Stepping away from the 'Climate War'

Dr. Caleb Rossiter – The Debate is finally over on “Global Warming” – Because Nobody will Debate

walking_awayI am deserting from the Climate War.  I will never write another climate article or give another climate talk, and I’ll bite my tongue and say oooooooooooom when I hear or see the sort of exaggerations and certainties about the dangers of heat-trapping gasses that tend to make my blood boil at their absurdity.  For a decade I’ve been a busy soldier for the scientific method, and hence a “skeptic” to climate alarmism.  I’ve said all I think and know about this repetitive, unresolveable topic.  I’ll save hundreds of hours a year for other pursuits!

This is not like my pledge to my wife after a marathon that “I’ll never do another one.”  This is real.  There is simply too little room for true debate, because the policy space is dominated by people who approach this issue not like scholars weighing evidence, but like lawyers inflaming a jury with suspect data and illogical and emotional arguments.

The believers in human–induced catastrophic climate change, strongly represented among the liberal and radical left of American and international politics, have won the mainstream media and government battle for the conventional wisdom, but lost the war for policy change.  None of the governmental and few of the institutional and individual actors who claim to fear climate change will take real steps to reduce their use of energy, choosing instead to put on phony shows of “green-ness” and carbon-trading shell games.  So it’s over, on both fronts.

I guess I should be happy, since in the other two areas, and blogs, in which I expend professional and personal blood, sweat, and tears (the American empire, and school “reform”) I am usually in agreement with the radical left, and never win.  I nod my head happily when reading the Nation magazine and listening to Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now, yet am sadly on the losing end of the policy fights in my areas that they describe.  Politicians and well-paid reformers continue to double down on the disaster of nearly 30 years of the blame-the-teacher, mistest-the-student regime, and U.S. arms and training for dictators have reached new heights under every president from Carter to Obama.

Finally, I’m a winner, but for all the wrong reasons.  The leaders of the big governments who control global policy aren’t avoiding change because they disagree with the conventional wisdom.  They’re avoiding change because it would be politically uncomfortable for them.  Thank goodness, because the change they’re mouthing would be more than uncomfortable for developing countries.  It would be a disaster, de-industrializing them and taking decades off their citizens’ life expectancy.

* * *

 Climate Claims and Fears Can Drive You Crazy

 

I never expected to be in the Climate War.  I have enough wars to fight as an anti-imperialist and an activist supporting development and democracy in Africa against a U.S. policy of backing dictators and American corporations.  Only by chance did I get drafted for climate duty.  About 10 years ago, when a graduate student in my class on international research statistics wrote a required analysis of any peer-reviewed study in the field, she chose a journal article on some aspect of climate science.  Her paper reported data and conclusions about human-induced global warming that were so weak and illogical in their own terms that I gave her a poor grade, noting: “You can’t have read this study carefully.”  She protested, and brought me the article, and indeed I saw that one of the most respected names in climate science and climate policy was writing flights of fancy and getting them published in refereed journals.  I raised her grade, of course, but not all the way to an A, because she had been so smitten with the credibility of the author and the journal that she forgot to check his logic.


 

Read the entire essay from Caleb Rossiter here. http://www.calebrossiter.com/Last%20Climate.html

h/t to WUWT reader “David” in Tips and Notes

Caleb Rossiter got fired because of his globalwarming opinons, which we covered here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/12/professors-fellowship-terminated-for-speaking-out-on-global-warming-in-the-wall-street-journal/

Another essay from him was also carried on WUWT:

Caleb Rossiter – opening eyes to the uncertainty of global warming claims

Advertisements

115 thoughts on “Stepping away from the 'Climate War'

  1. Phew! I thought this was from you, Anthony, and that you were closing up shop!
    Maybe you should make it clearer that this is from Caleb Rossiter.

    • Mr Watts, you sense of humor is terrible and April 1st is a long ways off. Like others I had to read to the bottom to see it wasn’t you. What a relief.

    • So did ! , since Anthony Watts is the name just under the headline and above the text.
      Perhaps when posting matherial from others it would be a good idea to make it clear above the text who wrote it.

    • Nah. Why would Anthony go to all the trouble to reformat the blog, poll his readers, ask for comments and so forth, only to immediately announce he was pulling out? I twigged almost instantly that it was a piece by someone else. But true enough, a heading indicating it was by CR wouldn’t go amiss and prevent a brief panic! 🙂
      As to CR, I can grok his viewpoint. It’s enough to wear anyone out. Lucky for all of us, Anthony hasn’t yet thrown in the towel. But it does make one worry what would happen if he ever did.

      • Very cunning editorial flourish to make sure a worthy piece gets read. Prof. Rossiter wears his heart on his sleeve trying to come to terms with the fact that his goals – particularly cheap power to Africa – and his scientifically-based scepticism, are shared by those he clearly considers to be politically anathema. For him at least, the debate is clearly not over, in fact, his journey along his personal Damascene road has barely begun.

  2. Shouldn’t this be entitled “A re-posted essay from Caleb Rossiter “, or similar, at the top? When I read “I am deserting from the Climate War” I also originally took it as referring to our host!
    And I see that the count is now at 198.8 million …

  3. i had to check the date, and make sure it wasn’t a article from The Onion or Daily Currant
    please don’t do that to us again… 😉

  4. I spent a lot of time stopping the carbon tax in Australia when it was tossed out the window I said what will i do know lucky WUWT filled the space when the global warmers get tossed out the window what will fill my space ? maybe model trains

  5. Holy Mackaroli.
    Please put the writer of the essay at the top of the post so I don’t get halfway through it before I realize the sky’s not falling

    • Tears started to well in my eyes before I twigged. Something tells me that he deliberately ‘forgot’ to include the author’s name for his own amusement.

    • Donation made. Now for Mr. Rossiter:
      Quitter! I understand that you were attacked by the mindless climate alarmist lemmings. So what? They are just losing the debate, and they regarded you as an apostate. But they don’t matter — unless you let them matter.
      Stick to your guns! If you believe in what you said, don’t give up. Never give up! If you do, you lose.
      The truth is winning. Haven’t you noticed? The public is coming around. You can see it in their comments in newspapers and magazines; all over the internet. It was only a few years ago that the average public comment expressed concern. But no more! Now, the average comment ridicules “global warming”. The bloom is off the rose. They have cried “Wolf!” too often. But it was just a false alarm.
      You have been sheltered by academia for too long, Mr. Rossiter. The fight has been taken out of you, and just when you were starting to win. You should have stood your ground. You will always regret quitting at a time like this.
      Word up, my friend. Winners never quit, &etc….

  6. phew, I read this and was gutted thinking you were closing this page. So essential to have a voice against the idiots. Thank goodness you are not leaving. I would make it a bit more apparent at the headline it is not you that is going to stop reporting or questioning…

  7. I see the global warming scandal as part of a much larger change which has exposed public “officials” to scrutiny which never thought they would be subject to. Notable examples is the sex abuse scandals at the BBC. and recently the rapes of over 1000 children at Rotherham in the UK.
    Like the Global warming scam, officials knew what was going on. Like the global warming scam they “hid the decline”, destroyed incriminating evidence and prevented proper investigation.
    And like the Global warming scam – they assumed – based on all the history of their profession – that they would just get away with it. What is remarkable, is not that these are exceptional – because from the way these scandals keep coming out they appear to be endemic.
    Instead what appears to be exceptional is that in the 21st century, they are finally being found out. And the reason I think is because the internet and blogs like this are beginning to expose the corruption malpractice and contempt for the public that has been endemic in most bureaucracies and hidden by the acquiescence of all the “establishment” including establishment journalists and politicians.
    And so we have won, not in the sense that we’ve forced these bureaucracies to roll back the utter nonsense they’ve foisted on the public in the name of “global warming”, but in the sense, that they know that anything and everything they do is being scrutinized and they know they can not longer just make up the “scientific” facts to justify the policy they’ve already decided.
    So, long as there is one blogger willing to reveal their dark secrets …
    THEY WILL GET CAUGHT OUT.

    • I’m not so optimistic.
      My gut says it will take at least a generation before bureaucracies understand they are much more exposed than they used to be. Senior managers in bureaucracies tend to be pathologically inclined (and well trained by observation) to deny, deflect and obstruct in the context of failure and malfeasance in their organizations. They will likely ascribe any heightened exposure to ‘bad luck’ or ‘someone’s political agenda’ rather than to a sea change in the way they are monitored. Only Internet-savvy managers (a generation younger, no doubt) will understand the power of the Internet and maybe start to change their behaviors. However they’ll likely figure out that, given the short attention span of the Internet, a little bit of contrition mixed with a great deal of delay will work just as well. Only the worst cases will ‘stick’. All the others will quickly fade away.

  8. AGW, Empire, the education system….read The Tragedy and the Hope by Prof Carrol Quigley, the Federal Reserve Conspiracy by Prof Anthony Sutton and The Underground History of American Education by JT Gatto
    All 3 are available free online.

  9. He followed a very common path. Initially (I assume), believing what the papers said. Then investigating when something didn’t seem quite right. Then finding the issue so clear it could surely be settled if only he pointed out the facts. Then learning the facts of life and giving up.
    Before he died, I believe Michael Crichton had thrown in the towel, too, and I’m sure I’ve also heard the sentiment from others. AGW proponents have government grants as incentives. Their opponents have only a preference for truth. I’m afraid the former may be the more-reliable motivation.

    • Please state why you believe that Crichton threw in the towel. IMO, in his last year (2008), he was still ridiculing mercilessly purveyors of global warming fear. In 2007 his side “won” the Intelligence Squared debate on the alleged climate crisis against Gavin’s Team.

  10. I’m so relieved it’s not Mr W. who’s giving up, tho’ until I got to bottom of article I was staring to feel slightly unwell. As we used to say back in the ’60s : Keep on truckin’!

  11. Like others have said, it would be good to announce at the beginning that the text is from Caleb Rossiter. I never thought it could be Anthony’s text, one doesn’t do such a big effort to reform his blog if he is planning to quit afterwards, but I was surprised not to find any reference as to the authorship of the text until the very end.
    Anyway, this was as good a moment as any to remember that I have to say THANK YOU more often. A million thanks for all the good work you do, Anthony. Small donation sent, although not as big as you undoubtedly deserve.

  12. Caleb should understand that CAGW / IPCC / WWF / Greenpeace / WE MUST ACT NOW! is not about science or debate. It’s about getting energy changes through irrespective of the evidence. If the world entered a cooling phase lasting 20 years it would not matter. If we entered another Little Ice Age it would not matter. If we entered another glacial advance it would not matter. I am not joking friends, it would not matter.

  13. Several years ago I wrote/argued almost daily about AGW on the JLC Forums. Eventually I came to much the same conclusion as Caleb and realized I was just wasting a major portion of my life. I quit cold turkey and haven’t logged into the site since. I don’t miss it.

  14. Friends
    The above article is about someone walking away from the ‘climate war’.
    The war is won so please have sympathy for old ‘soldiers’ whose battle fatigue causes them to step back from the fray.
    And please remember those who have died in the ‘front line’. I draw especial attention to Helmut Metzner in the East, John Daly in the West, and Zbigniev Javarowski who straddled East and West.
    There are still some who have been consistent in defending against the ‘climate scare’ while a generation has passed. Fred Singer, Sherwood Idso and Ferdinand Engelbeen are examples.
    But the war is won. Victory was achieved at Copenhagen in 2009. The scare is slowly fading away and the battles now are to ensure the scare is completely gone before it causes many more casualties.
    Richard

    • Richard, good point.
      What are the signs that we have won the war? Could Copenhagen have been a battle won or a war won? Paris 2015 might be the nail in the casket seeing as the IPCC has has seen it fit to produce a propaganda video.
      After a decade of “we must act now!” there is little in the way of results. Co2 output continues up, the proportion of wind and solar in the energy mix has remained unchanged in 20 years. And just this June it was reported that global coal usage reached a 44 year high, and is confidently projected to continue increasing. They see success as de-industrializing the west – the rest of the world not so nuts.

    • I beg to differ. In my neighborhood they are closing down a power plant that works, and replacing it with power that doesn’t work, and even doesn’t exist. The war is not over until sanity returns.

      • They may win this battle, and they may win at Paris in 2015, and they may close down coal plants in the US. They’d better hope the climate cooperates, and China cooperates, or the blowback will be more immense than it would be if they gave up now. The farther they push into the Big Muddy, the more fatal it will be for them.

      • PS: By 2018 or 2020, this alarmist blunder could turn out to be the Left’s greatest gift to its enemies ever. And the environmental movement will thereafter encounter reflexive derision to all its claims, even true ones, and its donations will be halved.

      • PPS: If the Left retains a shred of cred after 2020, it will be because of an organization called LAWD! (Leftists Against Warmist Dogma) that managed to get leftists to sign a petition distancing themselves from the madness in good time. Start with Freeman Dyson, Steve McIntyre, and that big name socialist in France. This is what Rossiter should get cracking on.

    • I beg to differ in one area,and that is the PROPAGANDA side of the war.That is one we have not won in part because we do not think like a propagandist as we are interested in the SCIENCE side of the debate,where facts and evidence are important.
      I spend most of my time on a huge facebook group page dealing with outright morons who thinks warmist science is excellent and the many models are in line with measured data.I try hard to show just a few examples of how far off the IPCC really are in their modeled projections such as the one where they say that in the first two decades of this century,we are expected about a .20C warming in EACH of the two decades,but I show using their most commonly used temperature data from HadCrut4 as a slight cooling trend this century thus far.They for the most part just ignore it and go on with their babble.
      Yes there are those who have put up the fight before us and will see new fighters for credible honest science research into the future,but the fight for sanity on the topic is still ongoing for us today.It is amazing how narrow minded these people are out there can be,and make me wonder if some of them drink the kool aid too much to see and think reasonably.

      • Obama is going to try to achieve via dictatorial fiat what he could not get through Congress even when his party controlled both Houses. He has suborned the Defense Department, NASA, NOAA and every other arm of the Executive Branch to advance his tyrannical agenda, and failed. He will be dangerous for the next two years, but so far science is winning over ideological advocacy. In the US there won’t be final, total victory until a pro-science, anti-hoax President is elected as well.

    • I wish I could agree that the war is won, but you underestimate the determination and lack of principle (the ends justify any means) of those pushing the CAGW agenda. If temperatures continue to plateau or fall, they’ll credit the new EPA regulations (ignoring that Co2 emissions will have continued to increase worldwide). On the other hand if temperatures have another upward cycle, they’ll claim that it’s proof that we need to do more, much more.
      I believe “the pause” is the reason that they have gotten more and more shrill about “tipping points” and needing to do something right away. Getting any sorts of measures implemented puts them in a no-lose situation where they can either claim credit or claim we need to do more. But the longer the pause, the harder it will be to get that done.

    • Friends:
      I wrote

      The war is won so please have sympathy for old ‘soldiers’ whose battle fatigue causes them to step back from the fray.

      There have been several disputes that “the war is won” but little interest in the ” ‘old soldiers’ whose battle fatigue causes them to step back from the fray”.
      I think that is sad.
      Richard

  15. Caleb Rossiter, thx for
    ‘For a decade
    I’ve been a busy soldier for the
    scientific method, and hence a
    “skeptic” to climate alarmism. I’ve
    said all I think and know about
    this repetitive, unresolveable
    topic.
    ____
    Thx for withstanding. But there’s the stronghold named ‘Anthony Watts’
    The case, ‘the unresolveable topic’ ain’t settled at all.
    The real problem:
    The onslought’s defeateted, the focus wanders
    to ever new ‘Armageddons’.
    /the real battle of armageddon was fought in the bronce age + just lingers on as pure folcroristic ‘tale taling’/
    Hans

  16. tale taling
    read ‘tale telling’
    Armageddo aka Megiddo
    palaestiniians, putin, ukraina –
    the beat goes on.
    Thanks for sharing time

  17. As one Caleb to another, I will say (without reading the entire essay), that you cannot back away from something that is in-your-face.
    A half-century ago I am certain teachers in China would have liked to back away from the Great Leap Forward, and attend to the specific truth their heart wished to study, but along came the Cultural Revolution and they were dragged by the very students they had taught from their classrooms, and mocked and derided, and sent off to work on the farms.
    None of us came to the Climate Wars. The war came to us.

  18. OK, question:
    can one withdraw from a “war” if the opposing folks do not?
    This climate war will follow you (us) through higher prices and increased regulation wherever you (we) go.
    Just sayin’.

  19. For the most part I can agree with his characterisation of “catastrophists” (which at times is simply brilliant).
    I am a bit surprised by this remark – “the University of Alabama at Huntsville’s satellite wave-length dataset requires significant and judgment-laden adjustments, by the protagonists themselves!”
    Really? What is so subjective about that set?

  20. If you read through to the end of his article, you come to his conclusion, which is that he’s given in to peer pressure and doesn’t want to lose what’s left of his leftist university professor friends.
    So he’s decided to stay quiet and live a lie rather than question his ideology.
    Just one more admission, from an honest man who realizes he can no longer be honest, that it is not possible to be a leftist and to be an honest man at the same time.

    • Yes, and it deserves quoting so that Caleb Rossiter receives well-earned ridicule.
      “I’m gonna miss a lot of it – the excitement of learning about modeling, paleoclimate, satellite sounding, the 100,000 year cycles, how ice cores can provide temperature estimates, and the fun of watching students grapple with the possibility that everything they have been taught about climate change in college might be wrong.  But I’m not gonna miss the stress of being the odd man out in my lefty think-tank, or of being in agreement with my usual foes.  All I can say is, to people in both developed and developing countries, I hope I’ve helped just a little bit by being part of the resistance to the plan to de-industrialize your economies.  So far, so good — not because we skeptics convinced anybody about the dangers of emissions, but because people remain convinced of their benefits.”
      Read carefully that last bit; it’s pure arrogance: “We never educated the masses; they remain ignorant and stubbornly cling to their fossil fuels.” Good riddance!

    • “…that it is not possible to be a leftist and to be an honest man at the same time.”
      A-freakin-MEN

      • “…that it is not possible to be a leftist and to be an honest man at the same time.”
        The quoted assertion is pure bollocks.
        It is evidence that the rightist who made it is not honest.
        Richard

  21. In some religious communities, an apostate is subjected to ‘shunning’, a form of social isolation. If the heretic enters a room, others in the room will turn their backs. I wonder if Caleb Rossiter throwing in the towel is not, at bottom, a reaction to being shunned by his left-wing peers. Do you think he’ll be readmitted to their society? Not, I suspect, unless he formally recants and admits the error of his skepticism.
    Like others, I thought at first that this piece was by our host. I’m sure he’ll correct this impression once the sun is over the yardarm on the West Coast.
    /Mr Lynn

  22. WOW, I too almost went into anaphylactic shock, Anthony. Somehow me thinks Celeb Rossiter will likely read something so off the charts he will be compelled to …………. say something …… There is no debate because it is now a run away fraud train systematically dismantling our energy infrastructure , sounds like we are under assault if you ask me.

  23. Declaring Victory in the Climate Wars is premature.
    Please read Jennifer Marohasy’s cogent comments on the issue:
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/07/three-facts-most-sceptics-dont-seem-to-understand/
    Even in Australia, where we’ve recognised the cost-benefit irrationality of the Carbon Tax, kicked out the lying rent-seeking scoundrels, abolished the tax and removed 30 Government Departments implementing Climatism, we’re just losing slower.
    We still have 3 Commonwealth Government Departments working to change the climate, the Government proposes to implement its ‘Direct Action’ scheme, most State Governments are still hostages to Political Science, nearly every Local Council is relentlessly implementing inappropriate and onerous anti-Thermogeddon regulations, and the previous Liberal* Government’s Renewable Energy Target Scheme on track to cost us another twenty-nine billion dollars the country doesn’t have.
    Our science priorities are still ‘an eco-pop wish-list of bland mediocrity on a dead-end road.’ **
    Our Government-funded Science organisations are still practicing motivated science, changing the data not the theories.
    ‘Victory’ doesn’t mean just paying less Danegeld.
    * Australia’s right-wing party for historical reasons, is known as ‘the Liberal Party’. Sadly, they’re roughly as right-wing as the Democrats.
    ** Joanne Nova http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/this-is-your-science-brain-on-100-government-funds-sociology-and-small-minded-enviro-research/

  24. Authorship has often been a puzzle with posts on this blog, but after a while one begins to spot the clues fairly easily. Caleb’s post appears to be a special exception, with the mystery level dialed up, well, not to eleven, but at least to five or six.
    That said, I’ll miss Caleb’s posts. He’s a competent writer with interesting things to say, and I presume he continues to hold forth at his own website.

  25. I’m getting less interested as well.
    For me the jury came back in and recorded a verdict of ‘not guilty’ AGW was at best responsible for a minor and inconsequential amount of global warming. The science IS settled. Not guilty m’lud.
    And all the barometers of MSM opinion and so on are showing a marked downshift – three articles in the Daily Telegraph’s ‘earth’ section,this week, not one blaming climate change. Widespread ridicule of warmists all over the blogospere.
    The science of climate is still interesting, but its not urgent anymore.
    Politically, the game has shifted to ‘even if it were true, these measures make no sense at all’

  26. Anthony, you really have to ask yourself if the first 50 comments or so would have been as inane as the ones here under unthreaded comments. Seriously. Sure, there’d have been a few, but people are much more inclined to support each other’s inanity when they can do it in a crowd, and that’s what threaded comments are, a crowd.
    Under unthreaded comments, I swear I’d have been looking forward to reading more of Caleb Rossiter’s decision-making process, etc. I finally got to a comment along those lines, but had pretty much checked out by then.
    The quality of the WUWT comments has been higher than on any other site I visit, consistently, until now anyway. Authors are routinely taken to task, not with taunts and snipes, but with facts and logic. That will now still possibly be there, but buried in the inevitable clutter that threaded comments will generate.

  27. Heh, in the second paragraph I checked the authorship. The fourth paragraph gave it away. Not Antnee.
    People go mad in herds, and recover their sanity one by one. Caleb Rossiter will not enjoy still being carried by the herd over the cliff, so I expect he’ll be back at his duty station squalling defiance soon enough. Else he’ll go mad watching the herd go over the cliff.
    =================

  28. Given the Snails Pace at which Climate Science moves, it really does no good to fret and worry about it. It’s like those media marathons where some Celebrity dies or a plane goes down, where they re-run the same thing every day, … and occassionally, bring out a new tid-bit, with the exception that the “tid bits” in Climate Science don’t come out on a daily basis, but on a yearly or decadal basis.
    In my own debates on other blogs, I find myself posting up the same referenced material, over and over and over. It never does any good. The Advocates of CAGW are “Religious” in nature, and they will either refuse to believe you, or, they will dismiss your argument proclaiming that your references are “junk science” or “political musings” … funded by the Koch Brothers of course.
    So … he’s sitting it out. …. for a while! He says never again … but then goes on to write an essay chok full of arguments. When new arguments come out, … in about 5 years, he’ll write another essay, encompassing some of the same old arguments, and including the new. You just can’t walk away from this. … I’ve tried, and you can’t.

  29. Thanks, A. What a thriller!
    Sometimes I feel like Caleb Rossiter: “I’ve said all I think and know about this repetitive, unresolveable topic”.
    But data keeps on coming out, and it is worth showing.

  30. Sir, with respect, I must say that if a scientist (any scientist) knows full well that something is wrong, misrepresented, or in the case of the CAGW agenda – down right fraudulent – it is surely beholden (kind of like the hippocratic oath) to fight on for the scientific method and truth?
    I fully and completely accept that it is hard, and likely with little or no reward for many – but at least you can sleep well in the knowledge you did not roll over and resign to the bigotry of ‘the team’ and fraud that will surely ultimately result in many deaths (especially if cooling does occur and the energy poverty levels continue to increase).
    That said, I know it can be hard struggling against the tide and of course, everyone does have a limit. If you must retire from the debate, please know that the remaining skeptics are truly grateful for your efforts and contribution. Thank you and Good luck for the future.

  31. Apologies to everyone who thought I was the one “stepping away” While there are days when I have considered it (due to the abuse I take), today is not one of those days. Thanks to everyone for their concern.
    I’ve added Caleb Rossiter to the head title to make it clearer.
    BTW anyone who has ever met me or seen a photo/video of me surely must no that I don’t possess the physique of a marathon runner.

  32. In a 1941 speech Winston Churchill said, “Never give in – never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”
    Rossiter has decided that his other battles deserve his attention more, which is his prerogative. However, I doubt that the attacks in those battles ever involved him losing his job.
    His experience suggests the climate wars are much nastier, as some of us are aware. It also suggests, if we lose that war all his plans for development in Africa will fall to the failed green agenda. His battle against traditional imperialism will fall to what Paul Driessen, correctly identifies, as eco-imperialism.

  33. Have you ever tried debating the village idiot? Well the climate change fanatics are a village of idiots. They don’t understand science, they don’t understand natural history, they have no clue about climate and they have no idea the climate models just don’t work.
    You can’t debate them. Debate involves logic, reason and facts. They have none of these on their side.

    • “Have you ever tried debating the village idiot? Well the climate change fanatics are a village of idiots.”
      Confucius say, “Argue with an idiot and two idiots are arguing.”

      • And there you have it. Mr. Rossiter apparently has friends who are “limited” (as are we all, in ways big and small) and he would rather tolerate them in silence than run them off. It is ultimately a losing proposition though. Sooner or later, what you shut out and ignore leads to someone noticing you don’t take them seriously and don’t think their opinions on some topic count. That leads to confrontation and arguments. Then they drift away, if you are lucky, or smack you upside the head, if not, and stomp off.

  34. Mr. Rossiter,
    Thanks for the post; very honest.
    You mentioned being comfortable with the Left, and are surprised by the way they avoid and suppress the truth about climate. How likely is it that the Left is right on pretty much everything else and wrong only on climate? Do they really love the truth and submit themselves to it? Perhaps you were granted this insight so you could see your way clear of other falsehoods you’ve been sharing with those on the Left.
    Best regards,
    Dean

  35. Mr. Rossiter,
    Thanks for the post; very honest.
    You mentioned being comfortable with the Left, and are surprised by the way they avoid and suppress the truth about climate. How likely is it that the Left is right on pretty much everything else and wrong only on climate? Do they really love the truth and submit themselves to it? Perhaps you were granted this insight so you could see your way clear of other falsehoods you’ve been sharing with those on the Left.
    Best regards,
    Dean

    • Conversely, how likely is it that the right is right about everything? It’s not so black and white.
      The error the left made was a category error. They thought climatology was a social science – affected by the very practise of itself – rather than a physical science.
      An understandable mistake as climatology took economics as an input, practitioners acted like political activists and the subject used statistics in the same way as the social sciences.
      But it is actually studying a physical reality. King Canute knew that.
      And so the left’s attitude and response is inappropriate.
      That doesn’t mean the left’s attitude and response is always inappropriate.,

      • Well said in the greater part. However, read Jose Duarte’s blog articles. Climate “science” does not use statistics like social sciences do, though, as Duarte points out, some social scientists frame problems and use statistics in much the same way climate “scientists” often do. The problem is badly framed hypotheses, poorly employed data and analytical tools, and those problems are becoming endemic in science. Worse, they may be infiltrating outward. Read some of the shenanigans linked to the construction of the new Bay Bridge between Oakland and San Francisco. Some of the worst actors there purported to be engineers.

      • The error the left made was a category error. They thought climatology was a social science – affected by the very practise of itself – rather than a physical science.

        That is actually a very insightful and thought provoking observation. It does open up a lot of paths to follow to understand their thinking. Thanks

  36. “The Roman Catholic Church, of which I am an adherent, is yet to issue an Encyclical on our treatment and attitude to our material existence.”
    When that happens, Nemesis will mutter to itself, “Good–they’re All In. Now’s I’ll pull the rug out from under them.”

  37. Dean From Ohio: You beat me to the point. How these ostensibly intelligent denizens of academia can miss such an obvious truth is beyond me. Groupthink, I guess. Or doublethiink. (Credits to George Orwell).

  38. Mostly I agree with our own Cabel (Above).
    But I understand Rossiters POV.
    How do you engage in rational discussion with people who openly lie?
    The CAGW Team ™ IPCC, are exposed as serial liars, deliberate manipulators of data and propagandists.
    “We have to lie to you, for your own good, you stupid peons”.
    Pretty much sums up these “Science communicators” stance.
    I mean it is possible to engage with seriously misguided people and come to an understanding, but this UN motivated banditry is insane and relentless.
    Essentially I end up talking to myself, as the circular logic of the true believers is still industrial strength.
    It is gonna take freezing in the dark for these ideologues to realize the blessings of modern technology.
    How do you negotiate with a crazed parasite?

  39. As he realizes, China is going to wake up tomorrow and continuing burning coal for as long as it benefits them, whatever comfortable Western environmentalists say as they drive and jet around the world.

  40. It’s NOT OVER. It is AGENDA 21 and ICLEI is making great progress behind what Rosa Koire calls “THE GREEN MASK.” The late Milton Friedman said, “Real change is made possible through crisis or the perception of crisis.” So this whole alarmist front is not simply about money, but rather, it is the vehicle of change. The question is, what change, specifically? Familiarize yourself with Agenda 21 and ICLEI. Ask yourself what major landmark steps each President, Democrat and Republican, have taken in this iteration of world order, beginning with George Herbert Walker Bush. They are all playing from the same book while trying hard to appear opposed.
    The reason they changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change is not because they are losing the battle of direct measurement vs. model failure, but rather, because word association is a key to social psychology. If the climate is changing and humans can be convinced they are the cause, which appears to have subjugated the left leaning, liberal, progressive movement……FORWARD……., then we too must accept change, even if it means giving up our freedom. Make no mistake, Rosa Koire is SPOT ON. Start thinking in terms of the Hegelian Dialectic and the common use of Delphi and Ad Hominem in the alleged debate over climate change. What we are witness to is the biggest social engineering scam in history…bigger than religion! Wait! This is a religion of Utopia where common folks must be poor together and suffer de-evolution of man while the rich change nothing….but us. Please come back to the debate on a different front. The world needs us all right now, to step up and wake the sleeping masses.

  41. As far as Dr. Caleb Rossiter not writing about climate again, I don’t believe him.
    Wait until someone attacks him on climate, or he sees something so outrageous about climate change that he just has to respond. I just know it will happen. But, I understand his frustration.
    He makes some good points, but I’m sure he will come to his senses when the time comes…

  42. Anthony, After the service the minister was asked why he wasted his time preaching to the choir. With out hesitation the minister responded that if he didn’t preach then they wouldn’t sing. the skeptics need the paper with the music in order to sing. The climate change debate is not about science it is abut politics. Eventually the science will overwhelm the CAGW theory just like the discovery of the moons of Jupiter finally overwhelmed the idea that the universe orbited the earth. They are all looking pretty foolish now. but remember n their defense they did have a theory that provided predictability to the limits of their ability to observe. If you stop preaching to the choir then the politics will continue the music will be weaker the choir will be less organized and it will just take longer for the epiphany to occur. Do not be dismayed. Laugh and preach. Your have a great choir, just encourage them to sing a bit louder.

  43. The North Shore Times, NZ has a frightening story of inundation and the need to start panicking. It’s full of “weasel words” but the majority won’t see that. Climate Alarmism at it’s best/worst.

  44. while Rossiter has seemingly given in to peer pressure – i have no sense of abandonment – this issue is not as life-and-death as say a battlefield where every soldier counts – besides – his published works on he subject survive – and so far he isn’t recanting
    as a leftist – he is in a predicament different than those of us on the right – he wants to continue with leftist work – with leftist collaborators – and if keeping tight lipped is good enuf for them – than for him his silence is worth it – and for us – it can be useful as one more demonstration of the fanatical nature of the adversary

Comments are closed.