Climatic Jihad?

Climate Crisis extremists attack experts who challenge claims of imminent climate Armageddon

climate-heresy

Guest opinion by Paul Driessen

ISIL and other Islamist jihad movements continue to round up and silence all who oppose them or refuse to convert to their extreme religious tenets. They are inspiring thousands to join them. Their intolerance, vicious tactics and growing power seem to have inspired others, as well.

After years of claiming the science is settled and unprecedented man-made catastrophes are occurring right now, Climate Crisis, Inc. is increasingly desperate. Polls put climate change at the bottom of every list of public concerns. China and India refuse to cut energy production or emissions. Real-world weather and climate totally contradict their dire models and forecasts. Expensive, subsidized, environmentally harmful renewable energy makes little sense in world freshly awash in cheap, accessible oil, gas and coal.

Perhaps worse, Congress is in Republican control, and in 23 months the White House and Executive Branch could also shift dramatically away from the Freezing-Jobless-in-the-Dark Side of the Force.

Climate Crisis industrialists are also fed up with constant carping, criticism and questions from growing numbers of experts who will not kowtow to their End of Days theology. Once seemingly near, their dream of ruling a hydrocarbon-free world of “sustainably” lower living standards become more remote every week. Extremist factions had dreamed of a global climatist caliphate and want vengeance.

So borrowing from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton mentor Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, they have gone on the attack: Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. A good tactic is one your people enjoy. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions. They’ve also borrowed from the Islamic State playbook: Silence your enemies.

Led by Greenpeace associate Kert Davies, this Climatist Jihad wing of the climate chaos movement has launched a well funded, carefully choreographed vendetta of character assassination and destruction, vilifying dangerous manmade climate change “deniers” and trying to destroy their careers. Their Big Green, Big Government and media allies are either actively complicit, rooting from the sidelines or silent.

Instead of bullets, bombs and beheadings, they use double standards, Greenpeace FOIA demands, letters from Senator Ed Markey and Congressman Raul Grijalva, threats of lost funding and jobs, and constant intimidation and harassment. Submit, recant, admit your guilt, renounce your nature-rules-climate faith, Climatist Jihadis tell climate realists. Or suffer the consequences, which might even include IRS, EPA and Fish & Wildlife Service swat teams bursting through your doors, as they did with Gibson Guitars.

Their first target was Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics scientist Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon. Working closely with Greenpeace’s Climate Investigations Center, the Boston Globe and New York Times alleged that Dr. Soon received $1.25 million from the fossil fuel industry, but failed to disclose those funds when his scientific papers were published and falsely claimed he had no conflict of interest.

The charges are bogus. Harvard had full knowledge of Dr. Soon’s research financing and took 40% of the grant money off the top: some $500,000! The details are all public records, and Dr. Soon has a solid track record of going where his careful and extensive research takes him – regardless of where the money comes from. Not a scrap of evidence suggests that he falsified or fabricated data or conclusions, or twisted his science to satisfy research sponsors, on any of the numerous topics he has studied.

He has received incredible flak from environmentalist pressure groups, media outlets and even his own university – and has courageously stood behind his research, analyses and findings, which continue to withstand intense scientific scrutiny. Harvard-Smithsonian recently said it “does not support Dr. Soon’s conclusions on climate change,” and Harvard Earth and Planetary Sciences Professor Daniel Schrag averred that Soon’s approach to finding global average temperatures was perhaps not “as honest as other approaches.” But they offer not a scintilla of evidence to support their allegations of inaccuracy and dishonesty, and give him no opportunity to respond.

Indeed, one of the most prominent aspects of the climate imbroglio is the steadfast refusal of alarmist scientists to discuss or debate their findings with experts who argue that extensive, powerful natural forces – not human carbon dioxide emissions – drive Earth’s climate and weather. “Manmade disaster” proponents also refuse to divulge raw data, computer codes and other secretive work that is often paid for with taxpayer money and is always used to justify laws, treaties, regulations, mandates and subsidies that stifle economic growth, kill jobs and reduce living standards.

Dr. Soon is not the only target. The Climate Jihadists are also going after Robert Balling, Matt Briggs, John Christy, Judith Curry, Tom Harris, Steven Hayward, David Legates, Richard Lindzen, and Roger Pielke, Jr. More are sure to follow, because their work eviscerates climate cataclysm claims and raises serious questions about the accuracy, credibility, integrity and sanctity of alarmist science.

Climate Crisis, Inc. wants a monopoly over the issue. Its members focus almost exclusively on alleged human causes of climate change and extreme weather events – and would love to see skeptics silenced. Crisis proponents will not even attend scientific conferences where skeptics discuss natural causes and alarmists have opportunities to defend their hypotheses, models and evidence. (Perhaps the FCC needs to investigate this monopoly and issue “climate neutrality” rules, to ensure honest and balanced discussion.)

It fits a depressing pattern: of the White House, Democrats and liberals shutting down debate, permitting no amendments, conducting business behind closed doors, not allowing anyone to read proposed laws and regulations, rarely even recognizing that there are differing views – on ObamaCare, ObamaNetCare, IRS harassment of conservative donors and groups, PM Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, or climate change.

The Climate Crisis industry thrives on tens of billions of dollars annually, for one-sided climate research, drilling and fracking studies, renewable energy projects and other programs, all based on dubious claims that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions threaten climate stability and planetary survival.

Businesses, job holders and consumers pay the huge costs of complying with the resultant regulations and soaring energy costs. Taxpayers pay for much of the research and propaganda that drives the rulemaking. Russia and hard-left foundations have also contributed billions to the process; and government unions, environmental pressure groups and renewable energy companies give generously to researchers and to politicians who keep the alarmist research programs, regulatory processes, mandates and subsidies alive.

All of this raises another elephantine issue. If a couple million dollars over a decade’s time creates near-criminal conflict-of-interest and disclosure problems for skeptic/realist scientists, what effects do billions of dollars in research money have on alarmist researchers and their universities and institutions?

Few, if any, alarmist researchers have disclosed that their work was funded by government agencies, companies, foundations and others with enormous financial, policy, political and other interests in their work, ensuring that their conclusions support manmade factors and debunk natural causes. Many of those researchers have signed statements that their research and papers involved no conflicts, knowing they would not get these grants, if their outcomes did not reflect the sponsors’ interests and perspectives.

Moreover, ClimateGate, IPCC revelations and other investigations have revealed extensive and troubling incidents of manipulated data, faulty models, wild exaggerations, and completely baseless claims about hottest years, disappearing glaciers, coastal flooding and other “crises.” And those claims severely impact our energy costs, jobs, living standards, economic growth and freedoms.

We need to end the double standard – and investigate the alarmist researchers and institutions.

Or better yet, let us instead have that all-out, open, robust debate that climate realists have long sought – and alarmists have refused to join. Equal government and other money for all research. All cards and evidence on the table. No more hiding data and codes. Answer all questions, no matter how tough or inconvenient. And let honest science decide what our energy and economic futures will be.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death, and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: Saving the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.

376 thoughts on “Climatic Jihad?

  1. The desperate tactics of the cornered rat are ugly (and we must stand up and defend their victims such as Dr. Soon),

    however…, their shrill squeals and snarls are quite heart warming for they mean only one thing:

    they — have — lost — the AGW War.

    CO2 up : warming stopped.

    Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaa!

    #(:))

    • Agreed. However WRT to the bloggers premise, I think it’s an unnecessary stretch. And in poor taste. When climate alarmists start beheading deniers you can sign me up. Until then, I suggest leaving the hyperbole to the other side. They’ re so good at it.

    • They haven’t lost the AGW war. They have lost the scientific high ground of the AGW war. They have become entrenched in government. Anyone who thinks this is nearing the end better think again. As this article states, there is a political war that will have to be fought and don’t count on the Republican Party to fight it on our behalf. All they need is a few good self serving reasons and they will switch sides in seconds.

      The fight that is ahead of us isn’t one of science, data and logic. It will be one of propaganda and regulation. Don’t be naïve. These folks play dirty. Just look at immigration, Obamacare, coal, and a dozen other things like them.

      Data and reasoning won’t stop this.

      • Data and reasoning won’t stop this.

        I’m afraid you are right. It’s all about political tyranny now.

        UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres : “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.”

        That means enslaving the world.

        http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2015/02/world-economy-transformation-tops-un-climate-agenda-3113748.html

      • The phrase, “the science is settled”, should have triggered alarms all over the scientific community, but oddly it didn’t. When, in the history of science, has it been “settled.” In 1999, astronomers proclaimed that it was IMPOSSIBLE to estimate the age of an individual star without knowing the type of galaxy it was in. By 2011, astronomers had determined that the age of a star could be estimated simply by correlating it to the mass and rotational period. So when someone says science is “settled”, you have to presume they mean the politics surrounding a scientific position has been settled … until the political pendulum swings.

      • Some how the word “Inquisition” comes to mind and with Pope Francis chiming in on behalf of the warmists makes that even more sinister , Oh how history repeats itself to the detriment of the human race.

      • Just so, Proud Skeptic!

        Refuting propaganda and rejecting false basis regulation are the near term priorities for all honest citizens.

      • I work in mid-sized govt agency and as much as I hate to say it, those who willingly choose to filter facts through the lens of AGW appear to be in the majority and now that they feel they have both the “upper hand” and “consensus” they will persist to the last man standing. Their’s is, in their mind, the higher moral cause and though none actually understand the basic science behind what they are espousing, they feel those how hold to different tenets too simplistic and unsophisticated to understand their “truth”. I literally had a member of upper management tell me a couple years back tell me that if I did not “shift my paradigm” that people would one day “throw rocks at my head”. In hindsight I believe they werep.. Om not being entirely figurative. And having been called a “denier” openly at a recent managers meeting with 40 other managers present, I am truly starting to wonder.

        I actually think the sense of religious fervor is actually very real and growing, at least in my sector.

      • Correct because it never was about the science and that is a problem some sceptics have they think that has long has you keep proving their claims fall down on a scientific basis you will win . But you will not because that is not the battle ground in the first place .

      • The fight that is ahead of us isn’t one of science, data and logic. It will be one of propaganda and regulation.
        ________________________________________________________________

        I don’t care about anyone’s political wish to engage in political anti-AGW propaganda.

        If WUWT descends into crass propaganda indulgence instead of science analysis and reporting, the whole thing is already lost, a dead end.

        The world is filled with that poison and I flat-out reject the suggestion that it’s worthy to correct a mere political twist in PERCEPTION of the climate of earth and its trending.

        If the facts are not good enough for the audience – sorry – it’s not reality that has the problem, it’s the audience that’s rubbish.

        Just because green rubbish engage in rank propaganda and active politicising and form demented political parties and engage in foul intrigues, does not mean the side pointing out the facts should imagine there’s a fight to be won in that sewer hole.

        What unabridged nonsense that prospect is.

        The problem will be resolved only when people who can’t face all of the facts, and their net message, abandon the political nonsense and look at Earth itself, as it is.

        That means individuals have to sort all that out themselves, if they have the character and fiber to do so. No one has to ‘correct’ them, they have to correct themselves. That’s what matters. All the rest is just more rubbish heaping up.

        Creating political noise and counter propaganda will simply do the reverse, polarise people into meaningless politics and defensive blather, which resolves and settles nothing at all. It has no capacity to do that. It’s a dead end, dry hole, waste of time, pointless useless nonsense, that will achieve nothing of any value to understanding Earth.

        Which is the real point of observing it, in greater and greater detail.

        I will not take part in such a deluded fantasy that politics and propaganda have any worthwhile roll in any of that.

        You are either interested in the natural history and patterns of Earth itself, to understand it as it is, or you are irrelevant.

      • Response to Unmentionable…

        There is a lot of truth in what you say and I have been an advocate for many years that WUWT remain, as much as possible, a science and data oriented website. One of the things I like the most about it is the fact that is primarily uses science to refute Warmist arguments. I have even been criticized for warning the people who post on this website not to descend into cheap arguments and derision in order to make a point.

        I hope WUWT will continue to be primarily science oriented and stick to all those graphs and calculations that I often find difficult to follow. ;-)

        That said, the larger fight has moved into the realm of politics and to ignore or deny (sorry) that is to take a knife to a gun fight. My point, with which you take issue, is a larger one. Let’s not be naïve. Let us continue to refute the science and expose these vicious attacks on people like Dr. Soon. Facts are important. But now that this is entrenched in government…I find Dadodeaf’s post to be most troubling…the facts are going to be less important than the political power.

        I have no solution for this.

        Finally…I have posted several times about the debates I have over this issue with a good friend. He is a PhD and has an open mind. He will debate almost anything and hold his own in doing so. But when it comes to AGW, the science, which has a pretty steep learning curve, he resorts to “Why would NASA and NOAA lie? Since I can’t understand the science well enough to deal with this on a technical level, I might as well go with what the impartial scientists say.”

        How do you deal with that? And don’t dismiss this man. If you can’t convince him…

      • Bruce Hall
        February 28, 2015 at 4:08 pm

        The phrase, “the science is settled”, should have triggered alarms all over the scientific community, but oddly it didn’t.

        Below is an example of why science is never settled. Heretics carry out research in all sorts of fields and sometimes show up surprising results. Below is research actually funded partly by a group who believed that the science over bad foods was settled. The controversy has boiled over in the last few years with other contradictory research.

        Annals of Internal Medicine – 18 March, 2014
        Dr. Rajiv Chowdhury et al
        Association of Dietary, Circulating, and Supplement Fatty Acids With Coronary Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
        Conclusion: Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats.

        Primary Funding Source: British Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council, Cambridge National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, and Gates Cambridge.
        http://tinyurl.com/q3hqfvc

        A bit of background.

        Wall Street Journal – 2 May, 2014
        The Questionable Link Between Saturated Fat and Heart Disease
        Are butter, cheese and steak really bad for you? The dubious science behind the anti-fat crusade
        “Saturated fat does not cause heart disease”—or so concluded a big study published in March in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. How could this be? The very cornerstone of dietary advice for generations has been that the saturated fats in butter, cheese and red meat should be avoided because they clog our arteries……..

        Our distrust of saturated fat can be traced back to the 1950s, to a man named Ancel Benjamin Keys, a scientist at the University of Minnesota. Dr. Keys was formidably persuasive and, through sheer force of will, rose to the top of the nutrition world—even gracing the cover of Time magazine—for relentlessly championing the idea that saturated fats raise cholesterol and, as a result, cause heart attacks.

        This idea fell on receptive ears because, at the time, Americans faced a fast-growing epidemic. Heart disease, a rarity only three decades earlier, had quickly become the nation’s No. 1 killer. Even President Dwight D. Eisenhower suffered a heart attack in 1955. Researchers were desperate for answers……

        Critics have pointed out that Dr. Keys violated several basic scientific norms in his study…..
        http://tinyurl.com/m8sczes

        BBC – 14 October 2014
        Should people be eating more fat?
        …..Scientists from Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard, amongst others, examined the links between eating saturated fat and heart disease. Despite looking at the results of nearly 80 studies involving more than a half million people they were unable to find convincing evidence that eating saturated fats leads to greater risk of heart disease.

        In fact, when they looked at blood results, they found that higher levels of some saturated fats, in particular a type of saturated fat you get in milk and dairy products called margaric acid, were associated with a lower risk of heart disease……

        A recent study, this time published in the Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care, “High dairy fat intake related to less central obesity“, certainly questioned the link.

        In this study, researchers followed 1,589 Swedish men for 12 years. They found that those following a low-fat diet (no butter, low-fat milk and no cream) were more likely to develop fat around the gut (central obesity) than those eating butter, high-fat milk and whipping cream.
        http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29616418

      • And here is the US government finally conceding?

        10 February 2015
        “The U.S. government is poised to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol”
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/10/feds-poised-to-withdraw-longstanding-warnings-about-dietary-cholesterol/

        10 February 2015
        Butter ISN’T bad for you after all: Major study says 80s advice on dairy fats was flawed
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2946617/Butter-ISN-T-bad-Major-study-says-80s-advice-dairy-fats-flawed.html

        Anyone who tells you that the science is settled is not a ‘scientist’.

        BBC – 23 January 2015
        Scientists slow the speed of light
        A team of Scottish scientists has made light travel slower than the speed of light.

        They sent photons – individual particles of light – through a special mask. It changed the photons’ shape – and slowed them to less than light speed.

        The photons remained travelling at the lower speed even when they returned to free space……

        The speed of light is regarded as an absolute. It is 186,282 miles per second in free space.

        Light propagates more slowly when passing through materials like water or glass but goes back to its higher velocity as soon as it returns to free space again.

        Or at least it did until now……

      • Proud Skeptic “Data and reasoning won’t stop this.”
        I predicted Obama would beat Hillary after hearing him in speak in Iowa. He did exactly what he said he would do – fundamentallly change our government. The Republican Party may retain control of Congress , but I doubt they will be able to beat Hillary. The Democrats have bought/brainwashed over 50% of our population and the propoganda machine now has control of the internet.
        It is amazing how many intelligent and successful people I know will not even consider data and reasoning.

      • Proud Skeptic
        March 1, 2015 at 3:54 am
        Response to Unmentionable…
        ____

        Thanks PS, I share your concerns, it is good to have friends like that, if nothing else they are a reality check. I partially addressed your troubling points in the comments below, cheers.

    • I agree. This is the “final explosion”. The one where they go all in, because they have no choice.

      Inspired by the silly military jargon of the Skeptical Science kids, in a battle this would be the last push against the defenses, where the attacking general puts in all his men and artillery in a last desperate attempt to break through. After this his resources are expended and the fight must be abandoned. Rest of the war will be about how much they’ll lose in the end – not about whether they win.

      I believe these are but the opening salvoes. Few blasts to forewarn us about the coming storm. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’d start blackmailing blogging platforms to denounce and stop supporting skeptical blogs. All we have to do is stand fast and watch with amazement as the barrage increases, reaches a crescendo and then dies down!

      I can see how they like this kind of language. It gets me all worked up already. :)

      • It has been pointed out many times that it’s really no longer about the science – despite an endless flood of Climastrology toilet papers. It’s about setting up the programs, institutions, regulations and money making carbon enterprises before the fat lady sings. She has inhaled and they are getting into a panic.

        Just look at Lord Stern and other alarmists. Look at their business interests. BBC Pension scheme, look at their investments. CARBON investments left, right and centre. I don’t want to bore you people with the details.

    • Yes, they lost the science debate,long ago.

      It is the PROPAGANDA babble, that is still going on, with the abundance of ad hominem,fallacies, lies and distortions, rolled and served on a dirty plate.

      I get this a lot now at Facebook climate discussion group, where they post a barrage of bad news weather events, to say this is proof of global warming. They do in a spamming manner too, by posting 5-10 variations on the same news item.

      Increasingly I just point to an obvious failed IPCC temperature projection, for the first two decades of this century, post the HadCrut$ and RSS temperature of the last 14 years to show a very different trend, from the projection,then watch them fumble all over the place. Just today, a woman says it is an old IPCC projection (2007), thus not up to date.

      Ha ha ha……

      • Janice:
        Not a game!

        The link takes you to the first page of a graphic novel centered around a girl genius who is heir to a dynasty of science geniuses. Don’t bother with the many ‘click me’ links outside the borders of the story.

        At the bottom of the graphic page are arrows that allow you to click forward through the story. It is only a few pages before the first of many “Bwaaa-Ha-Hahah” outbursts of laughter in the story.

      • Good! #(:))

        I LOVE to write that! Heh….. I think I’ll do it again!

        Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaa!

      • A Theo K! lol

        Thank you for your so kindly directing me to a little game to play. HOW OLD DO YOU THINK I AM??! Wait a minute…. I’m really not too old for video games, am I? (smile) I searched for “bwah, ha, ha, ha, ha” and didn’t find it” (just for fun). I’m sure it’s in there, though. While I never got into playing video games (the car driving game was the only one I kept pushing quarters into in the 1980’s), THANK YOU for being so kind. I can STILL hear the “Donkey Kong” sounds/music from my younger brothers playing and playing and playing…, though. Good times. Now, they have to go to bed early and drive to work at o’ dark early. At least they have jobs!! Oh brother. Can you tell I like to talk? Done!

        I hope that whatever give you joy is occupying you as often as you like!

        Take care (I always enjoy your insights on WUWT, btw),

        Janice

    • OK…What is the argument against? “Why would NASA and NOAA lie?”

      …you know…the one that doesn’t make you sound like a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist?

      Anthony…I would love to see that addressed on your excellent blog.

      Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

      • I have a feeling that with NASA, it comes down to relevance. Since funding for space exploration was cut, they can see some marginal warming and stand behind the theory that CO2 traps heat and causes warming. Therefore more CO2 added to the already rising CO2 will cause runaway heating of the earth. The theory is now their lifeline, and keeps the organization relevant. Additional government funding is now free and easy. And do you think that any scientists that are employed by NASA will speak out or say that might feel something isnt right with the theory?
        As for NOAA, i dont know enough about them to speculate, but I would assume that it something to do with relevance as well. It will be over within a decade.

      • “OK…What is the argument against? “Why would NASA and NOAA lie?””

        I don’t think it’s a vast conspiracy. That misses the entire point.

        No doubt this all started with a lot of well meaning people quite concerned. We are putting an awful lot of CO2 into our air and we do not know the consequences.

        The UN and other governments got exactly the science they paid for. Grants were given based on a presumption. Any science that could link itself to global warming did so because it meant more grant money. If you were already studying butterflies, you would get more funding if you could link your results to global warming. And of course you got plenty of media attention.

        Add into the mix the media which thrives on selling gloom and doom. If it bleeds it leads sort of thing.

        Now we are at a point where a lot of scientists have painted themselves into a corner. They wrote books about a future they fully expected to come to pass. They wrote articles, made predictions, took public stances and got funding based on those assumptions.

        How do they walk back from their original positions?

        So no, I think it’s a straw man argument to claim a grand conspiracy. It is simple human emotion – embarrassment. They were wrong and admitting it is too difficult.

        However, they were really just incorrect, perhaps just temporarily, something that happens in science all the time and should be accepted and encouraged. Time may still prove them to be right. We just don’t know yet. Although the more years that pass with CO2 rising and temps the same the worse it looks.

        There are just too many complex feedbacks and interrelated systems. We have a limited but growing understanding of our planetary weather and climate systems.

        And keep in mind what the actual dispute is:

        Proponents believe that climate sensitivity is higher
        Dissidents believe that climate sensitivity is lower

        Few to none argue that CO2 has nothing to do with it.

        From IPCC, about climate sensitivity:

        3rd Assessment Report: “likely to be in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 °C”
        4th Assessment Report: “very unlikely to be less than 1.5 °C. Values substantially higher than 4.5 °C”
        5th Assessment Report: “likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C”

        I’ve rarely heard a dissident claiming temperature rises as a result of doubling of CO2 lower than 1.5. But I have heard plenty of proponents claiming higher than 4.5.

        At 1.5 we are probably wasting our money on prevention. Even adaptation after the fact would be minimal.

        At 4.5 or above they might have a valid argument.

        However, observational science simply has not stacked up in favor of a higher sensitivity.

        Models on the other hand…

        Cheers!

  2. “Climate Science” is a political movement and tool, not real independent science. They are using political tools and motivation and norms, not those of science.

    This is not an accident, it is by design. Parasitize and take over NGOs, Foundations, Government Agencies, then use them to advance an Agenda. The particular agenda has a few variations, but has been with us for decades to generations. The goal is to use government power and mandates to funnel money to fellow travelers. This used to be called “corruption”. Now it’s called business as usual…

    So yes, it’s a Jihad. A “holy war” on traditional Science. All organs must be bent to the service of the un-elected few…

    • Holy wars of words tend to outlast the “homage of reason” that Jefferson so wrote. The words last for several 2-4 generations, where the behavior-reason is immediately identifiable. Emotion is difficult to separate from facts by fanatical clerics. The Western civilization’s Reasoning in science has not always been first to test.

    • I think at the very least it is too early to tell if climate science is mature enough to be relied on as science. A few months ago I came to the realization that this discipline is in its infancy. We have a long way to go before we have models that reflect everything that they need to reflect. Once that is in place, it will take several decades, if not hundreds of years, to establish their accuracy and therefore, usefulness.

      As for whether it is a “holy war” per se…it certainly shares some important characteristics. Emphasizing this too much is counterproductive, though and makes it hard for anyone who may be inclined to approach this with an open mind (there may be a few left) to accept our arguments.

      In reading WUWT I get some peeks into the science community and what I see disturbs me (I am a retired engineer and builder with a knack for science). I can accept aggressive or even emotional arguments based on the facts but for scientists to sink to the level of name calling that seems to be happening is very revealing as to how much stock we should put in the opinions of many “scientists”.

  3. Let me make this easy for the White House. I’m a “climate skeptic” or by your words a “climate denier.” I look forward to being contacted by you or your representatives. Before you do so please come prepared.

    It seems everything proves man-made climate change: high temperatures, low temperatures, more rain, more droughts, no snow, blizzards, more hurricanes, less hurricanes, more tornadoes, fewer tornadoes, and volcanoes.

    For any hypothesis to be scientific it has to be falsifiable (i.e. there has to be some condition that can’t happen). So how is man-made climate change scientific? What conditions would prove it false? What conditions occurred in the past before man-made climate change that don’t occur now?

    • Wouldn’t your comment make more sense if you used your real name. It is fear that has enabled the warmists, to achieve as much, as their agenda, that they have. Courage IS required. GK

      • I’ve used this “moniker” for years. I’m sure the NSA already knows I’m a retired USAF Captain (O3E), live in middle Tennessee, and has my phone number and address readily available. That said, I don’t need some of the “nuts” I’ve engaged with on several blogs to become a nuisance in my neighborhood.

  4. It’s ok, they’re making a sci-fi fantasy film about it all. Here’s the still from ‘Manned Mission to Armageddon’.

    (originally posted in WUWT ‘Cultural Tipping Point Reached – Hollywood has started mocking global warming’

      • Some mentioned using your name instead of a moniker and up to a point I agree, but the counterpoint is valid as well I have used my name in the past and had to change it ( the mod has it btw). The backlash with using your name can (from experience) be devastating as I am sure AW, Bob Tisdale and others know.

  5. Following a false god
    Rejecting our Creator for a false secular god inevitably leads to perversion of objective truth and of the scientific method as well as of religion. See:
    “The Earth Is Not a God “The false theology of radical environmentalists”, Jerry Weinberger’s review of:
    The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, by Alex Epstein
    Darrow Miller similarly lays out the the extreme perversion of the atheistic religion that worships the earth.
    Emancipating the World: A Christian Response to Radical Islam and Fundamentalist Atheism

    • There is no way to tell the difference between sarcasm and genuine belief in a belief system, so I refuse to comment.

      [Reply: JUst add: “/sarc” to any sarcastic comment. ~mod.]

      • “The Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
        While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
        Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
        And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods
        Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape
        Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own.”

        Xenophanes 500BC approx

      • No one knows what the Thracians said. They were conquered, economically and politically dominated by Greece and Rome, and they were Hellenized. There is nothing left of their language or beliefs, except quotes by…Greeks.

      • Francis has danced with the devil. When the truth comes out, the Catholic (so-called) Church will lose millions of adherents. St. Peter’s throne will never be the same, and within a generation, there will be no more popes.

      • I’m pretty fond of the earth myself. Since CO2 fertilizes plant growth, and makes the earth a greener, more vibrant, more productive place, my theory is that we should literally “Go Green”. Burn some coal.

  6. A brilliant article that sums up the true facts on both sides of the argument. Thank you Mr Driessen. If it doesn’t give a wake up call to all the GW sinners, it might just make a few decent warmists see the light. Is the article likely to appear on any other blog or magazine?.

    • Mr. Lawson – In response to your question: “Is the article likely to appear on any other blog or magazine?.” If you could, please skim through the past postings here at WUWT (in the right-hand cloumn of this page is a calendar where you may open the past postings by date, a handy tool for review). As you read through them you may notice a recurring theme, where the Main Stream Media (MSM) have worked to stifle, downplay, not publish, marginalize, omit, ostracize, or otherwise ignore any and all articles that are written with any themes that are contrary to the Religion of Man-Made Global Catastrophe. Surely, yoiu have noticed this??? If not, welcome to WUWT, the source for such enlightenment…

  7. Well said:

    “And let honest science decide what our energy and economic futures will be.”

    Unfortunately, probably not going to happen any time soon. To much money, pride, jobs, gravy train rides and entrenched positions involved. We will no doubt be seeing more of the witch hunting and a section of the scientific community that imputes that the increase is hidden in the deep ocean etc. etc.. On the plus side, if the observed data continues to contradict the warming models are forecasting, maybe laws such as the UK’s Climate Change Act will be repealed (hopefully before the UK is bankrupt), the UNFCCC torn up, the UN’s Green Fund defunded and the support infrastructure disbanded and the money saved better directed to assist those that need it. :-)

  8. From Red to Green. Think about it. I think the idea of salvation by secularism is part of the big money Neo-colonial agenda. Not that the Green activists need to know that they are useful idiots for a totalitarian agenda.

  9. Michael E. Mann has a strong resemblance to Raul Grijalva. Could there be a genetic linkage?

    Ha ha

  10. A robust debate would be desirable but unlikely; however, it might be possible for someone to sponsor a discussion that would be designed to document where the two sides agreed and where they disagreed. Certainly both sides could agree to certain data that is not in dispute.

      • Define your terms,”high percentage of sexual deviants” is probably true.
        But not relative to any other group you care to name.

    • I doubt any robust debate would resolve the disparate views on this topic. There have been many ‘debates’ on this blog by seemingly knowledgeable individuals who quote studiy after study to ‘prove’ their points but all it leaves us (non-scientist) readers with is doubt, confusion and more questions.

      Interpretation of data has so many variations and projected futures that no single result is acceptable to all parties.

      • A “science court” established or endorsed by big-name science institutions could handle such a debate well. Google for the term for details.

  11. China and India refuse to cut energy production or emissions
    I thought it was funny when the Obama Administration said they had agreements with China and India to cut greenhouse emissions. India basically told President Obama, “sit on this and spin”. I think it takes a good sense of humor to call that an agreement.

  12. The first two paragraphs seem a bit overwrought to me. But I do agree in concept that The Climate Crisis™ establishment is in a crisis. The crisis is of their own now-clear dishonesty about the science of climate and failure to acknowledge basic uncertainties, uncertainties that have continued to grow with the years. Sadly, the science of climate physics is still firmly in the hands of the climate pseudoscientists. It is sadly because it may allow the political controllers to not recognize and prepare for the clear global and national societal dangers a cooling world can bring.

    • Don’t be too sure they don’t know about global cooling. Wasn’t global cooling one of the topics at a recent Bilderberg meeting?

  13. “We need to end the double standard – and investigate the alarmist researchers and institutions.”

    I disagree. Two wrongs ≠ right.

    • You feel it is wrong to publicly verify all aspects of scientific work, and to then look into possible funding issues being behind incorrect work, odd assumptions and other examples of clear bias?

      I agree which hunts looking for supposed fraud based solely off a desire not to hear what is being said is horribly wrong. That does not, however, mean investigating possible cases of real fraud is similarly wrong.

    • Quite agree.
      We need to push science back into debate and openness to new ideas.
      The tactics being used by the failed science brigade avoids these things because they have failed, and they know it.

      No-one needs more failure in the world.

      • DesertYote
        February 28, 2015 at 4:04 pm
        But it never was about science, so there is no pushing science back into the debate.
        ___________

        Maybe not for you, but it is about earth observation and understanding them.

        Political conceptual dildo-reconstructions and grandstanding drama-queens, talking twisted smearing useless rot, has no place in earth observations and understanding of those observations.

        The very suggestion that it’s all about a distraction peripheral political clown-show, is beneath contempt. It is repulsive to have people goading others to ‘defend’ or ‘attack’ such meaningless lost-in-space bilge.

        Keep it.

    • All investigations are not wrong. They can be If used to silence those you disagree with. But they are a necessary tool to uncover wrongdoing. The important thing is that they be fair and based on fact rather than innuendo. The current overreach by alarmists may be intentional to get people sick of investigations so they can continue to hide their own misconduct. Let’s not fall into their trap.

      • Louis: “All investigations are not wrong. They can be If used to silence those you disagree with.”
        ______

        Unfortunately in politics and propaganda the other side does not care if they’re wrong, they are not silenced by facts, they are not honest people, they simply amp their objection to and rejection of observed realities, anyway.

        It’s total distraction, total waste of time, pure reality-reconstruction on command, no NET positive takeaway.

        That group of people are not interested in understanding anything, and certainly not Earth. It’s all about them getting their way, wresting constitutional legal control and legislative authority over all, to rewrite and concoct imaginary facts of observation for a globally applied reality-reconstruction.

        None of it is real, pure house of cards, and they won’t be “silenced” by good science.

        Don’t play – that’s the actual winning move.

    • Those that have lied to prosper should be brought to account before the courts! And, that includes the source of funding, Steyer, et al.

    • Public opinion has been heavily influenced by greenies’ meme that contrarians are shills funded by nefarious interests, as the tobacco institute’s scientists were. This is one of warmists’ most powerful weapons. Only if both sides open their kimonos will this false claim be defused.

  14. The only way a climb down will happen will be via investigative journalism that reveals the massive scope of the deception and bullying along with the trail of money from taxpayers.

    It’s the kind of thing Occupy might have concerned itself with, or any open-minded and ambitious journalist. But the politics are wrong and so is the mindset that we must align ourselves with ‘saving the planet’, regardless of how facile the concept is in practice.

    No run of the mill politician will take this on. Too much fear, as Crichton forecast.

    It’s not the Truth vs Big Oil, as the climateers have succeeded in framing the issue.

    • Mods, I just put a comment I actually thought was worth reading. And it got caught in moderation.
      Probably due to context-insensitive spotting of a consp- word.
      Please help.

  15. The Climate Crisis™ establishment is in a crisis.

    Yes. And it doesn’t need a conspiracy for several groups to notice that at once.

    The Guardian has become even more strict in moderating its environment section so as the true believers aren’t challenged at all. Why? Because the pause is to inconvenient of you’re an environmental journalist. What is the point of an environmental journalist and not just a science journalist anyway?

    That has nothing to do with the US EPA. The Guardian isn’t on best of terms with the US Government at the moment (Snowden). But they have similar problems and so adopt similar tactics to silence dissent.

    Meanwhile, Paris approaches and the professional junketeers who attend these things need something to be agreed so as there is another. They will keep publishing doom-laden prophecies that are permitted by the Climate Crisis™ establishment. They are the only voices allowed.

    Against that background consider the scientists who’ve committed 20 years iof their career to saving the world. They have lots of non-science weapons given them in order to defend Climate Crisis™ establishment. But they have no scientific arguments left – the pause – the pause!

    So, without any pre-agreement, the new empirical climate science is attacked under post-Enlightenment rules.

  16. My only comment on the cartoon is that it isn’t only “skeptics” that are the victims of the witch hunt. It’s anyone, at present the 7 scientists, with a respected reputation and is listened to that speaks what is an inconvenient truth.

  17. Disclosure of funding sources = Jihad? Really??

    No one is trying to silence anyone. They are actually being asked to provide more information about their work, like where their funding is coming from.

    • Barry,
      Hollywood is now getting into the mêlée on the side of the skeptics.
      Do you realize what that means? It is the crack of doom for the AGW cultists

      • Climate Change fanatics have lost Hollywood merely because that is not what the viewing public wants to pay for (numbers are worldwide box office revenues in $USD):

        In 2008: The Day the Earth Stood Still: ($233,093,858). Probably the apex for the Climate Change cultists, along with their triumphal election of The Worst US President Ever. And then the relentless, uncaring Pause did them in.

        2014: Interstellar: ($665,042,656). Dr Michael Mann mocked for his falsified data.

      • joelobryan, that is an unfair comparison.
        Interstellar is by far the better movie. It’s not about the theme.

        And I still prefer the original, anyway.
        Gort, Klaatu barada nikto.
        Hello, what’s going on with that tree?

    • It is a slippery slope from threatening someone’s livelihood to threatening someone’s life to coerce them into silence or support of your belief system.

      If you are of the belief that the current smear campaign is anything but coercion, then you’re a fool. Dr Pielke has already announced that he is abandoning his climate research due to those precise coercion tactics.

      Either we settle our differences through reasoned debate and compromise, or we don’t.

    • Barry, If you want open debate then I agree with you.

      Let’s have the public debate between those who think they can distinguish anthropogenic warming form natural effects and the sceptics. The sceptics will be up for it.

      Or we can try and attack the integrity of the sceptics so as we can avoid discussing the science… but if we do that we can’t claim to be interested in truth.

      Let’s ignore the smears abut bias and stick to the science, eh?

    • “Barry” (?) – It would be refreshing if a person who is apparently in favor of “more information” were to at least give his full/real name.

    • So asking someone to spend all their time and money, and sometimes even lose their jobs (as is often what is called dor by the accusers,) defending themselves against baseless accusations from people who just desperately don’t want to hear what is being said is not an attempt to silence them?

      Or here is a better question – if the science is 100% sound, what difference does it make where funding comes from? Look at, say, Hitler… He is responsible for bringing about some of most advanced science and design of the 20th century. Because Hitler was behind it though, does it then becomes junk? Of course not, claiming that would be insane. It is the SCIENCE which needs to be scrutinized at, not how the science was funded! Only if the science is faulty (as is often the case in support of AGW) that the funding should even be considered.

      Obsessing over funding in an attempt to ignore the science merely proves irrational bias where reality is much less important than desire

    • Barry, it has already worked to silence Prof. Roger Pielke, Jr. He wrote, “I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues.” He is also phasing out his blogging on climate issues. Please explain how that is not the intent of the witch hunt in the first place?

      • Barry thinks sceptics are naive. The aim is to cut off funding of sceptics and silence them. Nothing else. This is why the likes of Barry will never get my name. PS I am not funded in any way at all. I am simply sceptical of their exaggerations.

        Silencing sceptics does not make IPCC projections more accurate.
        Silencing sceptics does not make the 18+ years of surface temperature standstill go away.
        Silencing sceptics does not make Antarctica’s sea ice extent decline.
        Silencing sceptics does not make climate models more accurate.
        Silencing sceptics does not make scientific falsifiability go away.

        What silencing sceptics does do is it allows them to get on with their scam in peace and quiet. This is not going to happen.

    • Barry February 28, 2015 at 11:53 am says;

      No one is trying to silence anyone.

      Really Barry? Then why are two climate modellers suing my father? Was it something he said? Both suits were filed 9 days apart? Coincidence? You are so full of s**t.
      You never even had the courage to respond to the multitude of posts that destroyed your “anomaly” map.
      You post garbage and then cannot defend it. You do understand that people see through you, don’t you?

    • You are being intentionally disingenuous. There many hundreds of other “climate scientists” who equally [could] have been the recipient of such a letter, other than the magnificent 7, but those others are not.

    • No Barry, it is a highly selective request. They ask only the “skeptics” and “Luke warmers” for the information.

      They are not asking Dr. Mann for the funding data, or anyone else who is a confirmed CAGW supporter,and purveyor of the Run away warming trend beliefs.

      Surely, you are not that blind to see the one sided requests?

    • Barry February 28, 2015 at 11:53 am said:

      They are actually being asked to provide more information about their work, like where their funding is coming from.

      Only for certain points of view.

    • Barry
      February 28, 2015 at 11:53 am

      Disclosure of funding sources = Jihad? Really??

      No one is trying to silence anyone. They are actually being asked to provide more information about their work, like where their funding is coming from.

      You are either lying or ignorant. Barry forgets that the likes of Greenpeace then go on to pressurize the funders to stop funding.

      Barry forgets what just happened to Dr. Pielke Jr.

      Roger Pielke Jr.: I am Under ‘Investigation’
      The incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt, I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues. I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject.
      http://business.financialpost.com/2015/02/25/roger-pielke-jr-i-am-under-investigation/

      Barry forget what happened to Lennart Bengtsson.

      “I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

      Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/14/shameless-climate-mccarthyism-on-full-display-scientist-forced-to-resign/

      Barry forgets a lot and thinks we are all stupid. Please stop your BS, you are not talking to idiots.

  18. The alarmists chickens are now coming home to roost:

    1. Alarmist screeching- we’ll all be drowned by rising sea level, starved by droughts and famine, blown away by more frequent and more violent hurricanes/tornados, brought low by tropical fevers, etc., etc.
    2. Junk science they feed into the propaganda mill and the faster they crank the handle of the mill the more ridiculous they look.
    3. Vilification and persecution of those who publish studies that refute the AGW ideology (Soon, Pielke, Spenser, etc.)

    People are growing evermore incredulous and disgusted with what appears more and more as a gigantic environmental scam.

    • db,

      Have you thought of applying the Turing Test to the likes of those whose contributions to this site are to ask the same question or make the same comment over and over? Like a program caught in a loop.

      I suspect some of the pro-AGW comments in that vein are actually Greenpeace (or similar origin) automated responses that have been cleverly programmed, and activated by keywords on the site.

      (Any suggestion that this is an ad hominem comment is of course inapplicable if dealing with, effectively, a robot).

      The reason I suggest the Turing test is that I could not see how Greenpeace could afford to monitor all sceptic or denier sites 24/7, but with a handful of programs – no problem.

      • Mikewaite… problem. A Turing test is designed to identify a facile reasoned argument made by a thinking human being as compared to a programmed set of logic rules from a machine. Consider the average Warmist troll. We see them all too often. Think of the arguments they make, erroneous logic, constant citing of authority when they don’t have a cooked number to use, dropping to ad hom’s at the dead ends in the “arguments” they got from their favorite grant sucking site along with a host of other somewhat canned responses we all know too well. How does a Turing test separate them from a bot? I’d postulate that the Turing test would catch them, but only if we used the inverse of its output as any marginally well written piece of code would certainly put up more believable statements than “CO2 warming is causing blizzards and extreme cold.” Most of their logical repartee could be cut and paste from a rewrite of the original Zork code… n’est pas?

    • “Barry, really: what planet are you posting from??”

      Why, that is obvious – he is posting from planet Gore, where the core is millions of degrees, warming causes things to cool, and debates are settled by not having them.

    • Jonathan Abbott,
      Threatening to kill those who disagree with you is bad. Do you think that is a mistake? It isn’t. And I hope I would say that to your face even if you were armed and disagree with me.

      Threatening to destroy the livelihood of those who disagree with you is bad. Do you think that is a mistake? It isn’t. And I hope I would say that to your face even if you were influential on my funding and disagree with me.

      It’s the threatening that is wrong, you see.
      The violence is in acting upon the intent to harm a person because of their belief.

      You should know that, in my opinion.
      But if you don’t, I won’t try and hurt you.

    • Jonathan Abbott
      February 28, 2015 at 12:00 pm

      Anthony, this post is a big mistake. You should remove it and apologize.

      (to complete Abbot’s sentence)

      …otherwise, ve vill find you!

    • @ Johanathan, this is from Barry alittle while ago
      Disclosure of funding sources = Jihad? Really??

      No one is trying to silence anyone. They are actually being asked to provide more information about their work, like where their funding is coming from.

      But don’t you see? Both of you are trying to stop any debate. You by trying to erase it and Barry by not providing the information from his side of the argument. In my eyes they are the same thing! You both are bots and would probably have no answer to this.

    • Yes, J. Abbott … your post is a big mistake and Anthony should remove it … but it is you who should be doing the apologising.

      Anybody else ever notice that leftard climate jihadis never admit wrong nor apologise.

    • My comments and references above say you are wrong and that YOU should ask for your comment to be removed, and apologize to us. Here is something else you might enjoy reading about your religion.

      Guardian – 25 August 2010
      Why would a solar physicist embrace the non-rationality of religion?

      John Cook, who runs skepticalscience.com, says his faith drives him. But what does religion give him that science doesn’t?……But Cook’s second, self-professed, stimulus took me by surprise.

      I’m a Christian and find myself strongly challenged by passages in the Bible like Amos 5 and Matthew 25″, he wrote. “… I care about the same things that the God I believe in cares about – the plight of the poor and vulnerable.””
      ——-

      John Cook – Skeptical Science – 3 August 2010
      “….my faith and my situation are my own. But hopefully for those curious, you understand more clearly the driving force behind Skeptical Science.”
      ——-

      Guardian – 3 November 2009
      Judge rules activist’s beliefs on climate change akin to religion

      “Tim Nicholson entitled to protection for his beliefs, and his claim over dismissal will now be heard by a tribunal…….In his written judgment, Mr Justice Burton outlined five tests to determine whether a philosophical belief could come under employment regulations on religious discrimination…..• It must be a belief and not an opinion or view based on the present state of information available…..”
      ——-

      BBC – 25 January 2010
      Using religious language to fight global warming

      “If the case for tackling climate change is backed by science, why do so many green campaigners rely on the language of religion?“……The theologian and environmentalist Martin Palmer is also troubled by the green movement’s reliance on visions of hell as a way of converting people to their cause…..”Now they are playing with some of the most powerful emotional triggers in Western culture. They’ve adopted the language and imagery of a millenarian cult.”

      For Palmer, who is a United Nations adviser on climate change and religion,….”
      ——-

      Church of England – 22 February 2012
      “Leaders representing most of the UK’s mainstream churches have today called for repentance over the prevailing ‘shrug-culture’ towards climate change.”
      ——-

      [Resignation letter of Rajendra Pachauri – 24 February 2015]
      For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.”

  19. Big oil is not the problem and never was. The problem is the left in North America and the EU. The left sets the agenda and all the complaining in the world isn’t going to change that no matter how much we react. The point is the general public doesn’t care about global warming despite all the MSM’s efforts, all the left’s efforts isn’t working. We, the public, are no longer falling for the global warming scam. Mr. Obama can scream his head off and pass all the pen legislation he wants – but all will be wiped away without the force of congressional law. Incidentally, mother nature is not cooperating with the left screamers in the slightest, nor is the sun.

    • I wish I could agree with you.
      The reality is “executive action” coupled with EPA and other agency over reach has [u[not[/u] been countered by congressional oversight. Mother Nature does not appear to have much influence in Washington.

    • Guilt by association with a name? You’ll be telling me that BEST is an accurate temperature record next. And that the GDR was democratic.

      CAGE are a problem. Newsworthy AGW is a problem.
      They are not the same problem. Let’s not sink to smears.
      Strategically, why play on the away ground?

      • Nope. Not sure I understand your point there, MCourtney. Or is my irony too obscure?
        Let’s see: CAGE are a bunch of apologists for Islamic fundamentalism (ymmv); and Climate Alarmists (name your favourite alarmist here) are pushing to turn the first world into the new third world.

  20. if your “religion” motivates you to kill people—please start with yourself. Seen on a t-shirt . I believe this applies to all religions whether it be AGW or any other

  21. This whole thing reminds me the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court here in the US.
    The judicial committee knew of the Anita Hill “sexual harassment” claim and concluded there was nothing to it.
    But when those that opposed him couldn’t find any reason not to approve his nomination, someone in Senator Metzenbaum’s office leaked it to the the press. Then the show was on.
    I’m glad the smear attempt didn’t work.
    I hope it doesn’t here.

  22. The Climate Crisis Extremists don’t have the climate, the science, the data, or the facts on their side but they do own the smear tactics and hate speech, and, unfortunately, most of the media.

  23. The charges are bogus. Harvard had full knowledge of Dr. Soon’s research financing and took 40% of the grant money off the top: some $500,000! The details are all public records, and Dr. Soon has a solid track record of going where his careful and extensive research takes him – regardless of where the money comes from. Not a scrap of evidence suggests that he falsified or fabricated data or conclusions, or twisted his science to satisfy research sponsors, on any of the numerous topics he has studied.

    In the movie “Wag the Dog” it was observed that if it was on TV then it was real. They made a good point — and it was really about the entire Main Stream Media. All that many Americans will remember is that Willie Soon is a money grubbing cheat. Even with facts in hand that show he is totally innocent, where does he go to get his reputation back? These slime-balls know the game far better than we do — they are going to toss a ton a manure at skeptics and much will stick. Disgusting.

  24. Thank you Mr Driessen – that is a very lucid summary of the state of affairs although the reference to ISIL will grate on many people. It is my experience in 61-1/4 years of living that those who refuse to discuss an issue openly ALWAYS have something to hide – it may be self interest, it may be a skeleton in the closet, it may be embarrassment, it may be that they really have nothing to say.

    “Or better yet, let us instead have that all-out, open, robust debate that climate realists have long sought – and alarmists have refused to join. Equal government and other money for all research. All cards and evidence on the table. No more hiding data and codes. Answer all questions, no matter how tough or inconvenient. And let honest science decide what our energy and economic futures will be.” This is a positive, open invitation to do something really worthwhile – there must be some alarmist climate scientists who would relish the opportunity to publicly discuss – via forums, conferences, even TV (it would make a great viewing if properly moderated) – the contentious aspects of this realm of science, mainly the Catastrophic part of CAGW because it is the Catastrophic bit that is causing the anguish, and come to the table with some scientific ammunition that will make sceptics less sceptical. The engineer in me still cannot see a risk that is worth worrying about and spending vast sums of money on to mitigate compared with other immediate issues.

  25. “Businesses, job holders and consumers pay the huge costs of complying with the resultant regulations and soaring energy costs. Taxpayers pay for much of the research and propaganda that drives the rulemaking. Russia and hard-left foundations have also contributed billions to the process; and government unions, environmental pressure groups and renewable energy companies give generously to researchers and to politicians who keep the alarmist research programs, regulatory processes, mandates and subsidies alive.”

    Could you be more specific about Russia contributing billions to the process? I am curious.

  26. As others have pointed out in this thread and others, this is no longer a science controversy, if it ever was. This is propaganda, manipulation of ignorance, silencing of opponents, and the concerted attempt to impose an ideological agenda by all means necessary. That includes the destruction of professional and academic careers. We’ve been here before, but I fear that unlike our parents’ and grandparents’ generations, we may not prevail.

    One side of the ‘climate debate’ is argued on the basis of irrationality, ignorance, a refusal to examine evidence objectively, manipulating data to fit the narrative, and demonizing critics. In a word, the hallmarks of anti-science. A generation has matured lacking even the most rudimentary ability to discriminate between fact and fantasy, or political propaganda and scientific evidence. They are a generation of ignorant, irrational pawns, and they can vote.

    If we lose this fight, and we may still lose it unless we recognize that it’s a political and ideological battle not a battle of evidence and data, we face the prospect of another dark age. The ‘climate debate’ imposes very serious implications upon all the rest of scientific endeavour. The politicalizing and intimidation of climate science could very easily spread to the rest of science. As bad as it is now, that would be a disaster.

    We have to expand the fight from the strictly scientific to the political. Otherwise we will lose it. We have already won the science debate, but it doesn’t matter. As unsavory as it may be, we have to fight with the same weapons the forces of anti-science are using against us. We have to go after them individually and destroy their credibility, destroy their academic and professional careers if necessary, to hold them up to all the ridicule and contempt they justly deserve. We have go after their political enablers individually, discredit and ridicule them.

    By going after Robert Balling, Matt Briggs, John Christy, Judith Curry, Tom Harris, Steven Hayward, David Legates, Richard Lindzen, and Roger Pielke, Jr., the forces of anti-science are trying to intimidate ALL OTHER scientists into silence and acquiescence. If we don’t turn this around on them and make them pay personally, we will lose.

      • Also agreed. However, the attacks upon Soon, Balling, Briggs, Christy, Curry, Harris, Hayward, Legates, Lindzen and Pielke amount to a very serious ’20 mile’ kick. They know they have to try something desperate or they’ll lose. We have to get back in front to make sure they lose BIG and are seen to lose big!

      • I think their desperation has led to these campaigns against the scientists that they hate. It has backfired, and they cultists are doing a fine job of destroying themselves. Give them rope.

      • Yes but I started voicing my objections 20 years ago! I’m now in my 70’s. How much longer do I have to hold out! (smile)

    • By going after Robert Balling, Matt Briggs, John Christy, Judith Curry, Tom Harris, Steven Hayward, David Legates, Richard Lindzen, and Roger Pielke, Jr., the forces of anti-science are trying to intimidate ALL OTHER scientists into silence and acquiescence. If we don’t turn this around on them and make them pay personally, we will lose.

      I don’t want them to pay personally. I want them to pay publicly. By that I don’t mean “bodies dragged through the street” or anything like that. I mean that the blatant attempt to intimidate any that honestly express an opinion/conclusion that doesn’t toe the consensus line needs to be publicly known.
      The attempt is what needs to be made clear to the public.

      • Gunga Din February 28, 2015 at 2:28 pm

        I don’t want them to pay personally. I want them to pay publicly.

        Agreed! There’s no contradiction. They must be discredited one by one and very publicly. The institutions that employ them must be named and pressured to remove them. The politicians who enable them must be held up as scientific illiterates and their financial interests publicly exposed.

      • I don’t want them to pay, I want them to find the inner light that drove them to science in their youth, before money and politics became the holy grail. We need their minds, we don’t need their politics.

      • JimM March 1, 2015 at 7:38 am

        Disagree! My best estimate (currently) is there is a core group of maybe 50-75 anti-scientists world-wide, many identified in the Climategate emails, who have driven this scam. There are maybe another double or treble that number of political and academic enablers who have fed them and assisted them. Many of these people belong in jail for defrauding the public of billions of dollars that could have been spent for something useful.

        The last thing we need is their ‘minds’.

    • Dear Braveheart Daddis,

      Well, Daddy-o (you are almost old enough to have used that, ; yes, yes, I know, that’s about 10 years before your teen years, but it was so much fun to write it)
      given the perennial war Truth wages against greed (here, the Enviroprofiteers) and tyranny (here, the Envirostalinists), we’ll have to hold the fort until every one of us has kicked the bucket (no matter how young).

      Nevertheless, take heart! Just think where we’d all be now if it weren’t for you stalwarts who have been fighting the good fight all these years:

      1. NASCAR is still going pedal-to-the-metal.
      2. I drive a muscle car with a license plate frame that says, “Freedom rocks!”
      3. You are can buy non-“organic” produce.
      4. They managed to kill Cascade (phosphates), but bleach is still on the shelves.
      5. The natural gas industry is thriving.
      6. Little kids admire Lightning McQueen FAR more than they do some hippy eco-freak cartoon.
      7. Hollywood is mocking the AGWers.
      8. While Siemens is still trying to make a buck off its windmill division, it got rid of solar stupidity in 2012.
      9. Congress passed the Keystone Pipeline bill — just need now to override Big Zero’s veto.
      10. All those Hispanic voters the Envirostalinists are counting on…? Heh. They like pick-up trucks and low-riders and owning their own businesses…. they just need to be educated about who REALLY cares about “the little guy.”

      Well, that’s enough, huh? :) You know even more examples than I could provide you, Dad. Twenty years from now or so, I’ll likely be thinking the same thing as you this evening… and you will be yelling (with a smile) about “Here I am in my NINETIES and we are STILL fighting for truth!!” John Adams was afraid the U.S. wouldn’t last out the anarchists more than 50 years. And here we are. America will outlast the B. Husseins, the Pelosis, and those who fill their moldy shoes. God, the Author of Liberty, and not the tyranny-by-regulationists, will decide when the curtain will fall on the play. And it will not fall one second sooner.

      With gratitude,

      Janice

  27. 99,99 % of terrorism is State funded. Big government ( power in the hands of a few ) has always been and always will be the only enemy of freedom . Humanity can only prosper in the absence of the Big Brother police state. Skyscrapers don’t collapse because of office fires and certainly not in free fall just because those in power tell you so.

    • Someone needs a nap.
      An all day walk thru forest trails, will, if nothing else, give you blisters that take your mind off of other things, while ensuring a good nights sleep.
      Get off the concrete, it can be really soothing.

  28. I recommend that all US readers contact Mitch McConnell (Senate Majority Leader), John Boehner (House Majority Leader) and their local congressmen and women to (1) Cut federal funding to all federal agencies, including federal research granting agencies, for climate modelling research and focus instead on observational research, and (2) to cut funding to the UN for its IPCC budget. If you live in the UK, Canada, or Australia contact the PM and your local member of parliament with an identical request.

    • Interesting that Spencer dropped UAH TLT in this update. Also interesting that he still hasn’t “learned” how to properly baseline anomalies when comparing CMIP5 to observations. But with UAH out of the mix, I see even less reason to limit the “analysis” to 5-year running means beginning in 1983. One wonders what he’s hiding?

      • Brandon Gates

        Having read the silly and off-topic smear of Spencer that you have posted in this thread on ‘Climatic Jihad’, the only thing I wonder is what you have been smoking.

        Richard

      • richardscourtney,

        What have you been smoking? Andres Valencia roped Dr. Spencer into this, not me. Speaking of, the magenta curve is how CMIP5 compares to HADCRUT4 when both series use the appropriate 1985-2005 reference period:

        If calling him out for doing something he should darn well better know not to do is “smearing” him, well I guess I’m guilty as charged.

      • Brandon, you demonstrate quite clearly to me why skeptics like myself and many who read WUWT need better tools to investigate all things climate related. That is why I have decided to make applications for climate studies my number one priority. I have a lot of studying to do still and much coding.
        I will be investigating using Microsoft’s new HoloLens and Holographic technology for exploring climate related topics in addition to regular computer applications. The ideas I have already thought of would likely surprise many in its width and depth (it’ll knock your socks off). My background makes me ideal for the person to pursue this activity. And I can get as much funding as I want, to over 1 million dollars if I so choose. My funding is from private citizens with no connection to any carbon based industries.
        Have a nice day.

      • graymount

        And I can get as much funding as I want, to over 1 million dollars if I so choose. My funding is from private citizens with no connection to any carbon based industries.

        Wonderful! Congratulations on your finding of funding sources with Deep Pockets. Further, congratulations on being able to be selected by those funding those Deep Pockets as the receiver of for their funding! Just remember, those to whom much is given are expected to deliver much in return. Those who receive little are expected to return little.

        Now. To the point. Are YOU prejudiced to accept excuses or rationales (rather than evidence-based information) in YOUR discussions and YOUR analysis? Are YOU fully able to find evidence that may destroy YOUR previous (current ?) faith and values in the CAGW religion of death and destruction?

        Are YOUR Deep Pockets themselves prejudiced and themselves deliberately making a choice to fund YOU because THEY want specific answers (using their software products for example) that THEY will use to further THEIR goals? In YOUR funding applications – even if only “verbal to Uncles George, Moe, Larry, and Curly around the poker table last night” – did YOU imply or promise ANY sort of “If you give me a million in unlimited funds I can prove these global warming skeptics full of oil-funded shittite obstruction? (I am, for example, noting your own “pride” in declaring that “you” are able to reject “carbon-based industries” as a funding source. Does not mean you will know nothing about the realities of those industries the CAGW religion seeks to destroy while they harm billions with artificially high energy prices and deliberate energy restrictions to the world’s poor and needy?

      • RACookPE1978
        As a start, my view of the climate science so far seems to align with Willis Eschenbach 100%. So if you are familiar with his writing and research, then you know my opinion.
        There is a strong crossover of the technology I am working on for my climate science work with work I started long before (10 – 15 years) before I redirected my efforts towards climate science.

        All my work related to climate, such as intellectual property, copyrights and any profits, I hereby publicly declare and announce will be transferred to Anthony Watts, proprietor of this blog, wattsupwiththat.com.

        I shall not profit, nor will my funders profit from my climate science work.

        Gary G Mount

      • garymount,

        Brandon, you demonstrate quite clearly to me why skeptics like myself and many who read WUWT need better tools to investigate all things climate related.

        Curious argument. I obtained the CMIP5 and HADCRUT4 data from KNMI, which is one of several websites which freely provide public access to them. All of the software I used to recalculate the anomalies and 5-year running means and generate the output plot is 100% freely available and open source, right down to the OS — none of which code I had to modify to accomplish the task. The only “code” I wrote was limited to basic spreadsheet functions.

        I think also if you are really interested in truth-seeking, you wouldn’t have so narrowly defined the meaning of “skeptics”, nor would you have implicitly limited the need for better tools to your preferred, self-selected group.

        Finally, until AI achieves parity with human self-teaching ability and creative ingenuity, our own brains will continue to beat any software package in terms of independently discovering new knowledge. Computers cannot teach us critical thinking skills on their own, some collection of humans still has to program them to do it. Mostly though, I hold that proper skeptical reasoning is largely self-taught by way of constant exercise and brutal self-honesty.

        If you really want to impress me, head up a project which develops a CMIP5-beating climate model, Although, unless you are improbably competent in addition to being extraordinarily well funded, you may well find that CMIP6 is the standard to beat. More likely 7 or 8.

        That all said, I’m a junkie for powerful, flexible, extensible — but still friendly to non-hackers like me — software tools. In that spirit I genuinely wish you the very best of success.

  29. Is it a Jihad?

    Well, it certainly contains a lot of dogma, immoral activities, a lack of civilized behaviour and trying to convert the rest of us.

    What they want MORE THAN ANYTHING, is for the rest of us to believe. If we don’t believe, we are to be punished, cast aside and fired from our jobs. We can always convert they say. A believer seems to go away happy if you just say that CO2 is a GHG or that there has been some warming to date, maybe because of CO2; that’s all the want, they are content afterward.

    Is it religion or just basic human nature. What’s the difference. It acts the same.

    • I’ve said it before but it bears repeating. In anthropology I learned the definition of a religious practice was;
      Ritual, supported by myth, to effect a social change.
      If that doesn’t fit the CAGW meme like a glove, I don’t know what does.

  30. I find the political hype terribly amusing. Know-nothings talking utter rubbish. All of them. I speak from a UK perspective but reality is creeping up on us:-

    1. The devolved Scottish Government have just written to the Westminster Government to say, in effect, that they have spent so much on windmills that they now have no security of supply – what are Westminster going to do about it?
    2. The last Scottish fossil fuel power station is coming to the end of its life & there is no political will to built another (oil, gas or coal).
    3. Oil prices have gone in exactly the opposite direction to that used to justify investments in bio-fuel & windmills.
    6. The UK hasn’t built a conventional power station since1997, the EU regulations are shutting Nuclear & Coal power stations (or in the case of one 4GW station they have converted it to burning wood pellets).
    7. Early windmills have started to fall over & set fire to themselves (not always at the same time).
    8. We have now started to build vast off-shore wind farms.
    8. We’ve got through this winter so far with only 2% spare capacity

    I predict that in a coming winter not too far away:-

    We will have a major grid outage lasting for days if not weeks because the weather pattern will create cold still air over the whole of the UK & windmills will not be able to provide the power necessary for human life in a modern society. Hundreds of thousands will die of hypothermia. And the powers that be will attempt to justify it by saying that it was an unforseeable event. Unforseeable by computer models that is.

    • Nice recitation of the devastating facts, Mr. Ofenfield. Hopefully — enough of your leaders will come to their senses (as the voters start yelling loudly enough for them to hear — even WITH their hands over their ears while mumbling, “I’m not listening; I’m not listening.”) and wind mills will be scrapped. What a colossal WASTE of tax funds (not to mention the power rate surcharges also funding wind “power”).

      • Janice Moore

        Sadly, there is no foreseeable likelihood of UK politicians coming to their senses before the inevitable disaster results from UK Energy Policy.

        The three main UK political parties have each stated they will continue the madness of the UK Climate Change Act after the General Election to be held in May. This insanity is promoted by the ‘Climate Jihad’ that Paul Driessen describes in his above article.

        Richard

      • I also agree with John but I think he needs to clarify if his surname is Ofenfield or if he lives in Enfield.

    • Not just early wind turbines (please not windmills – they were lovely old buildings!) – new turbines fail on a regular basis. Latest one near me was 3 years old. They’ve been doing it for years but no-one takes any notice because the failure rate is not generally known and that’s because the industry keeps its records secret. See http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/AccidentStatistics.htm

  31. “Once seemingly near, their dream of ruling a hydrocarbon-free world of “sustainably” lower living standards become more remote every week. Extremist factions had dreamed of a global climatist caliphate and want vengeance.”

    It is most interesting how both the scientific environmental paradigm of the Cannabis Generation coincides with the efforts of the Islamists. They both idealize life before modern agricultural advancements, coal power and gas powered personal transportation. They like disarmed populations. Parallels abound.

    The root of all of these regimes which impose Dhimmi status on those conquered is the imposition of a caste system. The caste system has separate laws for separate castes, and these laws even dictate what each caste can own. In Plato’s caste, the dhimmis could not own land, weapons, chariots, or art. Or spices. And amusingly enough, the EU has began to outlaw cinnamon – spice of the gods, don’t you know. The environmentalists want to return the US to wild lands, which would of course mean that land must be taken from those who live on it. That is a caste system, slipping in under environmentalist idealism.

      • @asybot

        Ref for your black market venture:

        “The season’s festivities in Denmark have been overshadowed by the prospect that it could be the last Danish Christmas before a European Union ban on their beloved kanelsnegle or cinnamon rolls.
        The proposed ban followed plans by Denmark’s food safety agency to implement EU regulations aimed at limiting the amount of coumarin, a naturally occurring toxic chemical found in the most commonly used type of cinnamon, cassia.
        Under Danish interpretation of the EU legislation the amount of cinnamon in “everyday fine baked goods” will be limited to 15mg per kilo meaning a ban on Kanelsnegler pastries, a winter favourite in all Nordic countries, which take their name from their coiled snail shape.” telegraph

        But wait. there’s more.

        Opportunities knock for trenchcoat wearing dealers at side walk cafes as well – the EU passed legislation against olive oil in open bowls.

    • I have realized this for years, Canada has one of the largest supplies and the USA and Canada are involved in negotiations far more important than the tar sands will ever be. I don’t think most people even realize this.

  32. “Their first target was Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics scientist Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon”

    He was not their first target. Not even close. Name Bengtsson ring any bells?

    He is their latest target.

  33. “Russia and hard-left foundations have also contributed billions to the process”

    the evidence, Mr. Driessen?

    as a CAGW sceptic, i resent the constant insinuations sceptics are rightwing. go tell that to all the rightwing govts of europe, who are leading the CAGW charge.

    a thread like this alienates non-partisans & CAGW sceptics on the left, & even so-called “greenies” who are not all CAGW believers, & not all of the left either.

    example of shooting yourself in the foot, featuring a Senator I admire greatly for his sceptical stance on CAGW, James Inhofe.
    on forums, CAGW believers jumped all over this as proving his gullibility:

    12 Feb: Washington Free Beacon: Adam Kredo: Updated: Provenance of Photos Showing Atrocities Questioned
    Inhofe Criticizes Ukrainian Group for Providing Misleading Photos
    UPDATE 3:11 P.M.: Following publication of this story, serious questions have been raised about the authenticity of some of the photographs provided by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R., Okla.). Several images of the Russian convoys appear to have been taken in 2008, during Russia’s conflict with Georgia. Given the similarities between the earlier images and those provided by the senator’s office, the Washington Free Beacon is investigating further and will update as necessary.
    When asked about the discrepancies, Donelle Harder, Inhofe’s communications director, said that the office is checking back with its sources.
    “These were presented to the Armed Services Committee from a delegation from Ukraine in December,” Harder said. “In December, we talked to them about publishing the photos and giving them the credit, and they were fine with that. We thoroughly checked our sources again prior to releasing the photos, and felt confident proceeding because the photos also match reporting. We are currently making calls to our sources.”…
    UPDATE 7:10 P.M.: Sen. Inhofe said in a statement: “The Ukrainian parliament members who gave us these photos in print form as if it came directly from a camera really did themselves a disservice. We felt confident to release these photos because the images match the reporting of what is going on in the region. I was furious to learn one of the photos provided now appears to be falsified from an AP photo taken in 2008…
    (TRAGICALLY, HE THEN DOUBLES DOWN)This doesn’t change the fact that there is plenty of evidence Russia has made advances into the country with T-72 tanks and that pro-Russian separatists have been killing Ukrainians in cold blood.”
    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/exclusive-photos-show-russian-military-in-ukraine-arming-separatists/
    the Beacon carries the fake photo/story below the updates, nonetheless.

    MSM didn’t widely report Inhofe’s criticism of his sources, so i went to the only major MSM result – NYT – whose anti-Russian rhetoric never ends, but was greeted by a message saying i’d reached my limit of 10 free articles a month – which is rubbish – so i couldn’t access their report.

    however, it is called “Sifting Ukrainian Fact From Ukrainian Fiction ” which includes “serious questions have been raised about the authenticity of some of the photographs by bloggers with access to Google Image search”…
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/14/world/europe/sifting-ukrainian-fact-from-ukrainian-fiction.html?_r=0

  34. Global Warming Adherents, GWAs. That’s a concise, non-insulting way to describe that group. Can we use it freely? It looks like the Rock River Times has a copyright on the cartoon. As a bonus it is an anagram of AGW too….

  35. Isn’t burning “deniers” at the stake going to release satanic carbon dioxide?

    The True Believers need a greener, more Gaia-friendly killing method … one with a smaller carbon footprint.

    The guillotine was polar bear approved. (Just don’t use carbon steel for the blade.)

  36. Oh, no, wail Western reporters, ISIS are taking defeated unbeliever women as sex slaves!! So where do they get these barbaric ideas from? From the Koran, of course….

    O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee … the milik al-yamin (those whom
    thy right hand possess) of those whom Allah has given to you as spoils of war” Koran 33:50.
    (The milik al-yamin are effectively sex-slaves.)

    .

    Oh, no, wail Western reporters, ISIS are beheading unbelievers. So where do they get these barbaric ideas from? From the Koran, of course….

    I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off
    their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. Koran 8:12

    .

    Oh, no, wail Western reporters, ISIS are crucifying unbelievers!! So where do they get these barbaric ideas from? From the Koran, of course….

    The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and
    strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered
    or crucified. Koran 5:33

    .

    Oh, no, wail Western reporters, ISIS are mutilating unbelievers by cutting off limbs on opposite sides!! So where do they get these barbaric ideas from? From the Koran, of course….

    The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to
    make mischief in the land is only this, that they should … have their hands and their
    feet cut off on opposite sides. Koran 5:33

    .

    Oh, no, wail Western reporters, ISIS are burning unbelievers in cages!! So where do they get these barbaric ideas from? From the Koran, of course….

    Garments of fire have been prepared for the kuffer unbelievers. Scalding water will
    be poured upon their heads to melt their skins and that which is in their bellies;
    and they shall be lashed with rods of iron. If they try to escape, they shall be dragged
    back and told, ‘taste the torment and the Fires’. Koran 22:19

    .

    Oh, no, wail Western reporters, ISIS are subjugating unbelievers!! So where do they get these barbaric ideas from? From the Koran, of course….

    Fight those to who the scriptures were given and do not believe in Allah … until
    they are … in absolute submission. Koran 9:29

    .

    Oh, no, wail Western reporters, ISIS are a protection racket, forcing unbelievers to pay protection money!! So where do they get these barbaric ideas from? From the Koran, of course….

    Fight those to who the scriptures were given, and do not believe in Allah … until
    they pay the Jizya protection money. Koran 9:29

    .

    Oh, no, wail Western reporters, ISIS are making war on unbelievers!! So where do they get these barbaric ideas from? From the Koran, of course…..

    Make war on the kuffer unbelievers and hypocrites, and deal harshly with them. Koran 9:73

    .

    Oh, no, wail Western reporters, ISIS are taking over unbeliever’s towns!! So where do they get these barbaric ideas from? From the Koran, of course…..

    Do they not see how we invade their lands and diminish their borders? Koran 13:40

    .

    Oh, no, wail Western reporters, ISIS are killing unbeliever children!! So where do they get these barbaric ideas from? From the Koran, of course….

    And as for the boy (I killed), his parents were Muslims and we feared lest he
    should oppress them by rebellion and disbelief. Koran 18:80
    (Parable of Moses and the Gren Man. Hence the many ‘honour killings’ by Muslim parents.)

    .

    This is the reality of Islam.

    [Never fear. The Oboma administration has declared Global Warming as the most significant threat facing the United States today and in the future. Islam is not mentioned. Iranian nuclear bombs are not a threat. Russian emergence against European states is not a threat. North Korean nuclear bombs are not a threat.

    Domestic (right-wing) terrorists are mentioned several times as a credible, very dangerous threat however. .mod]

    • And that’s the brutal truth, ralfellis. Those who morally equate I-slam with Buddhism or Judaism or Christianity or Hinduism (even with its vile practices) only display their utter ignorance of what the K-oran (and the ijtihad interpretive commentary through the centuries) says.

      Most M=uslims are apostate to a significant degree. Thank the Lord.

      Expert Testimony in this book:
      Why We Left Islam: Former Muslims Speak Out, Ed. and Compiled by Crimp and Richardson (2008)

    • For Jihadists are not merely doing ev1l in the name of their religion nor are they practicing an extreme interpretation of the K-oran.

      Jihadists (unlike those who have done ev1l in the name of other religions) are following with precise accuracy their religion in both its letter and spirit.

      • “Radical” Islamists are mislabeled. They are, in Christian terms, orthodox. As Janice notes, the less violent types are apostate.

      • Indeed. One of the UK’s ex-Jihadists said the very same thing. The media kept saying he was now a moderate Muslim, but he said: “no, there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. You are either a good Muslim, or an Apostate.”

        Simple, really. Although the BBC is perhaps 50 years away from admitting this simple truth.

        R

    • Ralfellas, just wondering if you are familiar with all the bans in what the Christians call the Old Testament. You should be killed (IIRC) if you wore clothes of different materials or colors. The vast majority of Muslims are like us and have the sense to ignore the more drastic measures called for in some parts of their holy book.

      Ian M

      • Ian L. McQueen says: “You should be killed (IIRC) if you wore clothes of different materials or colors.”

        No Ian, you do not recall correctly. Deut 22 starts with laws stating what a person should do if he finds his neighbor’s donkey (return it) or if the donkey is stuck (help get it out). Women are not to dress up like a man. The mother bird and the eggs should not both be taken. Leave the mother bird. Make a parapet on your roof so that no one falls off of it. Do not plow with an ox and a donkey together, or plant other things in your vinyard, or wear mixed garments. Wear four tassels on the corners of your garment. That is the first half of the chapter. So don’t make such silly assertions.

  37. The warmists have a logical reason why they want to switch the conversation from science to name calling and a witch hunt. Their problem is that even if 100% of the recent warming is assumed to be due to the rise in atmospheric CO2 (which is not correct, less than 25% of the warming in the last 150 years was due to the increase in atmospheric CO2), observations and analysis indicates there is no extreme AGW problem to solve.

    The second problem the warmist have, which everyone has ignored: Basic engineering and economic calculations indicate the green scams do not work and the money spent on green scams by the developed countries will make no practical difference in the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    Germany for example has spent $750 billion on wind ‘farms’ and solar ‘farms’ and have an additional $100 billion to spent on electrical transmission upgrades.

    Germany’s installed green scam capacity is equal to their total electrical usage which is the absolute limit of the green scams without storage. (There is no engineering solution to electrical storage. The green scams are intermittent sources, wind generation produces power at the cube of wind speed so wind farm power continually varies, forcing the turn on/off of single pass gas turbines to balance the electric grid. Single pass gas turbines are roughly 30% less efficient than combined cycle gas turbines, combined cycle gas turbines cannot however be turned on/off/on/off – they take roughly 10 hours to start and are left on for weeks.) The actual power generated by the German green scams is 24% of the installed capacity. The German ‘investment of $750 billion has tripled the cost of electrical power to their general consumers and has reduced the ‘carbon foot print’ of their electrical generation by roughly 15% to 20%, not including the carbon emission to construct the green scams.

    http://wmbriggs.com/public/Monckton.et.al.pdf

    Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model
    An irreducibly simple climate-sensitivity model is designed to empower even non-specialists to research the question how much global warming we may cause. In 1990, the First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expressed ‘‘substantial confidence’’ that near-term global warming would occur twice as fast as subsequent observation. Given rising CO2 concentration, few models predicted no warming since 2001. Between the pre-final and published drafts of the Fifth Assessment Report, IPCC cut its near-term warming projection substantially, substituting ‘‘expert assessment’’ for models’ near-term predictions. Yet its long-range predictions remain unaltered. The model indicates that IPCC’s reduction of the feedback sum from 1.9 to 1.5 W m-2 K-1 mandates a reduction from 3.2 to 2.2 K in its central climate-sensitivity estimate; that, since feedbacks are likely to be net-negative, a better estimate is 1.0 K; that there is no unrealized global warming in the pipeline; that global warming this century will be less than 1 K; and that combustion of all recoverable fossil fuels will cause less than 2.2 K global warming to equilibrium. Resolving the discrepancies between the methodology adopted by IPCC in its Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports that are highlighted in the present paper is vital. Once those discrepancies are taken into account, the impact of anthropogenic global warming over the next century, and even as far as equilibrium many millennia hence, may be no more than one-third to one-half of IPCC’s current projections.

    The game changer for the climate wars, if and when it occurs, is unequivocal significant, planetary cooling. Solar observations continue to support the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted. The duration of past Maunder like minimums is 100 to 150 years. As we are changing from the highest solar activity in 8000 years to a Maunder minimum and there is a one cycle (11 to 12 year) inhibiting of the cooling mechanism the cooling will be significant (0.6C) and rapid (over two to three years).

    • William Astley

      Reality check time: what’s the source for Germany having spent $750 billion on wind power (I’m not arguing with the number; I’m just asking your source)?

      Germany’s 2013 GDP was $3.400 trillion; it boggles the mind that they might have spent 22% of 2013 GDP on wind farms.

      I realize whatever the spend, it’s happened over a number of years, but 22% of GDP of ANYTHING is a whole lot of stuff.

      • In reply to Chip Javert.

        Hello,

        The source is from WATTSUP link to the Weekly Climate and Energy news roundup 167 which in turn links to Mueller’s article in No Tricks Zone. I have seen similar estimates of the cost $750 billion US for German’s green scam ‘investment’. Note Germany has the largest trade balance in the world (greater than China) due to single EU currency. In the past high the Mark would of increased relative to the other European currency which would have moved production to other European countries. Germany is the only country that could afford to waste such a large amount of money on green scams.

        Regards,
        William

        Germany Energiewend Leading To Suicide By Cannibalism. Huge Oversupply Risks Destabilization

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/08/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-167/
        By Fred F. Mueller, No Tricks Zone, Feb 4, 2015

        http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/04/germanys-energiewende-leading-to-suicide-by-cannibalism-huge-oversupply-risks-destabilization/#sthash.8tE9YRDj.PSllYaQF.dpbs

        The coming age of power cannibalism…Germany on the verge of committing energy suicide
        Capacity without control The problem with the “renewable” power sources of wind and solar is their intrinsic volatility coupled with their poor capacity utilization rates of only 17.4% for wind and 8.3% for solar (average values for Germany). – See more at:
        Yet Germany has a unique peculiarity: its leaders sometimes exhibit a stunning inability to recognize when the time has come to abandon a lost cause. So far €500 billion (William: €500 billion is $750 billion US) has already been invested in the “Energiewende”, which is clearly emerging as a failure. Yet all political parties continue to throw their full weight behind the policy rather than admitting it is a failure (which would be tantamount to political suicide). Instead, the current government coalition has even decided to shift into an even higher gear on the path to achieving its objective of generating 80% of German electric power from “renewable” sources by 2050. If the situation is practically unmanageable now with 25% renewable energy (William: Note that the Germans are receiving 25% of their electrical power from green scams, the actual carbon reduction is only 15% to 25% due to requirement to turn on/off/on/off single cycle natural gas power plants rather than to run combine cycle more efficient power plants that take 10 hours to start and that are hence left on for weeks), it’ll be an uncontrollable disaster when (if) it reaches 80%.

        Power cannibalism has already started
        The combined rated capacity of all “renewable” power sources already reaches about 87,000 MW, which is the maximum power consumption the grid has been designed to secure. Additionally, a minimum conventional power station capacity of some 28,000 MW has to be constantly connected to the grid in order to secure supply stability. As a result the risk of the grid reaching an oversupply situation if weather conditions are favorable for both wind and solar power plants is growing with every additional “renewable” plant that comes online. Currently 5,000 – 6,000 MW are getting added each year. That situation is aggravated by the fact that there exists no technology to absorb and store any noticeable quantities of oversupply. Neighboring countries are already taking measures to fend off surplus-power-dumping that could destabilize their grids.

        The result is a grid which at times is so oversupplied with power that something will have to give. Fossil fuel power plants have been throttled to the point where they are no longer profitable and many power companies have started mothballing them, so quickly in fact that Germany had to pass legislation forcing producers to keep their fossil plants on stand-by, and to do so even if they lost money. Even the reliable “classic” renewable power sources – e.g. hydropower – are starting to suffer because most are not supported by government schemes.

        http://www.cfact.org/2014/12/16/germanys-energy-transformation-unsustainable-subsidies-and-an-unstable-system/

        Marita Noon: Germany’s “energy transformation:” unsustainable subsidies and an unstable system
        A few months ago, Bloomberg reported that, due to increased coal consumption: “Germany’s emissions rose even as its production of intermittent wind and solar power climbed fivefold in the past decade”—hence Merkel’s potential embarrassment on the global stage where she’s put herself in the spotlight as a leader in reducing emissions

  38. Is playing their game against them fair? I’d buy a coffee cup or t-shirt that says “I’m a skeptic and I know where you live” or what ever the inverse of their current MOTD is.

  39. The Global Warmists have won. Face it, they own the politicians, they have all the money from big oil, they have the watermelons backing them. Finally they have the “Free” press.
    Scientists acknowledge that Global Warming is bunkum. But if they say it they lose there jobs. It’s not about the truth, its not about science, it’s about power and control.
    The White House has notified the opposition, they are coming for skeptic leaders. It they won’t be silenced, then they will have to be arrested convicted and jailed. Opposition will not be tolerated!!!!
    Meanwhile jihadis and other threats are rolling around laughing, slaughtering anyone who is slightly different.

  40. Here are the links to one of the recent attacks on me, FYI:

    The Wicked Tom Harris” piece at http://awesternheart.blogspot.ca/2015/02/the-wicked-tom-harris-canadian-tom.html hits the nail on the head.

    For your entertainment, here is the complete six piece Tom Harris attack series:

    Feb 16: “Tom Harris – hypocritical peddler of deceitful climate change editorials”: http://scholarsandrogues.com/2015/02/16/tom-harris-hypocritical-peddler-of-deceitful-climate-change-editorials/#more-95427

    Feb 17: “Tom Harris’ recent commentaries rife with errors and illogic”: http://scholarsandrogues.com/2015/02/17/tom-harris-recent-commentaries-rife-with-errors-and-illogic/

    Feb 18: “Tom Harris places absurd limits on scientific truths and elevates ignorance to equal knowledge”: http://scholarsandrogues.com/2015/02/18/tom-harris-implores-his-readers-to-embrace-irrational-limitations-on-climate-science/

    Feb 19: “Tom Harris distorts the maturity of global warming science and imagines expertise where little exists”: http://scholarsandrogues.com/2015/02/19/tom-harris-distorts-the-maturity-of-global-warming-science-and-imagines-expertise-where-little-exists/

    Feb 20: “Tom Harris’ commentaries intended to impede, not advance, public understanding of climate science”: http://scholarsandrogues.com/2015/02/20/tom-harris-commentaries-intended-to-impede-not-advance-public-understanding-of-climate-science/

    Feb 21: “Peddlers of climate change deceit have significant advantages over climate realists”: http://scholarsandrogues.com/2015/02/21/peddlers-of-climate-change-deceit-have-significant-advantages-over-climate-realists/

  41. I have been saying for years that there is no discernible difference between Islamic terrorism and climate terrorism. Both make overt threats against the general population to either extort money or compliance. Nice to see the world is finally waking up to it.

  42. A prediction – After countries sign up to the UN’s financial tyranny at the Paris conference in December, suddenly it will be discovered that the statistics of temperature data wasn’t quite correct. And the polar bears are not in danger after all. But don’t expect those excommunicated to be reinstated.

  43. Mr Paul Driessen thank you very much . However you are all circumventing tha basic problem . This is Barack Obama and nobody else . He is orchestrating this mess , which he calls leading from behind and which typifies his manipulative behaviour . He has no real friends and surrounds himself with players that can be manipulated easily , throws away the wealth of other people , especially you Americans and is capable of any lie that suits his agenda . His agenda : Be the worlds ruler , enslave everybody and make your own rules . He does not give a damn about the life and prosperity of others . Following his will what quite a lot of people are performing , the us government first , will only lead you into poverty and misery .
    He does not give a damn about religion , his christian stance was a fake and so is mohammedan stance as well , he has given orders to murder many more mohammedans than christians . He is 100% materialistic and narcistic , drowning his mind with the powers bestowed on him by his country-citizen . Like Richard Nixon , also a lawyer , he experiences the law as an obstacle that needs to be overcome . Glad that there are a lot of jews in his party that should be capable to make him face the music of others in this world .

    • frederik wisse-
      I am convinced that you are giving far to much credit to Barack Obama. Many have come to view him as nothing but a figurehead, a puppet, a useful idiot, an empty suit, an affable boob.
      If you want to know Barack Obama, look to Bill Ayers and Uncle Frank.


    • frederik wisse

      February 28, 2015 at 4:48 pm

      Mr Paul Driessen thank you very much . However you are all circumventing tha basic problem . This is Barack Obama and nobody else

      Well, except the Climate Change Extremists (formerly Global Warming Extremists) have been doing similar since before Obama was a headline name.

      If you aren’t with them, you are against them, don’t you know?

    • It is a METAPHOR. (Remember Mark Steyn and his quote about Michael Mann v. a v. that creep Sandusky…?). This isn’t a literal comparison.

      • Further, Mark, the AGW spew we skeptics refuse to accept is, unlike the jihadist metaphor, indeed inaccurate and in hideously bad taste (at best). To call someone who simply refuses to accept the conjecture about CO2 a “den1er,” i.e., the equivalent of an ignorant b1got who den1es the fact of the ho1olocaust against the Jews, is despicable.

        In case the distinction between us skeptics and holocaust den1ers is still not clear:

        We deny the conjecture and speculation about CO2 which is RUINING the economy and bringing misery (mainly to the poor among us).

        — A holocaust den1er den1es the well-documented, authenticated, eye witness testimony of thousands about an event that boggles the mind for its cruelty and barbarity.

        The metaphor about us is NOT accurate.

        The metaphor about the jihadists and those using barbaric intimidation tactics is right on target.

  44. Wow. Comparing the vast majority of climate scientists who believe that climate change is a real threat to terrorists?

    Yeah, that’s a totally rational way to persuade people on the fence to take your side.

    • Chris? Who are you addressing? I haven’t read ANY comment that says that a vast majority of the AGWers are doing this. This thread is just about the “jihadist,” letter-writing, “den1er”-spewing, ones (most are (or have become) just political hacks, not scientists in any meaningful sense at all).

      And just how many bona fide scientists truly believe CO2 drives climate change? All three of them probably share the same room in “special housing.”

      • Janice:

        Did you really just suggest that there are only three scientists who truly believe CO2 drives climate change?

        And you profess to be more informed on this issue than most?

        That is astounding.

        Look, I think it’s possible that those “97% of scientists agree” studies are bunk. But it is very clear that a majority of scientists agree that CO2 is the main driver and that climate change poses a real threat. For one thing, there is no national scientific organization that doesn’t accept this conclusion.

        It’s one thing to argue that the consensus doesn’t matter. It’s quite another to argue that the consensus doesn’t exist, and that climate change skeptics are the majority.

    • Chris February 28, 2015 at 7:03 pm
      Wow. Comparing the vast majority of climate scientists who believe that climate change is a real threat to terrorists?

      No such comparison was made. The tactics of a Greenpeace associate and Raul Grijalva, a politician, were compared. Neither of these are scientists. Which prompts the obvious question. Why are people who are not even scientists trying to silence people who are?

      Since they are not themselves scientists, and are not even making the slightest pretense that they are, it becomes obvious that their actions are enitrely politically motivated and have nothing to do with science. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I might otherwise have missed it.

    • You are wrong, Chris, to say “the vast majority of climate scientists who believe that climate change is a real threat.” 100% of climate scientists know that. The Greenland Vikings and the pre-Incan civilizations died out due to climate change. The real question is what fraction of scientists who study the causes of climate change support the idea that our CO2 emissions will soon cause dangerous climate change. As far as I am aware, no worldwide, reputable poll has ever asked this question of the relevant population.

      • Chris no body even knows how many scientists there are and there is not even an agreed definition of what makes someone a climate ‘scientists’ the whole 97% claim fail on basic logic and maths grounds . Although to be fair within climate ‘science’ logic and maths are often things that do not matter at all , has long has you ‘believe’ enough the facts do not matter.

      • “As far as I am aware, no worldwide, reputable poll has ever asked this question of the relevant population.”

        Robin Guinier wrote here in 2013:

        This George Mason Univ. poll [run for them by the Harris polling organization in 2007] http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union. It did not cherry pick the respondants who gave them the answer they wanted, and it asked more sophisticated questions [than the Doran and Anderegg surveys], below:

        Under its “Major Findings” are these paragraphs:

        “Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.
        “Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest [11%] are unsure.
        “Scientists still debate the dangers. A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is NOT “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”
        “A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites this increase as the point beyond which additional warming would produce major environmental disruptions.)

        “Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.”

        IOW, 59% doubt the “catastrophic” potential of AGW. I suspect that number would be higher now, after six more flat years.

  45. “Moreover, ClimateGate, IPCC revelations and other investigations have”

    are claimed to have

    “revealed extensive and troubling incidents of manipulated data, faulty models, wild exaggerations, and completely baseless claims about hottest years, disappearing glaciers, coastal flooding and other crises.”

    Whereas the other side has revealed no data at all in their defense.

    Hmmmmm.

    • Pippen tool,

      Obviously you don’t understand the Scientific Method: skeptics have nothing to prove. Therefore, skeptics do not have to provide or reveal anything.

      To the extent that some skeptics do, it is only to deconstruct the MMGW Conjecture — and skeptics have been amazingly successful in debunking your Belief system. See, it is the JOB of skeptics to deconstruct any Conjectures, Hypotheses, Theories, and even Laws. And MMGW was one of the easiest conjectures ever to debunk.

      But carry on. It keeps us on our toes, and who knows? Global warming may suddenly start up again. Stranger things have happened. Not many, and I can’t think of any right off. But I suppose anything is possible.

    • Whereas the other side has revealed no data at all in their defense.

      Don’t be silly. Both sides use the same data. Analysis of which is how we know that data has been manipulated, models are faulty, and there have been wild exaggerations. Are you demanding that we put up a second set of satellites and weather stations and argue which one is more accurate? LOL.

    • dbstealey, thank you. I was going to respond to Pippen about how science works. The onus is on them, not us.

  46. It’s also hilarious that after years of the most common refrain in the comments of this blog being some variation of “follow the money,” specifically critiques about climate scientists being government funded and/or on the pockets of Big Green, now all of a sudden the commenters are forgetting all of that in order to argue that Willie Soon’s funding is completely irrelevant and we should just look at the science (which of course has been critiqued plenty).

      • The reason the $$ is one to ten is that it is hard to find real scientists that will sell their soul for a year of funding.

        So, db, you are the one not too smart.

      • trafamadope says:

        db, you are the one not too smart.

        You despicable little troll, who elected you to determine who is smart, and who isn’t?

        If anyone has sold their soul for taxpayer loot, it is unquestionably the riders on the grant gravy train. Take away their loot, and the ‘carbon’ scare will fold like a cheap card table.

      • Dbstealey:

        “The money flowing into climate alarmism is about 10 – 1 compared with what skeptics get.”

        Your link literally just goes to a blogger making this same claim while providing no hard data to back it up. Why on earth would you think that would be convincing?

      • More importantly, dbstealey, your rebuttal does not actually address my counter-argument. Whichever side has more funding is irrelevant to my point, which is that this blog has spent years saying that the amount of funding discredits the vast majority of climate scientists who accept AGW, and are now saying that Willie Soon’s funding is irrelevant.

      • dbstealey,

        You despicable little troll, who elected you to determine who is smart, and who isn’t?

        Who elected you to determine who is a troll and who isn’t?

      • Brandon Gates

        Nobody needs to be elected to recognise the histories of trolling on WUWT provided by you, trafamadore and Chris.

        Richard

      • Oh you two, showing a complete lack of self-awareness as usual. Lemme explain in simple terms that even you should be able to understand: there’s a big difference between lobbying to get someone fired for doing schlocky science and beheading them with a knife.

        Try having a sense of perspective first, THEN complain that we “trolls” aren’t taking you lot seriously.

      • Brandon Gates

        Try having a sense of perspective first, THEN complain that we “trolls” aren’t taking you lot seriously.

        I will repeat. The collective and un-informed heads of the United States government have specifically and deliberately concluded that today’s private and unorganized global warming skeptics are a greater threat to the United States (well, at least to their agenda for the United States) than ALL OTHER organized and executing terrorist nations, groups, religions and extremists and ALL other nuclear-armed states world-wide.

        Now, they have made that conclusion, we (the skeptics and realists who do not and cannot affect their decisions about anything) did not: CAGW is the greatest threat the US faces in today’s world, CAGW is the biggest threat to national security the world presents, and CAGW must be fought before ANY other concerns (taxes, nuclear security, defense, highways, jobs, the economy, food, health care, medicine, etc. ALL other needs in every department (except Muslim outreach by NASA – which is telling, but another subject) are subordinate to fighting global warming.

      • dbstealey,

        I like our republican democracy just fine, thanks. It allows for things like publicly funded science, something which has served us quite well. The downside is that our duly elected representatives are increasingly going off the reservation and catering to the wishes of their campaign financiers. Still, in theory, it’s one person, one vote. As opposed to, say, holding stock in a publicly traded company where one’s vote is pro rata on the basis of shares owned.

        Now, I like free markets and corporations just fine — I enjoy making money as much as the next person — but the idea of 100% privately funded research in an openly corporate oligarchy fills me with just as much dread as the thought of living in a Stalin-esque Union of American States.

        Rep. Grijalva’s letters are a cause for concern regarding the freedom of academia to do research in this country no matter who is footing the bill. I’m not the only warmista who thinks so: http://variable-variability.blogspot.ch/2015/02/stop-all-harassment-of-all-scientists.html

        It IS possible to speak out against the actions of democratically elected representatives without comparing them to throat-slitting terrorists. Though democracy and demagoguery do go hand in hand, the former does not rely on the latter to function well. And just because the latter is an observed emergent property of the former does not mean that panicky alarmist hyperbole is the optimal mode of public discourse on policy.

        I’m hard-pressed to think of any WUWT regular who would disagree with me on principle save for the tendency to conclude that whatever an AGW believer writes must be wrong by default. Of course, in fairness I should note that being consistently principled is an issue for all of humanity, especially where tribalism is a factor. History’s best, least-violent, outcomes have always happened when cooler heads prevailed. And stayed attached, including in metaphor.

      • RACookPE1978,

        … the skeptics and realists who do not and cannot affect their decisions about anything …

        So basically you’re pissed off that your voice has not been influential. I get that. My turn to offer three oft-repeated themes:

        1) The planet doesn’t give a shit about your opinions.

        2) People not listening to you is often, though not always, a function of how you express your opinion.

        3) Doing science means doing science, not standing on a soapbox howling at the moon about how mainstream science is wrong — see again (1) and (2).

        … except Muslim outreach by NASA – which is telling …

        Yeah. Blatant xenophobia isn’t the road to mainstream credibility, though it does play well to the similarly-minded minority. And speaking of minorities, radical militant Islamic extremists are one. However, if your aim is to unduly inflame the passions of moderate Muslims everywhere — who arguably care for their violent counterparts even less than you do — by all means keep running your mouth.

      • Gates says:

        So basically you’re pissed off that your voice has not been influential. I get that.

        And I get that you are even less influential. You certainly haven’t converted any readers to the globaloney side of the debate. Have you?

        And whether or not you like ‘republican democracy’, you were still out-voted.☺

        Maybe it’s time to start a revolution, after you lost that election by a 2 – 1 margin. You surely make a strong case for being revolting.☺ ☺ ☺

      • dbstealey,

        You certainly haven’t converted any readers to the globaloney side of the debate. Have you?

        If I have, which I seriously doubt, nobody has informed me that I’ve changed their opinion. The best I could ever hope for is to influence someone who is genuinely undecided. The entrenched are beyond anyone’s influence, as you so often point out yourself.

        Is there a moderate middle capable of being influenced on this topic? Public opinion polling says, yes. The general theme is that political attitudes correlate strongly with beliefs about AGW, though unexpectedly (to me) since 2012, self-declared Independents as compared to Democrats and Republicans are the only bucket showing declining belief in the A of GW:

        A curiosity; those who self-describe as understanding global warming “very well” are least likely to ascribe it to human activity:

        An oddity; Climategate stoked an immediate uptick in self-claims of “very well” understanding among Independents and Republicans, however, since 2011 Democrats apparently went on a tear of self-education and now lead the other two demographics as of 2014:

        Finally, this:

        Belief in the A of GW has not returned to pre-Climategate levels, but it’s within the MOE (+/- 4% at 95% confidence). The natural cause contingent by far showed the most action through Climategate, but also fell off quite a bit more steeply — implying that there is influence to be had amongst the undecideds, who as of 2014 stand at 13%, with error bars of course.

        With 57% of Americans holding that GW is mainly due to A, and 40% saying N is the culprit as opposed to 2010 when the gap was indeed within the MOE (50% A, 46% N) it’s pretty clear to me that influence favors … not your camp … despite repeated claims otherwise.

        As well, I’d be the last person to claim any significant influence on the trends, or indeed that I even understand the science “very well” — a bucket I’d reserve for domain experts if asked by a pollster. How I’d put it is “probably better than the average lay person, but I have no way of knowing for sure”.

        Maybe it’s time to start a revolution, after you lost that election by a 2 – 1 margin.

        Among the many ways in which you consistently fail to be an accurate mind-reader, my political party identification is one of them. The Democrats, not me, got their asses kicked in the midterms, more than usual for a midterm, and deservedly so. I was actually hoping for a filibuster-proof Republican majority in the Senate if only to ease gridlock and to see what the GOP would do with essentially full control of both houses of Congress.

        Here, of course, you conflate influence on public opinion on AGW with policy influence. Way to tip your hand. You’re hardly ever one to miss your own foot with that scattergun of a keyboard, DB, I’ll grant you that much.

      • Gates,

        Why did you delete the Gallup headline? :

        Americans Most Likely to Say Global Warming Is Exaggerated

        Who cares about global warming, anyway? That is the usual red herring/strawman argument by the ignoratii. Global warming has been occurring since the LIA. It’s natural, see?

        The real argument is over man-made global warming [MMGW]. But you always avoid that argument, for one reason: there is NO credible measurement quantifying MMGW. None at all.

        You keep arguing around the central point, because:

        You’ve got nothin’.

      • dbstealey,

        Why did you delete the Gallup headline? :

        Americans Most Likely to Say Global Warming Is Exaggerated

        I didn’t delete it; in fact, it’s completely human-readable in the link to that poll I posted in my addendum: http://www.gallup.com/poll/167960/americans-likely-say-global-warming-exaggerated.aspx

        Why are you lying?

        Who cares about global warming, anyway? That is the usual red herring/strawman argument by the ignoratii.

        Having shot his foot, DB puts it in his mouth. And kicks over his bottomless bucket of red herring to boot. But well, so be it, here’s who cares:

        Global warming has been occurring since the LIA. It’s natural, see?

        As you are so fond of lecturing here, correlation is not causation. Noting a trend in one and only one parameter in complete isolation of anything else is even less informative.

        See again: magical thinking.

        The real argument is over man-made global warming [MMGW].

        Topic of this subthread — which, for the record, I did not introduce — is influence on policy by way of public opinion. And I believe I already went on record with RACookPE1978 on the topic of human opinion influencing physical outcomes: it doesn’t.

        You keep arguing around the central point, because: You’ve got nothin’.

        I can’t do a damn thing about whether or not you consider the evidence credible or not … my experience is that your personal incredulity is unassailable. And your tendency to change the subject remains ever incorrigible. Note how we’ve gone from talking about who’s more influential vis a vis opinion ….

        … to whose opinion is correct. And that, basically, your “evidence” for being correct is “recovery” from the LIA followed up with a wholly unsupported assertion that “I” have got nuthin’.

        All of which is something I consider laughably transparent bullshit. YMMV … which it obviously does. And I note again that it’s not exactly gaining traction as much as you’d have us believe.

      • “Stil playing the man and not the ball, I see.”

        Uh, no, dbstealey, that’s not at all what I did. As I explained, your link did not contain any real data or evidence, just a random blogger’s opinion. There was no “ball” there to speak of–just a man who happened to agree with you. Again–why on earth would you think that would be convincing to anyone who did not already agree with you? Why would you even bother to provide a link if it literally just went to some dude agreeing with your opinion, with no data or evidence to back it up?

        I honestly would be fascinated by the answer to that question. And I have to wonder if perhaps the answer might reveal a lot about how you form your opinions, and what you believe is persuasive.

    • Oh, Chris. Can you really have missed the point? We simply do not think the AGWers curiosity about Dr. Soon’s funding is genuine. We are “arguing” NOT that the question is irrelevant but that it is not sincere. The AGWers could not care less where his funding comes from! They are doing this just to HARASS him and, thereby, to INTIMIDATE other scientists into silence about the truth about CO2.

      Just as most jihadists could not care less whether or not we infidels convert — “submit” or d1e is merely their way of taking over wealth/territory (using the expedient tactic of following the tenets of 1slam to the letter) —

      so, too, the AGWers could not care less whether Soon gets his money from Big Oil or what-EVER — they just want him (et. al.) to shut up so they can, ultimately, take private property/wealth.

      • LOL, Janice … little Chris is a junior ‘suicide-bomber’ who, instead, has pooped in his britches.

      • Whereas comparing people who disagree with you to terrorists is a completely legitimate tactic that is in no way meany to harass or silence anyone.

      • Chris

        Whereas comparing people who disagree with you to terrorists is a completely legitimate tactic that is in no way meany to harass or silence anyone.

        Well, you see, it is worse than that.

        This administration has PROVED that it will attack (using the democrat Congress and the democrat Senators and the IRS and the EPA and (now) the FCC) its critics and its political opponents – for NO OTHER REASON than they are its opponents.

        Now, the United States has real enemies: a nuclear-armed Iran extremist terrorist state, a re-conquered Iraq (after we had won and installed a democratically-elected government!), new Muslim extremist states in Nigeria, Oman, Yemen, (4 more ‘stan’s inside Russia), Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya; a broken economy in communist Venezuela, a broken economy in North Korea now shooting intercontinental missiles over Japan and South Korea; a breaking economy in communist Cuba, a ever-growing nuclear-armed economy in communist China, a re-surging very aggressive communist Russia now invading its European neighbors – whom Obama refuses to arm with simple missile defenses and defend with regular arms), and a internally broken economy largely due to Obama failure of an energy program now 7 years old.

        So, who does the Obama administration declare is its greatest enemy? Domestic terrorists (I.e. married conservative christian capitalist families!). What is its greatest international threat? Global warming – A perceived possible rise in gobal average temperatures now 1/2 of one degree over the past 80 years is its greatest international threat!

        Yet you claim “we” (the skeptics) are declared terrorists? Well, no. Your administration has declared us worse than terrorists1

        Right now, by their own words by the resident-in-Chief, the National Security Adviser, the Secretary of State, the DOD, the DOE and the (democrat) Senators in Congress, skeptics are declared MORE dangerous than nuclear-armed terrorist extremists!

      • Chris February 28, 2015 at 8:53 pm
        Whereas comparing people who disagree with you to terrorists is a completely legitimate tactic that is in no way meany to harass or silence anyone.

        No such comparison was made. The actions of certain people attempting to intimidate and coerce others was compared. Two rather different things.

      • Chris
        February 28, 2015 at 8:53 pm

        Whereas comparing people who disagree with you to terrorists is a completely legitimate tactic that is in no way meany to harass or silence anyone.

        Calm down. Some warmists have called for our execution etc. That is terror?

        Aljazeera – 29 Jan 2010
        Bin Laden deplores climate change
        In audio tape obtained by Al Jazeera, al-Qaeda leader blames the US and industrial nations.
        …..In the new recording, bin Laden says “all the industrial states” are to blame for climate change, “yet the majority of those states have signed the Kyoto Protocol and agreed to curb the emission of harmful gases”……

    • Chris February 28, 2015 at 7:21 pm
      It’s also hilarious that after years of the most common refrain in the comments of this blog being some variation of “follow the money,”

      I don’t recall any “follow the money” requests being issued by US Congressional representatives written in such a manner as to threaten and intimidate anyone. An observation and an implied threat are two different things.

    • @Chris:

      Cherry pick much? The “follow the money” is a minor theme at best. Often (but not always) offered up by socialists who do not want, or are unable to see that it is not about money, but about pushing a disastrous political agenda that is sure to bring on another dark ages. The category of ‘the “follow the money” theme itself, as it periodically appears on this blog, is disjoint because most of the socialisticly leaning commenters ( commenters, a term which excludes trolls like you) can think for themselves. Their comments are not derived from a preprogrammed narrative. One of the compact sub-categories of this theme is to offer up an explain as to why there is so much provably bad science. I.e, the science is bad, so why would a scientist produce such bad science, because he got paid to do so. The determination that the science is bad comes FIRST. In no The sub-category of “he got money from someone we are attacking, therefore his science is bad” is never offered up on this blog. If it was, it would have been blasted out of the water.

      BTW, you have just displayed one of the defining characteristics of a Marxist tool, a form of cognitive dysfunction. You select a few outlier data points, distort them to fit within your discontinuous world-view which you have been hardwired to do), and then use that to characterize the whole blog by mapping it to a mythological category that only exists with in the minds of Marxist tools.

  47. I stil wonder about the “Six Degrees” and the space between Michael E. Mann and MECHa Boy Rep. Raul Grijalva.

    Grijalva wants to grow and preserve his position in AZ as a tomato Baron,

    Mann want to grow and preserve is position at PSU as the big Penis on Campus, He has no fear of Title IX.

    Hummm. Grjialva stands 5’4″ and Mann stands 5’4″.

    http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=MECHa+Boy+Rep.+Raul+Grijalva.&gbv=2&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ei=34byVKvqEMzUoATG14L4Cg&ved=0CBQQsAQ

    http://www.google.com/url?q=http://cis.org/grijalva&sa=U&ei=34byVKvqEMzUoATG14L4Cg&ved=0CCIQFjAG&usg=AFQjCNHK2FM67SU32lNl9Kj2b9iV61fq7g

    What a coincidence.

    Looks like his children need a .. visit …

    Ha Ha Ha Ha

    • Dave Archibald, American Thinker

      “The Shi’ite strand of Islam believes in the Twelfth Imam, also known as the Hidden Imam and the Mahdi. The Hidden Imam is an historical figure born in 869 A.D. who disappeared in 941 A.D. His disappearance is referred to as the Occultation. Twelver Shi’ites believe that the Hidden Imam will appear, with Jesus Christ as his sidekick, to bring justice to the world. They also contend that they should hasten the return of the Hidden Imam by creating the proper conditions. This mainly involves slaughtering non-Moslems or forcing them to convert to Islam.”

      Thanks for that interesting research. I had heard of the Twelfth Imam, but was not very informed about the details, or the contrast with Sunni beliefs. Just to be clear, the coming world leader in Biblical prophecy is the Anti-Christ. Christians are not waiting for a world leader. We are supposed to be warning about him because he is a great deceiver. A Man of Peace, for any Bob Dylan fans. (:

      If I had any say – and I know I don’t – people would say, “The three great monotheistic religions are Judaism, Christianity, and Zarathustrianism.” They at a minimum confirm one God, uphold marriage, and do not have forcible conversion. It must be from the heart, of the free willing person.

      • “Twelver Shi’ites believe that the Hidden Imam will appear, with Jesus Christ as his sidekick…”

        Will there be a cute, talking fuzzy animal or a punning, beeping robot droid as well? Cause if there isn’t at least one of these, I’m not interested.

      • Zeke February 28, 2015 at 8:57 pm

        Zarathustrianism = Zoroastrianism. It’s unclear what his name actually was, Zoroaster is the Greek transliteration from the Avestan Zarathrustra, Persian Zartosht, or something similar. But the religion he founded is referred to as Zoroastrianism. It’s original Persian designation is unknown. Virtually all of it’s ideas are only extant in Greek writings.

      • There are good reasons to use the original names! The Greek Hellenization of the ancient world was an aggressive, sustained cultural conquest, and it was a truly hostile experience for many people.

        Here is the Zarathustrian experience with the Greeks, and Muslims:

        “We must remember that the Avesta as it has come down to the modern Zoroastrian world is but a collection of fragments and texts preserved from a far greater whole. Zoroastrianism has suffered greatly from the destruction of its texts. First, in the conflagration set by Alexander the invader in 330 B.C. which destroyed the library at Persepolis, and later by invading Muslims/Arabs and then by Mongols.”

        We have the mild saying, “What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem?” to remind us of the differences between the cultures. What was done to these people during Greek military conquest, subsequent Hellenization, and the Roman conquest, is most infamously remembered by the Jews. During the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes c. 160’s BC. He brought his statue of Zeus into the temple. This is known as the Abomination of Desolation for both Jews and Christians. The Hellenizers and Romans replaced the folk beliefs by first equating their local gods with a Roman equivalent, and then building their own temple and setting up their own idol. Antiochus Epiphanes equated God with Zeus and placed an idol of Zeus in Jerusalem. This equivalence of gods is an old Greek and Roman habit and is regular fare for academics and comparative mythologists to this day. But that is where the holiday Hannukah comes from.

        If you would like to see the original, oldest texts of the Zarathustrians, go to avesta.org. There are only about 20 Yashts that are said to be the words of Zarathustra. These are in Avestan. The rest are commentary but I think some very ancient glosses are contained there.

      • Zeke March 1, 2015 at 1:07 pm

        The Greek Hellenization of the ancient world was an aggressive, sustained cultural conquest, and it was a truly hostile experience for many people.

        No doubt. It also resulted in one of the greatest exchanges and mixing of cultural, political, philosophical and religious ideas prior to our own period.

  48. There are some really good paragraphs in this article, but I can’t link to the article on my Facebook because of the Islamist jihad references, and the anti Obama and Hillary references at the beginning. I think most of my Facebook friends are liberal, and won’t get past the first couple paragraphs to get to the good stuff such as this:

    “Indeed, one of the most prominent aspects of the climate imbroglio is the steadfast refusal of alarmist scientists to discuss or debate their findings with experts who argue that extensive, powerful natural forces – not human carbon dioxide emissions – drive Earth’s climate and weather. “Manmade disaster” proponents also refuse to divulge raw data, computer codes and other secretive work that is often paid for with taxpayer money and is always used to justify laws, treaties, regulations, mandates and subsidies that stifle economic growth, kill jobs and reduce living standards.”

    I have linked to many articles on WUWT on Facebook and have rarely gotten more than 1 like… just sayin.

    For some reason they just don”t want to “get into the weeds” on this stuff…

  49. I think its all overhyped. Seriously there may be 200 hardcore skeptics here and other blogs reposting daily. probably about 500 hardcore alrmists. No one cares or is looking at AGW/climate change anymore. Notice its always the same names? LOL

    • Except that this site draws millions of views each year … it matters not how many “hardcore” there are commenting, it matters more how many read the articles and the comments. In that statistic, the sceptic blogs are light-years ahead of the climate jihadis.

      • You’re both right.
        Lots of people have a mild curiosity and come to WUWT.
        But the hard-core are few. Every survey puts climate change at the bottom of policy concerns.

        There are many sceptics but not many passionate sceptics.

      • Sorry if it caused offence. I merely meant those who actively engage and I thought Eliza meant it in that sense too.

        It is vivid and accurate language but I won’t use it if it’s troublesome.

  50. OK, So when does the actual fight back begin.

    When will Prof. Roger Pielke stand his ground. When will Willie Soon go for the jugular at the Smithsonian, when will Anthony stop apologizing.?

    Climate fear is a fraud and a scam. Untold billions squandered and stolen yet nobody says boo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Free renewable energy provides expensive unreliable electricity at four times the price. Proven.

    The population of Denmark reduced to being bike riders!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  51. Its always been notable with ‘the cause ‘ that one aspect it share with religion, along with a need for an evil other and dogma, is that like all religions it treats heretics , that is those that believe but fail to do so in the right way or without question, worse than they treat those that do not believe at all. Has these ‘heretics’ are seen has a much bigger threat to the ‘true religion’

  52. Guest opinion by Paul Driessen
    “… they have gone on the attack: Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. …”
    ____

    That is indeed the foul tactic Paul, you’ve summed it up well, thanks.

    I would just add that it’s not beneath these people to seed comments with political and propaganda advocacy types, to actively seek to derail and muddy all discussions of the actual science observations. What else can they do at this point but undermine skeptical centers of science observation and discussions with derailing political swill. There seems to be a lot of people making comments above who are pushing just that sort of anti-science, pro-politics and pro-propaganda-mangle line.

  53. Climate Change. A horizon Guide. A programme on BBC 4 at 9.pm Wednesday 4th March. Should be worth watching. Flagged as “How did a little known theory become one of the biggest scientific undertakings in history?” We need a big sceptic tune- in and professional reaction.

  54. Nature 399, 437-439 (3 June 1999) | doi:10.1038/20867; Received 21 December 1998; Accepted 12 April 1999
    “The solar wind is an extended ionized gas of very high electrical conductivity, and therefore drags some magnetic flux out of the Sun to fill the heliosphere with a weak interplanetary magnetic field1,2. Magnetic reconnection—the merging of oppositely directed magnetic fields—between the interplanetary field and the Earth’s magnetic field allows energy from the solar wind to enter the near-Earth environment. The Sun’s properties, such as its luminosity, are related to its magnetic field, although the connections are still not well understood3,4. Moreover, changes in the heliospheric magnetic field have been linked with changes in total cloud cover over the Earth, which may influence global climate5. Here we show that measurements of the near-Earth interplanetary magnetic field reveal that the total magnetic flux leaving the Sun has risen by a factor of 1.4 since 1964: surrogate measurements of the interplanetary magnetic field indicate that the increase since 1901 has been by a factor of 2.3. This increase may be related to chaotic changes in the dynamo that generates the solar magnetic field. We do not yet know quantitatively how such changes will influence the global environment.”

    http://www2.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/papers/nature.pdf
    http://www2.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/papers/nature.pdf

  55. “ISIL and other Islamist jihad movements continue to round up and silence all who oppose them or refuse to convert to their extreme religious tenets.”

    So would it not to have been more appropriate to have had a cartoon showing Islamist extremists beheading Christians?

  56. I’m not a scientist so maybe some of the bright bulbs that are can answer a question for me.
    I just read a piece and saw a photo indicating the sun is almost into full dormancy stage.
    Would this not indicate that our climate will be cooler?

    • “I just read a piece and saw a photo indicating the sun is almost into full dormancy stage.
      Would this not indicate that our climate will be cooler?”

      We’ve been following this for 5 years or more, see WUWT’s solar page in the resource pages. Very rarely the DailyMail in UK or Focus in Germany mentions it, these mentions will become more frequent as lakes and rivers freeze over that were predicted to never freeze over again.

      Search in WUWT for Svensmark or Nir Shaviv.

  57. Why would NASA and NOAA lie?

    Because the political class that runs government pays them to.

    • That is a bit too harsh. They do not tell lies, it is that few of their public exponents re-interpret data according to the set agenda.
      NASA has done more for the advancement of science probably more than any other scientific institution in whole of the human history. This is of a view of an amateur, weekly pocket money financed researcher, who was in the past denounced by the NASA’s top solar scientist.
      Here is a snippet from the NASA’s research

      • ” it is that few of their public exponents re-interpret data according to the set agenda.”

        Et tu Brute?

      • Hi Tom
        No one takes much notice of my data re-interpretation, to be ‘honest’ very often I have nothing better to do, not that my wife would agree.

    • Ah… Yes, one set of data I re-interpreted made UK Met office recalculate not only CET but all other UK annual data for all sorts of things (rain, sunshine hours etc) and redraw all corresponding graphs.
      All financed by my pocket money, any offers to refinance my past or future efforts will be politely declined, since I am truly independent data manipulator ! scientia absque labore

  58. Why is it that ‘anthropogenic global warming’ is often portrayed in religious terms rather than secular, ideological terms? Why is it that persecution is usually portrayed as something that religious people do rather than something, which is far more common, that people with secular ideologies do? For example;

    Czech Priest Witnessed the ‘Cihost Miracle’ and Was Killed for It (9309)
    The life and legacy of Father Josef Toufar, who was killed in 1949 by communist police, was marked Feb. 22 at a Mass celebrated by Cardinal Dominik Duka, archbishop of Prague.
    by BOHUMIL PETRIK/CNA/EWTN NEWS 02/25/2015 Comments (9)

    Father Josef Toufar
    – Courtesy of Father Tomas Fiala
    ROME — A priest who witnessed a miracle in communist Czechoslovakia in the 1940s was tortured and beaten to death for refusing to recant what he’d seen. And now Catholics from the country are honoring his heroic virtue and pushing for him to be recognized as a martyr.
    At a recent gathering in Číhošť commemorating the priest’s brutal death, his current successor at the parish church says he’s grateful for efforts to overturn the decades-long silence on atrocities against Catholics in the 20th century.
    “Naturally, I am glad that the issue of Father Josef Toufar is starting to be resolved, in which it will be shown how the political regime in our country actually was,” Father Tomas Fiala told CNA.
    During the season of Advent in 1949 — the early phase of the communist era in Czechoslovakia — Father Toufar and some parishioners said they saw a cross at the altar in the church moving from one side to another several times. The event has come to be known as the “Číhošť Miracle.”

    To prevent the news of the phenomenon from going public, the secret police interrogated Father Toufar, demanding that he say that he had moved the cross himself.
    The priest, however, refused.
    In response, the police beat him so severely that he was unable to speak, walk or sit. He died two months after the miracle took place.
    After Father Toufar’s death, the Church and all religions were suppressed across the Soviet Union-led communist regime. The state was officially atheist, and any accounts of miracles and those who spoke of them were treated in a way to be erased from the record and the historical memory. The regime even filmed a documentary that tried to show that the Číhošť miracle was a forgery.

    Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/czech-priest-witnessed-the-cihost-miracle-and-was-killed-for-it#ixzz3T8tRK4QD

  59. There are those scientists and journalists who are sitting on the sidelines and hoping the AGW Death Ray does not find them. It is time for them to stand up and be counted, they know that what is going on is wrong and the longer they keep quiet out of fear from the scientific thugs and even nuttier environmentalists, the more difficult and painful it will be for sanity to be recovered later.

  60. It’s encouraging to see that this site is finally encompassing the political aspect of the subject. A preoccupation with the minutia of pure science will never win a war against mass propaganda, backed by billions of dollars and credentialed mercenaries. Their ‘science’ has been engineered into simple terms for the naïve masses. Hence no real in-depth scientific debates are necessary or permissible.
    Keep it simple and spread it widely. Sceptics really do need to follow this successful platform.

    • “Keep it simple and spread it widely. Sceptics really do need to follow this successful platform.”
      _____

      Totally disagree.

      Simplified ‘science’ is bubblegum with no flavor, it gets rejected and ejected fast, and rightly so.

      Science is at its best when it’s most involved and mentally dynamic. What do you want, build another inadequate consensus that doesn’t reflect the actual science just so more false axioms can be constructed?

      And when has belief not powered policy and politics? The Catholics ran the show in Europe for a very long time. When has a popular or socio-religious belief system not sought to avoid problematic observed facts and their implications? When have these not tried to hide from systematic testing and detailed data?

      And when hasn’t fact continually and eventually always won the day over time when evidence was relentlessly methodically presented in very compelling DETAIL?

      We examine data to work out how things work. It is a fascinating world we live in, in all respects. ‘Simplifying’ a political message and image or reality, so that it’s not longer scientific at all, so that people who are not actually much interested in science observations and data can be ‘informed’ by something that’s been rendered too simplistic to be scientifically meaningful?

      Why bother with science at all then? Why not just make-up whatever you want and convince people of its merit given detailed data and rational exposition of evidence is not desirable within political fiction-swapping combat?

      People need to smarten up to reality, not be given even more excuses to dumb down politics even further. The topic needs to be less political, less polarized, less dishonest and far more observant and accepting of what earth tells us, as it is.

      The fact that the coldest temps ever measured in many places in the US (by a large margin) have occurred just a few days ago and are on-going, is a very powerful fact which shows the public via their frozen extremities and roof damage, what the reality is about dangerous CO2 induced global warming. I’m interested in what those people think of this, not what TV chooses to present and spin, nor the nonsense going on in the Oval Office or UN.

      Do you really think those people are generally going to now accept the lame absurdity of AGW propagandists that the intense cold is really due to a too hot planet? Do you think they’ll need or benefit from some of your ‘simple’ science propaganda?

      Or maybe some of them want some detailed observational facts now and will wander around the net looking for a plain-speaking website that can answer their questions?

      Is simple flavorless bubblegum ‘science’ going to help them, or make them think maybe the skeptics aren’t the real deal, are really scientists, more a bunch of tedious political lobbyists with no real facts to offer?

      Just like the other lot?

      No disrespect, but I strongly disagree, the people who want politics and propaganda have it all wrong, and they’re also in the wrong place.

  61. Great Lakes ice coverage is 88.8%.

    We have broken the all time record for ice cover for this late period of the year. Forecast for the next week is continued anomalously cold. There is therefore an opportunity to break the all time Great Lakes ice coverage.


  62. Chris

    February 28, 2015 at 8:45 pm

    Look, I think it’s possible that those “97% of scientists agree” studies are bunk. But it is very clear that a majority of scientists agree that CO2 is the main driver and that climate change poses a real threat.

    No, Chris, your statement distorts the positions of the “majority of scientists”.

    I believe that the majority of scientists agree that atmospheric CO2 is part of what are called “Green House Gases” (GHG) and as part of this “green house” effect contributes at some level to the overall temperature of the atmosphere.

    Separately, the climate always poses a threat to humanity in some form. Example: if one doesn’t have shelter in the winter, it is possible the cold will be lethal. A changing climate, whether changing to cooler or warmer, dryer or wetter, etc. will most likely pose a threat to someone somewhere.

    Even so, the most rational statements regarding anthropogenic CO2 emissions into the atmosphere and its possible effects are:

    “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” (Oregon Petition Project)

    and

    “We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming.” (The Climate Scientists’ Register at the International Climate Scientists Coalition)

    In neither statement is there an argument that the Green House Effect doesn’t exist or that atmospheric CO2 doesn’t effect the atmospheric temperature or that humans aren’t adding to the atmospheric CO2 level or even that the climate may be changing.

    We do not know what percentage of “climate scientists” would agree or disagree with these statements nor do we know at what level there agreement or disagreement would be.

    We do know that any real scientist who takes the time to look for evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is causing the atmosphere to warm at an unprecedented level will not be able to find such evidence because if they had, the real scientists who frequent this board would have discussed it.

      • Warrenpound,
        There is a consensus among scientists that for two decades, more or less, there has been no statistically significant increase in the global temperature index (excluding from that consensus the more rabid warmer types). Even the IPCC acknowledges this. And now that the chief molester has left, the IPCC will no doubt acknowledge other truths. Because, you see, under Pachauri, that organization molested science and women, both.

      • warrenlb

        NO!

        Firstly, it is not known if there is a “consensus among scientists that Man’s activities are warming the planet” because nobody has asked them. Administrators of academic institutions have published documents that say they think that, but so what?

        Secondly, “warming the planet” is ambiguous. If I were asked then I would agree that “Man’s activities are warming the planet” but I would point out that any such warming is too small to be detectable and cannot become sufficiently large for it to be detected.

        Thirdly, consensus is a denial of science.

        Richard

  63. Related excerpts from Paul Driessen’s guest opinion piece,

    “Indeed, one of the most prominent aspects of the climate imbroglio is the steadfast refusal of alarmist scientists to discuss or debate their findings with experts who argue that extensive, powerful natural forces – not human carbon dioxide emissions – drive Earth’s climate and weather. “Manmade disaster” proponents also refuse to divulge raw data, computer codes and other secretive work […]”

    […]

    “We need to end the double standard – and investigate the alarmist researchers and institutions.
    Or better yet, let us instead have that all-out, open, robust debate that climate realists have long sought – and alarmists have refused to join. Equal government and other money for all research. All cards and evidence on the table. No more hiding data and codes. Answer all questions, no matter how tough or inconvenient. And let honest science decide what our energy and economic futures will be.”

    I agree with all of those excerpts except the part about “investigate”. I think audits of a certain type would be good at this point but I do not think “investigation[s]” should be primary focus at this point.

    Therefore, first, I think a scientific process audit of the government’s NASA GISS, not an investigation of it, is prudent if the audit is done by a very broadly balanced consortium of private sector scientists. The audit would not be a government sponsored one; it would instead be the broader science community checking on the scientific processes of NASA GISS.

    John

  64. that cartoon would be funnier if the AGWer was trying to light up the pyre with the ‘fiery earth’ on his staff…but then can’t light up because it’s really just not ‘on fire’ as he believes it is.

  65. There is one problem with making wind turbines your gods(*); they don’t answer.

    (*) which is what modern day secularists-atheists here in Germany do, as one can easily test by telling them that wind turbines are useless, expensive, uncompetitive, and a money-losing enterprise. The irrational explosion that follows points to the worshipping nature of their commitment to killing bats. Can’t Batman help his li’l fellows?

  66. If the political system is broken (and many places apparently) then it’s the system that is at fault, not the facts and details of earth observations.

    Do you lower your standards and simplify and effectively abandon facts and observation, so you can compete within the broken political sewer?

    Or do you maintain your standards, keep it clean and keep presenting the facts and details of observation, relentlessly, methodically, and demand the sewer clean up its act?

    What to do?

    • If propaganda is better at influencing people than telling the truth based on facts, then, in order for the facts to win the battle of memes, you propagandise them.
      Or you commit suicide with the irrelevant facts and truth in your hands.

      Demand the sewer clean up its act? Lol. You are quie naive. And ideology beats naivety every time.

      • Edit_XYZ:
        “If propaganda is better at influencing people than telling the truth based on facts, then, in order for the facts to win the battle of memes, you propagandise them.
        Or you commit suicide with the irrelevant facts and truth in your hands.
        Demand the sewer clean up its act? Lol. You are quie naive. And ideology beats naivety every time.”
        ________________

        Oh boy, what rot, where to start.

        If good science and its presentation is ‘naive’ (a red herring I reject), and ideology always ‘wins’ over such (alleged) nativity, how is it then that Europe’s primarily a secular continent today? Why is the Roman Catholic church currently in courts, all over the world, defending itself (and its coffers) from an avalanche of criminal actions and law suits?

        The recorded and reported truth came out – in detail. The propaganda of the religious idealism failed as a result and its bluff or innocence was called.

        Propaganda designed to control perceptions can fail completely, it has happened regularly through history and the result is a mess.

        The very proposition that the defense of science and reason in the area of climate variability, should be based on simplistic house-of-cards approaches promoted in media and civil forums as contrived propaganda is a about as silly a notion as has been spoken.

        People like you are arguing that the sufficiency of clear-cut evidence and well developed carefully examined arguments of known merit be replaced with simplistic half-truths or even untruths to substitute the perfectly adequate material facts. You aren’t so brazen as to put it in such candid terms but that’s what you want AGW skeptics to do, or at least to accept others doing it. You want to literally trick people to ‘win’ them over. You want everyone to risk their credibility, to debase data, and sacrifice a massive store of current advanced knowledge, on the likely complete collapse of such propaganda.

        Apparently people like you don’t even grasp how crazy that is, or why it’s thoroughly goofy, and what will happen. So here’s a head’s-up.

        Most of the AGW skeptical scientists, in here, and elsewhere, would immediately turn on such propaganda, and pull its wings off, and expose it until it was demolished, and its proponents eviscerated, careers destroyed (if they had one, doubt it) and their heads metaphorically put on a pike.

        You also wrote:

        “… then, in order for the facts to win the battle of memes, … ”

        No, the aim is not about a battle of wretched memes, that’s the most absurd rot. Science is not ideology, it is observation and examination and testing with reporting and thinking, then more testing and observing.

        You so know that, right?

        The point of doing it is to understand the physical world better with increasing clarity and communicate findings as clearly as possible to others. We don’t care about this petty battle of political memes. We only would like people to understand Earth better, and thus not be so susceptible to cyclical mass manipulators.

        Like you for instance.

        The only memes we battle are theories and on that level it sometimes resembles ideology and propaganda, but that is within a discipline and done with the aim of understanding earth better and increasingly clearly. It is not done disingenuously with the intent of muddying the waters so that no one can understand anything clearly, and it becomes easier to manipulate the ignorant and leverage some political ‘game’.

        Which is what political propaganda seeks to do. That is a mechanism for lies and obscurations, to out ‘compete’ the other lies and obscurations, in order to gain the power of the state, and it enforcement,by force of concerted deception.

        No my friend I am not politically naive.

        I am politically astute, and that’s why I know the whole concept of political propaganda as applied to science skepticism of AGW, is both thoroughly mad, and doomed to certain failure and the epic blowing-off of online science’s foot.

        PLUS, this whole infantile proposal implicitly paints AGW skeptics as being currently desperadoes, who somehow need to do drastic and crazy things to lash out like inept fools to try and land a telling blow.

        Which again is complete rubbish, the could not be further from the reality. We are in a commanding position, the data is with us.

        Furthermore, what I can assert and ever GUARANTEE, with 100% confidence and certainty, is that in the end the side that ‘wins’ this, will be the one most consistent with observed data.

        And I am 100% happy for that to be whatever it is. I am not after some infantile ‘win’ of battling memes in a ludicrous transient political farce. I am after the data being respected and applied and agreed upon that it is what is.

        Whatever it is so be it.

        The proposition of deliberately perverting both science and debate and betraying the public interest, and damaging understanding, is in my view, nothing less than criminal, a madcap hideous lunacy, at best.

        To wrap-up this debunking, I’ll say that I hold significant suspicions about the sudden surge of commenters who militate to turn the skeptical AGW science discussion position into some demented political farce. If I wanted to thoroughly discredit the skeptical scientific take on AGW, it would be just marvelous if I could trick the more dull, impulsive and dodgy fraction of AGW skeptics to do just that.

        And falling for that would indeed be naive!

        That would also be akin to your “commit suicide” act, as you put it.

      • Unmentionable
        March 1, 2015 at 2:14 pm
        “If good science and its presentation is ‘naive’ (a red herring I reject), and ideology always ‘wins’ over such (alleged) nativity, how is it then that Europe’s primarily a secular continent today? ”

        Did it ever occur to you that Voltaire’s only occupation was that of a propagandist, for an IDEOLOGY calling itself the “Enlightenment”, call that propaganda or PR or savvy marketing, I don’t care, and their secret society “illuminists”. They also coined the propaganda term “Dark Ages” for all time before the “enlightenment”, which makes sense from their marketing point of view. Many warmist scientists still believe that, denying the medieval warm period.

      • @dirkh As unmentionable suggested, comments here read like y’all are trying to make the ‘skeptic’ crowd look bad. Your straightforward hostility to the Enlightenment is a really handy example. Yes, that title, and ‘dark ages’ was partly a matter of advertising. But … there certainly was a change between before and after ‘the enlightenment’. The after included greater attention to what was true, versus what people wished was true. Very handy of you, representing ‘your side’, to be opposed to that. And doing so in spite of @unmentionable’s warning.

      • It was once said

        if I’m wrong, and I see compelling and undisputable evidence (not models or projections) that man made CO2 is the culprit and nothing else, I’ll be happy to stand up in the middle of city plaza and announce “I was wrong”. I expect I’ll know the answer by about January to March 2018, when its expected that solar cycle 24 will be over, and temperatures on earth are postulated to drop. The year end world climate summaries will be published then. Assuming I’m still around, I’ll likely sound off in City Plaza one way or another. By then we’ll have some shade.

      • Unmentionable March 1, 2015 at 2:14 pm

        I sincerely hope you are correct!

        Trouble is, we have already won the science ‘debate’ such as it has been. We have presented the clear cut evidence in a scientifically convincing manner. The ‘pause’ and hopefully soon-to-be(continued) ‘decline’ have already put the lie to CO2 forcing temps. The general populace has lost interest because they feel the difference between warm and cold and couldn’t care less what Gavin Schmidt says about it.

        However, the CAGW scammers and many western governments are still working to impose policies that will wreck our economies and condemn billions of third world peoples to energy poverty for the rest of their short lives. Are we to await politely, preserving our sense of decorum, the judgement of a cooling earth to nail the coffin shut once and for all? What if the cooling is not so much after all? What if it is so gradual as to be nearly imperceptible? What if the scammers readjust the temps to suit their pretensions? Do you think they will not?

        I would prefer this be a scientific debate where observation and evidence carry the day. As apparently do you. Unfortunately, we already know that observation and evidence do not matter to the anti-scientists who are engaged in a political battle, not a scientific one. They scorn observation and evidence, modifying it at will to support their pretensions. They and their political enablers attack and demonize any who do not toe the line exactly as defined by them.

        They can, and no doubt will, cause enormous damage before any climatic cooling puts an end to them. We have to fight them and discredit them and their political enablers where they are. You may not like where they are, but we do not always have the opportunity to set the grounds we would prefer.

      • Michael Wassil March 1, 2015 at 11:57 pm
        “… Unfortunately, we already know that observation and evidence do not matter to the anti-scientists who are engaged in a political battle, not a scientific one. They scorn observation and evidence, modifying it at will to support their pretensions. They and their political enablers attack and demonize any who do not toe the line exactly as defined by them. …”
        —-

        Are you talking about the Catholic Church? … or AGW there?

        The Observations will win Michael. If science remains science, it will not lose. It can be delayed but the observations will win.

        Other countries and other people are responsible for themselves being properly informed by the observations and reality checking, and acting accordingly. If they don’t, are you suggesting it would be our fault, because we didn’t use subterfuge to politically coerce a consensus?

        We need to work with what we have Michael and others must to and learn from the mistakes they make and adjust their policies to match observations. When has this been different?

        When has science observation and data ever failed to ultimately win these things?

        Like church and state, parliament and court, science has to remain separate from politics. It will be the politicians who fail and are dumped not the observations. Let people make grand mistakes, the electorate also has to learn the implications of being mislead by treacherous politicians selling them out. Tough love.

        When has reality not been a hard-core deliverer of severe lessons to people who won’t pay attention?

        Who’s responsibility is it to pay sufficient attention to reality so that doesn’t happen?

      • Unmentionable March 2, 2015 at 7:41 am

        I’ll say again, I sincerely hope you are correct.

        Are you talking about the Catholic Church? … or AGW there?

        CAGW. In my opinion what makes the current situation dangerous is that science (observation, objective evaluation, vigorous debate) is under attack from anti-scientists from within our own ranks. We’re dealing with irrationalism and quasi-religious devotion to a ’cause’. Feynman’s ‘cargo cult’, not science. Because of the power and influence of it’s political and academic enablers this irrationalism threatens to corrupt the rest of science. Already scientists, even if not remotely connected to climate science, must pay fealty to CAGW. Otherwise, they can kiss goodbye access to journals, tenure and funding. The current attacks on prominent scientists send the very clear and strong message: if these established scientists can be attacked and smeared, the rest of you nobodies can be destroyed if you try to buck the cause.

        Do you honestly think any prominent CAGW advocate will ever say: “Sorry, I was wrong. I fudged data to support a political agenda, but in the face of undeniable reality I can’t continue it.” Even if the current cooling accelerates and becomes impossible to question, I can’t imagine anyone of them being honest enough to admit that publicly. Judging from the acrimony coming from CAGW for the better part of 25 years or more, I can’t imagine it happening even if the Laurentian ice sheet starts to form again.

        Still, I hope you’re correct and I’m overly pessimistic.

  67. The Administration just held an Extremism Summit and these questions of domestic terrorism profiling were addressed. The UN in these summits is given a key role in battling extremist violence. May I add that the majority of member states in the UN are neither economically, religiously or politically free.

    As recently as 2012, domestic terrorist profiling did include people who talk about the Constitution, limited government or the Bible. Marie Harf claimed during the 2015 Summit this month that Christians are an extremist threat. Islamists were not named though some were included. Some will remember Harf’s remarks because they were the source of the laughter and hilarity – the “Jobs-for-Jihadists” policy. This approach claims that if only economic issues were addressed by government, the devil would not find such a work shop for idle hands.

    Domestic terrorist profiling does include those who oppose the Administration. Perhaps some of the people who are so disappointed in this article can make themselves more useful by enlightening us about how the process of FBI, military, and police training on “domestic terrorist profiling” is proceeding, since they are so shocked at the mention of extremists.

    This article simply points out that you can’t get any more extreme than the use of billions of dollars to dismantle the energy and transportation infrastructure in English-speaking countries. This would in effect place us under tribute and create a Climate Caliphate.

    “Climate Crisis industrialists are also fed up with constant carping, criticism and questions from growing numbers of experts who will not kowtow to their End of Days theology. Once seemingly near, their dream of ruling a hydrocarbon-free world of “sustainably” lower living standards become more remote every week. Extremist factions had dreamed of a global climatist caliphate and want vengeance.”

    • I fullly second that. And to make things worse, it’s these Muftis and Imams of that Climate Califate who are now declaring some sort of Jihad on dissenters. The same happened, when the Roman Catholic church decided to put into operation the beloved Inquisition. The results were ghastly as well. Some 2000 years ago it was a roman governor in Jerusalem who decided to crucify a certain King of the Jews. These momentuous occasions triggered evil and suffering. I do not want similar things happening again.
      We’d better stop these enemies of free speech, opinion and science before things turn from bad to worse into an irrevocable, inescapable worst-case-scenario.

  68. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/30/what-are-your-fears-about-global-warming-and-climate-change/#comment-1847733

    Hypothesis:

    1. The next act of this farce will be characterized by global cooling starting by about 2020 or sooner, cooling that may be mild or severe. Global cooling will demonstrate that climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is so small as to be insignificant. The scientific credibility of the warmist gang will be shattered and some may face lawsuits and/or go to jail.

    2. The scientific community will gradually accept the fact that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales, and that temperature (among other factors) drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.

    3. The foolish green energy schemes to “stop global warming” will be shelved and dismantled, but not before they contribute to a significant increase in Excess Winter Mortality, especially in Europe and to a lesser extent in North America, where energy costs are much lower (thanks to shale fracking).

    4. The warmist thugs will still be bleating about a warmer world, wilder weather, etc., all caused by the sins of mankind, but nobody will listen.

    Regards to all, Allan

  69. Ridicule is the only honest response.
    The beliefs of this Cult(CCC) are so absurd one can only laugh.
    A magic gas, formerly known to be essential to photosynthesis and life as we know it, has been declared the cause of Galloping Global Catastrophe.
    No proof, no data, no evidence to supplant the geological records…
    The UN IPCC is “deferred to” as the complete compilation of all mans wisdom on the Catastrophe to come
    Yet this wisdom is mighty thin, many words, no substance.
    A Gospel in any other words.
    Any soothsayer would be so proud.

    On cannot argue with true believers of any sort, logic is defeated by circular argument and willful blindness.
    One can only be honest with your own self and stay well armed.
    Our bureaucrats have gone mad on this sweet scheme in massive crowds.
    The scent of power unchecked by fact or taxpayer has made them insane, only as free individuals will they return to sanity.
    A pink slip for each of them will do wonders.
    For there is no place in public administration for zealots of any breed.

  70. To quote well-known climate catastrophist Ross McKitrick, in a letter of his posted at CAGW central blog site climateaudit — “McKitrick Letter to Heartland”,

    You cannot simultaneously say that you want to promote a debate while equating the other side to terrorists and mass murderers. Once you have done such a thing you have lost the moral high ground and you can never again object if someone uses that kind of rhetoric on you.

    At the time, a mere 3 years ago, Anthony also considered such tactics a poor idea. Now something more extreme is a post he presents himself.

    Beyond the moral high ground issue, there’s a pragmatic issue. Suppose there were a more or less mainstream scientist (i.e., the kind of person y’all claim you want a debate with), suppose for sake of discussion I’m one of the candidates. Lack of attendance at things like Heartland ‘conferences’ is also part of the original whinging by CFACT here. But, practically speaking, it strikes me as spectacularly absurd to think I’d be safe attending a meeting with some hundreds of people who think I’m ‘just like’ a mass murderer or ISIS/ISIL/… organization — or worse. Even if physically I got away with all body parts attached, unbroken, and in original arrangement, there is absolutely zero chance that people who equate me to Unabomber or ISIS/ISIL are going to listen to anything I have to say. So much for interest in debate. Again, as McKitrick said,

    You cannot simultaneously say that you want to promote a debate while equating the other side to terrorists and mass murderers.

    • If you do not talk to the opposing forces first, what else remains to do? Kill first and ask questions later?

      • It’s you naming ‘opposing forces’. Once you’ve identified people as the enemy, you’re not going to listen to them if they do talk to you. Question is, why should your enemies bother talking to you?

        There are undecided people in the world. There’s tons of good science to be done. Your enemies could go off and talk to those people, or do those things, instead.

    • Robert,

      No one is perfect. Heartland put up one billboard, and they took it down within 24 hours, and apologized. But with all the carp-flinging and screeching by alarmist chimpanzees ever since, you would think that Heartland was the cause of the Holocaust.

      The admonition of casting the beam out of your own eye comes to mind here…

      [And as anyone can see who cares to look, I personally saw nothing wrong with equating the Unabomber with many on the alarmist side, for the following reasons. So to each his own.]

      As plenty of folks have pointed out, there are reams of quotes by the alarmist crowd, demanding the scalps of people who are guilty of simply having a different scientific point of view! They have even gotten some people FIRED from their jobs — for simply showing both points of view. Other climate alarmists have called for the EXECUTION of people who have different scientific views. But you didn’t mention that. Why not?

      You should re-think your criticism. No one is perfect. But the alarmist crowd is so reprehensible compared with your mild example, that it’s no real comparison. Also, I note that you have not called out anyone on the alarmist side. I wonder why not?

      • Not a matter of ‘imperfection’. Heartland took down the billboard, but Bast explicitly stated that he considered the equation correct and proper. You note yourself that you consider the billboard to have been appropriate. And then there’s this post, which is a guest post, not a mere comment. And which, when a regular (I’m guessing) notes as a bad idea, you take exception. No imperfection or mistake. These are things you stand by, and are proud of. Which is fine. You (and CFACT, Heartland, almost every commenter here, …) see things this way.

        The number of things I didn’t mention is absolutely enormous. I try to stay on topic. It’s a cheap whine of yours to complain about what I didn’t mention. There’s always something I didn’t mention.

        But there was no ‘calling out’. You think it is fine to call scientists mass murderers and terrorists. That’s your right/privilege/whatever. You just can’t turn around, as many commenters here did, and the original post did, and complain about scientists not coming to your ‘conferences’ and ‘debating’ with you. A point noted by Ross McKitrick. Well, you can do so. But you don’t have any ground to stand on.

      • Robert,

        Some well-meaning advice: when you put together a comment, try relax for a while before posting it. Look at it later. Take out the emotion. Your comment above was a little disjointed. That’s because there was a lot of emotion there.

        Next: I wasn’t trying to be critical; I was pointing out that the attacks made against Heartland pale in comparison to what the alarmist crowd does 24/7/365 — and in spades.

        Many times I’ve tried to be nice to that side, but in every case their true colors show. So I don’t give them a second chance whenever I do that, I give back what I get if they don’t take the olive branch I offer. You are engaging in wishful thinking if you believe that turning the other cheek will convert a climate alarmist into a skeptic. No, it will just get your face slapped for your trouble. That’s a point I was making.

        Anyway, we’re on the same side [and I am at least 97%+ in agreement with Dr. McKittrick, too]. It is the job of the opposition to point out our faults, and they do a very good job of it. So no need to do it for them. It is our job to show where they are wrong, and since there are so many places to do that, why waste your time criticizing your own side? They will do that for you. But it is not our job to correct our own people — while never, ever mentioning the much more egregious faults committed by the alarmist crowd.

        Anyway, try to relax; your comment was very emotional. I make the same mistake sometimes. Best to calm down, and reconsider before posting. It will be easier to follow, and to understand what you’re saying.

      • @stealey: You seem to be missing your mirror. Try taking your own advice before passing it on.

        Since you think it reasonable, even desirable, to equate those you disagree with to mass murderers and terrorists, we are definitely not on the same side.

      • Robert,

        I have never been disrespectful to you, or treated you badly. I don’t address you as “@grumbine”. If you think constructive criticism is treating you badly, it’s not intended that way. I don’t say you’re ‘whining’ or other insulting labels, like you aim at me. Read over the post I was responding to. You’re clearly upset about something or other. I’m not sure exactly what it is. And it’s apparently not just me. You wrote: You (and CFACT, Heartland, almost every commenter here, …) see things this way.

        Everyone sees things their own way. My problem is when folks who are presumably skeptics start attacking other skeptics. That is something I always steer clear of doing. It’s bad business.

        You have not been on the receiving end of much worse criticism than you’re dishing out; I have been. As I pointed out, there are lots of alarmists who would like nothing better than to murder skeptics. This isn’t my imagination; they have explicitly said so. That is what Ted Kazynski wanted, too, so I think the comparison is apt.

        What I don’t understand is the chip on your shoulder. Now you’re leaning on Dr. Soon, too [your comment @4:07 below].

        What’s going on, Robert?

      • @stealey There’s only one stealey commenting, and only one grumbine. By all means refer to me as @grumbine. Or use my twitter handle, @rgrumbine.

        At no point have I said that y’all can’t equate scientists to mass murderers, terrorists, jihadis, or whatever other evil you choose. I’ve merely reminded you that you cannot do so _and_ say that you’re interested in ‘debate’ with those you label so. Ross McKitrick had no difficulty seeing the problem inherent in that, nor did Steve McIntyre. Nor Anthony Watts, 3 years ago.

        Indeed, if I wanted to make you look bad, or at least worse, I’d encourage y’all to do such things even more often and more extremely.

        Since you repeat your support for the Unabomber billboard and calling scientists jihadis, no, you really can’t honestly claim to have been respectful of me*, and to not have treated me badly. As you have not been called a mass murderer or jihadi in this thread, and you have done so to me (even without knowing me!), no, you really can’t claim to have been treated worse here than I have been.
        * (and every other scientist who disagrees with you about one thing or another)

        McIntyre and McKitrick, at least, understood that. Having gone that route, you have no ground to complain about anything I say, much less that I call it a ‘whine’ for people who spend time and money labelling scientists this way turn around and complain that those same scientists don’t attend their meetings.

        It’s a bizarre sort of skepticism that prohibits criticism of arguments, or pays concern to where they come from. As in, not skepticism at all. Real skepticism starts with doubting yourself and what you think you know.

        But it’s been a weird week, where I wind up on the same side of an issue as Pielke Jr. _and_ Curry _and_ Legates, and am pointing to McIntyre and Mckitrick as examples of having some standards.

      • Dbstealey, I am unaware of any prominent “alarmists” as you call us calling for the execution of climate change skeptics. Can you provide examples? I would be happy to condemn them. I certainly would not want to be associated with a movement where this type of rhetoric was considered acceptable.

      • “So no need to do it for them. It is our job to show where they are wrong, and since there are so many places to do that, why waste your time criticizing your own side? They will do that for you. But it is not our job to correct our own people — while never, ever mentioning the much more egregious faults committed by the alarmist crowd.”

        This is cult member logic.

        “As I pointed out, there are lots of alarmists who would like nothing better than to murder skeptics. This isn’t my imagination; they have explicitly said so. That is what Ted Kazynski wanted, too, so I think the comparison is apt.”

        Who is this mysterious “they” and “lots?” I am beginning to think these supposed alarmists who want to murder you only exist in your mind.

  71. May already have been noted, but heretics from CACA orthodoxy would have to be drowned, not burned. Wood fires release lots of carbon.

  72. Let science reveal truth. If we enter cooling epoch, this will put and end to the mass-fear-intentioned CAGW campaign. If we warm a bit, we can measure natural greening and increased food production, and tell the fear-mongereres to put a sock in it.

    There has been a smear campaign to destroy Willie Soon. In the name of transparency, can we investigate Michael Mann? A nobody at Berkeley (as in didn’t graduate first in his class, or 5th or tenth, didn’t make highest honors or high honors, took 9 years to earn his PhD (brilliant students do it in 3-4) average students 5-6, 9 represents severe laziness or driftingness (maybe too much pot-smoking).

    Anyway, the IPCC wanted something to overcome scientists’ waffling about the effects of manmade climate warming, and suddenly a slow-to-progress graduate student gave them what they wanted, proof that after a millennium of little-variation, slight climate cooling, the 20th century experienced exponential-curve warming. The IPCC showcased the hockey stick, Al Gore made millions with his hockey-stick-showcasing “An Inconvenient Truth”, and the IPCC and Gore shared a Nobel Peace Prize. (Note, this was not a Nobel science prize, different judges and criteria).

    Apparently Raj Pauchuri, after having a subordinate take the Nobel Peace certificate to Kinko’s to run off 200 copies and penning in each the name of someone who worked on the IPCC AR2-3, convinced many photocopy recipients that they had won the Nobel Prize. Mann, among others, believed they were Nobel reipients, despite not having been invited to Norway or receiving medals, and despite the limit of 3-max Nobel sharers, as per Alfred Nobel’s will.

    So, for somebody as ill-informed and gullible as Mann, we must ask, Did somebody put the laggardly graduate student up to doing a report that showed phenomenal global warming in the 20th century, following a little-variation historical record, that of note, omitted the MWP? Skeptics need to examine Mann’s contacts. Somebody may have put Mann up to this. His yale thesis committee members ned to be grilled: “Why did you accept the astounding thesis of this student who obviously hadn’t previously made normal adequate progress? How many theses did you approve of 9-year PhD students?” If Mann was granted extraordinary allowance because he had a learning disability, this needs to be revealed.

    Then after M&M demolished the Hockey Stick, showing bogus statistical methods, others “confirmed” the “hockey stick” ostensibly using sound techniques. Hw many times have we seen the findings of unscientific work being conformed by good scientific work? Does ZERO ring a bell?

    • Mann’s funding sources have been known for years. It is Soon’s which only went public recently. And that, in spite of Soon and his sources.

      • Really so what are Mann funding sources for the many legal cases he has started ?
        After you done that you can tell us by what magic unacceptable sources of funding , ‘evil fossil fuel ‘ become perfectly acceptable sources of funding ?
        They you can move on to the money Soros and co have thrown behind ‘the cause ‘ to get legislation which will favour their attempts to make themselves even richer still,.
        Then you can tell us what was actual ‘wrong ‘ with Soon’s et al work , you do know that is was not the only author don’t you ?
        Smear jobs may win you favours on alarmist web sites where your strength of belief in ‘the cause ‘ is all that matters , but most other places will ask you to back up your claims .

  73. The catastrophic man-made global warming issue (for God sake, everyone, stop referring to the meaningless term ‘climate change’) is reminiscent of the Roman Catholic Church’s denial of the heliocentric theory. The Church was wrong then, just as it is wrong now on its stance in support of the IPCC’s catastrophic man-made global warming mantra.

  74. Paul Driessen March 1, 2015 at 4:19 pm
    As Richard Rahn and Ron Arnold point out, another major source of their cash is Vladimir Putin’s Russia. A well-documented new Environmental Policy Alliance report shows how tens of millions of dollars from Russian interests apparently flowed from Bermuda-based Wakefield Quinn through environmental bundlers, including the Sea Change Foundation, into major eco-pressure groups like the Sierra Club, NRDC and League of Conservation Voters. Former White House counsel John Podesta’s Center for American Progress also took millions from Sea Change.

    https://www.biggreenradicals.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Klein_Report.pdf

    http://dailysignal.com/2015/02/04/obama-rejects-arctic-oil-gas-drilling-putin-preparing-come-take/

    https://www.biggreenradicals.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Klein_Report.pdf

    The situation is serious. Europe is now largely dependent on Russia for gas. Russia obviously has an interest in deterring fracking.

    And this month, in a row with Angela Merkel, Putin has stated that gas to Europe could be disrupted.

    ref: President Putin: Russian gas supplies to Europe could be disrupted within days
    Posted: February 26, 2015 by tb in Energy
    Putin Ready To Turn Off Europe’s Gas Supply
    The Times, 26 February 2015 David Charter

    • Russian joke:

      At a meeting of the Group of Eight, Angela Merkel to annoy Putin said: “I had dream that I was appointed president of the Earth!” Obama echoed: “And I dreamed that I was appointed president of the Universe!” Putin replied: “And I had a dream that I did not approve either of you.”

  75. If you agree that the warming argument is unsubstantiated and yet credit the people in power with some intelligence, you have to ask the question – why are they ploughing money into this area- are they really that thick or is there some other reason?

    Unlike Jihad, which is based on radical belief, I think we need to look for something more coldly logical. So try this on for size- Given that the majority of global carbon resources lie outside of USA and Western countries, gas http://goo.gl/FCXFk0, oil http://goo.gl/X3JgOz, coal http://goo.gl/YpXuXX, and energy is crucial to maintaining power (yes in both senses) then wouldn’t it make sense to undermine the balance of power based on resource ownership, by, for example, making those resources ‘unuseable’?

    And given that you still need energy, how would you get the people to allow you to invest enourmous amounts of money into creating green energy? Impending doom seems quite a credible approach. Religions have used it for thousands of years to stimulate the prefferred responses from their adherents- so why not use that?

    Since the logical case isn’t made, is it time to look for the reasons why this climate change argument is so persistent and so well supported and funded when the argument isn’t made? If we don’t look for the reasons then we are potentially playing the game they want us to, so we don’t look beyond the anger of the illogical argument.

    This isn’t conspiracy theory, this is psychological theory- viz Steven Lukes – Power- A radical View http://goo.gl/F10FgX

  76. The handy thing about Climate Jihad is the resulting map of bias and schemes exposed along the way. They are exposing their positions and connections in a massive encyclopedia of anti-science tactics and un-professionalism with each new over reach step. This is the way of all radicalized groups. They start to out do each other and turn the tide against all of them collectively. More evidence of absurdity is needed here, not less. The same could be said of authoritarian types stretching to maintain control with each new shocking display of tactics.

Comments are closed.