Claim: Climate communication needs to be less optimistic, more ‘climate disruption’

Story submitted by Eric Worrall

Holdrens_new_nameDoug Sisterson, senior manager at the Argonne National Laboratory, thinks climate alarmists need to ditch the positive mental attitude when communicating about climate, that they need to make the message more frightening.
According to Forbes;

“… according to a climate scientist at Argonne National Laboratory who says it’s time to replace the term climate change, itself a replacement for global warming, with a new term: climate disruption.

“Positive mental attitude is a really wonderful way to deal with change,” research meteorologist Doug Sisterson told about 200 people at the University of Chicago’s International House Tuesday night. “We’ve learned that we want to be optimists and have a positive mental attitude, and the way we deal with that is by thinking ‘Not all change is bad.’ Well, talking about climate change, it’s not good. So maybe it’s wrong to portray climate change with a positive mental attitude.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2015/03/12/forget-global-warming-and-climate-change-call-it-climate-disruption/

It is a little difficult to see exactly how climate alarmists could tone down the optimism in their doom laden pronouncements. How do you reduce the optimism implicit, in say James Hansen’s boiling ocean / runaway greenhouse scenario?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/10/why-a-compelling-theory-is-not-enough/

Maybe Sisterson means that the message needs to be be more vivid. Instead of simply saying “the oceans will boil”, perhaps climate scientists could accompany this statement, with an artist’s impression of what the boiling oceans will do to the Easter Bunny.

Advertisements

214 thoughts on “Claim: Climate communication needs to be less optimistic, more ‘climate disruption’

    • Done, thanks to decades of research in a multitude of diverse scientific fields. Thanks for changing your mind.

      • Most idiotic statement I’ve read today. Thanks for contributing.

        Causation has not been proved, maybe you might want to look up the word.

      • Well, that’s a pretty neat trick, especially considering there’s no defined baseline of an “undisrupted” climate.

      • “Done, thanks to decades of research in a multitude of diverse scientific fields. Thanks for changing your mind.”
        Someone orders his cool aid directly from the sks gift shop.

      • Geez, you fart out a thirteen word sentence to a human being that you probably don’t know, or have ever met a day in his life, and gratuitously thank yourself for having changed his mind when you couldn’t possibly really know whether your thirteen word bloviation actually achieved such a thing, or could have. May I recommend that you at least make an attempt to grow up and recognize that other people have minds that are distinct from that little gray blob that you call your own and resides in your head, or wherever else it has migrated to in your body. What arrogance!

      • The only causation that’s been proven is that a small portion of the extremely mild 0.7C warming over the last 150 years is due to CO2.

      • Harry, if your statement was TRUE, then there would be no need to create any type of campaign, scarey or optimistic, to promote it. Just like if the statement “the science is settled” had been true, there would have been no need for “decades of (redundant) research in a multitude of diverse scientific fields. “

      • Dear Mark W.,

        NO amount of causation (of CO2 causing climate change) has been proven. NONE. There is speculation. There are extrapolations only (from highly controlled laboratory conditions that in NO WAY replicate the earth as a “system.”) about CO2 and climate. NO evidence.

        I can tell that you are for truth in science, thus, I want to you to know that I am only writing to make sure that no one reading your comment is misled by it.

        That CO2 MIGHT cause the earth’s climate to change to some infinitesimally tiny degree may be true (if the laboratory correctly predicts reality in the system “earth”). Just writing it, however, gives such speculation FAR more weight than it ought to have. Some (I’m not saying this is you) on WUWT apparently think that it makes them appear more reasonable and “scientific” to admit the possibility that CO2 might cause a tiny bit of warming in the system called “earth.” There is NO EVIDENCE that it can (only conjectured extrapolation) and there IS evidence that it cannot (e.g., CO2 up – warming stopped).

        For the cause of truth in science, those who stroke their egos by asserting the fine point about CO2 properties in laboratory experiments do far more to mislead than to enlighten. REAL scientists deal in: observations, not speculation.

        There are also those who persist in calling the no warming since about 1998 a “hiatus.” This is unhelpful (at best) terminology given the importance of the issue at hand.

        Again, Mark W., this comment is not directed at you; it is directed at those who will take what you said and use it (mistakenly, I realize) to promote AGW.

        Your Ally for Truth,

        Janice

      • Doug Sisterson, senior manager at the Argonne National Laboratory, thinks climate alarmists need to ditch the positive mental attitude when communicating about climate, that they need to make the message more frightening.

        The granfather of global warming and super alarmist Dr. James Hansen said:

        “…it gets warmer and warmer then the oceans begin to evaporate and water vapor is a very strong green house gas, even more powerful than carbon dioxide. So you can get to a situation where, it just, the oceans will begin to boil and the planet becomes, uhh, so hot that the ocean ends up in the atmosphere, and that happened to Venus…”

        He later dialled it down when it was pointed out by one of the founders of the IPCC, Dr. John Theodore Houghton, that “There is no possibility of such runaway greenhouse conditions occurring on the Earth.”

        Others have started the countdown clock to make sure we all understood that we had only years, months and days to save the planet. A recent UN sponsored global poll put ‘climate change’ right near the bottom of most people’s concerns.

        Others have indeed tried to make global warming climate change more frightening.

        AlJazeera America – March 30, 2014
        IPCC: effects of climate change ‘worse than we had predicted’
        …”Things are worse than we had predicted” in 2007, when the group of scientists last issued this type of report, said report co-author Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development at Independent University in Bangladesh.

        “We are going to see more and more impacts, faster and sooner than we had anticipated.”….

        —————

        The Conversation – 8 January 2014
        How clouds can make climate change worse than we thought

        …Perhaps our result can serve as a reminder that not knowing everything does not justify complacency. Uncertainty may mean the problem is worse than you thought.

        [Steve Sherwood – Director, Climate Change Research Centre at UNSW Australia]
        —————

        Think Progress – November 26, 2012
        Nearly 3 years ago, the late William R. Freudenburg discussed in a AAAS presentation how new scientific findings since the 2007 IPCC report are found to be more than twenty times as likely to indicate that global climate disruption is “worse than previously expected,” rather than “not as bad as previously expected.”
        [William R. Freudenburg , University of California, Santa Barbara, CA]
        —————

        Guardian – 26 January 2013

        Nicholas Stern: ‘I got it wrong on climate change – it’s far, far worse’
        Author of 2006 review speaks out on danger to economies as planet absorbs less carbon and is ‘on track’ for 4C rise
        [Nicholas Stern – Economist]
        —————

        Science Blogs – May 20, 2013
        Why Global Warming’s Effects Will Be Worse Than You Were Thinking
        The story of climate change has always been more of worst-case, or at least, worser-case scenarios developing and less about good news showing up out of nowhere and making us unexpectedly happy….

        [Greg Laden]
        —————

        Independent – 21 March 2014
        Letters: Climate change: it’s worse than we thought
        Contrary to your headline “Climate change: the official prophecy of doom” (18 March), it would appear that the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report is a masterclass in understatement.
        [Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director, Grantham]
        —————

        Guardian – 3 February 2007
        Worse than we thought
        · Report warns of 4C rise by 2100
        · Floods and food and water shortages likely
        Average temperatures could increase by as much as 6.4C by the end of the century if emissions continue to rise, with a rise of 4C most likely, according to the final report of an expert panel set up by the UN to study the problem.
        [David Adam – Environment Correspondent for the Guardian between 2005 and 2010]
        —————

        WWF – September 2009
        The Arctic in your back yard

        Arctic warming affects us all – it can cause extreme global weather changes, widespread flooding and big increases in greenhouse gas emission that will in turn make global warming even worse.

        We’ve also just published a new report called Arctic Climate Feedbacks: Global Implications, which lists dire global consequences of a warming Arctic – far worse than previous projections.
        [WWF]
        —————

        Metro – 31 Mar 2014
        War, hunger, disease… and worse to come: The impact of climate change all over the world
        …Friends of the Earth said: ‘Droughts, floods and famines are just some of the devastating effects people are suffering as a result of extreme weather. Unless we take urgent measures, they will get far worse.’….
        [Friends of the Earth]
        —————

        Guardian – 31 March 2014
        Climate change report: ‘The worst is yet to come’ – as it happened
        • Climate change ‘already affecting food supply
        • Great Barrier reef, native Australian species in danger
        • The poor will suffer most from climate change
        • Hellish monotony‘ of climate change report

        [Helen Davidson – reporter and Adam Vaughan – editor]
        —————

        Science Daily – February 15, 2009
        Climate Change Likely To Be More Devastating Than Experts Predicted, Warns Top IPCC Scientist
        …”There is a real risk that human-caused climate change will accelerate the release of carbon dioxide from forest and tundra ecosystems, which have been storing a lot of carbon for thousands of years,” said Field, a professor of biology and of environmental Earth system science at Stanford, and a senior fellow at Stanford’s Woods Institute for the Environment. “We don’t want to cross a critical threshold where this massive release of carbon starts to run on autopilot.”
        [IPCC scientist Chris Field of Stanford University and the Carnegie Institution for Science]
        —————

        Dallas Observer Blogs – Oct. 14 2013
        Climate Scientists Predict a Texas Drought “Worse Than We Imagined” And a Changing Coast
        ….state climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon told TCN. “The latest IPCC report is mostly just an incremental update of something we already knew. The [continuing] drought of 2011-20xx has taught us something we didn’t know: Rather than being a thing of the past, Texas drought can be worse than we imagined.”
        [John Nielsen-Gammon – climatologist]
        —————

        Columbus Dispatch – April 1, 2014
        Global warming heads ‘out of control’
        …Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which issued the 32-volume, 2,610-page report here early yesterday, said: “It is a call for action.” Without reductions in emissions, he said, the effects of warming “could get out of control.”…
        [Dr. Rajendra Pachauri – Head of the IPCC]

      • Just what is a “disrupted” climate, Flashman?
        Is it when for an undefined period we don’t have a climate at all?
        Or is it manifested by mangoes growing in Siberia and cross country skiing holidays in Saudi Arabia?
        Go on define it for us.
        Give the world something to laugh about.

      • @Sir Harry Flashman

        I appreciate your trolling but, unfortunately you’ve got nothing but empty claims.

        Please prove me wrong by listing and then explaining in a coherent, scientific manner every single failed “climate change” prediction. You will then have earned, and only then, the credibility with which to make claims based on nothing but your word.

      • Even the correlation is now destroyed.

        pure coincidence for a very short period of time using heavily adjusted data.

        so not even a coincidence, but a fabrication.

      • The only causation that’s been proven is that a small portion of the extremely mild 0.7C warming over the last 150 years is due to CO2.
        ==============
        no, that has not been proven.

      • SHF ”thanks to decades of research in a multitude of diverse scientific fields.”
        and Billions of Dollars pumped into this research, and there’s still no empirical evidence to support the CAGW nonsense.

        It’s unfortunate your mind is so closed and unable to change, despite the obvious failure you so desperately cling on to.

        Eamon

      • Come on then you science moron, how about three bullet points? Everyone, i.e. the entire readership is sniggering at you because it’s zero, as proven by your no-show.

        When he shows up on another thread, would someone please remind him that he has some unfinished business with me over here?

        …. and if there are any other climates science w@nkers reading this, feel free to have a go. I’ll enjoy ruining your day.

      • I don’t know why some of you guys get upset by the trolling. It has no substance whatsoever, no merit or worth of any kind, and it is instantly shot down from a dozen directions. The warm-monger Illuminati are making fools of themselves with these trolling tactics.

        If they really had the arguments, they would use them… and they would use them on us, not because we are “deniers” (what does that even mean?) but because we actually give a damn about the subject, unlike most of humanity.

      • Brute, if that’s directed at me, don’t worry, I’m not upset. I just went into “goad mode” as a tactic. It’s not about him, and it’s not about me. It’s about the thousands of readers who can see that, despite the plethora of warmist propaganda sites from which to cut and paste 10 bullet points, if such existed, he can’t.

        He’s a blowhard with nothing to back it up.

    • The alarmist above who wants us to make ‘climate change’ more alarming is Doug Sisterson. Here is a little bit about where he works. Is he trying to get more money? Prevent funding cuts?

      Doug Sisterson is a senior manager at Argonne for the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility. The ARM program is the largest federally sponsored climate change research program in DOE and the ARM facility provides the world’s most comprehensive 24/7 observational capabilities for obtaining atmospheric data specifically for climate change research……
      http://www.anl.gov/contributors/doug-sisterson

    • Janice Moore March 12, 2015 at 10:54 am

      OUTSTANDING comment Janice!!
      We all kind of want to “admit” that CO2 at least does something. But what do we gain from doing that? Nada. Let the fear mongering warmists fight for every inch of ground. And on CO2, Janice, you are right, there is ZERO evidence that CO2 does anything, see the classic 3 minute video on that topic showing Al Gore’s lies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&info=GGWarmingSwindle_CO2Lag

      • ERIC SIMPSON! #(:))

        Glad to see you are still around. Your both- (or all 4, heh)-barrels enthusiasm is missed around here. THANK YOU, so much, for your affirmation. That really made my depressing day bright! Wow. Really glad I just happened (God, I think!) to scan this thread to copy the link to my apology to Eustace C — I just spotted him on another thread! — gotta go… hoping THIS time, he will see it).

        Keep on posting!

        Janice

      • To Sir Harry Flashman:

        You can look at the real world on the graph below about the evidence for global warming and if it has anything to do with CO2 increasing atmospheric concentrations since 1959, a little after major increase in fossil fuels burning in the industrialized world. Extremely reliable monthly CO2 concentrations results from Mauna Loa (showing expected seasonal photosynthesis as you can verify from the data sets available from the internet site of Mauna Loa Observatory) plotted against monthly temperature anomalies until January 2015. Yes, there is correlation between the increase in both for a while. You can decide, spurious or not.
        Whether or not temperature anomalies will continue to very slowly increase stay about the same or decrease, I have no idea, but obviously things have changed between 1959 and January 2015.
        As far as CO2, it looks like it will continue to increase, but I am making no prediction. Mother Nature will decide. You can get the CO2 data plotted vs. year directly, showing the almost constant increase with year from the Mauna Loa Observatory, no slowdown in the increase like for temperature.

    • My thoughts exactly. After years of breathless doomsday-is-just-around-the-corner reports from the media, from UN officials (like “50 million climate refugees by 2010 [I think it was]”), and from scientists themselves, saying that “We’ve learned that we want to be optimists and have a positive mental attitude, and the way we deal with that is by thinking ‘Not all change is bad.’ ” is almost surreal. This really does qualify as some kind of dissociation phenomenon.

      • True. IPPC makes a lot of claims but they NEVER produced a graph showing any kind of correlation between CO2 increase and temperature increase for any period of time after industrial world increase in fossil fuels burning.

  1. Faked “Boiling oceans” imagery as opposed to the actual Arctic landscape – huge blocks of ice – imagery on Cape Cod.

  2. senior manager at the Argonne National Laboratory

    from the About Us of Argonne National Labs
    Focused, mission-driven research
    Embracing the nation’s greatest challenges, Argonne’s world-renowned scientists and engineers conduct pioneering research that advances America’s scientific excellence and leadership and helps pave the way to a secure nation with a plentiful supply of safe, sustainable energy, a healthy environment, and a competitive economy.

    Well if the science isn’t on your side, put your manager’s hat on and try marketing.

  3. In simplified English . . .

    We need to hype, exaggerate, fear monger and create false hysteria if we are to keep our First Class seats on the R&D funding $Gravy $Train

  4. I think the truthful term is anthropogenic global warming. We now have politicians that believe that driving an SUV creates carbon which controls climate and causes everything from floods to prostitution. We have school kids indoctrinated into this nonsense to the point they are being used to harass the politicians that don’t believe. Many don’t even know the discussion is about CO2. Most haven’t thought about how the magic “carbon” will cause floods etc. without causing a temperature change let alone how to measure the effect. Its just “they told us it will be bad”. without truth in the conversation there can be no mutual understanding and no progress toward knowledge.

    • “We now have politicians that believe…We have school kids indoctrinated…don’t even know the discussion is about CO2…”

      Sounds like mission accomplished to me.

      • Politicians believed (or, at least asserted they did) in race supremacy… and school kids were indoctrinated … . Yet… .

        Truth won.

        Politicians believe (or, at least assert that they do) in Mao’s communism… and school kids are indoctrinated…. . Yet… One of those kids grew up and did this…

        (man and tanks in Tiananmen Square)

        Thousands of those kids are fleeing China every year. They still love liberty. They still love truth.

        Truth is much older and more powerful than Communism.
        (and than Envirostal1nism)

        Truth will win.

      • Here is the video link {with gaps to prevent the dud control window from appearing here} the owner refused to activate (sigh):
        https: //www. youtube. com/watch?v=q q8zF LIftGk

  5. To make a story really scary, one has to invoke “tugging at the heart strings” types of mental images. Usually this means including grandchildren ala Hansen and nature with a personal note as well, such as what I posted at Climate Etc.:

    “I am truly sorry that my capricious and wasteful ways means that my grandchildren will suffer the consequences of my conflagrant ways. What it means of course is that from our cabin on the shores of Gichi-gami we will see the forests burn, the waters go dry, the air will be foul, and people will fight for the last insect, snake and vole as food.”

    There. Doesn’t that description make for mind altering images?

  6. Welll they tried changing focus from doom and gloom to “countless green jobs” and “new business opportunities”, it may look as if that did not work out as planned. So now it is back to brimestone again? Good luck.

    BTW, “Climate Disruption” is already old, old, old! Is it not “Climate Weirding” that is the new catchphrase these days?

  7. There is an old trial lawyers’ saying “When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on you side, pound the table.”

    It is way past time for the alarmist to pound the table

  8. How do you reduce the optimism implicit, in say James Hansen’s boiling ocean / runaway greenhouse scenario?

    I have a suggestion.

    How about in addition to planetary doom, we all are certain to end up in hell suffering an eternity without any charging source for our cell-phones.

    I imagine internet and cable TV would be a problem too, even though you’d think with all that fire and heat down there they’d have figured out a way to convert heat to electricity. I guess they don’t get the brightest bulbs in hell.

    • Be careful what you wish for. I understand the Pope is about to pronounce on this issue shortly.

      • And (thank You, Lord), his congregants will follow his “CO2 is ev1l” dictate just like they do their church’s ban on birth control, heh.

    • lol.

      Re: last clause: Oooo, I dunno, Alx. Ol’ Stal1n wasn’t exactly a dimbulb… and then there’s… .
      ;)

  9. I have a novel suggestion to Doug Sistern and his ilk: How about telling the truth for a change.

  10. A Little Vignette

    *** Dedicated to all our loyal opposition (a.k.a. “trolls”) without whom this site would be far less entertaining. ***

    #(:))

    Easter Bunny (nice one, E. Worrall): Hey, Doug Nephew! How’s i —

    D. Sisterson: SISTERSON!! Why — do — you — keep — calling — me — that!!! You and Santa (head shake)… misses me every year!

    Bunny: (chuckle) — oops. Okay. Hey! Do you want extra peeps or extra hollow chocolate rabbits in your basket this year? Ya know, what with gloooobbbballl waaaarrrrming (wink, wink), might be a good P. R., er, EXAMPLE to set to ask for peeps. They don’t melt as easily. Meh. As you thuthtainability (barf) guys like to say, “it’s all good.” (eye roll)

    Sis: … Well, talking about CLIMATE CHANGE {– get it right, Bun –} it’s not good.

    Bunny: Windmill sca — er investors are doing pretty good…. for now… — what’s the problem?

    Sis: It’s just this: CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

    Bunny: Well, duh. Like tell me something I haven’t known for over a decade.

    Sis: Bunny! Listen to me!!! We — are — doomed!….. unless……… we can find some way to really, really, REALLY, scare people. They just aren’t scared anymore. They need to be horrified. They’re more frightened by the thought of losing their job due to high energy costs than by climate change. Which is real! It is real! REAL, REAL, REAL REEEEEEEAAAALLL!

    Bunny: Chill.

    Sis: NOOOOOOOOOOOO! (ahem) No. We are going to do something calm and rational about this.

    Bunny: What?

    Sis: We are going to Las Vegas. We are going to throw you into the pool at The Mirage with 20 slot-machine addicts (they will not let go of the machine nor stop stuffing in quarters and pulling the handle — great turbulence!), throw red light on you, and you will cry out in a blood-curdling voice —

    Bunny: Here comes Peter Cottontail! Hoppin’ down —

    Sis: No! You will scream (like you’re dying): I AM BOILING TO DEATH IN THE OCEAN!

    Bunny: Hooo, boy, Nephew. I don’t know. I don’t know… . That’s just not really me… .

    Sis: Just think “James Hansen.”

    Bunny: Not Al Gore?

    Sis: Too dead. Hysterical Hansen is your man.

    • **Note: The term “climate change” as used by the majority of Envirostalinists and Enviroprofiteers means: “climate change caused by human CO2 emissions.”

      • I looked real hard at the words “climate change” and I didn’t find “human”, “CO2”, or “emissions” anywhere in there.

        I looked real hard, honest.

      • Well, dear Eustace Cranch, what a pleasure to hear from you.

        And I suppose when your boss said to you: “Fired!” you came back to work the next morning and responded to his or her angry glare with: “Oh, my boss, my boss, I looked eeeverywhere for “You are” and could not find it.”

      • Seriously, Mr. Cranch, it is in the “Definition of Terms” section of your manual, that is usually the FIRST section. You skipped that one didn’t you? Tsk, tsk.

      • Surely everyone knows I jest.

        But it’s toward a serious point of the Orwellian misuse of words.

      • Dear Mr. Cranch,

        Yes, indeed, I mistook you for a troll. Please forgive me. After your fine comment here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/12/claim-climate-communication-needs-to-be-less-optimistic-more-climate-disruption/#comment-1881152 , written with admirable brevity (something to which I aspire… sigh…), there is no excuse for my mistake. Just a bit oversensitive after so much mischaracterization of the accurate view: “CO2 has not been shown to cause climate change” as: “climate does not change.”

        I’ll try to read your comments with more care in the future.

        Janice

      • “Eustace Cranch

        March 12, 2015 at 9:20 am

        I looked real hard at the words “climate change” and I didn’t find “human”, “CO2″, or “emissions” anywhere in there.

        I looked real hard, honest.:

        Yeah, but Eustace, the climate didn’t change until we human’s began emitting CO2 into the atmosphere, so it must be our fault.

        /grin

      • Eustace Cranch March 12, 2015 at 9:20 am
        I looked real hard at the words “climate change” and I didn’t find “human”, “CO2″, or “emissions” anywhere in there.

        There are several shorthand terms used in discussions on this topic. “Climate d*nier,” for instance. The denotation of such terms doesn’t spell out their connotation, which is what Janice was commenting on.

  11. I think the correct term should be “Global Hellfire and Brimstone, Raining Down on Deniers Heads and Creating Hell On Earth For All the Apostates and Non-Believers”

    IMHO. Have a nice day :)

    David

  12. I think Global Climate Adjustment would be most appropriate for two reasons;

    1) It is what we need to do when the climate does change, up or down
    2) it is what was done to the data to get us to this point

    • Correct. The discussion can then continue with differing accepted definitions/meaning of the terms and everyone “is” still happy have an argument they can be involved in. Although, for slow pokes like me, it gives me a significant disadvantage; I still can’t even understand the distinctions between the various definitions of “is”.

      My choice had been “Climate Morphing”. Seems a more apt description of what has been done to the data and the initial premise.

      • “Climate morphing” is good, but… it would make them think of too much of aliens and then they’d look up Arrhenius (sp?) on panspermia and it would just confuse them… .

    • Well, lol, Max Photon — very clever, heh, heh, heh. All saavy promotion/sales people know that “a confused mind says, ‘No.'” So…… that just took their target audience from:

      “Oh, boy, Mither Hanthen, YES — human CO2 is bad,”
      to:
      “Oh. ?? …. Will I buy this?……. mmmmmm… ‘No.'”

      Definitely less positive.

  13. “He who wants to persuade should put his trust not in the right argument, but in the right word. The power of sound has always been greater than the power of sense.” ~Joseph Conrad

    • That was back when there WAS some global warming. Not so much any more, which is why that particular doom does not invoke the necessary gloom… Sounds like “climate change” is no longer in vogue either. Such exciting science these days, researching new vocabulary.

    • Do you seriously think some small time republican pollster initiated the switch from CAGW to CC? If you could give up the Republican vs. Democrat mentality, and just think objectively, you wouldn’t seem to be so anti-science.

      • Yes. If one reads issues of Science magazine from around the year 2000, one runs into the phrase “climate change” all the time. It may have been picked up by the media when the global warming meme started sounding a bit ridiculous, but it’s been out there for a long time.

    • Global Warming. If they want more pop they could call it “CAGW” Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. (Of course when the C, the G and the W are all MIA, they must revert back to climate change.

      The truth is many of these folk want the A” to disappear excluding themselves of course.

  14. I guess in “finding the right balance of effectiveness and honesty”, he’s recommending honesty be removed from the equation.

  15. The warmunists are in panic mode.

    Because there hasn’t been a global warming trend in almost 19 years, the “global warming” meme has fallen out of favor because warmunists don’t like being eye-rolled and snickered at…

    The new ploy is to use the term “climate change”, and blame everything under the sun on CO2 emissions. This has been met with eye-cramp inducing hyper-eye-rolling and outright peals of laughter to the consternation of the warmunists…

    Acordingly, they must now fabricate a new meme to scare the aggressively ignorant and young children…

    Climate Disruption is even more pitiful… It sounds like something you get when you drink too many cheap tequila shooters, and has the same effect on all thinking (though very drunk) adults; including the projectile vomiting…

    They need to come up with a more sinister meme like…. Death Spiral Climate, or perhaps CO2 Death Ray Armageddon X…

    CAGW has become a joke.

    • Perhaps they should use “Marvin the Martian” and instead of his “space modulator” weapon they could use a CO2 powered “Climate Disruptor”…… “Mr. Bunny you are making me very angry I will use my CO2 Climate Disruptor and annihilate you!” hmmmm might make a good cartoon! :-)

      Cheers,

      Joe

      • Heh. Good one Joe Civis :) — Now they’re down to a time frame of SECONDS until the earth explodes!

        Marvin the Martian and Bugs Bunny (youtube)

  16. Well, lol, you WUWT commenters are better at writing than the Sistersons of the world (and more up-to-date, too, (cough)).

    The bottom line is, they used “global warming” for too long and now
    they are STUCK with it. Like any ad jingle — after awhile it is “forever.”

    Like….
    “My baloney has a first name.
    It’s _ _ _ _ _ .”

    (Oscar Mayer hot dog ad — youtube)

    “How’s that?” (a–NNOYING — lololol)

    (that little kid is about 50 years old, now)

    GLOBAL WARMING.
    GLOBAL WARMING.
    GLOBAL WARMING.

    Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaa!

    • John Holdren singing:

      “My baloney has a first name,
      it’s C – L- I – M – A – T – E.

      My baloney has a second name,
      it’s C – H – A – N – G – E.”

      (ed note: it’s actually spelled “bologna”, but who cares?)

      • lol — I did that for the announcer — but (shrug) as you could hear, he pronounced it “balone-ya” anyway. ;)

  17. You don’t see the other “settled sciences”, like gravity, evolution, the big bang, electronics, magnetism, quantum physics, etc., needing to update their slogans to get people to believe in them. There was a paper recently questioning the big bang, but I don’t recall Wilson and Penzias taking to the blogs to rebrand it as the Huge Hit, Super Slap, Catastrophic Clang, or any other stupid thing.

    • Good point, but I wouldn’t throw the big bang in that group though, as it’s definitely not settled. It’s just an extrapolation of relatively recent trends…and we all know how well that worked out in climate science, right?

    • “…the other “settled sciences”, like gravity, …”

      Wait, would gravity be settled science

      or

      science on the rise?

      I mean, seriously, what is the attraction to the science of gravity?

      I think too many scientists have been pulled into it.

      /grin

    • The new slogans / branding are for public consumption – the public no longer cares.

      The Year in Climate Controversy
      WHEN WALTER LIPPMANN (1889–1974) wrote his masterpiece The Phantom Public eighty-five years ago,…..

      Hence the paradox that Lippmann summarized in this stunning and famous passage about the great disputes of the day “between nations, between sectional interests, between classes, between town and country, between churches”1:

      Yet it is controversies of this kind, the hardest controversies to disentangle, that the public is called in to judge. Where the facts are most obscure, where precedents are lacking, where novelty and confusion pervade everything, the public in all its unfitness is compelled to make its most important decisions. The hardest problems are those which institutions cannot handle. They are the public’s problems.2

    • Gravity is poorly understood. We know how to work with its effects, but not how to manipulate them. I wish they would hurry up and figure it out because all sorts of cool stuff would follow. :)

      • That gravity is poorly understood is an understatement.

        Have you ever picked up the 1215 page ‘physics’ (*cough*) text titled Gravitation?

        Best I can tell, that monster is the very source of gravity itself. (But it must be correct because it’s so thick, right?)

      • Max, to be honest, understanding such things is well beyond my simple rational mind. When folk tell me space is expanding, I always want to ask “What is it expanding into?” And if I am in a detailed mood I ask, “What is this space, and what is it expanding into?” I think it is all suspicious.

      • @ David A.
        Don’t get me started on the problems with mainstream science in Cosmology! You think cronyism, groupthink and making stuff up to rationalise contrary observations is bad in Climatology!? Just take a quick look at the comet they just crash landed on and tell me that’s a dirty snowball and not a great big lump of rock!

  18. Climate activists’ constant harping is not working with the general public. Skepticism abounds. Sisterson’s solution? Crank up the alarmism.

    But it’s the over-the-top alarmism which has likely created the skepticism in the first place. When you make dire predictions of catastrophe and they don’t materialize, the public loses interest.

    • Perhaps, Rabbit, the alarmist hyperbole got our attention…, but what confirmed the science realists’ position that CO2 emissions (human or natural) are highly unlikely to be the cause of significant climate change is:

      truth.

      Truth stands the test of time.

      CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.

      **************************************
      Despite the feebleminded troll’s “Done” above — the speculation about CO2 causing shifts in climate has NEVER been proven. Not — even — close.

  19. If these guys want a newer scarier name they should find someone more imaginative than they are. “Climate Disruption” doesn’t scare me at all. Maybe “Imminent Planetary Annihilation?

    /s

  20. The AGW folks just keep redefining how stupid they can be. Their newest solution is to stop being so optimistic? Really? They have been? And then idiots like Flashman come along and try to redirect us from the glaring AGW stupidity with his own brand of smoke, mirrors, and mix of disinformation/misrepresentation/inaccuracy/myth/tales/distortion/evasion/fabrication/distortion.

    • Oooo, yes, Tim. No more “Mister Nice Guy.” Cover your children’s ears, we’re gonna tell you the truth: %$#$%#&$^%&%^$%$#$%EDRH1!!

      (that’s “troll” for: give us more money NOW or you will d1e)

  21. Well, there’s a life-determining difference between being a Polyanna and confidence one can figure things out and cope.

  22. Hmm, how to make climate alarmism less optimistic? This is like saying the Holocaust needs to be less funny, water needs to be less dry, up less down, and climastrologists less logical.

  23. The ‘everyone is being too conservative’ strategy of the community that sees alarm in some myopically focused limited subset of the research on climate science has been around at least three years.

    I was in the audience when Oreskes (currently of Harvard University) gave a talk at the Fall Meeting of the AGU (in San Francisco) in 2 or 3 years ago. Her talk explicitly mentioned that (paraphrasing her statement from my memory) ‘the IPCC is too conservative in its assessment of AGW due to fossil industry pressure on the IPCC to downplay effects of AGW’.

    Oreskes is an intellectual mother of that intellectual ploy.

    John

  24. They’ve been scare-mongering for years now – recall polar bears falling from the sky, pet dogs drowning, …..
    Desperate and dumb.
    (I suppose it might match their view of humans as incapable of thinking, but that’s probably giving his ilk too much credit.)

  25. Argonne is managed by UChicago Argonne, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science

    Budget: $760 million

    Workforce: 3,398 total employees (FTEs), 1,395 scientists and engineers, 1303 postdoctoral scholars, 940 graduate and undergrad students, 230 joint faculty, 6,500+ facility users

    The actual alarm is about Argonne’s budget, which is not nearly enough to satisfy their abounding greed. Gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme …

    The actual fact is that global warming would be a GOOD THING if it were ever to happen. So would be a total defunding and shut down of Argonne.

  26. If only the boy who cried wolf had made his cries more “frightening,” things would have worked out much better for him. /sarc

  27. Or, perhaps …

    Climate Chaos

    Climate Disaster

    Degenerating Climate

    Decaying Climate

    Climate Turbulence

    or we could go for the really big one …

    Wildly Fluctuating Climate

  28. Was anyone in any doubt at all that they are going to have to lie harder?

    Predictions of this on here over many years have been way more accurate than climate model predictions.

  29. All climate education must be applied with a fully charged cattle prod. Any questions about any climate models and facts are to be responded to with utter contempt for the audacity to actually question “climate change, global warming, human produced CO2 is bad” meme. Furthermore the ministry of climate truth will decide what terms and phrases will be allowed in any discussion of climate change , any digression from the party line will be met with a shock from said cattle prod followed by tasering and hand cuffs and detention in a climate change denier prison where both data and persons are tortured until confession. Everyone convicted of the crime of questioning the ministry of truth’s climate science will be required to wear a prominently displayed patch with the insignia of CCD (climate change denier) on it. The new phase Anthropogenic Atmosphere Catastrophe is currently under review for appropriate scariness…… sarc/

    • K-bob, that will backfire as soon as people realize that the conclusion of every 12,000 page report is that a clown or a demonic child is responsible. After a while, it just gets predictable ya know? :)

    • They probably would have liked Michael Crichton to write some of their stuff and he saw the fiction in their story. But he turned out to be one of their highest profile enemies. He compared Global warming scam to eugenics. The Progressives and Environmentalists no doubt were horrified.

      “I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial. And I do claim that open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed. Leading scientific journals have taken strong editorial positions of the side of global warming, which, I argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression. ” – Michael Crichton.

      source: http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html

      RIP Michael Crichton.. You will be avenged.

  30. Whew! Luckily no one on the alarmist side will take Sisterson seriously anyway….he’s just a meteorologist! (Wink and nod to Anthony who totally gets what I mean)

  31. If nobody listens anymore when you cry “Wolf!”, it won’t do you any good to keep piling on scary adjectives such as “big”, “bad”, “hungry”, “man-eating” or whatever.
    You can’t fix a lack of credibility with IN-credibility.

  32. Not all change is bad.’ Well, talking about climate change, it’s not good.

    Seeing as warmer climates are better for man than colder climates and the rate of warming was so slow over the last century that we needed million dollar research programmes just to spot it… this comment surprised me.

    Then I realised he meant “talking about climate change, it’s not good.”

  33. “Doug Sisterson told about 200 people at the University of Chicago’s International House Tuesday night.”
    “Doug Sisterson told about 200 people at the University of Chicago’s International House of Pancakes on Tuesday night. Then the manager asked him to leave, he was bothering the customers.”
    There I fixed it for you.

  34. Here is snippet from Doug’s bio-page at ANL:

    “Specifically, Doug manages the Southern Great Plaines (SGP) site, the first and largest field measurement site established by the ARM Program. Scientists use SGP data to improve cloud and radiative models and parameterizations and, thereby, the performance of atmospheric general circulation models used for climate research. Doug also oversees the operation of the second ARM Mobile Facility that will be deployed on Gan Island in the Maldives in late 2011.”
    source: http://www.anl.gov/contributors/doug-sisterson

    My guess is Dougie’s little Maldives tropical paradise boondoggle is likely threatened by the GOP Congress continuation of sequestration-level budgets for DoE. Can’t have that and keep the fun Indian Ocean travel, and duty title. Need to gen-up a little more scary alarmism to try and give the Dems some ammo (especially Illinois democrats where ANL is) to keep climate science funded at increasing levels.

    Someone (GWPF, SEPP, Heartland, etc) should do a FOIA request on Dr Sisterson’s emails at ANL. Look for encouragement and coordination of his latest statement with WH’s John Holdren. Might be interesting to see who gets cc:’d on those emails.

  35. I do not see NCEP government weather service data mentioned much and it is not on woodfortrees.com listings. The NCEP site does not seem to have global graphs that I could find so maybe weatherbell.com makes them from raw data. Anyway it seems to differ greatly from GISS data and I was wondering if this is an acceptable database for both sides of the debate since it shows very little warming of .067 deg C anomaly for the last 5 yrs? It shows last year as being .112 deg C above normal. Thanks for any input. http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2005.png

  36. The more the alarmists’ predictions fail to materialize the more insistent they become. Richard Landis describes this very well in his book, _Heaven on Earth: The Varieties of the Millennial Experience_. Landis calls it ‘upping the ante’, but it’s more descriptive to call ‘increasing the commitment’. Those who predict the second coming of whomever don’t loose their faith when he doesn’t come. I’m afraid we’re stuck with this.

  37. Doug has a soul-mate at the already CAGW-obsessed Guardian – the outgoing Editor Rusbridger:

    6 March: BusinessGreen: Climate change: why the Guardian is putting threat to Earth front and centre
    As global warming argument moves on to politics and business, Alan Rusbridger explains the thinking behind our major series on the climate crisis
    There may be untold catastrophes, famines, floods, droughts, wars, migrations and sufferings just around the corner. But that is futurology, not news, so it is not going to force itself on any front page any time soon.
    Even when the overwhelming majority of scientists wave a big red flag in the air, they tend to be ignored… Is it all too frightening to contemplate? Is a collective shrug of fatalism the only rational response?…
    The climate threat features very prominently on the home page of the Guardian even though nothing exceptional happened on Friday. It will be there again next week and the week after. You will, I hope, be reading a lot about our climate over the coming weeks.

    ***One reason for this is personal. This summer I am stepping down after 20 years of editing the Guardian. Over Christmas I tried to anticipate whether I would have any regrets once I no longer had the leadership of this extraordinary agent of reporting, argument, investigation, questioning and advocacy.
    Very few regrets, I thought, except this one: that we had not done justice to this huge, overshadowing, overwhelming issue of how climate change will probably, within the lifetime of our children, cause untold havoc and stress to our species…

    So, in the time left to me as editor, I thought I would try to harness the Guardian’s best resources to describe what is happening and what – if we do nothing – is almost certain to occur, a future that one distinguished scientist has termed as “incompatible with any reasonable characterisation of an organised, equitable and civilised global community”.
    It is not that the Guardian has not ploughed considerable time, effort, knowledge, talent and money into reporting this story over many years.
    The coming debate is about two things: what governments can do to attempt to regulate, or otherwise stave off, the now predictably terrifying consequences of global warming beyond 2C (35F) by the end of the century. And how we can prevent the states and corporations which own the planet’s remaining reserves of coal, gas and oil from ever being allowed to dig most of it up. We need to keep them in the ground…
    Next week, McKibben will describe how the cause of divestment is moving rapidly from a fringe campaign to a mainstream concern for banks and fund managers…
    Where does this leave you? I hope not feeling impotent and fearful.
    Some of you may be marching in London on Saturday 7 March…
    And we hope that many readers will find inspiration in our series to make their own contribution by applying pressure on their workplace, or ***pension fund, to move.
    But, most of all, please read what we write…
    This article first appeared at the Guardian.
    http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/opinion/2398526/climate-change-why-the-guardian-is-putting-threat-to-earth-front-and-centre

    Business Green was/is part of this Media House:

    Wikipedia: Incisive Media
    In January 2015, Incisive Media’s lenders agreed a restructuring which saw private equity house Alchemy Partners take majority ownership of the business. The restructure helped reduce Incisive’s debts significantly. Tim Weller is now executive chairman with former Informa and Emap CEO David Gilbertson joining the board of directors as a non-executive director…

    the new bossses:

    Alchemy Partners – The Team
    http://www.alchemypartners.co.uk/the-team

  38. I’ve got it. The perfect phrase for those who wish to instill just the right combination of fear, guilt, and anxiety;
    Climate Hiroshima.

  39. Possibly the best thing we can do is not allow these con artists nor the general public to forget which this is/was initially all about…catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. This is no time to allow these low life to “weasel out” of their rash unsupported ridiculous claims.
    Time for them to “eat their words.”

  40. Why don’t they just call it “Climate Fox News”? At least that way they’re certain to have all the liberals screaming against it at the top of their collective voices… /sarc

  41. Climate Gangrene.
    As I believe in truth in advertising.
    The Green Gang have been fully exposed, their work stinks and kills the host.
    What could be more alarming.
    Obviously the climate science communicators need some new ideas.
    Here is one… try telling the truth.
    After all 20 years of overstating the case is even less convincing than the honest observation.. We don’t know.

  42. The comments here lately are hilarious. The alarmists will be studied for atleast a generation after the idea co2 is a major climate driver ready yo trigger feedbacks loops mandatory for the scary end of the claims is replaced. It amazes me that so few of them can even admit that there are dozens of papers trying to explain the current lack of warming, and it is the rate of warming that was to cause most of the issues, warming itself is mostly positive. Ive debated dozens of them 1 on 1 now and thus far 100% just end the conversation once they realize their religion truly is in question. They were told the skeptic stance was baseless, but they clearly haven’t looked or most of them capable of understanding the data would be skeptical of the C in cagw atleast. Even funnier is they think weather is currently extreme, when it literally, provably is not. Unless the data we do have is wrong I guess.

  43. The post variously refers to Mr. Sisterson as a “scientist” and “senior manager”. Pardon my naivete, but I would think that the role of a “scientist” would be to dispassionately explore his field of study, objectively analyze the empirical data, and present the findings and possible implications in a reasonable and rational fashion; A “senior manager” of scientists would act to insure that the “scientists” of the organization fulfill this rightful role.

    On the other hand, as I understand it, the role of a prostitute is to titillate, to excite, to stimulate through provocative dress and fashion.

    Perhaps Mr. Sisterson should seriously consider a career change.

    • A “Climate Change” pimp?
      I still wouldn’t buy whoever whoever or whatever he’s selling.

  44. I don’t know, I associate “disruption” with a bit of inconvenience. I’m also living in Australia where “she’ll be right mate” will easily dispatch a bit of “disruption” threat.
    How about “Future Climate Armageddon”? That should sort out “deniers” like myself! “Scientist say this weeks mild weather is another sign of FUTURE CLIMATE ARMAGEDDON!!” Please quit your jobs, turn off your lights and grow broccoli on your patio.

  45. Well of course they will ratchet up the hysteria. You don’t get lucrative grants by for saying everything is OK. Just as on the news, crisis sells.

  46. I’m late to this one.

    How about “Climate Catastrophobia”?
    Oh wait. That’s what he’s trying to instill. The fear that any change in the weather is caused by Man and will kill us all……unless money and power are thrown our way.

    How about “Climate Castraphobia”?
    Oh wait. That’s what he’s suffering from. The fear that the message to fear “Climate (fill in the blank)” is becoming impotent.

    I guess I can’t help him with a new name after all. 8-(

  47. “Climate Denormalization”?

    “Carbon’s Gone Wild!” (Would need a video.)

    “Weather WTFing”?

  48. Sisterson has yet to explain what part of the scientific method includes changing the name of a hypothesis.

  49. No one may ever see this but on The Storm Channel,,,er,,,The Weather Channel this morning the term “Climate Shock” was used. Shocking!

    (“Climate Schtick”?)

Comments are closed.