Tom Nelson writes:
The end days of the climate hoax are upon us: Award-winning climate communicator Gavin Schmidt calls distinguished Princeton physicist Dr. William Happer and NASA moonwalker Harrison Schmitt “idiots”.
Unfortunately, Gavin forgot to check the data first. But that’s generally what The Team does when they take to Twitter. No science there, only raw emotions.
Twitter / ClimateOfGavin: Happer and Schmitt in the WSJ: …
Happer and Schmitt in the WSJ: "Of all of the world's chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide" I call BS (1/2)
— Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin) May 9, 2013
and…
DDT? Parabens? Sulphuric acid? CFCs? Napalm? Agent Orange? (2/2) #HapperandSchmittareidiots
— Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin) May 9, 2013
Flashback: A Deserved Award for Gavin Schmidt of Real Climate and NASA – NYTimes.com
Gavin Schmidt, the climate modeler at NASA and Columbia University who has long endured the slings and arrows that come with blogging on climate, has now gained a laurel for his efforts — the inaugural $25,000 Climate Communications Prize of the American Geophysical Union.
The data says that Schmitt and Happer are correct. In books and on the web, carbon dioxide is far more discussed (and maligned) than the other chemicals he lists.
http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=carbon+dioxide%2CDDT%2CParabens%2CSulphuric+acid%2C+CFCs%2CNapalm%2CAgent+Orange&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=
On the web as news headlines, CO2 is still the overall leader, as indicated by the bar graph but has recently waned. Parabens seems to be the new bogeyman with the press as they seem to care less and less about CO2:
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=carbon%20dioxide,DDT,Parabens,Sulphuric%20acid,CFCs,Napalm,Agent%20Orange
Gavin should look at data, rather than be emotional Twitter ranter like Michael Mann. But when your livlihood is dying, I suppose emotions are all you have left.
Take for example Peter Gleick’s response. Tom Nelson documents that too:
Don’t miss this: After distinguished Princeton physicist Dr. William Happer and NASA Moonwalker Harrison H. Schmitt defend CO2 in a WSJ article, Gleick goes apoplectic
The demonized chemical compound is a boon to plant life and has little correlation with global temperature.
By HARRISON H. SCHMITT AND WILLIAM HAPPER
WSJ.COM 5/8/13: Of all of the world’s chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide. Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That’s simply not the case. Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.
The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA’s and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been—and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn’t the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.
Another twisted and scientifically bad #climate piece in the #WSJ. Deceptive from the first paragraph to the last. http://t.co/4kHUBmVWhL.
— Peter Gleick 🇺🇸 (@PeterGleick) May 9, 2013
he adds
Of the first 7 sentences in this #WSJ #climate piece, 6 are outright false. The other is opinion. http://t.co/MmWY1LI4RK. Then I gave up.
— Peter Gleick 🇺🇸 (@PeterGleick) May 9, 2013
and finally
@PeterGleick Here's scrawled notes on the first seven sentences, before I gave up. Please, continue. pic.twitter.com/FXtrRg1F2n
— Peter Gleick 🇺🇸 (@PeterGleick) May 9, 2013
It’s like grade school with Gleick.
I’m just going to pick one, readers can refute the others.
There isn’t the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.
Gosh, you’d think Gleick would note what the IPCC SREX report, Nature, and NOAA says about this:
There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change… The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados… The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses. –IPCC Special Report on Extremes, Chapter 4
From Nature: Extreme weather
Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.
NOAA sums up the situation neatly in their FAQ.
Does “global warming” cause tornadoes? No. Thunderstorms do. The harder question may be, “Will climate change influence tornado occurrence?” The best answer is: We don’t know. According to the National Science and Technology Council’s Scientific Assessment on Climate Change, “Trends in other extreme weather events that occur at small spatial scales–such as tornadoes, hail, lightning, and dust storms–cannot be determined at the present time due to insufficient evidence.” This is because tornadoes are short-fused weather, on the time scale of seconds and minutes, and a space scale of fractions of a mile across. In contrast, climate trends take many years, decades, or millennia, spanning vast areas of the globe. The numerous unknowns dwell in the vast gap between those time and space scales. Climate models cannot resolve tornadoes or individual thunderstorms. They can indicate broad-scale shifts in three of the four favorable ingredients for severe thunderstorms (moisture, instability and wind shear), but as any severe weather forecaster can attest, having some favorable factors in place doesn’t guarantee tornadoes. Our physical understanding indicates mixed signals–some ingredients may increase (instability), while others may decrease (shear), in a warmer world. The other key ingredient (storm-scale lift), and to varying extents moisture, instability and shear, depend mostly on day-to-day patterns, and often, even minute-to-minute local weather. Finally, tornado recordkeeping itself also has been prone to many errors and uncertainties, doesn’t exist for most of the world, and even in the U. S., only covers several decades in detailed form.
But hey, who needs data when you can spew raw religious emotion on Twitter?
The last time Gleick got this worked up about a WSJ op-ed unfavorable to his views, he committed a crime. Heads up everybody!
Related articles
- WSJ op-ed by Schmitt and Happer: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide (wattsupwiththat.com)
- NASA Moonwalker Harrison H. Schmitt & Prof. William Happer in WSJ: ‘Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxid (climatedepot.com)
- Freeman Dyson speaks out about climate science, and fudge (wattsupwiththat.com)
I really hate to admit this but Gavin Schmidt, Peter Gleick, and I have a little in common.
You see, a while back I was hospitalized, and I had to go for the obligatory chest X-ray. As the nurse was pushing my hospital wheelchair to the room for this X-ray of my chest I joked to her, “They wanna make Arnold Schwarzenegger jealous.”
Now, that is what I have in common with our two protagonists. We were all joking. And in all cases it should’ve been quite obvious.
For instance, in my case, the joke should’ve been obvious for the simple fact that I’m 5’8″ tall and I weigh, um, 128 pounds. My gastroenterologist calls me “scrawny.” Obviously, there’s no way in hell Arnold Schwarzenegger would be jealous of me. The only physical competition I could possibly win against him was how quickly mosquitoes could suck me dry.
Now, I think it should be quite obvious that the joke I played on that nurse, and Peter and Gavin (and others) have played on the general population, have profound similarities. They’re both absurd. I mean, yeah, every breath we take, we exhale a breath of poison.
But here is the difference. You see, the nurse didn’t laugh at my joke. She actually took it seriously. How, I’ll never know. And, rather than let her think that this ‘scrawny’ guy could actually compare himself to Arnold I quickly walked it back and told her, “Just kidding,” rather than letting her think that I was a blithering moron.
And that’s the difference. Gavin and Peter never walked it back. And now it’s too late.
rort [rɔːt] Austral informal
n
1. a rowdy party or celebration
2. a dishonest scheme
vb
to take unfair advantage of something
[back formation from rorty (in the sense: good, splendid)]
rorty adj
Maybe I am new to this English vocabulary thing, but I have only recently noticed that the word “rorts” is appearing in articles on the internet. I believe I first noticed it on JoNova’s blog. Does this have an Australian origin? Since I am somewhat rowdy myself, does that mean that I can be called, rorty, even though I am an honest person?
Schmidt and Gleick don’t live in the same world that we do. Theirs is an imaginary world created by climate models. They stubbornly refuse to look at any observations that show their imaginary world diverging from reality.
[snip – over the top – mod]
——————————–
Awww….
Perhaps then a cut and paste from the last time that image was allowed at WUWT. Something Gavin and Peter should keep in mind –
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit,
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it
“Another twisted and scientifically bad climate piece.” –Peter Gleick
Projection, (prᵊ-jek’-shᵊn) n.: The attribution of one’s own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.
Bob (May 9, 2013 at 10:03 am)
Thanks for providing a definition of “rorts.” I had wondered if it was a typo or a simply a word I’d never previously encountered and went so far as to look it up (with no success). It did not occur to me that it might be a derivative of rorty.
I’d be interested in a cryptographer’s analysis of Gleick’s stick-printing. He’s written the word “FALSE” numerous times with conspicuous inconsistencies in the way the letters are drawn.
Looks like signs of instability to me
And, BTW, why would you post a scan of your scrawls in a twit-feed? Now everyone can plainly see you have no factual argument – just a Crayola rant.
Just to note that that is also, DR. Harrison Schmitt, the first Ph.D. (geology) on the moon.
None of the chemicals Gavin mentioned have ever been touted as destroying the world like Carbon dioxide has. Not once!
Climatology, like Scientology, but more crazy.
I think Gleick should be commended for actually having read what he wants to derride
‘That’s one small step for adult mankind .. one giant leap for Gleickhood’
Does gabbin’ Gavin report the income from his blogging on the public dime, or does he emulate his mentor, activist/bureaucrat Jim “Boiling Seas” Hansen, who tried to hide his ill-gotten, anti-scientific snake oil gains?
Well, well…look at this…
The History of Climate Change and the Future of Global Governance
http://www.tgs.northwestern.edu/news/climate-change-and-the-future-of-global-governance/index.html
Department of History, Columbia University
May 28 – August 16, 2013
The Hertog Global Strategy Initiative (HGSI) seeks talented undergraduates, graduate students, and mid-career professionals for its 2013 seminar on the History of Climate Change and the Future of Global Governance.
HGSI is a research program that explores how the world community has responded to planetary threats to derive lessons that will help us take on the challenges of the present and the future. Each summer, a select group of participants comes to Columbia University for three months to work with leading scholars and policymakers. This year’s initiative hopes to train a new generation of researchers and leaders who understand both the development of climate science and the changing nature of world politics.
The 2013 seminar will be taught by Matthew Connelly, Professor of History at Columbia University, and Jim Fleming, Professor of Science, Technology, and Society at Colby College. They will be assisted in the classroom by Deborah Coen, Paul Edwards, Mike Hulme, Anthony Janetos, Bill McKibben, Geoffrey Parker, Gavin Schmidt, John Topping, and many other leaders in the field.
Participants pursue original research both independently and in teams. Students will receive eight credit points for the seminar, the equivalent of two semester-long courses at Columbia.
…
Hmmm…Planetary threats?? Global governance?? CO2??
I read somewhere, once, that Buddhist types who were really devout would have an acolyte moving ahead of them sweeping the path so that no unseen insects might get killed by the passage of the devout one. It seems senseless and trivial but consistent with the faith of not causing harm to any living creature.
The Gleiks of this world are much the same. Their hysterical gestures in support of their faith may well be internally consistent but have zero effect in the real world. Let us hope that their cloying attachment to the somewhat naive folks in power soon wanes and thus allow society to continue its great march into the future.
Onward and upward folks, and for that we need energy, lts of energy.
The worst reputation must go to the chemical implicated in the most disasters…. now where is the link to the web site documenting all the evil consequences of rising CO2? I know it was posted at WUWT a while ago, but I didn’t save it to my favourites. I will now if someone will put it up again!
Why would anyone even follow Gleick and Schmidt on Twitter? Perhaps just for laughs?????
pgosselin says:
May 9, 2013 at 9:09 am
What ever doesn’t agree with Holy Climate Scripture is false no matter what data or findings get presented. Happer and Schmitt to Gleick are like Galileo to the Catholic Church.
Correct. Only the climate scripture is called “climate science” or short even “science” to confuse the audience. So if you contradict it, you are “anti-science” (I have seen “anti-climate” too)
SCheesman says:
May 9, 2013 at 10:48 am
The worst reputation must go to the chemical implicated in the most disasters…. now where is the link to the web site documenting all the evil consequences of rising CO2? I know it was posted at WUWT a while ago, but I didn’t save it to my favourites. I will now if someone will put it up again!
You mean this?:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
I can’t wait until Lewinsky joins the fun by tweeting an accusation of Schmitt being a moon landing conspiracy theorist. O_o
Leaders of cults are notorious for stamping their little feet, when confronted with unconvenient facts or the truth. So, as a cult leader he is obliged to rant and that is exactly what he does.
John Greenfraud says:
May 9, 2013 at 9:23 am
“With the climate rackets drying up, Gleick will do anything to get some press. However, in his defense, job opportunities may be limited for a liar and a thief in the real world.”
Sounds like a real nice resume for a seat in Congress.
After I read or hear about some of the tweets people send whether it is sports, entertainment, media, government, or science, and the instantaneous idiots they make of themselves, I know why I will never have a tweeter account. After a comment makes the internet, it never goes away and never can be successfully denied.
How’s the temperature meddling going at GISS?
Gleick! The scan! ROTFLMAO!
And he calls this “notes”? He invites any followers to “please continue”? Will we now get a bunch of comments from warmists who simply exclaim “False!” ??? Can’t wait! Cracking myself up.
It’s rather amusing that sulfuric acid is on Gavin’s list of horrors, since it is actually one of the main props of any industrial society. Practically anything you can think of is ultimately manufactured from or with three basic ingredients: sulfuric acid, crude oil and natrium chloride (ordinary salt).