Guest essay by Brandon Shollenberger
We can pack up our bags and go home. The global warming debate is, except maybe as an academic curiosity. I know this to be true because Skeptical Science says so. And if they say so, it must be true.
Don’t believe me? I understand. It’s hard to believe. But it’s true. You may remember a post I wrote a couple days ago. In it, I called Skeptical Science dishonest for repeatedly promoting a tweet from (not quite) Barack Obama that said:
Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. Read more: http://OFA.BO/gJsdFp
As Cook et al’s study said absolutely nothing about whether or not climate change is dangerous. Barry Woods followed up on this point at Skeptical Science in a few comments. That’s when the Skeptical Science crowd said concerns about dangerous global warming are unimportant.
“Sphaerica”, who I believe is a moderator, said:
So your particular nit is that the paper’s authors didn’t correct the President of the United States (or, rather, those who manage his twitter feed) for the exact wording of a tweet?
An official moderator’s response from PW, whose initials I don’t recognize, says:
[PW] Cease the back-n-forth on this silly nitpick of a single tweet. Return to the topic and further nonsense about a single tweet will be deleted.
“Dikran Marsupial”, a major player at SkS, says:
Life is too short for pedantry and nit-picking, especially if it is only a means to avoid acceptance of what the TCP does actually show, i.e. that there is a broad consensus amongst scientists working on climate-related science that the majority of climate change is anthropogenic.
Let’s not focus on the fact Dikran Marsupial misrepresents Cook et al’s results. Let’s not focus on the fact nobody corrects him about him. Let’s not focus on the fact that is almost exactly the behavior described in my previous post.
Let’s just focus on the fact Skeptical Science tells us it doesn’t matter whether or not Cook et al’s work proves there is a consensus that global warming is dangerous. They say that issue is a just a nit – an unimportant detail. They say there is no relevant difference between a paper saying, “Global warming is mad-made” and saying, “Global warming is man-made and dangerous.”
That settles it. They don’t care. Why should we?
Canman:
No. Hyperbole is a rhetorical device whereby one uses exaggeration for effect. There is nothing in (not quite) Obama’s tweet that indicates such. It was a simple, straightforward sentence. On top of that, his reference to “dangerous” was said in the same way as his reference to “real” and “man-made.” There’s nothing to distinguish one from the others.
What gave you the idea this might be hypocrisy?
Brandon:
Technically the tweet was from his office not President Obama himself:
From their twitter account:
“This account is run by Organizing for Action staff. Tweets from the President are signed -bo.”
This tweet was not signed “-bo.”
For an excellent example of how much “skepticism” the folks at SkS apply to things they like to hear vs. things they dislike to hear, have a read of this recent thread: http://www.skepticalscience.com/BCCarbonTax2.html#commenthead
The original post addresses the effects of the BC carbon tax, a subject that Willis Eschenbach has analysed quite thoroughly in a series of posts earlier this month here at WUWT.
In the comments, I expressed some reasons to be a bit skeptical of the claimed success of this carbon tax. Hilarity ensued as the SkS crew angrily replied to my “unsubstantiated bullshit”, and quoted non-peer-reviewed “data” that, as it turns out, they had interpreted completely backwards.
Re: Obama’s “Organizing for Action” staff: whether or not a tweet is done with the personal “Bo” initials, it is all provided on behalf of, in the name of, the President of the USA.
In fact, it is quite extraordinary that. US President has outsourced public communications in this way to an activist organization.
This week in Chicago the Organizing for Action cadres were directly involved with Algore’s climate propaganda festival:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/al-gore–the-climate-reality-project-welcome-1500-new-climate-leaders-217769101.html
It used to bother me whenever I heard someone say, “The Science is settled”. But I had a think about it and recently changed my position. If the science is truly “settled”, why do we need to continue to spend billions of dollars per year on it? The theory of Plate Tectonics is also pretty much settled, but you don’t see governments pouring billions of dollars into it.
If your argument is that the science is settled, you would also have to agree that it was waste of money to spend even a penny more on any research involving CO2 and climate — better to spend that money on “unsettled” science like cancer research. It makes perfect sense — defund climate research and use the money where it is actually needed and will provide a benefit to society.
And there is no longer a need for the media to publish articles on CO2 and climate, just as there is no need for articles updating us on the Crimean War, both events are settled and are now non-stories.
I think all of us (all being 97% that is) can agree that the need for CO2 Climate Research has come and gone. Let move on to bigger and better things.
I propose a new slogan:
End Settled Science Funding Now!
Who cares what Mosher and Dikran Marsupial say. They still pretend to believe that GCM’s work. Which they must otherwise their beautiful scare is gone. Wallowing in pretend concern. Mainly concerned with how to sell the scare. Like K-Pop.
In retrospect it appears to me that Real Climate has been a little skeptical in its prime (years ago) compared to the existing situation at the Skeptical[-less] Science site.
The ‘settled science’ promoters are lessened of late.
John
Carrick:
I know. That’s why I put the (not quite) there. I’ve been trying to think of a concise way to phrase it, and that’s the best I’ve come up with so far.
So is it just as valid to say that climate change is real, man-made, but not dangerous at all? Apparently it is to them.
You can tell a lot about a president by what they do in their second term, and what their priorities are (or have been all along, just obscured). In the first term they can’t do anything too outrageous or they’ll never get reelected. In the second term they can pretty much get away with anything. The most that can happen is they might lose the House and Senate, which neuters them.
As clinton demonstrated, you can pretty much do whatever you want, and even if you’re caught and impeached, there is nothing your opponents can do to you. Nope, second term you’re golden. You’re covered. Time to just work on your legacy and make grand proclamations and great historical sound bites.
A neutered president (lame duck) can’t do as much harm to the country as a leader in some other countries can do if they’re neutered, for example in Canada a Prime Minister still has far too much power because Canada does not have an actual Senate, and the Prime Ministership is dependent on them having a House. Thus some decades back Trudeau managed to do incredible harm to the country in spite of not having much support from the electorate. His actions directly harmed Canada’s oil industry and vast swaths of the country that depend upon that industry were economically devastated for many years.
So for the big zero to start making unfounded and incorrect declarations about “climate change”, and continue to block Keystone XL for no reason other than to politic, in fact, pretty much everything the administration has done since reelection and will do until they’re gone, demonstrates that your lame duck is armed.
Also, be careful about zero’s control of the big red button. If an enemy of the state is genuinely dangerous there is one man that can authorize a nuclear strike against that enemy. I’m certain that if his advisers found a single point that could be blown up in order to “solve climate change” he’d rush ahead, secure in his community organizer way that it’s the “right thing to do”. We’re kinda hoping they don’t think the Oilsands become a target.
You appear to have a small typo. In the next to last paragraph, you say “Global warming is mad-made”. I believe you mean “Global warming is madness-made”.
CodeTech says:
July 31, 2013 at 2:23 pm
“rush ahead, secure in his community organizer way that it’s the “right thing to do”. We’re kinda hoping they don’t think the Oilsands become a target.”
Don’t worry. Liberal billionaire crony Warren Buffet makes money hand over fist carting the oil via rail; which is more dangerous and twice as expensive as a pipeline’s transport cost. The oil is moved one way or the other. Obama doesn’t believe in CAGW. He believes in golfing, choom and community organizing.
Like some other environmental scares, CAGW is based on taking advantage of how the target audience in the general public thinks simplistically black / white, as if the whole debate was just a matter of if a greenhouse effect existed. Numbers aren’t really examined closely by that target audience.
What proponents most often formally defend is a small amount of warming occurring, as they know they can’t defend more than that in argument against a capable critic. However, their message, which they go back to delivering whenever they can get away with it, is to imply huge warming and catastrophe.
Thus, for example, a propagandist will imply meters of sea level rise rapidly; then in a formal debate switch to defending millimeters, quickly moving goalposts; and then go back to claiming meters again as soon as away from sophisticated questioning.
Unfortunately I don’t know of a good phrase to name that common tactic. It is like a form of “bait and switch,” but that doesn’t quite encapsulate it.
Reg Nelson says:
July 31, 2013 at 1:50 pm
et al….
———————
Science has always been settled…until it wasn’t.
At the turn of the 20h century the physical sciences were “settled” and then naught; particularly physics.
Now all science is once again “settled”… perhaps you are right and funding should be cut across the board so that the coming surprises could be more poignant to this casual observer.
…neither an alarmist nor calmist be
for the middle path is the better stance.
“Dikran Marsupial” ? Dickhead Marsupial … Gavin Cawley of UEA !
CodeTech says:
July 31, 2013 at 2:23 pm
———————————
Fear not, the pipeline continues to be built and the land annexed; the puppet show belies the momentum behind the curtain…both curtains. It is already a done deal, but enjoy the psych-ops, i know i do.
To watch “them” fret upon the stage, captivating the audience and never showing the writer’s hand….marvelous!
You should state what word goes where. Or should we suggest possibilities and vote which is funniest?
AnonyMoose, I said that in response to a couple people pointing out what word was missing, and where. I think it’s pretty obvious what I meant.
But I’m all for your idea. I’d be curious what suggestions people would come up with.
This comment by the alarmists, i.e., don’t worry about global warming, strikes me as further indicative of how their agenda really has nothing to do with climate, but is entirely motivated by totalitarian impulses and the wealth redistribution meme.
I would emphasize again that ALL wealth redistribution schemes, however they are posited and promoted, ALWAYS result in wealth being redistributed from poorer people to richer people. Monies taken by government for this supposed purpose enrich government functionaries, and monies sent to poor countries only further enrich the tiny kleptocratic elites in those countries.
Brandon Shollenberger says:
July 31, 2013 at 2:14 pm
Carrick:
Technically the tweet was from his office not President Obama himself
————————————————————————————————–
The tweet should be assumed to be implicitly endorsed by Obama. I would find it difficult to believe that Obama did not receive a heads-up on this comment being made in his name. Imagine if a sceptic planted inside their organization was able to post a tweet saying something like, ‘climate change really isn’t as dangerous as initially thought’ and attributed the quote to Obama. There would be retractions and clarifications ad nauseum for the following week. So Obama fully owns that tweet.
The word ‘over’ automatically popped into place to fill in the missing word. That was just a test to see who was paying attention. Right?
Hey, Gold Minor! So glad to see you post. I’ve been concerned about you; you were posting regularly, then ______________________. Hope all is well.
“Equivocation” comes close.
Perhaps Koolaid Science, aka SkS would be so kind as to notify the EPA. They still seem to be under the illusion that “carbon” is some sort of poison.
Our supposed “leader-of-the-free-world” wouldn’t even pass WUWT’s liberal standards of decency for posting replies. I’d think one of his handlers/useful idiots prb’ly posted it, but the chump-in-chief is still responsible for it.
Now, isn’t that special?
Cook’s Skeptical[-less] Science site makes one thing absolutely certain. The sites main players act like they actually believe in their irrational judgements that all individuals are mentally ill and/ or immoral who have fundamental criticisms of their uncritical acceptance of the IPCC’s biased/manipulated research assessments.
N’est ce pas?
Therefore, Cook’s Skeptical[-less] Science site cannot avoid being a fertile breeding ground for conspiracy theories about people who oppose its biases.
John