Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Guardian reports that discussions of climate policy are being displaced by “attacks” on climate science.
Naturally the Guardian, and the authors of the study, blame a conspiracy of climate skeptics, rather than considering other possibilities, such as legitimate doubts raised by the Climategate fiasco, and the utter inability of climate scientists to get any predictions right.
According to The Guardian;
Era of climate science denial is not over, study finds
Conservative thinktanks in the US engaging in climate change have increased their attacks on science in recent years, a study of 16,000 documents finds.
Is organised climate science denial finished?
After global heat records were continually broken over the last decade, and as sea levels rose and scientists reported the accelerated melting of polar ice sheets, you might be forgiven for thinking the debate over climate change had shifted.
No more arguing over the science? It’s more about the policy now, right?
Well, wrong. At least according to a new study that has looked at 15 years worth of output from 19 conservative “thinktanks” in the United States.
“We find little support for the claim that ‘the era of science denial is over’ – instead, discussion of climate science has generally increased over the sample period,” the study concludes.
The conservative thinktanks under the microscope are the main cog in the machinery of climate science denial across the globe, pushing a constant stream of material into the public domain.
Sadly the main study is paywalled, but the following is the abstract of the study;
Text-mining the signals of climate change doubt
Highlights
- Think-tank contrarian information has increased exponentially over 1998–2013.
- Sceptical themes are diverse and range from scientific integrity to policy.
- Science-related discourse has grown relative to policy in key sceptic organisations.
- Think-tank discourse is highly influenced by external factors.
- We generate longitudinal data on think-tank contrarian themes over a 16 year period.
Abstract
Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that the Earth is getting warmer and that the rise in average global temperature is predominantly due to human activity. Yet a significant proportion of the American public, as well as a considerable number of legislators in the U.S. Congress, continue to reject the “consensus view.” While the source of the disagreement is varied, one prominent explanation centres on the activities of a coordinated and well-funded countermovement of climate sceptics. This study contributes to the literature on organized climate scepticism by providing the first systematic overview of conservative think tank sceptical discourse in nearly 15 years. Specifically, we (1) compile the largest corpus of contrarian literature to date, collecting over 16,000 documents from 19 organizations over the period 1998–2013; (2) introduce a methodology to measure key themes in the corpus which scales to the substantial increase in content generated by conservative think tanks over the past decade; and (3) leverage this new methodology to shed light on the relative prevalence of science- and policy-related discussion among conservative think tanks. We find little support for the claim that “the era of science denial is over”—instead, discussion of climate science has generally increased over the sample period.
Read more: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378015300728
Climate alarmists frequently accuse skeptics of believing in baseless conspiracy theories, but when you read something like this, it is pretty plain which side of the climate debate is living in fantasy land.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just wait until the cAGW acolytes read read Ottawa’s Carleton University Professor Michael Harts new book “Hubris”, they will go apoplectic. This book published in late 2015 is a must read.
http://www.amazon.com/Hubris-Troubling-Science-Economics-Politics/dp/0994903804
I bought it. If it doesn’t make me laugh and give me insight I’m going to install an array of annoying windmills next to your house.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=silfiTY32xo&feature=share
We can identify a couple hundred thousand $ support for sceptics vs billions for alarmists (plus all the media and most of the celebrities). We must attribute super powers to these sceptics to believe that the observed phenomena are the result of their actions.
Isn’t this an admission that skeptics have a far more convincing argument than the “scientists” do? I always read these as saying “we are losing the climate debate and it can’t be our lack of evidence and invalid predictions. It must be something else. Ah, yes, a conspiracy on the part of conservative think tanks or oil companies.” What they are really saying is the science is not convincing and people are now recognizing that.
Then assume they can’t convince because of “rhetoric” (right wing rhetoric, anti-science rhetoric…).
So they have call arguments based on real world measurement “rhetoric”. Anything they don’t like is “rhetoric”. (Doom prophecy doesn’t count as rhetoric, nor does insinuation about intent or funding.)
I wonder how many idiots use the word “rhetoric” without any understand of what it means. It doesn’t mean “assertion about the world that isn’t true”!!!
If I say the Earth is flat, that isn’t “flat Earth rhetoric”, it’s simply false. If I say at a local scale (scale of a town or a small region), the Earth is flat, that isn’t true, but a decent approximation. (Saying it’s a sphere is also an approximation.)
Ummm ahhh, its actually both. Recent culture attributes rhetoric with a negative tone.
“hey darlin, you got yourself some nice rhetorical skills there” (a compliment to her eloquence)
“hey darlin, i wish you would stop with that rhetorical nonsense” (not a compliment)
“hey darlin, i like you better when you don’t talk (not sure where that falls, but it never works out well)
Humans do influence weather stations.
Atlanta Airport C1928 vs Atlanta Airport 2015.
https://www.pinterest.com/fan63/vintage-postcards-from-around-georgia/
http://atlantadailyworld.com/2014/01/07/atlantas-hartsfield-jackson-named-3rd-worst-airport-to-get-stuck-in/
The article is available here:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75831381/Boussalis%20TExt-mining%20the%20signals%20of%20climate%20change%20doubt.pdf
Note that ‘Climate Change Denial’ across the board is being categorized as ‘misinformation’!
(para. 7 – Discussion)
Also interesting to study their references: Most of them I never heard about, but I notice ‘Cook, Nuccitelli and Green’, ‘Lewandowsky’, and ‘Oreskes’!
The concept of denialism presupposes that challenges to textbook theory are rare. They are not, and this is, to date, one of the biggest oversights on WUWT.
Again, it would be better if Eric actually read the paper he was attempting to critique, rather than just imagining what it says.
One doesn’t have to actually ingest rotting garbage to know that it is indeed, garbage.
I’ve seen some shockingly bad reports based on big data analysis. If you think CAGW is a nightmare of misinformation just wait till society gets schooled enough to warp big data results. It’s a nightmare waiting to happen. And yes, reading the report matters if only to see how badly they bias the findings … knowing your opposition’s style and all that stuff.
I’m feisty today. Think I’ll go check the lunar effect.
A conspiracy to attack obvious fabrications? No temp anomaly has yet got anywhere near a record in a decade – actually, since mid 1998. Arctic ice is growing at an unprecedented rate and is larger than in 2005. If more people are commenting on that, terrific but it doesn’t need Koch to point out the bleeding obvious.
P R O J E C T I O N on an epic scale.
Reading the paper – the ‘discussion’ section starts with “Theoretical progress in the field of organized climate change denial, among other things, ‘‘demands the collection and rigorous, systematic examination of longitudinal data’’ on the ‘‘discourses, claims, and frames employed by key components in the denial countermovement’’
Is there any organized climate change denial?
“it is clear that the misinformation campaign has been escalating over time”
So many evidence free claims – just like the warmists know and love?
Some skepti*cs might wonder what result if this analysis were applied to Lewandoski’s “data”, or any 16,000 “peer-reviewed” Cli-Sci articles. I submit they began by searching for “robust*” and it broke their computer. Hopefully the Gradian will follow up with an article on the needed grant for computer replacement.
Sometimes I hear things that stick in my brain. I’ll never forget an investment banker who told me :
“Ya know, I can make investments in flying pigs a profitable venture if I have enough money behind me. the suckers will follow and I’ll move onto to something else.”
There are people in the world with NO conscience.
My next bank manager is going to a ‘climate scientist’. It appears they can adjust my ‘previous’ data to make my ‘current’ data more impressive …… and NOT get arrested for it.
I’m open for suggestions (Australia), shouldn’t cost much, as I’m already paying for them.
Sometimes all the pink elephants get in the room together.
Debt up to the eyeballs in most major first tier nations.
Highest energy prices in the world in Germany and Denmark.
Massive investment in real resource (not that fake green stuff) production over the past 5 years except nobody thought it would come on line just as China’s consumption started to hit the skids.
200B in notes coming due in shale gas alone.
Money has been leaving US equity markets in earnest mid last year.
Now, skeptics may have kept the flame alive for the sake of science, but nothing will put the kibosh on inefficient rebate thriving green energy faster than a deflationary global economy.
I don’t wish it on the world, but in the course of NATURAL VARIABILITY concerning economic cycles what’s brewing should not be catching people by surprise.
But it is.
Maybe we should swap out all of the climate scientists with all the Wall Street folks! Then our National debt would go away (through adjustments) and the investors would actually pay attention to the science results!
“Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that the Earth is getting warmer and that the rise in average global temperature is predominantly due to human activity. ”
Ergo climate denialists must be wrong, must be liars, frauds etc etc
Or…
the ‘expertise’ of climate scientists as a group is actually gossamer thin, skeptics have spotted the true transparency of said ‘expertise’ and have pointed out that the climate emperors and empresses appear less than fully clothed.
Corollary:- Climate ‘scientists’ group think together in the same way that herbivores, particularly ruminants tend to flock together and exhibit a range of herd behaviours.
Naked, cud chewers going “baaaaaa” in unison.
Naw….I think there are just some black sheep in the herd making a whole lotta noise while the rest keep their heads down mowing grass and doing what sheep do. Or maybe there are just wolves in scientist’s clothing. I hate lumping all climate researchers in with the wolves. It’s not fair and it makes us look bad too.
So WUWT is conspiring to commit a crime? What crime would that be? Those of us who remain skeptical are conspirators in a crime? Conspiracy construes that an unlawful act is at the root. So… what’s my cut gonna be? I will drive the getaway car.
Is is me, or does the Grauniad ever feature a doom study that isn’t paywalled?
35 dollars !!!!
“Read more:”
Thanks, but no thanks. I cannot stomach the Al Qu’ardian
“While the source of the disagreement is varied, one prominent explanation centres on the activities of a coordinated and well-funded countermovement of climate sceptics.”
So you reckon we’re well funded eh chaps?
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/the_great_exaggerators/
Perhaps you’d best take the Mayor of Cologne’s advice on a ‘code of conduct’ and keep at ‘arms length’ if you don’t miss more than half a million bucks out of the slushfunds? Howsabout singing for your supper in the marketplace instead of continually whining and dining for it all with your pals? How’s the Groupthink modus operandi of hushing up unpleasant contradictory facts doing lately?
No, it’s relativity actually. The big push leading up to Paris involving every misdirected Federal agency in choreographed sequence and all international agencies to promote the big political charade is now over and the participants have moved onto other duties. Meanwhile the fact checkers and science process continues as usual. The relative motion of the two sides has changed but only because the mega charade could not keep up the daily drumbeat, especially with the election primaries coming forward. It’s all quiet on the scare front for now, eh Hillary.
The abstract said, “the rise in average global temperature is predominantly due to human activity.”
Is any OTHER cause EVER discussed in “climate science”? “Predominantly” means anything from 50% on up, so first, what percentage do they claim is from human activity, and second, what other causes do they grant?
i found this compelling:
sitting there on the group W bench…
nice appeal to authority
ever wonder why after 20 years of pulling out every fear mongering trick in the book
good ole americans ain’t buying what they are sellin ?
yo yo yo
oh?
who, then, is paying for it?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx
I recommend more nakedness if they want attention to the cause. Americans are exhibiting signs of fear fatigue.
a nude michael mann on the cover of Vanity Fair would be the epitome of climate pr0n, for sure.
i think my sense of humor just got tased, bro.
You too can have an adjusted hockey stick just like your favorite climate scientist if you just click on this link.
Abe,
Yes, yes you have been barking. A lot. And the results of all that barking has resulted in stunned silence in which one could hear a pin drop. But I’d like to propose to you the idea that it’s NOT because your logic and reason have humbled and disarmed them. I’d like to suggest that perhaps….just maybe….your approach has stunned them….and everyone else….into that shocked…slack jawed….mouth opening and closing thing that has more to do with w….t…….f……is wrong with this guy. Just a thought…
No Abe. I don’t “NEED” to do anything at all.
“And when you get your own degree and career in atmospheric radiation you won’t be in the S.A.B.A.”
Your degree and career in atmospheric radiation (appeal to authority) mean nothing to anyone here. It is likely a good fit for someone like yourself though.
When do I get my check from Big Oil?
Some ‘continue to reject the “consensus view.” While the source of the disagreement is varied, one prominent explanation centres on the activities of a coordinated and well-funded countermovement of climate sceptics’:
the autors of the studie should have learned something usefull and well funded – the sceptical discourse.
Regards – Hans