Use of Fear to Silence Climate Skeptics Is An Assault On Reason

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

global-warming-inquisition

Fear is the most powerful enemy of reason. Both fear and reasoning are essential to human survival, but the relationship between them is unbalanced. Reason may sometimes dissipate fear, but fear frequently shuts down reason. As Edmund Burke wrote in England 20 years before the American Revolution,” no passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning past fear.”

Fear is aided and abetted by exaggeration, distortion, and falsehoods. Sadly, these exploitations litter history as people sought to control others and push a political or religious agenda. There appears to be a difference today as Farhad Manjoo identified in his book “True Enough: Learning to live in a Post-Fact Society”:

Facts no longer matter. We simply decide how we want to see the world and then go out and find experts and evidence to back our beliefs.

If that doesn’t work, you manufacture the material and hire spin doctors to spread the lies and misinformation more effectively. The truth doesn’t need spin doctors.

Most people are afraid of lawyers and the law. There is the apocryphal story of a lawyer (solicitor) in England who had a standard letter that said,

“Sir: This matter has come to our attention, and if you do not deal with it immediately we will do things that will astonish you.”

Many think a letter from a lawyer is a legal document, it isn’t; it is a letter from a lawyer. Apart from the potential legal action that might follow, the recipient knows it is going to cost money even if only to hire a lawyer. The increasing use of the law to intimidate people is a frightening trend that is a perversion of the laws purpose to protect the citizens. Now that trend extends to those who are doing their job. It is the job of a scientist to challenge and question. As Thomas Huxley wrote,

The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”

Even the threat by US Attorney General (AG) Loretta Lynch that the FBI are going to examine the role of climate skeptics for charges under the RICO is deeply disturbing. It is the practice of leaders who hold a singular political view from either extreme to isolate and threaten. Totalitarianism occurs on the left and the right.

While Lynch was threatening skeptics, President Obama held a press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at which they announced total agreement on the need to fight climate change. Both present themselves as leaders who only have the people and the planet at heart, but consider the actions of what Trudeau’s father Pierre did when his belief in centralized government was challenged.

French-speaking people in Quebec with distinct cultural identity wanted to form a nation-state.

After the First World War the principle of ‘the right to national self-determination’ were commonly used by international lawyers, national governments and their challengers. The demand that people should govern themselves became identified with the demand that nations should determine their own destiny.

“When the Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ) sought separation of Quebec from Canada, Pierre Trudeau used the murder of Deputy Premier and Minister of Labour of the province of Quebec Pierre Laporte to act.”

This does not change the point of the story. It was a gross over-reaction to take away all citizens rights and use the Canadian Army against Canadian citizens.

For comparison, imagine if a State politician was murdered by a person and Obama used that as an excuse to take complete control of the US and use the Army to control citizens. There is a reason for the second amendment. As Thomas Jefferson said,

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

When challenged about his draconian actions, this academic lawyer who suddenly became a tyrant said in a TV interview,

Trudeau: Yes, well, there are a lot of bleeding hearts around who just don’t like to see people with helmets and guns. All I can say is, go on and bleed, but it is more important to keep law and order in a society than to be worried about weak-kneed people who we don’t like the looks of.

Reporter; At any cost? How far would you go with that? How far would you extend that?

Trudeau; Well, just watch me.

At what point would the White House decide that the threat of climate change and the subversion of “big oil” and their skeptical lackeys justify suspending the Constitution? After the 911 attack

President Bush issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD 51). This, for the sixth time, extended for one year the emergency proclaimed on September 14, 2001. It empowered the President to personally ensure “continuity of government” in the event of any “catastrophic emergency.”

To my knowledge that is still in place and provides a justification for those who seek one. The phrases used are easily adapted to the climate issue, especially when they are given legitimacy by the consideration of the Attorney General.

Misrepresentation of information to make a political statement or achieve financial gain is central to the AG Lynch’s claim. The White House web page talks about “greenhouse gas pollution” and “carbon pollution.” They incorrectly use carbon, a solid, when they mean carbon dioxide, a gas. They incorrectly label CO2 a pollutant when it is essential to plant life and thereby all life. They threaten with the fear that

“we need to avert an additional 2-degree temperature increase to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.”

When a story is spun, it is essential to capitalize headlines, which is why I repeat them here in that format. Everybody knows because of the Internet practice that capitals are the equivalent of shouting. They claim “THE WEATHER IS GETTING MORE EXTREME,” but provide no evidence. The reason they don’t is because it isn’t true. Instead, they follow the headline with comments about warmer temperatures across the US. Then they do what was done in the 1990s after a sequence of hurricanes ending with Andrew. Stories claimed that hurricanes were increasing in numbers and intensity. This was not correct, and investigation showed the actual increase was the cost of repairs, which was due to inflation and corruption as the cost of building materials sky-rocketed. The WH follows the temperature data with a section titled,”EXTREME WEATHER COMES AT A COST,” which again conflates inflated costs with increasing number and severity of events.

The next section compounds the falsehoods with a headline that says, “CARBON POLLUTION IS THE BIGGEST DRIVER OF CLIMATE CHANGE.” It is followed by a subheading that infers a link without providing evidence. “Global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels are on the rise” is classic sleight of hand like those practiced by the IPCC between the certainty of the Science Report and the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). If challenged, they can say that they acknowledged the reality, but the deception is the method.

Saki, the pen name of a British social commentator cynically observed,

“A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanations.”

In the case of the President’s web page it is more than a “little inaccuracy”, but the need to instill fear in the public is necessary to justify the agenda. Is this a case where fear of failing to instill fear led to abandoning reason? The answer is obvious.

The person who wrote the opening quotation of this article also wrote the following,

The truth shall rise again. I wasn’t the only person who heard that promise, nor was I the only one for whom that hope still rings loud and true.

But before such a hope can be realized, we need to understand the implications of fears new prominence in our democracy. In the following chapter, I will explore why, in an atmosphere of constant fear, the public is more likely to discard reason and turn to leaders who demonstrate dogmatic faith in ideological viewpoints. These new demagogues don’t actually offer greater security from danger, but they’re simplistic and frequently vitriolic beliefs and statements can provide comfort to a fearful society. Unfortunately, the rise of these leaders serves only to exacerbate the decline of reasoning and further jeopardize our democracy.

The quotes are from the master of fear AL GORE in his 2007 book “The Assault on Reason.” The truth is few exploited the false fear of global warming like Gore, and few made more money.

I presume Ms. Lynch is going to apply the same reasoning of exploitation of fear and false information to Gore and the White House. I presume Ms. Lynch will apply the law to all skeptics throughout the world including the White House. If not it is another example what Obama claims to despise, American bullying.

The actions are among the first steps toward totalitarianism defined as

“any system of political ideas that is both thoroughly dictatorial and utopian.”

The White House web page is pure propaganda deliberately designed to strike fear so they can come to the rescue of people and the planet by declaring a state of emergency. This appears to coordinate with the AG giving legal weight to the political agenda by identifying the method and the enemy. It is those dastardly ‘deniers’ funded by the fossil fuel industry who dare to perform their legitimate task as scientific skeptics. I am still waiting for my cheque. Meanwhile the White House confirms that exploitation of fear does suspend reason, just as Gore said.


Update: 3/14/16 The section on…

“When the Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ) sought separation of Quebec from Canada, Pierre Trudeau used the murder of Deputy Premier and Minister of Labour of the province of Quebec Pierre Laporte to act.”

…has been updated to reflect history more accurately.

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

184 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ethan Brand
March 13, 2016 7:30 am

Dr Tim Ball:
“Sadly, these exploitation’s litter history as people sought to control others and push a political or religious agenda. There appears to be a difference today as Farhad Manjoo identified in his book “True Enough: Learning to live in a Post-Fact Society”:
“Facts no longer matter. We simply decide how we want to see the world and then go out and find experts and evidence to back our beliefs.”
If that doesn’t work, you manufacture the material and hire spin doctors to spread the lies and misinformation more effectively. The truth doesn’t need spin doctors.”
My overall comment to Dr Balls comments are that they don’t go far enough, and hence are within the very subject he is discussing.
As noted by Philip Finck March 13, 2016 at 6:01 am regarding Quebec, the perception of what and why things happen is mired in the uncertainty of knowledge of the underlying events. This uncertainty is then both intentionally and, in this case, unintentionally used to further some other discussion or agenda. It does not take long for any “fact” based chain to turn to dust.
My other concern relates to a more pervasive issue, promulgated by Dr Balls quote (above) by Manjoo “True Enough: Learning to live in a Post-Fact Society”. This missive seems to be relating present behavior to some past behavior (“Post-Fact Society”), which would infer that at some time in the past, we (humans) were better at communicating and or perceiving “facts” than we are today. I have not seen any compelling argument (supported by reality) that supports this is a large sense. While it is easy to selectively recall a time when reporters were honest, and politicians were sincere and police were angels and scientists were steely eyed rationalists, a more honest assessment would likely disintegrate this rosy view of the past.
My own observation is that the current “debate” (or lack thereof) related to AGW is just a continuation of predictable human behavior, but I find that I must extend my same skepticism to the notion that we are falling into a pit of irrational “Post-Fact” science. Based on a more rational view of history, I think it is clear, overall, that we are in fact on a trajectory of slowing the power of fear and ignorance on human activity. I use Mark Perry’s blog https://www.aei.org/publication/blog/carpe-diem/ as a reality check, as Perry also does not subscribe to the sometimes popular notion of current gloom and doom (related to the past).
I think the bottom line is that today, compared to yesterday, that we are slightly less able to be convinced to pay homage to the local priests. I think we AGW “skeptics” would be better served by encouraging/acknowledging this trend, rather than falling into the same trap and comparing today’s science to some “better” science of the past.

March 13, 2016 8:00 am

We should just listen to what the enviro radicals are actually SAYING and DOING.
Many of them know that their predictions of catastrophic humanmade global warming are false and fraudulent, but it suits their purpose to use global warming hysteria as a smokescreen to mask their true intentions.
The radical warmists have done everything in their power to starve the world of fossil fuel energy that is required for continued global prosperity.
They have squandered trillions of dollars of scarce global resources on catastrophic humanmade global warming (CAGW) nonsense.
Investing these squandered resources in clean drinking water and sanitation alone would have saved the ~50 million kids who died from drinking contaminated water in the past 25+ years of CAGW hysteria.
Intelligent use of these scarce global resources could have easily saved as many people as were killed in the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.
50 million people died in Hitler’s WW2. Josef Stalin killed another 50 million of his own people in internal purges. Leftist hero Mao gets the prize, killing as many as 80 million Chinese during his Great Leap Backward.
The radical environmental movement has done equally well, rivaling Mao for fatalities caused by the banning of DDT and the misallocation of scarce global resources on the fraud of catastrophic humanmade global warming.
Since many of these enviro radicals are latter-day Malthusians, Club of Rome types, etc., it is reasonable to assume that THIS WAS THEIR INTENTION.
Is this proposal too extreme? Well, no it is not: In addition to what the radical enviros do, let’s examine what they say:
”My three goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
”A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Ted Turner,
Founder of CNN and major UN donor
”The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
”Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
”The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
Sir James Lovelock,
BBC Interview
”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
Lead author of many IPCC reports
”Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
Sir John Houghton,
First chairman of the IPCC
”It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Paul Watson,
Co-founder of Greenpeace
”Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
David Brower,
First Executive Director of the Sierra Club
”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
”The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin
”Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong,
Founder of the UN Environmental Program
”A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-Development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”

If I were reincarnated I would wish to return to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh,
husband of Queen Elizabeth II,
Patron of the World Wildlife Foundation
”The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these third World countries right where they are.”
Michael Oppenheimer
Environmental Defense Fund

Marcus
Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 13, 2016 9:04 am

..+ 10,000

Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 13, 2016 9:40 am

Allan MacRae! Any relationship? A nicely written letter to the editor, in this morning’s newspaper.
Just wondering.
Models fail to predict temperatures accurately
http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/letters/models-fail-to-predict-temperatures-accurately-1.2196442

Reply to  Cam_S
March 16, 2016 7:41 pm

Good letter.
Not a close relative, but clearly an excellent gentleman!

James Francisco
Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 13, 2016 9:54 am

Thanks Allen for that list. These public statements show how stupid these people are for revealing their true plans or goals that they surely know are not anywhere near majority views.

G. Karst
Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 13, 2016 10:24 am

This should be repeated on every thread. People think I am exaggerating when I tell them what greenies really want and say. No power on earth are resisting these dangerous ideas. Scares the bejesus out of me. GK

Phil Brisley.
Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 13, 2016 10:54 am

Pompous drivel from a bunch of self important dufus types. I like George Carlin’s “the Earth has a case of fleas” analogy…nothing serious.

JohnKnight
Reply to  Phil Brisley.
March 13, 2016 5:49 pm

…unless you happen to be a “flea”
Funny, but sick SOB, it seems to me.

Warren Latham
Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 14, 2016 3:08 pm

Well said indeed !
Those people are lunatics; we were warned of them and it is good that you warn us again.
Your “comment” is of the highest integrity, superbly written and is appreciated.
Regards,
WL

March 13, 2016 8:12 am

Dr. Ball,
A small correction: carbon is used throughout the scientific world, as CO2 is only present as CO2 in the atmosphere. In the oceans it is 1% CO2, 90% bicarbonates and 9% carbonates. In all life forms it is in a host of molecules like sugars, starch, cellulose,…
To make it easier to follow the carbon cycle (not called the CO2 cycle for that reason), everything is calculated as carbon fluxes in and out the oceans and vegetation/feed/food…
Indeed “carbon pollution” is nonsense, even if that is used as synonym for CO2 “pollution”, which it is no pollution at all…

Mayor of Venus
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
March 14, 2016 1:18 am

“Carbon” the element is also present in very small amounts in the atmosphere in both methane and carbon monoxide, not just carbon dioxide. On a per molecule basis, methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, which the AGW worriers have on their list of things to worry about, and try to prohibit release into the atmosphere.

Barbara
Reply to  Mayor of Venus
March 14, 2016 7:43 am

Both only have one carbon and both “simple” carbon compounds. CH4 can oxidize quite rapidly or at least this is what I learned in chemistry?

AJB
March 13, 2016 8:24 am

And whoso fyndeth hym out of swich blame,
He wol come up and offre in goddes name,
And I assoille him by the auctoritee
Which that by bulle ygraunted was to me.
by this gaude have I wonne, yeer by yeer,
An hundred mark sith I was pardoner.
I stonde lyk a clerk in my pulpet,
And whan the lewed peple is doun yset,
I preche so as ye han herd bifoore,
And telle an hundred false japes moore.
Thanne peyne I me to strecche forth the nekke,
And est and west upon the peple I bekke,
As dooth a dowve sittynge on a berne.
Myne handes and my tonge goon so yerne
That it is joye to se my bisynesse.
Of avarice and of swich cursednesse
Is al my prechyng, for to make hem free
To yeven hir pens, and namely unto me.
For myn entente is nat but for to wynne,
And nothyng for correccioun of synne.

Reply to  AJB
March 13, 2016 9:34 am

I do lurve a bit of Chaucer on a Sundye.

Fly over Bob
March 13, 2016 8:53 am

Totalitarianism occurs on the left and the right. If you mean by Left you are describing Liberals / Progressives / Socialists and by Right you are describing Conservatives, please name the Conservative Totalitarians of the 20th century.

Marcus
Reply to  Fly over Bob
March 13, 2016 9:12 am

..LOL

RockyRoad
Reply to  Fly over Bob
March 13, 2016 11:31 am

I’ve heard some say that Conservatives are “Totalitarians”? I believe that’s a lie made up by the Left, Bob. Conservatives, contrary to the incorrect definition posited by the Left, want established values (like honesty, integrity, responsibility and thrift) to endure. We don’t need to be “spreading the wealth” or supporting this anthropogenic climate change meme to already know the results would be disastrous. Just look around you for confirming evidence.
On the other hand, maybe Conservatives ARE totalitarian–in that we want total honesty, total integrity, and total responsibility, especially when it comes to fiscal responsibility. The Left’s right to an individual’s money, whether it be through excessive taxation or irresponsible government debt, is tantamount to theft.
And nobody but thieves like a thief.

GTL
Reply to  Fly over Bob
March 14, 2016 6:44 am

Liberal – open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
Progressive – favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas:
Socialism – any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
Conservative – holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.
All the above can be good or bad depending on the circumstances and your point of view. We should not conflate the above with:
Totalitarianism – of or relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.
The only connection between totalitarianism and liberal, progressive, socialist, and conservative is that the latter are abused by bad actors to achieve the former.

Tom Halla
March 13, 2016 9:22 am

I was once in a discussion thread on the “Mother Jones” website with a person who, quite sincerely, argued ther was no such thing as objective reality. Anyone opposed to this political mass movement has to bear in mind who we are dealing with. In the US, we have a chance to throw the enablers and suckups and fanatics out of office. Anyone who votes for the Hidebeast in the general election deserves what they are going to get–stagnation at best, rapid decline at worst.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 13, 2016 9:38 am

I was once in a discussion thread on the “Mother Jones” website with a person who, quite sincerely, argued there was no such thing as objective reality.
It is imponderable. Realists assume there is, Idealists assume there isn’t, but the best fit hypothesis is that there is, it’s just we can never actually see it, only imperfect models of it constructed by us in our own minds, so to speak.

L Garou
March 13, 2016 10:21 am

Meet the neo-Bolsheviks
(same as the old Bolsheviks)

ChrisDinBristol
Reply to  L Garou
March 14, 2016 2:42 am

The world looks just the same/
And history ain’t changed . . .
Or has it?

March 13, 2016 10:35 am

Even black Democrat lawmakers aren’t safe from attack:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-brown-reyes-campaign-20160313-story.html

Wharfplank
March 13, 2016 10:48 am

In the end, they simply deem it.

benben
March 13, 2016 10:51 am

What I find so strange about these kind of essays is that they seem to assume that AGW is a purely American thing, while actually more or less every other country on the planet (including the likes of Saudi Arabia, China, etc. Many of which couldn’t care less what America wants to do) are fully on-board. Even if the US would stop renewable today it would hardly change the global trajectory. So it seems to me you should be analysis a global phenomenon on a global level and not pretend is all driven by liberals in the US of A.

peter
Reply to  benben
March 13, 2016 11:05 am

The countries that seem to buy totally into this are the European nations. All those other countries play lip service to the idea, mostly because they stand to be net gainers from the scam.
To call China fully on board, when they are currently the worst polluter, with real pollution, seems naive. As far as I know they have selected 2030 as the date for when they will start to reduce.

Marcus
Reply to  benben
March 13, 2016 11:22 am

Sure BenBen, China and India are fully on board…by building coal plants faster than Obama can shut American ones down !! LOL idiot !
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/02/the-truth-about-china-2400-new-coal-plants-will-thwart-any-paris-cop21-pledges/

ECB
Reply to  benben
March 13, 2016 11:29 am

“while actually more or less every other country on the planet (including the likes of Saudi Arabia, China, etc. Many of which couldn’t care less what America wants to do) are fully on-board. ”
No.

benben
Reply to  benben
March 14, 2016 7:20 am

While ‘LOL idiot’ seems to be a good summary of the level of debate on this blog, here is an interesting and very recent read for people more inclined to decent analysis 😉
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/renewable-energys-global-growing-pains/
Cheers,
ben

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  benben
March 14, 2016 7:32 am

“Decent analysis”, huh. More like CAGW ideology astro turf, and “renewable energy” cheerleading and hyper-spin.

benben
Reply to  benben
March 14, 2016 8:08 pm

ok, ignoring the spin in the article (like the subtitle), what exactly bothers you? It’s mostly just a collection of facts and extrapolations of current trends. Nothing partisan about that, as far as I can see. And if you see a fact that you dispute, please provide references of course!
Cheers,
Ben

John Robertson
March 13, 2016 11:00 am

When your pampered existence depends on the “Big Lie”.
“Silence I kill you” is never far behind.
Fear is a great tool.
Until those you need to be fearful, decide they have nothing left to lose.
Great short term tool that gets old fast, breeding resentment, anger and vengeance.
The fools and bandits who attempt to install fear into those they seek to rob and control, always seem so surprised when they become the target of the mobs they incite.
Blind worms, gnawing on the foundations of civilization .
Rule of law is under open attack, when the person appointed to uphold national laws is as shallow as this Attorney General.
No wisdom to be found in Obamanation.

March 13, 2016 11:18 am

Drudge has story today about Black Democrat in California being attacked for voting against the California climate change bill.

Reply to  CO2isLife
March 13, 2016 12:26 pm

Moderate, pro-business blacks are huge targets because they are expected to stay serfs to the Democrats. What is happening to this woman is quite scary if you read the article.

March 13, 2016 12:44 pm

Unfortunately, there are so many sides and so many voices when we are speaking about climate, that sometimes is hard to believe in one or another…. Still, if we came to speaking about climate “criminals”, one especially comes into my mind. It’s the one that started World War II and whose actions on the seas and on the oceans, the naval war, led to climate change, as shown here: http://oceansgovernclimate.com/a-need-to-identify-climate-criminals-for-skeptics-yes/. I’m speaking about mistakes that should never be made!

Marcuso8
Reply to  smamarver
March 13, 2016 2:34 pm

…WTF ????

March 13, 2016 1:11 pm

A much deeper fear of many research scientists would be that of looking like an incompetent crank to their peers, out of their depth and unable to keep up with developments in their field.
But Tim vaulted right over that hurdle and just kept going.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Magma
March 13, 2016 2:03 pm

So, you’re saying climate “scientists” don’t care about whether or not they are doing real science, just that they look good to their peers. Interesting.
In other words, don’t rock the boat, we like our jobs doing pseudoscience.

Jeff Stanley
March 13, 2016 2:06 pm

Economist, academic and commentator Walter E. Williams, in a forward to a 1999 reprint of the classic defense of liberty against government tyranny, The Law by Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850), wrote:
“Bastiat was an optimist who thought that eloquent arguments in defense of liberty might save the day; but history is not on his side. Mankind’s history is one of systematic, arbitrary abuse and control by the elite acting privately, through the church, but mostly through government. It is a tragic history where hundreds of millions of unfortunate souls have been slaughtered, mostly by their own government. A historian writing 200 or 300 years from now might view the liberties that existed for a tiny portion of mankind’s population, mostly in the Western world, for only a tiny portion of its history, the last century or two, as a historical curiosity that defies explanation. That historian might also observe that the curiosity was only a temporary phenomenon and mankind reverted back to the traditional state of affairs — arbitrary control and abuse.”

TA
March 13, 2016 2:54 pm

Baz March 13, 2016 at 1:50 pm wrote: “Just so that you Americans know (and not that it helps either way), theer are an awful lot of British people over here in the UK who are hoping that Trump is the next President. Don’t listen to our media (who are amazingly out of touch). I can tell you from speaking to people every day of my life, so many Brits are rooting for Trump.”
I saw some newspaper pictures of European demonstrators a few weeks ago, protesting the current Muslim immigrant problem over there, and a lot of the people in the crowd had huge signs with Donald Trump’s face on it!
European media is just like American media and is biased to the Left. Way to the Left. We take their opinions about as seriously as we take the opinions of the Leftwing news media in the U.S., which is not at all. Most of their product is Leftwing propaganda.

ChrisDinBristol
Reply to  TA
March 14, 2016 2:54 am

Nope, most Brits fear Trump because they think (rightly or wrongly) that he is a conman and a potentially dangerous loose cannon. Some fear that he will win, others fear that him being nominated ensures a Hilary Clinton win – a lose/lose situation!

Paul Westhaver
March 13, 2016 3:01 pm

Do facts ever really matter? Ghosts of Immanuel Velikovsky haunts us still.
“When the Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ) sought separation of Quebec from Canada, Pierre Trudeau used the kidnapping and death of an ambassador to act. ”
Pierre Laporte, a provincial cabinet minister of Quebec (Labour), was kidnapped and murdered.
Jame Cross, the British diplomat, was kidnapped and released.
Where is Sturgis Hooper?

pat
March 13, 2016 3:39 pm

13 Mar: LA Times: Christine Mai-Duc: San Bernardino Assembly race could define what it means to be an Inland Empire Democrat
What happens when a Democratic lawmaker strays from party leaders on a key piece of Gov. Jerry Brown’s policy agenda? One assemblywoman who held back support for a sweeping climate-change bill last year is starting to find out.
Assemblywoman Cheryl Brown (D-San Bernardino) was among a group of business-aligned Democrats who objected to a provision in the bill, SB 350, that would have cut California’s motor vehicle petroleum use in half by 2030…
Protesters have shown up at her local events. Some of her supporters have defected, endorsing Reyes early in the fight.
“Do you ever feel that something is not going quite right?” Brown said in a recent phone interview. “They are after me, and I still don’t know why. I don’t know who ‘they’ are. But I will find out soon.”…
Husing (John Husing, an economist with the Inland Empire Economic Partnership) came to Brown’s aid, arguing that lower-income families might have been harmed by potential rising energy costs that may have resulted from implementation of the provision.
“That’s fine if you live in San Francisco and can afford a Tesla,” said Husing. “It’s not fine if you’re a poor family living in downtown San Bernardino … and the folks that stopped that deserve a welcome thanks.”
A group of twenty-somethings interrupted him, calling Brown “a corporate hack.”…
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-brown-reyes-campaign-20160313-story.html

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  pat
March 13, 2016 4:23 pm

Pat… or Doug… or whatever…
Your post belongs in the tips and notes section where they can continue to be ignored.

JohnKnight
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
March 13, 2016 6:43 pm

Oh look. Paul the man-god has spoken ; )

TCE
March 13, 2016 3:47 pm

I came across this on the Internet and I was wondering if it makes scientific sense.
Get Ready for Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling
Covered Businesses Must Have Organics Recycling as of April 1, 2016
As part of California’s recycling and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission goals, businesses will be required to collect yard trimmings, food scraps and food-soiled paper for composting, effective April 1, 2016. Multifamily buildings with five or more units will be required to collect yard trimmings, effective April 1, 2016. These organic materials account for nearly one-third of the approximately 30 million tons of waste destined for California’s landfills each year.
Diverting organics from landfills for processing into compost and mulch reduces landfill GHG emissions and produces sustainable products that contribute to soil health, plant nutrition, water conservation and carbon sequestration. Mandatory commercial organics recycling helps to meet the goals of California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32
Doesn’t compost generate CO2, CO, and methane?

Marcuso8
Reply to  TCE
March 13, 2016 4:30 pm

Ah Cali9fornia, the land of fruits and nuts !…So instead of GHG coming out of landfills, it will come out of fertilizer ! D’oh

Marcuso8
Reply to  Marcuso8
March 13, 2016 4:31 pm

Dang sticky fingers !! LOL

Reply to  TCE
March 13, 2016 4:42 pm

Doesn’t compost generate CO2, CO, and methane?
They never claimed otherwise. Their claim is:
Diverting organics from landfills for processing into compost and mulch reduces landfill GHG emissions and produces sustainable products
A statement that is completely true, just doesn’t mean what the average voter thinks it means.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 13, 2016 6:07 pm

Composting (growing nitrogen rich bacteria) has a lower capital cost than other renewable sources such as wind turbines and solar panels. Nitrogen fertilizer takes lot of natural gas and produces CO2.
It always amuses me when California watermelons discover science that my conservative Republican grandparents knew.

TCE
Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 13, 2016 6:32 pm

Yes, the statement is true. But doesn’t it ignore the emissions from compost. In other words, what is the net effect?

pat
March 13, 2016 4:53 pm

13 Mar: Columbia Daily Tribune: Alicia Stice: Repercussions of climate change, not debate over its existence, dominate MU conference
Richard Alley wasn’t pulling any punches Saturday morning.
As the Penn State professor and environmental scientist addressed the crowd at the MU Life Sciences and Society Symposium, he made it clear that he was not interested in a debate about whether climate change was occurring or whether people have caused it. Instead, he wanted to give people context and talk about paths to wider use of new sources of energy to substitute for fossil fuels.
He held up his cellphone in front of the crowd, an example, he said, of how humans have used science to make incredible things out of sand, oil and “the right rocks.” But, still, some people bristle at ideas put forth by the scientific community.
“I have gotten emails that say ‘you scientists are evil liars. I hope you suffer personally. … I am trying to get you fired,’” he told the crowd. “And the irony of doing that with a cellphone seems to be lost.”
Life Sciences and Society Director Mary Shenk said that when organizing the symposium, she made a concerted effort to make sure the speakers focused on exploring the way climate change might affect people and how its effects might be mitigated rather than engaging about a debate over the science. There is widespread acceptance in the scientific community about the existence of climate change…
The answer, he (Alley)said, is in renewable energy sources such as solar and wind energy…
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/education/repercussions-of-climate-change-not-debate-over-its-existence-dominate/article_0660b4ae-f627-531d-9d5a-6fa130cae155.html

lee
March 13, 2016 4:59 pm

Meanwhile back at the farm-
‘U.S. President Barack Obama will come to London in April and urge British voters to back continued membership of the European Union, The Independent on Sunday newspaper reported.’
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-obama-idUSKCN0WE0Z9
And I thought you Americans fought to be separated from the Colonial Home. ;<)

Marcus
Reply to  lee
March 13, 2016 5:34 pm

..Obama is Anti-American …….

Reply to  lee
March 13, 2016 6:04 pm

Look at how well events in Germany are working under Merkel’s guidance. Her CDU Party just lost 3 elections with two of the defeats being substantial. Naturally, they label all those against them as being far right, with all of the negatives that supposedly implies…http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/03/13/far-right-german-regional-elections-merkel-migrant-crisis/81725556/

Reply to  goldminor
March 13, 2016 11:59 pm

Merkel has already killed her party. It just does not know it’s dead yet.

GTL
Reply to  lee
March 14, 2016 7:04 am

Actually, what we wanted was full membership in the home country, being denied that we separated.
Why Obama would choose to interfere in your politics escapes me. Seems you Brits have governed yourselves just fine since before we existed. Why anyone would care about what our egotistical self important President has to say on the subject is a mystery. What hubris!

Leveut
March 13, 2016 6:00 pm

Mao: “When we study a problem, we must subdue the facts … The relationship between politics and numbers is like that between officers and soldiers: Politics is the commander.”

tadchem
March 14, 2016 6:12 am

Appeals to emotions such as fear are ‘highly illogical’.

john
March 14, 2016 11:27 am

John Podesta is the head of Hillary Clintons campaign… Here are the latest tweets…
Tweets
Follow by SMS
John Podesta John Podesta
@johnpodesta
Mar 9
What’s at stake. twitter.com/HillaryClinton…
View details ·
John Podesta retweeted
Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton
@HillaryClinton
Mar 9
Found it for you: hrc.io/climate #DemDebate twitter.com/cascamike/stat…
View summary ·
John Podesta John Podesta
@johnpodesta
Mar 9
Miami Beach can’t wait for Rs to get w/ the program. Ft Lauderdale can’t wait. The Everglades can’t wait. Our kids can’t wait. #ActOnClimate
View details ·
John Podesta John Podesta
@johnpodesta
Mar 9
Hillary’s plan uses all the tools we have to protect our environment, build renewable power & boost efficiency: hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/
View summary ·
John Podesta John Podesta
@johnpodesta
Mar 9
In the next 15 years $69 billion of South FL property is at risk from climate change—more than anywhere else in the US #ImWithHer #DemDebate
View details ·
John Podesta John Podesta
@johnpodesta
Mar 9
Florida is all too familiar with the real & urgent threat of climate change. #ImWithHer #DemDebate
View details ·

Hugh Hudson
March 14, 2016 11:31 pm

When people invite you to learn and something, then give you lists of things you can’t learn and discuss – that’s propaganda – that’s brainwashing.
It’s not science. That’s what happened to climate science.
Scientists left.
Science left
”Climate Science” is now tambourines and orange dresses;
the bad haircut people at the airport, are the ”researchers.”