Quote of the Week – effects of “The Science Police”

From Keith Kloor’s excellent article this past summer “The Science Police” which in my opinion is well worth a read.

In an ideal world, it shouldn’t matter. But in the zero-sum world that governs the climate debate, every blog post, every op-ed, every tweet, and every study tends to be viewed through an us against them lens.

As I was writing this article, one fresh illustration of this mindset jumped out at me. Clifford Mass, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington, recently posted an entry on his personal blog that was critical of a recent Seattle Times front-page article that attributed the death of a 72-year-old pine tree in the region to climate change. Mass methodically laid out why he believed this was incorrect. The article, he said, was another “unfortunate example” of the media “exaggerating the impacts of global warming.” (In case you’re wondering, Mass has often said that human-caused global warming is real, very serious, and should be tackled.)

Mass, like the climatologists at Real Climate, has made a hobby out of fact-checking the media. But whereas Real Climate has periodically trained its eye on science distortions occurring in the partisan political and media realm, Mass has focused on mainstream media hyperbole. This has not won him any popularity contests.

Just the opposite, it seems. Mass discussed the blowback he’s received in a “personal” note at the end of his post on the Seattle Times article.

“Every time I correct misinformation in the media like this,” he wrote, “I am accused of being a denier, a skeptic, an instrument of the oil industry, and stuff I could not repeat in this family blog. Sometimes it is really hurtful.”

Mass went on to discuss other experiences that included complaints about him within the University of Washington (UW) after he’d called out various hyped stories on climate effects. “One UW professor told me that although what I was saying was true, I needed to keep quiet because I was helping the ‘skeptics.’ Probably not good for my UW career.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kurt in Switzerland
November 17, 2017 3:30 pm

Not helpful. Who would’a thunk?

November 17, 2017 3:40 pm

So the truth is worse than lies according to “…One UW professor…”

Nigel S
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 18, 2017 4:02 am

‘In a Time of Universal Deceit — Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act’ as Orwell doesn’t seem to have said even though it would be great if he had!


Extreme Hiatus
November 17, 2017 3:42 pm

Calling that article “The Science Police” is the first lie. They are Thought Police and their campaign is anti-science. That they are hostile to accurate information is all the proof of that one needs.

Reply to  Extreme Hiatus
November 17, 2017 4:18 pm

They’re like the Red Guards and even worse than the Hitler Youth. Set one foot out of line and you’re in big trouble. When I was a pup, universities were sold as places where freedom of thought and freedom of expression were of paramount importance. That’s changed big time.

We have the news that a teaching assistant at Wilfred Laurier University has been disciplined because she presented Jordan Peterson’s ideas without properly censuring them. The university said that presenting the ideas neutrally was the same as approving of Hitler. These people really are pigs. link

Depriving someone of their civil right to free speech should be against the law.

Reply to  commieBob
November 17, 2017 8:39 pm

Why was it necessary for you to insult pigs????

Reply to  commieBob
November 18, 2017 2:40 am

universities. teaching what to think rather than how to think.

wayne Job
Reply to  commieBob
November 18, 2017 2:56 am

I am now an old codger, when I went to school the aim of teachers was teach you how to educate yourself. It would now appear that the education system is geared to indoctrinate you in what to think.

George Daddis
Reply to  commieBob
November 18, 2017 7:41 am

Yes, this is thought police.
In my naivety, I would have considered presenting what are NOW considered debates of controversial topics neutrally (Hitler and an opposite politician; or a popular eugenics advocate like Bertrand Russell vs an opponent; Sam Adams vs a Tory) would be a GREAT teaching tool. Let the students listen and THEN have a discussion. At that point a teacher could steer or point out what has been learned since, if necessary. One result would be that students would understand that not all issues were as “black and white” then as they are judged now.

R. Shearer
Reply to  Extreme Hiatus
November 17, 2017 4:32 pm

Yeah, “science police” would demand that the scientific method be followed and perjury would be punished.

F. Leghorn(@squiggy9000)
Reply to  Extreme Hiatus
November 18, 2017 4:47 am

“Thought crime! Thought crime!”

Reply to  Extreme Hiatus
November 19, 2017 7:47 am

Reminds me of this ad from a few years back:

Ironic that it was an Audi engineer that came up with the method of cheating the emissions tests for Audis and Volkswagen “clean: diesels.

Reply to  Iurockhead
November 19, 2017 7:52 am

Poo. Wrong link. This is it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PVPyHrPZbVM

M Courtney
November 17, 2017 4:05 pm

On balance, he thinks that climate change is mostly anthropogenic and dangerous. I disagree and would like to discuss why we disagree. But I respect his opinion.

He sounds like a real scientist who wants to test his views and new ideas against observational evidence. That’s the actual scientific method.

No wonder that the pseudoscientists in the climatology faith are threatened by him.

Reply to  M Courtney
November 17, 2017 4:12 pm

Mass went stupid over the Cascade snow pack decline a while back,when the data showed that it is cyclic.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 17, 2017 4:36 pm

Yup. During the snowpack drought (2015) before the recent El Nino, some winter sports fans wondered if it would ever snow again. Now the PNW has record snowpacks.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 18, 2017 8:57 am

Yes, snow ski areas in northern Washington State have been operating since the beginning of this November. Usually they open toward the end of November.

Reply to  M Courtney
November 17, 2017 4:15 pm

If as you posit Prof. Mass is doing real science and testing the prevailing hypotheses’ predictions against observational data, I might further conjecture that his current skepticism over alarmist media will evolve into out right rejection of the entire charade.

Klaus Berger
Reply to  rocketscientist
November 18, 2017 2:57 am

Yes! Judith Curry (former IPCC high priest) also became more and more sceptic over time.

Reply to  rocketscientist
November 18, 2017 6:22 am

A few years ago a young geologist friend of mine was a staunch climate alarmist, but I met up with him recently and he’s now a climate skeptic. I asked him why he changed his opinion and he said that he tested his own beliefs objectively and found that his conclusions were not well founded. He said he fell for the hype of climate alarmism.

It makes me wonder just how many people are like him.

Reply to  rocketscientist
November 18, 2017 9:08 am

For a few weeks I was agnostic about CAGW until the Oregon Petition came around and I did a little research before signing it.

November 17, 2017 4:06 pm

Real Climate fact-checking the media? I gave up on them several years ago. Guess I’d better start reading it.

Reply to  scraft1
November 17, 2017 4:18 pm


I used to argue with one of them at another place about 12 years ago,over the 800 year lag change of CO2 to temperature change. I pointed out that something caused the temperature trend to go up FIRST, that had NOTHING to do with CO2. He tries the silly idea that CO2 800 years later took over the warming effect,but never could show how he could tell it happened, how is it that the starter of the warming trend could be shown to have vanished when CO2 supposedly took over EIGHT HUNDRED YEARS later!

It was a strange experience to meet someone that screwed up.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 17, 2017 4:26 pm

” that CO2 800 years later took over the warming effect,”

Except that whenever CO2 was at its peak, cooling had already started.and continued rapidly.

CO2 peak was NEVER able to even maintain the peak temperature

Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 17, 2017 4:58 pm

“CO2 800 years later took over the warming effect”

I’ve seen people say this too……they don’t realize that would mean temps would continue to climb until the planet burned up….temps could never go down

Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 17, 2017 5:34 pm


Allan MacRae
Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 17, 2017 9:01 pm

CO2 lags temperature by ~~ 800 years in the ice core record.
CO2 also lags temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record.
CO2 lags temperarature at all measured time scales.
Few want to acknowledged this reality, since it disproves the popular fiction that increasing atmospheric CO2 is a major driver of global temperature, (which is based on the nonsensical notion that the future can drive the past).

Jim Masterson
Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 17, 2017 10:12 pm

He tries the silly idea that CO2 800 years later took over the warming effect . . . .

They also ignore the fact that CO2 levels remain high while temperatures are dropping at the end if each interglacial cycle. How is that possible? See Frank Lansner’s post (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/)


Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 18, 2017 7:19 am

Anything that can be over-simplified can usually be dogmatized and made to be the ‘conventional wisdom belief’ of a certain percentage of humanity. CO2 driven global warming is the epitome.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 18, 2017 9:28 am

In closed greenhouse experiments with CO2, Is there a lag between increasing levels of CO2 and increasing temps?

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 18, 2017 9:36 am

So saidith: Allan MacRae – November 17, 2017 at 9:01 pm

CO2 also lags temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record.

OH WOW, …… and here I have been thinking and believing for all my long lifetime that the vernal and autumnal equinoxes, …… which occur on a 6 month cycle time, …… and which SPECIFICALLY determines the seasonal “warming” and ”cooling” of the air and water temperature in the respective hemisphere, …….. as well as the steady and consistent bi-yearly (6 months) cycling of “increases” and ”deceases” in atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities.

Maybe my quandary and confusion on this matter is due to the fact that I’ve always believed that the Mauna Loa CO2 Record pretty much defines ……. the modern CO2 data record.

To get a CO2 “lag” time of 9 months ….. then there just has to be three (3) “leap” months in each calendar year that I was never told about.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 18, 2017 10:20 am

In closed greenhouse experiments with CO2, Is there a lag between increasing levels of CO2 and increasing temps?

Yes. When Al Gore paid Bill Nye to do the experiment in 2005 or so, there was a lag of 800 years and Gore had to fake the results in order to get the movie out in time. /sarc I went to see the movie and was believing (was believed) in what was said by Gore. It took a few years before I understood there was a fake balance in media that let Gore lie but didn’t let others to get the lies fixed.


The RC / SkS opinion on Gore appeared to be his errors, like downright faking, were small compared to the politically correct red herring facts like IF Greenland melted, the sea level WOULD rise several meters. I wonder I accidentally pasted a link to a faked Time cover, did they say that were a minor mistake in the grand picture? Not in a devil’s day.

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 18, 2017 10:42 am



I have stated since January 2008 that:
“Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record and also by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.”
{In my shorthand, ~ means approximately and ~~ means very approximately, or ~squared).

It is possible that the causative mechanisms for this “TemperatureLead-CO2Lag” relationship are largely similar or largely different, although I suspect that both physical processes (ocean solution/exsolution) and biological processes (photosynthesis/decay and other biological processes) play a greater or lesser role at different time scales.

All that really matters is that CO2 lags temperature at ALL measured times scales and does not lead it, which is what I understand the modern data records indicate on the multi-decadal time scale and the ice core records indicate on a much longer time scale.

This does NOT mean that temperature is the only (or even the primary) driver of increasing atmospheric CO2. Other drivers of CO2 could include deforestation, fossil fuel combustion, etc. but that does not matter for this analysis, because the ONLY signal that is apparent in the data is the LAG of CO2 after temperature.

It also does not mean that increasing atmospheric CO2 has no impact on global temperature; rather it means that this impact is quite small.

I conclude that temperature, at ALL measured time scales, drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.

Precedence studies are commonly employed in other fields, including science, technology and economics.

Does climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 (“ECS” and similar parameters) actually exist in reality, and if so, how can we estimate it? The problem as I see it is that precedence analyses prove that CO2 LAGS temperature at all measured time scales*. Therefore, the impact of CO2 changes on Earth temperature (ECS) is LESS THAN the impact of temperature change on CO2 (ECO2S).

What we see in the modern data record is the Net Effect = (ECO2S minus ECS). I suspect that we have enough information to make a rational estimate to bound these numbers, and ECS will be very low. My guess is that ECS is so small as to be practically insignificant.

Regards, Allan


1. MacRae, 2008

2. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah5/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14

3. Humlum et al, January 2013

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 18, 2017 10:49 am

Cogar is being deliberately obtuse. The seasonal Keeling Curve does not impact this analysis .
Do the math. Use the approximate woodfortress forrmula for ease of use.

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 18, 2017 10:54 am

“In closed greenhouse experiments with CO2, Is there a lag between increasing levels of CO2 and increasing temps?”


I prefer full-Earth-scale analyses, which avoid scale-up errors.

“Bob likes a big room, Sir!” 🙂

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 18, 2017 11:07 am

Lt. Steven Hauk:
Who do we have slated for live entertainment in November?

Dan ‘The Man’ Levitan:
Well, we originally wanted Bob Hope, but it turns out he won’t come.

Lt. Steven Hauk:
Why not?

Edward Garlick:
He doesn’t play police actions, just wars. Bob likes a big room, sir.

Lt. Steven Hauk:
That is not funny!

Private Abersold:
How about if it escalated?

Lt. Steven Hauk:
How about if what escalated?

Private Abersold:
The Vietnam conflict.

Lt. Steven Hauk:
The Vietnam conflict. We are not going to escalate a whole war just so we can book a big name comedian!

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 19, 2017 5:04 am

Allan MacRae – November 18, 2017 at 10:49 am

Cogar is being deliberately obtuse.

Being “deliberately obtuse”, my arse.

“DUH”, I was intentionally being sarcastic and demeaning. Supposedly learned individuals should damn well know there is no scientific proof, evidence or observations to justify their quoting, mimicking or claiming that there is a “9 months atmospheric CO2 lag time following increases/decreases in surface temperatures” ……….. and thus it irritates the ell out of me when they keep mimicking junk-science comments.

The seasonal Keeling Curve does not impact this analysis .

The ell it doesn’t. The Keeling Curve Graph as well as the Mauna Loa Record specifically denotes a CO2 lag time of technically “0” (zero) [Henry’s Law] …… following the seasonal increases/decreases in the Southern Hemisphere’s ocean surface water temperature ….. which results in a 6 months (bi-yearly) cycle time for atmospheric CO2 min/max ppm yearly quantities as measured at MLO.

Do the math. Use the approximate woodfortress forrmula for ease of use.

“HA”, the only reason for “doing the math” …… when all the numbers being used are estimates, guesstimates and approximations ……. is to convince the learning disabled, misnurtured, miseducated, gullible and/or brainwashed partisan lemmings to accept without question that the calculated results are “true & factual”.

The use of “approximations” is the same as employing ……. “reverse mathematics”.

“DUH”, you know the calculated “result” that you want ……. so you approximate the “input” data that will generate said “results”.

And that is EXACTLY what they did after learning that the MLO data proved there was an average 1 to 2 ppm yearly increase in atmospheric CO2. But they didn’t know how to explain the 6 months or bi-yearly cycle time of an average 6 to 8 ppm of CO2 …… so they stupidly attributed it to the Northern Hemisphere’s seasonal plant growth and decomposition.

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 21, 2017 10:56 am

Humlum et all reached similar conclusions to my 2008 paper in 2013:
Humlum, O., Stordahl, K. and Solheim, J-E. 2012. The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. Global and Planetary Change, Vol.100, January 2013, Pages 51–69. Online online version August 30, 2012. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658?v=s5

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 21, 2017 11:00 am

Cogar appears to be troll. Nothing he wrote makes any sense. Alternatively he is suffering from dementia.
Not worthy of further response.

Reply to  scraft1
November 17, 2017 5:46 pm

Are you talking about realclimatescience.com ? I love that site.

Eugene S. Conlin
Reply to  rh
November 18, 2017 12:24 am

@ rh November 17, 2017 at 5:46 pm

November 17, 2017 4:08 pm

through an us against them lens…..then they shouldn’t have started it

hyperbole…..flat out lying and getting caught at it

Reply to  Latitude
November 17, 2017 6:06 pm

“through an us against them lens…..then they shouldn’t have started it”

My thought, too. Skeptics didn’t start any trouble, they just asked to see some proof of CAGW and the Alarmists got all bent out of shape (because they didn’t have any proof) and started getting nasty.

Nick Stokes(@bilby)
November 17, 2017 4:14 pm

It doesn’t seem to be a “quote of he week”. WUWT had an article on this back when it happened. It’s not clear that there is anything new.

But it’s also not clear who are the “science police”. Cliff Mass says he gets a lot of criticism in emails etc. Do you think Michael Mann, Trenberth, Thomas Karl don’t get criticism, even here at WUWT? It’s a rowdy debate.

Perhaps more significant are grumbles from colleagues at UW. But they seem to be just that. And they have freedom of speech too. Nobody seems to have actually prevented him from speaking out.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 17, 2017 4:21 pm

In a university, one’s career can easily be blocked by a concerted campaign by one’s fellows. It is much easier to note the errors, keep quiet, take the money and run…your own department.

Nick Stokes(@bilby)
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 17, 2017 4:40 pm

There’s no evidence of a concerted campaign. But it’s true that career progress, in any field, depends on the impression you are making. It can’t be otherwise. I believe that Cliff Mass is well-regarded, does good work, and I see no evidence that his career is retarded, even if some people grumble about his articles. Just keeping quiet is not sufficient for academic progress either.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 17, 2017 6:29 pm

Nick, did you actually read Keith Kloor’s article?

Nigel S
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 18, 2017 3:43 am

Warren and Marshall weren’t making a good impression before they won a real Nobel Prize.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 18, 2017 4:47 am

Nick with his usual CAGW blinders on sees only what he wants to see.

Curious George(@moudryj)
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 18, 2017 6:58 am

Nick, there is no evidence of a concerted campaign. True. But all sheep willing to blame a “climate change” (formerly “global warming”) are very unhappy to be revealed as sheep. Their livelihood partly depends on being considered scientists or journalists. Just like all countries including Syria are disappointed that Trump will not provide them with free money.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 17, 2017 4:50 pm

There’s never anything from you, either. Same old shtick.

The first line states that it is from an “excellent article this past summer.” Did you skip that part? It is “Quote of the Week,” not “Quote from this Past Week” or “Quote from the Current Week,” after all.

Yes, his colleagues at UW have freedom of speech. Apparently you don’t understand what that means. Sure, most of the American public doesn’t, either. But it’s rich coming from a foreigner, especially one who failed when trying to get political on a different thread on this site yesterday. His quote certainly suggests career implications for speaking-out. I don’t know what’s more pathetic…thinking that is protected or supporting it. And you have absolutely no evidence to claim, “Nobody seems to have actually prevented him from speaking out,” either. How do you know that everything he has said is everything he has to say? You read minds?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 17, 2017 6:19 pm

“But it’s also not clear who are the “science police”.”

It seems pretty clear to me: The science police are the ones promoting the CAGW narrative and attacking anyone who doesn’t agree.

Prof. Mass is an Alarmist, one of their own, but if he strays from the orthodoxy then they treat him like a skeptic and smear him. All he did was argue that human-caused climate change was not the reason a certain tree died.

He’s being criticized even though none of his critics could produce any evidence of CAGW, and it follows that they can’t produce any evidence that CAGW killed this poor tree. They are trying to intimidate Prof. Mass because he is not toeing the CAGW party line.

Reply to  TA
November 18, 2017 10:31 am

This is much like 50 years ago when communists had different flavors of red. They attacked the wrong shades viciously. CAGW purists like Oreskes, Mann, Lewandowsky, and Cook are very much like that when they attack Pielke Jr. or Mass. Both are red, but Oreskes is an orthodox who does not let science change her mind, which is settled.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 18, 2017 9:53 am

Actually if it occurred to anyone I would fully encourage them to try and get a recording or evidence and provide to authorities. I don’t even care which side it is on. For anyone under Australian law the crime and corruption council would be the appropriate authority to contact.

michael hart
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 18, 2017 10:35 am

But it’s also not clear who are the “science police”.

Perhaps self-appointed vigilantes would be a better description.
Either way, try being publicly skeptical of the global warming dogma and you will soon meet enough of them to start forming your own opinion.

michael hart
Reply to  michael hart
November 18, 2017 11:31 am

To get you started, Nick, In the article, Keith Kloor states “…those in the scientific community who become preoccupied with the public interpretation or political implications of scientific findings tend to deputize themselves as sheriffs of scientific literature and public debate.”

Reply to  michael hart
November 18, 2017 12:05 pm

“try being publicly skeptical of the global warming dogma ”


No way Nick can do that. His blood runs as Klimate Kool-Aide.

He is totally taken in by it…… . It has been his whole life’s work, afterall.

Nick Stokes(@bilby)
Reply to  michael hart
November 18, 2017 6:05 pm

“sheriffs of public debate”
How do you even do that? I think you mean participants. That’s the issue with these kinds of analyses. Anyone who disputes a skeptic is termed a sheriff. Not just someone with a point of view, and a right to express it.

michael hart
Reply to  michael hart
November 19, 2017 2:50 am

Nick, it was Keith Kloors words, not mine. Why don’t you ask him?
I was merely responding to your original question. You play dim when it suits you. Another Stokes Shift.


“Anyone who disputes a skeptic is termed a sheriff.”

Pathetic. You can do better.

November 17, 2017 4:19 pm

He’s using the language of reason to improve the scientific understanding of his own side of the discussion, failing to recognize that his compatriots have weaponized both language and science, and regard non-party-approved speech as evidence of sedition.

It isn’t just global warming, it’s almost every issue that’s getting this treatment.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Notanist
November 17, 2017 4:23 pm

There is nothing more polarizing that someone who insists in standing at the radical centre.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 18, 2017 9:39 am

Notanist wrote: “It isn’t just global warming, it’s almost every issue that’s getting this treatment.”

Yes, polarization on many issues is enhanced by the decrease in time and increase in audience provided by the internet. Just hope & pray that such polarization doesn’t manifest itself in too many violent actions.

November 17, 2017 4:21 pm

Check out these links from one of a number of alternative news site that I read, in an attempt to get a wider perspective on global activity. These in particular have relevance to the head post.

Virtually all of the mainstream media, social illusionist sites such as google, FB, etc are acting just like the manipulation that occurs in China and Russia.




November 17, 2017 4:29 pm

That silencing to ensure GroupThink is exactly why climate change has been allowed to become pseudoscience garbage.
Scientists with integrity are shutdown with professional threats from the grifter-class os climatists. If that doesn’t work, then it escalates to grant non-renewal.

Reply to  joelobryan
November 17, 2017 6:54 pm

Qualified PR practitioners who have studied psychology know that humans are tribal, and this instinctive drive can be exploited to rally a propaganda attack by the tribe against those who stray from the orthodoxy.

Reply to  Tim
November 17, 2017 7:14 pm

Some scientists, like Judith Curry, remain true to the ethics.
But sadly the climate hustlers put grant monies at risk which enforces compliance. Because those that didn’t compromise themselves didn’t get funding and were never heard from again.

November 17, 2017 4:38 pm

Clifford Mass also pored cold water on the climate change / Harvey relationship. Was a good analysis.

November 17, 2017 4:56 pm

For my last promotion I was asked to get our scientifically based division under control. In doing so I was called Darth Vader, the evil one from the Dark Side, various vulgar common street names, accused of being bought and paid for, though the accusers never said by whom, being an obvious racist, etc. I had nasty notes left on my door, my desk, my car windshield, sent to me by emails and was attacked/ shouted down trying to give speeches. Why? because I had been asked by the bosses to take any action to improve the basis of our scientific endeavors., bring our budget under control and to meet our statutory requirements where providing the best science was mandated. In other words I was to get our staff to follow statute, the rule of law. The list of significant scientific problems included fraud, making up data, changing data in order to win court cases, and gross inappropriate use of statistical models were just a few of the problems that had existed when I arrived. I was investigate four times based on anonymous calls to our attorney general. What really angered those opposing me was that none of it bother me or what I was trying to accomplish. Before that point in my career I had been shot at three times, been at sea in weather that scare others on board to cry and literally beg for mommy, and had my life threatened to my face more than once. So I didn’t bat an eye about people calling me names nor found it hurtful. The final stick in the eye for my internal and external opponents was being introduced by the head of our agency before a conference as “I have been in politics for 30 year, all I can say is he is the toughest SOB I have every met.”

[Strong claims. Be aware you’ve made them in public. .mod]

The Reverend Badger
Reply to  Edwin
November 18, 2017 2:00 am

When you are honest, act with integrity, tell the truth and refuse to get involved in shenanigans then it does provide quite a strong armor against that thrown in your direction. Bullies lose their power when it has no effect.

I am currently watching from the sidelines where a retired university head of law dept is failing , along with his cronies on the board of a charity to browbeat one of my employees about a piece of land which they tried to “steal” when a house sale/purchase was going through. My employee bought a house and found that while the process was going through the charity took a 1m strip off the back of his garden. They keep threatening him with “expensive court action” but never actually start it! He has taken the land back and secured it and found another piece of unregistered land which they use for access so he is claiming that now based on historical records and affidavits from the villagers. To get round the problem the charity has now “stolen” someones land at the other end of the row of houses and claimed they have right of access over more land so, according to their letter, the householder cannot park their car on their drive anymore.

November 17, 2017 5:05 pm

Mass still thinks it’s about science.

Chris Riley
November 17, 2017 5:05 pm

“One UW professor told me that although what I was saying was true, I needed to keep quiet because I was helping the ‘skeptics.’

As a graduate of and a contributor to The UW, I find this sickening. This “professor” is guilty of assisting in the propagation in what he (or she) knows is a lie. This is (or certainly should be) cause for immediate termination.

Reply to  Chris Riley
November 17, 2017 5:13 pm

more likely cause for appointment to some sort of HR committee

Reply to  DonM
November 17, 2017 5:27 pm

I think that’s what they call “tenure track” these days

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Chris Riley
November 17, 2017 9:01 pm

Most of such folk are given awards! Gleick for wire fгацд, imposture, cooking up false reports on stationary of the Heartland Institute and he was put in charge of GRL ethics committee!! Ehrlich for a life of misanthropic publications with dire predictions that never came to pass and indeed prosperity and plenty instead of a billion people dying of starvation and extreme poverty by 2000, an unstoppable imminent human caused ice age which segued into human caused thermaggedon (Population Bomb, Club of Rome and other eugenics-inspired solutions to non-existent problems) received a lifetime achievement award from The Royal Society. Ozy climate worrier Chris Turney received an award for his contribution to science by going to Antarctica on an expedition to chronicle rapid global warming effects and getting stuck for a month in tight ice that threatened the whole ship and party. He required rescue by a Chinese helicopter from an icebreaker, that too, got stuck in the ice and he burned up the budget for established Antarctic research research stations in the Australian and French sectors and was sued for 3 million dollars. He followed up this tour de force with a teary-eyed news report on his finding hundreds of thousands of dead Adelie Penguins killed by climate change. He apparently wasn’t aware that with no predators on the continent these birds had died of natural causes over several hundred years and their frozen bodies simply accumulated! Chris hasn’t been heard of since – I suspect he came down with the “Climate Blues” like so many did because of the “Pause” although they and their enabling psychiatrists supported their classic psychological Dnile in stating they were depressed by people not accepting the end of the world as they saw it.Al Gore got academy awards and shared a Nobel prize with Choo Choo Pachauri former head of IPCC, who is to stand trial on sexual harrassment charges.

Jeff L
November 17, 2017 5:13 pm

If there were more people like Mass, we could all sit down together, have a reasonable discussion about the science & probably find some middle ground & certainly agree to disagree on other things. But civility apparently is a dated concept.

Reply to  Jeff L
November 17, 2017 5:29 pm

If we get a full blown la nina giving lasting cooling, then they’ll get reasonable all right. There’ll come a time when the alarmist scientific community can no longer fake it…

Reply to  afonzarelli
November 17, 2017 6:37 pm

I think you are wrong. They will go to their graves (or into retirement) saying it is true. They will fake it until the last research $$ is spent.

Reply to  afonzarelli
November 17, 2017 7:43 pm

Other Joel,
I agree. The hustlers won’t go silently into the night.


Reply to  afonzarelli
November 17, 2017 8:43 pm

We shall see…

Reply to  afonzarelli
November 18, 2017 1:31 am

Whatever happens to the climate will be distorted to suit their financial ends.

Reply to  afonzarelli
November 18, 2017 2:28 pm

Religions seldom if ever walk away from the empowerment of their bssic fogmas.

Reply to  Jeff L
November 17, 2017 5:57 pm

We have an Agenda, which by its own admission, is aimed at bringing down Western Civilisation.

And we are meant to be “civil”… ??? .. appeasement .. ???

Reply to  Jeff L
November 17, 2017 6:03 pm

I actually think getting Jeff L and 65Andy to sit down to a reasonable discussion would be a challenge.

Reply to  reallyskeptical
November 17, 2017 7:27 pm

And you ever having a RATIONAL discussion without your manic brain-washed anti-science ideology…

….. would be a miracle. !

Reply to  reallyskeptical
November 17, 2017 7:29 pm

I’m sure that Jeff is totally capable of rational, sensible discussion on scientific points, without attempting to push some idiotic anti-science propaganda agenda.

So.. No problem.

November 17, 2017 5:28 pm

If Clifford Mass is so good at what he does, science, how come he concludes that CO2 is causing dangerous global warming? Could he per chance post just one scientific paper which provides the empirical evidence which supports the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis? I’m yet to find one … thanks in anticipation.

Reply to  gbees
November 17, 2017 6:05 pm

Because he’s a scientist and can rationally judge all the available evidence. It’s one of those “sciency” things.

Reply to  reallyskeptical
November 17, 2017 6:34 pm

You are dodging the question.

All gbees is requesting is one example that proves CAGW. I would like to see that myself.

Out of all those sciency studies, can’t you provide us with just one that provides some proof of the CAGW claim? Answer: No, because there is no such document. That’s why you dodged the question.

Reply to  reallyskeptical
November 17, 2017 7:31 pm

“It’s one of those “sciency” things.”

Which are a total anathema to you, because your are trulyguillible.

Reply to  reallyskeptical
November 17, 2017 7:34 pm

And to follow up TA..

Can you provide one paper that empirically proves that CO2 causes warming in our convective atmosphere.

Afterall.. you do realise that there is absolutely no CO2 warming signature in the whole of the satellite temperature, don’t you?

So proving CO2 warming.. … waiting!

Reply to  reallyskeptical
November 17, 2017 8:49 pm

All what available evidence RS? (you mean like the pause?)…

Reply to  reallyskeptical
November 18, 2017 10:41 am

He judges and it is his opinion, which I do keep in high value. But this question is a wicked problem like Curry says, not something that can be left to Cooks and Manns.

Please also keep in mind dangerous is a complicated word. Danger does not mean destruction, it only means the end result is not yet known in his opinion and both good and bad results are considered possible.

John F. Hultquist
November 17, 2017 5:56 pm

Awhile back (2 or 3 years; maybe gone, now: ?) Prof. Mass had a photo on his web site of 4 or 5 blankets (nice ones) as an analogy of how CO2 acted as a “blanket” to warm Earth.
I think that is a poor analogy, and stupendously stupid coming from a professor of atmospheric sciences.
Then I read his comments on the death of the 72-year-old pine tree.
This seemed to be a good analysis.

I know many confused people, so added him to my list.

I don’t recall his statements about snow in Washington State. However, snow is accumulating early this year, and ski slopes are open or opening. Higher passes across the mountains are closed.

Official State policy is to expect warmer temps, more rain, less snow, and earlier melt and runoff. This is important to the irrigated agricultural areas east of the Cascades. Planning, funds, and actions are in the works to alleviate this. Good will likely follow regardless of warming, cooling, or neither.
An influx of other people’s money to the State (or any state) is never considered bad news.
So thanks, Other People.

November 17, 2017 5:59 pm

Haven’t I seen this article before?

Meanwhile, no response on Musk’s super semi, announced yesterday.

Reply to  reallyskeptical
November 17, 2017 6:42 pm

I want to know more about that 650 mile range claim for the new Tesla hotrod.

Reply to  TA
November 17, 2017 7:04 pm

I want to know how the promo video can ascertain it will be powered by sunlight.

Reply to  TA
November 17, 2017 7:05 pm

damn double post. please delete

Reply to  TA
November 17, 2017 7:15 pm

2020 production. $200K base price.
Elitist bling.

Reply to  TA
November 18, 2017 4:27 am

My immediate thought on the ‘fastest production car ever’ story was “How much does it weigh?” Anyone with any knowledge of motor sport is aware that whilst increasing power to weight ratio increases straight line performance, lots of weight producing lots of power results in a vehicle that won’t go round corners. Battery weight cripples performance vehicles and is the main reason they’re not competetive against ICE vehicles in motorsport. They’re also inexplicably boring to watch; I took part in a club motorcycle race meeting at Brands Hatch in 2010 which hosted an electric class. The whole paddock emptied to watch the race but by the 3rd lap everyone had stopped watching and drifted away – something to do with the lack of engine noise I suspect but, whatever the reason, it was a bit like watching 150mph bicycles.

Reply to  reallyskeptical
November 17, 2017 7:25 pm

to be built after he has fulfilled his tesla orders??…… roflmao !!!

Roger Knights
Reply to  reallyskeptical
November 17, 2017 9:00 pm

Here are negative (except one) reactions to Tesla’s 11/16/17 Semi Truck & Roadster unveilings. (The stock was up only 0.8% today, the day after):

The Good, Bad, And Ugly From The Semi Unveiling
Nov. 17, 2017 Donn Bailey

The Tesla Semi: Diesel Is Dead
Nov. 17, 2017 Trent Eady
[Positive article]

Tesla Truck And Sports Car: Remember The Model X Timeline?
Nov. 17, 2017 Anton Wahlman

Tesla unveils next-gen semi and the Roadster 2
SA News• Nov. 17, 2017
[with 1000 mostly sarcastic comments]

Tesla Truck Unveiling: Seems Like A Misfire
EnerTuition 11/15/17

Tesla unveils next-gen semi and the Roadster 2
By Clark Schultz 11/17/17

Tesla Truck Unveil: Desperate Times Calls For Desperate Measures
EnerTuition Nov. 17, 2017

Tesla Unveils Trucks It Doesn’t Need And A Car It Does
Nov. 17, 2017 Mark Hibben

And here’s the definitive anti-Tesla article:

Tesla Approaches Terminal Decline
Andreas Hopf 11/10/17

Reply to  Roger Knights
November 18, 2017 6:06 am

Thanks for those links, Roger.

Roger Knights
Reply to  reallyskeptical
November 17, 2017 9:52 pm

PS: Here’s a Nov. 6, 32 minute YouTube Tesla 3 positive video review with over 2M views:

It doesn’t address the weak points of ownership that the critics focus on, though. (Awkwardness of charging for most people in many situations, for instance.)

Reply to  reallyskeptical
November 18, 2017 12:39 am

Ha! Departed Anderson, IN team driving in a 2012 Volvo at 20:25 (EST) on Tuesday night. I drove first and bobtailed to the Lear Logistics cross dock in Indianapolis, IN where I hooked to a preloaded trailer and then headed for Laredo, TX. Started with 1/2 fuel on board. Changed drivers and fueled at Arkadelphia, AR. Changed drivers at truck parking area at the 15 mm on I-35 in TX just north of Laredo. Delivered to the Lear Logistics Center in Laredo at 21:15 (EST) Wednesday night. After a couple hours of waiting I hooked to the loaded trailer at the Carter Express terminal in the Port of Laredo and headed back to Anderson, IN. Changed drivers about 40 miles east of Texarkana, TX on I-30. Fueled at Arkadelphia again. Changed drivers at Brazil, IN off I-70. Arrived back at the Anderson, IN terminal where we started at 01:15 (EST) Friday morning. That’s a round trip of 2,690 miles completed in two fuel stops totaling maybe 30 minutes actual fueling. Freight weight going down was 28,700 lb. Freight weight coming back 21,740 lb. THAT is trucking and let’s see that electric truck do that.

Currently the hours of service rules for a driver are maximum 11 hours driving time before required to take a 10 hour break. That 11 hours of driving time must be completed within a 14 hour duty shift. Even with heavy loads hauling over 40,000 pounds of freight a driver can complete two of those driving shifts prior to needing fuel if his rig is carrying at least 220 gallons of fuel.

Reply to  RAH
November 18, 2017 6:27 am

Are you saying a Tesla truck couldn’t keep up with you, RAH? 🙂

Reply to  RAH
November 18, 2017 6:55 am

I’m saying that even if the Tesla truck performs exactly as they say it will it would with a 500 mile range it would have take a relay of SIX Tesla trucks to do what a single 2012 diesel driven Volvo did.

And this hype about acceleration and speed? Reality is that at times it would be great to have more acceleration in a big truck but in the end most ramps are not straight and it is the load which determines the safe speed at which one can take a corner.

And your right! Even when I’m driving solo if the 500 mile range for the Tesla is accurate (And that’s a big IF), that truck can’t keep up with me or any good OTR driver. I can put well over 700 miles behind me in an 11 hour driving shift in decent conditions. Many a times before they changed the rules I did that in a single sitting with no stops. Now with the new rules a driver is required to take a 1/2 hour break between the 3rd and 8th hour after they go on duty before they can finish their 11 hour driving shift. Many a times driving solo I have made that trip from Anderson, IN to Laredo, TX in 32-33 hours.

Reply to  RAH
November 18, 2017 7:16 am

One other thing. The other run I did this week was Anderson, IN to the Chicago area and back. A newer driver had been put on a tough multistop run in Wisconsin and could not make it back any further than the Loves truck stop on I-94 just north of the I-94 and I-80 split.

Like I said the run is tough. There are two stops in Port Washington, Next stop Cedar Grove, WI. Next stop Milwaukee, WI. Then two stops in Janesville, WI, and a final stop in Kenosha, WI. Then you drive back to Anderson, IN.

To do the run you drive up to the first stop at Port Washington the day before and take a 10 hour break and then they load you the next morning at there and you begin the run. The timing is such that you can’t avoid the Chicago afternoon rush hour on the return. But I have done that route at least a dozen times in the past and never failed to make it back to the terminal in Anderson after doing the run even though a couple times I went a 5 or 10 minutes over the maximum allowable 14 hour duty day to do so.

But the point is that Tesla truck would not even be able to handle the short out and back I did to take and empty trailer up to that driver and bring his freight back to the Anderson terminal since the round trip was a touch over 500 miles.

Reply to  RAH
November 18, 2017 8:26 am

So you couldn’t charge at the 10 hour layover?

Reply to  RAH
November 18, 2017 8:49 am

So you couldn’t charge at the 10 hour layover?”

Sure assuming that there were facilities available and then it would be only after 500 miles maximum of driving! And since you obviously have not noticed, truck parking space out east in general and near larger cities in general is inadequate. Thus you have trucks parked on ramps, WalMart parking lots, and all kinds of other places where it was never intended that a big truck park. So how are you going to provide for the charging when there isn’t even enough parking now at truck stops and rest areas? Then there is the fact that a driver will more often than not be using the heat or AC while driving and when stopped to sleep.

FACT: The vast majority of truck drivers are paid by the mile. FACT: There is already a shortage of about 300,000 truck drivers in the US. FACT: You won’t get drivers to accept the cut in pay they will suffer averaging fewer miles due to the reduced range at current scales and thus the pay per mile for the driver will have to go up and this the cost for hauling the freight will have to go up unless the electric truck can make up the difference in cost savings so the driver can paid more.

There is another question I have. Electric motors and batteries are heavy! I haven’t seen specs on the weight of the Tesla tractor but with a motor driving each of the drive wheels I suspect it’s relatively heavy. If it is then with that means that the Tesla cannot carry the freight that a diesel powered rig can and remain at or under the 80,000 lb standard GVW.

Reply to  RAH
November 18, 2017 9:02 am

One more point concerning speed. The vast majority of trucks on the road in the US are governed to 70 mph or less for safety reasons. The majority of big companies govern their trucks to 65 mph. The company I drive for governs them to 68 mph. In Ontario and Quebec Canada (don’t know about the rest of the provinces) the trucks by law must be governed to run about 65 mph though the speed limit is 100 kmp or about 62 mph. So Musk’s claims about speed making his truck more productive is deceptive hype.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  RAH
November 18, 2017 9:31 am

I wish the USDOT would deem such low governed speeds to be a nuisance and overall hazard on the highway. You can’t travel too far on any interstate in the U.S. without running into a traffic jam caused by one semi governed at 68.1 mph trying to pass another semi governed at 68 mph. Oh, but I do feel so much safer knowing that if I’m involved in a collision with one, it will only be travelling 68-70 mph instead of 72 mph.

Reply to  RAH
November 18, 2017 9:45 am

“Robert W Turner
I wish the USDOT would deem such low governed speeds to be a nuisance and overall hazard on the highway. You can’t travel too far on any interstate in the U.S. without running into a traffic jam caused by one semi governed at 68.1 mph trying to pass another semi governed at 68 mph. Oh, but I do feel so much safer knowing that if I’m involved in a collision with one, it will only be travelling 68-70 mph instead of 72 mph.”

The state of Ohio did multiple studies before they raised their speed limit for big trucks from 55 mph to in most places the same as for smaller vehicles. What they found was that raising the limit for the big trucks actually lowered the accident rate between big trucks and smaller vehicles but that the accidents that did occur were more severe.

I said trucks are governed for safety reasons but that really is only half the reason. The other half is fuel mileage. Big difference in mileage between 65 mph and 70 mph and you’ll notice many of the larger companies changing their governed speed down when fuel prices spike for a decently long period. Fuel is the largest operating cost for a trucking company.

I guess people have noticed that the price for ultra low sulfur diesel fuel runs considerably higher per gallon than regular gasoline. It just does not make sense since diesel is less refined. It is in essence a hidden tax on everyone.

Reply to  RAH
November 18, 2017 1:27 pm

“Thus you have trucks parked on ramps, WalMart parking lots, and….”

Interestingly, WalMart (and Loblaws) are the first two companies to reserve these vehicles, I think some 15 each or something like that. They plan to use them in CA, mainly driving from port to the interior, so the range is not an issue.

Reply to  RAH
November 18, 2017 2:50 pm

Yep, Thanks for pointing out that these EV’s will only ever be a tiny niche market.

Reply to  RAH
November 18, 2017 2:51 pm

Just a bigger version of the olde English electric milk cart.

Reply to  RAH
November 18, 2017 3:18 pm

“FACT: There is already a shortage of about 300,000 truck drivers in the US.”

May not need them in 10 years.

Reply to  RAH
November 18, 2017 3:21 pm

Reply to  RAH
November 18, 2017 11:25 pm

“FACT: There is already a shortage of about 300,000 truck drivers in the US.”
“May not need them in 10 years.”

I don’t have skin in that game because I’ll be retired before then. However I’m very skeptical. Get back to me when they have replaced RR Engineers with computers which will be much simpler than replacing truck drivers. Heck seems I can’t go a week without reading about a “self driving” vehicle having screwed up.

As for using them in trucking? Who is going to account for the freight? Who is going to pay the lumpers? There is more to being a truck driver than driving. Drivers are also the agent of the trucking company onsite with the customers. That is why I have to sign for the freight that is put in the trailer by the consignor and then have to ensure I get a signature on the BOL from the Consignee when I deliver. Having a permanent agent stationed at large shippers and receivers is practical but one heck of a lot of smaller companies ship and receive also.

Roger Knights
Reply to  RAH
November 19, 2017 7:34 pm

“I haven’t seen specs on the weight of the Tesla tractor”

Nobody’s seen them, because they weren’t provided. Suspicious.

Nigel S
Reply to  reallyskeptical
November 18, 2017 3:50 am

Thought that was a ‘Top Gear’ / ‘Grand Tour’ crude joke at first reading. It is a joke at second reading too of course.

Reply to  reallyskeptical
November 18, 2017 10:55 am

Not interesting until they are actually produced and proven to be useful. Walmart is virtue signalling by putting down deposits on several, but with Tesla, it could be 2025 before these arrive, if ever. I don’t care what Tesla does until it actually proves useful. The record is not good on this.

Neil Watson
November 17, 2017 6:53 pm

Allow me to echo Kurt der Schweizer, who would ever, ever imagine that personal attacks/denigration/smearing/threats would be the response to reasoned comment on science. I for one am shocked.

Gary Pearse
November 17, 2017 9:47 pm

I’m afraid I don’t accept Anthony’s even-handed idea that “… in the zero-sum world that governs the climate debate, every blog post, every op-ed, every tweet, and every study tends to be viewed through an us against them lens.” A) Debate is studiously avoided by the climate worriers and planet saviors. Any number of sceptics have tried to get debate going, but after losing all the earlier debates, there is no way to stop these characters from running away. How this inspires support and acceptance is beyond me.

Thinking sceptics got into trouble with warming-devastation proponents by asking for proof and by criticizing bad statistics and pointing out ambiguities and non-cooperation by nature. It became clear that they were not going to be answered because no answers were available. Indeed, the work of sceptics has led to the only new science development there has been over the past 4 decades. Sceptics woke them up to the strength of natural variability – ENSO, PDO, AMO, solar activity, etc pretty well leading temperature, even predetermining the squiggles in the temperature trace, at least until the climate homogents contorted the data so much that the “fits” were considerably degraded. When you look at the work of Exxon scientists from the 1970s and virtually all early work, you can’t help being struck by the fact that no new science came on the scene during which time the most money ever spent on science and its presumed effects ($- several trillions) was spent on climate studies and planet saving renewables. All the new studies came up with the 1970s linear formula and the same climate sensitivity. No science has proved to be so refractory that it doesn’t change under the onslaught of billions spent directly on research. Sceptics began to get their ears when the dreaded Pause struck down a drove or two of climate scientists with career ending depression – the Climate Blues – all these years of fighting the good fight and warming stopped – it was cruel but suddenly the science wasn’t settled after all. Hey we may have caused a lot of angst but we were legit in what we were doing.

November 17, 2017 11:24 pm

No surprise,. Heratics always get it worse from ‘true believers’ than those that don’t believe at all.
Of course this has nothing to do with science , then so does climate ‘science’.

Robert Learned
November 18, 2017 12:41 am

What are you trying to say I live in the Pacific Northwest our climate has changed we lost thousands of acres of I have evergreen trees in the Columbia gorge this fire season

Radical Rodent
November 18, 2017 2:54 am

I wonder what can be so wrong for a scientist to be called a “skeptic”?

Reply to  Radical Rodent
November 18, 2017 3:09 am

So also might wonder Sir Robert Boyle , author of “The sceptical chymist” and author also of part of the gas law used in atmospheric science.

Reply to  Radical Rodent
November 18, 2017 6:17 am

An actual scientist *has* to be a skeptic.

November 18, 2017 3:17 am

The BBC are self-appointed science police in regard to climate.
Their deliberate deceit and misinformation in regard to palaeo-climate data is clearly in evidence in this article about the history of CO2 on earth:


The BBC pretend to talk about the history of atmospheric CO2 on earth.
But their goal is to hide the most important part of this history.
They point out that at earth’s formation 4 BYA there was a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere – OK fair enough.
Then they fast forward to 20 million years ago after Antarctica has formed and the earth is in a cool period, and point to a CO2 concentration of 300ppm as if this is normal for all of the history of life on earth.
Of course they are lying – it is not.
They deliberately ignore the CO2 levels of 1000-20,000ppm that existed during most of the Phanerozoic – the last 600 million years during which multicellular life has existed.
They ignore the abundance, vigour and fecundity of life on earth under such high CO2 concentrations.
It’s all to repeat the fraudulent argument that the current increase in CO2 from 300-400ppm is unprecentented and alarming.
This is shown to be transparent nonsense by an honest look at the real CO2 history.
But honest discussion of earth’s palaeo climate and CO2 history is actively suppressed by the MSM and the science establishment in the ecofasc1st environment in which we now live.

Ed Zuiderwijk
November 18, 2017 3:22 am

Many greenies are just old-fashioned fascists. Thuggery is the modus operandi of fascism. No surprises, then.

November 18, 2017 4:42 am

Ah, the climate wars. Such stimulating conversation.

Bruce Cobb
November 18, 2017 5:07 am

It has never been a fair fight. Big Climate has ruled governments, the MSM, formerly-revered institutions, and various and sundry NGOs. The intent all along has been to not only lie, but to shut down debate and any voices daring to contradict Climate Scripture aka “the science”.
Fortunately, Skeptics/Climate Realists have had an ally in Mother Nature, the biggest badest so-called de*nigh*r of them all.

Coeur de Lion
November 18, 2017 5:32 am

Vive ut discas, disce ut vivas

John Robertson
November 18, 2017 6:13 am

We obviously lack imagination.
Who knew that Monty Python(multiple spoofs) , Hans Christian Anderson(Emperor’s New Clothes) and George Orwell(Animal Farm,1984), are instruction manuals?

The creation of the UN IPCC is all you really need to know about “Climate Change”A.K.A Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Gang Green have been most useful allies in this argument from authority.
Being occupants of their own illusion and reality they seem free to invent truths that no one else can see.As Greenpeace recently stated in Canadian Court.
However as noted with herd beasts, mass hysteria or mob rule, mass enthusiasm peaks and then critical thinking slowly penetrates…individual by individual.
Sounds like Mass is finally starting to check his assumptions.

What was that Quote?
The concerned activist will do anything to save the world from environmental destruction.
Break the law,burn infrastructure, attack other people, spew hatred, rage and whine, anything to save the planet.
Except sign up for science courses and actually learn something about the subject.

One of the wildest aspects of this whole meme is being lectured with respect to “science” by persons completely oblivious in their personal ignorance of the scientific method, as they virtuously pronounce the credentials of the authorities they “believe”.

Human Nature at it’s best.

Roger Knights
Reply to  John Robertson
November 19, 2017 7:49 pm

“Human Nature at it’s best.”

Human Nature at it’s beast.

November 18, 2017 7:34 am

I’m wondering why the news media are not trying to inject something about sexual harassment into hyped-up, false, climate-attribution articles. The topic seems to be all the rage now. Why not say that climate change is causing increased occurrences of sexual harassment by high-profile personalities? That’ll keep readers entertained by their own shock.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
November 18, 2017 9:56 am

Have you seen the average climate ‘scientists’ ? Let us just Mann is a trend setter.
Although St Gore is supposed to have ‘wandering hands’

michael hart
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
November 18, 2017 11:42 am

Robert Kernodle, they are. That is exactly what The Stranger did with Cliff Mass here: http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/11/17/25572044/the-culture-of-harassing-and-demeaning-women-scientists

Roger Knights
Reply to  michael hart
November 19, 2017 8:04 pm

Not exactly: There was no accusation of sexual harassment. And he defended himself well against the smear.

Mihaly Malzenicky
November 18, 2017 8:22 am

By closing the thread, everyone should only understand that GW does not have to prove it is such a big threat, and there are enough signs of it. But we do not do the biggest mistake in this, but in not using new technologies like LENR.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Mihaly Malzenicky
November 18, 2017 9:00 am

None of that made sense, but thanks for stopping by.

David Lallatin
November 18, 2017 8:26 am

Boiler plate: settled science

Walt D.
November 18, 2017 8:40 am

Science police = Torquemada
-dedicated to the truth.

Robert W Turner
November 18, 2017 9:21 am

Some of us have been saying for a long time that we are dealing with a real cult. I know it sounds like a joke, but it couldn’t be any more serious, by every definition and sense of the word, the hardcore adherents to CAGW are a cult.

November 18, 2017 9:48 am

From above…[Strong claims. Be aware you’ve made them in public. .mod]

I am going to try and remember that one…

Yes, a chilling reminder that our IP address is the only thing standing in front of most of us here that would prefer to post anonymously. Just imagine if your name, address and phone number were attached to each comment, and I am sure a lot of folk may say nothing or modify what they say somewhat. While we have relative freedom of speech and First Amendment laws now, just imagine what would happen if that changed in a few years under a ‘Retroactivity Act’ where anything you have said in the past could be held against you in the future. I am sure that day is coming, as it already has in many jurisdictions.

You can be 100% sure that all our posts and comments are being recorded by intelligentsia around the world, and those who can, are putting IP addresses to real names and locations. While I don’t care much anymore at my age (what are they going to do, burn me at the stake?) I feel a bit sorry for the younger generation that now have to go along with group think or are immediately ostracized from the tribe. Five-9-14 Eyes comes to immediate mind, since most of us are probably from one these member countries that all exchange intelligence with each other. And I am sure that russian trolls are here trying to influence things, or just sow general discourse as they do in every other political field around the world. Do you think they would leave the world’s most viewed climate blog alone? Mind your manners, and will also go a long way to making this a more civil and enjoyable discussion.

Count to 10
Reply to  Earthling2
November 18, 2017 10:40 am

When Hot Air switched from screen name commenting to Facebook commenting, the discussions their basically shriveled up and died.

Reply to  Count to 10
November 18, 2017 10:22 pm

Except now there are countless fake Facebook accounts. And we don’t post here at WUWT from the Facebook comment plug-in. Probably a testament from the excellent moderating here, since this site is orders of magnitude above the mindless commenting on a lot of newspapers, even those who have switched over to the FB commenting connection. Why would I want to provide FB with all my comments and my identity and computer, literally?

Gary Pearse.
November 18, 2017 10:42 am

Keith K is wrong about the early days being tough on climate scientists with partisan political and media pushback. The MSM has been almost fully supportive and most scientists and engineers were on board. I myself among a large majority believed the stuff before dirty linen began to be hung out that caused scientists from other walks to examine the data and shenanigans more closely starting about a decade ago.

The devastating effect described by Keith was from only a few well qualified sceptics who found things very wrong with how climate scientists had violated statistical principles in selection and weighting of proxy data and in statistical procedures. Sceptics also showed with actual data that many of the claims about frequency and intensity of storms, etc was wrong. Some papers were actually retracted or withdrawn as a result of well supported critiques. Others should have been. McIntyre and McKittrick by themselves were responsible for about half the damage done by sceptics. Along with Christopher Monckton (the Pause, climate sensitivity, etc.) I can see why the Team thought they were in a war of huge magnitude with this trio!

Critical blogs really came into prominence only over the past decade and the ones that did the other half of the ‘! “war” damage number only a few. This Blog has been awarded the best science blog on the Internet globally a number of times. This is where the premium peer review of CliSci has taken place and CAGW proponents have been offered space here to make their case, but they are terrified of a contest here. Individual CAGW proponent commenters are welcomed here and this is the most trolled site on the net. The modest number of such sites that out punch their weight by orders of magnitude, got massively more powerful with the Pause and Climategate.

November 18, 2017 10:44 am

If you ever really wanted to understand why climate science has become toxic and doomed you only need read the roundup from the activists on COP23


ASAD REHMAN makes it quite clear as far as they view it was the developed nations fault they setup a non binding agreement. The fact President Obama would not have been able to sign if it was binding should have been ignored and they setup the binding agreement. The fact most countries would not have signed under that arrangement just gets left out. So it doesn’t matter which side of US politics you sit it’s your fault as well.

Then we get to the real issue when DIPTI BHATNAGAR says this quote

So we see the climate crisis, but also there’s an energy crisis. There is an inequality crisis. There is an unemployment crisis. So what—climate justice is trying to bring the message that if we try to deal with climate change in isolation, then we ignore that the system, the current system, has also created many other crises and left a lot of people behind. In Mozambique, where I live, 70 percent of the people do not have a light bulb in their houses. So, the energy system has not only created the climate crisis, but also has harmed workers and has actually not done the job of delivering energy to 1.1 billion people across the planet who do not have electricity.

That statement makes it clear we aren’t just talking about climate change they want world social justice.

Climate Science has now managed to get itself used as a pawn in a much bigger issue. You can see what happened Climate Science wanted support and it was easy to get it from developing nations via that mechanism.

Unfortunately for those in Climate Science that is a bridge to far for almost every Developed Nations. There will be a number of historic, religious and political reasons used but much of it is also simply self preservation. The captain of a lifeboat pulling up a shipwreck knows he can only save so many before his own ship sinks is the common metafor. The leftists may get squeamish about it but that is how it always plays out, the survival instinct is strong in humans.

Reply to  LdB
November 18, 2017 4:18 pm

And their “world social justice” is to justice what the French Reign if Terror was to orderly society.

November 18, 2017 1:18 pm

This sort of thing has been going on for quite a few years.
It affects many different aspects of life.
See FZ ca 1966:

Who are the Brain Police

Mihaly Malzenicky
November 20, 2017 2:13 am

For some comments I just remind you, CAGW is a cult that has 196 states, except the US. Especially states like the Netherlands, which can be flooded half by the sea in the near future.

%d bloggers like this: