Censorship Used To 'Promote' Anthropogenic Global Warming

In light of what happened yesterday with The Independent apparently disappearing a famous climate prediction blunder article while leaving an article critical of its use intact, this opinion piece by Joe Wallach seemed pertinent -Anthony

critical-thinking

Guest opinion by Joe Wallach

Warming alarmists use a curious method to promote their view of “climate change”, censorship. If 97% of the scientific community (read IPCC) are so certain that humans are responsible for global warming, they should present irrefutable, supporting scientific evidence. Instead panic and censorship are used to advance their cause. In a society where freedom of speech is a treasured attribute, and is sought for all sorts of causes, beneficial and farcical censorship is an anathema. According to one alarmist earlier in 2015, who refused to allow me to recommend the work of a group of French scientists and engineers to his readership, he stated that:

“Climate Change denial is one of the subjects we don’t allow on UnpublishedOttawa.com because it’s not based on real facts. Anyone can grab facts and make an argument out of it, but when the vast majority of scientists, who have little to gain, agree that we have a problem, a problem that is already manifesting itself all around the world, then allowing posts that deny this reality, is in our opinion akin to intentional deception.”

More recently, I submitted a post to another human climate change site in the Ottawa, Canada area, in which I asked if anyone could provide a single piece of irrefutable, undeniable evidence that humans are responsible for global warming. That, too, was blocked by the purveyor of the site http://www.boomerwarrior.org/.

In October, 2015 the cégep (a cégep is the community college equivalent in Québec, Canada) at Trois Rivières, Quebec cancelled a scheduled talk, in which retired Professor Reynald Duberger was invited by a faculty member to speak on global warming. Professor Duberger’s opposition to the idea of anthropogenic global warming is well known among francophones on both sides of the Atlantic, a position that is not acceptable to many institutions of higher education.

That is not the first time that Professor Duberger was so rebuffed, but it is noteworthy because it made headlines in the nearly 50,000-circulation newspaper, Le Nouvelliste, in Trois Rivières (population 130,000). Translated, the bold headline declares: Climate change: The Cégep cancels Reynald Duberger’s talk (http://www.lapresse.ca/le-nouvelliste/actualites/environnement/201510/13/01-4909558-changements-climatiques-le-cegep-annule-la-conference-de-reynald-duberger.php)

Educational institutions are supposed to provide a thorough education. At the high school, community college and university levels that includes the presentation of contrary points of view that may emerge over a critical, current events issue, such as global warming. Censoring legitimate, contradictory viewpoints on human-induced global warming is a gross disservice to the students, and to society. Advocating human-induced global warming without also providing information on contradictory, scientifically supported opinions is brainwashing.

 

Professor Duberger is an earth scientist (seismology and geology) who understands the behavior of the planet. He is a frequent guest on talk radio in Quebec City and speaks very eloquently so that one need not be a specialist to understand him. It is unfortunate for the students that Professor Duberger’s scheduled talk to them was cancelled by the Director of Studies, Denis Rousseau.

According to the reporter for Le Nouvelliste the following explanation, in italicized text, was advanced by Denis Rousseau as justification for the cancellation: Knowing how the courses in exact sciences offered here are taught we were reluctant to hear the ideas espoused by the author (he meant speaker)…we teach exact sciences here and our professors believe that global warming is a fact, which contradicts the opinion of the speaker. Then to “punctuate” his discourse Rousseau added: The majority of scientists believe that global warming is a fact. Duberger offers a natural retort to that last statement by referring to the derision endured by Alfred Wegener until his death because the majority of geoscientists ridiculed his now widely accepted and understood theory of Plate Tectonics.

It is fascinating that Rousseau referred to exact sciences, but he should have explained, with evidence, what an exact science is, particularly with respect to terrestrial, environmental or climatological processes. I’m sure that even Mother Nature would love to hear that. In the context of supporting a position with evidence one of Professor Duberger’s notable concerns is that no one seems to have furnished incontrovertible evidence that global warming is caused by human activity. As a geoscientist Professor Duberger is fully aware of temperature variations that have occurred throughout geological time including the global warming that wiped out most of the continental ice sheets, except for Greenland and the polar regions, that covered the northern hemisphere approximately 9,000 – 12,000 years ago. During none of those previous events were there factories or hydrocarbon-fueled machines of any kind.

Rousseau’s arguments scream for knowledgeable scientists to speak at the cégep to, at the very least, give the students good, concrete reasons to think critically about natural vs. anthropogenic global warming. This is not merely an academic distinction, but has definite economic consequences as well, as illustrated in the following link (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/how-canada-s-provinces-are-tackling-greenhouse-gas-emissions-1.3030535). The subject of global warming, or the more recently minted “climate change”, must be dealt with rationally, not by censorship.

Advertisements

160 thoughts on “Censorship Used To 'Promote' Anthropogenic Global Warming

    • Reminded of my HS Physics teacher ’76. The textbook was “Physics: an Exact Science.” He scoffed, “Physics is a science of approximations.” To where have his ilk vanished?

      • Hmmm. My Physics teacher insisted on precision.
        Then if you submitted an exact number, he’d accuse one of fudging.
        It’s the same lesson as your teacher, only that we’re taught that perfect didn’t truly exist; we live in a world of compromises, averages and statistical weights.

      • They probably considered the more exact title – “Physics: an Exacter Science.”
        But, it doesn’t have quite the same ring to it!!
        Compared to 99.9% of the guff that occupies even the most intelligent minds, Physics is the benchmark of precision. Sure there are massive inconsistencies in Physics, but only Physicists really understand what these are.

      • Well there is this by physicist Tony Rothman about physics in general:
        “Nevertheless, as a physicist travels along his (in this case) career, the hairline cracks in the edifice become more apparent, as does the dirt swept under the rug, the fudges and the wholesale swindles, with the disconcerting result that the totality occasionally appears more like Bruegel’s Tower of Babel as dreamt by a modern slumlord, a ramshackle structure of compartmentalized models soldered together into a skewed heap of explanations as the whole jury-rigged monstrosity tumbles skyward.
        It would be surprising if the strange world of subatomic and quantum physics did not lead the field in mysteries, conceptual ambiguities and paradoxes, and it does not disappoint. The standard model of particle physics, for instance (the one containing all the quarks and gluons), has no fewer than 19 adjustable parameters, about 60 years after Enrico Fermi exclaimed, “With four parameters I can fit an elephant!” Suffice to say, “beauty” is a term not frequently applied to the standard model.”
        http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-man-behind-the-curtain/4
        And an astronomer specializing in celestial mechanics shows that gravity speed is greater than 2×10^10 c based on actual empirical evidence. Of course the usual way to reconcile with Einstein’s perceptions is to start adding fudge factors much like they do in quantum mechanics.
        http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

    • Must be the french influence. In Holland it is common practice to speak of exact sciences when referring to mathematics, physics and chemistry. We were occupied by the french.

    • “””””….. The majority of scientists believe that global warming is a fact. …..”””””
      The vast majority of scientists are not Physicists or Geologists or Meteorologists.
      Anyone schooled in any of those disciplines (and maybe some others) would be able to understand weather processes to some degree or other, and see how accumulation of weather leads to a basic climate, that of course varies rather wildly in geographic terms.
      So the majority (97%) of those remaining, may only have a 4-H club level of knowledge of climate science.
      I’m a Physicist and Mathematician with additional expertise in EM wave propagation, at least in the DC to microwave frequency range, and the earth’s ionospheric layers, that permit global EM wave communications of all kinds. So I at least have a basic notion of some elements of atmospheric science.
      But no, I am not a climatologist, but my basic physics tells me enough to make me totally suspicious of any kind of pseudo physical model of earth’s atmosphere that purportedly models atmospheric processes as a one dimensional radially propagating cause and effect sequence of events.
      The atmosphere is full of EM emission processes that by their very nature are isotropic emission sources; and the notion that those all line up in laser like radial beams, without any lateral spreading is simply total BS. Subdividing the cell sizes in such a model does not eliminate the fact that atmospheric processes diffuse in three dimensions, and are not unidirectional beams.
      And I already alluded to the fact that unless you have simultaneous time synchronized data for each location node, you do not even have the minimum requirements for even considering any lateral propagation of events.
      And then you have to deal with the fact that absolutely no global time synchronized real observational measurement data exists, or has ever existed.
      There is no person you can locate who can attest to having actually measured or recorded ANY data point on ANY of the graphs of the five or so major climate anomaly data sets, or can tell you precisely when and where any such number was actually conjured up.
      And we recently learned at WUWT, that a good bit of it is simply imagined by somebody who didn’t measure anything.
      How do you verify a theoretical computer model without any real world actual behavior data to compare it to. ??
      So my confidence in the GCMs has not yet risen to the level of the certainty of the Monckton Algorithm 18 year and nine month graph of global temperature anomaly trend slope.
      In other words, my confidence in the GCMs is also about zero.
      G

  1. That’s Quebec for you. Meanwhile, Montreal with the green light of the provincial and newly elected Liberal government are dumping 8 billion liters of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River.

    • They are doing it because of necessary repairs, which if left undone might actually produce a serious environmental accident. What exactly is the magnitude of environmental harm of dumping it for a week into the St. Lawrence? The answer is very small to none at all. It’s pretty easy to come up with scary factoids. I’m glad at WUWT we dig deeper.

      • One wonders why the repairs became so necessary and urgent, rather than the usual routing maintenance. Perhaps a lack of foresight and planning.

      • While necessary or perhaps more correctly- no other choice, Montreal was the last major city in North America to start treating its sewage. It has also been a laggard in upgrading and maintaining its entire network but that little factoid speaks to the irony of censorship and misinformation in La Belle Province.

      • Sounds a lot like Portland Oregon. Sewerage permit “waivers” (untreated dumps) and repeated requests for water permitting “waivers” are routine and on-going, but this bastion of leftwing a-holes wants everyone else to go completely green.

  2. “no one seems to have furnished incontrovertible evidence that global warming is caused by human activity”.
    in fact, the evidence seems to be contrary to that hypothesis. here are two examples.
    example 1: changes in atmos co2 does not respond to the rate of fossil fuel emissions
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2642639
    example 2: decadal warming rates are not related to decadal emission rates
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2662870

    • Those are good papers, at least if you are critic of CAGW. I’ve stated similar views, no one anywhere refutes them. They are in classic CAGW style, ignored.

    • Wow, the author is professor emeritus at Sonoma State. If you are a denizen of Northern California, you know there aren’t many greener, “crunchier” locations in this part of the state. Possibly Mt Shasta City and Eureka, but not many others. Anthony can evaluate Chico.

  3. Resorting to censorship is a sure sign of a flawed position.
    So where is the comment I submitted to the ‘Independent article’ thread?
    Ha Ha Ha.
    [Nothing found in the spam folder. Re-submit ifyu like, you’re not being ‘censored’. ~mod]

  4. I wonder how many of those “proven science only!” institutions feature lectures by famous homeopathists and other “fringe” science types?

    • Yes, there is quite an overlap between the warmists and woo-woo, isn’t there?
      In September, a group of Canadian artists and activists (pardon the redundancy) got together with Naomi Klein (who obviously had a new book to sell) to tell us, again, that we are doomed unless we do what they say (but never actually put into practice, of course: action is for the little people).
      One of the “big stars” was Margaret Atwood, famed for her dull and self-plagiarized novels (seriously, she’s written the same book at least three times) about how bad things can get if we don’t listen to our obviously moral and intellectual superiors (i.e, her).
      I was leafing through my mom’s “women’s” magazine soon after, and there was a fawning puff piece on Ms. Atwood, which described her warmist dogma, but went on to say that not only did she believe in astrology, she is actually well known among her friends (see: our intellectual superiors) for casting their horoscopes.
      Scratch a warmist and you’ll usuall find some version of an anti-vaxxer/911 conspiracy/chem trail/cleanse etc. idiocy. Seriously, when commenting on other sites I’ll bring this up, and every warmist, to a one, will admit to some anti-science crap, even if its “just” chiropractic, homeopathy, acupuncture, etc.
      I’d call them hypocrites, but I’m not sure that word is strong enough.
      BTW, I accidentally bought an issue of “Skeptical Inquirer” yesterday, and it will be my last. I say accidentally because I’ve known for a few years that it has gone downhill into political correctness, but I felt bad just leafing through it. Can’t blame the store owner, but I should have just bought another magazine. (Shame because one of the article is telling the anti-GMO mob [see above re: woo woo] to chill the hell out).
      I just can’t understand why anyone would allow Oerskes, Cook and Lewandowsky to represent their organization, let alone brag about their expertise.

      • “Scratch a warmist and you’ll usuall find some version of an anti-vaxxer/911 conspiracy/chem trail/cleanse etc. idiocy.” Come to Glastonbury UK, and you will find a whole town where all of these notions cohabit with warmism and poorly conceived alarmism of various sorts.
        Whilst just up the road in Bristol sits the master deceiver Lewandowsky, who has contrived to “prove” that the opposite is true. Whilst in the process demonstrating that a experimental design and interpretation in psychological research can be manipulated in order to create a “proof” of almost any notion whatsoever.
        Obviously, it has been widely documented that anti-vaxxers and 911 conspiracy fans tend to be associated with liberal and leftist ideologies. Whilst we skeptics tend to be associated with libertarianism or the right.
        Lewandowsky decided to prove that the opposite is true.
        Even though it patently is not.
        Quite possibly he has successfully fooled himself.

      • “anti-vaxxer/911 conspiracy/chem trail/cleanse etc.” And may I add anti-HIV/AIDS.
        Be careful of which conspiracies that you include, as rebuttals to some of these attack reputable doctors, researchers, NYPD personnel, architects, engineers, pilots and others. I, personally, always consider it extremely suspicious when professional groups, corporations and/or the government and/or their agencies come down hard against skeptics with funding cutoffs, vicious ad hominems and/or accusations of treason or sedition as if the government or corporations would/could not ever possibly do such things to cover up or for profit , especially since there have been more than a few historical examples, one obvious being that of “climate change”.

      • Greenpeace has had a great deal of influence in Canada. Much more than people realize but Greenpeace did originate in Canada.

  5. “Climate Change denial is one of the subjects we don’t allow on UnpublishedOttawa.com because it’s not based on real facts. Anyone can grab facts and make an argument out of it, but when the vast majority of scientists, who have little to gain, agree that we have a problem, a problem that is already manifesting itself all around the world, then allowing posts that deny this reality, is in our opinion akin to intentional deception.”

    ————
    Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true!
    -Homer Simpson

      • They don’t, actually. I mean, you have to do the old “hide the warming” trick like ignoring egotism, self-promotion, career building, grant sucking and appearing on “Bill Maher”. But no, nothing at all to gain, just self-sacrificing, anonymous sciency stuff in the shadows.

    • A shining statement for hypocrisy since ‘climate change’ (as opposed to a changing climate) is not based on real facts, only on made up facts. And where are these problems manifesting themselves? Is this connected to the millions of non-existent climate refugees we were told there would be?

  6. The use of the term “exact sciences” in the context of global warming infallibility by Rousseau is a flagrant assault on the senses of educated people, at least in the main connotation of human caused global warming. Book burner!

  7. I’ve been running into a lot of people who say, “I’m not a climate scientist, so I believe what the climate scientists say”, even though they have technical training such as civil engineering or the like (and even though I point out their use of the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority). Or they dismiss someone’s critique of CAGW because of the background of the critic…math or other science or even computer science to them does not give the critic any credibility, thus invalidating their opinion.
    Can anyone tell me what training a climate scientist receives? Is there anything special that they “understand” that would be difficult for a scientist or engineer in a different field to get?
    Should someone who is, for example, a civil engineer have the depth of understanding that would allow them to give a fair critique of climate science claims?

    • I’ve seen that many of the more active “advocates” have degrees in “Ecology” which in many schools is not a science at all, but more closely aligned to esthetics and politics.
      I’m sure that the meteorologists among us can tell you how many have training as weather forecasters

      • Yes, I often feel outgunned online with my mere 26 years as a statistician, when “debating” those whose disciplines not only don’t use statistics, but tend to denigrate them.

      • Makk:
        The Minister of Environment and Climate Change in Alberta is a Poly Sci graduate and life long political activist and “believer”. My children took “environmental science” courses and they got indoctrinated. Isn’t that what happens to a lot of people? They can’t help it. Most of the under 40 crowd have grown up with the media and teachers pushing CAGW for the last 25 to 30 years. Teaching of critical thinking left the school system in the 70’s. It’s not their fault. It’s at least partly our fault for letting the system break down. But they still drive their SUV’s made of steel, aluminum and plastic (thanks to fossil fuels) on the way to their next anti-fossil fuel protest while wearing the latest synthetic fuels and carrying polyethylene signs.
        Maybe we, the parents, allowed them the freedom to make their own mistakes, as we should. It is hard to pass on experience, people learn through their own experience. It will be up to them to live with the choices they make from now on and deal with the paradoxes in their lives.
        “Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.”
        I have lived without fossil fuels in the past. I could do it again. My children and grand children in the city could not. We’ve had this discussion but they have been thoroughly indoctrinated – yet they don’t/can’t walk to work and have all the modern conveniences. NIMBY.

      • We could go back to just relying on wool, cotton and flax for clothing but that would require much land that is now used to produce food. Silk was for the rich. Animals for leather which also requires land use.

      • Caligula, I had a fairly esteemed professor (by now he is probably getting close to 60 yrs of teaching) that had a developed a fairly standard spiel in several of his course lectures. One of which always left the students (generally 35 guys and 2 or 3 girls in his classes) wondering what to say or think for a short period of time. I paraphrase (because its been about 25 years),
        Stated with a thick Boston accent: “you have to be very careful when dealing with the statistical analysis of any subject, and you need to be able to understand how people can present the data in a skewed fashion; for example, saying that the average student in this school has one testical would not be correct, or appropriate … extrapolating that to this classroom would be even less appropriate.”
        I need to get ahold of him to get his exact language….

    • If Geordi Laforge bases his conclusion that the Enterprise has three flux capacitors on the facts that there are two in the engine and two on the cargo deck, I can legitimately question what he tells me even though he’s a warp-drive engineer and I wouldn’t know a flux capacitor from a compressive receiver. That’s because I do know arithmetic, so he’d better have a very compelling explanation if what he says doesn’t jibe with the arithmetic I know.
      In real life I’m a lawyer, not a scientist, but by noting logical problems I have routinely detected errors in scientists’ work–that they were forced to acknowledge. That’s not because I’m particularly smart; it’s because scientists put their pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us.
      But there’s it’s more than that. Some of the most-important questions are based on things like fluid mechanics, stability theory, statistics, and numerical methods. As to any of these and many other disciplines, there are more knowledgeable people outside of climate science than there are in it. And in a great many cases they can see that climate scientists don’t know what they are talking about. It may well be that on some issues the average civil engineer will have a more-solid grasp of the relevant discipline than the average climate scientist does.
      Yes, there are undoubtedly some facts that those who call themselves climate scientists as a group have grasped better than others have. But that doesn’t justify your taking a climate scientist’s word for much just because you aren’t among the anointed.

    • Joe Born says:
      …there are more knowledgeable people outside of climate science than there are in it. And in a great many cases they can see that climate scientists don’t know what they are talking about. It may well be that on some issues the average civil engineer will have a more-solid grasp of the relevant discipline than the average climate scientist does.
      Hear, hear!
      In general, engineers are far more practical than scientists. Both are necessary, but there’s really nothing extra special about being a scientist.

      • There is something extra special about any profession – and for all the different engineering and scientific disciplines there is a tremendous amount of specialized knowledge and techniques which define that field. Engineers and scientists are all very heavily trained and have a huge amount of domain-specific information to absorb and then work with. Engineers are “practical” in that they typically have to produce things that function, within boundaries of expense, time and available materials. Scientists have to understand and explain a natural phenomenon, and that is a different focus.
        Would I want a scientist specializing in ocean circulation patterns to design a stable foundation for a skyscraper on a flood plain? NO!
        Would I want a civil engineer advising me on the likelihood of warming based on doubling CO2? NO!
        And the “NO” is equal in each direction. I look to experts for their expertise, I don’t assume that being practical or really smart makes someone universally qualified. Would you hire a lawyer to operate on your heart? Lawyers are practical in many ways…
        This is why we have the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. There is overlap, but they are different areas of general expertise.
        http://www.nationalacademies.org/

    • We’re all taught math and the scientific method in high school. When the IPCC screams that we must keep warming below 2C by 2100 but their own report says global temperature has only risen 0.85C in the last 135 years and that the warming trend is declining, the bullshit detectors should all be red-lining.
      But this is a religion built on money, power and ego. It has nothing to do with science. It’s a way for rich nations to screw over poor nations and control their electricity infrastructure, for radical environmentalists to destroy modern civilization, and for bad scientists to push out the good ones for the bigger titles, offices and salaries.

    • Well in Britain Biologists and Geneticists have no trouble talking down to the masses on climate science they can grasp it all because they are ‘scientists’

    • You don’t have to be a trained scientist to understand logic. Is it logical for a trace element gas CO2 that makes up .04% of the atmosphere to be the control knob for global warming? As a non-scientist I couldn’t see the logic in this argument so I decided to spend some time researching the issue. I have read material defending the theory the global warming is caused by mankind’s burning of fossil fuels but have yet to find any empirical evidence. Logic tells me that the sun must be the primary source of the earth’s climate. Other factors must certainly include cloud dynamics, solar rays, volcanos, etc.
      When I am asked why I don’t believe the overwhelming majority of scientists, I simply reply that the overwhelming majority of scientists that I have studied believe that the climate has been warming but that CO2 has little to do with the warming. (By the way, I refuse to label global warming as “Global Climate Change” because the climate is always changing.

      • The thing that I didn’t find logical what the idea of a “global temperature”, which is what got me started on my learning journey. I couldn’t understand how you could calculate single number, to the a thousandths of a degree, that represents the entire planet for a year.

      • The thing that I didn’t find logical what the idea of a “global temperature”, which is what got me started on my learning journey. I couldn’t understand how you could calculate single number, to the a thousandths of a degree, that represents the entire planet for a year.

        Forget about the thousandths of a degree part. The concept of a global temperature is bad enough. It’s physically meaningless. Yet we’ve let them control the message by presenting a single number for the planet, and many here repeat the same mistake.

      • Robert, by analogy of the fraction of atmosphere that’s CO2 having an effect, do people who take a drug eat pounds of it, or just a tiny fraction of the weight of their body – or even just a tiny fraction of the weight of their blood?
        The sun is the source of the Earth’s heat, but greenhouse gases slow the escape of some of that heat. That’s the entire issue right now. Read different scientists.
        https://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
        Regards.

    • Technically engineers are not scientist at least until they obtain a Phd. degree (the main distinction between non-scientists and scientists). But they sure as hell understand pure math and the pure sciences. And BTW – any new scientific R&D project never makes it beyond prototype to a roll out and ramp up to mainstream production nor to field proven status without the involvement of the engineers and the accountants.

      • I agree, Scott. But R&D is dependent on the researchers (often engineers themselves, depending on what’s being researched) as well as the engineers creating actual product.
        But the Large Hadron Collider at CERN is a gigantic engineering effort to create, though the problems posed for it to solve are science questions. The two disciplines go together and frequently overlap in practice.
        And don’t forget the accountants!

      • Engineers (with or without Phd’s) use applied math’s, physics, chemistry every day.
        When using computer models we don’t just accept the output, we check against empirical evidence, if findings don’t agree then we go back to the drawing board, BUT we NEVER change observed data.
        On the other hand ‘climate scientists’ allow observed data to be changed to fit the flawed computer models so it will end badly.
        To much political power, money, and ego involved, politicians will get rich & science is diminished.

    • Yes Civil engineers are a good place to start as are the electrical engineers, especially those directly working for energy companies….. I worked on Nuclear initially, then hydro. Later on I had an opportunity to work for CanMet under NRC on natural gas extraction from landfills c/w microturbine electrical generation onto the grid….. more of an R&D project. And finally within the Oil and Gas industry with co-gen and CCNG – combined cycle natural gas jet turbines for electrical power generation……

  8. If 1 kilometer of air is laid on the ground the CO2 generated by the citizens of the UK would be less than the thickness of a credit card.

  9. T. H. Huxley must be turning in his grave.
    “Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority.” – Thomas Huxley (1825-1895).
    “The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.” — Thomas H. Huxley

    • A bit along the same lines:
      http://www.gutenberg.org/files/45122/45122-h/45122-h.htm#Page_190
      Every true Science is like a hardy Alpine guide that leads us on from the narrow, though it may be the more peaceful and charming, valleys of our preconceived opinions, to higher points, apparently less attractive, nay often disappointing for a time, till, after hours of patient and silent climbing, we look round and see a new world around us.
      PROFESSOR MAX MÜLLER
      Our precious snowflakes (formerly students) cannot ever be confronted with a thought that they might disagree with, and must be protected by trigger warnings and safe zones. They will still be debating whether they should wear a coat filled with down when the true Science expedition has actually finished its hike.

      • Apparently there are a lot of students who are skipping classes in protest that they are actually being forced to pay for their education. They want it to be free. True socialists to the end.

  10. Good thing that Canada got rid of that science muzzling PM, Harper. Now we have Justine, who, when it comes to science , is one handsome devil.

  11. To understand academia, all you need know is that many of the terms like “dean” and “college” come from their religious roots. And also much of their culture and attitudes are based on religious culture.
    Then all you need do is remember what Catholicism did to heretics and you will see why the culture of academia cannot stand nor tolerate any real contrary views – particularly from academics
    So, we sceptics can be, and are dismissed as “ignorant outsiders” and “not part of those ordained with the omniscient gift to be the mouthpiece of the almighty science god”, however if those who are ordained into the priesthood of academia dare to contradict them … all HELL breaks lose.

  12. The response that always seems to stop the climate argument in its tracks is when I say “Cold comes from space above the poles down the magnetospgheric footprint to the polar vortex”. They typically have nothing to say when I say that….
    Then when I say oceans are heated by geologic heats and that all the sun does is heat the surface, their head explodes…

    • I usually hit them with “of course its warming. We’re coming out of an ice age, what should it be doing?”.
      Crickets, I tell you, crickets.

      • A good question is whether it really IS still warming. If you consider the trend since the peak warmth of the early Holocene, each successive peak has been cooler. That means that in millennial terms, the planet has in reality been gradually cooling for the last 8,000 years or so. We are now near a level of warmth that may signal the next peak. We might even have passed it. If so, then data manipulation may have masked the actual change or we may be there right now.

      • I tried to explain to someone that the Antartic and Artic glaciations were due to continental drift and the subsquent changes in ocean currents and heat distribution in the oceans. All I got back was “It was the CO2! It was the CO2! It was the CO2!”
        These people are fanatics.

    • “oceans are heated by geologic heats and that all the sun does is heat the surface” – I’m not sure that I can agree with that statement, but you may be able to see the signature of an underwater volcano yesterday and today on the sea ice page at WUWT.
      http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png
      If you look just off of the northeast shore of Greenland you will see a very warm spot of water. Go to google earth and you will see an underwater mount in that exact location. I can’t think any other explanation.

      • It’s not a temperature map it’s an anomaly depiction. And since the base line is not included one does not know the actual temperature.

      • Russ, Those are anomalies from a reanalysis, not real data. The clockwise Atlantic currents deliver warm water to seas NE of Greenland, where it is cooled (becomes dense and saltier from evaporative cooling) and sinks, creating the deepwater currents that return along an abyssal route southward past the UK and Iberian peninsula. This large scale ocean transport of heat to the arctic is major cooling mechanism for the Earth’s climate system.
        Brant, all I can say is you are entitled to your opinion on how the oceans are warmed, but the facts are the crustal heat flow from the mantle is not a significant source of warming the broader oceans, at least not in the upper 4000 meters. But you are free to be wrong.
        To be sure, there are of course small hotspots of hydrothermal vent systems and also in the deepest ocean trenches there is measurable heat flow from the interior, but these are highly localized locations. In the Earth’s ancient past though, when the Earth was young (> 2 Gyears) , there surely must have been lots more oceanic hydrothermal vents and crustal heat flow than we see today, but not in the last half billion or so years.

      • Not only anomalies; it a graph from a model.
        The bald truth is that undersea rifts are almost undiscovered country. Very little science has actual been performed on rift – volcanic ocean exposures except to goggle at them.
        If volcanic heat is arming the oceans, it isn’t accomplishing much. I would have to consider that ocean surface exposure cools the oceans far more than magmatic heat sources warm.

      • Yes in this case exactly anomaly is important. Patch of water heated by underwater volcano is visible as high temperature anomaly spot.

      • it shows up on the sea surface temperature map also.
        http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_sst_NPS_ophi0.png
        if these are not real temperatures then we don’t need to pay any attention to them.
        but there is also a finger print of the hot spot here
        http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/plots/satsst.arc.d-00.png
        and here
        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmp_01.fnl.gif
        and here
        http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticsstnowcast.gif

    • That might be because cold doesn’t “come” from any where. Warmth goes. The Second Law is the One Ring where energy and information are concerned.

      • I was told a long time ago in a high school science class (can’t remember which) that there is no such thing as cold, just varying levels of heat.

  13. “Censoring legitimate, contradictory viewpoints on human-induced global warming is a gross disservice to the students, and to society.” …and possibly a criminal offence in a public enterprise.
    Also, with a billion a day spent word-wide on AGW and this sort of viciousness in the press including our public broadcaster the CBC, it is flagrantly false for UnpublishedOttawa to say that the vast majority have nothing to lose.
    I’m a scientist and I’m very aware of what I’m losing.

  14. Let us remind ourselves here that the L.A. Times also have an editorial censorship policy with regard to the CAGW issue. No skeptical articles, letters or opinion pieces are allowed.
    When a mind is closed to all but one viewpoint on an issue and censors all others, human rights itself can one day find itself on shaky ground.
    Critical and independent thinking becomes a dying concept when censorship is chosen as a tool for thought control….a la George Orwell.

    • “Secrecy is the keystone to all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy and censorship. When any government or church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, “This you may not read, this you must not know,” the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man who has been hoodwinked in this fashion; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, whose mind is free. No, not the rack nor the atomic bomb, not anything. You can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.” Robert A. Heinlein

  15. Here’s how it works… Make 1,000 outrageous predictions, of which ten come true. Delete all references of the 990 predictions that didn’t come true. Now claim that you’re “10 out of 10” and therefore shouldn’t be questioned, it’s all “settled” that you’re an expert.

    • Much the same with “housing bubbles”. They certainly happen (see: 2008, of course), but what is usually forgotten is that:
      1) most of the self-described experts didn’t see it coming
      but if they did:
      2) they predicted it so often for so long that, without specifics, their predictions were useless

      • I wish I could remember who it was, but back in the 90’s, the joke was that he had predicted 12 of the last 5 recessions.

  16. “Climate Change denial is one of the subjects we don’t allow on UnpublishedOttawa.com because it’s not based on real facts. Anyone can grab facts and make an argument out of it, but when the vast majority of scientists, who have little to gain, agree …”
    What?! “…vast majority of scientists, who have little to gain…” WTF? “…little to gain…” Where’s your “fact” for that, slightly less than forthcoming statement, Mr. Rousseau? What’s your definition of “little to gain” Mr. Rousseau? Can you quote, with any degree of robust certainty, the total dollar value of research grants thrown to the wind concerning this subject? If you can, is your personal wealth so vastly above that of the common man that you’d consider it a dollar amount that represents, “little to gain”? And, if you can’t, then why the hell are you making such an uninformed statement that those scientists “have little to gain” when you are therefore clueless as to how much or little they actually do have to gain? And, do you choose to be deliberately unaware of the hedge fund managers, venture capitalists, crony capitalists, lobbyists, career politicians, bureaucratic empires, and so on; all of whom, by their actions, certainly appear to have just a bit more than “little to gain” by AGW?

  17. Yes, this is the faith for many in the modern day. It is a virtue cult. We mostly think of cults as being specifically arranged around a specific god and or prophet. This virtue cult works the same way and has the same soul-satisfying purpose. Like any other cult, the world boils down to Good and Evil. Potential members get drawn in with low-pressure, benign, good-sounding appeals. As a person gets more engrossed, the good-versus-evil rhetoric get turned up.
    By receiving special knowledge and adopting the right thoughts and beliefs, a person becomes one of the special group members, and avoids being one of the unenlightened. Good versus evil. You are virtuous due to your beliefs and affiliation, and anyone who disagrees with you is not. They are either ignorant/unenlightened, or they are intentionally, diabolically opposed to your belief system for whatever reason – usually due to being evil or being greedy – being bought-off.
    Any cult fails because it relies on these forces – the desire to be virtuous and to not be one of “those” outgroup evil or ignorant people – and does not rely on reality.
    Any cult can fairly easily be debunked by simply evaluating some claim and analyzing it until the nonsense at its foundation is apparent,
    So, a cult MUST keep its members from seriously considering the obvious counter-examples that topple its house-of-cards world view. So, the supporting “facts” are repeated very regularly, while a set of counter-arguments are developed and disseminated to provide automatic rebuffs to logical challenges.
    Cult members are supportive of their cult, and so they do not require much of a counter-argument to guard against the legitimate challenge. So, if I declare that there has been no warming for 18 years, the virtue-cult member has been fed the answer, “the heat has gone into the ocean.” Their world view is preserved against a perfectly valid attack.
    A wise, honest, skeptical person would say, “Hey, I do believe in this AGW, but you have pointed out something I have not considered. Let me think about that.”
    –This is what I deliberately set out to do, after hearing the AGW thing for a few years and deciding to investigate my self. As others have said, I pretty quickly sussed out the truth.
    So, I encourage people to seriously consider that you can have a cult that is not specifically focused on a god or prophet, but on being virtuous, being on the “good” side in a good-versus-evil world view.
    I encourage people to go read info on how individuals get attracted to cults, and how they cross the line to adopt an unrealistic world view, then evaluate how the belief system is sustained (isolation from family, repetition of messages, authoritative heros/leaders, and what it takes to get out of a cult.
    Leah Remini’s story is a good example. In short, she merely asked the leader where his wife had been lately. That was the real-world observation that made the house of cards crumble for her.
    This is why you rarely can argue with these cult members – their thought structure is innoculated against your obviously true observations and valid debunking; when you express disbelief in AGW, you are immediately identified as either ignorant or evil.

    • A subset of the Virtue Cult is the “Health” Cult. Extra points for veganism, anorexia nervosa, compulsive marathon running and, of course, conspicuous public activism to Disease of the Week events. They maintain their moral high ground by dissing drivers, smokers, drinkers and anyone who has an ounce of fat on their body or doesn’t spend their life in the doctor’s office getting “screened.”

    • I used to be a member of a stereotypically bonkers religious cult.
      We sang and danced and played drums etc for a large part of each day. It was fabulous. Even better for the fact that we were all quite aware that we were in a cult. “Ha ha, we are actually in a cult, isn’t that funny”.
      Theoretically we were supposed to be curbing our sexual interests. Which inevitably lead to a great deal of sexual interest.
      Since then I have been a member of a state sector organization where thinking and criticism are barred.
      Not only is it an entirely humorless and lacklustre assembly of depressed and depressing human beings.
      We are less able to freely speak our minds than when I was part of a religious cult.
      But almost none of these people who work for the state have realized that they are in a cult.
      Which suggests a lack of self-awareness and a significant degree of mind-control.
      I preferred the former situation.
      The religious cult was far more intelligent and far more conducive to human happiness and creativity then the cult of state control.
      If I have to live in a cult, then clearly I’d choose the one in which people smiled.
      So, not the UK public sector – the oppressive cult of the moron.

  18. If “the CAGW/Climate Change” science is settled and average global temperatures are still increasing alarmingly, then why are very many scientists still working on research projects desperately attempting to determine what mechanism is generating the current very significant flattening out of average global temperature annual increases compared to published and reported past and on-going CAGW supporters’ forecasts?
    Hansen, himself, has researched this and published a Paper explaining that this current “flattening” is the result of the relative recent and on-going massive increases of particulate carbon and sulphate emissions in China’s and other Developing Countries’ fossil fuel emissions which are screening out a significant proportion of the incoming solar radiation. It appears, however, that in his eagerness to prop up his CAGW/Climate Change theories he has shot himself in the foot, possibly fatally!
    This effect of particulate carbon and sulphates within emissions has been known since the 70’s, and was entitled Solar Gloom! Increases in such emissions, as now increasingly being provided by China et al, have decreased temperatures but, previously, the West’s Clean Air Acts, Anti-Acid Rain provisions since the late 50’s onwards and the massive reduction in the shutdown of dirty industries following the collapse of the Soviet Union – all well before the real upsurge in China’s and the rest of the Developing Countries’ industrial upsurge, increased average global temperatures. That means that recorded and “adjusted” temperature increases from the CAGW industry and church from the 50’s onwards are as much to do, if not even more to do, with the West’s past reductions in particulate carbon and sulphate emissions and not CO2 increases.
    Stripping out this Solar Gloom effect from average global temperatures from the late 50’s onwards, possibly even using Hansen’s recent criteria and findings, will in fact provide a far more accurate and flattened “adjusted” average global temperature/ time curve and hence a much flatter temperature/CO2 curve. That means that the AGW effect, and not catastrophic AGW or CAGW effect, of man-made CO2 emissions on temperature exists but will have a far slower, very much reduced effect and requiring far simpler and cheaper interventions way off in the future, and not the horrendous and unaffordable, unnecessary Green Energy policies that have been imposed upon us! This is something that very many Climate Scientists have always maintained!

  19. “but when the vast majority of scientists, who have little to gain, agree that we have a problem, a problem that is already manifesting itself all around the world,”
    Nothing to gain? Enhanced salaries, enhanced departments, greater staffing, fame fortune, regular employment until retirement on cushy taxpayer funded pensions, the satisfaction in knowing that they’ve changed the world, good or bad! Sure, little to gain I can see!

      • All that science and technology and they’ve never heard of Skype.
        Here in Canada we’ve elected Prime Minister Justin “Zoolander” Bieber, I mean Trudeau, a man whose only capabilities are good hair and a famous name. Kylie Jenner in pants, basically.
        He is of course heading over to Paris (and taking Canada’s sole Green MP). I pointed out to one of Zoolander’s worshipers (seriously, its like a cult) that the ratio of real scientists to politicians, bureaucrats and hangers-on heading over (in a CO2 spewing jet, of course) will be about 1:100.
        “But he’s better than [Conservative] Harper]” recently defeated PM.
        “Yes,” I say, “he’ll promise even more impossible cuts to our CO2 emissions than the previous Liberal government (which didn’t come close to meeting them).
        “But its a start”, they say.
        “But its all window dressing and Potemkin Villages”, I say.
        “But…his hair, its so kewl”…ok I exaggerate, but only slightly.
        I’d be ok with the whole “we’re not really doing anything, but we’re trying” idiots if they admitted it.

      • Caligula,
        What’s really scary is that obviously, Mr. Zoolander Trudeau is a willing puppet who is controlled by others. He will parrot whatever narrative is put on his teleprompter, but he will never be cornered into answering questions that aren’t tightly scripted. That way he will appear as if he’s got a clue, while basking in the adoration of a sycophantic media and his adoring subset of the public.
        How do I know this? Because south of your border, we have a coprophagic President who is exactly the same…

    • And also “a problem that is already manifesting itself all around the world,” What? And where? There is literally nothing that they can point to that has been caused by more CO2 in the atmosphere. The GCM models don’t work so there is no way to show that anything they point to is actually caused by more CO2 in the air. Everything they bring up is well within the known limits of natural variability. This despite their overuse of the word ‘unprecedented’. Every time they use that word it should be printed like this: unprecedented*

  20. Exact science sounds a lot like Dogma that gets preached in a church. That is what religion is for. Science is more of a game where theories and hypotheses are thrown into the pitch and the teams of people on each side try to shows whose hypothesis is better. It is dynamic, there are ebbs and flows and can be very exciting. Look at how many people get “churched” on Sunday vs. how many people get wrapped up in sports plus look a the enthusiasm of each church crowd vs. the sports crowd. As long as the alarmists insist on preaching, you can be assured that all but the most devoted of the general public with have little interest.

  21. I suggest a 2% “wealth tax” (i.e. personal property tax on all assets and equities above $50 million) to pay for Climate Change.
    I figure the only people to get rich off of Climate Change are the 1%, so they should pay for it too.
    This kind of proposal will bring Climate Change to a swift end.

    • Agreed, but I think I’d start it at the top 0.1% first. They’re the ones (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Maurice Strong, Tom Steyer, John Kerry, Leonardo DiCaprio, George Clooney, John Podesta, et al) who’d have the most to gain from draconian regulations, and the most to lose.

      • Actually, just call it the Hypocrisy Tax. DiCaprio would have to pay triple for staying on a yacht owned by an oil baron then calling for the oceans to be better protected from climate change.
        BTW, saw an interview with a child who wants free tuition, forgiveness for student loans and unlimited unicorn rides (I’m a bit fuzzy on that last one, I was giggling too hard).
        She kept mentioning that we should just “tax the 1%” to pay for it.
        Sure, said the host, if everyone in the 1% paid a 100% tax rate, it would pay for Medicare. For three years…
        The problem with the “tax the rich”, as we are about to find out here in Canada with our new Liberal government is that “the rich” are fairly mobile, and more importantly, so is their money.
        So they have to redefine who “the rich” are (hint: its an ever decreasing income amount), and what a “tax” really is, as in, “its not a tax, its a USER FEE”.

      • @ Caligula Jones –
        I believe those unicorn rides are an increased minimum wage, but that hasn’t worked.
        And, to add, Old Hillary is promising more money giveaways (hard to keep up with the Bern) of say a few billion to out of work coal workers – essentially thanking them for providing modern civilization or as she says’ “keeping the lights on”. (What an insult. And she doesn’t even realize it.)
        But, I see no pockets in her pants suits !!! Holes all through our pants though.

    • I have had discussions with some who want to go after the 1%. They typically also believe in borderless countries. So I suggest that we should be talking about the global 1%, not just those contained in the confines of a ‘meaningless’ border. Once I have a buy-in on that viewpoint, I hit them with facts (so easy, since they know so few): on a global basis, the top 1% of wage earners are those who make about US $34,000 a year. How much do YOU make, and are you willing to pay about 90% in taxes to bring fairness for the 99% of people earning less than you?
      They generally turn into pretzels trying to justify not supporting ‘fairness’ on a global basis. Seems only redistributing other people’s money meets their definition of fairness.

  22. Argue the science as long as you like, it’s interesting but irrelevant — it’s political. The anti-capitalism movement explains it all.

    • I consider myself a non-Marxist socialist and even I can’t fathom the ignorance of those who rant against capitalism while worshipping in the AGW church. In communism, it’s the workers who control the factories, the idea being that everyone shares in the profits of industry. These fools want to burn the factories down. They’re not Marxists, they’re nihilists, self-hating humans who think man is a cancer on the planet.

  23. Yeah, I’m in a bit of a cultural class at one of the colleges in that group and they’re jamming in various ideological nonsense. To be fair though, I can understand that they would promote what they feel are the current “correct” values in the society. But it’s really sad listening to it, knowing that while greenhouse gas theory is correct and that the earth appears to have warmed…essentially everything pushed by the politicians, media, and advocate scientists about climate change falls somewhere along the spectrum between conjecture and lies.

  24. … but when the vast majority of scientists, who have little to gain …
    This is a porker. They have big fat research grants to gain.

  25. I like to compare these types to those who supported the claims that it had been scientifically proven that blacks were an inferior species. IIRC, that was the consensus of another time. You should see the response from people when they are compared to racists. It is hilarious.

    • Unfortunately there are a whole bunch of other similarities to the eugenics wisdom.
      Including who the victims are of these “alternate energy” schemes.
      It is almost as if our Eco-Concerned Ones have a hate on for poor brown persons.
      Course it could just be poor people every where.
      The blatant censorship of C.C.C activists is pure politics.
      When pinned down by facts, they scream and fling faeces..
      Then if you are still snickering, they plug their ears and run off at the mouth, La la la la….
      The best reason I can figure for the wilful blindness, seems to be the risk of total self esteem collapse.
      Their pious view of themselves is so dependent on the wisdom of that magic gas, that there is no room for doubt.
      What if I am wrong? = meltdown.
      I am glad I do not see what they do in their mirrors.

  26. Speaking of censorship – here is the last reference on BBC Science and Environment to Antarctic Ice:
    “Satellite data shows the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is also losing mass, and a recent study indicated that East Antarctica, which had displayed no clear warming or cooling trend, may also have started to lose mass in the last few years.”
    So – that’s how they intend to play it. Apparently an entire NASA study has disappeared into a void.
    The silence is audible.
    But, the sniveling bum-licking BBC have hidden this study from the British public, even though it was discussed in almost all media worldwide, including state controlled Russia Today and Al Jazeera.
    And inconvenient study, perhaps.
    BBC seemingly want to leave thier alarmist claims unchanged and unchallenged in the lead up to COP21,
    And a blanket ban on inconvenient science is the only strategy that they have left at their disposal.
    Crooks!!!

  27. “In a society where freedom of speech is a treasured attribute…”
    Freedom os speech means that the government can not restrict your speech, although what this means in British law is certainly not the same as in the US.
    However, this article is not about government restricting speech. It’s about whether or not people wish to listen to BS.

    • Deep down inside do you wonder if anyone wants to listen to your BS?. When no one responds to you at the discussions where you agree with the others … at the echo chambers of the AGW …, do you consciously wonder why? Is it your subconscious that pushes you here, where you can at least get a response to your BS and feel a little better for a short time?

  28. […] According to one alarmist […]
    “Anyone can grab facts and make an argument out of it”

    Class.
    Kind of like Homer (Simpson) ‘class’ …
    “Anyone can grab facts and make an argument out of it”

    _____________________________________________
    My personal favourite though has to be his view on learning …
    (Secrets of a Successful Marriage)
    “Oh. And how is ‘education’ supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home wine-making course and I forgot how to drive?”

  29. “Climate Change denial is one of the subjects we don’t allow on UnpublishedOttawa.com because it’s not based on real facts. Anyone can grab facts and make an argument out of it…”
    Aren’t “facts”, by definition, “real”? Isn’t grabbing “facts and make an argument out of it” the entire point?

    • The Uni’s teach you NOT to think for yourself. You know what happens when a professor asks for your views on an exam. You dare not give him your views. Even if you can substantiate.

      • I’m sure that’s true at many universities. Fortunately, my education predated most of that. I met Dr. Stephen Schneider in the late 1980’s at a MTU function, and stood two feet from him, looked him in the eye, and said, “you can’t be serious?” in response to his statements on AGW. He was serious enough to suggest bending ethical rules to promote and exaggerate that message.

  30. ” The subject of global warming, or the more recently minted “climate change”, must be dealt with rationally, not by censorship.”
    But part of the problem, ignoring the political aspect for a moment, is that we frequently miscommunicate our beliefs, and are thus perceived as “not believing” in global warming or climate change. We do this saying things like “global warming is a hoax” or “climate change is a fraud”. This is a big mistake on our part.
    It is very easy to fix this miscommunication problem. (The political aspect, not so easy).
    Repeat after me:
    Global warming is a fact. (The world has been warming, slowly, since the last Ice Age. No big deal)
    Global warming scare is a hoax.
    Climate change is a fact. (The climate has been changing for eons, and always will. No big deal)
    Climate change scare is a fraud.

  31. “speaks very eloquently so that one need not be a specialist to understand him” – That my friends is the kiss of DEATH to them. They can’t dazzle people with brilliance so they baffle them with BS. Along comes someone who is not only extremely qualified but literate and capable of explaining the issues to non-technical people. Whoa now they can’t have that. They’d all lose their phony baloney jobs (HT to Mel Brooks).

  32. “but when the vast majority of scientists, who have little to gain, agree that we have a problem, a problem that is already manifesting itself all around the world,”

    The “vast majority” does not agree that we have a major problem, as the quote above implies, but only 41%. This 2007 George Mason poll http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union. It did not cherry pick the respondants who gave them the answer they wanted, and it asked more sophisticated questions, below:
    Under its “Major Findings” are these paragraphs:
    “Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.
    “Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest [11%] are unsure.
    “Scientists still debate the dangers. A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is NOT “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”
    “A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites this increase as the point beyond which additional warming would produce major environmental disruptions.)
    “Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.”
    IOW, 59% doubt the “catastrophic” potential of AGW. I suspect that number would be higher now, after eight more flat years.

  33. If 97% of the scientific community (read IPCC) are so certain that humans are responsible for global warming …’.
    ===============================
    I know that’s how it is interpreted but that’s not what the IPCC say, viz. that over 50% of the (alleged) warming since ~1950 is very, very, likely to be caused by human activity, or words to that effect.
    Statements like “… no one seems to have furnished incontrovertible evidence that global warming is caused by human activity …” oversimplifying the matter and perpetuate misunderstanding.
    It’s more sensible to concede that human activity notably CO2 emissions may possibly, or even probably, be responsible for some warming but empirical evidence suggests that the resulting warming is only adding to an already existing trend coming out of one of the coldest episodes during this interglacial; that human CO2 emissions and the probable minor additional warming are a net positives and that there is no viable alternative course at this stage and the only rational approach is to utilise resultant increasing global wealth to alleviate negative effects — if any.

  34. ABC Australia receives more than one billion Australian dollars a year from taxpayers, including vast numbers of them who are CAGW sceptics:
    9 Nov: Guardian: Graham Readfearn: Why Robyn Williams won’t broadcast ‘shameless’ climate science deniers
    After 40 years of fronting ABC Radio National’s Science Show, Robyn Williams says climate science deniers have said nothing different ‘for bloody years’…
    To say that Robyn Williams is a bit of a legend of science broadcasting on the radio is a bit like saying David Attenborough is a dab hand at nature documentaries on the telly…
    Last week Williams was in Brisbane for a celebration of the 40th anniversary of the show put on by the University of Queensland…
    Joining Williams onstage was outgoing chief scientist Ian Chubb. On a big screen, there were video dedications from the likes of actress Cate Blanchett, theoretical physicist Professor Paul Davies, Nature editor-in-chief Philip Campbell and former UK chief science advisor Lord May.
    Oh, and David Attenborough…
    WILLIAMS: “Now all of the people who are deniers have been on the programs that my colleagues and I put out. We did so because most of us frankly like and enjoy contrarian views. We like a variety of opinion.
    But then you find – as I did – that the people you are inviting in to give their contrarian views are always saying the same bloody thing. You can actually mouth the paragraphs. Here it comes again … just as if they were politicians rather than people considering science.
    The people I put on the radio [now] have just written papers, they have published considered books. In other words, you are doing what you hope is serving the public by getting fresh ideas out to them to consider. But the people you are describing – those deniers – I have not noted saying anything new in bloody years…
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/nov/09/why-legendary-science-broadcaster-robyn-williams-wont-broadcast-shameless-climate-science-deniers-any-more
    ABC editorial policies
    Impartiality Guidance note
    Impartiality is one of the most fundamental elements of content-making at the ABC…
    4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.
    4.3 Do not state or imply that any perspective is the editorial opinion of the ABC. The ABC takes no editorial stance other than its commitment to fundamental democratic principles including the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, parliamentary democracy and equality of opportunity.
    4.4 Do not misrepresent any perspective.
    4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another…
    http://about.abc.net.au/reports-publications/impartiality-guidance-note/

    • ABC editorial policies
      Impartiality Guidance note
      Impartiality is one of the most fundamental elements of content-making at the ABC…
      4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.
      4.3 Do not state or imply that any perspective is the editorial opinion of the ABC. The ABC takes no editorial stance other than its commitment to fundamental democratic principles including the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, parliamentary democracy and equality of opportunity.
      4.4 Do not misrepresent any perspective.
      4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another…

      That’s pretty funny!
      Oh wait… they’re serious?
      No way.

  35. And – still the most eloquent summary – thanks to a Bishop Hill commenter: “Climate Bollocks”.

  36. They can’t control something like security, yet claim to be able to control a chaotic system like climate. The world is mad !!

  37. Great, Joé! But censorship is also used by alarmists in France.. Omerta is the rule. Nobody is allowed to be informed on disturbing observations and/or publications….Terrific!

    • Jean-Pierre,
      You are absolutely correct. One example, the dismissal of Philippe Verdier, has already been addressed in this forum in an essay by Anthony Watts entitled “Back To The Dark Ages: Top French Weatherman Fired Over Climate Change Book” published November 2. Another, of which I am aware, is that of Dr. Brigitte Van Vliet-Lanoe. Though she is still the director of research at France’s CNRS (National Science Research Center) she was fired recently from the University of Lille for (in her own words, but translated from French) being too skeptical of anthropogenic climate change and for having taught her students to think critically.

  38. We have a twofold world crisis IMHO….. this issue in conjunction with the growing terrorists movement coming out of the middle east….. one of these seems to be a powerful delusion…..and with horrible consequences either way!
    10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12

  39. “…little to gain…”
    This is the sort of statement made by someone who is completely ignorant of what is going on. Tens of billions of dollars are spent each year “proving” global warming, but neither that money nor employment are available to anyone not engaged in proving global warming. They have everything to gain, at the loss only if integrity. Money wins.

    • Yeah, and don’t forget speaker’s fees. Didn’t Hansen retire as a millionaire based on his speaker’s fees?

  40. “Duberger offers a natural retort to that last statement by referring to the derision endured by Alfred Wegener until his death because the majority of geoscientists ridiculed his now widely accepted and understood theory of Plate Tectonics.”
    Actually Wegener didn’t invent the Plate Tectonics theory. It didn’t exist while he was alive. He assumed the continents somehow plowed through the ocean rocks. Trouble is there was no way to make it work. That’s why he was laughed at. But it was obvious from the physical evidence (rocks and matching edges on maps) that Wegener was correct that the continents had once been joined. I remember recognizing this in the 1950s when I was a kid. But it was only when radar and magnetic stripe evidence was produced that a workable theory was developed. This is like so many other legends which are produced to “deify” the winner in a intellectual battle.

  41. In Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, access to newspapers older than 2 years was forbidden, except with a special permit.
    Since history had changed.
    You were told once, and if you kept asking you were asked to ID yourself. Better run while you could.
    Climate “science” is the same, for the same reason…

  42. This seems to be a very actual subject, since I’ve just read another post, on another blog, on the same idea. My thoughts are still the same: I’m no fan of those IPCC studies and, in my oppinion, IPCC made wrong analysis during the past years. Here’s an example: The IPCC Report from 1990 states: “Emission resulting from human activities is substantially increasing the atmospheric concentration of the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in additional warming of the earth’s surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapour, will increase in response to global warming and further enhance it”.
    Not everybody agreed with IPCC and its “consensus” thesis. While most of the scientists and climatologists supported it, there were also voices which contradict the conclusions of IPCC. The most important document in this regard is the “Oregon Petition” of 1998, signed by 17,000 scientists who were protesting against the Kyoto Agreement. The petition requested the acknowledgement of the following statement: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth”.
    The funny thing is that now, even after more than 25 years of climate change debate, we don’t agreee and won’t be able to solve the problem.

  43. Government-wide censorship of scientists has now ended. If individual schools are cancelling speaking engagements that’s unfortunate.
    Muzzled Canadian scientists now free to speak with media
    “Our government values science and will treat scientists with respect,” said Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Navdeep Bains.
    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/11/06/muzzles-removed-for-federal-scientists-at-department-of-fisheries-and-oceans.html
    Federal scientists eager to share their research now that muzzles are off
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/federal-scientists-eager-to-share-their-research-now-that-muzzles-are-off/article27171269/
    This policy of the dumped former government applied to a wide range of sciences- not just climate, but pollution and pretty much anything in the way of the extractive industries.
    At the end of this post, the author repeats an error. Claiming that “climate change” is recently minted is simply incorrect. Global Warming was coined in 1975, Climate Change was in the well-known PNAS “Charney Report” in 1979.
    “The first decisive National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide’s impact on climate, published in 1979, abandoned “inadvertent climate modification.” Often called the Charney Report for its chairman, Jule Charney of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, declared: “if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.”
    In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker’s usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used “global warming.” When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used “climate change.””
    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
    And look at the title and the last sentence from a 1975 paper:
    “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”
    Wallace S. Broecker
    Science 8 August 1975: 460-463. [DOI:10.1126/science.189.4201.460]
    final sentence: “There is little doubt, however, that this gradual warming will lead to changes in the pattern of global precipitation. Our efforts to understand and eventually to predict these changes must be redoubled.”
    The science and the terms are not new.

  44. ‘Panic and censorship are used to advance the cause of
    environmental alarmists.’
    J.W. – put mildly. With focus on Paris the target narrows towards
    breach of peace and incitement.
    Regards – Hans

  45. Not on this thread!
    But related with Dr. Tim Balls
    post on Vladimir Putin, where my comment misses the basic word PRIVILEGED –
    here we go:
    ‘attempt to clear the views:
    fascism is the follower of futurism.
    – futurist is Who Declares himself a futurist.
    – fascist is Who Declares himself a fascist.
    – dictator is Who Acts like
    a dictator.
    – despot mostly Is Declared a despot, e.g. by literats and media.
    – tyrann in the classic pollei Was Elected as tyrann by the PRIVILEGED citizens.’
    Regards – Hans

Comments are closed.