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.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
376 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Janice Moore
February 28, 2015 11:02 am

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!
#(:))

pokerguy
Reply to  Janice Moore
February 28, 2015 11:46 am

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.

Proud Skeptic
Reply to  Janice Moore
February 28, 2015 12:07 pm

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.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
February 28, 2015 1:31 pm

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

Bruce Hall
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
February 28, 2015 4:08 pm

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.

asybot
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
February 28, 2015 5:36 pm

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.

Mac the Knife
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
February 28, 2015 11:25 pm

Just so, Proud Skeptic!
Refuting propaganda and rejecting false basis regulation are the near term priorities for all honest citizens.

Reply to  Proud Skeptic
February 28, 2015 11:29 pm

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.

knr
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
March 1, 2015 1:18 am

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 .

Unmentionable
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
March 1, 2015 2:03 am

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.

Proud Skeptic
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
March 1, 2015 3:54 am

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…

Jimbo
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
March 1, 2015 3:57 am

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

Jimbo
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
March 1, 2015 4:03 am

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……

PA Mountain Man
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
March 1, 2015 8:14 am

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.

sensferguson
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
March 1, 2015 1:42 pm

and don’t forget agenda 21 is still there

Unmentionable
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
March 1, 2015 2:32 pm

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.

hannuko
Reply to  Janice Moore
February 28, 2015 12:10 pm

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. 🙂

Jimbo
Reply to  hannuko
February 28, 2015 12:34 pm

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.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  hannuko
February 28, 2015 3:13 pm

Jimbo,
I prefer the terms Crimatology and crimatologist

Bill H
Reply to  hannuko
February 28, 2015 4:48 pm

NET NEUTRALITY… BY GOVERNMENT…. The threat is already here!

Reply to  Janice Moore
February 28, 2015 3:42 pm

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……

Reply to  sunsettommy
March 1, 2015 7:45 am

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.

Janice Moore
Reply to  sunsettommy
March 1, 2015 10:03 am

Okay, Theo! #(:))
Thanks for that.

Editor
Reply to  Janice Moore
February 28, 2015 4:11 pm

Janice Moore says: “Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaa!”
Thanks, that made me laugh!!!!!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 28, 2015 5:05 pm

Good! #(:))
I LOVE to write that! Heh….. I think I’ll do it again!
Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaa!

asybot
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 28, 2015 5:38 pm

@ Bob and Janice I hope you get the last one. ( big cheers to you both)

Janice Moore
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 28, 2015 5:48 pm

You, too, A Sybot! #(:))

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 28, 2015 6:37 pm

Janice:
If the mods will allow an off topic suggestion/destination 🙂
Janice, here is a site where the story brings new meaning to your evil genius laugh.
Enjoy!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 28, 2015 7:28 pm

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

Steve Case
Reply to  Janice Moore
February 28, 2015 5:09 pm

comment image?w=500&h=349

Proud Skeptic
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 1, 2015 3:17 pm

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?

Reply to  Proud Skeptic
March 1, 2015 8:01 pm

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.

Kozlowski
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
March 1, 2015 9:32 pm

“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!

E.M.Smith
Editor
February 28, 2015 11:04 am

“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…

Sbleve
Reply to  E.M.Smith
February 28, 2015 1:19 pm

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.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  E.M.Smith
February 28, 2015 3:14 pm

Lysenko bro!

Proud Skeptic
Reply to  E.M.Smith
March 2, 2015 6:41 am

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”.

ScienceABC123
February 28, 2015 11:07 am

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?

G. Karst
Reply to  ScienceABC123
February 28, 2015 12:46 pm

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

ScienceABC123
Reply to  G. Karst
February 28, 2015 2:16 pm

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.

GeeJam
February 28, 2015 11:07 am

It’s ok, they’re making a sci-fi fantasy film about it all. Here’s the still from ‘Manned Mission to Armageddon’.
http://i.imgur.com/otX3zcb.jpg
(originally posted in WUWT ‘Cultural Tipping Point Reached – Hollywood has started mocking global warming’

Editor
Reply to  GeeJam
February 28, 2015 4:12 pm

Thanks, GeeJam! That’s the second time I’ve laughed on this thread.

asybot
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 28, 2015 5:46 pm

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.

Proud Skeptic
Reply to  GeeJam
March 2, 2015 6:43 am

LOL!!!

David L. Hagen
February 28, 2015 11:09 am

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

Hugh
Reply to  David L. Hagen
February 28, 2015 11:40 am

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.]

PiperPaul
Reply to  Hugh
February 28, 2015 7:06 pm
mebbe
Reply to  David L. Hagen
February 28, 2015 12:10 pm

You mean some gods aren’t false?

David L. Hagen
Reply to  mebbe
February 28, 2015 12:55 pm

meebe
Not “some”, just the one the One to whom Founders of the USA appealed.

GJK
Reply to  mebbe
March 1, 2015 2:37 am

“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

Zeke
Reply to  GJK
March 1, 2015 8:51 am

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.

Reply to  mebbe
March 1, 2015 4:41 am

GJK,
All would be correct.
God is within not without.
Religion was invented to cash in on natural spirituality.

nigelf
Reply to  David L. Hagen
February 28, 2015 2:56 pm

Maybe the Pope should read those, he seems to be entering an earth-worshipping phase.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  nigelf
February 28, 2015 6:01 pm

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.

TYoke
Reply to  nigelf
February 28, 2015 8:14 pm

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.

Reply to  nigelf
March 1, 2015 8:49 pm

Given the fact that Marx and Engels claimed Capitalism would destroy the planet in order to promote Communism, it is interesting the quarter the Pope may be coming from in his upcoming endorsement of AGW given his action here
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/pope-rehabilitates-marxist-priest/
Hard to not see a pattern developing.

George Lawson
February 28, 2015 11:12 am

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?.

Michael C. Roberts
Reply to  George Lawson
March 2, 2015 10:38 am

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…

Newsel
February 28, 2015 11:15 am

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. 🙂

Charles Stegiel
February 28, 2015 11:15 am

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.

masInt branch 4 C3I in is
February 28, 2015 11:17 am

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

Betapug
February 28, 2015 11:17 am

You have the wrong illustration for this post.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/WP001/wp-content/uploads/inspire.preview.jpg

Betapug
February 28, 2015 11:20 am

We are only doing beheadings “academically”, of course.

Reply to  Betapug
February 28, 2015 1:55 pm

Yes, just send them to the jobless line. /sarc

Rich Carman
February 28, 2015 11:24 am

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.

R. Shearer
Reply to  Rich Carman
February 28, 2015 12:23 pm

There is a high percentage of sexual deviants among leaders of the CAGW movement?

MCourtney
Reply to  R. Shearer
February 28, 2015 12:29 pm

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

John in Oz
Reply to  Rich Carman
February 28, 2015 5:00 pm

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.

asybot
Reply to  John in Oz
February 28, 2015 5:50 pm

I felt the same way but I came to the conclusion that is what climate is. Chaos

rogerknights
Reply to  John in Oz
February 28, 2015 10:57 pm

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

Ralph Kramden
February 28, 2015 11:25 am

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.

Joel O'Bryan
February 28, 2015 11:27 am

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.

nigelf
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 28, 2015 3:00 pm

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?

joelobryan
February 28, 2015 11:33 am

“We need to end the double standard – and investigate the alarmist researchers and institutions.”
I disagree. Two wrongs ≠ right.

D.S.
Reply to  joelobryan
February 28, 2015 12:08 pm

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.

MCourtney
Reply to  joelobryan
February 28, 2015 12:16 pm

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
Reply to  MCourtney
February 28, 2015 4:04 pm

But it never was about science, so there is no pushing science back into the debate.

Unmentionable
Reply to  MCourtney
March 1, 2015 2:17 am

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.

Louis
Reply to  joelobryan
February 28, 2015 12:18 pm

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.

Unmentionable
Reply to  Louis
March 1, 2015 2:30 am

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.

Streetcred
Reply to  joelobryan
February 28, 2015 3:22 pm

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

rogerknights
Reply to  joelobryan
February 28, 2015 11:04 pm

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.

Double on Tundra
February 28, 2015 11:35 am

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.

MCourtney
Reply to  Double on Tundra
February 28, 2015 11:46 am

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.

MCourtney
February 28, 2015 11:44 am

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.

Gunga Din
February 28, 2015 11:48 am

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.

Barry
February 28, 2015 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.

mpainter
Reply to  Barry
February 28, 2015 11:56 am

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

joelobryan
Reply to  mpainter
February 28, 2015 12:27 pm

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.

MCourtney
Reply to  mpainter
February 28, 2015 12:43 pm

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?

Reply to  Barry
February 28, 2015 12:20 pm

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.

MCourtney
Reply to  Barry
February 28, 2015 12:21 pm

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?

Reply to  Barry
February 28, 2015 12:22 pm

The wind must be pushing hard. Look at how your words twist and spin in the breeze.

Bernie Hutchins
Reply to  Barry
February 28, 2015 12:22 pm

“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.

D.S.
Reply to  Barry
February 28, 2015 12:24 pm

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

Louis
Reply to  Barry
February 28, 2015 12:27 pm

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?

Jimbo
Reply to  Louis
March 1, 2015 5:22 am

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.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Barry
February 28, 2015 1:40 pm

It is persecution by any other name. The process is the punishment. Look at what Pielke Jr. said
http://business.financialpost.com/2015/02/25/roger-pielke-jr-i-am-under-investigation/
The National Post is a Canadian newspaper that doesn’t buy the Warmista story.

David Ball
Reply to  Barry
February 28, 2015 3:09 pm

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?

Streetcred
Reply to  Barry
February 28, 2015 3:25 pm

Well, the jihadis can start by providing the data and code behind their ‘papers’ …

Paul Coppin
Reply to  Barry
February 28, 2015 3:28 pm

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.

Paul Coppin
Reply to  Paul Coppin
February 28, 2015 3:30 pm

This nesting is driving me crazy. My comment was directed to @Barry.

Reply to  Barry
February 28, 2015 3:46 pm

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?

Steve Case
Reply to  Barry
February 28, 2015 3:51 pm

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.

Jimbo
Reply to  Barry
March 1, 2015 5:35 am

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.
http://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.

Jimbo
Reply to  Jimbo
March 1, 2015 5:39 am

Here is some more of their tactics Barry. Do you care to repeat your assertion that “No one is trying to silence anyone”? Even the Guardian and Suzanne Goldenberg disagree with your assertion.

Guardian – 16 February 2012
Suzanne Goldenberg
Heartland Institute ‘fights back’ over publication of confidential documents
…..There is hardly any sign of support from big oil companies – which stand to lose heavily through action on climate change……
ExxonMobil, which donated $675,000 to Heartland up to 2006 according to Greenpeace, cut its ties to the thinktank after pressure from environmental organisations.

Jimbo
Reply to  Jimbo
March 1, 2015 5:53 am

Here are some more inconvenient occurrences for our Barry.

Climate skeptic instructor fired from Oregon State University
[Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics) Corbett, Oregon USA]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/11/climate-skeptic-instructor-fired-from-oregon-state-university/
Professor Murry Salby who is critical of AGW theory, is being disenfranchised, exiled, from academia in Australia
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/professor-critical-of-agw-theory-being-disenfranchised-exiled-from-academia-in-australia/

GREENPEACE
If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:
We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.
And we be many, but you be few.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/03/climate-craziness-of-the-week-greenpeace-posts-threats/

Ohhhhh Barry. What you say now?

mpainter
February 28, 2015 11:53 am

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.

February 28, 2015 11:56 am

Barry says:
No one is trying to silence anyone.
Barry, really: what planet are you posting from??

mikewaite
Reply to  dbstealey
February 28, 2015 12:13 pm

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.

Steve Case
Reply to  mikewaite
February 28, 2015 3:55 pm

Is that anything like, “Is it Al Gore of the Unibomber?”

Reply to  mikewaite
February 28, 2015 4:00 pm

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?

Reply to  dbstealey
February 28, 2015 1:45 pm

“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.

Streetcred
Reply to  JohnWho
February 28, 2015 7:49 pm

Nah, if Barry (Obama-Soroeto) had a son, he’d be just like “Barry”. 😉

Jonathan Abbott
February 28, 2015 12:00 pm

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

Reply to  Jonathan Abbott
February 28, 2015 12:02 pm

And why is it ‘a big mistake’? Because you don’t agree?
You should apologize, for advocating censorship.

Reply to  dbstealey
February 28, 2015 12:24 pm

Here, here!!!

Janice Moore
Reply to  dbstealey
February 28, 2015 12:33 pm

@ Jonathan Abbott, V. P. of the Censor Division of Nanny State, Inc.
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.607988948058639858&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0

Janice Moore
Reply to  dbstealey
February 28, 2015 12:34 pm

You probably won’t “get” this one either, but, FWIW:
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.608009005558926750&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0

MCourtney
Reply to  Jonathan Abbott
February 28, 2015 12:26 pm

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.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Jonathan Abbott
February 28, 2015 1:24 pm

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!

Reply to  Jonathan Abbott
February 28, 2015 1:34 pm

It is never a mistake to portray the truth.
Timing might be a problem sometimes, though.

asybot
Reply to  Jonathan Abbott
February 28, 2015 6:26 pm

@ 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.

Streetcred
Reply to  Jonathan Abbott
February 28, 2015 7:51 pm

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.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Streetcred
February 28, 2015 8:25 pm

Yes.

Reply to  Jonathan Abbott
March 1, 2015 4:50 am

“Big mistake”?
It’s the heart of the issue

Jimbo
Reply to  Jonathan Abbott
March 1, 2015 6:01 am

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.”

Admad
February 28, 2015 12:01 pm

The warming pressure is on now…

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Admad
February 28, 2015 1:48 pm

Very good. Especially as I think English is not your first language. Good work!

Reply to  Admad
February 28, 2015 4:08 pm

Sweet. The Hawking synth is perfect.

albertalad
February 28, 2015 12:17 pm

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.

George Daddis
Reply to  albertalad
February 28, 2015 6:13 pm

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.

warrenlb
February 28, 2015 12:20 pm

[Snip – stop labeling readers here as “deniers”. ~mod.]

urederra
February 28, 2015 12:37 pm

Time to remember the 10:10 video.

u.k.(us)
February 28, 2015 12:43 pm

All that’s missing from the head post cartoon is the cage.
That video will be their downfall.

Harry Passfield
February 28, 2015 12:43 pm

Climate Alarmism Goes Extreme = CAGE. Hmmm.

MCourtney
Reply to  Harry Passfield
February 28, 2015 12:49 pm

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?

Harry Passfield
Reply to  MCourtney
February 28, 2015 2:43 pm

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.

John
February 28, 2015 12:48 pm

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

Gunga Din
February 28, 2015 1:17 pm

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.

February 28, 2015 1:18 pm

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.

Just Another Steve
February 28, 2015 1:30 pm

Silly Siberian Scientists! They just need to watch Princess Bride: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LziJbClPoKM

February 28, 2015 1:50 pm

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.

4 eyes
February 28, 2015 1:50 pm

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.

Alexei Martkevitch
February 28, 2015 1:55 pm

“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.

Reply to  Alexei Martkevitch
March 1, 2015 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

Michael Wassil
February 28, 2015 2:00 pm

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.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  Michael Wassil
February 28, 2015 2:06 pm

Agreed.
But it’s gonna be a marathon not a sprint.
So save your energy.

Michael Wassil
Reply to  u.k.(us)
February 28, 2015 3:04 pm

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!

mpainter
Reply to  u.k.(us)
February 28, 2015 3:10 pm

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.

George Daddis
Reply to  u.k.(us)
February 28, 2015 6:19 pm

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)

Gunga Din
Reply to  Michael Wassil
February 28, 2015 2:28 pm

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.

Michael Wassil
Reply to  Gunga Din
February 28, 2015 2:50 pm

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.

JimM
Reply to  Gunga Din
March 1, 2015 7:38 am

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.

Michael Wassil
Reply to  Gunga Din
March 1, 2015 1:13 pm

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’.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Michael Wassil
February 28, 2015 7:10 pm

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

Streetcred
Reply to  Janice Moore
February 28, 2015 7:57 pm

Love your writing, Janice !

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
February 28, 2015 8:28 pm

Street Cred! THANK YOU! You are always such a wit — so, your compliment carries extra weight. Thanks! Thanks! Thanks! (nice quip about Abbott up there, heh)

Robertvd
February 28, 2015 2:14 pm

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.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  Robertvd
February 28, 2015 2:34 pm

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.

Robertvd
Reply to  Robertvd
February 28, 2015 3:07 pm

We’re From The Government and We’re Here to “Help” You.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  Robertvd
February 28, 2015 4:05 pm

Ok, what I might need is a push on the rear of the horse named “Glory”, it is gonna break from the gate at Santa Anita racetrack (California) in about 2 minutes.
Um, it is the number 9 horse, thanks.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  Robertvd
February 28, 2015 4:12 pm

Thanks for nothing, I didn’t bet it to show.

Reply to  Robertvd
March 1, 2015 4:52 am

“The power to do good is also the power to do harm”

George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
February 28, 2015 2:15 pm

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.

logos_wrench
February 28, 2015 2:23 pm

Vaclav Havel said it best years ago. Green is the new Red.

February 28, 2015 2:27 pm

Thank you, Paul Driessen. Very good, provocative article. Let them have it.
We won’t be silent.

February 28, 2015 2:33 pm

Look at Dr. Roy Spencer’s latest:
http://www.oarval.org/90-CMIP5-models-vs-observations-with-pause-explanation.gif
From “On Natural Climate Variability and Climate Models” (Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D., Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville – UAH. February 27th, 2015), at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/02/on-natural-climate-variability-and-climate-models/

Streetcred
Reply to  Andres Valencia
February 28, 2015 3:29 pm

Is that early “agreement” not a function of “hindcasting” … those 20/20 “forecasts”?

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Andres Valencia
March 1, 2015 11:15 am

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?

richardscourtney
Reply to  Brandon Gates
March 1, 2015 11:30 am

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

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Brandon Gates
March 1, 2015 5:30 pm

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:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-i_B5dDr7jz8/VPO2oxQbQII/AAAAAAAAAW8/ObX8s9Bw4s4/s1600/90-CMIP5-models-vs-observations-with-pause-explanation%2Brebaselined.png
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.

garymount
Reply to  Brandon Gates
March 1, 2015 6:00 pm

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.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  garymount
March 1, 2015 6:34 pm

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?

garymount
Reply to  Brandon Gates
March 2, 2015 4:28 am

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

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  garymount
March 2, 2015 5:32 am

Thank you.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Brandon Gates
March 2, 2015 11:32 am

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.

Bill Illis
February 28, 2015 2:40 pm

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.

Reply to  Bill Illis
February 28, 2015 2:48 pm

Not enough, they want total submission. Ask Dr. Pielke Jr. he was forced to shut up even while claiming CO2 is the main cause of man-made climate change.

Reply to  Bill Illis
February 28, 2015 4:20 pm

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.

johnofenfield
February 28, 2015 2:44 pm

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.

Janice Moore
Reply to  johnofenfield
February 28, 2015 8:33 pm

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”).

richardscourtney
Reply to  Janice Moore
February 28, 2015 11:14 pm

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

MCourtney
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 1, 2015 12:25 pm

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

Brenda
Reply to  johnofenfield
March 5, 2015 2:10 am

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

Zeke
February 28, 2015 2:52 pm

“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
Reply to  Zeke
February 28, 2015 7:10 pm

Is there a link to the cinnamon story, ( I am thinking of starting a black market)

Zeke
Reply to  asybot
February 28, 2015 8:04 pm

@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.
http://youtu.be/Ucb2iyPI1nE?t=1m28s

jmorpuss
February 28, 2015 3:03 pm

America plans to own the weather by 2025 http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO409F.html
The only way to own the weather is to control the atmospheric water budget , water is the new gold. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/water-is-the-new-gold-a-big-commodity-bet-2012-07-24?page=2

asybot
Reply to  jmorpuss
February 28, 2015 7:13 pm

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.

WFC
February 28, 2015 3:20 pm

“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.

pat
February 28, 2015 3:32 pm

“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

Reply to  pat
March 1, 2015 4:16 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

Scott
February 28, 2015 3:38 pm

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….

February 28, 2015 3:40 pm

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.)

NielsZoo
Reply to  Max Photon
February 28, 2015 4:27 pm

Aren’t the bird slicing turbine blades and feather flaming solar concentrators “proof of concept” systems for the CAGW acolytes next step in the Climate Inquisition? I mean, since they aren’t viable power systems I assumed that was their purpose.

NielsZoo
Reply to  NielsZoo
February 28, 2015 4:31 pm

Sorry, that should be acolytes’.

Reply to  NielsZoo
February 28, 2015 4:46 pm

Apostrophe denier!
Get the wind turbine!!

ralfellis
February 28, 2015 4:02 pm

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]

Janice Moore
Reply to  ralfellis
February 28, 2015 5:31 pm

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)

Janice Moore
Reply to  ralfellis
February 28, 2015 5:36 pm

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.

Just Steve
Reply to  Janice Moore
February 28, 2015 7:19 pm

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

ralfellis
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 1, 2015 12:52 am

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

Ian L. McQueen
Reply to  ralfellis
March 1, 2015 12:57 pm

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

Zeke
Reply to  Ian L. McQueen
March 3, 2015 10:52 am

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.

William Astley
February 28, 2015 4:03 pm

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).

Chip Javert
Reply to  William Astley
February 28, 2015 6:25 pm

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.

William Astley
Reply to  Chip Javert
February 28, 2015 11:58 pm

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
http://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

dp
February 28, 2015 4:13 pm

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.

Peter
February 28, 2015 4:14 pm

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.

tomharrisicsc
February 28, 2015 4:34 pm

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/

Janice Moore
Reply to  tomharrisicsc
February 28, 2015 5:43 pm

Well, GO, TOM HARRIS! #(:))
For your heroic effort on behalf of truth in science, YOU deserve to have a link to your fine site:
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121&Itemid=67
Thank you and keep up the fine work!
Janice
Your U.S. Ally

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
February 28, 2015 5:46 pm

International Climate Science Coalition!

Here: http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/

JohnWho
Reply to  tomharrisicsc
February 28, 2015 7:08 pm

I suspect we could have another website that just links to attacks by the Climate Change Extremists.
I’m with Janice – hang in there Tom.

mwh
Reply to  tomharrisicsc
March 1, 2015 1:17 pm

Hey Tom at least you are widely read – in order to discount anything you say they have to read it and think about it first. True believers wont take the slightest fact or figure in to their echo chambers but a few lukers will read and store. It might just be one or two, here and there – ignore the ignorant and the name callers and look on the bright side

mwh
Reply to  mwh
March 1, 2015 1:18 pm

lurkers that is!

February 28, 2015 4:41 pm

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.

Gary in Erko
February 28, 2015 4:41 pm

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.

frederik wisse
February 28, 2015 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 . 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 .

Alan Robertson
Reply to  frederik wisse
February 28, 2015 7:06 pm

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.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
March 1, 2015 6:10 am

…and Reverend Wright.

JohnWho
Reply to  frederik wisse
February 28, 2015 7:14 pm


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?

February 28, 2015 6:03 pm

Comparing global warming loons to ISIS is inaccurate and irresponsible. Skeptics don’t accept it when they do it to us.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Mark
February 28, 2015 6:25 pm

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.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
February 28, 2015 6:38 pm

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.

February 28, 2015 6:11 pm

Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
How Many More Years Of Rising CO2 With No Rising Temperatures Will ItTake To See Alarmist #Climate Theory Disagrees With Reality Fuel Poverty ☠? http://youtu.be/vu6637cjk8A

February 28, 2015 6:34 pm

It all depends on what the definition of ISIS is.

mebbe
Reply to  Max Photon
February 28, 2015 7:02 pm

Nice!
(maybe even better without the ‘is’?)

Khwarizmi
Reply to  Max Photon
February 28, 2015 8:35 pm

What a great point you make, Max.
ISIS Headquarters website:
http://web.archive.org/web/20140219093914/https://public.isishq.com/public/SitePages/Home.aspx
They changed their name to SIS, or IS, or something recently. (see non-archive version)
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BwtyIwkCIAAUhyq.jpg

Merovign
Reply to  Khwarizmi
February 28, 2015 11:57 pm

The inset photo is not an enlarged sample from the larger photo, it’s a completely different arm.
Also, a quick internet search shows an original photo where the arm has no tattoo.
Just like on TV and in the papers, much of what you see on the internet is a lie.

Just Steve
Reply to  Khwarizmi
March 1, 2015 9:20 am

It is now ISIL….Islamic state of Iran and the Levant. To fully understand the levant, google Sykes Picot.

February 28, 2015 7:03 pm

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.

JohnWho
Reply to  Chris
February 28, 2015 7:16 pm

Well, not a majority and only half vast Chris.
/grin

Janice Moore
Reply to  Chris
February 28, 2015 7:46 pm

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.”

Reply to  Janice Moore
February 28, 2015 8:45 pm

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.

Reply to  Chris
February 28, 2015 9:33 pm

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.

tomharrisicsc
Reply to  Chris
February 28, 2015 10:38 pm

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.

knr
Reply to  tomharrisicsc
March 1, 2015 1:26 am

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.

rogerknights
Reply to  tomharrisicsc
March 1, 2015 5:56 am

“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.

Pippen kool
February 28, 2015 7:18 pm

“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.

Reply to  Pippen kool
February 28, 2015 8:20 pm

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.

Reply to  Pippen kool
February 28, 2015 9:38 pm

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.

Jimbo
Reply to  Pippen kool
March 1, 2015 6:35 am

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

February 28, 2015 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,” 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).

Reply to  Chris
February 28, 2015 7:27 pm

@Chris:
You haven’t got a clue, do you?
The money flowing into climate alarmism is about 10 – 1 compared with what skeptics get.
You also don’t have a clue about Dr. Soon, and the reason he is being attacked. It isn’t about the money or the science, it’s about the Narrative.

trafamadore
Reply to  dbstealey
February 28, 2015 7:40 pm

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.

Reply to  dbstealey
February 28, 2015 8:04 pm

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.

Reply to  dbstealey
February 28, 2015 8:49 pm

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?

Reply to  dbstealey
February 28, 2015 8:51 pm

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.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 1, 2015 10:12 am

Chris says:
Your link literally just goes to a blogger…
Stil playing the man and not the ball, I see.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  dbstealey
March 1, 2015 11:05 am

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?

richardscourtney
Reply to  dbstealey
March 1, 2015 11:19 am

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

Reply to  dbstealey
March 1, 2015 12:30 pm

Thank you, Richard.
That makes it 2 – 1. Skeptics win the election.☺ 

Brandon Gates
Reply to  dbstealey
March 1, 2015 5:55 pm

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.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Brandon Gates
March 1, 2015 6:42 pm

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.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 1, 2015 6:24 pm

Richard,
It looks like Gates doesn’t like democracy. ☺

Brandon Gates
Reply to  dbstealey
March 2, 2015 10:21 am

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.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  dbstealey
March 2, 2015 10:46 am

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.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 2, 2015 11:05 am

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.☺ ☺ ☺

Brandon Gates
Reply to  dbstealey
March 2, 2015 1:05 pm

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:
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/qsrwnoqurem806mtwg2zva.png
A curiosity; those who self-describe as understanding global warming “very well” are least likely to ascribe it to human activity:
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/xxxzc3f52e2zeq0qf_tncw.png
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:
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/j-cfjwfnikmvapqkic2h2g.png
Finally, this:
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/dxjlow1acumxvmrsnkj7nq.png
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.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 2, 2015 1:38 pm

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’.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  dbstealey
March 2, 2015 2:14 pm

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:
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/rjk_tnjrm0i0qw7kqm-wtq.gif

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 ….
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/uzekjw8sdeyeifdekst6ka.gif
… 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.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 2, 2015 7:56 pm

“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.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Chris
February 28, 2015 7:39 pm

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.

Streetcred
Reply to  Janice Moore
February 28, 2015 8:09 pm

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

Reply to  Janice Moore
February 28, 2015 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.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Chris
February 28, 2015 10:00 pm

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!

Reply to  Janice Moore
February 28, 2015 9:46 pm

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.

Jimbo
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 1, 2015 7:05 am

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”……

Reply to  Chris
February 28, 2015 9:41 pm

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.

Jimbo
Reply to  Chris
March 1, 2015 6:49 am

Chris, nearly all climate scientists need funding. The issue is scale. David V GOLIATH.comment image

DesertYote
Reply to  Chris
March 1, 2015 1:10 pm

@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.

masInt branch 4 C3I in is
February 28, 2015 7:32 pm

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

Reply to  masInt branch 4 C3I in is
March 2, 2015 11:12 am

Just curious: How do you know that Mann is 5’4″?

David Archibald
February 28, 2015 7:33 pm
Zeke
Reply to  David Archibald
February 28, 2015 8:57 pm

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.

PiperPaul
Reply to  Zeke
March 1, 2015 6:59 am

“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
Reply to  Zeke
March 1, 2015 9:37 am

Why don’t you ask a Shi’ite?