Heartland’s Donald Kendal and Jim Lakely are joined by Isaac Orr in episode #204 of the In The Tank Podcast. This episode features work from Nature Communications, the Cato Institute, and the Goldwater Institute.
Heartland’s Donald Kendal and Jim Lakely are joined by Isaac Orr in episode #204 of the In The Tank Podcast. This weekly podcast features (as always) interviews, debates, and roundtable discussions that explore the work of think tanks across the country. This episode features work from Nature Communications, the Cato Institute, and the Goldwater Institute.
BLACKLISTING CLIMATE SKEPTICS
Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians
The paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4
Interesting talk show, added that page to my favorites.
Thanks Anthony
Yours Truly
Marcus In The Dog House…. Still : ) lol
Unless there’s a transcript, this is not of interest to me. I am an old dinosaur who actually reads and without closed-captioning or a transcript, such things are useless to me.
I stand with Sheri on this. I don’t have the time to listen to pod-casts, which bundle in all the author’s self-promotions, shtick, & vanities, along with a too-long intro, a handful of over-done graphics, and other such smarminess … which when transmitted across the less reliable portions of the internet never seem to be quite worth the wait.
Please just give us the facts, in plain text.
“I don’t have the time to listen to pod-casts, ”
You can speed up YouTube videos by clicking on the gear-wheel, then clicking on tSpeed in the drop-down list.
I’m with you on the transcript Sheri. Everyone is looking at it as a simple blacklist. The left has posted stuff to inflict violence on opponents. I think this has a threatening quality to it. The ‘study’ is so flawed that it has to have another purpose.
A lot of dedicated néomarxiste and crony moneybag friends stand to lose a lot and they are beginning to feel the end of their goodtimes. There has already been ‘scholarly’ calls for Nuremburg type trials for sceptics and worse and plenty of individual threats to sceptics GOP lawmakers, etc. Even Nature sees and end to the cash gorge.
Sheri
August 17, 2019 at 7:58 am
Yes, quite agree Sheri, I too haven’t the time to wade through an hour of chat for a few gems. A transcript on the other hand might be interesting and useful…but maybe one is not available.
and I am another, if I am on the pc to find news info etc I am NOT going to be listening to something at the same time. not everyone has their phone set to the net, either, I sure wont.
transcripts are my preferred option that way if its good i can print n save or email it around.
😉
Add me to the list of those not looking to watch a bunch of Podcasts. Although it has as much to do with limited bandwidth out here in the boonies as it does not having time to watch 20 min to an hour talkshow equivalents.
Scott Adam’s blog used to be a regular stop for me. Once he went over to podcasting (periscope I think) it just wasn’t the same. One of the best parts of his blog was the lively comments section, just like here at WUWT. When Scott went video that section dried up and died… and now it doesn’t even look like he HAS comments.
Talking Heads, and no way to respond. A one way ‘Conversation’ that only a Climate Communicator would think is anything but Old Media.
~¿~
Sorry, folks. We’re not able to provide transcripts. It’s a conversation about this garbage study. If you want to read about it this issue, Anthony has done a lot of great posts.
Heartland is in the business of offering different products for different audiences — white papers, op-eds, blog posts, events, graphics, videos, posts on social media (Facebook/Twitter/Instagram), and (yes) podcasts. Heartland is a leader among think tanks in podcast production, and we’re on pace to have our family of podcasts downloaded about 4.5 million times in 2019. So, if it’s not your thing that’s fine. We’re all looking to get this information out to as many audiences as possible. In this case, a “general” audience that likes listening to podcasts — a free-wheeling conversation on policy — during on their commute.
Cheers!
Jim Lakely
Director of Communications, The Heartland Institute
Executive Producer, Heartland Daily Podcasts
Good grief!
What rambling nonsense in that paper. But it shows that outside skepticism is at last getting through to the “inside” promoters of authoritarian “science”.
In scanning through, parts seemed familiar. Indeed, Stanley Jevons in the 1860s was one of England’s leading economists and public intellectuals. The 1860s was another period of soaring prices and commodity shortages. Prompting financial, social, and political distress. A time when intellectuals can also become distressed, and Jevons had a personal vision of the civilized world running out of coal.
With lengthy`and detailed calculations he “proved” that his universe would run out of coal. Today, we would call it “Peak Coal”, but he published a book “The Coal Question”. Some quotes are worth noting:
‘With coal almost any feat is possible or easy. Without it we are thrown back into the laborous poverty of early times.”
“No chemical or mechanical operations, perhaps, is quite impossible to us….[without coal].”
And he flatters his readers with:
“This is a question of almost religious importance which needs the separate study of every intelligent person.”
The article in Nature.com includes:
“Understanding Earth’s coupled human-environmental systems requires broad and deep knowledge of processes occurring across a range of scales–from microscopic chemical processes to macroscopic thermodynamic flows and human consumption and land-use trends that span the entire global system.”
“Indeed, communicating authoritative information about the risks of inaction is crucial for achieving global action. Yet, sending uniform and authoritative messages is challenging for various reasons. One reason is the CC [Climate Change] communication often requires strategically paring down this wicked problem for non-expert audiences.”
There is more that 150 years between the two “discoveries” prompted by intellectual hysteria, but the similarities of personal dread and promotions by control freaks never change.
In 2008, I published “Intellectual Hysteria” and it can be Googled.
rambling nonsense in the podcast. So far about 2mins of guff , silly voice and NO information. I’m out.
Sheesh, Greg. Give it more than two minutes. We start getting into the meat of the study at the 3-minute mark. Isaac Orr jumps in after the set-up at the 6-minute mark, and I start to contribute at the 7:50 mark.
If podcasts are not your thing, fine, but that’s a pretty quick dismissal. Unlike Heartland’s Environment & Climate News Podcast — which is targeted at people who are really into the topic — our “In the Tank” podcast is aimed at a more general audience. It’s the third-most-popular podcast Heartland produces, and our six podcast shows have been downloaded 4 million times in the last 12 months. So a lot of people are listening, and enjoying them.
Cheers!
Jim Lakely
Director of Communications, The Heartland Institute
Executive Producer, Heartland Daily Podcasts
A great deal of the Old Testament is the prediction of disasters that will wipe out the Israelites if they do not change their ways – seems the end of the world might be a building block of Judeo-christian culture. As a human propensity, it can be found all over the world, I suspect: propitiate the Gods or you will die a horrible death. The term ‘intellectual hysteria’ covers the expression of castastrophizing for one group, where the problem is cloaked in science rather than religion. Once personal moral obligations (eg, recycling, going vegetarian or organic, killing a fatted calf or your firstborn, buying an electric car, and so on) are added to reduce anxiety, the intellectually described catastrophy becomes functionally a religion. Logical arguments cannot get through. AOC regards herself as a saviour in the religious sense, and preaching salvation alleviates her anxiety. Bernie Sander’s carefully calculated message of caring for the people seems, on the other hand, just a bid for power to make the world in the image of his religion – a communal wonderful warm fuzzy world where everyone is loved.
Bob Hoye–great points, anyone, climate science educated or not, should realize the problem. My generation was taught about the previous science scandals, is that done now? Good grief!
I have been on the case of Sigma Xi who has joined with AAAS in their advocacy role. This came from the current president about an upcoming meeting. https://www.sigmaxi.org/news/article/2019/08/05/from-the-president-a-call-to-action
“ With these changes comes an urgency to find solutions to ameliorate the impact of the rising temperatures that are causing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and the alteration of plant and animal habitats…….. A Life and Health track will address how we will be affected and how we will respond. Interwoven into these three tracks are discussions of the political, economic, and societal issues that arise when seeking solutions to environmental challenges. Three additional tracks will focus on STEM professional development, science communication, and research ethics. ” ( I would ask what about precision and accuracy?)
This may be well-meaning, innocent, and with a certain amount of importance. What they do not realize is that they are straying into areas of which they know not what they are getting into. Any science administrator, have done just enough to know, who has to deal with “political, economic, and societal issues” is not only getting into areas beyond their understanding, but outside of their purview, that is if they are to maintain their credibility.
There are frequent calls for curricula that are relevant to employment, and some have been around for a long time. However, the primary basis for education is to learn to think, reason, logic, etc. and have as educators a broad arena of disciplines dedicated to ‘real knowledge,’ whether currently important or not. Universities too often hire on other abilities more immediately thought relevant. The skew which I have seen results in the loss of those in now less practical areas of biology, as one example classical parasitology, formerly extremely essential. It still is for ‘real knowledge’ and might be for survival again.
On starting to read the Nature article, I was surprised to see that they were actually referring to the Doran/Zimmerman study in 2009 to “prove” that “an anthropogenic cause is supported by an overwhelming majority of climate change scientists”……
I thought that old chestnut had been debunked a long while ago — so who are they still trying to convince?
Even Catherine Zimmerman expressed her reservations about her study afterwards.
The nature article is pretty ridiculous when you consider that the old media have been banging the climate alarmism drum for decades without allowing even one single gram of dissent. It seems to me that the alarmists have to come up with an explanation as to why they are losing the argument. It can’t possibly be that they are wrong, so there has to be some other explanation, there just has to be.
Thought a little bit of humor might help.
https://imgur.com/a/PuSC0gz
Idiot. The article is all about the media allowing more dissent than facts. If over 99% of scientists agree on climate change than why should 2 out of 3 climate panelists ever be deniers?
. . . why should 2 out of 3 climate panelists ever be deniers?
Well, let’s start here as our first example:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/23/oreskes-harvard-and-the-destruction-of-scientific-revolutions/
Look in the mirror Bob.
Where does the energy from one day’s worth of a hurricane originate when these two FACTS are compared?
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.html
https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/data/browser/#/?pa=004000001000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000fu&c=4100000002000060000000000000g000200000000000000001&vs=INTL.44-1-AFRC-QBTU.A&vo=0&v=H&start=1980&end=2016
******
As a PS or an FYI: you will have to do your own math to make these equivalent. If you do not know how to do that perhaps you should educate yourself and not allow yourself to fall victim to expert confirmation bias and the “The Wizard’s 1st”. Again look in the mirror before you call anybody an “Idiot”.
The Wizard’s 1st: sure it is fiction but it applies here. Chapter 36, p.560, U.S. paperback edition; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizard%27s_First_Rule — it is in essence warning people about expert confirmation bias; things Feynman, Einstein, and Eisenhower also gave us warnings. It is sad that you have allowed yourself to be a victim of manipulation.
Dissention can be a factual; your feelings and beliefs in the matter mean nothing to the universe as the universe is not even aware of your existence. Statistical processing of noisy or woefully incomplete data only leads to crap in and crap out. As an example, my condo’s HOA average age is 41 years. However the distribution is non-Gaussian. When plotted on an x-y scatter plot it is a dumb-bell distribution. If you cannot visualize this in your mind’s eye; look in the mirror. Most everybody here will know exactly what I mean.
Most of us here actually do high science or high engineering. Myself I have done internships at a National Lab; just finished a 12 year employment cycle working with Particle Accelerators(Cyclotrons), MALDI-TOF, Pharmaceutical design/validation/MQ/Commissioning and, various other analytical techniques.
Just so you are aware keeping a Cyclotron healthy, in an operational sense, is managing the thermal cycling of the various parts: RF, DEES, Ion source, the magnet. It is requires a fundamental understanding of thermodynamics and the work function of the materials, etc. In short no system in the cyclotron sits in vacuum (cyclotron pun); if one system starts to degrade it pulls every other system down.
Climate Change is not about belief. Climate Changes. Full Stop. Period. However, humans have very little to do with any of those changes. Furthermore, the interrogatory, “Do you believe in Climate Change?”, is a non-scientific question perhaps even a full blown anti-scientific question and has a built-in preconceived bias. Even if we are changing the global climate(we’re not) we would NOT even be the first B.E. to have do so. This is NOT mutually exclusive from being a good steward of the environment.
well stuffed if I have seen ANY media at all or heard it in the last few yrs allowing ANY dissent at all to be seen or heard!!!!
the funny thing is when I quiz the agw believers on the names and reports thjey state they believe and trust implicitly they dont even KNOW the names like Mann , a few Aussies might know flannery due to high press coverage ongoing as he s one of us.
they have total trust the mediated talking heads are honest and have no agenda..advertising incomes dont seem to occur to them.
it really IS scary how utterly uninformed and unwilling to even read reports in full or part, majority of people are
Well, any comment from any contrarian/skeptic org should be dismissed and ignored. https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=media+study+contrarians+time&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 And most of them should hope that they die before the public fully understands the depth and breadth of their many devious and dishonest efforts that have resulted in the undesirable and unnecessary protraction of remedial efforts/inaction that will leave much human misery and blood on their greedy hands going forward. Probably far more so than with Hitler and the Jews or us and the North American native populations. They are all liars in fact and by omission and will likely be literally tarred and feathered one day should they live long enough. In the meantime, and despite the disparity they’ve long enjoyed in undeserved coverage they’ve garnered through dishonest means, they can watch their numbers dwindle and the public’s acceptance of the science and disgust for them grow in tandem.
@jim
That is not how science or progress within science works. This is, however, how totalitarian regimes and police states work. They silence all dissent. Generally, violently and malevolently.
There are scientific debates that have been raging for centuries. Even this one.
Accepted consensus science has a poor track record:
circa 1974 Global Cooling lead to Global Warming lead to Climate Change lead to Climate disruption.
Eggs good; Eggs bad; no only the yolks;
circa 1895 Physics is a dead science there are no more important questions to answer.
I am going to point you to my comment two post yours and what I said to Bob applies you as well.
I can tell you 1st hand that when I was in London in 2017 I was both shocked and appalled at the systemic and systematic manipulation by the local media and government on “renewable” energy sources. No debate at all just a complete surrendering of freedoms and rights.
Just FYI the wind is caused by differential temperature gradients (the gradients themselves have many input vectors) in the atmosphere largely driven by the Sun. While it took roughly 8 minutes for that heat, quanta or photon, to reach Earth. It took nearly a million years for the photon to reach the Sun’s surface. Reaching Earth and transferring its energy is the end of that photon’s life and to never exist again. It isn’t even close to being renewable.
Jim August 18, 2019 at 2:58 pm
Well, any comment from any contrarian/skeptic org should be dismissed and ignored – how you already practice with fingers in the ears “la-la-I can’t hear you.”
And most of them should hope that they die before seeing anonymous Jim August 18, 2019 at 2:58 pm, taking the fingers out of his ears to lick them.