Guest essay by By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The Guardian, one of the fastest-collapsing “legacy” news media in Britain, is bleeding circulation more rapidly than almost any other national newspaper. One reason, perhaps, is that on the question of the climate it has long ceased to be even remotely credible.
A recent piece by Ketan Joshi on a Guardian blog trots out, yet again, the notion of “an already well-established scientific consensus on the influence of human activity on climate change”. Inevitably, there is a link to the discredited Cook et al. paper pretending there is a “97% consensus” to the effect that most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade. Unaccountably, there is no link to the subsequent paper by Legates et al. (2013), who showed that Cook et al. had themselves marked only 0.5% of the 11,944 abstracts they examined as explicitly endorsing the “consensus” as they had defined it.
The good news (regarded by Mr Joshi as bad news, of course) is that “The most recent survey of public views on anthropogenic global warming, the CSIRO’s fourth annual survey of Australian attitudes to climate change, show 39% of Australians reject a human role in global warming, a further 8% think the climate isn’t changing at all, and 6% can’t say either way.”
Take-home message: notwithstanding decades of relentless propaganda, more than half of those surveyed have not been taken in by the imagined (and imaginary) “97% consensus”.
More good news: “When asked to rank 16 social issues in terms of importance, climate change came third last. You’d be hard pressed to find any other form of scientific denialism [that hate-speech word again] with such a significant impact on the priorities of Australians.”
Mr Joshi continues with a graphic by Cook, whom he entertainingly describes as a “climate science communication expert”, purporting to show that while the public think 55% of scientists agree on global warming the true consensus is 97%.
Appealing to consensus is not a very grown-up way to conduct a scientific argument. It is the logical fallacy of the argumentum ad populum. But it is enough to fool your average “legacy” news journo, an incurably lazy beast at the best of times, into thinking that the Party Line just might – notwithstanding the volcano of real-world evidence – be right after all.
Trouble is, graphics like that of Cook are effective ways of conveying falsehoods as though they were truths. Well, it’s time to do it back to Them by using graphics as effective ways of dispelling Their falsehoods and illustrating the truths of science. I’m compiling a book of graphs and other images, impeccably sourced and accurately presented, that display the truth in a manner that cannot be dismissed or denied.
Here is an accurate graphic on the “consensus”, as determined from the data file eventually released by Cook et al.:
There seems to be something shoddy about popularizing the truth via colorful graphics rather than relying on the obscure, fuzzy charts that are the norm in most scientific journals. Yet if They colorize Their lies, we must popularize the objective scientific truth by making it visible to those who cannot read equations.
Mr Joshi maunders on: “Cook terms this the ‘consensus gap’. It’s precisely the outcome we’d expect from a systematic effort to distance public opinion from the outcomes of science. It’s likely this gap has been forced open by the efforts of conservative media commentators producing a relentless output of doubt.”
It’s also what one would expect given a growing awareness among all but the invincibly ignorant that my graphic is true. The “consensus” is now known to be 0.5%, not 97%.
Readers of WUWT are invited to join in the fun. Let me know, via comments, which your favorite graphs or other visual images are. I’ll include the best ones in the book.
Footnote. The Eschenbach Rule applies. If you want to take issue with what I have said here, don’t be a climate Nazi (© Roy Spencer, MMXIV). Please cite me accurately rather than rewording what I have said to suit the Reichspropagandaamt.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hello Lord Monckton! Saw you in Perth – great talk.
Some ‘graphics:’
Your Legate et al 2013 study represented as a cartoon:
http://itsnotclimatescience.com/0035.html
Most of my cartoons contain references on the ‘Links’ page, and I’ve linked to the Legate study on the links for this cartoon.
the Met office’s predictions:
http://itsnotclimatescience.com/0025.5.html
The climate supercomputer:
http://itsnotclimatescience.com/0002.html
The hypocrisy of people who preach at us about our ‘carbon footprint’ and then jetset around the world:
http://itsnotclimatescience.com/0003.html
etc etc.
Just brilliant and original! Takes the debate to a new level, and despite this, is easy to read. No “fuzzy” graphs or complicated equations either to deal with. No wonder those green Nazis, or should I say Greenshirts, feel so threatened by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.
David L. Hagen says:
February 26, 2014 at 1:25 pm
John Who
Global warming fascist
By “Global warming Nazi”, Roy Spencer was is pointing out that global warming extremists/alarmists are imposing their beliefs on all others by dictatorial authoritarian methods. The Nazis were the worst example.
Well, except Dr. Spencer was pointing out that using the phrase “Global Warming Denier” or “Climate Change Denier” may link people in some minds to “Holocaust Denier”. Therefore, mentally suggesting an Alarmist/Warmist was acting “Nazi like” seems to be equally inappropriate.
To many, being accused of being either a Holocaust Denier or a Nazi is equally disgusting/offensive.
I would argue, however, that being called a Climate Change Denier is far from an accurate depiction of one who claims the “climate change skeptic” position. On the other hand, calling some of the Alarmist/Warmists “Global Warming Nazis”, while perhaps not being as accurate as you would prefer, is still a more accurate characterization than the “Denier” label is.
JMHO
These issues are important, because asPointmannoted: MAKE NO MISTAKE, WORDS ARE AMMO.
One image, showing a body in an open coffin.
The caption: “The result if man stopped emitting CO2 into the atmosphere”.
‘Nuff said.
[snip – over the top-mod]
Excellent idea Lord. Once you have the graphics how about bombarding the MSM with them.
What I’d like to know is why the CSIRO is conducting climate change “surveys”. Surely that’s the job of commercial polling organisations?
More pointedly, this survey was conducted by, “Zoe Leviston, a social psychologist at CSIRO”. Why is Australia’s leading science research organisation employing social psychologists, for goodness’ sake?
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/survey-puts-australians-climate-change-concerns-way-down-list-20140206-324ok.html
The CO2 increase really didn’t start to take off until about mid century of the 20th century.
@NotTheAussiePhilM
The point is that the O2, N2 & Argon are transparent to IR radiation
– so they are irrelevant……
– it’s only the molecules that can interact with the photons that are of relevance when discussing the Green House effect
– that’d be CO2, H2O, CH4 …
+++++++++++++
Well, wait a minute here. Argon is a very good insulator. When referring to temperature, there are two things taking place: GH and simple ‘insulation’. If the Earth were wrapped in only an Argon blanket it would be warmer than without it because Argon is heated by contact with the ground and doesn’t emit IR well so it stays warm. But this is a quibble.
O2 actually does interact with IR radiation but that is a quibble too.
A good graphic would be to present the radiative/reflective effectiveness of all gases proportional to their effect in the atmosphere. In such a bar chart, for example, one would show direct radiation/reflection from the ground and water vapour as the largest emitters. Vertical scale is Watts or teraWatts. The radiation from CO2 would be height ‘x’. Do the same for water. Then show how much the water vapour variation is over a measurement period, say since balloons gave good data. Compare the Wattage of radiation from water vapour (high and low concentrations) by creating a vertical bar on the chart with a grey zone at the top showing its variability.
Then show the variation in the emissions from CO2 over the same period as an emitter using the same scale. The point is to demonstrate that the small % variation in water vapour completely overwhelms the effect of a doubling of CO2 concentration. This is because a) there is a far greater amount of water vapour (including ice which is 99% as efficient as water ‘gas’) and b) because there isn’t all that much IR left once water has taken its slice of the IR pie.
In order to do this correctly, it must be pointed out that doubling CO2 does not double the emitted energy, and because it is a small player in a complex of gases, the increase in not even proportional logarithmically to the CO2 concentration because it is not acting alone. It is more complicated than that.
It is easily forgotten that both ice and water are very bright in the IR spectrum. One reason ‘the team’ was so desperate to convince people that water vapour ‘is only a feedback’ was to avoid bringing attention to this point. Thus a graphic slaying ‘feedback only’ dragon would be good. If there were no CO2 all and no GHG’s and no atmosphere save what sublimated off snowball earth, the loss of heat into space would still be by IR from the ice which is a very good emitter.
Thanks, Lord Monckton. More strength to your writing arm!
To be able to turn 0.5% into 97% shows just far current ‘climate science’ is from reality. Science needs an overhaul.
Suggested graph: Nir Shaviv’s graph showing the IPCC’s “improvement” in its estimate of the likely range of equilibrium climate sensitivity over the five IPCC reports and their predecessor: http://www.sciencebits.com/files/pictures/climate/SensitivityVsTime.jpg. (From: http://www.sciencebits.com/AR5-FirstImpressions).
39 + 8 + 6 = 53%.
So 53% of Australians have more extreme anti-CAGW views than I do! And I’ve written a book against the theory! (Carbon Is Life)
To explain:
(The 39%) More extreme than me because I think humans heat or cool the planet all the time with normal industry; in particular, all engines release heat.
(The 8%) Of course the climate is changing! It always changes and always has. Only inventors of hockey sticks think otherwise.
(6% can’t say either way) Well I do say, on the “GW” side, not the anti-GW side, as my above two explanations show.
So here I am, a complete disbeliever in CAGW, who holds it to be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated upon humanity, with more extreme pro-GW beliefs than 53% of Australians.
Which raises the question: If I had answered this survey, would I not have been listed as a believer in CAGW? That is, despite the bad result for the warmists, the survey didn’t test what it claimed to test, and even the poor results it did get don’t stand up. (97% surveys come to mind.) Isn’t that just typical?
What we need is a pie chart of the IPCC’s level of uncertainty of warming in the short term. Just don’t know if you would see much between 99.5% and 100%.
Oops 95% – 100%
I decided to do a quick Google search check to see how easy it would be to read articles claiming that the 97% concensus was junk science.
The first Google result was a WUWT article. I didn’t bother reading it.
The second was a fascinating article from Popular Technology.net. Any media reporter who read this article alone would have grounds to be very suspicious. Link below for the curious.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
I love the website, this article, and the comments. I sum it up this way…. Man mad climate change is equal to the impact the fart of a flea would have on Hurricane Katrina. I’m sure the flea would think it made a difference, but no one else would think so.
I really liked John Who’s idea, but think the caption can be improved “A man who reduced his CO2 emissions to zero.”:
JohnWho says:
February 26, 2014 at 3:23 pm
One image, showing a body in an open coffin.
The caption: “The result if man stopped emitting CO2 into the atmosphere”.
Your Lordship,
For pure graphical fun and putting 20th century warming into perspective:
http://s22.postimg.org/h73fr7elt/NOAA_Update_B.gif
Thank you, Lord Monckton. Keep up the good work!
Take a look at this graphic: climatesolutions.org/programs/NBI
So, 350PPM is our “safe limit???
A friend sent e an email with a bunch of global maps showing populations, countries that donate, etc. I believe it is very pertinent to this discussion. I would like to send it to Lord Monckton and Anthony for their opinions.
Please email me at bradlweaver at comcast.net.
[The mods recommend no one use a complete (or un-parsed) email on a public forum. Anyone wanting a real address can de-cipher an address. Mod]
Lao Tzu in Art of War
==========
A foolish commander limits his choice of weapons.
Mylord,
what should absolutely be included as a graph are:
– the amount oft CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere
– the amount of man-made CO2 in this
– the relevant absorption ob IR radiation of this minuscule fraction of CO2, itself again being negligible.
As I had to learn the hard way, most of the scientifically uneducated populace are blissfully unaware oft these simple facts, which in themselves are basically all the arguments you’d need to adopt a sceptical position towards AGW.
Thank you and keep it up!
Ed
While they are not diagrams of scientific fact, I would strongly recommend that a few of Josh’s excellent cartoons be included.
A bit of humour should enhance the appeal.
I particularly like the one from last year with a group of “Climateers” standing in front of a giant climate computer, looking at a tiny dial labelled “CO2” as another one pops his head round the corner saying “Hey, I’ve found one that does oceans”.