuse the public about the nature of our scientific understanding.
…
Scientists are massively out-funded and outmanned in this battle, and will lose if leading scientific institutions and organizations remain on the sidelines. I will discuss this dilemma, drawing upon my own experiences in the public arena of climate change.
Next time you get challenged on how much money is involved and whose side gets it, point out Mann is delusional by showing them this from 2009, Climate Money, a study by Joanne Nova revealing that the federal Government has a near-monopoly on climate science funding.
The starting point was in June 1988 – James Hansen’s address to Congress, where he was so sure of his science, he and Senator Tim Wirth turned off the air conditioning to make the room hotter.
Then show them this from the Daily Caller:
The Congressional Research Service estimates that since 2008 the federal government has spent nearly $70 billion on “climate change activities.”
Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe presented the new CRS report on the Senate Floor Thursday to make the point that the Obama administration has been focused on “green” defense projects to the detriment of the military.
The report revealed that from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 the federal government spent $68.4 billion to combat climate change. The Department of Defense also spent $4 billion of its budget, the report adds, on climate change and energy efficiency activities in that same time period.
Inhofe, the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, argued that the expenditures are foolish at a time when the military is facing “devastating cuts.”
Video May 17, 2012 by JimInhofePressOffice
Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and a Senior Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, took to the Senate floor today to put the spotlight on the far-left global warming agenda that is being imposed on the Department of Defense by President Obama, which comes at the same time the Obama administration is forcing devastating cuts to the military budget.
Senator Inhofe announced that he will be introducing a number of amendments during next week’s markup of the Defense Authorization bill in the Senate Armed Services Committee that will stop President Obama’s expensive green agenda from taking effect in the military.
As part of that effort, Senator Inhofe is also releasing a document put together by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) which reveals that the federal government has spent $68.4 billion on global warming activities since 2008 — and that’s just a conservative estimate. Instead of focusing on funding our critical defense needs such as modernizing our military’s fleet of ships, aircraft and ground vehicles, the Obama administration’s priority is to force agencies to spend billions on its war on affordable energy; this is further depleting an already stretched military budget and putting our troops at risk.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Kev-in-UK says:
May 20, 2012 at 9:01 am
Those commenters that have tried to respond to izen have seemingly wasted their efforts! He just izen’t getting it!
Sure, he iz — %$#@ur momisugly! — is. That’s why he talks about Revell and ocean surface tension being a barrier to CO2 absorbtion, then nips behind the curtain for a quick change into “woe is me, I’ll never see another cold winter” and then pops behind thoe Ormolu screen to emerge spouting such nonsense as consensus being a crucial element in science.
He’s flailing.
What does a well-funded and well-organized disinformation campaign look like?
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. √
2. Become incredulous and indignant. √
3. Create rumor mongers. √
4. Use a straw man. √
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. √
6. Hit and Run. √
7. Question motives. √
8. Invoke authority. √
9. Play Dumb. √
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. √ (ie: Yamal Yawn, Two year old Turkey)
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions √ (ie: CO2 – Temp correlation)
12. Enigmas have no solution. √
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. √
14. Demand complete solutions. √
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. √
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. √
17. Change the subject. √
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. √
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. √
20. False evidence. √
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. √
22. Manufacture a new truth. √
23. Create bigger distractions. √
24. Silence critics. √
25. Vanish.
Seems to me it’s the CAGW folks that are running a well-funded and well-organized disinformation campaign. I’m just waiting for #25, they’ve done all the rest.
izen:
Careful of the trump card.
Eventually, all your sources cited could become invalidated in this comment thread if someone claims all peer reviewed journals/organizations are corrupted and only contrarian blogs are acceptable citations.
otter17 says:
May 20, 2012 at 11:32 am
well – to be fair – (even though your comment is a little silly, IMHO), the peer reviewed journals have been at least strongly tilted in favour of pro-AGW support/reporting. But I suppose thats what happens in the ‘Concensus’ Science World ?
The ‘concensus crew’ are misdirected and deliberately kept misinformed. As has been said before, if the theory was correct and demonstrable in anything like an unambiguous manner – there would be no discussion and most would certainly ‘accept’ the concensus view would seem likely to be correct.
However, as already described, concensus science is not real science and the howling of concensus is no more than the pack howl of rabid dogs/wolves desparate to defend their territory. I hope the pack followers turn on their leaders when they realise that they have been led up the garden path!
Those that have shouted and forced the concensus view down our throats will be due recompence when, if the time comes, those that have been ‘forced’ to comply, rebel and ‘take’ the concensus for themselves. I only hope that ‘concensus’ doesn’t revolve around revenge? – after all, a few million starving/dying people may not prick your conciences right now – but if they were joined in ‘concensus’ against those that have kept them in fuel poverty etc – well, I’d dread to imagine! I don’t suppose the ‘concensus crew’ would be so keen to hold up the concensus as ‘correct’ in that instance, do you?
Where have we heard these sorts of complaints about discrimination before? Oh, I know, we’ve heard it with every scientific hypothesis or pseudoscientific hypothesis which has lost in the scientific competition of ideas: http://executableoutlines.com/cc/cc_08.htm
We explain Dr Jaworowski not getting funding by the fact that his work is ridiculous nonsense.
Bruce Cobb says:
Actually, the media have given way more “play” to people like Patrick Michaels and Richard Lindzen than they get through legitimate scientific means. It is because of the media’s desire for “balance”. If most scientists argued that the moon was composed of what it is composed of and Patrick Michaels and Richard Lindzen argued it was composed of green cheese, many of the media stories would be written as “Scientists disagree about composition of the moon”.
The money is really important but I notice that the chart stops around 2009. Would it be possible to regularly update this data? Say quarterly?
izen says:
May 20, 2012 at 10:39 am
@- “And both of these are falsified. This means: Theory kaput.”
As you can see from the links above, both are confirmed; Theory validated.
In your first link, atmospheric water vapor in all three studies peaked in ’97 with the anomaly between 0.20 and 0.35, then dropped sharply while CO2 continued to rise. Dai ends in 2005 with the anomaly at 0 and HadCRU has been wavering between 0 and 0.1 – all while CO2 has continued to rise. *best Inigo Montoya voice*: “That chart does not mean what you think it means.”
As far as tropospheric height rising, you evidently just read the title and not the paper: “Without this tropospheric warming effect in the model, simulated height changes would be markedly reduced, and the correspondence that we find between modeled and observed pLRT would be substantially degraded. The inference is that human-induced tropospheric warming may also be an important driver of observed increases in tropopause height. Both the direct and indirect lines of evidence support the contention that the troposphere has warmed during the satellite era.”
However, Santer’s weasel wording at the end of the paper is the money quote: “We have shown that both stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming lead to increases in tropopause height. However, the relative importance of these two factors is uncertain.”
In other words, *reverting to Inigo Montoya voice*: “That paper does not mean what you think it means.”
Theories *not* validated.
You were doing better with your hand-wringing over winters not being as cold as they were when you were a yoot’ — even though you couldn’t feel any change…
joeldshore says:
May 20, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Actually, the media have given way more “play” to people like Patrick Michaels and Richard Lindzen than they get through legitimate scientific means. It is because of the media’s desire for “balance”.
Which media? The media’s desire is to be *perceived* as balanced, but most of the fishwrappers — the Scripps-Howard chain, in particular — don’t even make the effort to pretend anymore. The NYT is bleeding circulation numbers because it is so obviously in the tank for the Democrats and their agenda, including pushing the notion that AGW is an established fact rather than just one more unproven theory.
otter17 says:
May 20, 2012 at 11:32 am
Eventually, all your sources cited could become invalidated in this comment thread if someone claims all peer reviewed journals/organizations are corrupted and only contrarian blogs are acceptable citations.
A source doesn’t become invalid solely due to consensus, exactly as a source shouldn’t be considered impeccable solely due to consensus.
joeldshore says:
May 20, 2012 at 5:38 pm
“Then how do you explain Dr Jaworowski being refused funding when he wanted to look into CO2 measurements done in ice cores and whether they were valid?”
We explain Dr Jaworowski not getting funding by the fact that his work is ridiculous nonsense.
Nice. You disagree with Dr. Jaworowski’s premise that the sun, rather than an increase in CO2, warms the Earth and then link to a creationist paper as an example of how ridiculous you consider his premise?
Are you always this intellectually bankrupt?
If Galileo had the internet the earth would not have been flat by consensus, look up guys, planets are round, also it is warmer when the sun shines that when it does not. Maybe just maybe it is the solar cycle not CO2 which is warming and cooling the Earth. Papal Infallability does not extend to Hansen, the carbon religion is from a false prophet, for profit.
Joeldshore:
At May 20, 2012 at 5:38 pm you say;
“We explain Dr Jaworowski not getting funding by the fact that his work is ridiculous nonsense.”
Say what!?
The late Zebeniev Jaworwski is the ‘father’ of ice core studies for determination of environmental effects. He conducted dozens of expeditions to obtain ice-cores and devised most of the techniques now used to analyse ice-cores.
When the Chernobyl disaster occurred the UN appointed Zbigniew Jaworowski to investigate how the releases from that incident had spread around the globe. He was from the same side of the Iron Curtain as the incident but no person and no country objected to his appointment because he was outstandingly – and indisputably – the world’s leading authority on radiological protection and the leading authority on the use of ice-cores as a method to determine the dispersal of radionucleatides.
He was appalled at the misuse of the techniques which he devised to misrepresent what Ice-core analyses indicated concerning past atmospheric concentrations of e.g. carbon dioxide and wrote several papers to explain those misrepresentations.
His investigation of the Chenobyl disaster is how I came to be involved with him and his work. He was a communist-bloc scientist in the nuclear industry and I was a material scientist working for the British coal industry – i.e. a competitor of nuclear – so he thought working with me could assist ‘credibility’ of whatever his investigations revealed. Decades later his deteriorating health prevented him presenting his paper at the first Heartland Institute Climate Conference and he gave me the honour of presenting it on his behalf. I count it a very great honour to have been associated with so great a scientist as Zeb throughout the final decades of his life.
Indeed, even Wicki says this of him;
“Zbigniew Jaworowski was chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw and former chair of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (1981–82). He was a principal investigator of three research projects of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and of four research projects of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He has held posts with the Centre d’Etude Nucleaires near Paris; the Biophysical Group of the Institute of Physics, University of Oslo; the Norwegian Polar Research Institute and the National Institute for Polar Research in Tokyo.”
And a troll like you says;
“his work is ridiculous nonsense.”
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Richard
OOOPS!
I wrote “Zebeniev” when I meant “Zbigniew”.
This error is because he was always “Zeb” to his friends.
Sorry.
Richard
Joeldshore
Nice to see you again Joel.
I have often commented that you-and many on the cagw side -appear to lack a solid knowledge of history, its players and the various works and observations that have become the basis of climate science over the centuries. Unfortunately the Lambian view of the world-of which I am a minor strand- became unfashionable 20 years ago and were replaced by computers,maths, models and the more far fetched ideas that the current climate is unprecedented. Its not.
This stands out time and time again and I witness personally as I work through the physical records in the Met office and such places as Exeter Cathedral- I take the trouble to physically go there in order to research material for my articles and actually look at what our ancestors tell us. It would be useful if more people took their heads out of their computers and did the same. Really, your comment about Zbigniew Jaworowski is not one I would expect to see from you.
tonyb
tonyb:
At May 21, 2012 at 3:52 am you say to Joeldshore
“ Really, your comment about Zbigniew Jaworowski is not one I would expect to see from you.”
I have to disagree. My experience leads me to expect that kind of comment from Joel Shore.
Richard
Richard
I guess the Olympic flame went close to you on Saturday and it passed behind our house yesterday.
I think few of the more alarmist warmists would win gold medals and some shouldn’t even be in the team. The trouble is they have a very narrow view of the world and are fixated on co2 and ignore other factors, so are ill prepared for the competition .
In that respect, whilst Joel would not win any medals in the climate change olympics he ought to get a mention for at least turning up here to compete.I certainly wouldnt call him a troll.
tonyb
Bill Tuttle says:
Let me help you with the logic here:
A claim was made that the fact that Jaworoski could not get funding for his work claiming that everybody else in the field was wrong about ice cores and CO2 is evidence of some nefarious plot by which research of good quality is suppressed if it disagrees with a certain point-of-view (or something like that). However, another interpretation is simply that it is evidence that the research proposal was a poor one.
And, the point in linking to the creationist paper is to point out that this claim of bias in the scientific community is made all the time by people who support scientific hypotheses that have lost in the rough-and-tumble world of scientific research. That is just the way things go.
Richard, tonyb: I must admit that I tend to mix up Jaworowski and Beck and did so in this case. Jaworowski is probably not as far out on the “crackpot scale” as Beck is…and so perhaps my words were a little strong. However, his views on this subject of CO2 and ice core measurements are still pretty far out there…and not accepted by the scientific community and even the more science-based “AGW skeptics”, like Willis Eschenbach and Hans Erren.
tonyb:
I wrote:
“My experience leads me to expect that kind of comment from Joel Shore.”
For an example of that experience please see the thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/30/consensus-argument-proves-climate-science-is-political/
and my post at May 4, 2012 at 6:09 am then Shore’s subsequent embellishments of his untrue smears.
It is a value judgement as to whether or not Shore is a “troll” but it certainly leads me “to expect that kind of comment from Joel Shore.”
Richard
joeldshore says:
May 21, 2012 at 7:41 am
Bill Tuttle says: “Are you always this intellectually bankrupt?”
Let me help you with the logic here:
You do that. Then I’ll help you with your English comprehension.
A claim was made that the fact that Jaworoski could not get funding for his work claiming that everybody else in the field was wrong about ice cores and CO2 is evidence of some nefarious plot by which research of good quality is suppressed if it disagrees with a certain point-of-view
Jaworowski didn’t claim that everyone else in the field was wrong, he said it was disturbing that that so much of what was then being published was at odds with earlier findings. His proposal was to re-examine the cores to confirm the validity of the original data. Show me one ethical scientist who doesn’t periodically review his work.
(or something like that).
Translation: “I didn’t read the proposal and I didn’t read tjfolkert’s links, so I pulled my answer out of my… uh… hip pocket.
However, another interpretation is simply that it is evidence that the research proposal was a poor one.
Whose interpretation, aside from yours? And yours wasn’t an interpretation, it was an assumption.
And, the point in linking to the creationist paper is to point out that this claim of bias in the scientific community is made all the time by people who support scientific hypotheses that have lost in the rough-and-tumble world of scientific research.
The point in linking to the creationist paper was to equate Dr. Jaworowski’s proposal with a statement by a “non-scientific” religious group, and thereby hold up his ideas to mockery.
That is just the way things go.
No, that’s just the way the worms in your brain twist.
joeldshore says:
May 21, 2012 at 7:45 am
Jaworowski is probably not as far out on the “crackpot scale” as Beck is…and so perhaps my words were a little strong. However, his views on this subject of CO2 and ice core measurements are still pretty far out there…
From tjfolkert’s link:
“British engineer, G.S Callendar may be truly regarded as the father of this hypothesis {AGW}, and of this assumption [that atmospheric CO2 concentrations had not exceeded 280ppm prior to 1800] (Callendar, 1938; Callendar, 1940; Callendar, 1949; Callendar, 1958). This assumption was made possible by the arbitrary rejection of more than 90,000 technically excellent, direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, carried out in America, Asia and Europe, during 149 years between 1812 and 1961. Some of these direct measurements were carried out by Nobel Prize winners. Callendar rejected more than 69% from a set of 19th century CO2 measurements ranging from 250 to 550ppm (Figure 11).”
Jaworowski’s view was that direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 content should neither have been cherry-picked nor discarded in favor of measurements taken from ice cores.
I rather doubt that either Willis Eisenbach and Hans Erren would think that viewpoint was “pretty far out there…”
%$#@ur momisugly!
Memo to self: check for open code before posting.
Bill Tuttle:
It is important to note that I, Jaworowski and Beck each conducted climate-related work at personal cost and with no funding for our work from anyone else. Shore’s smears are intended to hide that fact.
So, I thank you most sincerely for your defence of Jaworwski from the malign defamations of Joel Shore.
In particular, in your post at May 21, 2012 at 9:06 am you defend Jaworwski against the outrageous implication by Shore that Jaworowski was a creationist.
Socialists and communists are political enemies, and Christians and atheists are religious opponents. When I first knew Jaworowski he was a communist and an atheist, and he remained a staunch atheist to the end of his life. I am a socialist and a Christian who is proud to say that Jaworowski and I were friends. Any assertion that he was a creationist is an insult to the honesty of his adherence to atheism.
Furthermore, Shore having been ‘called’ on his defamation of the late Zbigniew Jaworowski, at May 21, 2012 at 7:45 am Shore attempts to transfer his untrue smear to the late Georg Beck whom I also had the privilege of having known.
Jaworowski and Beck are late, lamented and honest scientists whose climate-related works were of the highest quality and were conducted at personal cost with no funding from others. Shore’s defamations of them are despicable.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
May 21, 2012 at 3:03 am
Joeldshore…..
Say what!?
The late Zebeniev Jaworwski is the ‘father’ of ice core studies for determination of environmental effects. He conducted dozens of expeditions to obtain ice-cores and devised most of the techniques now used to analyse ice-cores….
__________________________________
Thank you very much for your information on Dr. Zebeniev Jaworwski, we have lost a great man.