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)
Bob says:
May 9, 2013 at 10:03 am
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?
******************************************************************************************************
I don’t know where celebration or party comes from. A rort is Australian slang for a scam, fraud etc
Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s Clown College Campus in Manhattan.
I wonder how he is even able to post, what with his offices in Manhattan being all under water.
To “rort the system” is to bend/break the rules to get a financial benefit.
eg claiming unemployment benefits for 2 brothers that don’t exist
eg lying intentionally to win an election
eg deliberately manipulating data to further your cause and get more funding.
Carbon dioxide makes for an easy scapegoat. Climatists have simply determined it to be guilty until proven innocent. But, there is one chemical compound that slips completely under the radar which is actually deadly – DHMO. People have tried without success to have it banned.
Did I see the word “deceptive’ in Gleick’s twitter? Well, its hard to argue him. After all, he is an expert on deception.
This line is very tricky: “Will climate change influence tornado occurrence?”
My answer is no, but the tornado occurencies may well lead to a changed climate.
Climate is anyway the average of weather, so to have an other climate, you need first to have an other weather. It is not the climate that gives the weather but just the opposite.
I read this article, then almost immediately after reading it, received this junk mail from barackobama.com (I am unaware of how I got on their list) with a subject line of “Tin foil hat alert”. Seems relevant:
“Friend —
Break out the tin foil hats, folks.
House Speaker John Boehner and the chairman of the House Science Committee are both unsure whether the science behind climate change — the stuff that shows pretty clearly that carbon pollution produced by humans is damaging our environment — is real.
Instead, they’re on the record saying things like this:
“The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more carbon dioxide.” – John Boehner, April 2009
As long as our members of Congress continue to develop their own theories behind climate change, we will fall further and further behind in our ability to make actual progress on this issue.
Make them do better. Add your name to join OFA’s team that will hold climate deniers in Congress accountable:
http://my.barackobama.com/Hold-Climate-Deniers-Accountable
We owe it to our environment and our economy to start having real talk on climate change.
Join us — and we’ll be in touch with next steps soon.
Thanks,
Messina
Jim Messina
Chair
Organizing for Action”
I give Gavin an F for communication.
IUPAC agreed that ‘sulfuric’ would be the spelling more than two decades ago.
(As a chemist I’m chuffed that every comment so far on this thread has used the correct spelling…well done WUWT readers!)
Thanks greatly, Anthony, for doing the legwork to let honest people know what the clowns are up to at this moment. It is important work. But I do not envy the boredom that you must endure while you are revealing the clowns.
Crispin in Waterloo says:
May 9, 2013 at 1:49 pm
May I correct your response to read: “I have yet to meet an honest geologist who believes in CAGW.” (Michael Mann has a degree in geology, but few consider him to be honest.)
Basic grammar doesn’t seem to be Gleick’s strong suit either.
Congrats! Another fine hatchet job. We need this kind of regular affirmation here in the Village to help us keep us convinced we are on the path of Truth.
Btw can’t believe this “Cosmic rays affect climate” story slipped through the fine mesh of the Master’s state-of-the-art web trawl:
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/53330
Real life observations, not Svensmarks imagination + magic box lab experiments
Interesting seasonal cycle in the mentioning of Co2 in headlines. Do the peaks correspond with NH summer time? A good time to mention global warming?
Looks to me that the big gavininny and criminal gleickiepoo are making great strides towards bringing back the town stocks for crimes deserving public humiliation.
For their benefit, we’ll have to make sure that no plants or animals are harmed in the construction of the stocks. Perhaps use dolomitic limestone instead of wood? If they (g&g) object to how ordinary and plain dolomite can be (often coarse grainy gray), we’ll consider upping the town stocks genteel factor by using polished wood replaced chalcedony. When all else fails we’ll just use oil paints on plain old wood stocks; lead free of course. Still, I rather fancy the idea that carbonate compounds are helping to restrain them and plain gray suits them..
Visitors will be invited to inscribe one word notes on glieckens public humiliation attire (one white lab coat and one pair white boxer shorts sans opening). Free over ripe and unripe bug infested fruits will be available for visitors who would like to play ‘guess my tipping point’ with gavininny and glieckfraud.
Gleick should have been fired long ago for incompetence. Instead, he has been rewarded, despite engaging in obviously illegal acts in his fraudulent acquisition of documents from the Heartland Institute. If an AGW skeptic had engaged in similar criminal activity, he would have been vilified by the mainstream media and investigated by law enforcement.
The Warmist crowd gave up any claim to ethics, truth or morality long ago. The damage their fraudulent science has done to mankind, especially the poor and energy impoverished, is incalculable.