Slime and Punishment – How AGW believers have made their own Faustian Bargain

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

  1. Appeal to authority
  2. Absence of doubt
  3. Intolerance of debate
  4. A desire to convince others of the ideological  ‘truth’
  5. 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.

Image: from the blog Ascendant Justice

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 6, 2015 6:47 am

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]

July 6, 2015 6:54 am

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!

Reply to  andrewmharding
July 6, 2015 1:54 pm

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??

July 6, 2015 6:54 am

Have they discovered Dark Ice?

Reply to  me3
July 6, 2015 7:30 am

Perfect analogy!

Dan Clauser
Reply to  me3
July 6, 2015 9:16 am

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.

Joseph Murphy
Reply to  Dan Clauser
July 6, 2015 11:02 am

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.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Dan Clauser
July 6, 2015 4:57 pm

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.”)

Boulder Skeptic
Reply to  Dan Clauser
July 7, 2015 9:43 pm

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.

July 6, 2015 6:55 am

“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!

Reply to  JohnWho
July 6, 2015 7:04 am

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.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  kokoda
July 6, 2015 8:24 am

Such is the human need to be right.

Reply to  JohnWho
July 6, 2015 8:04 am

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.

Reply to  Goldrider
July 7, 2015 5:45 am

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.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Goldrider
July 7, 2015 5:41 pm

Goldrider probably meant to say sex instead of gender. Male and female are sexes, masculine and feminine are genders.

Paul Blase
Reply to  Goldrider
July 8, 2015 11:42 am

people have sexes, words have gender.

carbon bigfoot
Reply to  JohnWho
July 6, 2015 2:16 pm


Santa Baby
Reply to  JohnWho
July 6, 2015 8:29 pm

Don’t believe your lying eyes!!

Michael 2
July 6, 2015 6:58 am

“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.

Reply to  Michael 2
July 6, 2015 7:19 am

“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.

Jason Calley
Reply to  Michael 2
July 6, 2015 7:42 am

“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.

Alan McIntire
Reply to  Michael 2
July 6, 2015 7:46 am

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

Reply to  Michael 2
July 6, 2015 2:56 pm

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.

Reply to  JimB
July 9, 2015 4:46 am

Oh come on ! Where’s the fun in that?

July 6, 2015 6:59 am

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.

Sal Minella
July 6, 2015 7:00 am

Marcia Mc Nutt…hmmm…

Reply to  Sal Minella
July 6, 2015 7:05 am

A squirrel?

Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 6, 2015 7:10 am


Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 6, 2015 8:39 am

“Sal Minella” makes fun of “Mc Nutt”!
Uh, I’m not going there, nope, not me.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 6, 2015 11:28 am

These pompous @$$e$ need to be mocked.

Sal Minella
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 6, 2015 1:24 pm

Thanks Anthony. That comment required no thought at all, just an adherence to “Rules For Radicals”.

Sal Minella
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 6, 2015 1:27 pm

JohnWho. My real name is Dr. Lance Boyle but I prefer the anonymity of “Sal Minella”.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 6, 2015 5:09 pm

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

Whatever happened to having a “peer reviewed” paper published being a requirement for being qualified to speak about “Climate Change”?

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Sal Minella
July 6, 2015 11:27 am

So aptly named.

July 6, 2015 7:09 am

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.

Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
July 6, 2015 8:06 am

So does anyone actually listen and take action on her nonsense?

Reply to  Goldrider
July 6, 2015 10:37 am

Unfortunately, yes.

Mike Henderson
Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
July 6, 2015 2:26 pm

“…and the general viability of the planet to support a population of more than 7 billion people.”
The crux of the matter.

Reply to  Mike Henderson
July 7, 2015 7:30 pm

The Planet has managed to support those +7 Billion every year for a while now, despite the inefficiencies of corrupt and socialist nations.

Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
July 7, 2015 7:54 am

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.

July 6, 2015 7:17 am

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.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Resourceguy
July 6, 2015 11:31 am

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.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
July 8, 2015 4:29 am


July 6, 2015 7:20 am

2.0 degrees warming is fine. 2.1 degrees is a living hell.

Reply to  BallBounces
July 7, 2015 11:57 am

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.

Bruce Cobb
July 6, 2015 7:25 am

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.

July 6, 2015 7:36 am

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.

Tom Crozier
Reply to  Tetragrammaton
July 6, 2015 8:17 am

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.

Reply to  Tom Crozier
July 6, 2015 8:47 am

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”.

Tom Crozier
Reply to  Tom Crozier
July 6, 2015 10:31 am

“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.

James Schrumpf
Reply to  Tom Crozier
July 6, 2015 3:41 pm

“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.

Reply to  Tom Crozier
July 9, 2015 4:53 am

Yes, ‘sustainability’ has already become the next bid thing.

Reply to  Tetragrammaton
July 6, 2015 8:30 am

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.

Reply to  Tetragrammaton
July 6, 2015 9:09 am

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!]

Reply to  GE0
July 7, 2015 6:31 am

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.

William Astley
July 6, 2015 7:40 am

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.

The key problem appears to be that the cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy – the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction. This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more renewable plants simply to produce the energy required to manufacture and maintain renewable energy plants – an obvious practical absurdity.
The green scams fail without including the cost and energy input for battery systems. The costs and energy input for battery systems are never discussed as the calculation becomes ridiculous, absurd if battery systems are included.
To reduce CO2 emissions below 20% (note the 20% ‘reduction’ in CO2 emissions ignores the energy input to construct the green scams and ignores the reduction in power system efficiency due to forced change to single cycle gas plants which can be turned on/off/on/off/on/off rather than combined cycle gas plants which are 20% more efficient but require 10 hours to start and hence cannot be turned on/off/on/off/on/off, i.e. the idiotic CO2 reduction calculation is a scam) with wind and solar requires battery systems.
Ignoring astronomical costs to install battery systems, the energy required to construct the battery systems exceeds the energy ‘savings’ to use wind and solar.
The green scams do not include the cost and energy to replace the worn out wind turbines and battery systems.)
A research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the programme. After 4 years of effort, their conclusion is that renewable energy “simply won’t work”.

Recently Bill Gates explained in an interview with the Financial Times why current renewables are dead-end technologies. They are unreliable. Battery storage is inadequate. Wind and solar output depends on the weather. The cost of decarbonization using today’s technology (William: Solar and wind power rather than nuclear) is “beyond astronomical,” Mr. Gates concluded.

Reply to  William Astley
July 6, 2015 12:57 pm

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.

Reply to  William Astley
July 7, 2015 9:54 am

Some of these people gained was fame and fortune, e.g. Al Gore.

Reply to  TD
July 7, 2015 9:55 am

Whups, I meant: Some of these people gained fame and fortune, e.g. Al Gore. (Extra “was” in there).

July 6, 2015 7:41 am

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.

M Courtney
Reply to  pyromancer76
July 6, 2015 8:44 am

I suggest that these are ALL marxists (religiously faithful)…

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.

Reply to  M Courtney
July 6, 2015 9:08 am

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

Reply to  M Courtney
July 6, 2015 3:36 pm

ie The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Chris Hanley
Reply to  M Courtney
July 6, 2015 3:46 pm

It was one of the Toynbee’s I think who described Marxism as a Christian heresy.

Reply to  pyromancer76
July 6, 2015 8:47 am

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.

Reply to  RogueElement451
July 6, 2015 1:23 pm

Well said sir

Miichael 2
Reply to  RogueElement451
July 6, 2015 1:45 pm

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”.

Jim Francisco
Reply to  pyromancer76
July 7, 2015 8:47 am

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.

Don B
July 6, 2015 7:43 am

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.

Billy Liar
Reply to  Don B
July 6, 2015 3:52 pm

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.

Steve Clauter
July 6, 2015 7:54 am

Well done Anthony. We stand with you and spread WUWT’s “good news” every day!

July 6, 2015 7:55 am

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…

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
July 6, 2015 8:22 am

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….”

July 6, 2015 7:56 am


The time for debate has ended. Action is urgently needed. …
To set more aggressive targets, developed nations need to reduce their per-capita fossil fuel emissions even further,

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.

Reply to  TonyL
July 6, 2015 12:15 pm

I just had to adjust this sentence:
“Instead, we have the alarmist class jet-setting around the globe like they own their own aircraft someone else is paying for everything.”

July 6, 2015 7:58 am

The final circle in the Inferno is of course…ice.

Tom Crozier
July 6, 2015 8:07 am

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.

July 6, 2015 8:08 am

“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…/science-…/achenbach-text
I thought I was the one who was confused.

Reply to  jimmyy
July 6, 2015 8:30 am

Broken link. Let’s try this:
Also from the article:

Science appeals to our rational brain, but our beliefs are motivated largely by emotion, and the biggest motivation is remaining tight with our peers. “We’re all in high school. We’ve never left high school,” says Marcia McNutt.

“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.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  TonyL
July 6, 2015 9:14 am

I had my head buried in books. There were other people in high school? Who knew?

Reply to  TonyL
July 6, 2015 10:51 am

She’s in with the in crowd.

Reply to  TonyL
July 6, 2015 2:11 pm

We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge—from the safety of fluoride and vaccines to the reality of climate change—faces organized and often furious opposition. Empowered by their own sources of information and their own interpretations of research, doubters have declared war on the consensus of experts. There are so many of these controversies these days, you’d think a diabolical agency had put something in the water to make people argumentative. Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

Like Fluoride? It’s obvious that Joel Achenbach didn’t attend the Monckton of Brenchley school of Persuasive Writing.

Billy Liar
Reply to  TonyL
July 6, 2015 3:56 pm

I have news for Marcia McNutt; some of us did leave high school. It’s about time she did.

Reply to  jimmyy
July 9, 2015 5:21 am

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.

Bubba Cow
July 6, 2015 8:27 am

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)
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?

July 6, 2015 8:29 am

[guns and thermodyanmics of climate – too stupid to even print -mod]

Miichael 2
Reply to  RMB
July 6, 2015 1:51 pm

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.

Reply to  RMB
July 6, 2015 4:35 pm

Is this that wacko “surface tension” crapola again?

July 6, 2015 8:34 am

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.

Reply to  mpcraig
July 6, 2015 7:40 pm

“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”

Reply to  AndyE
July 7, 2015 8:16 am


July 6, 2015 8:34 am

The only way one can declare the debate over is to admit you’ve lost. Thank you for conceding graciously, Dr. McNutt.

Gary Pearse
July 6, 2015 8:39 am

“The time for debate has ended.”
We never had a debate! The cotton candy theory couldn’t stand a debate. This is the lame signature statement of the eyediologicals. Gore said it, Obama said it, MSM chorus sings it, doctrinaire government scientists spout it under orders, a pope grabs onto the straw, witlessly risking the survival of Catholicism by schmoozing with Groucho’s last namesake pol-philosophy. It is the bankrupt plaint of a group of campaigners who have no answers to critiques by opponents of the languishing CO2 theory of the end of the world and even nature’s own repudiation of it.
Dr. McNutt is a first generation product of lefty educational lobotomy that has brought us post-normal scientists. The brain power needed in earlier generations for an advanced degree in physics would otherwise be more than a little suspicious of a theory propounded by such as Maurice Strong, a communist from the Canadian prairies (now resident in Beijing – as a lifelong admirer of Chinese communism) whose formal education ended with high school. Some of course will argue that the idea was from the much smarter Margaret Thatcher, but the point remains.

July 6, 2015 8:40 am

I love this line: ” …to avoid warming the entire planet by an average of more than 2°C above the preindustrial level.” I can not understand, for the life of me, as to how any rational informed soul could possibly believe that the 12.5 C global temperature in the depths of the Little Ice Age is somehow a goal we should strive towards. Does that mean that a 12.5 C global temperature is “normal?”
We stand now at approximately 14 C in global temperature. We could most certainly take another 3 C rise in global temperatures like it was during the Eemian interglacial, and still be rather comfortable. What is it with climate scientists who seem to be completely in the dark when it comes to the knowledge of climate history?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  JimS
July 6, 2015 4:04 pm

Let’s not forget that ‘average global temperature” is a useless measurement.

July 6, 2015 8:48 am

Thank you Anthony for this forum and source of information. The debate is never over!

July 6, 2015 8:50 am

I hate to be reminded that Marcia McNutt was Director of the US Geological Survey for a few years, leading up to my decision to retire after nearly 40 years. I don’t mind retirement at all, I just can’t bring myself to think of her in the same capacity as John Wesley Powell
Under her leadership, USGS went from an agency of Geology, Hydrology, Geography, and Biology to a mish-mash of Climate and Land Use Change, Core Science Systems [don’t ask], Ecosystems, Energy and Minerals, Environmental Health [don’t ask either], Natural Hazards, and Water. No one understands it.
All “ecosystem modeling” work begins with the unquestioned presumption that IPCC scenarios are true and that increases of 4-6 C are realistic
And now Sally Jewell heads the whole Dept of Interior [“I hope there are no climate change deniers in the Department of Interior” – Sept 2013]
These are not incompetent women – they are incompetent, unscientific people

Reply to  GeologyJim
July 6, 2015 10:03 am

She uses the term “sustainability” which is one of the code words of UN Agenda 21, and ICLEI, to stealthily get into local government planning departments in the US and world wide. She has bought into that, evidently.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
July 6, 2015 10:54 am

Sustainable is sclerotic. Sadly, it will be centrally organized and we’ll all smart from it.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  GeologyJim
July 6, 2015 11:01 am

OK, I gotta ask –
what are “Core Science Systems”??

Reply to  Bubba Cow
July 6, 2015 12:04 pm

In the first iteration of this “reorganization”, CSS was called “Informatics” – the “science” of metadata
CSS now covers various geoscience database activities, including Ecosystem and Biodiversity databases, geophysical data archives, geochronology databases, fossil collections, and even geologic mapping(!).
The hydrologists put up a fuss and retained their streamflow and water quality databases, as did the mineral resource (rock geochemical data) and energy resource (hydrocarbon data) folks
After Marcia waltzed off to her next glam job at Science mag, USGS was stuck with this hodge-podge

July 6, 2015 8:58 am

In Dante’s Inferno, he describes the nine circles of Hell
Having threatened us with a series of calamities which have not come to pass, and for which observable data supporting their future existence has also not come to pass, they now stoop to threatening us with eternal damnation. Pretty sad coming from the chief editor of “Science”.

Pamela Gray
July 6, 2015 9:00 am

There is a huge mismatch here between natural-forced changes in weather pattern variations, and human-forced changes in weather pattern variations.
1. First, climate scientists need to admit that heating or cooling trends come from a day to day weather pattern variation that forces temperatures up, or allows temperatures to come down.
2. Climate scientists now need to calculate the change in energy needed to change a weather pattern system such that temperatures cool, or conversely to have the energy to build one that typically leads to increased land temperatures. I am talking about such things as blocking highs, instability mixing, increased or decreased wind that results from opposing pressure systems, changes in jet stream locations, etc.
3. Then they need to calculate the amount of energy available in JUST THE ADDITION OF ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 (hint: they have done this part already and found it lacking).
4. They need to then calculate the amount of water vapor needed to add its energy to A-CO2, in order to create a weather pattern variation that would increase temperatures beyond the capabilities of natural-forced changes.
5. Finally, they need to be able to propose what kind of weather pattern variation must be in place in order for Earth to warm due to A-CO2.
To state it bluntly, we cannot have increasing temperatures without also having weather pattern variations that lead to increasing temperatures. So. If climate scientists cannot prove that airborn anthropogenic CO2 forces change in weather pattern variations, and even has the energy necessary to work against natural cooling patterns, they got nothin. And the people of Earth need to be warned of this slight of hand snake oil pitch for what it is. A scheme for the pitchers and makers of snake oil to have the kind of life they desire for themselves without regard to the life of the people they are selling this concoction to.

George Gillan
July 6, 2015 9:03 am

Suggest the article link to Judith Curry’s blog post it mentioned.

Tom O
July 6, 2015 9:03 am

And if the Alarmist win, Gaia is the loser. Why? Because without “energy,” there is no clothing, thus all the animals that bear fur will be sacrificed to the need for protection from the cold. You can’t wear a pine tree, you can’t wear a cotton plant, you can’t wear sheared wool and few are the people that still have the means to create cloth from them. Besides, without “fossil fuels,” there will be no 10,000 acre farms growing cotton.
It is amusing to look at the world that they wish to create, where they can fight with the lion for a piece of antelope, or with a bear for berries. All the while, those that created the farce we call AGW – the Gores, etc., – will be still living high on the assets that they have created for themselves with their pockets of industry hidden away allowing them to live the life of luxury while their green army destroys the rest of us.

Reply to  Tom O
July 9, 2015 5:38 am

No, in the world that they will make, there will be no fights between humans and lions or bears. we will all be friends. You see?

July 6, 2015 9:14 am

Thanks, Anthony.
Watts Up With That? is the place to find the news about a science debate that turned into a political one.
What a pity, we could have learned a lot of science but we are condemned to learn a lot of politics.

Say What?
Reply to  Andres Valencia
July 6, 2015 9:31 am

Stick around. There are plenty of scientific discussions here. No site is free of political talk.

Reply to  Andres Valencia
July 6, 2015 4:08 pm

The politics is extremely important. It is the politics in all this that will affect each and every one of us. The science is valuable too, but we also need a finger on the pulse, and that’s what looking at the politics gives us. Frankly, I would like to see more of it. We can’t defend ourselves unless we know what the alarmists are up to and, as many have pointed out, CAGW is very much a political issue.

Joel O’Bryan
July 6, 2015 9:20 am

I suspect Ms McNutt’s Fautian Bargain has involved a promise of short list contender as WH Science Advisor in a future Clinton Admin in exchange for her advocacy and publishing with pal reviews papers like Karl et al.

Say What?
July 6, 2015 9:25 am

Why is it that the warming believers keep producing these people with the same vapid message (quotations without sources, for example). The National Enquirer was famous for the statement – “some scientists believe” to sell their outrageous stories. (One guy married a Martian shaped like a pyramid – I kid you not). For me, I get the same sick feeling when I hear about “a 97% consensus among scientists.” Again, no background. Now tell me the difference between the two? Both rely on pseudo-science – unsupportable or modified data. IMO, the Pope has repeated the same mistake they made with Galileo. In fact, the lines between politics, religion and science are beginning to get tangled up again. Time for a new movie from Hollywood – “Back to the Dark Ages”

July 6, 2015 9:46 am

Being ‘green’ is referenced to the green foliage of plants, the green color being chlorophyll that converts water plus carbon dioxide’ plus the sun’s energy into oxygen and plant matter. The current usage of ‘green’ by CAGW proponents smacks of a detachment from reality underpinned by a lust for power and omnipotence.
‘Browns’ would be far a far more appropriate moniker: it would dovetail with their usage of the term ‘denier’.

July 6, 2015 9:53 am

McNutt, is a full on ‘think of the children’ type and has made it clear that in the name of ‘the cause ‘ Nature will used to promote it and never mind the facts .
The trouble is the assumption that becasue a journal has been good in the [past] it will be good for evermore , in pratice once the editorship becomes ‘politicised’ this is seldom the case , has we are seeing hear .
Add in that ‘success’ is measured be sells figuers not actual scientific value and normal problems of peer review , of which there are many. And you can see that in pratice it not the ‘best journals’ but the least worse journals that rise to the top.

Kevin Kilty
July 6, 2015 10:10 am

If I remember rightly, Marcia McNutt is a solid-earth geophysicist–a tectonophysics sort of scientist. Many of these folks drifted into the universe of “models are data” a long time before the climate craziness went pandemic, and were thus susceptible to seeing truth in matrices of numbers, and authority in computer output. There is a price to pay for separation from reality.

Reply to  Kevin Kilty
July 6, 2015 8:56 pm

So, these days a so-called study typically takes the form:
“We started out with a proposition that we could demonstrate that something terrible would happen if CO2 continues to rise during this century.
Then we programmed our models to respond with high sensitivity to CO2.
And then, we did indeed see that in a number of model runs, some quite extreme and frightening things seemed to occur.
We promise that we did not at any point tweak the models to lead them in the direction of providing us with precisely the alarmist scenarios that we originally sought.
Now, even we are shocked that the models not only confirmed our original hypothesis, but suggest that the situation will be even worse than we had originally believed”. (satire of sorts)
So, the scientific method now comprises the confirmation of a hypothesis using a computer model.
Surely something went wrong.
Weren’t we supposed investigate possible hypotheses using computer models – but confirm only by reference to empirical reality?
There was yet another of these purely computer generated “results” reported on the BBC today.
As though it was a real scientific conclusion.

Steve Case
July 6, 2015 10:53 am
Steve Case
Reply to  Steve Case
July 6, 2015 10:54 am
July 6, 2015 10:53 am

Beyond 2 degree inferno? That would be similar to conditions during the Holocene Optimum, which allowed humans to progress toward civilization.

July 6, 2015 10:56 am

Reality or fiction?
And it’s fiction we chose;
But why are we so spellbound
By the Emperor’s new clothes?
The truth is inconvenient,
Does not fit with the plan,
And Mother Nature they’ve made redundant
For not co-operating with man.

Paul Westhaver
July 6, 2015 10:58 am

I read your post citing Judith Currie who quotes Marcia McNutt who cites Pope Francis and Dante all of which alludes, to Goethe’s/Marlowe’s/de Coincy’s Faust and convolves Francis in a Faustian Bargain with ?? the devil or the UN??
Honestly the metaphor is lost to me with all that nesting. It was like doing linear algebra in my head.
All that medieval art and “enlightenment” literature leaves me with some questions and comments.
1) I don’t perceive a Faustian Bargain made by Francis. I read the whole encyclical and I read it as a mish mash of bad politics, distorted history wrt JPII and BXVI, good moral teaching, horrendous economics, general confusion and outright wrong science. I did not regard it as a Faustian Bargain per se.
2) You say “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.” I agree that it isn’t making much of an impact outside the AGW activists.Since he was preaching to the converted. But I fear it may creep into the sermons of the RC Churches and by this stolen authority, generate new converts and a new level of activism.
3) Who plays Mephistopheles? Who is the devil?

David A
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
July 6, 2015 8:39 pm

Answer to (3) The political statist the Pope is in league with.

David A
Reply to  David A
July 6, 2015 8:55 pm
Paul Westhaver
Reply to  David A
July 6, 2015 9:35 pm

Hmm.. Maybe… but what is the upside to the bargain? What can Mephistopheles (Hans Schellnhuber) offer?

David A
Reply to  David A
July 7, 2015 4:35 am

…” but what is the upside to the bargain? What can Mephistopheles (Hans Schellnhuber) offer?”
Hum, that is the rub no? The etymology is the word may derive from the Hebrew mephitz, meaning “destroyer”, and tophel, meaning “liar”; “tophel” is short for tophel shequer, the literal translation of which is “falsehood plasterer”.
So the offer is always a lie, a false representation. This Pope is apparently himself a statist of sorts, one who has quite forgotten what a disaster it was for Christianity to become the state religion in Rome. It is appealing to him to be on the side of “97 percent of the scientists”, a trade for “worldly knowledge”, one of the good guys, accepting the science of the day, not denying it, not one of those evil “capitalists”.
In my view this will have some affect promoting CAGW, but I think it will also drive more from the church. Why go to church, when you can get the same lecture from your local progressive politician?

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
July 7, 2015 10:54 am

AGW is already in the RC Church and this Papal Letter will only re-enforce what’s already there. And it’s in other denominations too.
May be the reason why polls show this?

Reply to  Barbara
July 7, 2015 11:50 am

Here is an example.
Ecumenical Letter: Price On Carbon Emissions, April, 10, 2015
Letter to the Min. of Finance Canada in support of putting a price on carbon emissions in Canada.
Letter has 53 signatures including those from various religious organizations/denominations.
The Papal Encyclical just puts an “official” stamp on what was already taking place.

Reply to  Barbara
July 7, 2015 2:46 pm

The World Bank, 11-06-14
‘We Support Putting a Price on Carbon’
Scroll down to: Investors
Has the names of investors who support carbon pricing which also includes religious organizations.

Paul Westhaver
July 6, 2015 11:03 am

This belief that man can influence and control nature is a direct consequence and continuation of man’s aboriginal calamity.

July 6, 2015 11:07 am

I gave up my long-time subscription to Science back when Donald Kennedy was editor, but I would occasionally read it thereafter. With McNutt, I simply quit looking. Science is so biased as to have lost credibility in many areas.

July 6, 2015 11:30 am

-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’s 5 out of 8:
Type I: Overestimations of the group — its power and morality
1 -Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
2 -Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
Type II: Closed-mindedness
3 -Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group’s assumptions.
4 -Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.
Type III: Pressures toward uniformity
5 -Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
6 -Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
7 -Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of “disloyalty”
8 -Mindguards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

Obviously the other symptoms fit perfectly as well.
Science is dead, all what is left is groupthink.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  leftturnandre
July 7, 2015 2:53 am

There’s an older term for it: “tribal thinking”. Main characteristic of it is the inability to see and accept fault in the own group.

Joel Snider
July 6, 2015 12:29 pm

Well, the alarmists have convinced a large portion of the world that we’re destroying the planet. What scares me more than any of the alarmist scenarios is what some people might try to do about it – and some of them have a lot of money to work with. We’ve vilified simple survival action – heating homes, food production, transportation. Anybody remember Michael Crichton’s essay in the Lost World about behavior-based extinction? Hell, the eco-types are demanding upwards of 90% human population reduction. Eugenics was about saving the human race from ‘mongrel races’ – and look how that worked out. With green, it’s the planet that needs saving from the human race itself. You can use any belief system to justify atrocity, but it takes a little tinkering to get from the words of Jesus, for example, to justify burning a woman at the stake. With the religion of green, it’s written right into the scripture.

July 6, 2015 1:49 pm

Claiming that a catastrophe is coming in the future is an ancient technique used by men to gain power.
Preventing the imagined catastrophe always requires that everyone does as he is told.
Religious leaders and political leaders have used this method for centuries.
The coming climate change catastrophe has almost nothing to do with science — it is an imaginary boogeyman used by leftists to gain political and economic power.
The leftist scientists are merely pawns to provide “proof”, with their silly climate model games — people could doubt Al Gore, because he took only two science courses in college, and couldn’t manage to get an A or B in either of them … but it’s hard to doubt real scientists with PhDs. and REALLY BIG COMPUTERS.
The average person never considers the fact that predictions of the future climate are not science — they are nothing more than climate astrology.
The climate change boogeyman can work if enough people believe in it — Earth doesn’t have to warm at all — the catastrophe is always coming to get us (but never arrives!).
I think it’s very obvious that more CO2 in the air was good news for green plants, and slight warming since the 1800s was good news for humans.
No one can predict the future climate, but if I had a choice, I’d choose more CO2 and more warming (most or all of the warming is caused by variables other than CO2, in my opinion)
The past 150 years have been the most healthy and prosperous 150 years for humans so far — CO2 was increasing, and there was slight warming — why would anyone with sense want to change those trends?
My Climate blog for the average guy:

Billy Liar
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 6, 2015 4:13 pm


Reply to  Richard Greene
July 6, 2015 4:38 pm

I like that graph and use it all the time. I don’t think the alarmist believe it. They dismiss it.
It doesn’t show any significant global warming.
There is a larger GISS version somewhere:comment image?w=636&h=294

David A
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 7, 2015 4:45 am

Richard, Claiming that a catastrophe is coming in the future is an ancient technique used by men to gain power”
One of my favorite quotes,; “This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”

July 6, 2015 6:00 pm

The irony is that the alarmists think climate change skeptics are the devil himself selling their soul for capital profit or big oil. Meanwhile most skeptics are just regular people that took the time to do some research. They are simply saying like the the title of this blog, “what’s up with that? ” The answer alarmists always give is your a shill, a liar or you are too ignorant to understand. I’m not sure how much longer that will work for them.

July 6, 2015 6:24 pm

So, now the pause will be explained by “spooky action at a distance”? Nice! I love the Alice In Wonderland world of quantum entanglement, where everything not forbidden is mandatory. ;->

Reply to  PaulH
July 7, 2015 2:34 pm

I suspect that distance to be 93 million miles.

Just Steve
July 6, 2015 7:38 pm

Anthony, you, and the rest of us unwashed heathens, will be made to care:

Chuck Bradley
July 6, 2015 9:47 pm

I hope this is not redundant; I did not read all the comments.
Willis E. wrote an open letter to Dr. McNutt and it was published here at WUWT on Aug 4, 2013.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Chuck Bradley
July 6, 2015 10:46 pm

McNutt’s climate activism pseudoscience has long been on display during her tenure at Sciencemag at Editor-in-Chief. Once history is written on this chapter of Western Civilization, she and her pseudoscience ilk will get a bashing for their perverse rationalizations of the noble cause corruption they represent.

Larry Wirth
July 7, 2015 12:10 am

and will change her opinion not at all. [snip]

July 7, 2015 1:24 am

I though Dr Curry was too busy setting up a fund to buy air-condtioners for people in hot climates.

July 7, 2015 1:33 am

1.Appeal to authority
2.Absence of doubt
3.Intolerance of debate
4.A desire to convince others of the ideological ‘truth’
5.A willingness to punish those that don’t concur
This is a description of Dr Curry.
Dr Curry has a bad case of projection. She “jumped the shark” a long time ago. I do not understand why a professional scientist has allowed herself to become an attack-dog.

Larry in Texas
Reply to  harrytwinotter
July 7, 2015 2:18 am

You wanna insult Dr. Curry, harry? Then I say verbal pistols at 20 paces, you and me. You are the kind of guy she and others have been talking about. The only projection here is yours and yours alone. You are a cretin if you want to insult a responsible scientist like her. When I read some of the true believers like yourself here and elsewhere, there is no question in my mind that these five points come to mind. As they did the first time I saw Al Gore show the hockey stick in An Inconvenient Truth. I burst out laughing, because the first three points came out loudly in all of that hooey and blatant manipulation of statistical methods.

Reply to  Larry in Texas
July 7, 2015 2:59 am

Larry in Texas .
Dr Curry forfeited her right to respect when she started slagging off Michael Mann, the IPCC and anyone else she disagreed with. She now has a lot of history of this kind of behaviour – go look it up.
Why mention Al Gore, he wasn’t a scientist. Do you see Al Gore in your dreams or something?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Larry in Texas
July 7, 2015 4:18 am

re: harrytwinotter July 7, 2015 at 2:59 am
If you do not understand why someone would bring up Al Gore then you either do not know who the major contributor to this scam is or you are being purposely evasive knowing you cannot defend the Gorester for his actions.

Reply to  Larry in Texas
July 8, 2015 11:17 am

Climate Summit of the Americas, Toronto, July 7-9, 2015
Climate speakers at this event sponsored by the Ontario government include Al Gore and is by invitation only.
This week Toronto is hosting the Pan American Summit at the same Toronto hotel with speakers from North and South America.
Google for more information on both events.

Reply to  Larry in Texas
July 8, 2015 12:26 pm

March For Jobs, Justice and the Climate, Toronto, Sunday July 5, 2015
About 10,000 marched.
Special guests included Naomi Klein and Bill McKibben.
An event out ahead of COP 21 and the other two events taking place in Toronto this week.

Reply to  harrytwinotter
July 7, 2015 4:53 am

I have no idea how anyone of those points describe Dr curry. I think Harry is offended by Curry’s climate “micro-aggressions.” She made the technical foul of having a backbone and not standing for unethical conduct. At the very least she is standing up for integrity of Science and against corruption of authority. If that is wrong I don’t want to be right.

Reply to  Charlie
July 7, 2015 11:48 pm

Is that why they call being a jerk these days?

Joel Snider
Reply to  harrytwinotter
July 7, 2015 7:54 am

With your absolutely outrageous comment, you have just provided an almost perfect description of the entire warmist movement. As well as demonstrating one of their favorite techniques – accuse the opposition of exactly what you are doing in order to camouflage yourself. An extremely low-life tactic, based on deception, group-baiting, and provocation. I’ll say this for you and your warmist ilk – you’re predictable and your hypocrisy is as absolute as it is without fail.

Reply to  Joel Snider
July 7, 2015 11:51 pm

Joel Snider.
Dr Curry is now considered a joke by her peers.
Anyway as I said before she is irrelevant. She has exposed herself as a Republican and fossil fuel industry toadie.
Her next step will be to join the Heartland Institute or the UK GWPF.

Reply to  harrytwinotter
July 8, 2015 5:34 am


Anyway as I said before she is irrelevant. She has exposed herself as a Republican and fossil fuel industry toadie.

If 25,000.00 dollars to one think tank one time for one research project is enough to “contaminate” forever that group’s research and conclusions as a fossil fuel toadies and tobacco junkies, how many government-paid self-called “climate scientists” will 92 billion dollars buy in three years? When government-paid self-selected scientists are paid and promoted to promote one theme and one religion to generate 1.3 trillion in CO2 taxes every year, why should we believe anything they have published when their own numbers contradict their tantrums and propaganda?

July 7, 2015 1:34 am

How did Marcia McNutt become head of the United States Geological Survey? How can someone who has held that position know so little about geological history? Is she a REAL geologist? Or just someone who plays with computer toys?

July 7, 2015 3:28 am

Recently I noticed a small sign of hope from Australia.
There’s an ad campaign for natural gas with the slogan
“Natural gas-make the connection.”
There’ve been quite a few of these ads over the last few years and they have always included the young guy featuring in them saying “…and it won’t cost the earth.”
The latest one doesn’t.
Dare I hope that this means enough people have complained about the CAGW implied in this?
Once you start seeing CAGW not being used to flog products, that indicates the beginning of the end, because it’s only ever been about money/power.
Early days with this reluctance to use it so far, of course.

July 7, 2015 6:29 am

” 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.”
I am constantly amazed how much the alarmists care for the future generations but don’t give a hoot for the poor nor their children of today. The alarmists anti- global warming policies of today are harming the poor of today and their future generations :
• By denying cheaper fossil fuel energy to poor countries ,it may ensure continued poverty because they will be unable to afford the expensive renewable energies
• By forcing over stringent emission standards and high price for fossil fuels, it will encourage many nations to turn to ethanol and thus limit the corn available to feed the poor
• BY promoting carbon taxes or, cap and trade taxes ,, this will have the greatest effect on poor families as they will be least able to afford yet more taxes on their energies and goods
• By promoting renewables energies only ,this more expensive and subsidized energy will drive up the cost of electricity for all including the poor
• By forcing the poor to remain in poverty , They will be unable to raise their standard of living and continue to experience all the health, disease and social problems that they now have

July 7, 2015 7:16 am

It is amusing how many people go to significantly warmer climates for their vacations, and some even move to significantly warmer areas after they retire … yet they almost panic when told the average temperature has increased one-half degree C. in their lifetimes, and might increase a little more!

Mike from the Carson Valley on the cold side of the Sierra
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 7, 2015 5:21 pm

Canadians who flock to Hawaii and Florida for the winter ?

July 7, 2015 7:16 pm

Anthony wrote;
“I and others who dare to question the “consensus” get the “slime and punishment” every day.”
Yes indeed, and it is not in any way deserved. You have raised valid questions that “believers” are not able to answer sans “energetic hand waving”.
As one who does not believe that the “Radiative Greenhouse Effect” controls the climate of the Earth in anyway whatsoever I get “Derision” as well, aka the “real” deniers. Who knew that there where classes of “deniers” ?
But no matter, the alarmists hypothesis has failed utterly, the lukewarmers hypothesis (the “saturated GHE”) has little merit and we are left with: “the GHE is not an EFFECT after all” hypothesis. Which is remarkably like the null hypothesis which folks well trained in scientific endeavors accept as the “reality” until extraordinary proof otherwise exists.
Good post Anthony, thanks.
Cheers, KevinK

July 7, 2015 10:20 pm

Larry Wirth July 7, 2015 at 12:10 am
and will change her opinion not at all. These people need [trimmed].
[No. That’s not the answer, that’s not the method. .mod]

Reply to  Zeke
July 8, 2015 9:26 am

Mods, Larry Wirth said that. I was trying to draw it to your attention.

July 8, 2015 7:29 am

Chaotic discussion of chaotic a discussion of climate chaos brings larger chaos to the discussion.

July 8, 2015 7:04 pm

CatholicCulture, July 8, 2015
‘US mayors to attend Vatican conference on climate change, human trafficking’, July 21, 2015
US mayors: Boulder (Colorado), Minneapolis, Portland (Oregon), and Seattle. Mayor of Vancouver, B.C. also slated to attend.

Reply to  Barbara
July 9, 2015 10:27 am

CBC News, Toronto, July 9, 2015
“Al Gore speaks at Climate Summit of the Americas in Toronto’
An invite-only conference.
This event/conference sponsored by the Ontario government.

Reply to  Barbara
July 9, 2015 2:34 pm

Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change is organizing a Climate Change Summit of the Americas July 7-9, 2015 Toronto, Ontario.
This event is available through invitation only.
Just in case additional information is required.

Reply to  Barbara
July 9, 2015 7:15 pm

FCM/Federation Of Canadian Municipalities, June 7, 2015
‘Canada’s Big City Mayors make united call for climate action’
Scroll down to: Michael Bloomberg, UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy to Cities and Climate Change, said “I applaude Vancouver’s Mayor Gregor Robertson for his leadership in passing it at the perfect time, as the World Summit convenes in France.”
The “it” above is the FCM Climate Resolution
Gregor Robertson is also a Board member of FCM.
Scroll down to page bottom for the PDF link to the actual “Resolution”.
Select the above article.

Reply to  Barbara
July 10, 2015 12:08 pm

ICLEI, HQ Bonn, Germany, founded 1990
David Cadman, Vancouver, B.C. Pres. since 2007
FCM Canada is in a partnership with ICLEI Canada.
Mayor of Vancouver slated to attend Vatican Conference.
ICLEI Council North America includes:
Matthew Appelbaum, Mayor of Boulder, USA who is slated to attend Vatican July 21, 2015, Conference.
Google for more information on this subject.

Reply to  Barbara
July 10, 2015 4:47 pm

USDN/Urban Sustainability Directors Network, Launched March, 2015
Carbon Neutral Cities members make up some of those who will be attending the July 2015 Vatican Climate Workshop.
For member list: Also note the foundations supporting this organization.
Corporate Knights, Posted May 20, 2015
Gregor Robertson helped found the Carbon Neutral Cities alliance.

Reply to  Barbara
July 11, 2015 7:04 am

According to the USDN website, USDN is a project of the Global Philanthropy Partnership (GPP) Chicago founded 2003.

Reply to  Barbara
July 11, 2015 7:09 am

‘Sustainable’ is cripplingly sclerotic.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights