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)
“P.S. Notice all the ad hom stuff and not a whit of evidence to back up their claims.”
First thing that struck me too – and the scans confirmed it. What total idiots they do make of themselves!
As for calling the eminent scientists ‘idiots’ – that is projection in its purest form. The scientists will suffer no harm from it, unlike the name-caller. Surely even those who are persuaded by the faulty warmist arguments because they don’t have the knowledge to follow the arguments in detail will pause and think when they see such, er, idiocy?
The trouble with Twitter is that it’s how most of the young get their ‘information’. Their MTV-induced attention span is too tiny to permit of an actual argument. That’s why they take exams with multiple-choice questions (ie usually a 25% chance of guessing correctly). These people have the vote, that is our tragedy.
‘Climate Communication Prize’ indeed. AGU needs to give a Geophysics Prize to someone who is a geophysicist and actually does geophysics work.
In all just another reason why I want to bailout of the A[Non]GU.
The difference between Rhetoric and Logic is that Logic seeks to prove the Truth while Rhetoric only seeks to persuade people to believe.
Science will eventually overcome faith, although the process may be as slow as erosion.
In the end, Gravity always wins.
Which chemicals have the worst reputation? Here’s one suggestion on how to measure that. Which chemicals currently scare people, so that they want protection from them, and they’ll pay nearly any price to get it. Some way to measure that is political speeches and hearings (which are always mostly about protection and outrage, not about education), newspaper articles of warning, dedicated websites, protests of the XL pipeline, and all that doom and gloom jazz. Heck, there could be poems and songs about it by now, for all I know.
You’re going to seriously suggest that Agent Orange gets that kind of attention in this day and age?
I hear the sound of gurgling and muddled speech as AGW disappears down the plughole.
philjourdan says:
May 9, 2013 at 9:43 am
I am not sure. I never heard him saying a bad word about Paul Muller or J. R. Geigy Ltd.
Maybe he is just really cranky today and something is bothering him.
@Sam on a related note.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/tech-savvy-kids-cant-push-a-pencil/story-e6frg6n6-1226634952869
Poor, poor Peter Gleick, document forger, liar and identity thief. Hey Gleick, I told you before and I’ll tell you again. We will defeat your political agenda to brainwash children by getting into the schools and teaching the kids real science. You know, the science of matter and energy not political agendas and your whacked out religious belief in global warming.
Lars P.:
You mean this?:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Thank-you! That’s it exactly. Sometimes you need to see the extent of the insanity all collected in one place.
Gav n’ Pete….another comedy duo in the mould of Cookie and Lew.
They’re meant to be Scientists correct?
Well don’t Scientists measure things and collect useful data?
Seeing as money is how everything is measured nowadays they simply need to look at the trillions of dollars that have been squandered on CO2, I’m thinking… control/mitigation/sequestration/research/renewable energy subsidies/PR/flights to conferences etc etc etc, then compare that to the amount of money spent on the other substances.
But that would give an answer they don’t like…and we all know that happens then, don’t we!
It must be very hard for the rest of Gleick’s family. I wonder how they cope with his infantile behavior?
One can only hope they are blissfully unaware that he has become a laughing stock.
Well Gleick does no his way around ‘Deceptive’ from lots of professnial experincer ,which is shame given his supposed to do sceince in his job.
It appears hysteria is all they have left. What’s the old saying? When the facts are on your side argue the facts. When the law (laws of nature) are on your side argue the law. When neither is on your side, pound the table.
I support background checks for anyone with “Gavin” or “Gleick” in their name.
Anyway, paraben(s) and CFCs are compound classes, not compounds, that have beneficial uses. Napalm is a mixture and sulfuric acid is one of the most important chemicals made.
If Gleick really believed all that was false, false, false – wouldn’t it be better for him to just dig out the evidence? Why do these believers have to resort to manipulating the data, to hiding their methods, to forging documents, to lying and to shouting at everyone who doesn’t agree? All they have to do is reveal their EVIDENCE so we can all have a look at it, and show – in return – if it can be falsified. Wouldn’t we all get a better night’s sleep?
…Except for the watermelons wanting to rule the world, the politicians who are in league with them and think humankind should be oppressed, and the shonky scientists playing along for Big Bucks. But the believers – the true believers – would feel better for knowing, right?
I was going to ask Peter which group he was in, but going by past exploits, I think we all know.
These juveniles would be entertaining except THEY ARE EATING OUR TAX DOLLARS at a high rate. How I wish the political climate were such that these people could be stripped of their credentials and blocked from the public trough forever…
BTW, about the dreadful parabens:
“Some parabens are found naturally in plant sources. For example, methylparaben is found in blueberries,[6][7][8] where it acts as an antimicrobial agent.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabens
There’s that evil Gaia again, trying to take revenge on us!
You can dance on them all you want but I find the whole sickening because they wasted their education and potential for legitimate science research.They have no excuse for their stupid easy to spot garbage they tried to fool us with: The “Hockey Stick” paper.
I still find sycophants who are willing to completely embarass themselves following someone who through computerized statistical bogosity bring up the “hockey Stick” paradigm and not realize that many other research institutions find plenty of evidence on the existence of the MWP and LIA climate periods.It is not even hard to find them and I personally knew they existed way back in the 1970’s because the evidence for those climatic events were well known.Thus anyone still wanting to defend the H.S. impossiblility indicates to me that I am near a gutter level moron
They chose political/environmental propaganda over the Scientific Method and we ALL lose for it and that is why they deserve their coming punishment by being fired or get so nakedly exposed as a dirtbag wanna be researcher with a briefcase full of bullshit.
There is still a great reluctance not to identify the particular political thread in common that drives Glieck, Schmidt and Mann. They are all part of an uber left-wing elite which drives AGW policy thought.
Instead of personalizing their behavior or focusing on science irrationality alone it would be better if the political cultures and motives were acknowledged directly instead of through inference. Leading skeptics seem to maintain this blind-spot for reasons I can only speculate upon.
Now it says: “Of the first 7 sentences in this #WSJ #climate piece, 6 are false. The other is just wrong. online.wsj.com/article/SB1000… …. Then I gave up.”
Hey, some people think wire fraud is wrong. Opinions will vary.
What I believe Gleick is most angry about is this:
In 2010, the WSJ refused to publish his letter. The one he organized. Signed by 255 scientists concerned about climate change. With Gleick as the leader signer. He organized it. It was his potential moment in the sun with national attention. They refused to give him a moment in the sun, and sent him back to the leftie-scientist ghetto.
Instead they published in 2012, the letter signed by 16 skeptics, including Harrison Schmidt, the who was on the board of Heartland.
Gleick complained vociferiously on twitter, and in multiple blog posts ever since. Linking the two incidents. The WSJ snubbed him personally. But they published Schmidt! (Now not once, but twice!). He believes they are linked. Including tweets (as recently as yesterday), and long boring blog posts about his 3 year old letter not being published in the WSJ (he was still complaining as recently as 1 month ago).
And what happened when the WSJ published the Schmidt/16 letter? Gleick immediately started trying to get into Heartland’s files using subterfuge. Perhaps that is a sign of how angry he was.
And which Heartland board member did Gleick impersonate? Heartland have never said, but some of us believe we have figured it out…
And when the forged letter was bundled with the purloined package of documents – the forged letter that many believe Glieck wrote – what did it say? It said Gleick was important…. that he was the kind of pro-science blogger who deserved a moment in the sun as a prominent climate blogger… . (and wasn’t getting it due to evil deniers).
I can’t wait until Lewinsky joins the fun by tweeting an accusation of Schmitt being a moon landing conspiracy theorist. O_o
I think you mean Loo – wet – donkey. Otherwise spelt Lewandowsky
@Michael Snow
“Just to note that that is also, DR. Harrison Schmitt, the first Ph.D. (geology) on the moon.”
I have yet to meet a geologist who believes in CAGW.
@copner
“What I believe Gleick is most angry about is this:…”
That is a very interesting set of facts.
Thank you.
Sulfuric acid? ‘Battery acid’? What the heck does Gavin think starts his ICE automobile in the mornings anyway?
Geesh … these ppl are proving themselves to be nothing less than LUDDITES*.
.
* Luddites – 19th-century English textile artisans who protested against the newly-developed, labor-saving machinery from 1811 to 1817.
Further:
1. One who fears technology (or new technology, as they seem pleased with how things currently are … why can’t everything just be the same?)
2. A group led by Mr. Luddite during the industrial revolution who believed machines would cause workers wages to be decreased and ended up burning a number of factories in protest.
A Luddite generally claims things were “just fine” back in the day and refuses to replace/update failing equipment/software/computers on the basis that they were just fine 10 years ago.
A person who detests or fears change … of an established idea or process, or opposes change on the basis that it’s different from their personal opinion.
.