By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Commenters on my recent posting about using graphics as effectively as the Forces of Darkness do, but to use them to tell the truth, said they would like a smarter version of the 99.5% no-consensus pie-chart in that posting.
My large and able staff have burned the midnight o. The hi-res image below is the result. Attach it to every email. Send it to every news medium. Mail it to the White House. Make buttons out of it and wear them. Time to send the F. of D. sniveling into their noisome lairs.
Ø Legates, D.R., Soon, W. W-H., Briggs, W.M., and Monckton of Brenchley, C.W., (2013), Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change, Sci. & Educ., DOI:10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9.
Suggestion: Only the pie graph and this text:
‘Most warming since 1950 man-made? Half a percent of 11944 scientific climate papers say so’.
It would be simpler, more dramatic and effective to just show the shape of the recent RSS satellite temperature graph. The present graphic is hard to read and the message is negative and confusing.
Here’s a button-suggestion I just posted in the thread, Will global cooling continue in 2014. It’s grade A+, IMNSHO:
Image—A hockey stick with its shaft slanting upwards & to the right and its blade flat.
Caption—Who’s in Denial Now?
As an alternative, I propose that those among us who are labeled “denier” should wear a simple black arm band emblazoned with a big yellow D.
When I suggested this to a victim of the brotherhood at Watching The Deniers (talk about Stazi) their response was highly entertaining:
mike says:
February 15, 2012 at 2:10 am
Maybe a big yellow stripe down your back would be better, after all, wilful ignorance is akin to cowardice. You and your ilk are afraid of the facts but moreso, you are afraid that when everything the real scientists you casually disregard says comes to fruition you will be forced to admit you were wrong. The narcicists worst nightmare. You will have to dig the hole a little wider to fit your shoulders in too.
By the way, derision is all you will get until you actually bother to educate yourself in the area in which you are commenting. First step would be to familiarise yourself with basic scientific conventions. Only then will you be taken at least a little bit seriously.
Not to be put down, I replied:
Farmer Dave says:
February 15, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Lovely response. Full of nuance, logic and grace.
Poor deluded boy, you really have to do better than that if you want to be thought of as being clever or, by a long stretch, intelligent.
Anyone who creates a blog such as yours, with all the credibility that a BA can bring to the table on issues of science, is probably crying out for the attention that they believe they deserve. Association with the currently adored is no substitute for interdependent thought based on reason.
Bow to the masters of the universe little fella and you shall be thrown a bone from the table…. should your pitiful existence be acknowledged by the mighty.
Of course the idea of the yellow “D” would provide the correct perspective on who is being persecuted.
Cheers,
Dave
Umm the time frame mentioned is 20 years, not 21, so for arguments sake you do not want an obvious miscalculation when trying to argue the merits of a more complex but less obvious calculation. just an FYI
Great idea Lord Chris, but implementation pathetic. The populace at large will only absorb one – liners, even the pollies know that. A series of bumper stickers/badges released over time, building on the message as they go, may be in the realm of possible with the right kind of help.
A number of commenters are misinterpreting the finding. Most climate science papers say nothing specifically about the cause of global temperature change since 1950 one way or another, neither saying it is primarily manmade nor saying it is primarily natural. Usually they are on narrow topics.
Some examples (where I haven’t double-checked that the following nowhere so comment on global temperature but probably don’t):
“Driftwood in Svalbard as an Indicator of Sea Ice Conditions”
“The role of summer surface wind anomalies in the summer Arctic sea ice extent in 2010 and 2011”
“Palaeoclimatic and archaeological evidence for a 200-yr recurrence of floods and droughts linking California, Mesoamerica and South America over the past 2000 years”
The badge image makes a valid point in implicit counter to the CAGW movement claim that 97% of papers are for their dogma when of course they are not.
But let’s not misinterpret it.
The bulk of climate history (including the actual double peak and not hockey stick temperature history of the past century) is very predominately natural, as in the usual link in my prior comment ( http://img213.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=62356_expanded_overview3_122_1094lo.jpg ), but not every paper on, say, molluscs in the sea of Japan is going to directly weigh in on the matter, to say the least.
Eve says:
March 9, 2014 at 7:59 am
Why don’t all those people just stop using oil and everything made from oil?
Like the plastics in your computer, the fabrics in your undies, unless they’re 100% cotton (delivered by horseback). When you have disposed of EVERYTHING you own that uses oil in any way; material gathering, manufacturing, transportation, and post pictures of your log home and your fully organic garden, I’ll consider it. Until then, I’m not freezing in the dark.
Oops, Mods please make the first sentence a question.
“””My large and able staff have burned the midnight o. “””
Burning the midnight oil? Do you know what that does to the atmosphere? How could you do such a thing?
Climate science has been politicized and therefore this battle will eventually be won/lost at the ballot box. I’m all for badges/bumper stickers, but it must be remembered that a huge percentage of voters are dummies and wouldn’t/couldn’t read a blog like this. They don’t know their Arctic from their Antarctic. Its North Pole and South Pole and even that is a stretch for many. Their eyes glaze over at the very sight of a decimal point or the percentage sign. This is where Gore & Co are winning hands down. Show the dummies a picture of a polar bear on a little piece of ice and you’ve got ’em. When you talk about published papers they think newspapers, they have not got a clue, but they vote. We must talk the language of the buyer, i.e mono syllables with pictures. Politicians believe in one thing only and that is the vote.
Daniel Boguszewski says:
March 9, 2014 at 9:21 am
I think I have better design. Just much simpler.
http://imgur.com/eXsgp5p
http://s30.postimg.org/ujegujwo1/simple.png
——————————————————————
Excellent ! That leads to no confusion. It gets my vote.
Poor readability of 99.5 – there are fonts that reduce well. This is NOT one of them.
What a shame that this debate has been reduced to this nonsense !
Well when you live in “Silicon valley”, and you want good clean unadulterated “stuff” to work with, we normally think of “six nines”, or “seven nines” purity for our stuff; as in 99.9999% or 99.99999% purity.
But heck, Lord Monckton, we’ll cut ya’ some slack, since your staff did this on the back of an envelope with a tar brush, and we’ll say , two nines, isn’t anything to sneeze at, when it comes to scientific consensus.
So 99.5% looks like near certainty to me ! Right on.
A bit too much text, but a clear message. I love it.
The most climate real one would say, “The Atmosphere Obeys Ideal Gas Law”
Or “Ideal Gas Law: LEARN IT.”
Just to rub some salt into their wounds:
http://bitly.com/SkepticalScience
which redirects to: http://wattsupwiththat.com/