Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
It is 28 years since Channel 4 in the UK produced The Greenhouse Conspiracy. It covered almost all the skeptical critiques. They are still valid, but now they are time -tested. Sadly, even today most people would not understand what was said in the movie and how it disproves the claim of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Encouragingly, there are some signs that the continued efforts of the global warming skeptics are influencing public opinion, but overall little has changed. The public is in a holding pattern, knowing something is wrong but not reaching a final understanding for several reasons including that:
· The information is coming from government, and that is always held with suspicion, although the amount varies nationally. For example, Americans are more suspicious of government than Canadians.
· Government information comes in two major ways, bureaucrats, and politicians. Public distrust of bureaucrats is because most people have dealt with them and find out the adage that you can’t fight city hall has much truth. In addition, the disclosures currently about the deep state in the IRS, the DOJ, FBI and EPA are reinforcing and confirming suspicions.
· Distrust of politicians is at all-time lows, especially in the US.
· Approximately 80 percent don’t understand science and so don’t say anything.
· Most of the 20 percent who are comfortable with science do not understand climate science and also tend to be quiet.
· A majority of those who voice opinions do so vociferously and definitively and confirm Mark Twain’s observation that it is wiser to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are stupid than to open it and prove them right.
· Many know that the switch of terminology from “Global warming’ to “Climate change” was done for a reason, but they don’t know why. Nonetheless, it raises suspicion.
· Many knew that Al Gore’s comment to Congress that the science is settled, and the debate is over was inaccurate.
· Many of the predictions of doom and gloom did not materialize.
· They are numbed to the extremism of the media. Even FOX News has “Extreme weather” rather than just, the weather. Public ratings of the media are at an all-time low.
· The claims that people would react negatively and violently to Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Accord proved false.
· There is a growing distrust of science generally, and climate science specifically as this quote from a Pew Center report shows. “Overall, many people hold skeptical views of climate scientists and GM food scientists; a larger share express trust in medical scientists, but there, too, many express what survey analysts call a “soft” positive rather than a strongly positive view.”
This last quote partially confirms why the people are in a ‘holding pattern.” They don’t know who to trust so avoid the issue by setting it aside. This is quantified differently in other major polls. Figure 1 shows a Pew Center poll of public priorities with “climate change” 18th out of 19.
Figure 1
Figure 2 shows a more telling holding pattern of almost 10 million people. Climate change is 16th out of 16.
Figure 2
Politicians who claim they look at polls are clearly not looking at these or are deliberately ignoring them. Other than Trump, most politicians are still making blustering claims about the need for action. Witness the ignorance displayed by Catherine McKenna, Canada’s Environment Minister. I am painfully and expensively aware of how little lawyers know about climate science. However, I am also aware that McKenna, as a lawyer, should know better than most that there are two sides to every issue.
The question is why are the public in a holding pattern? The public constantly hears from skeptics that CO2 is not to blame for global warming and latterly climate change. The problem is skeptics usually fail to provide a viable alternative explanation for the change, often, even if pushed. This is evident in the responses to articles on WUWT about the sun/temperature connection. Of course, even if a clear, concise scientific explanation were provided a majority of the public would not understand.
Fortunately, most also understand they will never fully grasp the complexity of the science. I say fortunately because that means there is something else making them hesitant. What they are hearing is that beyond normal scientific conflict there are claims of malfeasance. Consider this in the context of discussions about legal action. The courts argue that a scientific dispute is “your paper” versus “my paper” and they are not qualified to arbitrate. That in itself is a sad comment on the legal system. Science has been a major part of society with enormous influence for at least 200 years, yet the legal system still hasn’t made an accommodation.
Such was the case in the recent misplaced excitement about Judge William Alsup’s unique request. He invited all sides to answer specific questions as the basis for a “tutorial.” The Heartland Institute and the participants in the amici curiae brief did a superb job in responding to the opportunity provided by the trial and the judge’s request. The difficulty is they were only able to provide scientific answers. These elucidate the basic differences between their “paper” and those identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) “paper.” The Amici showed that it remains a scientific difference and that,
“…there is no ‘consensus’ among scientists that recent global warming was chiefly anthropogenic, still less that unmitigated anthropogenic warming has been or will be dangerous or catastrophic.”
It is not enough and explains why the public opts for the sidelines.
In the last week, I was interviewed on eight different radio stations across America. Each interviewer understood the difference was more than scientific. They all knew about some of the malfeasance so effectively laid out over the years by Anthony Watts and his many contributors. I know when people realize the difference is more than scientific there is an automatic question that comes to mind. Every interviewer asked it directly or indirectly. What is the motive?
The judge’s opening comment at my recent trial was that his court would not be used to settle the global warming debate. He then made comments about the article at the center of the case that showed he knew little. He didn’t appear to realize that the case was about “my paper” against “your corrupt paper.” My concern was the motive, the misuse of science for a political agenda. The prosecution lawyer knew the dangers to his client of establishing that argument.
He did what happens in almost every interview or debate I have ever done about AGW when people realize they are losing an argument and are not prepared to admit it. He began a personal attack. It was not a frontal assault but an attempt to show my thinking and positions were so outside the mainstream that they lacked credibility. He suggested I believed that there was a conspiracy. I was, in fact, a “conspiracy theorist.” The evolution and adaptation of this as a weaponized term was explained by one author as follows.
“Conspiracy theory” is a term that at once strikes fear and anxiety in the hearts of most every public figure, particularly journalists and academics. Since the 1960s the label has become a disciplinary device that has been overwhelmingly effective in defining certain events off limits to inquiry or debate.
AGW proponents do a very good job of marginalizing opponents as members of fringe groups, such as global warming skeptics or climate change deniers. If those fail, they resort to the charge that you are a conspiracy theorist. This is very effective because most of the public doesn’t want to be associated with extremists or losers. Of course, the reality is conspiracies do occur otherwise the word would not exist. In my trial I explained that it didn’t matter whether there was a conspiracy, the reality was science was used for a political agenda and that must never happen.
If you accept the conspiracy argument, you usually believe that it was carried out by a small group. That reinforces the inaccurate public belief that a small group cannot fool the world. This is an extension of Abraham Lincoln’s claim that you cannot fool all the people all the time. However, Anthropologist Margaret Mead observed,
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
Lincoln’s comment is possibly true over time, but in the short term, you can especially if you deliberately marginalize those who speak up. That is what happened to the few who dared to question or challenge. Part of the problem is that the public thinks a conspiracy requires a large group of people, but one definition dispels that myth.
An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
There are reasons why I was attacked so openly, and they all speak to the threat I represented. They could not say I wasn’t qualified. I challenged the pseudoscience of global warming because the same thing happened with the “consensus” about global cooling when I began studying climate in the 1960s. I developed a natural teaching ability to explain complex issues like climate change to the public. This included honing this ability by teaching a science credit course for Arts students for 25 years. Most important, because my interest was in the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on the human condition I studied and taught a course in geopolitics. The basic theme there is that geography and climate are the stage and history the play acted out and influenced by that stage. I did what most scientists deliberately avoid, I studied politics and understood from the beginning what and how science was used. I explained the motive and the method. Many articles and public presentations about the entire story culminated in the publication of a detailed and documented explanation in the 2014 book, The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science. However, I was a target long before that as the lawsuits that are now in their 7th year continue.
The “holding pattern” will continue until we can explain to the public the motive behind the AGW claims and activities. Unless more people, especially skeptics understand the motive and speak out, it may be another 28 years. I have another dozen or more radio interviews scheduled so maybe the cross-pollination of the internet will trigger an exponential increase in the number who move out of the holding pattern because they know the motive. We better move fast because it is evident, with Obama’s net neutrality and the Zuckerberg hearings, that those who seek to control are moving in on the internet. Oh, sorry, is that another conspiracy theory?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank God alarmists don’t read WUWT. Otherwise they might figure out what they’re doing wrong, and change their tactics or strategy.
You mean they might realize that they have to start telling the truth?
For most activists, its their livelihood, they will just redouble their efforts after reading this site…
The best way to get the public’s attention is through their pocketbooks, when they find out how much alternate forms of energy and suggestions on how to fight climate change will cost them.
Hasn’t made much difference in Europe.
In reply to Mark, it hasn’t hurt them enough yet but it is getting closer. As electricity gets progressively more expensive then more people will die during the winter, more industries will move elsewhere taking their jobs with them and the onset of regular blackouts arrives, then it will get more attention. This winter, climate taxes only killed nearly 30000 in the UK. Once that gets to 3 times that the questions will come.
“Distrust of politicians is at all-time lows” This sentence needs tweaking.
Ditto.
Checking the link, it’s the trust of politicians that is at all-time lows.
Mark Zuckerberg. He certainly did ‘zuck’ a lot of people in did’nt he? All 85 million and counting.
On the the main topic, unless we start to vote the skeptics into positions of power to balance out this irrational debate, we will continue to see the weaponisation of science and the likes of Christine Figueres distort the global economy through wealth redistribtuion
The Zuckerberg-Cruz exchange during the hearings was interesting. Zuckerberg could not quite be nailed down on the content of what Facebook censors, just that it does censor content.
I read every word – great post – but very depressing.
It’s going to take money. A small group of dedicated people isn’t enough. An advertising campaign is what’s needed and they don’t come cheap. Harry and Louise defeated Hillary care and a similar effort could slay the climate change monster but Harry and Louise need to be compensated.
The reason it takes money is because the Googles and Facebooks of the world “monetize” information and access to information. Perhaps what we need is a search engine that just searches honestly without tipping the scales. People can pay enough money to silence an issue, or escalate a non-issue. Have we not already surrendered truth when we submit to that type of filtering?
The search engine is Duck Duck Go, the default of the Tor browser. It doesn’t collect information, and it’s pretty decent, search-wise.
With $100biilion+ going to the deniers every year, money wont do it. We can have sub zero summers for the next 20 years and there will still be “avid believers”………..Im not hopeful, and most of the politicians go along with it…since its easy to preach I care about the environment, the children and send me money…
Yes Michael Kelly, same here. I cannot understand why so many web users who detest the corrupt silicone valley zillionaires continue to use their products. Laziness perhaps?
How about Henry and Louise freezing to death in their WI (or pick one of a dozen plus states) home…in APRIL, because heating costs are too high?
That already happens in England and will soon happen in Canada.
Dear McLovin,
You had me wondering how the West Indies could possibly be cold, what with being so close to the equator and being surrounded by shallow seas, then I realised you meant Wisconsin. Could you please remember that many non-Americans read this blog and they may have different interpretations of abbreviations to you. Any attempts to minimise the chances of confusion would be appreciated.
Our Australian friends will often talk about watching the ABC. The first time I saw this I spent a few minutes trying to figure out why they were watching the American Broadcasting Company.
This is why one needs to stick to the warmist’s original vernacular – global warming – the average Willy and Wilma does not believe in global warming however they do acknowledge climate change. However, to sane people I ask “what is this climate change that you believe in?” and the answer invariably is always “uhm…I’m not sure”….so anyway…………..
Another good question is: if the climate is changing, what is it changing from and what is it changing into. A follow up is what is optimal climate that we should be measuring from in order to observe this problem of change and aim for as a solution? People need to ask themselves these simple questions if they’re going to use a nebulous term like climate change.
Where I live, in Ottawa, Ontario, the climate is “temperate”. When it changes to “subtropical” or “subarctic”, I’ll let you know…
The science is settled. This is an unbelievably stupid statement that can only come from unbelievably stupid people or someone with a political or monetary agenda spouting useful propaganda. Every single scientific principle is questionable or can be defined to a greater accuracy or “truth”.
Take the time to read at least one of the IPCC reports. You will find that almost every so-called fact is qualified as having some degree of likelihood. The qualifications range from extremely unlikely to extremely likely or presented as having very low confidence to very high confidence. I cannot think of an instance of them making any relevant statement in complete confidence. Does that sound a bit like a Trump tweet to you? Does it sound like settled science? Does it even sound like an accepted opinion?
There is no such thing as settled science. That can only be construed as a convenient lie. https://goo.gl/8nf699
I read WUWT frequently but intermittently. I see Dr. Tim Ball mentioned frequently and read posts that he has authored. But I know little if nothing about the legal battles. Could someone point me to a source to understand what the legal battle is about? It sounds horrible, and I know from personal experience that legal battles sometimes outlive the antagonists. Good luck Dr. Ball!
One more reason for public skepticism: We are sitting here looking at 4” of snow and sleet in April! Scientifically I know that it is weather, not climate, but the weather continues to confound the supposed experts. They are asked to provide new explanations for why global warming causes global cooling, and other similar nonsense. The answer really will not be known in our lifetimes. We might as well be discussing the existence of the afterlife. I think that some people who don’t understand science at least understand that much, and therefore it is number 16 out of 16 among their concerns.
I see why you are cold in Wisconsin
Snow & Ice Chart Sat Apr 14 2018
Windy.com Wisconsin
Cold in Wisconsin…at 2:21 pm
…the weather continues to confound the supposed experts. They are asked to provide new explanations for why global warming causes global cooling, …
Well if global cooling is caused by global warming, what is the emergency we are talking about. Perhaps global warming will lead us right into a glacial maximum.
So does that mean that more global warming will create more global cooling? Eventually we will get so hot that we freeze to death?
“Eventually we will get so hot that we freeze to death?”
Oh Susanah!
Here is a direct cause to the current cold in North America and on the Eurasian continent. …https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_cloud_water/orthographic=-11.79,54.00,672/loc=-129.443,42.984
What you are looking at are surface winds blocking warm surface winds from moving north into the Arctic. This process started last April. Only on occasion have warm surface winds broke through that block to enter into the Arctic over the course of the last year. The blocking surface winds have always reasserted themselves in short order
Here is another key location on the planet where a similar change started up last August and has remained dominant ever since. …https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-76.17,-38.14,672
Currently, surface winds are pushing south through Drakes Passage for several days now, but this will break up shortly with very cold air pushing those warmer south winds northward. That is the change. In previous years the status quo was always warm surface winds moving south through Drakes Passage, thus driving cold surface winds, and surface waters north up the west coast of South America.
Error: “In previous years the status quo was always warm surface winds moving south through Drakes Passage, thus driving cold surface winds, and surface waters north up the west coast of South America.”. The last part of that sentence didn’t belong there, “thus driving cold surface winds…” north after breaking the warm flow to the south.
The fellow who said that 30,000 winter deaths in the UK is not enough to change public opinion but 90,0000 might be, is probably right. Sadly it is only deaths of others in large numbers or loss of money to them, in large numbers also, can be sure of triggering a response.
The problem is that the error the ‘mainstream’ climatologists is not an error of fact. Or not necessarily an error of fact.
It is an error of certainty.
From basic spectroscopy it seems very likely that CO2 will increase the hold-time for energy passing through the atmosphere.
But so what?
The claim that this change is significant is entirely unproven. Yet that subtlety is had to explain.
Science should say ‘how it works’. That’s what the media wants. That’s what the busy, disinterested public wants. They haven’t got time for the subtlety.
But in reality we are arguing about ‘how much it works’.
This is where I love it when the engineers jump in. Science is always telling us what is possible, but engineers tell us why it will or won’t work. They take the possible and make it practical.
That’s broadly my point. And more succinctly put. Nice.
And well done for getting that when I forgot to write the “make” in my first sentence.
Last time my local Jehovahs came to call, I politely told them that Science is about HOW we are here, religion is about WHY we are here. Both being highly debatable…
They got unusually quiet, thanked me and left.
“hold time” … that looks a lot like trapping to me. How about the release time ? — wouldn’t there be more of this too with more CO2 ? … over a greater volume of atmospheric gas ?
Public attention is shaped by emotional appeals from people with advanced academic degrees, popularized by famous people, marketed with lots of money, endlessly, in high-volume repetition.
The engineering term, which does work, is “heat transfer coefficient”- the fraction(coefficient) of energy that moves through a specific area in a certain amount of time. The equation is simple and pretty accurately descirbes how heat is transferred into a metal can to kill the bacteria in the food inside. It’s really difficult to apply in a system as complex as the atmosphere- the area(the can) changes size, shape, position and temperature continually for each little parcel of atmosphere. The climate models work on cells a couple hundred of kilometers in size. For accuracy the cells need to be centimeters or less, an impossible computation task. See Christopher Essex and Edward Lorenz.
logicalchemist,
No. Heat transfer has nothing to do with the way CO2 restricts the flow of heat from the atmosphere to space. This is an electrical effect, similar to the way a microwave oven heats objects containing dipole moments or induced dipole moments.
Don’t give any ammo to those who question the science here.
Motive, or the motives? Motives vary with people. There’s the core people who manufacture this scare and the climate activists, who are caught up, pushing it. Talking to them, I often get the impression it does not matter to them what’s true or false. All that counts, for them, is what I can be conned into believing. They are like scientologists, used car salespeople, or even, con men. Their motive is to get me to believe their tall tales.
Motive, or the motives?
Good question. The answer is there was no conspiracy, just groupthink and multiple motives.
For the environmentalists – a world wide emergency that united almost every NGO and gave them global prominence on the world stage while they fought to “save the planet”.
For the socialists – the ultimate “gotcha” against free market democracies they so hated and an ultimate “cause” for the social justice warrior.
For the UN – another chance at global governance and their long sought goal of a guaranteed income outside the control of sovereign governments.
For the scientists – grants and public prominence.
For the politicians – a new reason to tax.
For the wind and solar carpet baggers – subsidies, glorious fat subsidies!
For the media – it’s the end of the world. Again! (And this time it’s even better than CFCs).
Many different groups, many different motives. With so many so heavily invested, it is easy to see why this modern outbreak of Lysenkoism is so hard to end.
The only way to break the two party duopoly (AKA the Uni-Party games), is to make preferential voting non compulsory. A ballot with one or more candidates numbered should be considered a valid vote. There should be no rule that all candidates must be numbered.
I agree 100% with this. I never really believe in conspiracies because more than about a half dozen people can’t keep their mouths shut. But a conspiracy of self interest is another matter altogether. We live in a democracy. That is a conspiracy of self interest. We are more or less ( mostly less these days), a Capitalist economy. That is a conspiracy of self interest.
AGW is one of these, as described above by Wolf. The difference is that it benefits a minority and is therefore parasitic. That’s why it dovetails so nicely with these parasitic groups. Environmentalists, Socialists, Social Justice Warriors, phony climate scientists and a few others who consider themselves disenfranchised.
Money and power in our society usually accrue to those who do the most economically valuable things or make outsized contributions. These people want money and power without all that effort.
Were it only that petty. Truth has no value to them. They are miserable people who must punish those who they have fixed into their head are to blame, because they are miserable. As this does nothing lasting to alleviate their misery, they push all the harder.
Patrick,
From their perspective, truth has no value to you – you make up any excuse to deny it. And it’s because you’re selfish and don’t want to be responsible for the effects of Americans’ cushy, wasteful lives on the rest of the world.
I’m not saying this is my perspective, I’m saying there are different perspectives, and those that vilify, blame and despise are not constructive.
It’s time for everyone to stop playing the victim. It’s become a national pastime to blame all one’s troubles on Others.
@ur momisugly Kristi ..so you have finally figured out that we stand opposed in thought, very nice.
Kristi this obsession with CO2 which is a fundamental compound for all life and which the atmosphere certainly needs more of NOT LESS is already hitting the poor people all over the globe. People in England have actually froze to death because they had to turn the heating down cause they were on pensions that couldnt afford to pay for the sky high energy prices that the greenies have forced on everyone. The whole green revolution doesnt really work which Germany is finding out day by day as they give away energy when the wind blows strong and pay dearly when it doesnt blow. They then have to get their energy from Sweden’s hydroelectric dams. The Swedes dont actually charge the Germans enough because unbelievably they entered into agreements with Germany that actually raised the cost of power in Sweden. Even so the Germans and the Danes have the highest electricity prices in Europe caused by unconscionable subsidies to wind and solar. A couple of madmen climate scientists with computer models that have never been accurate in their 40 year history were able to spread theit alarmist madcap theory of global warming and by stealth it got into the mainstream and here are in the mess that we see today.
KS:
So, because I have a scientific disagreement based on methods, interpretation and conclusions regarding an issue under intense study, I somehow do not value truth, deny it and am selfish and don’t want to take responsibility for America’s impact on the rest of the world? All because I have questions about how our climate changes?
I realize that you said that is not your perspective; and, I suggest that the others that believe such need to allow the scientific method and inquiry to run its course because the freedom to disagree is the foundation of scientific debate as it is in all debates.
The difference Kristi, is that it is trivial to demonstrate that the things you accept as truth, aren’t.
To you, truth is whatever those you accept as experts have told you. You never test these “truths” for yourself.
Patrick,
“So, because I have a scientific disagreement based on methods, interpretation and conclusions regarding an issue under intense study, I somehow do not value truth, deny it and am selfish and don’t want to take responsibility for America’s impact on the rest of the world? All because I have questions about how our climate changes?
I realize that you said that is not your perspective; and, I suggest that the others that believe such need to allow the scientific method and inquiry to run its course because the freedom to disagree is the foundation of scientific debate as it is in all debates.”
Well of course there are your counterparts on the other side of the issue. You believe truth has no value to them, and they believe the same about you. Both sides think they know better than the other. They look at each other (from afar) and believe they know each other’s motives. Then the generalization comes: the counterpart is not an array of ideas and beliefs, it is a label and listing of attributes. Sometimes even people who comment here make generalizations about their own group that aren’t true, such as “no one denies climate is changing.”
I know the variation in skepticism and reasons for it far better than I know my own “side” because I don’t hang out with them. It is interesting how much variation there is. The common traits seem to be a belief that AGW is not a great risk, and policy to avert risk of climate change is wrong. The last is not clearly stated by all, but it seems to be understood – there is no argument. Nearly everyone seems to believe that the mainstream climate models are too uncertain and too wrong to be believable and that the field has been corrupted.
It is assumed that climate scientists have become so dominated by some other motive (fill in the blank) that their word is not trustworthy. This encompasses “mainstream,” “believer” AGW scientists, not the skeptics; it is the latter who dare to question, who have independent ideas and the courage to tell the world.
Many also make policy statements that meet no argument:
– moving toward renewables is immensely costly and a waste, and they resent paying for it through their taxes and electric bills
– it is immoral to force renewables on America or on third world countries, who need the cheap energy of coal.
This site is about science and about policy, and the two are all mixed together. It can lead to bias against science that clashes with policy goals. Of course, the bias is already there, proudly spreading ridicule of the Other and acting as venue for any article that casts doubt on “CAGW.” I imagine there are counterparts on the other side.
America is becoming ever more tribal, and that’s a terrible thing for national stability and security. If we are to remain a world leader, we must be united. We must discuss rather than demonize. We must pursue truth even if it doesn’t suit what we’d like. We must stop making assumptions about the MOTIVES of people we don’t know.
I don’t believe the climate science community wants climate change. I think the evidence for it has been so convincing that it is now accepted, and science is deep into the stage of studying how it works. The knowledge is not perfect, and there are significant areas of debate and uncertainty – but it’s pretty astounding how far the evidence-based knowledge has come, and continues to move forward. (If you ever get a chance to see a Science on a Sphere presentation, I recommend it. I visited my uncle at NOAA and got a private screening, and that was terrific, but I be the regular shows are even better. There’s a free desktop version, SOSEx, on the NOAA site.)
I can’t begin to understand the complex interactions of climate. I have to choose whom to trust. For many, many reasons I choose the trust the majority. I believe in the integrity of the climate science community as a whole. I also have reason to disbelieve some the arguments of the contrarian community and question the objectivity of some members…but I recognize it’s good to have those who disagree to raise questions and point out problems. It would be for more worrisome if all scientists agreed. The trouble is that many Americans think this disagreement amounts to significant scientific debate between ideas. Arguing for a good idea is constructive. Arguing against an idea by spreading rumors, distorting conclusions, innuendo and assumption is also constructive, but only from a political perspective. It is what science is meant to eliminate through proper practice. It is the enemy of science: it is bias.
Kristi Silber, your trust in “mainstream climate science” is misplaced, as if you would learn if you read the posts and commentary on this site for awhile. You have fallen into a common fallacy of “appeal to authority”, which is contrary to actual science.
MarkW,
You have always had the idea that you know me. Is this true? Do you recognize my name, and know me in the real world? No, that’s impossible, or you wouldn’t say such erroneous things about me.
If it’s so trivial to demonstrate that the truths I believe are wrong, why hasn’t it been done? I consider what is presented here. Sometimes there are interesting ideas, and I pursue them. Sometimes there is evidence based on poor methods or false assumptions. Even if the science isn’t great, many have been informative anyway, and I am often spurred to learn on my own. However, others start with a desire to poke a hole in the ideas or models to show they are BS, which is a very poor motive for research, liable to lead to logical errors. Find a hole, fine, report it, by all means! Don’t make your own. Natural variation, for example, is such an obvious idea that it’s phenomenal to me people think scientists are stupid enough to deny it, or forgot to study its past and recent impact. That is an imaginary “hole” in AGW science reasoning, an illusion created by those who wish to deface and damage the opposition. “It’s the sun, stupid!”
Ton Halla,
“Kristi Silber, your trust in “mainstream climate science” is misplaced, as if you would learn if you read the posts and commentary on this site for awhile.”
Oh, but I have! And I’ve followed up on the claims. I’ve found them weak or wrong, for the most part. I’ve found distortion and assumption and error and lack of logic. The other thing you have to keep in mind is that this site is not going to supply a balanced picture of mainstream climate science, but is more likely to report the oddities and what are perceived as errors.
“You have fallen into a common fallacy of “appeal to authority”, which is contrary to actual science.”
And you have fallen for the common fallacy of believing others must think as they do because they (fill in the blank). It saves you from considering whether I might have reason to believe what I do.
Those who practice skepticism must apply it to all assertions equally, or it turns into bias. When faced with the idea of tuning being used to adjust model outcomes, I questioned my assumptions, so I learned more about tuning and how it is applied. When the idea arose that people tuned to the same time frame against which they validated their models, I looked into that. The major areas of uncertainty and problems in the models are well-known, discussed and debated – they are not hidden. Scientists critique the work of others within the “mainstream” community as well as outside it (recently Hansen et al. said the models were all biased in their treatment of polar meltwater and oceanic currents, for example) Because I see integrity expressed through the scientific literature, I have no reason to doubt that it extends into the research behind it, nor has anyone here or elsewhere given me good reason to doubt it – only poor ones. I have no faith in Ball’s objectivity at all because I’ve seen how misleadingly he interpreted the “climategate” emails. From stealing them to cherry-picking to distorting their meaning, it was a truly reprehensible campaign to defame science. I’ve looked into that, too. What’s most abominable is that no amount of independent investigation would suffice to convince some people there wasn’t misconduct, so attached are they to their belief in corruption.
She wouldn’t say that if this site prioritized its best basic threadsits top 100, say—as a “category” and then contained a suggestion in its heading that newcomers and media people read those first. This would not involve a lot of effort. A group of volunteer old-timers here could nominate their favorites and then whittle the list down, after which those threads would have a “Begin Here” category added.
if new visitors just skim through the torrent of daily threads here many of them are likely to be put off or unimpressed, as KS has been.
I’ve been suggestion this for years along with other simple and obvious site-fixes, so it’s likely that nothing will be done. There seems to be a lack of awareness at the top (i.e., Anthony) about how to “market” our skepticism, and how our site is unfriendly to non-regulars.
“Once you label me you negate me” Soren Kierkegaard
Clearly, we have past so many “tipping points” that surely we are ALL GONNA DIE. What is the point of trying to stop the inevitable ?
In the last couple of decades, we have passed so many tripping points, that I can’t understand why anyone cares anymore. It’s obvious that we are past the point where anyone can do anything about anything.
Figures 1 and 2 indicate that the public is not concerned with the issue. This is a victory for skepticism.
Lincoln also said “You can fool some of the people all the time.” I think that applies to the liberal snowflakes who don’t understand science and tend to get emotionally involved with what they think to be true.
As opposed to regular net neutrality …
As far as I can tell, net neutrality is roughly the same as common carrier, basically a level playing field.
Net Neutrality was a scheme to to redistribute costs of high-bandwidth applications and operations to non-subscribers a la “shared responsibility” of Obamacare and other monopoly-oriented regimes.
No, it passed to help big data…. There is often a need to prioritize data, the simplest example is voice traffic….Netflix can wait 1/10 of a second for the data to start buffering, as long as the overall speed of data is greater than watching, you will only have the first 1/10 second delay. A phone conversation starts to become difficult with 1/10 second delay, especially if different packets get postponed. Its attempt to push network costs down to the carriers and off companies like netflix, google and facebook. It also makes it impossible for carriers to collect data to compete with facebook..
I encourage Dr Ball in his battles with the watermelons and the rent-seekers. I grew up to think of science as a field where the motivations of its practitioners were ethical. Fifty years later my naivete has given way to extreme skepticism, not only of climate “science” but of science in general. Apparently the results published in up to 80% of scientific papers cannot be replicated. That alone tells the story.
Agreed. It appears that we have far too many “scientists” who can’t metaphorically ( or experimentally) tie their own shoelaces. As a fan of science it is extremely disappointing.
Claiming “conspiracy theory” is always the last ditch effort of the AGW crowd to shut down discussion. We should be using “conspiracy theory” ourselves up front to counter the AGW claims.
AGW is just a Weapon of Mass Distraction.
Dr. Ball
not to undermine you, but figure 2 of your examples has been a favourite of mine for some time now.
And as a layman, I’m inclined to disagree with you about the holding pattern of the layman. In my experience, most laymen have an opinion on climate change, one way or the other. One is informed by the media, the other informed by an inherent suspicion of the media.
Whilst we laymen are largely ignorant of science, we’re not entirely daft. Most of us older codgers remember what a Periodic table is from secondary school Chemistry classes. Chemistry was a mystery to me, other than having to recite the table.
Physics seemed more logical to me, until it included too much maths, at which I was also crap. So I engaged in Applied Mechanics, and discovered the lever was central to humanities existence.
Forget everything else, without a lever, man couldn’t pick his nose, make breakfast, or build a bridge.
The solution to conveying the climate change truth to the public is KISS (God how I hate that abbreviation) Keep It Simple Stupid. Never mind the science, or the politics. there must be some simple, and understandable mantra’s the media can grasp (they are the simpletons, not the layman) e.g.
– CO2 and temperature have never been lower in the planets existent that it is now without descending into an ice age.
– 80% of the planets existence has been without polar ice caps.
– Plants meaningful to humanity die at 150 ppm atmospheric CO2, we are only 250 ppm away from extinction.
– Submariners thrive on 6,000 ppm CO2.
– The planet has greened by 14% in the last 30 years.
Etc. etc. etc…………….
Voters don’t vote on science, they vote on convincing ideas.
When the influencers of the sceptical community grasp the concept that the layman understands sound bites, not science, we will be home free. And laymen, in this context, includes the media.
Providing those sound bites are based on sound science, the jobs done, because the media don’t do science, that’s why sceptics are easy to refute.
The alarmists grasped the concept of sound bites long ago. That’s why sceptics have such an uphill struggle. And as the last generation or two of kids don’t know what a Periodic table is, never mind recite it, why the hell are we banging on about science to them, they don’t get it.
If we continue to bang on about science, we impress a dwindling few scientists relative to the planets population, rather than doing as the alarmist’s do, go for the jugular and impress 97% of the planets layman population with sound bites.
Forget battling loony science with science, it just won’t work when most of the population don’t understand science in the first place, loony or otherwise.
So give them sound bites and stories they can all remember, recite, and win an argument in a pub with, even with circular reasoning. The alarmist’s do it all the time, why not us?
I wonder if the noble art of media was based on the ancient art of PUBlishing? In other words, a gossip over a beer. As opposed to the ignoble destruction of trees, turned into paper, for propaganda purposes.
To that end, I highly recommend the book Inconvenient Facts, by Gregory Wrightstone, which came out last year. It pokes 60 holes in the Warmists’ arguments, beginning with the fact that CO2 is not the primary greenhouse gas and ending with most of Antartica is cooling and gaining ice mass. Written for the layman. By the end, a rusty sieve would hold more water than Warmist ideology.
+100
HotScot, you hit the nail on the head. Sound bites and simple, accurate statements highlighting some easy-to-understand, common sense stuff are what we need to get the message across. The “substance” is on our side but we fall down on the marketing – the other side has ALWAYS been good at marketing their BS and have decades of practice on their side.
An interesting summation, I think. It always seems to be that the U.S. is the main battle ground for these ideas and that legal aspects always come to play a part.
I wonder why U.S. media entities can’t be taken to court for not providing a perspective on the sceptic arguments. If an assemblage of relevant papers is put together that refute the Warmist arguments, wouldn’t it be possible to challenge the outright neglect and dismissal of a contrary scientific viewpoint? I want to see a PBS special titled, “The Warming That Never Was”!
The only place where there is a legal obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; is on the stand when you are under oath.
“Government information comes in two major ways, bureaucrats, and politicians.”
In Australia the main source of government information is the government media machine, ie the ABC and SBS. Taxpayers give them $1.3 billion (and rising) each year so they can tell us what to think.
Unless more people, especially skeptics understand the motive and speak out, it may be another 28 years.
The motive is, and always has been, power. Early humans were organized in small tribes led by a chieftain, invariably the strongest warrior and best fighter. The tribe turned to him for food and protection. But that didn’t mean the chieftain was smart. So what was the smartest person in the tribe to do when the chieftain wanted to do something completely stupid? Telling him he was stupid was a good way to become dead. Thus was born the shaman, who could interpret the sounds of thunder or omens, could read chicken entrails or scatter some bones on the ground and tell others what the gods were saying. By proclaiming their opinions as coming from unseen gods, the shaman could influence the tribe without being in direct confrontation with the chief.
Power corrupts. So shamans have been threatening the rest of us with the wrath of unseen gods that only they can understand. Let’s rephrase that. Climate scientists have been threatening us with the wrath of science that only they can understand. Its been going on for centuries, 28 years at best will just replace one kind of magic with another.
With apologies to Arthur C. Clarke, we now live in a world where any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from science.
Brilliant!
I see a somewhat similar picture, but I would offer that the western people finally learned that they needed to respect the shaman/mystics to the point where those personages gained respect. Whereas, for example, in Africa the strong man always ruled even to this day. That meant that the shaman often was the first one to go when things went south. Thus their intellectual growth was stunted, imo.
Great last line!
Computer models analyzing systems that are fundamentally chaotic and deriving accurate projections constitute an impossibility. This is the “sufficiently advanced magic” that the shamen ( is that a word) have tapped.
I don’t see why it’s difficult at all……they have never made a prediction that came true
The Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change campaign has the conventional secular motives: capital, control, and social progress.
Urban Heat Island effect overprinting Natural Variability = Myth of Human-induced ‘climate-change’.
“Many know that the switch of terminology from “Global warming’ to “Climate change” was done for a reason, but they don’t know why.”
“disproves the claim of anthropogenic global warming”
This sort of rubbish is the tip of the conspiratorial denialism iceberg that Watts promotes here. Shame on you.
[??? .mod]
Someone saying something you disagree with is a conspiracy?
Interesting. Have you always been this paranoid?
Regardless, why then did your side drop the term Global Warming?
“Regardless, why then did your side drop the term Global Warming?”
It confused folks like you who don’t know that global warming is in reality an average trend, with plenty of regional and temporal variability. “Climate change” encompasses that variation as well as other weather parameters such as precipitation, and ideally makes it easier for the public to understand.
Do you see now, Mark? It’s not so hard, really.
Zazove’s just a bit disturbed that CAGW’s been a total no-show. Not even getting our ankles wet. But over-run with surplus penguins and polar bears. And the plants are loving it. As are all the very well fed Apex preditors of Earth. But poor Zazove though, mooing like a cow, sounding-out like a hollow man. All the petty misanthropy not working out for you?
“Zazove’s just a bit disturbed that CAGW’s been a total no-show”
Tell that to South Floridians, Californians or Africans.
Have you ever looked for evidence, or are you assuming it’s not there because you don’t know about it? Has the whole idea of evidence been so tainted by the idea of corrupt science that you can’t believe what’s there?
Quick reminder- Zazove posted crap from a press release recently, accusing an author of cherry picking. When my fellow Courtney asked for a link to actual paper, zazy admitted to posting from the press release, had no idea how to find the paper. Zazy has all the signals of a paid tr0ll.
Dr. Ball,
You wrote “Witness the ignorance displayed by Catherine McKenna, Canada’s Environment Minister. I am painfully and expensively aware of how little lawyers know about climate science. However, I am also aware that McKenna, as a lawyer, should know better than most that there are two sides to every issue.”
My experience with lawyers is, they are not interested in the truth. They only want to represent their clients interests. In this case, McKenna is protecting Liberal party policy.
She is only a puppet. In the Canadian political system if the governing party has a majority the Prime Minister becomes the defacto dictator for 5 years. The only pushback is a weak Senate and some provincial premiers and eventually the media if and when they turn against the prime minister. So until /unless that happens the the PMO rules over all the cabinet ministers outside of cabinet meetings and the PM is the dictator inside cabinet meetings. Of course the press has to fall for the obligatory quotes from the cabinet ministers cause who else are they gonna get to talk to them? The bureaucracy is forbidden to talk to the press. The cabinet ministers are told what to say by the PMO office who work for the PM. The whole system can change if the party loses the next election but in the whole history of Canadian federal politics there have been only 3 parties that have formed the government with the Liberals taking it 60% of the time and the Conservatives taking it 38% of the time. There was a union of former conservatives and liberals that gained power from 1917 to 1921. That was the only exception to the 2 party rule in Canada even though there have been many fringe parties over the years. So the US system is much more democratic than the (Canadian one which borrows its politics from the UK.)
When I was doing a module in Science with the Open University I listened to a tape by Richard Feynman where he criticized the use of simple analogies in understanding complex processes , the Open University should be subsidized again as it was when I took these modules, while simple analogies may help those who don’t understand the science it can lead to errors in understanding the issue. I don’t think that climate scientists use simple analogies like “heat engines” for example today because we would not understand the complexity it is because their computer models don’t understand anything but simple analogies.