Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to Google search trends, interest in climate change continues to bump along rock bottom, despite strenuous efforts by alarmists to hype climate issues, in the lead up to the upcoming Paris COP21 conference.
Even Google’s information engineering efforts have failed to stir general interest in climate change. According to Visual News;
Google recently released a beautiful interactive visualization that explores search volumes for phrases related to climate change. Curious to see how “global warming,” “energy” or “oceans” are trending around the world? Google put those and other popular searches on the map, highlighting recent searches and data from 20 cities around the globe.
…
The troubling takeaway from these trends? While climate change grows more and more imminent, search volumes for many terms related to it are going down.
People aren’t fools, despite the contempt some politicians privately express for the gullibility of their supporters. A long time ago, a very experienced political campaign director explained a curiosity she had noticed, over her years of campaigning. If you deliver five leaflets, then knock on people’s door to talk about politics, they have no memory of receiving any campaign material. But deliver that magic sixth leaflet, and they suddenly remember who you are. Even when people aren’t really paying attention, there is some kind of threshold, a mental filter, which governs whether people are aware of what is happening.
I suspect that threshold of awareness has been well and truly crossed, with regard to the credibility of nonsensical climate claims of tipping points which never tip, arctic ice which doesn’t melt away, and climate catastrophes which never manifest.
That experienced political campaign director I used to know – I once asked her opinion about climate change. She replied “All this green nonsense – it’s closet racism. They want to deny Africa cheap energy, to keep them poor”.
It will get worse if Joe Bastardi is right that much of the U.S. will have a colder than normal temperatures in October and November. The shaman will have to intensify there claims of impending doom to overcome what people are experiencing..
There, there, that is neither here nor their. (sic.)
Speaking of Big Joe, he’s been making quite vocal push in the TwitterVerse on the MJOs wild gyrations coming in West Pacific, and a push back on regional warm events in NH summer. Love to see a more cogent discussion of his Twittered MJO plots and how that is going to play in the media in the coming months.
Big Joe, are you out there??
Does anyone know where the number 97% of climate scientists agree on climate change/global warming? It comes up all the time.
Chris – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/
Chris,
It doesn’t matter. Repeat the “97%” enough and it becomes true.
Well, they can’t turn the air conditioning off at that time of year so they will have to crank up the furnace to get their sound bytes with sweat rolling down their brows.
Say What?: As well as the 97% paper by Cook et al you give as a link for Chris, he might be interested in the earlier ‘97%’ version which in summary goes like this:
In January 2009, Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the University of Illinois at Chicago published a research paper entitled ‘Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change’. This can be easily accessed via the internet.
Comments in quotation marks are verbatim from the paper.
Survey questionnaires were sent to ‘10,257 Earth scientists’.
The paper explains that ‘This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey’.
These were:
1) ‘When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained generally constant?’
2) ‘Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?’
The survey was ‘designed to take less than 2mins to complete’ and was administered online.
Firstly, note that of the 10,257 to whom the questionnaire was sent, only 3,146 individuals bothered to complete and return the survey – i.e. just short of 31%.
‘Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists’ – as opposed to for example oceanographers and palaeontologists. That’s 157 individuals out of the 3,146.
Of these 157, 79 scientists had published more than 50% of their recent research papers on the subject, and so were deemed by the authors to be ‘the most specialised and knowledgeable respondents’.
In other words, of the total of 10,257 considered knowledgeable enough to have their opinion sought at the outset of the study, only 79 individuals were by now considered to the most knowledgeable.
Of these 79, 76 (96.2%) answered ‘risen’ to question 1, and – wait for it – 75 out of 77 (97.4%) answered ‘yes’ to question 2.
So there we are – job done – 97.4% of scientists agree that humans are warming the planet significantly – or do they?
Let’s see now: 75 out of the 10,257 polled. I make that 0.73%.
Well, I highly doubt we will see colder than normal GLOBAL temperatures any time soon:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/5/1880-2015
It would only take a drop of one degree to invalidate that assertion. How about a longer time scale? No instrument data prior to 1880?
they’ve come out of the closet
“Mongo straight”
The greater the effort (at alarmism) the smaller the return. People are simply sick and tired of the pessimistic attitude of ‘authority’.
exactly…and throw in a heavy dose of saturation
I think there’s a filter…only in reverse.
What with wedding cakes, flags, guns, ISIS, economy, jobs, education, EU, student loans, extinction, inner city slums, etc etc
there’s so many things people are offended by…
…they each have diluted themselves
It’s hard to stay on topic….when there’s a million topics coming at you
This may be true, but the grants and the agw crowd are still coming on strong.
An ex-coworker just returned from a workshop in Idaho for ag and science teachers. The workshop included pointing out that the 97% agreement proves that the CAGW science is valid. Other logical leaps claimed that, since great thinkers have gone so far as to come up with solutions to ocean acidification (dumping iron…) it must be happening; why would they come up with solutions unless there was a true problem?
The 20 million grant for ag research needed an outreach component. The workshop was therefore included, as well as an allotment to pay the teachers $400 per classroom repeat of the powerpoint propaganda that is provided. “Outreach” was a goal of the grant, so paying teachers to pass on their new found wisdom in the classroom was a plus in obtaining the grant money. (I can envision the grant recipients salivating over future grant extensions/allotments because the outreach portion of the program has been so successful).
We may be getting tired of hearing about it, but they are still spending our money to convince us there is a problem.
DonM,
“The workshop was therefore included, as well as an allotment to pay the teachers $400 per classroom repeat of the powerpoint propaganda that is provided.”
This is of some interest to me. I have always suspected that at least some of this CAGW propaganda is carried out by the use of funds to the front people – in your case teachers. This is the first direct evidence that I have come across of it happening. I refer you to my blog where I show where much funding is by the Rockefeller family in some form. It would be of some interest to examine the funding of the workshop you mention if possible.
Please leave comment on my blog if you see fit and want to dig a little further on this one.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
“People are simply sick and tired of the pessimistic attitude of ‘authority’.
Well people better get sick and tired of their politicians and their tax rises etc pretty soon because it appears in most countries, including mine, that these super expensive CAGW Mitigation measures are going ahead regardless.
As an economist, I can see that these measures coupled with Agenda 21 measures will not only bankrupt western economies but spell the suppression of capitalism as well.
At best this means world wide conditions such as Britain had from 1945 – 1958. Yes it was AFTER the war ! and under a socialist government.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
Sorry, I meant 1945 to 1948 above.
Cheers
Roger
Regardless of the % of public interest in this scam, there are enough idio… uninformed groups of power that they can still take it to the bank
After 25 years of scare tactics and predictions that haven’t materialized people are tired of the hype and realize that the sky is not falling after all.
I was going to write something long-winded and detailed- but you said it best, markl.
markl,
It is the story of the boy who cried wolf all over again.
except this time there’s no wolf
Jon commented: in response to markstoval: markl, It is the story of the boy who cried wolf all over again.
“except this time there’s no wolf”
Just a little chicken?
Or the War of the Worlds broadcast. Except that with the War of the Worlds broadcast most people realized by the next morning that it was a hoax. The Warmbots are still falling for this hoax nearly 30 years later.
I thought everyone knew that alarmists don’t cry “Wolf”, they cry “Unicorn!”; there is always a small chance a wolf might come.
“people are tired of the hype”
Maybe those who have been exposed to it for all those years, but the younger students appear to be their target market now. Fresh, naive recruits are born every minute.
…She replied “All this green nonsense – it’s closet racism. They want to deny Africa cheap energy, to keep them poor”…
I don’t think it’s racism. They want to deny the West cheap energy as well.
It’s just that the protesting classes, and those that make their money from them, have moved from ‘Ban the Bomb’ through various ‘Ban Chemical X’ movements to ‘Ban Carbon Dioxide’.
They are not interested in the science, except insofar as various papers can be used for propaganda purposes. They are not interested in the general improvement of mankind. Their world-view and profession involves protest – they have found a topic – it is paying well – that’s all they need…
I agree. Denying Africa cheap energy is not driven by racism. Use of the racism label is a tactic of divide and conquer political adversaries, I.e. it is part and parcel of how the Left has been operating. If skeptics want to maintain the moral high, that labeling is a place we should not go.
I think there’s an element among some of them to keep poor people “authentic”. It’s not necessarily racism, but it’s certainly classism. For example, the recent article about how exposure to the outside is going to “spoil” Cuba.
A large element in the green movement romanticizes poverty. For other people. They’re so authentic, in their ’57 Buicks.
Harold,
I made similar argument yesterday here at WUWT regarding North Korea. The environmental watermelons love how energy poor the North Koreans are and ubuitous use of walking, bicycles, and mass transit. Private motor vehicle ownership simply does not exist there. But doubt when a NK peasant sees how the rest of the lives, they don’t consider themselves fortunate for their energy frugality. It’s part of the blatant hypocrisy of the environmental movement that is running cover for a worldwide push to socialism.
It’s a romantic misconception, a belief by some, in a simpler, better time, before antibiotics when a case of strep could kill your children, when cancer was simply called “consumption” and if you had it you just died. A simple time, when sparse rain meant sparse food for the winter, the good old days, when a broken leg could leave you crippled for the rest of your miserable life. No pesky cell phones to call 911 when your horse bolted, and your buggy went off the road, no sewers, just dump that s..t in the gutter, no hot showers, no refrigeration. Ah good times, good times …
Joel,
The intent may not be racism (whtever that means these days) but the effect is. In my four year in the field in Africa, I saw it again and again, but back then, it wasn’t energy. Western do-gooders realy thought having western properity in Africa would be “culturally imperialistic” (I kid you not) and therefore shouldn’t happen. The Africans thought differently.
Sorry about the spelling lapses
>> that labeling is a place we should not go.
Oh, I don’t know. Accusing them of racism freezes them like a stunned mullet. Then they mutter things like’ ‘I cannot be I am a liberal…’.
I have won several debates by calling them racist. Its not pretty, its not nice, but it works. How do you think that the left has captured the moral high ground and the political debate for the last decades?? Throw it back at them, times ten.
Its directed by the ruling class who are middleclass and earning well.
The poor are a threat to their comfortable position.
Finally I do observe that most earnestly believe the story they put out.
I can remember a movement, pre-internet by a large margin where some environmental groups were trying to get snowmobiles banned in the high north due to the pollution and the harm they caused to the Inuit culture.
The fact that it was in the progress of making their lives so much easier and helping them remain self-sufficient was immaterial.
@Mark from the Midwest
Just a slight nitpick correction:
Tuberculosis is the disease called consumption; because it appears that the sick person is being consumed from within.
Cancer is called cancer because during the later stages of cancer, the patient feels as if a crab is tearing out their insides; hence use of cancer from one of the Latin terms for crab.
You’re dead on accurate in your meaning. It was not long ago that many illnesses with 75% to 100% lethality affected most families.
Makes one wonder why no one is protesting Iran getting nuclear weapons?
That’s beyond strange.
Imagine if Bush was working a secret deal that ends with Iran and nukes.
I Shudder to think of the screaming.
But Obama does it and not a word.
Where’s the outrage?
I’ve been asking the same question. I thought liberals hated nukes. So how to figure that conundrum…. put your head inside a liberal mind and look around. Who is the greatest threat right now to their power? The other half of the two party system. Or is it just a portion of the opposition party? Liberals love to blame the “crazy right-wingers” for everything. Perhaps they believe that right wingers have caused the problem with Iran in the first place. In their minds if they just think positive thoughts all of their enemies will start loving them.
To Obama, neither Iran nor ISIS is the enemy. His enemy is the Republicans.
Yeah, crazy right wingers in the CIA and State Department did indeed cause the problems with Iran by orchestrating a coup against the country back in 1954 and installing the crazy despot Shah as their ruler, who so screwed up the country that it went full fundamentalist Islam in the 1979 revolution and has hated the US ever since. So there’s that.
broken yogi
I won’t dispute US involvement. However, it is not as clear cut as you would have us believe. The battle in Iran between the moderates and the islamists was always raging. Far more complicated than our little soundbites.
We’ve been enjoying a year of the cheapest gas since the first Gulf War–THAT got people’s attention. Seems “peak oil,” rationing, lack of production, etc. were nothing but LIES. Now that we’re producing more of our own energy, lots of things have become non-problems. And anyone with a 7th-grade science literacy can see for themselves the C02 scare is ABSURD.
Incorrect regarding gas prices.(Talking US here I assume.)
Gas was rarely over 1.50 a gallon for long prior to 2004, and never went above $2.00 until that year.
After that year, $2.00 became more of a floor, and has rarely been seen for long in most places.
Do not know how old you are, or where you live, but for most of the 90’s in the eastern US, gas was around a dollar a gallon, sometimes a bit lower.
I had sold my 1968 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham back in the late 80’s (bought for $700 while I was in college) because I figured gas was never doing to be cheap again, but cheap it was, until the second Gulf war, the hurricanes of 2004, and the crescendo of the commodity supercycle in 2007.
We may never see $2.00 gas again, but we do not need to.
http://www.nada.com/b2b/Portals/0/assets/web-images/Dixon_fix4.jpg
In all due respect racism is written all over Progressive politics. Notice the respect given to Woodrow Wilson versus the neglect given to Calvin Coolidge. Wilson’s undeniably the Progressive lodestar: the contempt for the Constitution; the forerunner to the UN, the League of Nations; the income tax. It’s all there. And Wilson was an avowed racist who segregated the White House and approved of the KKK.
CAGW and the grossly expansionist government that belief reveres is a Progressive project. Instead of elevating minorities and the underprivileged to parity with an affluent middle class the policy seeks to disempower the middle class instead. Maybe not directly racism but all the features of racism except painted with a broad brush.
“The troubling takeaway from these trends? While climate change grows more and more imminent…”
But Global Warming was imminent 15 years ago. We have to Act NOW – 20 years ago. Unless this Big Lie deservedly dies an agonizing death in the near future, 20 years from now we will be subjected to endless repetition of fear-mongering.
At least in the US, the ObamaCare-Gruber episode and exposure of how the Democrats lied to pass that law, destroyed the President’s credibility with independent voters. Now when he or any of his administration start talking about “climate change is the most serious threat we face,” people inside suspect he is lying like before to sell ObamaCare. He only gets a pass on his lying because people are afraid they will be accused of racism if they openly call him a liar.
Hence, the Left and the pollsters can’t understand how they so badly missed the outcome of the Conservative election victories in the US and UK of late. People (independents) are hiding their feelings, but voting them. Same thing will likely happen in November 2016. Esp if Hillary Clinton is Democratic nominee for President. People are fed-up with her lies too. But most will not openly express strong disapproval of Obama or Clinton for fears of being called racist, misogynist, etc. But there is little grass roots enthusiasm for Clinton among hard left. Combine that with Democrat’s ethical challenges and not just is their no support for Obama’s COP21 Paris push, but another wipeout of Democrats in US November 2016 is in the offing.
@inMAGICn
…The intent may not be racism (whtever that means these days) but the effect is. …
No, it’s not. It would be racism if the Africans were being targeted simply because they were a different race (whatever that means). But they aren’t. We are ALL being targeted. Those of us who have not got developed energy distribution systems (which includes some poor white nations) are being stopped from getting them, and those of us who have such systems are seeing them being attacked and dismantled.
Nothing to do with race. Everything to do with following the trendy left-wing mirage of believing that humanity needs to undo its technological civilisation…
I grant your correction of us all being targets. But, to clarify, many Africans I worked with felt there was a strong racist context to “economic imperialism” which, to them, was denying Africans the need to develop. At the time, it usually meant governmenta inerference in their affairs, but, later on, it was seen as deeper. In fact, my boss in Bobo asked me why it was Eurpeans (that’s generally all non-Africans) fought against Africans cutting timber when they themelves had cleared Europe of its forests, created farms and cities and became wealthy. I had no answer.
But look at Haiti’s mis-management. The destruction and economic self-hardship ends at the border. Africa’s problem (overall) is THEIR leadership and THEIR (lack of) morality, corruption, and deliberate actions of each tribe’s leaders. Each government’s leaders. Each dictator.
RACook,
It’s very true that the leaders in Africa are corrupt, but there is a lot of animosity there towards outsiders because the outsiders travel into their lands in luxury and don’t leave them anything worthwhile.
Imagine, if you will, someone showing up to your doorstep in a stretch Escalade saying he was going to help you to survive. As you watch the Escalade leave, do you feel thankful that you now have a handful of oozing baked beans from a can? What if it happens all of the time? What if it has happened for generations?
This is why you will read, from time to time, about crazy conspiracy theories about the actually-good programs, like Doctors without Borders, coming out of Africa. It was also why the Ebola outbreak was so hard to contain – people simply didn’t trust the outsider hospitals and what those outsiders were saying and would end up coughing blood into the air around their families or friends and infecting them.
Yes, they have their problems. But we “civilized” nations aren’t exactly being helpful to the situation, either. And it’s not like we “civilized” nations didn’t spend a few millennia embroiled in exactly the same poverty-warlord cycle they are in.
But, then, should we really be throwing stones from our glass house? In reality, Western nations haven’t really distanced themselves from that cycle, either. Heck, we had the cold war until the early 90s which was made up of economic and military proxy wars all over the globe. Since the early 90s, we’ve had the Serbian/Croatian conflicts, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, and the Arab Spring, all outside of Africa (or partially, in the case of the Arab Spring).
joelo
Music to my ears, but – and there v e r y often is a but –
As a Brit [not intimately familiar with the US political scene – a nodding-vague knowledge, probably, only] – I do feel that many of the Red State folk are not very much better that the blue Clintonistas.
I am probably looking through the wrong end of a binocular [and much similar could be said about our [my country’s, not sure they are mine ] so-called Conservatives.
Sorry and that.
Auto.
“Two cheeks,” and all that, Auto. Right?
People frequently confuse the terms Republicans and Conservatives. Republicans are known by their party affiliation. Conservatives are defined by their actions. Many Republicans claim to be conservative to get votes, but their actions eventually betray them.
@deanfromohio
Which German General was that?
A major reason for the success of the shore landing was that the Allies attacked out of character from their previous amphibious landings.
Previous landings, e.g. ‘operation torch’, the Allies attacked at dawn, during total darkness, an early setting moon allowed moonlight for night time ship maneuverings, but total darkness before dawn for the troops, with minimal tidal movement.
Operation Overlord required; a full moon, strong tidal movement with the first forces to land near low tide.
The Allies also attacked during a storm which was the final deciding factor when German Command allowed the coastal defenders to stand down. In addition to the other factors, the Allies had never conducted amphibious forces during bad weather.
General Rommel took advantage of the troops stand down to visit his family and attempt to visit Hitler.
joelobryan July 5, 2015 at 11:28 am
… Esp if Hillary Clinton is Democratic nominee for President. People are fed-up with her lies too. But most will not openly express strong disapproval of Obama or Clinton for fears of being called racist, misogynist, etc.
Maybe, but I recall all those voters who voted for Obama simply because he is black and those folks will again come out in droves to vote for Hillary because she is a woman.
The ignorant masses speak loudly.
JohnWho,
There simply is zero energy or enthusiasm in the Democrats’ base, which is being driven further left each week, for Ms Clinton. Her campaign could well implode before the primary season begins if Bernie Sanders keeps gaining ground..
It will be a very sad day to see Hillary Clinton as US President!!!
Ignorant masses don’t vote unless they are motivated to.
Low motivation to vote for a career egomaniac with preference for elitist superiority and minimal efforts for common people will cause many potential voters to bother turning out.
On the other hand, there is immense motivation to prevent final usurpation of American Democracy by a socialist tyrant of any sex or race.
black brown or brindle..a Liar is a Liar
and whatever sex they are..
they still lie
as seen in aus by our own juLiar
there will be NO carbon tax under a govt I lead
sheesh
What caused that ‘global warming’ interest El Nino in 2007?
The media.
Low arctic ice.
The 2008 financial meltdown and home value bust in US and the ensuing 2009-2010 recession-job loss & home loss for many in US put economy and economic well-being far ahead ofsupposed Climate Change impacts in 2050 on the list of problems facing most folks.
So when Obama and his Climate Change cheerleaders rattle on about making hydrocarbon fuels more expensive they inadvertantly turn opinion against themselves and their agenda. I suspect a similar thing is happening now in UK with their electricity and generation capacity issues affecting average family budgets.
“An Inconvenient Truth” (2006)
“An Inconvenient Truth is a 2006 documentary film directed by Davis Guggenheim about former United States Vice President Al Gore’s campaign to educate citizens about global warming via a comprehensive slide show that, by his own estimate made in the film, he has given more than a thousand times.
Premiering at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival and opening in New York City and Los Angeles on May 24, 2006, the documentary was a critical and box-office success, winning two Academy Awards for Best Documentary Feature and Best Original Song.[4] The film grossed $24 million in the U.S. and $26 million in the foreign box office, becoming the tenth highest grossing documentary film to date in the United States.”
The unnecessary scaremongering has and will further alienate and make people intolerant even of the proper climate science.
Future danger for many people is from a cooling rather than warming world. Preparations for cooling are far more demanding in every respect than those that would have been necessary for the modest temperatures rise.
Warmists have ‘cried wolf’ far too often, and danger is that any future advice to prepare will be simply ignored.
agree. nicely put.
Vuk, joelo, good souls.
Yes. You’re both right.
Simple home insulation – which keeps nasty warming out, will – also – keep nasty colding out.
Both to some extent.
A couple of degrees either way – add sweater and, heavy curtains – or galabiehs and heavy curtains.
More than a couple of degrees?
Not in our lifetimes, I suggest.
But I have every confidence that – to three or four degrees, either way, your great (etc.) grand children and mine will adjust. They will – even without any new technology . . . .
Folk live in Helsinki and in Hadramaut now – and have for generations – because they have adapted!!
Anathema to some watermelons.
And now – but not necessarily – largely mediated by available – AND affordable – energy.
Which watermelons wish to restrict or eliminate.
Auto
Science is dead, killed by venal, leftist academics, biased, sensationalist media, and a wilfully ignorant electorate.
“A long time ago, a very experienced political campaign director explained a curiosity she had noticed, over her years of campaigning. If you deliver five leaflets, then knock on people’s door to talk about politics, they have no memory of receiving any campaign material. But deliver that magic sixth leaflet, and they suddenly remember who you are.”
That magic number, some say 6 some say 7, has been part of marketing for a long time in
Sales 101. It is referred to as Top Of Mind Awareness (TOMA). Others call it Product Name Awareness (PNA). It is the driving force as to why you see even well known, household name products continue to be advertised due to the fear that some competitor will replace them in TOMA. This is crucial to sales because everyone in not in the market for your product all the time, but when they are you want to make sure they think of you first, automatically. Sometimes it is so effective that the company product name becomes the generic name for the product. Kleenex (facial tissue), QTip (cotton swab), Bandaid (adhesive bandage), etc.
Sorry, hit the post comment button too soon.
To finish my statement, this TOMA can also work in reverse. If you achieve TOMA but then fail to deliver a quality product or fail to deliver on your promises or predictions, people will then remember you and your product as no good and something they do not want. That is where the climate change fear seems to be heading
Hi Tom
In the UK there was once a businessman called Gerald Ratner, owner of a nation wide chain of jewellery stores, making millions. He thought he was built proof, so to explain his business acumen told to the AGM, to paraphrase, ‘people pay good money for the utter cr..ap”. Suffice to say that was the end of his empire.
I have a sneaky feeling that lot of the AGW’s scientists are thinking if not saying exactly the same thing about their merchandise (please let’s not call it science).
vukcevic
Climate science — taxpayers paying good money for utter crap.
A restatement of your absolutely correct thought — thankyou.
Eugene WR Gallun
Tom in Florida July 5, 2015
“If you achieve TOMA but then fail to deliver a quality product or fail to deliver on your promises or predictions, people will then remember you and your product as no good and something they do not want.”
Your post reminded me of one of my favorite ads. Back in the 1970s, Wilkinson was advertising their razor blades. A later ad , I presume by Gillette, referred to Wilkinson razor blades and gave their propaganda spiel, then referred to Gillette and gave their propaganda spiel, and ended with, “Try them both. We think you’ll know which company paid for this advertisement.”
Learning a new language apparently requires revisiting a word 7 times to commit it solidly to memory.
Hoover
Auto
Social mania have their seasons,
Don’t know why, don’t know their reasons.
============
This is the last great AGW push and it is failing miserably, Only the true believers, the useful fools, the grant seekers, the climate industry in general, including the media and the scamming political classes are pushing this climate ponzi scheme.
Oh so true!
“All this green nonsense – it’s closet racism. They want to deny Africa and the 3rd world cheap energy, to keep them poor” and it will!
People aren’t fools, despite the contempt some politicians privately express for the gullibility of their supporters. Even when people aren’t really paying attention, there is some kind of threshold, a mental filter, which governs whether people are aware of what is happening.
The threshold of awareness has been well and truly crossed, with regard to the credibility of nonsensical climate claims of tipping points which never tip, arctic ice which doesn’t melt away, and climate catastrophes which never manifest.
The people don’t matter to the watermelons. The politicians are much more important and much more easily led.
Dig in for the long hall folks. Even if there is no significant agreement at the Paris talks the battle will go on with increasing intensity and the climate change meme will be there like that evil chameleon in Monsters Inc. What is required is for some leader in the world to stand up and state the case clearly why carbon dioxide is not a pollutant! Otherwise what we get it BP and Shell painting themselves green along with sundry investment houses and the hustle goes on.
At Paris, 0bama will announce his decision to unilaterally ban coal-fired power plants by executive order, saying, “…Folks will just have to get used to it. What are they gonna do, impeach me?” MSM journalists will pee their pants laughing at 0bama’s wry wit.
People are not stupid, they know that even if there was some warming of the planet (which there hasn’t been anyway), all of the ridiculous predictions just will not occur (deaf fish, invasion by aliens, sea levels rising by x/y/z feet, mass extinction…… the list is endless). I would guess that the majority of the public regard climate “scientists” as typical one-issue eccentrics, listen to them politely and ignore whatever they have to say because it defies common sense.
The majority ARE stupid. Yeah a good portion of the Independents woke up (they should have known a lot earlier), but the registered Dems just follow the piper.
The majority is NOT stupid. They are simply too busy to explore the tools they need to decide for themselves. We all do it in one vein or another. Stop to realize that as a Republic, we have to rely on our politicians to get it right. While this has been crumbling at a national level right before our eyes for the last 20 or so years, most people experience the local level – where most areas are actually responsive and accountable to the voter base. The national stage has been political theatre for so long, that many ignore it entirely because they are concentrating not only on their own busy lives, but on their own local politics.
The “Bell Curve” isn’t actually shaped like a symmetrical bell above the X-axis, like a statistical ‘normal’ distribution … it’s bulging up on the left side to reflect the fact that the Average is below the Median. A few geniuses offset a larger number of dolts to raise the Median up.
“People aren’t fools …”
Thank you. The general public, yes, but the acedemia in general? What a laugh! I would isolate them out of that generic statement.
OTOH, it does seem the general public is foolish in areas, like politically, by never insisting on term limits on these out-of-control bought politicians. If they had but two terms, across the board and two might be too long, seems this world would be a much better place. Who are you really afraid of?… the politicians and what they can and are doing to us all or not doing what they should. Our political system is totally corrupt, again, across the board.
Honestly, I think that two-term limits would be far more damaging. Think about it: After two terms, Senator McGee is out on his rear. Who then comes in to take his place? Whoever is financed to, that’s who. Since they would be forced into a “lame duck” mode like the president, they could vote for and pass whatever they wished without ever needing to be held accountable. It’s one of the reasons I think that the presidency shouldn’t have that limit, either.
Take a look at Obama: He is pursuing his preferred agenda with reckless abandon because now he is completely unaccountable. Even if every single person thought his agenda was crap and wanted him to stop, he wouldn’t need to care. At the very, very worst, what will happen? He’ll get pulled out of his presidency a year or two early. He is not accountable because he has no need to try and gain our respect or trust anymore.
I get that “The Devil You Know is Better Than The Angel You Don’t” thing can get long in the tooth, especially for some districts where the person has been in office for two generations, but the term limits only make the politicians more reckless and prone to doing things according to their conscience instead of the voters’ and more likely to vote for things that get them cushy jobs after eight years of being in politics.
Money is still the problem, just from a different direction.
Like market bubbles and panics, the trend of a pathological science is to rise to a peak popularity and then drop toward oblivion. It’s one of Irving Langmuir’s observations.
Agree. Once the alarmist, catastrophic climate Change paradigm bubble breaks, it will do so with punishing speed on the proponents. Which of course is the peril that mainstream climate scientists are placing all of science is when their credibilty in the eyes of the public is devastated.
But the alarmism is fueled by government money and that is slow to change directions.
It is the nature of disasters that they are fairly quick, intense and then they disappear as if they never happened as far as the planet is concerned. A large bolide strike apparently wiped out the dinosaurs but it basically gave impetus to evolutionary change and the planet recovered, greened, new ecologies fitted nicely into the overall framework. This is the worst it gets until some inexorable extraplanetary physical evolutionary event destroys earth.
Anything we might like to frame as human-caused disaster is puny, local and transitory . The ‘moonscape’ of Sudbury, Ontario from open air, cord wood, nickel-copper ore roasting is no more having re-greened. The Antiox smelter moonscape of northern British Columbia of the 1920s was a case history selected for study by environmentalists in the 1970s to explore long term damage. They went up to the beautiful Stikine River area, got lost in the lush green forest and had to engage a local to lead them to the site. They unexpectedly came upon some eroding concrete and rusted iron totally overgrown and invisible from the air or from 20 metres away on the ground.
Gary P
“It is the nature of disasters that they are fairly quick, intense and then they disappear as if they never happened as far as the planet is concerned. A large bolide strike apparently wiped out the dinosaurs but it basically gave impetus to evolutionary change and the planet recovered, greened, new ecologies fitted nicely into the overall framework. This is the worst it gets until some inexorable extra-planetary physical evolutionary event destroys earth. ”
They adapted.
I have no doubt, and I think that you, similarly. have no doubt, that humans and life will, indeed, adapt.
Thanks, Auto
No interest in climate?
But Paris is coming!
Some new scare stories
They need to start running;
But if they can’t get people
Suitably afraid,
Then how will a new world order
Ever get made?
http://rhymeafterrhyme.net/paris-another-climate-jamboree/
In my experience, the general public have seen through the lies and deceit many years ago. When I started bloggin the Daily Mail back in 2005 it was 99% people very concerned about Warming. Now, there is 99% of very angry people who realise they have been had, and not afraid to voice their opinions.
No, the problem is the establishment and the BBC. They have bought into warming, and have much more to lose than the public, if they admit they were wrong. They will either lose funding or credibility, and so cannot admit they were wrong. So there is a small cabal in the UK, probably less that 5% who are firmly wedded to Warming – but they are the ones in control of the political and media power-levers.
Ralph
All this means is that, sadly, despite not wanting too, they are going to have to circumvent democracy and existing laws to do this…for our own good of course. /sarc
They already are. Epa , nuff said. There are more regulations alrrady in place which we don t even know about.
My experience is that friends, generally thoughtful and well-meaning, do believe what they they hear on the BBC. However, their personal experience doesn’t match up to the repeated scare stories so they “fall back” into becoming tacit supporters of climate policies. This really came home to me recently in a council meeting to object to a wind farm application. I was the only one of those who spoke against that didn’t start by saying “I believe in renewables but…”.
use these:
some ugly nuclear waste info
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/
good concrete CO2 double standard stuff
http://stopthesethings.com/2014/08/16/how-much-co2-gets-emitted-to-build-a-wind-turbine/
“I believe in renewables …” is often used in the U.S.and Canada by those who object to wind and solar projects. Fear is a motivator when people speak in public about issues.
Being an intelligent being, the climate is the least of my concerns. It’s only leftists/liberals who are in denial of the real problems facing the world who fear bogeymen.
The problem is, how aware are people that they’ve been lied to, and what are they going to do about it?
Not to worry, dear leftists out there, our colleges and universities are trying their hardest to inculcate good, left thinking (err..feeling) autonamatons….
http://www.americanexperiment.org/publications/commentaries/campus-sustainability-going-green-is-just-part-of-the-plot
The way to capture universities is to control the grants and research agenda.
In US, White House sets that agenda.
I’m afraid many of the commentators here are over optimistic concerning a hoped-for climate enlightenment of the conformist majority of society:
Why should all the common sheeple look after the terms “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” in Google if they get the “right message” infused constantly and without any effort by the MSM ???
and there are still many profiteers out there
I expect an escalation of propaganda PR.
There is nothing more dangerous than the confrontation of belief by knowledge and logic.
Beware cornered animals who have hitched the ride for decades. Career change is not an option.
I have laid claim to a few useful idiots in my neighborhood.
They were initially insulted. But now some bother to ask me.
I am from very rural area. Farmers say to me – “Thanks for writing your stuff in the newspaper.
They want to tax carbon?”
As long as people are experiencing record breaking snow and cold in their regions in the Northern Hemisphere, which has happened for the last few winters, interest in climate change will continue to decline. Let us see if the upcoming El Nino makes any difference.
coming El Nino????
FYI, it’s here.
Regarding hype
This article at Deutsche Welle gives a pretty good impression about a desperate try by Nobel laureate Brian Schmidt to utilize his position as Nobel laureate to hype the Paris thing:
http://www.dw.com/en/nobel-laureates-call-for-action-on-climate-change-at-lindau/a-18559670
“Schmidt was talking at a carefully orchestrated advance press conference on Thursday – all comments embargoed. It was poorly attended by journalists, and that perhaps set the tone for some of the statements by the Nobel Laureates. Later, David Gross complained to DW the media was uninterested in asking detailed questions about the content of the declaration. – It’s a bit difficult to do that when you’re not allowed to see the content. We were set up.
Still, the laureates say it’s in part the media’s responsibility to influence public opinion.”
Regarding the following quote:
“The 2015 Mainau Declaration has a vast majority of Nobel Laureates attending this year’s meeting signing a joint appeal, calling for action on climate change.”
– please note that it is misleading. 36 out of 65 Nobel laureate attendees signed the declaration.
That can hardly be called a vast majority.
My gut feeling is that Schmidt, at that time, expected that many more laureates would sign.
In my opinion, the whole set up was a total fiasco – in many ways.
I Don,t mind continued research or policy around global warming, or cooling for that matter. Just leave CO2 out of it.
Disinterest and indifference is not necessarily a good sign. The fact that most people are ignoring the issue means that they don’t know what is being proposed for Paris this fall, and as a consequence, are not raising their voice against it. The pols are free to pursue their agendas unopposed by the masses.
I wouldn’t go that far. But perhaps it could be said that people don’t remain fools forever. Eventually, most of them will catch on. Politicians who bet on the stupidity of the people get elected all the time. Don’t forget what Jonathan Gruber had to say about how they had to fool the American voter to get Obamacare to pass. They not only fooled the voters but the Supreme Court too.
Considering the scientific understand of climate change on both sides of the issue I would argue that really hardly anybody is concerned about the issue. The media and the political know it alls either have monetary or political interest or just need their team to be right. They could care less what is actually happening or not happening to the environment. Subconsciously I haven’t seen any honest alarmist about melting to death or drowning.
After years of research and trillions of $$ invested a perpetual motion machine have been created that runs on 100% BS. Better known by the slang term, government, it remains the the only known substance in the universe able to resist the Second law of thermodynamics. Using nothing more that pure BS alone, government is is able to take empty the space between the ears and transform it into and endless supply of pure, unadulterated nonsense.
They put the baffle in bafflegab.
I would love to know whether searches for the term “climate scam” have increased recently? Certainly there are far more sites that now respond to this search (excluding the red herring ones set up by warmists).
interest in COP21 is ramping up though…
http://i61.tinypic.com/f3i70x.png
Yahoo search:
Climate Scam = 8,790,000
Climate Lies = 7,750,000
COP 21 = 6,190,000
charting COP21 interest prior to last years Peru boondoggle is meaningless.
That would be http://climate-l.iisd.org/events/unfccc-cop-21/
The 21st session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC is expected to take place in December 2015, in Paris, France.
So many refer to alarmists calling wolf! In this set of circumstances, it is the alarmist wolf donning various environmental cover stories and wearing a sheep fleece while calling “Wolf” creating noise and pointing fingers to divert from their own agenda. So handy to accuse others of the things they do in weaving their propaganda.!
Just wait until after this El Niño and the bottom falls out in 2017 or 2018 which is typical after a El Niño event, however those downward spikes have been getting steeper since 1998 progressively.
Solar activity. What prognosis?
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/isunspots_daily.png
http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-sunspot-number.gif?time=1436161802000
Xie xie ren. Having experienced the late 1970’s and early 1980’s winters in Finland worsened by gloom forecasts of a new glaciation at the time, I need serious convincing about the pleasures of a winter wonderland. Now looking at your chart, another move further south seems timely.
Female and male Russian scientists studied the relationship among “The Total Solar Irradiance, UV Emission and Magnetic Flux during the Last Solar Cycle Minimum” (2013):
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jas/2013/368380/
Abstract
We have analyzed the total solar irradiance (TSI) and the spectral solar irradiance as ultraviolet emission (UV) in the wavelength range 115–180 nm, observed with the instruments TIM and SOLSTICE within the framework of SORCE (the solar radiation and climate experiment) during the long solar minimum between the 23rd and 24th cycles. The wavelet analysis reveals an increase in the magnetic flux in the latitudinal zone of the sunspot activity, accompanied with an increase in the TSI and UV on the surface rotation timescales of solar activity complexes. In-phase coherent structures between the midlatitude magnetic flux and TSI/UV appear when the long-lived complexes of the solar activity are present. These complexes, which are related to long-lived sources of magnetic fields under the photosphere, are maintained by magnetic fluxes reappearing in the same longitudinal regions. During the deep solar minimum (the period of the absence of sunspots), a coherent structure has been found, in which the phase between the integrated midlatitude magnetic flux is ahead of the total solar irradiance on the timescales of the surface rotation.
From this it follows that larger impact on climate can have force of the solar wind (solar protons) and galactic radiation. The solar wind definitely affect to pressure changes over the magnetic poles.
>>I suspect that the threshold of awareness has been well and truly crossed with respect to the credibility of nonsensical climate claims…. <<
I agree with this sentiment. You don't have to be "climate expert" to know which way the wind blows. I've lived in the same house here on the east slope of the Colorado Rocky Mountains for 33 years, and this is the first time I can ever remember having to turn my furnace back on in the middle of JULY because the morning temperatures are just a little too cool, low 50s. I've done it many times in the past in mid June but never in July. That kind of thing, plus all of those failed predictions should be enough to convince anyone that the AGW paradigm is just a bunch of horse manure.