Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Dr. Willie Soon, Marc Morano; According to Vice, the work of John Christy and eight other industry funded climate denier scientist holdouts is all that stands in the path of global climate action.
You could interpret the Vice article as an unscrupulous attempt to paint a big target on the backs of the named scientists for any murderous green crazies out there, but I’m sure that wasn’t Vice’s intention.
The Last of the Climate Deniers Hold On, Despite Your Protests
Propped by an industry-funded network, demanded by the Trump administration, the last vestiges of climate deniers in academia linger as millennials protest inaction.
By Dan Schwartz Nov 19 2019, 1:15am
Late in the summer of 1989, John Christy discovered the earth wasn’t warming. Satellites spinning through the atmosphere reported no upward trend line, and above the tropics, the University of Alabama atmospheric sciences professor and his research partner, the NASA scientist Roy Spencer, learned that the satellites had actually recorded cooling. The two men were the first to crunch the enormous volume of data captured by the satellites since their launch a decade earlier, the first to build a database that showed the surface readings depicting a warming earth were overblown. They were pioneers. They submitted a paper to Science magazine, and in March the following year, they became celebrities. NPR called. The Los Angeles Times called. Jay Leno made a joke about it on national TV.
Such attention today would not faze Christy. He’s testified numerous times before federal lawmakers. He has done so many interviews with reporters that he’s begun repeating himself. This year he began advising the director of the Environmental Protection Agency. He is now so widely seen as an obstacle to climate action that on Earth Day week in 2017, late at night, seven 5.7 mm rounds snapped through the office window next to his. The FBI told him the shooter had likely mistaken his neighbor’s office for his. But in the spring of 1990, Christy was in his late 30s, without tenure and surprised, suddenly, by the attention. “It was the first time I had gone through something like that,” he said.
…
Global warming threatens every living thing on earth, but cutting the pollution that causes it threatens the profits of enough executives, the climate researcher Richard Heede told the Guardian, to fit on a couple of Greyhound buses. Some of those—though not all of them—decided money was more important, and to protect their money they invested in a network of free-market think tanks and advocacy groups to manufacture celebrities of academia like Christy. These were academics who, crucially, already believed the climate crisis was no crisis at all, academics so ideologically aligned with the free-market values of the polluters that they couldn’t be bothered with the damning data signaling a crisis. These academics were true believers.
…
Though Christy has the credentials to talk the climate talk, he’s backed himself into a corner, shoulder to shoulder with eight other professors who sound a lot like climate deniers. This scrum of academics can be broken into two categories: those who are credentialed to have opinions about the atmosphere, like Christy, and those who aren’t.
…
These think tanks and advocacy groups became brokers for a community of mostly older white male scientists and economists who all doubted the looming climate crisis. As the country considered the binding international treaty to cut carbon emissions in the late 90s and early 2000s, this network blasted the voices of these men into the nation’s dialogue. Without their work, says Jerry Taylor, the president of the Niskanen Center, a libertarian think tank, lawmakers couldn’t support inaction. Taylor is skeptical of the skeptics today, but he once fought with them against action and knows the landscape well. “It’s not all that complicated,” he said. “There is a political demand for climate skepticism out of the academic community,” and by signaling it, lesser-known researchers can gain visibility and get private grants.
…
Read more: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wjwawq/the-last-of-the-climate-deniers-hold-on-despite-your-protests-v26n4
The other academics named in the article are David Legates, David Deming, Tony Lupo, Gerard Caneba, Larry Bell, Steven Hayward, Thomas Rustici and Scott Armstrong.
To reiterate: you could interpret the Vice article as an unscrupulous attempt to paint a big target on the backs of the named scientists for any murderous green crazies out there, but I’m sure that wasn’t Vice’s intention.
Wrong. Our Corporate Solicitor a few years ago was out of his office when the hole appeared in the window. I saw it soon after. He and our mutual employer were mining uranium for peaceful use. Geoff S
Denial of climate unworthy of climate? Perhaps an inference with liberal license. A color or global judgment and label, too. A pretense of a model of climate.
The only Steven Hayward I know of is a political theorist who teaches at UC Berkley. Despite that he really is quite conservative, but he is not a scientist, nor has he ever claimed to be one.
If the rest of that article is that god, it is total garbage.
So what they are really saying is they are too stupid to overcome a handful of climate scientists who disagree with them, in spite of government, internet and the Pope being on their side?
Vice was created by boomers who think they know what millennials want.
What is “denial of climate”? They’ve never defined that, so it is a non-sequitur. It is gobbledygook and buzz words that mean nothing.
Climate is long term. Weather is short term. Ten years of a trend is NOT a climate change, it is weather reports. 150 years of a trend IS a climate change. These silly people don’t seem to know the difference and whatever it is they think they know, it’s mostly baloney.
Corrupting the meaning of a term or a word to suit yourself is a really really bad idea. I do, however, have a feeling that they will regret what they’ve done, in the end… substantially regret it, especially when they have to shovel all that “climate” off their roofs and front steps, and get a sump pump or two to keep water out of the basement.
If carbon is a pollutant, what diseases does it cause?
Carbon Snuffleupagus?
In the old regime it cause asthma the wonder, all-purpose, excuse disease
Dan Schwartz, the author of that scandal-mongering polemic, contacted me twice by email for an interview.
I checked his bio and credentials. He came across as an eco-sentimentalist rather than a reporter and his work as advocacy rather than as journalism.
So, I agreed to an interview on the grounds I get complete editorial control of what he wrote about me.
Dan refused those conditions and the interview never happened. I see now that my perception of him was right.
Dan produced a hit-job and is unable or unwilling to write honestly.
John Christy is pretty open about who he will let interview him. I’m not, after a few bad experiences. The media will make you look bad if they are intent on it.
Roy,
About 30 years ago I was interviewed a number of times by the press. The topics were personal computers and gun control. The ‘reporters’ did such a poor job that I’m certain I did not utter the words they attributed to me. One occasion was particularly memorable. I was being interviewed by a local TV station. The reporter asked me a question about the efficacy of waiting periods for reducing gun violence. I started to tell her that when California tripled its waiting period from 5 days to 15 days, the justifiable homicide rate dropped in half. Before I could finish, she turned to the cameraman, and pulled her index finger across her throat. I never had the opportunity to get the facts out. I have been loath to be interviewed ever since.
A co-worker of mine was once interviewed (a man-on the street type interview) by the local news about a then recently proposed tax policy. She gave a detailed fact-filled response as to why she thought it was a bad policy. What aired was a cherry-picked 5-second sound bite that made it look like she supported the policy.
Pat Frank said:
“So, I agreed to an interview on the grounds I get complete editorial control of what he wrote about me.
Dan refused those conditions and the interview never happened. I see now that my perception of him was right.”
That’s not an interview. That’s you making a statement.
Do you really believe that him not agreeing to give you complete editorial control of what he wrote about you confirms that your perception of him was right?
Philip, “Do you really believe that him not agreeing to give you complete editorial control of what he wrote about you confirms that your perception of him was right?”
No, Philip.
The fact that he wrote a hit-piece confirms that my perception of him was right.
A perception, I add, developed after looking at his bio and examples of his writings. Which was specified in my post, but which you apparently overlooked.
Why give ” vice ” this publicity ?
Academics John Christy, David Legates, David Deming, Tony Lupo, Gerard Caneba, Larry Bell, Steven Hayward, Thomas Rustici and Scott Armstrong are on the Honour Roll of Climate Realists. The Vice article is an unscrupulous attempt to paint a target on the these great scientists for the benefit of any murderous green loonies about.
A 5.7 mm can’t bring down a satellite or the truth from the satellite and probably not change the mathematics of all the calculations. It was designed for intimidation of the satellites, the truth, and the mathematics.
“Without their work”, says Jerry Taylor, the president of the Niskanen Center, a libertarian think tank, “lawmakers couldn’t support inaction.”
It’s not just nine AGW skeptics which enable “lawmakers to support inaction.” Lawmakers have to worry about being re-elected, and those who live in districts or states where voters need cars to get to work, and need oil or gas to heat their homes and plow snow might have trouble convincing their voters to spend trillions of dollars to regress into the 19th century in order to (supposedly) make the weather a smidgen cooler. People who have seen decades of the same old weather year after year don’t really want to triple their taxes and utility bills to try to change it.
I’m pretty sure it was Vice’s intention.
The ugliness hidden in plain site is that the New World Order boffins supporting Climate Crisis stuff as a way to segue into a neo-left тотаliтагуаи destruction of free enterprise are… a bunch of ‘old white males’! They also invented the diversity perversity and invented a dozen genders to people it.
The actual creators, leaders and lieutenants of this diabolical activism are … ‘old white males’. They don’t have very pleasant plans for Third World peoples, poor white folk, other non white folk for all their rants about global warming going to hurt the poor and disadvantaged. This whole schmear is really a battle between a little David of ‘old white males’ who value truth, science and fair play for all and a giant Goliath of neocolonial malefactor ‘old white males’ who call themselves “progressives” like the North Korea’s use of ‘Democratic’ in their country’s name.
The Bill McKibbons, Michael Manns, Levendowskis, authors of the Vices and the phalanx of green NGOs are ‘temporary help’ and not actually welcome in the ranks of “progressives” (they would discover) when their job is done. The NWOs dont care about CO2 or the environment. Vlad Lenin had a term for these helpers.
Vice claims that Fred Singer “in 1991, planted the seed of uncertainty.”
The first claims of possibly dangerous human caused global warming did not appear until the early 1980s (as soon as it became clear that the 1950-75 cooling episode had ended and that temperatures seemed to be headed back up again).
At the time the leading theory of climate change was solar-magnetic, as laid out in Jack Eddy’s 1975 Science article “The Maunder Minimum.”
So a new theory pops up, apparently in opportunistic response to an uptick in temperatures, a theory promoted by proudly dishonest activist alarmists like Stephen Schneider who advised his fellow alarmist scientists to lie about what real science actually says in order to stampede political action that the truth does not justify, and the “science journalist” at Vice thinks that in less than ten years this new explicitly hyped theory had established a certainty against which Fred planted a seed of uncertainty.
“Hey guys we had this field all paved over until this weed found a crack in which to pop up. Doesn’t this Singer person know that there is no uncertainty in science???” And they try to paint the contrarians as the politicized group.
You mean the same Steven Schneider who, in 1971 wrote a paper predicting a reduction of as much as 3.5k in that could “trigger an ice age”. To borrow a phrase he was advocating for global cooling before he was advocating against it.
Red, The US Marines put down the Barbary Pirates in the early 1800’s. This resulted in tens of thousands of slaves being returned to their European and American homes and the end of paying tribute to the Barbary Pirates. European navies had tried but were unable to perform this deed. It took American Marines on the ground to force them to surrender. After the American Marines left, Europeans were able to go in and put down any resurgences.
Europe took notice. They weren’t afraid of us, but they were more respectful.
Likely the reason that there is so much end of the world last 5 years
https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/