A lot of us look at the actions of climate change alarmists and wonder how what would seem to be educated people can justify their own actions given the way they sometimes behave. Personally, I often wonder if they aren’t just so off-the-rails that they end up becoming like the “crazy cat lady of climate” in Australia who spends most of her waking hours digging in her own virtual cat litter for nuggets to expound upon, to prove that somehow “climate deniers” are bad and that climate alarmists are good.
Dr. Judith curry has an interesting post about the editor of Science, she writes:
Here is a clear-cut example of advocacy by a scientist, Marcia McNutt, who also happens to be the Chief Editor of Science: The beyond-two-degree inferno. Read the whole thing, its only about 600 words. I cite here the passages that I particularly want to comment on:
The time for debate has ended. Action is urgently needed. The Paris-based International Energy Agency recently announced that current commitments to cut CO2 emissions [known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)] from the world’s nations are insufficient to avoid warming the entire planet by an average of more than 2°C above the preindustrial level. To set more aggressive targets, developed nations need to reduce their per-capita fossil fuel emissions even further, and by doing so, create roadmaps for developing nations to leapfrog technologies by installing low-CO2–emitting energy infrastructure rather than coal-fired power plants as they expand their energy capacity.
I applaud the forthright climate statement of Pope Francis, currently our most visible champion for mitigating climate change, and lament the vacuum in political leadership in the United States. This is not the time to wait for political champions to emerge. Just as California has decided to go it alone, every sector (transportation, manufacturing, agriculture, construction, etc.) and every person need to do whatever is possible to reduce carbon pollution by conserving energy, adopting alternative energy technologies, investing in research, and capturing CO2 at the source.
In Dante’s Inferno, he describes the nine circles of Hell, each dedicated to different sorts of sinners, with the outermost being occupied by those who didn’t know any better, and the innermost reserved for the most treacherous offenders. I wonder where in the nine circles Dante would place all of us who are borrowing against this Earth in the name of economic growth, accumulating an environmental debt by burning fossil fuels, the consequences of which will be left for our children and grandchildren to bear? Let’s act now, to save the next generations from the consequences of the beyond-two-degree inferno.
…
Re the Dante Inferno allegory. Digging In the Clay has an interesting and entertaining post Climate Scientists Road to Hell:
But there is another road to hell for climate scientists and editors of journals and professional societies, that involves
- Appeal to authority
- Absence of doubt
- Intolerance of debate
- A desire to convince others of the ideological ‘truth’
- A willingness to punish those that don’t concur
That last bit is something I have to deal with; it happens mainly because WUWT is so successful and reaches far more people [than] most of the alarmist blogs out there. I and others who dare to question the “consensus” get the “slime and punishment” every day. I wear it as a badge of honor, because if WUWT wasn’t effective, they wouldn’t bother.
As far as the way they use the knowledge they have (that they feel superior about) goes, I’d say that alarmists are “model” citizens, all. It reminds me of a Faustian bargain, whereby Faust traded his soul to the devil in exchange for knowledge and power.
![fausttitle[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/fausttitle1.jpg?resize=620%2C346&quality=83)
The question is; is the knowledge acquired worth anything? And will the power they assume they have over others due to this knowledge stand the test of time?
We’ll find out soon, because nature just isn’t cooperating. Hence, they have the need for adjusting reality to fit the bargain. And, it seems the Pope’s encyclical, our modern example of a Faustian bargain, isn’t making much of an impact beyond the already converted.
In somewhat related news, I’ll have an anti-Faustian announcement this week. Stay tuned.
UPDATE: I get word that there will be yet another “blockbuster” paper published this week that will attempt to explain “the pause”. From what I make of it, it is an attempt to explain the “missing heat” using “spooky action at a distance” in the oceans. Watching the entanglement will be hilarious.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks for creating this island of sanity, Anthony.
That last bit is something I have to deal with; it happens mainly because WUWT is so successful and reaches far more people that most of the alarmist blogs out there.
Typo: I think the second ‘that’ was meant to be ‘than’.
[Working on that edit. .mod]
I have said this before, but i will say it again: What global warming? The pro-AGW camp and us sceptics both agree that there has been no GW for 18.5 years which, not a single one of their computer models predicted. They call it the “hiatus” or “pause”, I call it a triumph of hope over experience!
It seem to me that there is a shift in the language of the warmist of late, the emphasis is always on fossil fuels and pollution more than climate change and CO2. Is this just my impression??
Have they discovered Dark Ice?
Perfect analogy!
Be careful. A lot of scientists are skeptics of AWG and yet will defend the conclusions of Dark Matter and Energy even though they have the same correlation you allude to here.
There is much better evidence for ‘dark matter’ than for CO2 induced AGW. The latter being none and former being that nearly all galaxies that we can observe appear to be rotating as if they had more mass (gravity) than expected. This also goes for the motion of galaxy clusters. Scientist, not knowing why galaxies appear this way, termed the phenomenon ‘dark matter’. There are no grand claims here, just observation and guess work at this time. Evidence for dark energy is at the horizon of the observable universe and our understanding of physics, so take it for what it is.
Get stuck on the idea that a hypothesis MUST be right then anything that doesn’t fit must be explained rather than admit, “We have a lot to learn. We might find out we are wrong.”
“Dark Ice” to explain away the missing confirming observations of CAGW? Perfect!
(After all, “The science is settled.”)
And I’m okay with Dark Matter being a theory that is undergoing the scientific process, because, unlike this CAGW theory, I’m very likely not going to see my tax bill increase and my liberty stolen as a result.
Bruce
“Adjusting reality”
It amazes me that the “Alarmists” can tell folks to ignore observations, data, and reality and believe our “scientific” models, and so many do!
Once someone becomes infected with any ideology (generally speaking), there are no amount of facts that will dissuade their mindset. Similar to an alcoholic – something has to trigger the individual from within in order to see the light and then take action to help themselves.
Such is the human need to be right.
Oh, they try to “adjust reality” all OVER the place; I’ve been recently banned from another Forum for the politically-incorrect opinion that “race” and “gender” are biological actualities, and not “fluid” or “social constructs.” LOTS of experimental thought out there by folks who’ve been educated beyond their intelligence! I blame lack of contextual contact with the natural world.
Well, Race might be based loosely on biology, but racial divisions are completely arbitrary, so yes that is a social construct.
And sex is biological, but gender is also based on semi-arbitrary steriotypes. In short, being female and carrying children is biological. Being a girl and wearing pretty dresses is social.
So it depends on the context you are talking about. Given the rude subtext of your post, I think you might have been banned for being a jerk about it.
Goldrider probably meant to say sex instead of gender. Male and female are sexes, masculine and feminine are genders.
people have sexes, words have gender.
ANIMAL FARM—NUF SAID.
Don’t believe your lying eyes!!
“The time for debate has ended.” (says Marcia McNutt Editor-in-Chief Science Journals)
Debate? What debate?
“Action is urgently needed.”
I note the absence of specifics. Four legs good, two legs bad.
“The time for debate has ended.”
In your dreams. It appears to be just beginning – hence the threats to and denigration of the opposing debating teams.
“The time for debate has ended.”
Marcia may actually be correct about that. We sceptics have given the CAGW crowd literally years to explain how and why they are continually and monotonically altering the data. Their response? (crickets).The alarmist have consistently refused to discuss their motive, their techniques or their rationale. The time for debate has ended. They didn’t merely lose; they forfeited.
Assuming CAGW is true, the action needed is simple. Cut off all fossil fuel energy use, including the energy needed to publish the magazine, “Science
.
How about this for action: Call off the Paris boondoggle, do the conferences by internet, and save all that CO2 that the jets would burn getting the elite to a place where they can party together.
Oh come on ! Where’s the fun in that?
The ongoing Greek debt insanity is a lot like AGW rationale. It makes a lot of noise but does not get to the fundamentals and fact checking of how the campaign spin got there or where it is likely headed. The Greeks have pursued ever more radical policy leaders from the Papandreou dynasty to the Syriza Party today. Meanwhile the AGW movement has strayed from anything close to fact checking in favor of fire hose media presence instead. They are building ad presence for branding purposes to achieve a fraudulent goal.
Marcia Mc Nutt…hmmm…
A squirrel?
You need a better argument than making fun of her name, think harder.
Precisely.
“Sal Minella” makes fun of “Mc Nutt”!
Uh, I’m not going there, nope, not me.
These pompous @ur momisugly$$e$ need to be mocked.
Thanks Anthony. That comment required no thought at all, just an adherence to “Rules For Radicals”.
JohnWho. My real name is Dr. Lance Boyle but I prefer the anonymity of “Sal Minella”.
Whatever happened to having a “peer reviewed” paper published being a requirement for being qualified to speak about “Climate Change”?
So aptly named.
Not only is McNutt’s urging inane-sounding and vapid, it shows how little she really knows about the issue. Having cancelled debate, she had freed herself of the responsibility of knowledge and the methods by which it is gained….striking a death-blow to the journal she edits. Not bad for five minutes of writing.
So does anyone actually listen and take action on her nonsense?
Unfortunately, yes.
“…and the general viability of the planet to support a population of more than 7 billion people.”
The crux of the matter.
The Planet has managed to support those +7 Billion every year for a while now, despite the inefficiencies of corrupt and socialist nations.
The AAAS probably chose her largely for her eagerness to be a CC cheerleader. The AAAS owns her editorial, implicitly–and perhaps explicitly, if she ran it by them before publication.
Two straw polls (referendums) could clear the air on a lot things in the world today. 1) A German referendum on more bailouts for Greece and 2) a U.S. referendum on a large carbon tax with proceeds divided among the UN agencies, Hillary spending priorities, and other redistribution of wealth spending.
If you look back at Obama’s first budget in 2009, the carbon tax, which was approved by the House, was used to offset the Obamacare deficit.
Interesting!
2.0 degrees warming is fine. 2.1 degrees is a living hell.
Most important comment in the entire thread.
No need to understand science or scientific principles, which the vast majority of humans do not. Only requires the ability to follow the simple logic, and recognize stupidity when it is presented in a stripped-down version.
0.2 degrees F = armageddon.
Preposterous.
Oh, the inanity. It’s no wonder the Climate Liars (including useful idiots like McNutty) think they are in Hell, what with pants alight and all.
Over and over, commenters in this and other blogs have been predicting various versions of an underlying expectation that scientists will “converge on a common base of factuality”. In other words, working to find the truth will make you free. Or, to put it another way, the gap between the AGW meme and the “skeptic” viewpoint will inevitably close over time as a result of actual climate “facts”. Some view this “convergence” as possibly taking several months; others as taking several decades.
I am intrigued by this idea, but not convinced. Just as likely, I think, is a mushrooming scandal over a period of five or ten years, in which the climate scaremongers are (to a very limited degree) held to account for their transgressions. Catalysts, one way or another, would include the actual temperature records over the next few years — in other words, will the “pause” continue? Another would be tied to the results of the U.S. presidential election in 2016 and possible close congressional examination of the work of some “climate scientists”.
Plenty of slime. Perhaps not so much punishment.
I have no such expectations. If CAGW were to disappear as an issue today, the alarmists would soon find another. Their numbers would not be diminished and their desire to extract rents by meddling in other people’s business would remain unchanged.
Tom,
The Alarmists are already cultivating the next assaults in their campaign. They have been forwarding the concept of “Ocean Acidification” ever since “Man Made Global Warming” was demonstrated to be false. The United Nations is active in “Sustainable Development” as an instrument of control. The next big scare story is working it way to the top as “Species Extinction”.
“Sustainable Development”. I have no idea what it is but I do know you’ll never get anything approved by a government agency without putting those two words in your presentation.
“Sustainable development” is an impossibility. Consider the pre-Industrial Revolution British Empire. It used nearly zero fossil fuels (coal for home heating, maybe), and was entirely dependent on sail and animal labor for moving things about and getting things done. Without those, nothing could have been sustained, and Britain was on the verge of deforestation to provide masts for those ships. By the early 1800s they were importing wood for their tallest masts.
I honestly think that the real vision the Greens have is to keep all of our current technology, but somehow kill off the vast majority of humanity (themselves and their ilk excluded), so that the fossil fuels they will need to carry on will not be “harmful” to the climate.
http://www.americanexperiment.org/publications/commentaries/campus-sustainability-going-green-is-just-part-of-the-plot
Sustainability….campus style.
Yes, ‘sustainability’ has already become the next bid thing.
Perhaps the best example of how ideas work their way through the culture is eugenics. There came a point where the political class embraced the idea while the scientific community was backing away from it. Seems to me that’s about where we are with the AGW hypothesis. Don’t mistake the volume of propaganda for what people really think.
To Tetragrammaton [“Over & over…”] I envision a far different outcome. As we have witnessed during the pause, in reaction to the emails, and in the seventies, the shrillness of the scaremongers increases, and penalties to ‘non-believers,’ as well, grows more intense. We make a great mistake to suppose the facts of ‘actual temperature records’ to make the slightest difference. In the seventies the scare was impending ice, lots of it! When warming came instead, scaremongers claimed they hadn’t been serious about the coming cold. Consider that AGW leadership goals have nothing to do with ‘truth.’ They seek to convince of their version of reality for the sole purpose of world taxation and influence. If the political reality I’ve proposed is actual, the facts of observed warming or cooling or hiatus will make not the slightest difference. The program of ‘slime and punishment’ will continue to accelerate to the denial of all debate, of all science, of all culture, and any other supposed obstacle. The ONE THING we can do for our grandchildren, the next generation, and the world, is to oppose this nonsense as vigorously as possible and with every means at our disposal. [My profound thanks to the moderator of this site and any other which arms those of us who long for reason!]
I have a former friend and AGW supporter with whom I enjoyed spirited debates. Until he took a workshop of some kind on “combating denialists.” He now believes slandering and punishing people is perfectly OK in support of the cause. He is quite literally ready to put on a green shirt and start rounding up deniers to be put on the trains to oblivion. The other night I had dinner with a fine and respected older gentleman who had joined the SS in Germany at age 10. After hearing his description of children using guns to force adults to do what they demanded, I stopped communicating with my AGW “friend.” Better not to get in his way.
The green movement has become no different than other totalitarian movements, many of which support radical depopulation as the solution to the world’s problems. The Inquisition, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and countless genocides litter our past. Is eco-fascism next?
“Evil thrives when good men do nothing.”
Keep up the good work Anthony.
I do not understand the analogy. Faust’s deal was for something. What we are discussing is madness, group lies, not a bad idea, a bad deal.
This is surreal, a twilight zone episode. The cult of CAGW fanatics truly believe or pretend that they believe that are they are helping the world, ‘saving’ the world. Leading people off a cliff is not leadership. At what point in time is ignorance no longer an excuse for leading people off a cliff?
Facts and logic matter. Honest unbiased basic scientific, engineering, and economic analysis matters. There is no CAGW problem to solve, there has been no significant warming for 18 years, there is now record sea ice in the Antarctic for every month of the year. There certainly is a green scam crisis to solve.
The cult of CAGW policies will triple the cost of electricity (German electrical costs are three times higher than US electrical costs) and force the destruction of virgin forest to grow food to convert to biofuel for no significant reduction in CO2 emissions.
The green scams do not work. All the pain for no gain.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-google-engineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-renewable-energy-fantasy-1436104555
It is surreal, William. It’s like watching primitive tribesmen transport the virgin to the mouth of the volcano, all the while trying and trying to explain to them why roasting maidens will not affect the rain.
Some of these people gained was fame and fortune, e.g. Al Gore.
Whups, I meant: Some of these people gained fame and fortune, e.g. Al Gore. (Extra “was” in there).
I suggest that these are ALL marxists (religiously faithful) planted at the head of used-to-be scientific journals, magazines, environmental organizations, administrations of higher education, government agencies (NASA, NOAA), papacy, and on and on — using bazillions of $. Wonder where that came from? What are their next plans?
They simply need to be fired, everyone of them. And if they fraudulently changed data or the historical record, they must be indicted and sent to prison. Thanks to the bloggers and blogging community who remain faithful to the scientific method and freedom of inquiry.
Of all the things I’ve heard Marx of being accused of, that’s a new one.
Perhaps a less conspiratorial approach and more consideration of how promotions in the journal editing field are actually made will be more useful.
1) Getting sales leads to advancement for an editor.
2) Publishing important papers gets sales.
3) Important papers are novel (risky) or deal with important things.
4) The end of the world is important.
5) Doubting the end of the world leads to less important papers being published.
6) Less important papers being published leads to less advancement.
7) All the most scared end up at the top.
I’m not sure what you mean, M Courtney. Surely you can see that Marxism is a religion blindly believed in by those seeking utopia and built on lie after lie after lie.
You might like to take a listen to former President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus when he spoke at the Heartland Institute’s 2012 International Conference on Climate Change. During the question period, Brian Sussman, author of Eco-Tyranny asked Mr. Klaus why he thinks that socialists and communists embrace green issues.
The reply was, “Those who are supporting global warming doctrine are really interested in organizing the human community according to their ideas and in this respect, it’s identical with communists. Identical. Not similar.”
Sussman’s question starts at about the 42:30 mark
ie The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
It was one of the Toynbee’s I think who described Marxism as a Christian heresy.
You know I seriously do not think it is that bad. I believe that out there ,there are many fundamentalists who have been fed on tripe since the day they were born , whether that is religious or scientific ,is irrelevant.
However , whilst I perceive no harm from many cultists like the Jehovah’s or the Mormons ,there is a great deal of harm to be had from certain Muslim sects.
Similarly in Science , we have had the biggest explosion in information technology in the past 30 years ,the vast majority of it warning that we , our children or grandchildren could be toasted by (BOOO!) global warming.
In the religious experience, we learn from life to think a bit , move on , move backwards ,basically make up our own minds and many of us decide to take the view that you should believe what you like ,I will not impose my views on you and hopefully ,you will not try to convert me to your own view. That is a life and experience and education process.
Unfortunately ,with regard to CAGW , the fix is in , those who were taught that human beings are a bad thing killing the planet instead of catechism are fixed in their thinking. After their education ,they no longer research or even try to equivocate ,they were the “give me the child at 10 and I will give you the man /woman.” generation. Their beliefs are reinforced at every opportunity by a complacent and irrelevant media .
It is extremely tiresome and sad to even attempt a conversation with such people ,because they are CAGW fundamentalists,
So per se they are not bad people , they have just been lured into a cult way of thinking and rewarded by the dumb State if they agree and punished if they go off the rails.
A bit like the Catholic Church and the heresy trials of yore.
As an atheist I find it my heart ,to offer forgiveness if they repent and examine and listen and take note ,otherwise the dumbing down of humanity leaves me in total despair.
Those who take advice from scientists and claim thereafter that they were not guilty of stupidity should be first against the wall. Ignorance is fine if you have never had an education, to lean on one side of a scientific debate as Obama does ,is not ignorance ,it is a grave abuse of power and privilege .
When contemplating spending a trillion or two , I think I would wish to have some very balanced argument in front of mt agenda.
Well said sir
RogueElement451 says”
“I believe that out there ,there are many fundamentalists who have been fed on tripe since the day they were born”
One man’s tripe is another man’s delicacy 😉
“I will not impose my views on you and hopefully ,you will not try to convert me to your own view.”
The act of telling me what I will not try to do to you is an attempt to convert me. It is human nature. it is not only human nature but that of many animals and birds to warn others of danger but also to advise others of desirable things.
“As an atheist I find it my heart ,to offer forgiveness if they repent and examine and listen and take note”
I do not see a logical connection between “atheist” and “forgiveness”.
Pyromancer76. I agree. The communist leaders boasted many years ago that they would take us over without firing a shot. Looks like their plan is working. For them it may become like using poison gas during WW1. When the wind changed direction it came back to them.
There is a special place in climate hell for those in power who deceive. The most recent example comes from the UK, where the Met Office announced a record hot temperature, based on the thermometer at busy Heathrow airport. Nowhere else saw record temperatures.
Worse than that, the BBC then jumped on a paper from the UK Met Office saying basically that hot dry summers were the future for the UK. The warmers don’t miss a trick.
Well done Anthony. We stand with you and spread WUWT’s “good news” every day!
From her little 600 word essay – she manages to come up with almost all of the alarmist’s claims:
“The time for debate has ended. Action is urgently needed.”
The debate has barely begun, and as a highly educated woman, she doesn’t seem to have a BS detector.
Mine went off years ago on this “global warming” (climate change) subject.
I would like to compare her so called “carbon footprint” against Anthony’s – not that a carbon footprint really matters, but I think that Anthony’s footprint would win…
In rereading her extensive bio on Wikipedia, I notice that she at least changed her mind on the Keystone Pipeline. Maybe she does have a BS detector for some things…
“McNutt initially sided with environmentalists who opposed approval of the Keystone Pipeline. In an interview for NPR’s Morning Edition in 2014, she explained why she changed her mind and published an editorial in favor.[66] First, the oil is already being transported for example by truck and train, using more fossil fuels than the pipeline would use….”
*sigh*
If the scientific community and the political class really believed this, things would be different.
First, we would be on the tail end of a 20-year PR campaign de-demonizing nuclear power, and second, LFTR and 3rd generation reactors would be sprouting up all over the place.
Instead, we have the alarmist class jet-setting around the globe like they own their own aircraft.
I just had to adjust this sentence:
“Instead, we have the alarmist class jet-setting around the globe like
they own their own aircraftsomeone else is paying for everything.”The final circle in the Inferno is of course…ice.
I thought fraud, essentially corrupting the meaning of words to the point they can’t be put together to express complex ideas, was the 9th circle sin. For example, if everything is “catastrophic” then nothing is; and the fabric of society is destroyed though lack of perspective and reasoned response.
“Science is not a body of facts. Science is a method for deciding whether what we choose to believe has a basis in the laws of nature or not.” – Geophysicist Marcia McNutt
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/…/science-…/achenbach-text
I thought I was the one who was confused.
Broken link. Let’s try this:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text
Also from the article:
“We’ve never left high school”
Indeed, I think that just about sums up the whole thing. The need to belong, feeling instead of reason, reflecting outward, blaming the other, tribalism, saving the world, and all the rest of it.
Summed up in five words.
I had my head buried in books. There were other people in high school? Who knew?
She’s in with the in crowd.
===============
Like Fluoride? It’s obvious that Joel Achenbach didn’t attend the Monckton of Brenchley school of Persuasive Writing.
I have news for Marcia McNutt; some of us did leave high school. It’s about time she did.
So, according to Marcia, we choose to believe in something FIRST, and then we look through our grade 9 physics textbook to find a ‘basis’ for our belief. Not a law mind you, just a basis. She is a NUTT.
In a television interview following Obama’s announcement (of her as new director of USGS), McNutt said:
“Many other countries are far ahead of the U.S., in installing wind farms, installing solar panels, moving to alternate energies, and in preparing their populations for the decision-making necessary to cope with climate change”. (July 10, 2009) (my bold)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcia_McNutt
The try-out for these appointments has got to be an extraordinary deal – are you ready to renounce your past science for our loftier socialist goals?
[guns and thermodyanmics of climate – too stupid to even print -mod]
RMB says “I would recommend that everybody grab a heat gun and fire it at the surface of water and note that no heat passes into the water”
You would recommend it but for some reason you cannot quite bring yourself to actuall doing so. Why is that?
Perhaps I’ll try that experiment. What I expect is that much of the heat will be used converting the water into vapor but I consider it unlikely that no heat will enter the water.
Is this that wacko “surface tension” crapola again?
I fully believe the psychological effect being played out in a lot of alarmists is cognitive dissonance. I don’t believe I have ever experienced it but I imagine it could cause unbearable mental stress, especially if your core beliefs are very strongly held.
My new term for such people who are basically environmental ideologues is “dark green”. That’s the kind of attitude I feel in return whenever I question an aspect of climate science that doesn’t seem to add up.
“Cognitive dissonance” within the minds of our many alarmist scientists (97%?). Now there is an interesting idea. Yes, it is bound to be there in a lot of them. That is a comforting thought. There will be much psychological tension in those many minds – and at least some will succumb to their bad consciences eventually. I think many are just waiting for a chance to “come out” – waiting for a little boy piping up, “…..but he (the emperor) has got nothing on”
ICPP!
The only way one can declare the debate over is to admit you’ve lost. Thank you for conceding graciously, Dr. McNutt.