Guest opinion by Russell Cook | 
For about two decades we’ve been told the science behind human-caused global warming is settled, and to ignore skeptic scientists because they’ve been paid by industry to manufacture doubt about the issue.
The truth, however, has every appearance of being exactly the opposite: A clumsy effort to manufacture doubt about the credibility of skeptical climate scientists arose in 1991 with roots in Al Gore’s Senate office; it gained effectiveness and media traction after Ozone Action took over the effort and drew attention to the “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” memo phrase (which they never showed in its full context); and the effort achieved its highest success after being heavily promoted by the “Pulitzer-winning investigative reporter” Ross Gelbspan, who never won a Pulitzer, never displayed any investigative prowess in this matter, and never proved that any skeptic climate scientist had ever knowingly lied as a result of being paid illicit money.
These efforts to portray skeptic scientists as corrupt are swamped with additional credibility problems, far more than can be described in this Policy Brief. Plain presentations of science studies contradicting reports from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have no chance of vindicating skeptic scientists in the face of such viral anti-skeptic rhetoric, as long as the mainstream media and majority of Internet sites remain gatekeepers preventing the release of accurate science information.
Never has so much – the very survival of the global warming issue – depended on so little – a paper-thin accusation from people having hugely troubling credibility problems of their own – to be repeated without question by so many.
This gatekeeping indicates a much larger problem concerning the issue: The evidence presented in this Policy Brief here is something any unqualified, disinterested bystander could find and ask about, and indeed, believers in the theory of human-caused global warming could have explored the problems presented here with each other in order to find out whether their accusation about industry corruption of skeptics survives serious scrutiny.
Instead, this accusation has been unquestioningly accepted since 1991 by the mainstream news media and by officials who want to implement greenhouse gas mitigation regulations. During this time, skeptic scientists and other well-informed experts have revealed devastating problems with IPCC climate assessments. It has been shown time and again that the corruption accusation was riddled with obvious holes from the start. No matter.
The main pillar of support for the notion that humans are causing a dangerous warming of the climate has been the notion of “settled science.” That notion has long been questioned by skeptic scientists. The secondary pillar of support for the alarmist global warming theory has been the notion that industry-corrupted skeptics are unworthy of public consideration. This accusation could easily have been investigated and refuted long ago. That never happened, because of the third pillar: Journalists should not give equal time to skeptic scientists.
We are overdue for the biggest ideology collapse in history, begging for an investigation into why the mainstream media and influential politicians apparently never checked the veracity of claims about “settled science” and “corrupt skeptics.”
An expanded PDF of the report is available here
Maybe we need to start taking a harder look at the United Nations Organization itself. The United Nations Organization is basically just a non-profit corporation. The General Assembly is basically an ongoing stockholders meeting, the Security Council is the UN’s Board of Directors and the Secretary General is CEO. FDR and the Rockefeller brothers set the UN up that way because corporations was what they knew. The UN dosen’t follow it’s own charter but what corporation does?
So when the UN scientists speak and publish on climate change, they should have as little credibility as research scientists paid for with grants by Big Pharma. Portray the UN as just another corporation and all of it’s legitimacy and credibility goes out the window. The UN is just out to accumulate as much in the way of contributions from member nations as possible until it can start making real profits leasing out the seabed for minerals exploration and exploitation under the Law of the Sea Treaty. At that point, since some of those leases might be for oil and gas, the UN might well change it’s tune on global warming in a hurry.
Maybe it’s time to start looking at the UN as a club of dictators which is what it has become. Venezuela, now a Cuba colony is about to get a position in the security counsel.
As long as the MSM supports the deception, it will not collapse. Sad that the institution, the only one mentioned in the Constitution, is merely a propaganda arm of one portion of government.
@Andrew Harding
I though that the law of conservation of mass/energy was a necessary procedural principle rather than a law derived from experiment, but I’ll be happy to be shown otherwise.
As far as I am concerned, the only settled science is that which shows red wine is good for my health. Everything else is up for grabs.
As far as failed predictions are concerned, I would like WUWT to have a permanent page which lists each prediction (full reference, of course) and the data (likewise) which falsifies it. The data should be regularly updated.
Sorry to burst your bubble about Red Wine! The science there too was corrupted.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/12/us-red-wine-heart-idUSTRE80B0BH20120112
Im not gong to read that. You are just a polítically correct crypto-Marxist shill for Big Pharma and Big Beer. The science is settled.
RoHa
+1
but you forgot the …
So, if Big Pharma can’t patent it; it must be false. Don’t they just hate those cheap, natural and effective treatments and remedies?
Not Big Oil but Big Government is deviant Warmists’ $100-billion blank cheque. Anyone with ‘arf a frontal lobe knows very well not only who but what Hansen, Mann, Cook and Lewandowsky, Jones, McKibben, Trenberth and others of their tarradiddling ilk indubitably are.
Despite all manner of mutual backscratching, these maundering dipsticks have precisely nothing to offer anyone. Hey-hey, ho-ho: New World Order’s gotta go! Just bag it, you encephalopathic lowlifes.
Too bad this report is from Heartland. I am always on the lookout for something to use in conversations with friends who believe all of the hype on “global climate whatever”. Unfortunately, Heartland has zero credibility with these people and to some extent, I understand why. They are kind of the McDonalds of the skeptic movement.
Not saying that there isn’t good stuff in here. It’s just with Heartland you are starting from a disadvantage position right off the bat.
I keep looking…
That’s one way to disparage Heartland.
Pretend you’d have it any other way.
I don’t understand what you mean here. Can you clarify?
Then don’t quote Heartland. Quote Russell Cook, who backs up his facts with… er, facts. He’s not just spouting political opinion.
It always boggles the mind how people on that “side” seem to think the “credibility” of data is contingent on the politics of the scientist/journalist/think-tank who mentions them.
Just a thought – back to “The Merchants of Smear” – this diatribe (link below) was written by an outfit which I think should be one of the best examples of smear merchants I have come across. And BTW – who, if anybody, is Naomi Klein? (see third vignette down on right hand side.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/09/australia_s_environmental_movement_has_been_overthrown.single.html
This is a tough debate.
My friend is generally pretty good when it comes to considering opinions that differ from his…not that he isn’t human, mind you, we all have biases. I think he feels backed into a corner now thanks to things like the models all being wrong and will say that until NOAA and NASA or some “independent” scientific agency changes its position he can see changing his. I understand this. Even those who claim to understand climate science often don’t completely understand it…or understand just enough to be dangerous (like me)
As good as WUWT is…and I read it daily…it still tends to be more or less an echo chamber for climate skeptic views.
Like I said…tough debate.
“it still tends to be more or less an echo chamber for climate skeptic views.”
But when I comment at believalist blogs (because I find disagreement more edifying), I invariably get banned for frightening the zebras. Don’t you find the same? If we’re ghettoized it’s only because they’re afraid of us. 🙁
My thanks to Brad Keyes for his support, and I will further add that if any of my enviro-activist critics in particular think they can exploit the ‘Heartland’ tie-in to dismiss my Policy Brief out-of-hand, it will implode in their face – as I describe briefly here: http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=2093
People continue to find fault with Heartland over its ‘Unabomber’ billboard controversy back in 2012, but I still say that despite an admittedly inept attempt to make a point, the billboard still succeeded to indirectly showcase the fatal fault of AGW believers and their enslavement to trashing skeptics’ credibility instead of engaging in scientific debate. Please see my piece on that from 2012 – which, just like my Policy Brief above, was written entirely on my own with no direction from anybody – “Heartland Institute ‘Unabomber billboard’ brings out Global Warming Alarmists’ One-Trick Pony” http://ow.ly/hKPrX
If you have friends who believe the hype, try introducing them to the IPCC.
“When I am introducing someone to the sceptical range of views an exercise I often use is to give them a link to the IPCC WG1 report (now AR5, previously I linked them to AR4). I then invite them to pick three chapters at random – any three whatsoever (other than the Summary for Policymakers (SPM)) – and skim them (or read them in full if they have the time) and come back to me with their impressions. I experience the same response every time and indeed, it matches my own. Reading the report’s individual chapters (sans the SPM), one comes away with the impression of a scholarly, ponderous document. Lots of caveats, uncertainties, doubts, gaps and so on are clearly articulated. In short, it is what one generally expects from academic output. Then the anger flows in. It is a painfully sharp contrast to the mainstream narratives.”
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/9/26/watts-up-with-mann.html
That BH post is a great find, thanks Dagfinn.
You are looking and there are so many to choose from. Try Jo Nova and dozens of others listed on her site.
Unfortunately, ‘dinner conversations’ can never resolve this. It all revolves around scientific and political agendas that require much more time to explain than a dinner event allows.
And you can also expect to lose some brainwashed friends in the process.
Thanks. In this case, it is an ongoing E Mail exchange that has lasted for 12 years so far. You have to give both of us credit for sticking with it!
rogerknights says:
September 27, 2014 at 8:01 pm
– – – – – – – – – –
Hannah Arendt left us with an impressive body of work. She profoundly challenged readers intellectually.
John
Think of Hannah Arendt as the intellectual antidote against the censorship promoting rhetoric of Naomi Oreskes.
John
For a list of 20-plus things that would be happening (but aren’t) if climate contrarians were actually well-organized and well-funded, see my WUWT guest-thread, “Notes from Skull Island” at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/notes-from-skull-island-why-skeptics-arent-well-funded-and-well-organized/
A fascinating and well documented, history, Russell. Thank you. I hope you and other readers here will forgive me for a few related (but somewhat peripheral) observations. Your text includes the following:
This almost prefigures the now widely known circle of IPCC-niks (not the least of whom is Mann) who falsely claimed to have been 2007 Nobel Prize recipients, in no small measure thanks to an exhortation from IPCC Chair, Rajendra Pachauri, when – in effect – they were merely dishonestly riding on the coat-tails of the UN-spawned organization known as the IPCC and Al Gore.
But, speaking of Mann and his world … There is an E-mail in the ClimateGate files, the loop of which includes Gelbspan amongst other illustrious recipients:
Source: http://tome22.info/Emails/5225.html#id3
For the record, in this particular Oct. 29, 2003 E-mail, Mann claims that an Apr. 09, 2003 E-mail from Steve McIntyre is “vindicating” something or other!
As an aside … tome22 just happens to be the still under development site of AccessIPCC’s* brilliant architect, Peter Bobroff – the latter of which, in the interest of full disclosure, I am proud to have had a role.
To a far more limited extent, I have from time to time provided input/feedback to Bobroff on tome22 (including ‘Please get this finished so that it can get the wider circulation it deserves’ OWTTE) [end aside]
So … following the tome22 road, I also found:
http://tome22.info/Organisations/DeSmogBlogStaff-DeSmogBlog-WebSite.html
Which eventually led me to their Gelbspan bio:
http://www.desmogblog.com/user/ross-gelbspan. [Accessed: 2014-09-27. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6SueZVTrt ) ]
FWIW, scroll down this particular page and you’ll see that Gelbspan’s association with the smoggy ones appears to have begun Thu, 2006-01-12 10:11 and ended (86 indexed pages later – notwithstanding his apparently still currently smoggy status as one of their “bloggers”) on Thu. 2010-11-11 12:19
*As an amusing – but no doubt purely coincidental – footnote, readers might be interested in knowing that AccessIPCC went “live” circa Dec. 7, 2010, not too far from the virtual heels of Gelbspan’s – apparently unannounced and, to the best of my knowledge, unexplained – silence on the smoggy-front.
Thanks – yes, indeed, there is a troublesome Gelbspan-Mann association, I covered that at my blog a bit over a year ago: “Why is Ross Gelbspan’s Name Found in ClimateGate Emails?” http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=671
Some 25 years ago or so, the topic passed from being an intellectual puzzle to a public and organised ideological campaign.
Ever since I have been worried about the potential devastation which could be wreaked upon the public trust in real science.
I know far to many seemingly intelligent people who (often shamefully) will admit to believing in quack health medicines, “holistic wellness”, miracles, ghosts, divine intervenion, moonbeams or whatever.
The growing public realisation that the IPCC predictions have been designed to promote ideological aims first and to hell with the consequences threatens to make my nightmares come true.
The preposterous smear campaigns against GMO ( “Frankenfoods”) will seem mild compared to what is to come.
(I can do apocalyptic catastrophism too! It’s as easy as falling off a log! Just switch off your critical faculties, open your mouth and “emote”. Ahhh, that feels so good!)
Bill
This is a document that should also go into your “read file”. It’s old but still as pertinent today as it was when it was written in the 1990s. Many of these same players are still active in the same activities today:
http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/fear_profiteers.pdf
Global warming is getting to be a really big business. Lately I´ve decided it´s better to be gentle and use humor to put a brake on the climate hysteria and conspiracy theorists. The later seem to be pounding the idea that if we don´t toe the “official climate line” we must be oil company agents. They even have heretics lists and all sorts of brainwashing literature. For example, here´s a screen print from desmogblog:
http://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/p/no-comment.html
These guys are so focused on persecution they may put me on their hit list for posting this screen print of their website….
anyone else see this?
todays NYTimes
President’s Drive for Carbon Pricing Fails to Win at Home
By CORAL DAVENPORT
The United States, which is under growing international pressure to price carbon, is missing from a World Bank declaration calling on all nations to enact laws forcing industries to pay for carbon emissions.
Hmm? hypocritical to the max:-)
few vested interest friends mayhap?
I also don’t know if the overdue ideological collapse will come. Too many excuses having nothing to do with science or truth that are the currency of thought in general society such as “means well”, “has a degree”, “cares so much,” “gives so much of themselves.” Most will edge their way back off of the limb before it snaps and will still be a danger waiting for the next chance to mandate something to the populace for their own good. Mankind has always been a sucker for the unknown and the climate is a long, long way from being known.
In the old days they would just throw a virgin into a volcano and be done with it.
Except as the exposure of the errors grows, mother earth being a relentless reinforcer of reality,do-gooders and climate scientists(Science in general probably) will be cast in same pile, useless destructive fools.
The cost of the CAGW mass hysteria is already huge.
Kill the poor, dice the eagles, rupture the bats all to produce power that is useless and horrendously expensive.
The question arises, just why were the MSM so quick to swallow the hook that the fossil fuel industry was trying to spread disinformation and corrupt some scientists?
The answer to this is because that is what one would expect them to do. The more plausible an accusation, the more readily people will accept it as truth. Such simplistic reasoning asserts that oil and coal industries make money by selling fossil fuels; climate science demands we use less fossil fuels: therefore they must be against it; therefore the rational behaviour is to undermine it. Who needs to dig any further to get at the truth?
Careful analysis shows more complex nuances. The fossil fuel industry know that society will still need fossil fuels but that big subsidies are available for developing alternatives. They have been very adept at capitalising on it and can brandish their green credentials for doing so.
The truth is sometimes a little different from what we would expect, but once pointed out, reasonable people should say “oh yeah, I never thought of that.”
Exactly. There are several reasons why it’s not useful for them to spread disinformation. A couple of them did not occur to me until recently when reacting to a certain graphic from “I f****** love science”. It suggests that the oil companies “bribe anyone they can”. At which point I thought, yes, but if they did, whom would it be better for them to bribe? Perhaps the most rational choice would be to support the environmental organizations, hoping they will go easier on them. And if fact, the empirical evidence shows that this is what they’ve been doing.
The other reason is legal liability. The tobacco companies ended up having to pay through the nose for having disinformed the population. Legal liability is a good reason to avoid disinformation.
http://www.evilquestions.com/2014/08/07/the-battle-of-the-conspiracy-theories/
An example of a very poor illogical analogy on the part of P.G.. CAGW is a man made hypotheses of failed predictions. The WAIS has existed for many millennium and is not in mass rushing to the sea, but instead fits in perfectly with the very long list of failed alarmist predictions. To equate the two is a sad attempt at debate, convincing no one.
& there is a depletion of normal good will where there are fabricated conspiracies about critics of a mythology; fabricated by the myth believers.
John
I didn’t read all the comments but lookit… I asked an enviro-mental nut job at church one time, everybody knows that environmental research conducted by private sector industry is biased. If this assertation is true, that private sector environmental research is biased then how is environmental research conducted by the government or a governmental agency not biased? Enviro-mental nut jobs get real hysterical when confronted by logic.