One of President Macron’s Climate Defectors Speaks Out

President Trump and President Emmanuel Macron. Macron photo by Kremlin.ru, CC BY 4.0, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Camille Parmesan is a US / UK based scientist who has accepted President Macron’s challenge to President Trump, Macron’s offer of funding for US climate scientists who move to France. Camille thinks climate “deniers” live in a world of fiction – but she does not present any real evidence to back her claims.

Camille Parmesan: ‘Trump’s extremism on climate change has brought people together’

Interview by John Vidal
Sun 31 Dec ‘17 18.00 AEDT

The climate scientist on leaving the US to work in France – with funding from President Macron – and why she believes Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris agreement will backfire on him.

Camille Parmesan, a biologist at the universities of Texas and Plymouth, is one of the world’s most influential climate change scientists, having shown how butterflies and other species are affected by it across all continents. She is one of 18 US scientists moving to France to take up President Macron’s invitation of refuge after Donald Trump’s decision to cut science funding and withdraw the US from the 2015 Paris agreement.

What has made you leave the US?
The impact of Trump on climate science has been far greater than what the public believe it has. He has not only slashed funding, but he’s gone on the attack in any way he can with his powers as the president. University researchers are buffered from this, but scientists working at government agencies have really felt the blow. They have been muffled and not allowed to speak freely with the press, they have had their reports altered to remove “climate change” from the text, and are being told to leave climate change out of future reports and funding proposals. This degrades the entire climate science community. Scientists are fighting back, but Congress needs to exercise its constitutional powers and keep the executive branch in check. This is not a partisan issue – this is about the future of America.

Are you angry?
None of us expected Trump to win. It was a real shock. It was horrifying to have him as a candidate. He was so extreme. Frankly, I am not just angry at the far right, extreme Republican groups but also with [some] liberals who bought the Russian propaganda and who are not taking responsibility. And with people who didn’t vote. Good lord. You need to vote! It was a bit like Brexit. Many young people did not vote. I understand they did not want a mainstream candidate but they got Trump and Brexit.

When do you expect the major impacts to take place?
Things will shift to the extremely negative in the next 50 years. Climate scientists are doing decadal projects and it starts really shifting about 2070-2090. That is in my children’s lifetimes. They will have to deal with it. That’s what makes me angry. Policymakers are mostly in their 50s and they will be dead by then. The worst impacts will hit their grandchildren. That’s what annoys me about young people not voting. They will be the most severely impacted.

What about the deniers?
People like believing in fiction in the face of reality. We’ve had many climate disasters and they haven’t woken up the minority who are still living in a fictional universe. People want to believe this lie and I don’t know how to get through to them. But hurricanes like Harvey and Katrina have woken up middle-of-the-road people. It’s not that they were denying climate change, but it was unimportant to them. These people are beginning to understand it is impacting whole countries and regions.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/31/camille-parmesan-trump-extremism-climate-change-interview

Camille, if you want to “get through to deniers”, you could try offering some real evidence to back your claims.

Hurricane Katrina and Harvey are not evidence of imminent climate catastrophe. Powerful hurricanes occurred before the industrial age, and they will continue to occur regardless of what we do about CO2 emissions. If anything, long term there has been a decline in strong hurricanes making landfall on the continental USA.

The incontestable stream of climate disasters Camille predicts will not strike until 2070 – 2090, by which time most of us will be dead. Her climate claims are not falsifiable on any reasonable timescale.

Camille’s 2070 – 2090 timescale seems a bit of an advance on most climate disaster predictions. Is it just me, or does the settled science date of this “imminent” climate disaster always seem to be galloping off further into the distant future?

Update (EW): Hilited “this is not a partisan issue” (h/t BallBounces)

Advertisements

220 thoughts on “One of President Macron’s Climate Defectors Speaks Out

  1. It’s funny that none of these people make predictions that can be falsified in their lifetimes – or before they retire.

    I’d love to have a job with zero actual responsibility or accountability.

    • Have faith in mortal gods, conflated logical domains, and emanations from the twilight fringe (a.k.a. penumbra). The end of the world is nigh.

      • nn
        December 31, 2017 at 4:17 pm

        Have faith in mortal gods, conflated logical domains, and emanations from the twilight fringe (a.k.a. penumbra). The end of the world is nigh Nye.

        There, FIFY. :)

      • From the full article.My bold.

        This was not always the case. Science historically has played a strong role in US policies and there was a bipartisan respect of scientific findings. I’ve seen this erode over the past 30 years, and really don’t know why this has happened.

        Oh really? You really don’t realise that 30y or perverting science, gatekeeping the published literature, crying wolf, and politicising something you still try to pretend is not politicised has not been noticed?

        You can fool some of the people, some of the time ; but you can’t fool all the people all the time.

    • “This degrades the entire climate science community. Scientists are fighting back, ”

      Running away is the new “fighting back”. If you won’t debate, then it is not fighting back. Science does not grant “permanent dibs” on playing offense all the time. If you want to call it science, defending your work and the analysis of it, is also required.

      • Russ – she also gives the impression that there are no ‘scientists’ who think the CAGW narrative is hyped beyond any rational limit, given the lack of evidence.

      • Russ,

        “Science does not grant “permanent dibs” on playing offense all the time.”

        Au contraire, it does in the realm of Evolution (the grand origins story kind, not mere “natural selection”, which is little more than an acknowledgement that nature can do what humans have for millennia). And I suspect that’s a major reason why the climate change clan thought they could slip this one past us . .

      • It’s called a Parthian Shot (alas, not a parting shot); to shoot at the enemy while retreating. Maybe a Parmesian shot in this case.

        It’s almost impossible to be more shocked by the irresponsibility of climate alarmists, but this lady has a good stab at it. Her sanctimonious sentimentalism is about as far removed from science as one can get. Go by plane to Australia for vacation? Your grandchildren will suffer. Fly to a climate conference in Bali? Your grandchildren will NOT suffer. And Parmesan is “one of the world’s most influential climate change scientists,”? A world saving star, up there on the podium along with Hansen, Mann and Trenberth? Her colleagues must cringe, reading such stuff.

    • Camille Parmesan is (Snip) SHE WASN’T IN THE USA FOR THE LAST 7 YEARS?? / UK based scientist who has accepted President Macron’s challenge to President Trump, Macron’s offer of funding for US climate scientists who move to France. Camille thinks climate “deniers” live in a world of fiction – but she does not present any real evidence to back her claims.

      Why go to France?

      I came to the UK for family reasons seven years ago. But I was not happy with my department at the University of Texas. Research funding has gone down so much in the US. I had a big collaborative grant and I wanted to continue it, but it looked like funding was not there. Then Brexit happened, Trump got elected and President Macron made his offer [to fund climate research]. It was perfect timing. His initiative brings me to France, which allows me to apply for EU money. FOR THE EU MONEY HONEY!!!

      • Readers may not remember, but Camille Parmesan is the biologist Jim Steele exposed as pruning some data and misrepresenting other data to make it seem that Edith’s checkerspot butterflies had changed their range because of the climate horrors of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

        She claimed to be in personal anguish over the indifference among Americans to the clear climate change signal she had observed; so much so that she was leaving the US for the UK. Now she’s going to France. To her credit, Camille Parmesan improves the scientific integrity of every society she leaves behind.

      • 50 years ago a Big Mac cost 50 cents; now they cost $5 and could easily cost $25 in 2075–all WITHOUT Climate Change!

        (Shouldn’t I get some HUGE FRANCE GRANT for that unprecedented prediction? I mean, where’s the ironing here?)

      • Actually, now that I think about it, most things are about ten times what they cost about fifty years ago in the late sixties.

        By the way: Parmesan goes prety well on Mac(a)ron(i) ;) ;)

      • RockyRoad – December 31, 2017 at 8:21 pm

        50 years ago a Big Mac cost 50 cents; now they cost $5 and ……

        HA, 60 years ago the (resident) tuition cost for me to attend Glenville State College was $100/year ($50/semester), …… now the (resident) tuition cost is $5,592/year.

      • In the late 60’s my tuition at the University of Maryland College Park was less than $500 for 15 credit hours. Books were usually less than $100 total. Your factor of 10 is not far off.

    • Here are links to essays about Parmesan bad science:

      1. Fabricating Climate Doom: Parmesan’s Butterfly Effect

      http://landscapesandcycles.net/climate-doom–parmesan-s-butterfly-effect.html

      2. Fabricating Climate Doom: Hijacking Conservation Success in the UK to Build Consensus!

      http://landscapesandcycles.net/hijacking-conservation-success-in-the-uk.html

      3. A request for retraction of Parmesans paper due to half turrets

      http://landscapesandcycles.net/American_Meterological_Society_half-truth.html

      The essays on Parmesan were so damning, Hotwwhopper’s Slandering Sou (aka Miriam OBrien) repeatedly tried to misdirect the issue regards Parmesan’s bad science, and suggest my criticisms were not about horrendous science but a personal grudge or professional envy ROTFLMAO.

      Slandering Sou got Parmesan’s husband and co-author, Dr. Singer, to post on her site about our my essays, only to have Dr. Singer validate everything I said and reveal just how ignorant and denigrating Slandering Sou is. Read

      Hotwhopper’s Miriam O’Brien – Hoist by Her Own Petard!

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/20/hotwhoppers-miriam-obrien-hoisted-by-her-own-petard/

      • How about inviting her to be one of the panel members with Nye and whoever else would be willing to take on a panel of well prepared, fact based, heavy hitters? This debate needs to be aired. The knowledge gaps need to be filled as soon as possible in 2018.
        Logic and reasoning is the way of the future.

      • Thanks for those links Jim. I was suprised not to see that in the article since I was sure this butterfly nonsense had been rebutted. Maybe Anthony will add those links in an update.

      • It seems she is in possession of very little in the way of historical perspective or factual information.
        Consider her work, and combine that with what we know to be true regarding the historical temperature patterns, not to mention the paleo data.
        She has somehow made a causal link between fake temperature adjustments of a few degrees, and the fate of some insects that have been spread all over the earth for tens of millions of years, and have survived every cataclysm and upheaval that the world has experienced.
        We are supposed to believe that global milding is going to be some unsurvivable challenge for butterflies?
        And that this is important work?
        This is a person who has devoted her entire life and career to fr@ud and trivia.

      • “Bartleby December 31, 2017 at 10:35 pm
        With any luck she won’t let the screen door hit her on the ass.”

        Agreed!
        Except, as with so many puffed up pompous climate alarmists; Parmesan’s ego ballooned head will prevent any door from hitting first her posterior.

        “menicholas December 31, 2017 at 9:21 pm
        It seems she is in possession of very little in the way of historical perspective or factual information.
        Consider her work, and combine that with what we know to be true regarding the historical temperature patterns, not to mention the paleo data.”

        Aye!
        Especially for an alleged biologist that ignores the maturing of her tiny butterfly plot.
        Adjoining new growth areas are flush with the same butterflies, she allegedly studied; but her chosen plot of older growth plants, no longer provide butterflies food.
        A Duh! moment if she’d simply opened her eyes to see expanses of butterfly filled fields.

        But, then she’d have to admit, CO2 and temperature do not meant death to butterflies.
        What a choice?
        Actual butterfly science and the ruination of her personal confirmation bias?
        Or the ruination of alleged butterfly science coupled with her moments of infamy?

        “menicholas December 31, 2017 at 9:21 pm
        She has somehow made a causal link between fake temperature adjustments of a few degrees, and the fate of some insects that have been spread all over the earth for tens of millions of years, and have survived every cataclysm and upheaval that the world has experienced.
        We are supposed to believe that global milding is going to be some unsurvivable challenge for butterflies?
        And that this is important work?
        This is a person who has devoted her entire life and career to fr@ud and trivia. ”

        ‘Exactement’!

        Hopefully, France and French science will survive; somehow.

    • No you wouldn’t. Imagine looking back on a lifetime of activity so irresponsible and meaningless that in your last moments you realize you pissed your entire professional life away for nothing and will be forgotten, except perhaps as a footnote to a footnote in an obscure appendix to “Lysenko Redux: Academic and Scientific Misbehaviour During The Great Global Warming Fraud of 1980 to 2020; Schmutzig u. Dreckig Verlag, Berlin, 2045; 350 pages.”

      • Yes, that would be quite an epitaph. And possibly a mild one, at that. What will her grandchildren think? But for a bit of Mac & Cheese, integrity and truth goes by the board. French dough and American topping.

    • They used to make predictions that were in their lifetime, but every single one of them failed to materialize, so they have now pushed their prophesies of doom out to a point in time that can never fall back on them.
      How people who have been so wrong about so much for so long have even one single shred of credibility with anyone on Earth is beyond me.
      The incredible inanity of this charade is simply astounding.

    • A few years ago, a climate change sceptic asked Britain’s Royal Society how many years of zero warming would it take for the Royal Society to concede that global warming was not happening. “50 years” was the answer.

      After all, the science is settled.

      • It’s rather clever, actually. Since the current climate regime seems to follow a 60-year(±) cycle, it’s almost certain that absent a descent into another Little Ice Age, you’ll never see a 50-year stretch of no warming. All they have to do is wait for the upswing and go “Aha!!”

    • The best part is that it is always about the Children. Suffer the poor children. We don’t do this for ourselves we only care about the children.

      If they were really worried about the children they would be writing about the $20 Trillion in Federal Debt while facing another $70 Trillion in unfunded Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid liabilities. Because that is what is going to Chap the Children’s arses.

    • +100

      Except, Jim Steele’s excellent butterfly science review indelibly wrote Parmesan’s name right along with Rachel Carson’s, in my memory.
      Shameful moments for science.

      • First, Ms. Parmesan did NOT leave the US because of Macron’s offer. She left to go to the UK long before that offer was made. If she goes to France now, because of the offer, she will be leaving the UK, not the USA.

        Secondly, thanks for the reminder of Jim Steele inspired slam dunking of Camille’s butterfly research in the Sierra’s, which if I recall correctly, showed her work and conclusions to be sloppy and wrong.The butterflies she claimed were being forced to extinction due to “global warming” were in fact doing just fine, just following some longer term cyclical patterns that Ms. Parmesan didn’t understand and apparently, didn’t really care to understand.

        I’ll editorialize further in saying Ms. Parmesan will never understand complex biological behavior while she looks at the questions tendentiously, and works backwards from foregone conclusions. But in the CAGW alarmist’s world, it’s a great way to get funded. But then came Trump, and now some of that funding is being threatened, which is the real reason so many CAGW alarmists are upset with him. They want their government teat to continue lactating indefinitely.

      • “Mickey Reno January 1, 2018 at 7:29 am ”

        First,?
        I’ve not a clue what you are imperatively responding to, Mickey.

        Other than that, I agree with most of your comment.

        I care not what/where Parmesan claims she is emigrating from. As, Parmesan apparently has convinced France to hand over one million $ or is that ₣, or perhaps € in return for Parmesan immigrating, or claiming to immigrate to France?
        For all we know, France is giving her the money and immigrant citizen status, while Parmesan conducts her anti-science in England. Those poor butterflies…

        France’s loss, on multiple fronts.
        Science’s loss, as that lady now has the cash to attain greater infamy.
        America and England’s gain. Though England certainly has surfeit of remaining climate alarmism inertia.

        Perhaps we’ll hear that Lewserandowsky, Cook and other’s of their ilk will somehow emigrate from the USA in order to grasp some of that free French cash trough.

        Meanwhile, Trump and his Administration should be encouraging a long list of bad science alarmists to emigrate to France, before England’s alarmists grab all of the offered cash.

        Consider it part of Trump’s naughty list.

      • Oh, sorry, AtheoK, I was responding to the headline over the article, “One of President Macron’s Climate Defectors.” Camille Parmisan is NOT one of those, and I was jarred by the carelessness of the quasi-explicit implication that she was such a person. I guess I should have unthreaded that comment from my response to you about Jim Steele’s deconstruction of her work. Sorry.

      • One last follow-up on my thoughts about Ms. Parmesan. She reacted to Jim Steele’s requests for her methods and data (so that he could replicate her experiments) by flatly refusing and even trying to dissuade him. This is exactly the same reaction Phil Jones, at East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit had to Steve McIntyre. In one of the more (in)famous Climategate e-mails, Jones told McIntyre that he would not share his data, because Steve “just wanted to find something wrong with it,” before then engaging with other members of the hockey team to conspire that he should never have it, even to the point of breaking the UK’s Freedom of Information laws as they pertain to “public servants” (scare quotes used advisedly).

        Now, I know some are averse to ever mentioning the word conspiracy, as if we risk becoming the target of a Stephen Lewandowsky smear. Hey, we already are his target. He’s part of the same team, the same conspiracy. Can you imagine that Lew will ever consider even the possibility, let alone formally study the question of how two leading lights of the CAGW team came to the identical conclusion that refusing to cooperate with replication of their work was the best way to advance “science?” Can you ever imagine that he’d study whether or not his definition of “the community” had advanced to the point where it was a corrupt conspiracy of groupthinking cult members? No, of course he can’t.

        And here we can turn to another famous Climategate rumination, Steven Schneider’s Faustian challenge, which is, do you want to be honest (i.e. objective, scientific) or do you want to be “effective” (i.e. lie, propagandize, spin, exaggerate). I think i have the measure of Camille Parmesan, Phil Jones, CRU, Mann, Lewandowsky, et. al. on that question.

      • Mickey, Phil Jones’ comment was to Warwick Hughes, not to Steve McIntyre. Warwick had noticed anomalous warmth in Siberia, and thought it because of faulty measurements.

        He asked Phil Jones for his list of stations and methods. Phil’s reply was, “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” One of consensus climatology’s greatest of their great moments in the integrity of science. :-)

        Steve McIntyre did write about that episode, here.

      • Pat Frank, thanks, I stand corrected. I recall that McIntyre was stonewalled by the CRU and Mann at several points, and I incorrectly recalled that the Jones Climategate e-mail had been directed to him. It’s instructive that McIntyre, Hughes and Steele have all been stonewalled by researchers too scared to be audited, who do not want to be accountable to their public funders.

  2. Didn’t comrade Hansen say in 1988 that NYC would be under water in 30 years?
    That’s like, well, now.

    Happy 2018 to everyone!

  3. A biologist, studying flutterbys, not a climate scientist, being persecuted by the evil President Trump, lamenting about the ignorance of the unwashed masses:))… Got to love the spin.

  4. “…Frankly, I am not just angry at the far right, extreme Republican groups but also with [some] liberals who bought the Russian propaganda and who are not taking responsibility…”

    Which liberals and what Russian propaganda?

    Talk about a “denier” who is “believing in fiction in the face of reality” and “still living in a fictional universe.”

    • “People like believing in fiction in the face of reality. We’ve had many climate disasters and they haven’t woken up the minority who are still living in a fictional universe. People want to believe this lie …”

      As stated by others … just listen to what they (this butterfly lady type) are accusing of doing … that is what they (dem-progressive-lib) are actually up to.

    • That joke about raising the IQ of both continents comes to mind.

      I’d guess that her French colleagues might have views on her being their on the franc that they might have had and that French sarcasm might be turned up a notch or two.

      I wonder how she’ll stand up to that.- or safe spaces part of the deal?

  5. Before the disaster occurring in time span of 2070 – 2090 will Earth warm up a little?

    In terms of lefties predicting doom- which is common and often and for varying reasons [silly reasons- like, over population, to name favorite one for last thousands of years or so], the 2070 to 2090 choice is more distant into the future than is normal.

  6. As a biologist, has the process of photosynthesis ever been considered? Rain, hail or shine, it is fundamental to all carbon-based life forms.

  7. “…But hurricanes like Harvey and Katrina have woken up middle-of-the-road people…”

    Oh, now they “woke.”

    Katrina was 12 years ago.

    • Butterflys bring up a memory of the past. Melbourne in Oz was laid out in about 1830 by a very wise planner for the future, with three ring roads out to about fifty miles. The first was about 10 miles from the CBD as the crow flies.

      By about 1970 we needed that road and most of it was built, then we got a lefty female premier whom took notice of the greenies they out forward this fantasy that an endangered butterfly was on the route of the final stage of the ring road. This stupid premier canceled the ring road and sold of the land to developers.This had been held as government land since 1830.

      Result her ruinous bottom line got a cash injection and now in 2018 we have traffic chaos.

      It was discovered not long after her decision that the butterflies were thriving over thousands of miles.
      Trust a green or a warmest NO

  8. “Camille Parmesan, a biologist at the universities of Texas and Plymouth, is one of the world’s most influential climate change scientists, having shown how butterflies and other species are affected by it across all continents.

    I would like to understand how “butterflies and other species are affected (effected?)” by a tenth of a degree per decade. It seems that would be quite difficult to detect, let alone make changes to their prime directive – live long enough to propagate the species.
    I would also like to hear about how they coped with climate change in the past, and how today’s climate change is different in effecting them versus past climate change.
    Maybe she would like to give us a quick executive summary of her findings, since this is “The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change”. Seems like it would be a great place for her to voice her findings and analysis of those findings.
    And lastly I am wondering if anyone thinks about what level of “butterfly / climate variation” study is appropriate for funding, based on the world of possible funding choices? Do we have a surplus of this type of study, or is it underfunded?

    • You can do whatever research you like about how prophesies will affect things (and it’s perfectly acceptable and valid to do so), but it proves nothing about the cause of climate change and, therefore, means Parmesan is NOT a climate scientist!

      • She is not a climate scientist. She just had to “kiss the ring” to get the funding. And at that point she is forced to defend the faith of face the Inquisition. Guess we really haven’t learned much from the mistakes of our past.

    • Jim Steele had a piece about here work on WUWT a few years back. He clearly refuter her hypothesis by showing other factors that were at work on the butterfly populations she wrote about.
      We are all better off with her in France being paid with French taxes.

      • “SteveT January 1, 2018 at 1:37 am
        We’re not ALL better off – I live in and pay taxes in France. Someone has to do it.

        SteveT”

        Yowch!

  9. …”People want to believe this lie and I don’t know how to get through to them…”

    You could start by making climate predictions that actually come true. Its been 30 years we’ve been hearing you people make dire climate predictions, when are we going to see one come true? Or a prediction that isn’t better explained by natural variation?

    • Is there a definable, explainable process by which brainless dogma gets dogmatized and is then propagated to seek out and infect additional weak and susceptible minds? And it appears that this lady wasn’t even a journalism major? Go figure.

  10. Its quite obvious .
    She believes that when a flutterby flaps its wings on the other side of the ocean that the effects can be felt many miles away .
    So her findings are that less fluterbys =less wind
    Therefore she has come up with a logarithm that shows that less wind =more heat
    Pretty simple

  11. Having a very cruisy New Year’s Day in Oz, chilling out and listening to our old vinyl collection. Found one of my favourite albums by the Dutch group Focus from the 70’s, double album “Focus 3” which has this extract from Virgil’s Aeneid on the inside cover:-

    “Forthwith Rumour runs through Libya’s great cities-
    Rumour of all evils the most swift.
    Speed lends her strength and she wins vigour as she goes;
    small at first through fear, soon she mounts up to heaven,
    and walks the ground with head hidden in the clouds.”

    The CAGW Rumour has spread way beyond ancient Carthage and now infests much of the world with the likes of Camille Parmesan having their heads “hidden in the clouds” of nonscience.

    As evidenced by his epic The Nature of Things, Virgil’s intellectual inspirer Lucretius had a far greater grasp of scientific reality than the likes of intellectual pygmies such as Professor Parmesan not to mention 2000+ years of intellectual inspiration to science and true scientists as a legacy.

    And Professor Parmesan? Well the toy boy president put out the call and she came running….

  12. “funny bloke this Macarony” – Goes quite well with Parmesan though. 8-D
    Oh boy that was a cheesy one. An Italian might even say it was a’ pasta joke.

    Isn’t this just a typical example of a climate alarmist being subsidised to put out propaganda though? Exactly the kind of thing the alarmists try to blame the oil companies for, in terms of (allegedly) paying ‘Deniers’ to put out propaganda. Pot, kettle, black.

  13. “People like believing in fiction in the face of reality. We’ve had many climate disasters and they haven’t woken up the minority who are still living in a fictional universe.”

    Like the completely fictional, failed computer simulations, alarmists call reality? Pure Projection much?

    “People want to believe this lie and I don’t know how to get through to them.”

    We know the feeling. Maybe start by doffing the virtual reality head set, log off you game of Sim cLIEmate and go out side? Collect some actual empirical observations?

  14. Jim Steele effectively critiques Dr. Parmeson’s (and other’s) science, in Landscapes and Cycles.

    President Macron’s getting Parmeson is very much like the guy who stole my old car. Gotta figure they both got just about what they deserve.

  15. Camille Parmesan, was evidently a big cheese biologist at the universities of Texas and Plymouth, until the brighter future for biological research loomed under President Macron. As “one of the world’s most influential climate change scientists”, Camille obviously knows that it is best to make predictions about the future that will become evident only after 2070 – 2090. There is clear field here in France under President Macron for a start to 50 – 70 years of reasearch and extreme predictions about the future predicamemnts that will face butterflies and other species, affected by ‘Climate Change/Global Warming’ across all continents, not just Europe.. It sounds a great job free from responsibility or accountability until 2070 – 2090.

    • evidently a big cheese biologist at the universities of Texas and Plymouth, until the brighter future for biological research loomed under President Macron.

      Macron and Cheese

  16. I get it now. Obama was running a quid pro quo scheme with grantees and now that same scheme is operating in France on a smaller scale. The grantees are paid to be vocal tools for the policy objective and science loses.

  17. Eric,

    “Is it just me, or does the settled science date of this “imminent” climate disaster always seem to be galloping off further into the distant future?”

    Well, it seems to me to be in virtual superposition . . both galloping further ahead, and rushing back at us in hurricanes and cold spells and whatnot, simultaneously ; )

  18. To our rational minded friends in France: You have my sincere condolences.
    You will now have to support and endure both your nitwit leader and one of our US nitwit climate seance prognosticators. Quel dommage….

  19. Parmesan? Diddums.

    Reality comes to the fore in the USA,

    …..so you run off to the next source of funds…

    Stiff cheese !!

  20. Is she the one who did the study that found that butterflies were dying out in clear cut areas, but ignored the fact that the same butterflies were doing well in areas that were still forested nearby?

  21. “Things will shift to the extremely negative in the next 50 years. Climate scientists are doing decadal projects and it starts really shifting about 2070-2090.”

    That’s handy. Presumably she’ll be suppin on her cocktails on the veranda of her beachfront retirement property in the Bahamas around that time?

    Apologies, my cynicism has emerged over the last 10 years. I used to be a content little drone.

  22. You can tell when a cheese is really on the nose.

    Not one of the usual AGW dismayed comes to face the grater.

    • Don’t be too sure that the hand(s) have quit feeding her. I’ll bet she is not giving up her Texas and Plymouth jobs.

    • I’m all for the French paying to relocate scientists and maintain their lifestyles in France. He’s doing us all a favor.

      • No scientist involved here. A Socialist activist is relocating to a more cynical jurisdiction for financial gain.

  23. This is at least the 2nd butterfly expert that has gone off the rails.
    The first dove head first into demography.
    Now one dives into political science and how the U. S. government should work.
    If you can’t swim, learn where the deep end of the pool is, and stay out.

    HAPPY NEW YEAR !

  24. “This is not a partisan issue…. None of us expected Trump to win. It was horrifying to have him as a candidate…. This is not a partisan issue.” O-K then.

  25. “…….When do you expect the major impacts to take place?
    Things will shift to the extremely negative in the next 50 years. Climate scientists are doing decadal projects and it starts really shifting about 2070-2090. That is in my children’s lifetimes….”.

    So….ummm…what exactly happened to the logarithmic response of the Earth’s climate to increasing CO2 levels? Must have been repealed or something.

    And where are those positive feedbacks?

    Wish everyone in the WUWT community a prosperous and happy 2018.

  26. Too many alarmists view AGW skeptics as disbelieving in any kind of climate change or that such change is capable of producing changes in the environment. Most skeptics (especially those with some technical knowledge of the topic) accept that climate can change (as it always has) and that changes are capable of affecting butterflies (as Ms. Parmesan studies). The critical climate questions to be debated are these. 1) What natural processes and forces produce climate change and to what extent are they now active? 2) What activities of humans alter climate and to what extend are they currently doing so? 3) How well can human influence on specific environmental factors in the future be predicted? 4) Given the large uncertainties in 1), 2) and 3) how precisely can any climate model predict what climate and its effects really will be like decades into the future? (The answer, of course, is not very well.)

    • You forgot about the critical question of exactly how a few degrees of warming on our ice age having planet is supposed to be some sort of a disaster, instead of a positively wonderful outcome?
      Especially considering that warming seems to consist of a somewhat less frigidly fatal Arctic wasteland, somewhat less deadly cold Winters, and somewhat milder night time temps, all of which amount to an average change, over many decades, that would be barely detectable by an unaided person if they occurred in the span of a few minutes?

      • The only really measurable effect I can think of is Urban Heat Islands.
        Those cause – or ‘are’, to your choice – local climate change, heating a modest area by, yes, a few degrees [F/C – again, to your choice].

        Change of land-use, of which UHIs are a specific case, may also change temperature profiles through the day, and, perhaps, peak temperatures.

        Soot from coal-burning – much worse in the UK before 1960 – will perhaps affect snow-fields, but will that affect climate? Melted snow – water on rock – reflects less sunlight, I suppose.

        Auto

  27. Below is a link, regards my request that Parmesan’s horrendous science paper be retracted because she kept half the evidence off the books a la Enron. She blamed climate change for the extirpation of a newly formed population that had recently colonized a logged area and had switched to a different, more fragile food plant. Meanwhile just 10 meters away the long established population in its natural habitat had its best year on record. Despite her flagrant sins of omission, the AMS refused to retract her paper, most likely because several leading climate scientists had cited it as evidence for catastrophic climate change.

    http://landscapesandcycles.net/American_Meterological_Society_half-truth.html

    • Jim,
      Well stated scientific points that any objective entity could not possibly ignore……….but the AMS did ignore them.

      I WAS a member of the AMS for 20 years, much of that time holding their broadcast television seal of approval. My separation from the organization had more to do with a career change(predicting crop conditions/production and energy use from updated weather forecasts and the effect on commodity prices) but I have still followed them over the past 15 years.

      The example you provided defines the mindset of today’s AMS. What is interesting is that its membership in the field of operational meteorology, who actually analyze and predict the weather using models(which is what I do) have one of the highest rates of skeptics(of catastrophic human caused climate change).

      It’s hard not to be skeptical after 35 years of observing the best weather/climate and CO2 conditions for food production and most life on this greening planet in at least the last 1,000 years………since the Medieval Warm Period.

  28. “This is not a partisan issue…”
    “None of us expected Trump to win. It was a real shock. It was horrifying to have him as a candidate.”

    It’s good to know there’s nothing partisan about Camille Parmesan. /sarc

    • Everybody she knows felt that way.
      Right up there with that editor who couldn’t understand how Nixon could have won because everyone she knew voted against him.
      Echo Chamber redux.

    • Trump has only been in the public eye since around 1976, hardly long enough for us to get to know his temperament, personality, etc. /sarc

      It absolutely slays me how “The Donald” was this loveable, roguish, “everyone’s millionaire” until he won the office, and now he’s a racist misogynist jingoistic moron who’s not smart enough to run a Boy Scout patrol. Saturday Night Live had him on before he won the candidacy, and it was all jolly good fun. Then he was actually candidate, and then won — horrors! — and now suddenly he’s a monster.

      And these people wonder why they aren’t taken seriously.

  29. A couple of ‘dire consequences’ alarmists have suffered. David Viner of the ‘children-no snow’ alarm seems to have disappeared up a time warp somewhere and Australia’s very own Rainman Flannery is equally non-sighted. Big Al continues to work the Giggle, but it seems to me he is increasingly looked on as the dotty uncle at a wedding.

  30. Furthermore Parmesan had already re-located to England long before Trump was president. (If memory serves from my emails with her husband, he went to England to take care of his failing mother}.

    For her to blame Trump is just another example of her dishonest political agenda

  31. There is a much smarter and wiser Camille.

    Leaving sex to the feminists is like letting your dog vacation at the taxidermist. link

    When I’m feeling sick from listening to postmodern crap, a few quotes from Camille Paglia or Jordan Peterson perk me right up.

    There are no innocuous ideologies. They’re forms of pathological over simplification and they’re also clubs, I mean the kind of clubs that you hit people with … link

    CAGW is an ideology and it is pathological.

  32. ‘nother TDS sufferer has complete meltdown. Year 1 of Trump isn’t done yet either.
    Popcorn future in 2018 exploding as the Left continues its steady meltdown providing much entertainment.

  33. Jim Steel demolished her paper and demonstrated that it was not only bad but deceptive. Any sentient publisher would have withdrawn it. Dont beat around the bush.

    She is a poor butterfly “scientist” yet is “lauded as a “climate scientist”!!!!!!!!!!!!

    If i recall he also pointed out possible conflict of interest with her husband.

    • And not just any so-called “climate scientist”, but one of the most influential!
      WTF?
      The more closely one looks at these people and the things they say, the harder it becomes to believe any of them are even sane, let alone intelligent.

  34. Thank you Lord, and President Trump. This blood sucking vampire can suck the lifeblood out of France now, instead of these United States.

    • Vampire?! More like an annoying mosquito in need of a good swat. Her past blood meals tho’ (like a vampire) have left her in want of more. French blood is sweet presumably.

  35. Some got in trouble at the University of Texas during the last presidential administration for political advertising at the school facilities. I got a Ph.D. there 3 decades before her and such a thing never had a thought that I can recall. I saw such exhibited in the main UT library some years go, didn’t bother me, but no doubt symptomatic. It has so far remained a strong library, some members of which came immediately after Harvey the to exceptional Port Aransas Marine Science Institute to rescue classic materials.

    The UT library website however, has a link to a new Austin Public library in which is this comment “ For instance, food and drink, cafes and gift shops have become normal features in libraries.”

    https://blogs.lib.utexas.edu/texlibris/2017/12/18/why-austins-new-central-library-is-a-vision-for-the-future/

    There is a serious problem in our culture and academia about the role of libraries, some of which are closing or adopting the above strategy. Libraries are more than books, true, but they are anchors of learning, and as is well known, anchors are necessary for successful refuge. Too much is published, electronic storage, however long it may last, is welcome, but I worry that they will become the modern example of how libraries past ceased to exist.

    I would like to have the opportunity to talk to her about marine science and health. I will not knock butterfly research, but if I were to pick an organism of little significance in the ocean, and I have published on everything from protists to mammals there, it would rate high. Therefore, it is something of great significance. I am still learning so will keep a ‘skeptical’ open mind.

    However, this quote from her is not true. “My 1996 Nature study on Edith’s checkerspot butterflies was one of the first to document impacts of climate change on wildlife.”

  36. “Things will shift to the extremely negative in the next 50 years. Climate scientists are doing decadal projects and it starts really shifting about 2070-2090. That is in my children’s lifetimes.”

    Camille has no children.

    • Maybe best to wait as long as possible, then “in my childrens’ lifetime” can be pushed further into the future.

  37. The Left has already lost the infernal CAGW debate.

    None of CAGW’s dire climate predictions have come close to reflecting reality for 30~100 years (depending on climate phenomenon), which means the CAGW hypothesis is dead.

    All CAGW grant-grubbing “scientists” can do is to extend their failed predictions 50~80 years in the future and desperately hope the gullible public and Leftist polical hacks will keep their money flowing before their tenures expire.

    Such childish delusions are futile. In about 5 years, both the PDO & AMO will all be in their respective 30-year cool cycles, and a 50~75 year Grand Solar Minimum starts from 2021, which will likely cause significant cooling for the next 50~75 years.

    CAGW grant-grubbers will desperately try to convince the public that global warming causes global cooling, but eventually, such fantasies will be laughed at.

    • I find it fascinating – like a slow-motion train wreck – how many of the readers here seem to think it MATTERS that “the debate is lost.” Here in Canada we see new taxes driven through (as promised on the campaign trail) without a whimper, the economy of Alberta (our oil-producing province that went decades debt-free) gutted by a green socialist government, and promises of much more of the same to come…and all I see here is “we have won, victory is ours, the paid mouthpiece prostituted pseudoscientists lost handily, hooray!”

      What am I missing? Do you think they CARE that they’ve lost the debate on the Internet? Their theory is being made law all over the developed world, and you’re celebrating? Jesus wept! YES, the narrative is shifting constantly, because that’s what politicians DO – they have a keen eye for the intelligence and attention span of most of their citizenry. Are you seriously congratulating yourselves for noticing what has been screamingly obvious all along?

      I’m on the verge of despair here as the new year begins…please give me hope that the battle is not just being fought here in the comments at WUWT. I have repeatedly put up links to my petition to the Government of Canada asking for a moratorium on climate expenditure while the skeptical POV is given the serious consideration it merits – AND NOT ONE OF YOU HAS BOTHERED TO SIGN.

      At least half the readers here seem to treat the whole matter as a cute joke. When your children and grandchildren are freezing in the dark, tell me how funny it seems. Less Internet, more talking to your elected representatives as the employees of the public they are, like I’m trying to do, is my recommendation for 2018. Good luck to us all, peace on earth to men of good will, and be damned to all tyrants.

      • For what it is worth, I would sign your petition if I had known about it, and if a petition to the government of Canada signed by people who have never even been to that country would mean a whit.
        Maybe it does not matter who signs the darn thing for whatever purpose it is intended to serve.
        But I can tell you that I am not congratulating myself, and have noticed not a lot of declarations of a battle won and an evil vanquished.
        I sincerely believe that, however well intentioned of sincere such an effort may be, a petition on such a matter will do about as much good as a pussy hat parade did for the anti-Trump crowd.

      • Michael-san:

        Trump pulling out of the Paris Accord is the beginning of the end for the most expensive Leftist sc@m in human history because it creates a huge funding deficit among the remaining participants which they can’t cover for economic and political reasons.

        The Left is quickly running out of credibility, excuses and money to keep this f@rce going.

        Various polls, tanking eco-SJW movie sales, rising energy costs, dismal economic indicators, waning public interest, growing disparity and duration between CAGW predictions vs. reality, etc., are all conspiring against the silly CAGW sc@m.

        The inevitable demise of CAGW will occur much more swiftly than most think possible.

        Patience, Michael, patience.

      • The war was lost when we reached the point where more than half of voters got more from government than they pay in taxes.
        The only question remaining is how long till the crash, and how bad it will be.

      • MarkW,

        Read “Atlas Shrugged” or look at current events in Venezuela. That’s how bad it could be! The Trump presidency is a ray of hope, but it’s still too soon to know if he can make a lasting difference.

  38. Is it just me or is the Global Warming/ Climate Change narrative changing again in the amount of time for total destruction due to climate change. Al Bore was predicting 2012 in 1998, 2015 in 2003,and more recently 2025 and 2050 as the years of the end of all. I notice this woman is pushing a new narrative of 2070 – 2090 time line. If you had predicted that man would have flown at Mach 3 regularly before the year 2000 while watching the Wright brothers flying in 1903 they would have called you crazy. This type of alarmist must think we are all too stupid to keep track of their narrative. Reminds me of some Doomsday cults trying to predict the end of the world. Oops 2012 did not happen well I meant 2025.

  39. I kind of doubt that anyone’s funding got cut in FY17 since that was Obama’s last ‘budget’ and we are under a continuing resolution so far in FY18. Trump probably has had no effect on funding so far.

  40. @menicholas: short of armed insurrection, would love to hear a better idea. Not intil tomorrow though, I’m done for 2017. :)

  41. Another Nobel Prize winner. (From the link above) “She has been involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in varying capacities for more than 15 years (e.g. as Lead Author, Reviewer), and was an named official Contributor to IPCC receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007”

    • M. Wuebben
      In fairness that quote, which I noticed too, does not claim she ‘won’ a Nobble; ‘Official Contributor’ only.
      IIRC – one or more of Michael Mann’s paeans of self-praise (did he call it a CV?) specifically said he had won the Nobble for – whatever!
      I certainly have a decent claim – as a citizen [for fifteen months more, only ;-)) ] of the EU when it won a Nobble for Accountancy and ‘Economics’ – the most unaudited unapproved accounts ever, I think – so I suspect I deserve one-five-hundred-millionths of the (unmerited) applause.

      Happy New Year to All – even the much medalled Michael Mann!
      Will he, this year, get a gong for – I don’t know – geomancy, or garnishing salads?

      Auto

      • I was instrumental in getting her downgraded to ‘contributor’ on the Plymouth uni website. They were calling her a Nobel prize winner until I intervened.

  42. Goodbye Camille and please don’t come back. Kindly convince your friends Oreskes, Mann, Schmidt, Nye, Hansen, John Cook, etc. to go with you. Who else should we put on the wish list?

  43. For a bit of French butter,
    away she will flutter.
    The Parmesan grater,
    the fake science hater,
    the Paris defeater,
    has forced her to eat her
    macmeals in France.
    How’s that for a Trump-thumping stance?

  44. Furthering my Exploration of England, I’ve found self in Letchworth (Hertfordshire) this morning. Isn’t the combination of dirty diesel and VW great for that sort of thing?
    Have quit collecting science Nobels (for today) and am having coffee in the ‘3 Magnets’ Wetherspoon pub

    You could not make it up. From a poster on the wall in this very pub…

    In the first 10 years of its existence up to the outbreak of war in 1914, Letchworth had a reputation as a haven for those who wanted the Simple Life. To many in the world outside it was a place where cult religions flourished and where the inhabitants dressed in smocks & sandals and spoke to each other in the universal language Esperanto

    George Orwell, who lived a few miles away in Baldock, referred to Letchworth in his book ‘Road to Wigan Pier’ He described it as tye place where “every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, nature-cure quack, pacifist and feminist in England” could be found.

    sigh Over a century late. Story of my life innit.
    Wait.. There’s hope. Think I’ve just seen Seattle Sarah walking by!
    This could make for One Very Interesting Date….
    :-D

    PS Just set some Cheddar in a cool dry place. lightly covered (NOT in the fridge) to make your own Parmesan. Works an absolute treat

  45. Great she is leaving, we don’t need topay irrational scientists who were blind to the numerous failings of Democrats like Hillary.
    Note she references the Russian propaganda released via Hillarys emails which showed Hillarys thugs and their attitude toward deplorables yet she was capable of overlooking all these flaws as well as her lies about the private server with classified material and Bengazi deaths. Given this obvious weakness one suspects her ability as an objective scientist is also impared.

  46. If you are a nation with 80% nuke power generation you would want all the greeniacs to cause other nations power generation costs to soar. Naturally you would be willing to fund a band of useful idiots to help the cause. Macron may simply be cynical and devious.

    • That is exactly correct! Political entities which lack fossil fuels always promote the AGW agenda. They seek to eliminate the economic advantage of those who have cheap energy. This is an important aspect of the conspiracy of self interest that drives AGW.
      Socialists who seek control of the economy by attacking industry
      Environmentalists who believe that 8-9 billion people can survive on this planet without bending a blade of grass, or alternatively, a few billion have to go
      Activist academics who make nice careers by participation in a politically supported manipulation
      Politicians who use the threats of future disaster to manipulate the public for the benefit of their political supporters.

  47. We must keep saying “one more CO2 molecule (from 3 to 4) in 10,000 is not going to incinerate the world.

  48. She has merely ‘chased the money ‘ and given the quality of her ‘research’ you can see why after all climate ‘science’ does provide a comfortable home for third rate academics with no requirement for good science or hard academic work so on that account she fits right in. And if that is the quality France want to pay for, they are welcome to it. Frankly once the money goes so does she .

  49. The Climate movement is very adept at ‘moving the goal posts’ with their predictions of disaster.

  50. having shown how butterflies and other species
    ≠======
    pseudoscience. phrenology, freudism, eugenics. these were all proven true in the exact same. manner.
    chance creates positive examples of any theory. both crackpot and valid theories. at the 95% significance level used by climate science, drinking water causes cancer 1 time in 20.

  51. will not strike until 2070 – 2090
    ≠=============
    no need to worry. the US will have long before collapsed under the weight of the national debt.

  52. She must be the only butterfly/climate scientist that knows, not only what happens when a butterfly flaps its wings in China but also just when the chaos caused will strike!

  53. Parmesan’s creed is utterly irreducible talebanic religious fundamentalist dogma. Nothing will shift it except the passing away of the generation of its fanatical adherents.

  54. A scientist name Parmesan moves to the country of cheese eating surrender monkees.

    Even The Simpons couldn’t come upwith that one.

  55. Camille Parmesan – Is that even a real name? Kinda cheesy if you ask me. She really grates on me with the way she ferments(?) division amongst us. Sharp or mild, her comments leave a sour taste in my mouth.

  56. In a perfect world, I would make a request of WUWT to stop featuring the blathering of idiots, but I guess we have to keep on doing it, in order to know the latest high-profile assault on sanity. Hopefully, knowing who the idiots are will help somehow.

    Yes, I know, calling someone an idiot is rather harsh, but I guess I should apologize for the speed with which I am loosing patience with such people.

    I’ve got to become more adept at making creative insults now — change my game — start going bad boy on some people — name and shame, which has never been my style. This is how crazy people drive sane people crazy.

    • Never heard of her. I’ll have to look her up in the dreaded Google or Wiki pages–which means I’ll get a distorted explanation.

  57. To draw on Willis’ savoir faire in such matters (re: Marsha McNutt), she is a “strikingly good looking” woman. Is she possibly missing, especially from men, some unvarnished truths as a result? If not then she’s at least one piece short of a complete puzzle.

  58. The change will take place in 50 years. I use that time line because by then I will have milked this cash cow dry and retired to my dacha by the sea. Any change in the climate, warmer or cooler, I can call “Climate Change”- because it will be. It’s a pretty good gig as long as the grant money keeps flowing in and nobody researches Solar Cycles. Then we have a problem.

Comments are closed.