The rise of the peccatogenesists

An interesting new word came up this week on Twitter thanks to Hillary Rosner.

It would seem to be a derivative of the word pecadillo:

I think this is the perfect word to describe many of the disingenuous activists like Al Gore, Joe Romm, Brad Johnson, Mayor Bloomberg, and Bill McKibben who see “human caused bad weather” in every cloud, and try mightily to make others believe the same.

To an extent, they are successful, just as others are able to fool people into crusades to find bigfoot, scan the skies for aliens, or take cover from imagined chemicals raining from the sky in ordinary jet exhaust contrails.

The peccatogenesists want us to believe that our supposed “misconduct” against Gaia, such as emitting to much CO2 over an imaginary “safe” level of 350 parts per million, or failing to care enough about an imaginary temperature target of 2°C which climatologist Phil Jones says was plucked out of thin air is the cause of bad weather.

Now, per that belief, any weather event that can somehow remotely be linked to global warming is used as a propaganda tool by the peccatogenesists, except of course, when that event doesn’t, in which case it’s “just weather”. For example, thousands of new record lows get nary a mention, but when there are a string of record highs, it’s just another example of  human caused DOOM even though it can be shown later that its just another weather pattern.

And then there’s severe weather. Yesterday, the great Al Gore declared that his views are being hindered by scientists. Politico reports:

Former Vice President Al Gore lamented today that scientists “will not let us link record-breaking” tornadoes in Oklahoma and elsewhere to climate change because of inadequate record keeping on the twisters.

Oh, the horror! It reminds me of the terrible mistreatment James Hansen claimed he got at the hands of NASA during the Bush era when they wouldn’t let him make unfounded claims.

Of course, some politicians like NYC Mayor Gloomberg Bloomberg don’t let pesky science or mathematics get in the way of a crusade, and embrace peccatogenics as a vehicle for hope and change:

The bad weather patterns should kick in as early as 2020, according to the findings released on Monday.

In that year, the city will see an average temperature of 57 degrees — up from the current 54 — and 10% more rainfall.

That rainfall will come with an alarming, nearly 1-foot rise in the already high sea level — which will likely increase the city’s flood risk.

Adding to the danger will be the amount of the rainy days.

Gosh, rainy days are dangerous?  I can’t wait for NOAA to come up with a bulletin type for that. Cue the invention of the urban safety umbrella. Wuebbles gone wild would like that I think.

Of course theses claims of Hell and High Water Fire and Brimstone appear just like an old time country preacher sermon, followed by the obligatory collection plate to fleece the flock. Michael Bloomberg, in his best preaching style, only asked for $20 billion at the end of his sermon yesterday. Surely, that’s a small price to pay for dissing Gaia.

Problem is, like most peccatogenic claims, when you examine them for detail, they fall apart just as easily as the latest bigfoot or UFO sighting. Anybody with basic math skills can see Bloomberg’s claim 1 foot of sea level rise will be lucky to be 1 inch at the present rate.

The reality about the supposed human induced bad weather is that if we are to believe the claims of “consensus” put forth by Oreskes, Cook, Nuccitelli, and other social activists, then the consensus is that there’s no way to connect global warming and severe weather. Some examples of the consensus that severe weather is not attributable to climate change include:

Nature editorial dashes alarmist hopes of linking extreme weather events to global warming:

Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.

IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events and Disasters:

FAQ 3.1 Is the Climate Becoming More Extreme? […]None of the above instruments has yet been developed sufficiently as to allow us to confidently answer the question posed here. Thus we are restricted to questions about whether specific extremes are becoming more or less common, and our confidence in the answers to such questions, including the direction and magnitude of changes in specific extremes, depends on the type of extreme, as well as on the region and season, linked with the level of understanding of the underlying processes and the reliability of their simulation in models.

But, as Gore says, “it’s those pesky scientists” that are preventing the linkage.

I blame technology for the appearance that the weather is getting worse. See: Why it seems that severe weather is “getting worse” when the data shows otherwise – a historical perspective

With this essay, “peccatogenic” is now in the climate vocabulary. Go forth and multiply it whenever you get the opportunity. And, keep that handy Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. bullshit button at the ready.