Study: Imprisonment for Climate Deniers is Too Blunt and Risky

“Young and Naive” Al Gore

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Scientists discussing the pros and cons of different means of coercing society into the correct climate beliefs, including imprisonment of climate deniers.

26 June 2020  8:00

Guest post: How climate change misinformation spreads online

Kathie Treen, PhD candidate in the computer science department at the University of Exeter

Dr Hywel Williams,associate professor in data science at the University of Exeter

Dr Saffron O’Neill, associate professor in geography at the University of Exeter

The rapid rise of social media over the past two decades has brought with it a surge in misinformation. 

Online debates on topics such as vaccinationspresidential elections (pdf) and the coronavirus pandemic are often as vociferous as they are laced with misleading information. 

Perhaps more than any other topic, climate change has been subject to the organised spread of spurious information. This circulates online and frequently ends up being discussed in established media or by people in the public eye. 

But what is climate change misinformation? Who is involved? How does it spread and why does it matter? 

In a new paper, published in WIREs Climate Change, we explore the actors behind online misinformation and why social networks are such fertile ground for misinformation to spread.

In the context of climate change research, misinformation may be seen in the types of behaviour and information which cast doubt on well-supported theories, or in those which attempt to discredit climate science. 

These may be more commonly described as climate “scepticism”, “contrarianism” or “denialism”.

In a similar way, climate alarmism may also be construed as misinformation, as recent online debates have discussed. This includes making exaggerated claims about climate change that are not supported by the scientific literature. There is a negligible amount of literature about climate alarmism compared to climate scepticism, suggesting it is significantly less prevalent. As such, the focus for this article is on climate scepticism.

Then there are responses and regulation – bringing in a correction or a collaborative approach after the misinformation has been received, or even putting in place punishments, such as fines or imprisonment.

Regulation has been described as ablunt and risky instrument” by a European Commission expert group. It is also potentially a threat to the democratic right to freedom of speech and has overtones of “Big Brother”.

Read more: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-climate-change-misinformation-spreads-online

The abstract of the study;

Online misinformation about climate change

Kathie M. d’I. TreenHywel T. P. WilliamsSaffron J. O’NeillFirst published: 18 June 2020 https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.665

Edited by Irene Lorenzoni, Domain Editor, and Mike Hulme, Editor‐in‐Chief: 

Funding information: Economic and Social Research Council, Grant/Award Number: ES/P011489/1; University of Exeter: Kathie Treen is funded through a University of Exeter PhD scholarship

Policymakers, scholars, and practitioners have all called attention to the issue of misinformation in the climate change debate. But what is climate change misinformation, who is involved, how does it spread, why does it matter, and what can be done about it? Climate change misinformation is closely linked to climate change skepticism, denial, and contrarianism. A network of actors are involved in financing, producing, and amplifying misinformation. Once in the public domain, characteristics of online social networks, such as homophily, polarization, and echo chambers—characteristics also found in climate change debate—provide fertile ground for misinformation to spread. Underlying belief systems and social norms, as well as psychological heuristics such as confirmation bias, are further factors which contribute to the spread of misinformation. A variety of ways to understand and address misinformation, from a diversity of disciplines, are discussed. These include educational, technological, regulatory, and psychological‐based approaches. No single approach addresses all concerns about misinformation, and all have limitations, necessitating an interdisciplinary approach to tackle this multifaceted issue. Key research gaps include understanding the diffusion of climate change misinformation on social media, and examining whether misinformation extends to climate alarmism, as well as climate denial. This article explores the concepts of misinformation and disinformation and defines disinformation to be a subset of misinformation. A diversity of disciplinary and interdisciplinary literature is reviewed to fully interrogate the concept of misinformation—and within this, disinformation—particularly as it pertains to climate change.

Read more: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.665

The main study mentions the need to distinguish between permissible skepticism and disinformation, but like other similar efforts does not provide a clear methodology of how to distinguish between the two.

It is clear that skepticism, contrarianism, and denial are concepts often associated with climate change misinformation. It should be noted that this is not skepticism in its original meaning as an integral part of the scientific method, but in its frequently applied usage to mean those who doubt climate change or reject mainstream climate science.

In my opinion it is impossible to create a definition of scientific “denial” which would exclude climate skeptics, but which would permit radical revisionists whose theories were later accepted, like Albert Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, or scientists like Barry Marshall, the courageous medical researcher who overturned decades of medical consensus on stomach ulcers by deliberately giving himself a stomach ulcer.

The difference between many skeptical positions and IPCC climate science is too narrow to differentiate by any reasonable methodology, and in some cases is non-existent.

The IPCC fifth assessment report estimated climate sensitivity as likely being between 1.5-4.5C, but also stated it is extremely unlikely to be less than 1C. Lord Monckton estimates climate sensitivity at 1.17C, close to the bottom boundary of the IPCC range of plausibility, but most definitely inside that range. Lord Monckton is frequently described by the press as a climate denier, but how can Monckton’s estimate of climate sensitivity reasonably be described as climate “denial”, if even the IPCC acknowledges climate sensitivity estimates above 1C are remotely plausible?

The inability to clearly define the difference between skepticism and denial is a major stumbling block for attempts to punish the spread of climate “disinformation”. But I doubt this will stop activist politicians from trying.

Calling imprisonment for climate deniers “Blunt and risky” is not the same as describing this horrible policy option as “ineffective”.

Severe sanctions for climate wrongthink are no longer a hypothetical risk – the “anti-Greta” Naomi Seibt was recently fined and sanctioned by the German government, for the crime of mentioning the Heartland Institute in one of her climate videos.

Even the USA is not safe from this kind of tyranny.

The USA has a constitutional right to free speech, but there are limits on that right; the right to free speech does not include a right to deliberately spread false information which leads to harm. Someone who falsely shouts “fire” in a crowded theatre to cause a stampede is not protected by the right to free speech. Some green academics argue the principle of prohibiting speech which causes harm should be applied to climate deniers. Al Gore called for climate deniers to be punished in in 2015.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
189 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Earthling2
June 26, 2020 10:22 pm

If the Democrats are elected, you can bet they will enact a law called the Retro-Activity Act, and everything we said here can and will be used against us. It will be our turn someday to be persecuted for freedom of thought.

Ron Long
Reply to  Earthling2
June 27, 2020 2:37 am

Some people think the Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment.

old white guy
Reply to  Ron Long
June 27, 2020 5:08 am

The second supports the first. It will soon be need to be applied as intended.

Earthling2
Reply to  old white guy
June 27, 2020 11:39 am

This is the part that amazes me. In that how restrained the honest citizenry is that do exercise their right to the Second Amendment and own lawful firearms but have not used them in all this anarchy, burning and looting. Perhaps it is because it is mainly the ultra Democrat cities that just roll over and play dead in cities that are getting looted and burnt, and many there choose not to own firearms. And many of these elected officials and politicians actually support all the anarchy.

I would like to see these anarchist/looters and rioters try some of these stunts in rural Texas, and it wouldn’t take long before a lot of these domestic terrorists would be ‘cancelled’ permanently. If the Police and National Guard aren’t/can’t enforce the rule of law, perhaps it is time to bring on armed well regulated militias, which is what the 2nd Amendment referred to. Clearly the Nation is under attack by domestic terrorism, which is also funded by other international forces, as we see in the misleading climate wars. Enough is enough, or this will spread like a cancer and around the world. If the first half dozen fire bombers throwing Molotov cocktails were ‘cancelled’ on the spot anywhere they tried their criminal behaviour, there would have been no mass arson and violent riots.

2hotel9
Reply to  Earthling2
June 27, 2020 1:33 pm

All this anarchy is happening in Democrat Party run cities. Let the stupid f*cks burn. Notice they ain’t out here in actual America.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ron Long
June 27, 2020 5:13 am

I sure am glad there is a Second Amendment.

If the Democrats get the White House this time around, we can expect that both our First and Second Amendment Rights will be in serious jeopardy.

The Democrats are all about control and they are not kind to those who get in their way. The last four years are a good example of how Democrats treat those who don’t go along with Democrat-think.

The U.S. Constitution itself is not safe when Democrats gain control.

On a positive note: I heard an Evangelical leader last night say he thought Trump was going to get even more of the Evangelical vote this time than he did in 2016. Trump’s approval rating among his base was 83 percent when he was elected in 2016. Today, Trump’s approval rating with his base is 96 percent. And it looks to me like more Blacks are going to vote for Trump this time than they did last time.

So make of that what you will. And, Joe China still has to get through debates with Trump. If he manages to get through a debate without a big stumble, I will be surprised. I think the Democrats have made a big mistake by trying to carry Biden over the finish line. At some point Biden has to stand on his own, and it doesn’t look to me like he can do it for more than about three minutes.

I noticed that the big Take-down of the Emacipation statue in Washington DC fizzled out last night, supposedly after Trump put hundreds of people in jail the night before. At any rate, there were very few demonstrators at the statue last night. A little bit of a crackdown goes a long way. It’s easy to avoid trouble, shut it down before it gains momentum. We have the ability to shut things like this down, now, all we need is the political will, and it looks like Trump has that political will, although he’s almost alone among politicians but he’s the president, and that’s enough.

I heard one very misinformed person yesterday say Trump can’t count on the U.S. military to do what he tells them to do, citing a few retired Swamp generals opinions, as being widespread among the troops. The misguided person is very good at smelling Democrat/Swamp conspiracy theories, but this Disgruntled General gambit apparently went right over his head. The Disgruntled General gambit was orchestrated by the Democrats. It’s classic Democrat/Swamp behavior but went unrecognized by an otherwise intelligent person.

The military will do what Trump wants. Now, more than ever. Who is a bigger supporter of the military and the police than Trump? Whose side do you think they are on?

A lot of people were misled yesterday by a guy who got fooled by the Democrat machine. A guy that shouldn’t have been fooled because he has seen this scenario many times in the past, but this time it’s real for him.

Yeah, that’s what we need: To lose confidence in the U.S. military. I haven’t lost confidence in them and you shouldn’t either. If Trump gives them a lawful command, they will do it. I guarantee it.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 27, 2020 12:07 pm

I’ve heard this mutinous military story from two different sources who one would normally assume are reputable, but your take on this make a whole lot more sense. If any of these people were active-duty, they would be relieved of command and sent to the retirement queue PDQ.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 28, 2020 6:46 am

The only active duty officer included in the Swamp Creature attack was General Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Although, the “attack” on Trump from General Milley was a misunderstanding by the person berating the military.

General Milley was criticized over a week ago by the Left for accompanying Trump as he walked from the White House to a nearby church in a show of strength afer rioters had set fire to the church and defaced it a couple of days before, and Trump had the area cleared of rioters and then marched from the White House to the church as a demonstration to the People. And General Milley accompanied Trump on that walk.

The next day, General Milley apologized for taking that walk saying that it made it appear that he was taking part in a partisan political activity, and that the military was supposed to appear to be neutral politically at all times. And General Milley was exactly right.

This was not an attack on Trump, although the MSM made it sound that way, and managed to fool our upset commentor. Trump didn’t force the general to go along. General Milley happened to be in the White House situation room, dressed in his military uniform, and was monitoring the protest activities in Washington DC.

Trump suddenly decided that everyone in the White House should walk to the church, and General Milley went along, and subsequently wrote that he should not have done that because of how it appeared.

So General Milley was not trying to undermine Trump. It was the MSM who distorted his meaning and put the blame on Trump, like they do everything else.

So our agitated commentor should take General Milley off the list of troublemakers.

The other retired military people that complained about Trump had a political agenda when they made their comments. And of course, they can do that once they are retired. Colin Powell’s criticism is pure politics. He voted for Hillary last time, and Obama twice.

This is what the Democrats do: They line up a few notable figures and tell them for the good of the nation they have to speak out against Trump. And then they send one forward into the public to make his denunciation of Trump. And then they wait a few days and send another complainer out into the public. And then they wait a few days and send another complainer out, and it makes it appear that there is a continuous stream of criticism from important people. But those important people have an agenda and are not necessarily telling the public the truth.

And the upset commentor had no military experience, and doesn’t understand the military mind, obviously, and I think that’s why he sees the U.S. military as being easily swayed by politics. The U.S. military is the most stable organization in the nation. They will defend the U.S. against all its enemies. A couple of disgruntled, political generals won’t change that.

richard
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 27, 2020 1:02 pm

He is picking up 30-40% of the Black vote. In times of riots the US turns more Conservative.

MarkW
Reply to  richard
June 27, 2020 7:05 pm

The neighborhoods that are being destroyed by these rioters are black neighborhoods. The people getting hurt by the rioters and resultant crime are mostly black.

2hotel9
Reply to  MarkW
June 28, 2020 7:40 am

Many of the small businesses looted and burned were black owned, many of the national chain franchise businesses were owned by black franchisees, almost as if they were specifically targeted. Perhaps for “doing the white thing” as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton call engaging in business? Contact tracing is turning up all kinds of interesting connections.

tryingtoplaynice
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 27, 2020 3:11 pm

There are still a bunch of high level military personnel put in by Obama. The libs think because they have high ranks the military will side with the libs. What they don’t understand is that the soldiers who actually have and know how to use weapons will take out those high ranking libs very quickly because they are sworn to fight all enemies, “foreign and domestic”.

TBeholder
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 28, 2020 10:02 am

Well, U.S. military is quite “converged”, that’s no secret. For example: voxday.blogspot.com/2020/06/mailvox-usaf-converged.html
And back in 90s there was that little episode with brave U.S. military helping circus police to exterminate a nest of evil thought-criminals.
So it’s not unreasonable to assume they won’t turn against Hillary even if she mandated castrating them literally rather than only figuratively.
But how much this would matter when the boot is on the other foot, and in a situation where clearly “war will write off everything”? That’s another question entirely.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Ron Long
June 27, 2020 5:21 am

That kinda’ puts the 14th Amendment pretty far down the list.

Justin Burch
Reply to  Earthling2
June 27, 2020 6:33 am

This is already the case. Cancel culture regularly pulls out old posts and ancient activities to cancel a person. Of course this is only the case if you are a Conservative or in the way in some fashion. And it’s spreading. Look at that senior administrator from University of British Columbia who was forced to resign for the crime of liking a tweet by Donald Trump.

MarkW
Reply to  Justin Burch
June 27, 2020 10:24 am

The Cancel Culture has recently started going after those who fail to worship them with sufficient intensity.
Even long standing liberals are being brought down by activity that was OK at the time, but is frowned on now, 20 or 30 years later.

2hotel9
Reply to  MarkW
June 27, 2020 4:15 pm

Good.

MarkW
Reply to  2hotel9
June 27, 2020 7:07 pm

I’m hoping that the image of these guys destroying even their own allies will put the fear of God into many lukewarm supporters of BLM and other left wing groups.

2hotel9
Reply to  MarkW
June 28, 2020 7:20 am

Leftists always go after their own”followers” once they are no longer useful.

AndyHce
Reply to  MarkW
June 28, 2020 12:36 am

“I’m hoping that the image of these guys destroying even their own allies will put the fear of God into many lukewarm supporters of BLM and other left wing groups.”

Isn’t that what always happens to the useful idiots once the new power structure is in place?

MarkW
Reply to  AndyHce
June 28, 2020 9:09 am

Getting rid of the useful idiots first makes sense. The useful idiots have already demonstrated that they are willing to betray their country. What’s to stop them from doing it again, if the reward is high enough?

MarkW
Reply to  Earthling2
June 27, 2020 10:20 am

Retro-active penalties are explicitly banned in the Constitution.
On the other hand, the socialists have a long history of ignoring any part of the Constitution that they don’t like.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  Earthling2
June 29, 2020 8:18 am

Earthling2, i have been making the argument for a while regarding the “yelling Fire in a crowded theater” free speech limitation.
How does this not apply to alarmists who say we have 5-10 years to be off CO2 or billions die? Causing children and the otherwise weak of mind to have no hope, contemplate suicide, etc.
Shouldn’t these extreme alarmists be jailed for identifiable harm?

Earthling2
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
June 29, 2020 8:57 am

The way cultural Marxism is going in general and in our climate wars, it will soon be a crime to deny climate change if they get their way. Just like now you can’t even have an opinion on many issues that the Left have made sacred, including being charged under new laws, such as the Pronoun pronouncement about addressing LGBQT by their perceived gender, at least in Canada. 30 years ago, any real free speech was banned in academia, and only ‘correct’ speech is allowed. Which has gotten worse by orders of magnitude the last 30 years to the point now we are near civil war with a mini revolution unfolding before our eyes. Cultural Marxism is a real thing happening here now. On steroids in academia and the big blue cities.

Some of these climate alarmists are like the real medieval witches trying to cast spells based upon repetitive incantations. They should have a millstone tied around their neck, thrown in a pond, and if they sink they are innocent. If they float, then they are definitely a witch. I of coarse jest, but these alarmists are definitely shouting fire in a crowded theatre.

John F. Hultquist
June 26, 2020 10:26 pm

I’d write something scathing about these fools, but
it is late and I need to sleep, perchance to dream.

skeptic #: 1,000,000,001
June 26, 2020 10:30 pm

Now, who is calling “Fire!” on a crowded Earth (e.g., theater): is it the Alarmists or the Skeptics?

Yet no one is calling for Alarmists to be imprisoned, not even with their Population Control agenda — which requires the use of force, with all that horror and mayhem barely hidden beneath their “Climate Crises” mis-information.

Greg
Reply to  skeptic #: 1,000,000,001
June 27, 2020 2:04 am

What qualifies a PhD student in computer science and associate professors in data science and geography to PUBLISH a “paper” about government, sociology and politics?

They have ZERO competence in this area but think personal opinions are elevated to the level of research simply because they are academics in some arbitrary non related field.

There is a negligible amount of literature about climate alarmism compared to climate scepticism, suggesting it is significantly less prevalent.

LOL. 6 degrees C of warming , 12m of sea level rise and the 6th mass extinction of life on Earth is not alarmist. It’s happening HERE and NOW.

“We are not alarmists, we are realists”. Therefore there is no alarmist literature, by definition. 😉

John Garrett
Reply to  Greg
June 27, 2020 2:56 am

Greg,
You stole the words right out of my mouth.

The answer to your question of “What qualifies a Ph.D. student and associate professors in data science and geography to PUBLISH…” is: the climate lynch mob created and incited by a combination of latent dictators, a woefully scientifically illiterate and wholly innmumerate media and public along with misguided world-savers.

Reply to  Greg
June 27, 2020 3:36 am

“What qualifies a PhD student in computer science and associate professors in data science and geography to PUBLISH a “paper” about government, sociology and politics?”

peer review is great because there are no qualifications.
1. Make an argument.
2. Cite the relevant literature.
3. Support your argument.
4. Listen to the reviewers comments
5. Adress the comments fairly.

Reviewers and journals dont check qualifications because qualifications are MEANINGLESS

people with degrees make mistakes
people with no degrees can make good arguments.

It’s not easy work getting published, but degrees and qualifications are not required.

Plus, appealing to qualifications is just a weaker form of appealing to consensus

fred250
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 27, 2020 4:28 am

Like your absolute absence of any scientific qualification.

Which explains MANY things about your comments.

fred250
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 27, 2020 4:32 am

Problem with climate science is that papers (like this one) that are absolutely destitute in any science, and are based on ignorant, zero-knowledge brain-washed pap, still get through climate peer review.

Papers by people who are totally clueless of any actual science, still get published.

Curious George
Reply to  fred250
June 27, 2020 7:33 am

Just like “free speech” and “marriage”, “peer review” has been redefined.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  fred250
June 27, 2020 1:56 pm

Hoaxes get published, auto-scripted papers get published, feminist glaciology gets published.

It’s true that degrees don’t maketh the man. It’s also true that stupid ideas are stupid, weather they get published in a journal or not.

Steve is correct in the literal sense, but wrong on the outcome.

AndyHce
Reply to  fred250
June 28, 2020 1:15 am

You are putting a great many readers and commenters here into that category.

The basic principal of freedom of speech is that no one has to like or believe what you profess, on any grounds what so ever. Expression is, none the less, a most important protected activity.

Education comes in many forms. Many times the officially recognized one is far from the best.

John Garrett
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 27, 2020 4:37 am

ROTFLMFAO

Yeah, that’s how we get nutjobs like Lewandowsky and McKibben and Gore and Oreskes.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 27, 2020 5:28 am

So why list any educational designations at all? Perhaps I should show my designations in my posts:
Author
Inventor
Jokester
All around good guy with a mean streak

Jon Jewett
Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 27, 2020 12:06 pm

Works for me

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 27, 2020 7:08 am

Mosher writes

peer review is great because there are no qualifications.
1. Make an argument.
2. Cite the relevant literature.
3. Support your argument.
4. Listen to the reviewers comments
5. Adress the comments fairly.

Sure, but that’s not science and should never be referred to as a scientific argument.

Science involves hypotheses, predictions and testing, not making an argument and citing prior works to support it.

Your process describes philosophy.

sycomputing
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
June 27, 2020 9:15 am

Your process describes philosophy.

Well, he was answering this Tim:

“What qualifies a PhD student in computer science and associate professors in data science and geography to PUBLISH a “paper” about government, sociology and politics?”

MarkW
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
June 27, 2020 7:09 pm

These guys are always declaring that anyone who isn’t a climate scientist doesn’t have a right to an opinion, every time someone disagrees with them.
Pointing out that few of them have any relevant degrees doesn’t seem like that big a sin.

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
June 27, 2020 8:40 pm

MarkW writes

Pointing out that few of them have any relevant degrees doesn’t seem like that big a sin.

Personally, I never care what qualifications someone has, only the quality of their argument. Much of science these days, and in particular climate science, is better described as philosophy and that doesn’t make it worthless, but on the other hand doesn’t make it compelling either.

sycomputing
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
June 27, 2020 9:14 pm

Personally, I never care what qualifications someone has, only the quality of their argument.

Interesting that you’d admit that Tim. According to Steven Mosher above:

“peer review is great because there are no qualifications.”

“Reviewers and journals dont check qualifications because qualifications are MEANINGLESS

“people with no degrees can make good arguments.”

“Plus, appealing to qualifications is just a weaker form of appealing to consensus

But yet you seem to have criticized him for saying exactly what you just said.

You two are philosophical sympaticos wouldn’t you agree?

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
June 29, 2020 2:47 am

sycomputing writes

But yet you seem to have criticized him for saying exactly what you just said.

If you assume “Make an argument” means making a hypothesis, proposing tests to explore that hypothesis and then carrying out those tests.

and

“Support your argument” means using prior works to help justify any assumptions you had to make along the way then …sure.

But way too much “science” these days skips all that testing nonsense and goes straight to the conclusion based on philosophical argument supported by prior works. And climate science frequently uses GCM model results which are dubious at best.

And yes, this is very much a philosophical argument.

R2Dtoo
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 27, 2020 7:34 am

So, Steve, if you need surgery your local butcher could be as good as a physician. There is a reason why a BSc is followed by an MSc and a PhD. The fact that some unis have dropped standards does not change the reasons for the established system. I agree that some folks trained in “side” disciplines can pen valid papers in climate science, primarily because climate science includes aspects of many disciplines. Peer review, however, never has been, and still isn’t “great”.

AndyHce
Reply to  R2Dtoo
June 28, 2020 12:58 am

The main reasons for the “the established system” is social status, cornering some significant pat of the wealth, and general population control (as in limiting choices and self control of behavior, not reducing the birth rate (although that too can be on the agenda)). Perhaps only a fool would go to a butcher for surgery although there could indeed be times when that choice might be useful. The greatest long term benefit to people at large, vis a vis medical issues, would be a return to NO government intervention in medicine beyond fraud prosecution.

Let the AMA, and any competing organization, establish standards and certify members, totally independent of governments. Let any individual obtain the necessary education (or none at all), get certified by a recognized body (or none at all). Let the only crime, as heavily punished as necessary, be to make false claims as to certification. If an organization wants their certification to be meaningful to the general public, they need to be strict and through.

Let any individual choose whomever they wish to service their needs. More reasonable people might choose by certification status. Others might choose by other criteria. Let individual responsibility rule for those who wish to take responsibility, let those who refuse education rely on consensus.

MarkW
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 27, 2020 10:26 am

Steve, you forgot to mention the most important aspect of peer review. Make sure all of your reviewers are fellow travelers who agree with what you are trying to say.

Ty hallsted
Reply to  Greg
June 27, 2020 2:51 pm

I had a completely different take on the sentence you quoted. What the difference in the amount of literature suggests to me is that climate scepticism is just under attack more often.

michael hart
Reply to  Greg
June 27, 2020 9:20 pm

Quite apart from any questions about their competence, they appear to be publishing on matters unrelated to their ostensible areas of employment.

Perhaps they should spend more time actually doing their job. I’ll bet their contracts of employment say nothing about them needing to save the planet or persecute climate infidels. If they have so much spare time on their hands to pursue such topics it suggests that their job position is a waste of resources.

Charles Higley
Reply to  skeptic #: 1,000,000,001
June 27, 2020 7:37 am

No, they are complaining about one saying, “There is no fire!” thus squelching their false alarm intended to panic the public. Cannot have that. Remaining calm and assessing the situation simply cannot be tolerated.

2hotel9
Reply to  Charles Higley
June 27, 2020 7:41 am

“Remaining calm and assessing the situation simply cannot be tolerated.” This right here applies to the entire situation in America today. Keep everyone in a state of panic, keep twisting the screws.

John V. Wright
June 26, 2020 10:30 pm

“There is a negligible amount of literature about climate alarmism compared to climate scepticism, suggesting it is significantly less prevalent.”
Is this some kind of weird joke? The media is BURSTING with stories every week about how the world will end in 12 years, the seas will flood coastal cities, wildfires will sweep through continents, food production will fail, diseases will spread etc. etc..
On the other hand, there is virtually NO coverage of the sceptical scientific position or the data that supports it – in fact, such coverage is banned by the BBC.
How can these people be unaware of the straightforward reality of the situation? Are they living in a parallel universe where up is down, left is right, black is white?

Mayor of Venus
Reply to  John V. Wright
June 26, 2020 10:56 pm

Indeed there is a super-abundance of wild climate alarmism literature as you noted, but the statement was “there is a negligible amount of literature ABOUT climate alarmism”. The two are not incompatible.

Adam Gallon
Reply to  John V. Wright
June 26, 2020 11:52 pm

That’s not literature about climate alarmism. That is climate alarmism.
Literature about it, would be the equivalent of the stuff Lewandanski (spelling?) spouts in “Peer reviewed journals”, which would be discussing the extreme scenarios that are thrown out.

sunderlandsteve
Reply to  John V. Wright
June 27, 2020 7:05 am

John, what you need to understand is that what you or I see as alarmism they see as cast iron, copper bottomed gold standard truth. Mind you with that in mind it would be interesting to see what they class as alarmism.

AndyHce
Reply to  John V. Wright
June 28, 2020 1:01 am

But how much criticism of alarmism is carried by the general media?

Chris Hanley
June 26, 2020 10:47 pm

A quick scan of the text of the paper reveals only two examples of ‘online misinformation’:
# “… claims of a link between childhood vaccinations and autism …”.
# “… equating weather and climate …”.
Obviously the first example has nothing objectively to do with CC™ and the second is a fallacy employed mostly by the hysterics.
In so many words the authors don’t even define what they are writing about.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Chris Hanley
June 27, 2020 6:08 am

So “equating weather and climate” is an example of ‘online misinformation?

It is the Alarmist who are always equating weather and climate. Every time a severe weather system comes around the Alamists claim it is unprecedented, the worst in history, and is more evidence for Human-Caused Climate Change. Skeptics say it’s just weather, and is not unprecedented, according to historical records.

Skeptics say weather is weather, and climate is climate. The weather changes constantly, while the climate changes slowly, over decades; it warms a little, then it cools a little, then it warms again. The Alarmists claim we are now experiencing the hottest temperatures in human history but this is untrue as it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today, and was even warmer in the more distant past than it is today.

These scholars ought to ask themselves why it is that Alarmists claim today is the hottest period in human history yet skeptics say it is not so. If they look into the subject they would find that there is only one thing that makes the claim that we are experiencing the warmest temperatures in human history and that thing is the Hockey Stick chart, a computer-derived, fraudulent global surface temperature record. The whole Human-caused climate change Lie is based on this Lie.

Regional surface temperature charts (actual temperature readings, not computer-generated) show a completely different temperature profile, than does the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart. All the regional surface temperature charts show the same temperature profile: It was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. None of the regional surface temperature charts resemble the bogus, bastarized Hockey Stick chart. Doesn’t that seem odd to you? It should.

These scholar’s research is based on a Big Lie. It should really be called a BIG LIE, seeing how much damage this lie has done to humanity. It fooled the authors, and millions of others. There are a lot of dupes in this ole world, sadly. But, there are a lot of people who are not dupes, too.

Zig Zag Wanderer
June 26, 2020 10:52 pm

Rarely have I seen projection writ so very large

Brooks Hurd
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
June 26, 2020 11:22 pm

I had the same thoughts as you. Throughout the abstract, the evils they ascribe to skeptics are all things which the climate science community does on a daily basis.

AndyHce
Reply to  Brooks Hurd
June 28, 2020 1:06 am

The same applies to every article about skeptics I’ve ever look at. Ignore any and all facts. Make claims about mental illness and vicious special interests.

Bill
June 26, 2020 10:54 pm

A few years back the ex-Stasi highflyer Angela Merkel suggested children should be encouraged to inform on their parents and others who they heard making hate speech jokes or climate denial etc. They were to inform teachers or other authorities like the cops etc.
She was not joking, and if Trump loses this election…this will become the new normal. Vote accordingly, these people are nuts…and they hate you, your children, your pets, your lifestyles, your cars, your property, your right to free speech and choices of any type…you will do exactly what they say you can do.
So, buyer beware, and vote accordingly. Should Trump lose this election, I will not be able to make a post like this, even in England today if you make politically incorrect comments on-line, even amongst friends you may be faced by a cop at your front door warning you that you are now on a list, even though you have done nothing illegal.

Matthew
Reply to  Bill
June 27, 2020 2:56 am

“New normal,” the most insidious and poisonous abuse of language authoritarians have engaged in yet. It seeks to normalize what is most definitely *not* normal, things like national house arrest and forced compliance to dress codes.

I have given up hope, to be honest. If Trump wins in 2020, the riots currently going on will seem tame. If Trump loses in 2020, we will be soon be living in a totalitarian police state (or mob rule, take your pick). If the election results are ambiguous, or if there is cheating, both sides will claim victory, and the country will be rent asunder like a piece of rotten sailcloth. There is no good outcome for any of this.

And the worst part is that the totalitarians have taken over the institutions, so the damage being done is generational. It will be decades, at least, before any kind of return to normalcy is possible.

Scissor
Reply to  Matthew
June 27, 2020 6:48 am

Do we have time? Hopefully the danger subsides if reason can prevail. There is plenty crazy.

Grant
Reply to  Scissor
June 27, 2020 8:03 am

Psychosis seems to more contagious than Covid 19

zighsuser
Reply to  Bill
June 27, 2020 4:09 am

In Germany all is VERBOTEN

Janus100
Reply to  Bill
June 27, 2020 6:11 pm

Would you have a link on that?

“A few years back the ex-Stasi highflyer Angela Merkel suggested children should be encouraged to inform on their parents and others who they heard making hate speech jokes or climate denial etc. “

AndyHce
Reply to  Bill
June 28, 2020 1:09 am

On this side of the ocean you don’t get the warning.

Chris Hanley
June 26, 2020 10:58 pm

The paper crammed with references, scores of them, is an example of the woozle effect:
“… also known as evidence by citation, or a woozle, occurs when frequent citation of previous publications that lack evidence misleads individuals, groups, and the public into thinking or believing there is evidence …” (Wiki).

MarkW
Reply to  Chris Hanley
June 27, 2020 10:31 am

I’m trying to remember which IPCC report it was that cited a Greenpeace pamphlet as supporting evidence for one of it’s chapters.

Ty hallsted
Reply to  MarkW
June 27, 2020 3:09 pm

Mark that’s just one of many. Go to Donna LaFrambroise’s site and spend some time in her IPCC section. Or buy her 2 ebooks – the most thorough under the hood investigations of IPCC I’ve found. She engaged A “citizen review” group to catalog all of the references provided in one of the reports and I forget the exact result but something like 30% were NGOs, not peer reviewed literature while Pachauri claimed that only peer reviewed literature was used.

Coeur de Lion
June 26, 2020 11:55 pm

“The Paris Agreement has failed”. Come and get me.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
June 27, 2020 1:26 am

“The Paris Agreement was never about climate.”
It’s success metric was to be the level of GroupThink that could be imparted on the West, while the 3rd World held out their hands for a cash windfall.

June 27, 2020 12:07 am

I wonder if misinformation by climate science counts for possible legal action.

Take for example the maximum warming since pre-industrial before climate change becomes an irreversible climate catastrophe was set at 5C since pre-industrial by the IPCC in 2001. This turned out to be misinformation and the IPCC itself reset the critical amount of warming since pre-industrial to 4C in 2007. But that too was misinformation and it was changed in 2013 to 3C but when the 2015 IPCC report set the critical amount of warming to 2C we realized that the 3C was misinformation. But then in 2018 the IPCC issued a special report to declare that the 2C figure was misinformation and that the correct amount of warming since re-industrial before irreversible climate catastrophe sets in is 1.5C.

Also, prior to the Matthews etal 2009 paper in which they presented the TCRE parameter as a measure of the temperature effect CO2 in terms of cumulative emissions, we were given the misinformation that the relationship was one of rising atmospheric CO2 and its climate sensitivity. In 2009, after the Matthews paper, high profile climate scientists including Reto Knutti said to forget about the climate sensitivity misinformation and to get on with the TCRE.

Yet another series of misinformation declarations from climate scientists has to do with what exactly the all important “pre-industrial” reference year is. It is not 1750 as the IPCC had first claimed because that turned out to be misinformation. The correct reference year is 1850. But that too is misinformation according to NASA who says that the correct date is 1950. Now what? Who goes to jail and who stays out here to help the innocent deniers trying to make sense out of all of this?

https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/12/25/earth-day-wisdom/

Tom Abbott
Reply to  chaamjamal
June 27, 2020 6:22 am

“Take for example the maximum warming since pre-industrial before climate change becomes an irreversible climate catastrophe was set at 5C since pre-industrial by the IPCC in 2001. This turned out to be misinformation and the IPCC itself reset the critical amount of warming since pre-industrial to 4C in 2007. But that too was misinformation and it was changed in 2013 to 3C but when the 2015 IPCC report set the critical amount of warming to 2C we realized that the 3C was misinformation. But then in 2018 the IPCC issued a special report to declare that the 2C figure was misinformation and that the correct amount of warming since re-industrial before irreversible climate catastrophe sets in is 1.5C.”

The Alarmsits had to do it this way because the temperatures were not cooperating with them. Everybody, this is called “moving the goalposts”. Had the temperatures continued to climb, as the Alarmists were expecting to happen, then their high estimate was in the ballpark, but the temperatures have not increased and have, for all intents and purposes, flatlined over the last couple of decades, and so the Alarmists see that they have to lower the fear factor from 5C down to 1.5C.

They can’t go much lower than 1.5C and still instill fear in people so they are kind of stuck now.

If temperatures go lower what will the Alarmists say? They will probably just claim it is temporary and any time now the temperatures will start to climb. I think some of them have already said such things. They want to get ahead of the curve.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  chaamjamal
June 27, 2020 9:19 am

+A lot

rhoda klapp
June 27, 2020 12:09 am

‘Burn the heretics’. Don’t listen to what they say lest you be tainted.

John Law
Reply to  rhoda klapp
June 27, 2020 2:55 am

It worked well for them in the past, even though a heretic is fossil fuel!

Eamon Butler
June 27, 2020 12:11 am

Best way to deal with misinformation is to have full respectful honest old fashioned debate. Otherwise, you are attempting to force a propaganda that is buried in misinformation.

Stonyground
June 27, 2020 12:14 am

Who are the people living in an echo chamber? My experience of climate sceptic websites is that free discussion of the matter is actively encouraged in the comments. Try politely asking an intelligent but off message question on an alarmist site and you will find yourself deleted and banned. Now they want to make it illegal for you to point out to them that they are wrong, that won’t make their chamber echo much at all then.

A barrage of misinformation that does real harm is climate alarmism in a nutshell.

William Astley
Reply to  Stonyground
June 27, 2020 10:59 am

Come on this is Surreal.

What is the Echo Chamber? Fake news. And Control ‘news’. There is an Echo Chamber war and we are losing it.

There are now Fake Google searches. It is now no longer possible to find Breitbart articles with a google search. Google searches now provide only politically correct answers or companies that pay Google to put their company top of search.

Cannot find skeptics sites. Information is first hidden and then it will be formally blocked.

The Democrats, the universities, CAGW hard core, and the Chinese created the Echo Chamber. There are no facts to justify beliefs in the echo chamber.

The Echo Chamber enables one country to control all countries. The Echo Chamber controls what you see and what you are allowed to say. China has the most advance citizen monitoring system in the world. All small purchases in China can be made with face recognition only.

China has absolute control of everything. What is happening now… Anti American riots, unsolvable CAGW problem, fights about statues, protests for open borders, and so on.

The China ten year plan is to spread chaos and destruction in the US. There are no riots in China or protests about climate change. There are no protests for open borders, no campaign to abolish the police force in China. We obviously are losing the ‘Echo Chamber war’ with China and the Democrats appear to be trying to start a civil war.

2hotel9
Reply to  William Astley
June 27, 2020 4:13 pm

A civil war they will lose, just as they lost the last one they started.

Rolf
June 27, 2020 12:19 am

I thought the age of Witch Hunt was back in the 15 century or so. My belief was society and humans developed and abandoned similar actions. Seem like we still let stupid people lead the crowd, and the crowd seem to believe anything that transfer money from their pockets to their leaders all under the assumption money will be taken from the rich.

fred250
June 27, 2020 12:24 am

Don’t know if its still true, but at one stage Exeter Uni had more people on the IPCC than any other university in the world.

They are So, So deep into the climate trough.. the place is overflowing with “climate swill”

Ken Mitchell
June 27, 2020 12:25 am

“Climate change” is an assertion made without fact, that they expect us to believe f=out of faith. Therefore, it’s a RELIGIOUS belief. The State cannot compel a religious belief.

I’m not a “climate change denier”; I’m a “climate change HERETIC”.

JeffC
Reply to  Ken Mitchell
June 27, 2020 2:25 am

You forgot about the Spanish inquisition!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FAxkcPoLYcQ

Stephen Skinner
June 27, 2020 12:36 am

This is straight out of the Soviet Union. Next, we will have to denounce 5 ‘Climate Deniers’ and if you can only name 4 the 5th is you.

Lewis P Buckingham
June 27, 2020 12:37 am

I am just wondering if this is not another in the series, Dan Dare Pilot of the Future.
You see Dan spared a bad Treen who became a good Treen.
‘Sondar was a Treen, a reptilian inhabitant of northern Venus. Originally a servant of the Mekon, he reformed after Dan spared his life during a traumatic episode that also caused his first experience of strong emotion, which the Treens suppressed. He became governor of northern Venus when the planet was placed under UN rule at the end of the first story, but nevertheless joined Dan on later adventures. He was also a talented spacecraft designer, and designed Dan’s personal spaceship.
The Mekon, super-intelligent ruler of the Treens, was Dan’s archenemy. He escaped at the end of each story to return with an even more inventive scheme for the conquest of Earth.’
Perhaps we have another battle of Good vs Evil.
Will the Earth be saved from the Skeptics?
Will the Good Treen triumph by imprisoning the evil skeptics in Carbonite, thus storing more carbon and saving the planet?
A sort of win/win.
Will the Duke of Exeter Avatar be brought forth to follow the example of the modern zealots?
‘The King tends to call on [Exeter] when something needs doing, whether it is opening a gift or arresting traitors. A man eager for war, who helps to convince Henry to attack France, he is sent as ambassador to the French court.’
Don’t miss the next exiting edition titled ” Exeter enters, ‘The Climate Wars’.”
Will the Earth become as Venus and we evolve into green reptiles?
Will Sondar, the good Treen, save us?
Will the Skeptics return to burn the Earth?
Will this page be cited as part of a PhD Thesis?
Streaming on Stan, Netflix and Foxtel, they all thought this one was too good to miss.

Rod Evans
June 27, 2020 12:54 am

WE are already a long way down the road the anarchists are determined to take us down.
Their daily prayer, is to destroy capitalism in all its forms and all that it creates. The prime target to achieve that objective is energy reduction. The anarchists, or Green Socialists to use their more identifiable profile, have rightly concluded energy drives capitalism.
Energy and growth is capitalism, they are the two faces of the same coin.
Without energy there can be no growth, from that simple fact, the constantly offended Green socialists (COGS ) have concluded, to destroy capitalism and return the world to muscle power and serfdom, energy production systems must be destroyed. I use the word “destroyed” precisely because that is what is happening all around us. Here in the UK the COGS have agitated through their institutional controls, to block all nuclear development. They have demanded the closure of existing nuclear power plants based on the most contrived logic/reasons, even using a natural event such as a tsunami in Japan, as a valid reason for closing all nuclear power plants in Germany!?
The past generations of coal fired power plants are prime targets, they are not just closed, they are actively destroyed. Here in the UK, we are now down to just four operational coal fired power plants. They are increasingly sidelined, not allowed to input to the grid other than is exceptional demand situations, i.e. when the gas plants have maxed out and the wind doesn’t blow. The abandoned coal generating sites are literally being blown up. They will never to be available again no turbine hall, no cooling towers, zero infrastructure left. All done as fast as the local authority driven by the COGS can make it happen. Like some monument to a past age, the tearing down of our strengths are welcomed by the “Woke folk, they see it as progress. For them it is, it is progress to a darker place literally a darker world.
We have to find the resolve and the route, to return the world to a more sane inclusive mindset. The ongoing left wing takeover of the controls of all factors of production must be challenged and stopped. The left’s hijacking of democratic process, through their local authority committee involvement, through their one sided legislation enactments, through their media controls, both mainstream and social, they all needs to be identified and re-balanced. We must allow true freedom of innovative potential to exist. Without that freedom we are always heading backwards into darker times. Consider this. The anarchists have a day every year, where they celebrate, calling it Earth day, by turning out the lights across the world. They could not make it much clearer what their goals are, could they?
Perhaps the COGS can enlighten us? Perhaps they can tell us where the wind turbines will be coming from in 20 years time when the current fleets have exhausted themselves? The present production is from a fossil fuelled world assisted by nuclear power. In 20 years time there will be no reliable power available to the western world.
Has the decision already been made to rely entirely on the developing world for our security and well-being? If that is the case, than I am grateful I have lived in the world I have. I wish the next generation good luck, because they will need all the good wishes they can get. They won’t be getting much else.

fretslider
June 27, 2020 1:00 am

If it’s misinformation we’re talking about the best place to start would be The BBC, The Guardian or The Independent .

They are literally full of it.

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  fretslider
June 27, 2020 1:47 am

100%

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  fretslider
June 27, 2020 3:22 am

Figuratively as well.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  fretslider
June 27, 2020 7:36 am

fretslider
And, Yahoo regularly uses ‘news’ articles from Reuters, The Guardian, and BBC for its US News. These are typically political in nature and rarely supportive of conservative activities. There has much been claimed about Russians supposedly meddling in US Politics. Yet, liberal British media regularly attempt to influence American voters and nothing is said about it.

Rudiger Eichler
June 27, 2020 1:03 am

The real question is who ACTUALLY shouts and has shouted “fire” and by that cause harm ?
Skeptics are just saying “Take it easy”, “Do not panic”…
The world is getting more and more upside down.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rudiger Eichler
June 27, 2020 7:40 am

Rudiger
Yes, it is interesting that the apologists for alarmists don’t understand that yelling “Fire!” is an alarm, in contrast to a request to “Calmly exit the theater until the source of the smoke is determined.”

Gunga Din
Reply to  Rudiger Eichler
June 27, 2020 10:00 am

Well, they get to define what is “harm”.
In the PC world “harm” now means if you say or do or believe something that “offends” certain people.
Those “certain people” can say and do things that “offend” you with impunity.
In PC world that’s your fault for being “offended”. (You might even be charged with a “hate crime”.)

In “Climate Science” it seems that “harm” can be something as simple as asking, “Are you sure about that? I think you might be wrong. Can I see your data so I can check it myself?”
Off to the Gulag!
(Or to a Mannian court case.)

DocSiders
June 27, 2020 1:21 am

What debate? Alarmists don’t debate.

This sounded like a declaration of war.

This is violence. Actual violent speech.

Beware, Activists. The revolutionaries always take out the “elite” after the “victory”.

Joel O’Bryan
June 27, 2020 1:35 am

Climate Alarmist’s Lament
First the came for the Deniers, and I remained silent for I was not a Denier.
Next, they came for the Skeptics, and I remained silent for I was not a Skeptic.
Then they came for LukeWarmists, and I remained silent for I was not a LukeWarmist.
Now they come for me, for I was not sufficiently climate justice alarmed. Who will speak for me?

And make no mistake Mr and Ms Climate Scientist, they will come for you if you continue this climate charade.

MarkW
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
June 27, 2020 10:37 am

Quite a few life long liberals are being attacked today because they are insufficiently committed to whatever the activists are pushing today.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  MarkW
June 27, 2020 2:53 pm

They aren’t sufficiently woke.
Because there is always ever more wokeness to be had unless the People stand up to the terrorists.

Any reading of the history of these things informs that the PC and Cancel Culture will devour them as well.

2hotel9
Reply to  MarkW
June 27, 2020 3:57 pm

Good, loot and burn their houses.

Loydo
Reply to  2hotel9
June 27, 2020 4:32 pm

Got what you wanted Eric?

2hotel9
Reply to  Loydo
June 27, 2020 4:33 pm

Oh, so you support and defend looting and burning as long as it is the people YOU don’t like. Got it.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
June 27, 2020 7:11 pm

She’s a socialist, wanting those who disagree with you to be destroyed comes with the territory for them.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
June 27, 2020 7:13 pm

Loydo, in what passes for your mind, are you honestly going to take the position that climate scientists can’t be criticized because someone might want to hurt them if they are?

As 2hotel9 has pointed out, you have never complained when those who disagree with you are harassed and fired over their comments.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  2hotel9
June 27, 2020 5:08 pm

no. no one’s family property should have that.
Do you you even think about what you write?

2hotel9
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
June 27, 2020 5:20 pm

They created this mess, damned right they deserve it.

MarkW
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
June 27, 2020 7:14 pm

Joel, a couple of years ago, I would have agreed with you.
However given the behavior of the socialists towards anyone who gets between them and free stuff, I’m not as picky as I used to be.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
June 27, 2020 9:34 pm

The Left is degenerate because they do NOT respect individual rights.
The Left claims to value the Group needs over the Individual. And the Group needs are always determined by a few at the “top” and ultimately become self-serving and corrupt. I will never go there.
Respect individual rights. Even when you don’t like it, such as the right to burn a flag.

2hotel9
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 28, 2020 7:34 am

US Army taught me how to deal with rioters, looters and insurrectionists, empathy and “seeing their side” are not part of the program. Swift, harsh punishment is. You hound their leadership to ground and you hang them. Looters, being brigands/bandits, get hanged and left with a sign around their neck, same for rapists which these “demonstrations” are also littered with get same. We have not done this in a long time and look where it has got us.

Tell me, do you condemn Sherman and his tactics in Tennessee, Georgia and the Carolinas? US Army troops in San Francisco in 1906? How about Pershing during the Pancho Villa uprising or the Philippines? Just how selective is your outrage?

Perry
June 27, 2020 2:12 am

Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals writ large.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals#The_Rules

Waza
Reply to  Perry
June 27, 2020 2:38 am

Perry
Good observation
But rules for radicals only works when you have evil target ” big oil”
When you try and take away the SUV from the soccer mum, the radical looses support.

Ed Zuiderwijk
June 27, 2020 2:14 am

‘There is a negligible amount of literature about climate alarmism …’.

The mother of all selection biases.

Newminster
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
June 27, 2020 2:44 am

“It all depends on what you mean …”

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Newminster
June 27, 2020 5:33 am

It all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

Bruce Cobb
June 27, 2020 2:58 am

Fines and imprisonment for the Alarmists, aka Climate Liars on the other hand are certainly warranted. They are responsible for a great deal of harm to humanity, with the poor suffering the most from their misdeeds.

Dodgy Geezer
June 27, 2020 3:08 am

Everyone is complaining about the idea that climate sceptics ought to be imprisoned.

This is not the problem. The problem is a wider one – it is that the fact that people can have these ideas without them being instantly rejected as deeply at odds with our culture which is the problem. You will see that it is not only ‘climate change’ which suffers here from this odd extremism – discussions on equality, feminism and much more are equally affected. It is as if the ground has been cut away from under our normal approach to social discussion – the rules that our culture had built up over many years have been abandoned, and nothing but savagery has taken their place.

This is NOT a scientific problem, nor even a political problem. It is a CULTURAL problem. Science, democracy, business and many other aspects of our lives flourish in a western liberal culture which has been developed from its origins in Ancient Greece. This is a primary reason why the Western mode of living has been so successful, and why other cultures around the world have taken it on board.

And for many years now it has been under attack. Typical readers of WUWT have a technological bent, and are quite uninterested in what people like Derrida and post-modernists like Alun Munslow have been saying since the 1980s. Indeed, they are unlikely to understand it, and reject it as rubbish , as with the Sokal Affair. Much of it is. But even rubbish – perhaps especially rubbish – can be VERY damaging if you come to believe in it. C.S Lewis made the point succinctly when he noted:

” Those who call for Nonsense will find that it comes…”

The fight against this darkness needs to be led by the Philosophers. That is where the field of battle needs to be waged. Scientists and Engineers will have very little to do with it. They depended on an underlying culture, which has let them down…

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
June 27, 2020 7:46 am

Western societies have forgotten the principle espoused by Voltaire, paraphrased as: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it.” The irony is that we are all turning into fascist cultures, despite the Left decrying it while pushing it forward.

Pflashgordon
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
June 27, 2020 9:15 am

Amen and amen, Geezer. In the post-modern West, we are grinding through a clash of world views that goes far beyond science, technology, climate or any -ism.

“There is a flow to history and culture. This flow is rooted and has its wellspring in the thoughts of people. People are unique in the inner life of the mind—what they are in their thought world determines how they act. This is true of their value systems and it is true of their creativity. It is true of their corporate actions, such as political decisions, and it is true of their personal lives. The results of their thought-world flow through their fingers or from their tongues into the external world. … Most people catch their presuppositions from their family and surrounding society, the way that a child catches the measles. But people with understanding realize that their presuppositions should be chosen after a careful consideration of which worldview is true. … The direction in which science will move is set by the philosophic world-view of the scientists. … In this setting modern modern [NOTE: “modern modern” can also be termed “post-normal”] science tends increasingly to become one of two things: either a high form of technology, often with a goal of increasing affluence, or what I would call sociological science. By the latter I mean that, with a weakened certainty about objectivity, people find it easier to come to whatever conclusions they desire for the sociological ends they wish to see attained” ― Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture (1982)

In our anchor-less and increasingly savage culture, philosophers, artists, scientists, politicians, religionists, and popular culture have escaped from reason into a world of nonsense posing as profundity. Unless the tide is turned, we will devolve toward anarchy or totalitarianism, and those who speak out against the tide (or their children) will become enemies of the state (or the mob).

Climate believer
June 27, 2020 3:25 am

Mr Skinner said: “This is straight out of the Soviet Union. Next, we will have to denounce 5 ‘Climate Deniers’ and if you can only name 4 the 5th is you.”

That is not an exaggeration.
So true, yet people are so unaware of this pathological demon that resides in all of us. It makes us do demonic things, that we then reason into normality, justified by ideology, and group think.

Everyone eventually want’s their Komsomol Membership Card as protection because the stakes keep getting higher and higher, the start of the vicious circle.

“Yesterday” you couldn’t get away with saying “prison for skeptics” , today it’s not so unreasonable to some.

Political correctness (censorship) is a cancer.

Nick Graves
June 27, 2020 3:47 am

Peaceful discourse is infinitely preferable to v!olent revolution.

These PHD-tards do not seem to understand that they may well be the first to go, when the ‘uneducated’ finally have had enough of their shenanigans.

Wolf at the door
June 27, 2020 3:57 am

A re publishing of the climates emails would surely show who should be prosecutad.

Joseph Zorzin
June 27, 2020 4:09 am

The latest Scientific American (July, 2020) has 2 essays which are fiercely against climate change skeptics.

1. “Are Tech Firms Antiscience?”.
“On April 1 Internet readers were treated to an announcement that
appeared to come from Google CEO Sundar Pichai: “Today Google
Stops Funding Climate Change Deniers.” It explained that Google—
the world’s preeminent information company—had for many
years financed disinformation, but the COVID-
19 crisis had made
it take stock. Google executives would “stop our funding of organizations
that deny or work to block action on climate change.”
The Twittersphere lit up as scientists and environmentalists
praised the corporate giant for offering the private-sector leadership
that has for the most part been missing on this issue. The
Web site A Greener Google, where the announcement was published,
received more than 100,000 hits, and at least one major
news outlet—MarketWatch—reported the story.
Sadly, it was just an April Fools’ Day joke staged by the activist
group Extinction Rebellion, intended to expose the hypocrisy
of companies that boast of green initiatives while supporting
institutions that deny or downplay climate science. It was
plausible in part because last year more than 1,000 Google
employees asked their employer to stop funding these organizations,
as have workers at Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook.
Like all good satire, it addressed a real problem. In the past
decade Google has contributed to more than a dozen groups that
have worked to prevent action on climate change by promoting
half-truths, misrepresentations and, sometimes, outright lies about
climate research and scientists. These include the Competitive
Enterprise Institute (CEI), the Texas Public Policy Foundation and
the Cato Institute, all of which have a long paper trail of skepticism,
if not outright hostility, toward climate science. CEI has
been directly involved in personal attacks on scientists.
So why do large companies fund organizations that attack science?
Nearly all leading corporations are part of trade groups that
lobby for “pro-business” positions, such as lower taxes, and they
typically turn a blind eye to these groups’ other activities. Microsoft,
for example, participated for years in the American Legislative
Exchange Council (ALEC), which describes itself as dedicated to
“limited government, free markets and federalism.” In 2011 it was
revealed that ALEC had lobbied not only for pro-business initiatives
but also for antidemocratic ones, such as restrictive voter ID
requirements. Over the next few years a bevy of Fortune 500 companies,
Microsoft included, began to withdraw support.
Since the New Deal, trade groups have tried to defend the prerogatives
of the private sector by claiming that the federal government
is a threat to freedom. In the 1980s and 1990s this transmogrified
into an attack on science. As Erik Conway and I showed
in our 2010 book, Merchants of Doubt, trade groups and libertarian
think tanks resisted the findings on issues such as acid rain,
the hole in the ozone layer, indiscriminate pesticide use and, above
all, anthropogenic climate change—because these were problems
that business created and that government was needed to fix. They
denied reality to protect their ideology and economic interests.
We saw this on full display in recent months as many American
conservatives refused to accept a significant role for government
in containing the coronavirus pandemic. An extreme case is
the governor of South Dakota. Even as COVID-
19 reached her state
and hundreds of workers became ill at a meat-packing plant, she
refused to implement any form of state control. To be sure, stayat-
home orders do decrease personal freedom and hurt the economy.
But governments that took early steps to contain the threat
have done far better in protecting both personal liberty and their
economies. In any case, “freedom” is an empty concept to the dead.
Sam Peinado of Extinction Rebellion told me in an e-mail that
many Google employees thought the April Fools’ announcement
was real because it was “what they expected from their company.”
And why not? Why shouldn’t employees and customers expect corporate
leaders in all sectors to disassociate themselves from organizations
whose rigid ideologies and pursuit of self-interest have
led us into an antiscientific dead end? COVID-19 has proved that
denying science protects neither individuals nor the economy. It’s
time for corporate leaders to step up to the plate and reject the
rejection of science.”

2. “Denial du Jour”
Galileo could be, let’s say, prickly. “Look, he was a genius, and
he was a truly unusual person, but he wasn’t exactly nice,” astrophysicist
and author Mario Livio, whose latest book is Galileo
and the Science Deniers, said by phone. “He was nice to his family,
he supported the members of his family . . . and he had a few
extremely good friends. But he could be nasty to his enemies.
His sharp pen was just incredible.”
The great man shared his lifetime with many people whose
understanding, if you can call it that, of the laws of nature was
strongly influenced by antiquity’s often wrong writers. (You also
share your stay on Earth with such individuals.) One such contemporary
was a Jesuit priest and scientist named Orazio Grassi,
who was known to mix it up in print with Galileo on numerous
occasions.
Galileo really didn’t like this guy. When he read a Grassi lecture
about comets, he wrote margin notes that included pezzo
d’asinaccio (“piece of utter stupidity”), bufolaccio (“buffoon”)
and balordone (“bumbling idiot”). I include the original Italian
because, hey, don’t be a jadrool.
In another work, Grassi, in theorizing about heat, relied
on those ancient authors when he claimed that Babylonians
could cook eggs by whirling them around at the ends of
slings. Livio writes that “Galileo pounced on this fallacy
like a cat on a slow mouse.” Galileo’s retort, written with
that aforementioned sharp pen in a work called The Assayer,
translates to: “If we do not achieve an effect which others
formerly achieved, it must be that we lack something
in our operation which was the cause of this effect succeeding,
and if we lack one thing only, then this alone can be
the true cause.”
The ball thus teed up, Galileo swings away: “Now we do
not lack eggs, or slings, or sturdy fellows to whirl them, and
still [the eggs] do not cook, but rather cool down faster if
hot. And since we lack nothing except being Babylonian,
then being Babylonian is the cause of the egg hardening.”
You could say this reductio ad absurdum left Grassi shelled.
“The more I thought about Galileo and his personality
and his fights,” Livio told me, “I realized how relevant his
fight for intellectual freedom and against science deniers
is for today, when we are really facing rampant science
denial on many fronts.”
Current investigators don’t typically have to face the
possibility of torture, as Galileo did from the Catholic
Church for being “vehemently suspect of heresy.” But modern
climate researchers, evolutionary biologists and educators
are threatened via e-mail and pilloried in social
media, sometimes by elected officials.
In 2012 two conservative outlets charged usually respected
Penn State climatologist Michael E. Mann with disseminating
fraudulent data (and compared him to a pedophile). Mann sued
for defamation, and the case is still unresolved. Worse than the
personal attacks, of course, is that policy is being made based on
nonsense and magical thinking. (I’m writing this in early May.
Has the coronavirus just, poof, gone away yet?)
It’s an almost comical irony that today’s deniers try to assume
the mantle of Galileo: people who disagree with the scientific
consensus on things such as climate sometimes cite Galileo as a
rebel (you know, like themselves) who is now seen as a hero.
“It’s really a logical fallacy,” Livio said. “Oh, look, here was one
who was going against the mainstream, and it turned out to be
right; therefore, those few who speak against climate change are
right. Galileo was right not because he was one against many—
he was right because he was right.”
By this point Livio was laughing: “It’s not the case now every
time that one speaks against the mainstream, he or she is right.
Most of the time those people are wrong. In some rare cases, they
are right. So to bring that as an argument is just ridiculous.” Sadly,
two arguments of very different weights can still convince a
lot of people at the same rate.”

Wolf at the door
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 27, 2020 4:47 am

Joseph Zorzin-“Usually respected Penn State scientist Michael Mann”!!
Have you read the climategate emails?? If not read them ,if you have read them – well,I don’t like putting people down but….

George Daddis
Reply to  Wolf at the door
June 27, 2020 5:57 am

Zorzin pasted a pair of Scientific American essays; not his own thoughts.

And the essay was also incorrect in that Mann was NOT compared to pedophile; the President of Penn State and the board were criticized by Steyn et al for white washing Mann’s investigation in the same manner as they white washed the pedophilia investigation of Jerry Sandusky because the football program (like the Climate program) brought so much income to Penn State.

Wikipedia: “Additionally, three Penn State officials – school president Graham Spanier, vice president Gary Schultz and athletic director Tim Curley – were charged with perjury, obstruction of justice, failure to report suspected child abuse, and related charges.”

The left loves to twist facts in that manner against opponenets.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  George Daddis
June 27, 2020 7:33 am

Right. I really like Scientific American- but was shocked to see it publish such bullshit.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 27, 2020 9:38 am

Scientific American began to change in the 1990s as it switched from scientists writing about their own efforts, over to science journalists writing about things of which they had no personal experience. It became a microcosm of the problems that John Burnham outlined in his book “How Superstition Won and Science Lost.”

John C
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 27, 2020 9:45 am

I’ve considered dropping my subscription.

John C
Reply to  George Daddis
June 27, 2020 9:51 am

Mann is not faring well in court as of late.

George Daddis
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 27, 2020 5:45 am

From the first essay:

antidemocratic ones, such as restrictive voter ID
requirements

By what twisted logic can one conclude that proof of identity at a voting site is ANTI DEMOCRATIC?

These kind of statements are clear evidence that the authors of such essays have bought into “group think” with no actual thought on their part!

Alasdair Fairbairn
Reply to  George Daddis
June 27, 2020 5:53 am

Yes. A good example of infection by the CAGW virus pandemic.

MarkW
Reply to  George Daddis
June 27, 2020 10:45 am

You are making it very hard for the dead to vote.
What could be more anti-democratic than that?

Stephen Philbrick
Reply to  George Daddis
June 27, 2020 11:25 am

Requiring ID to vote will favor the GOP so it is anti-Democratic(party).

MarkW
Reply to  Stephen Philbrick
June 27, 2020 2:30 pm

Democrat party, there is nothing democratic about them.

2hotel9
Reply to  MarkW
June 27, 2020 3:59 pm

“democcratic” is a term descriptive of a political process, “democrat” is the name of the leftist’s anti-American party.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
June 27, 2020 7:17 pm

I’m guessing you meant to write Demoncrat.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
June 28, 2020 7:53 am

If one is a member of the Democratic Party, that makes you a Democratic.

If one is a member of the Democrat Party, that makes you a Democrat.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 27, 2020 7:55 am

I quit reading SciAm, except for some of the September issues, 30 years ago. Even before finally stopping my subscription, I read it mostly for Martin Gardner’s mathematical games columns and the occasional non-political geology article.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 27, 2020 2:14 pm

Scientific American’s astronomy articles are very good- though I now also subscribe to Astronomy Magazine which is fantastic.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 28, 2020 9:28 am

I dropped my Scientific American subscription sometime in the 1980’s. I finally got fed up with seeing wild speculation about Human-caused climate change being presented as established fact in the magazine. They did so with the Global Cooling scare of the 1970’s, and now they are doing so with the Global Warming scare.

I also dropped my subscriptions to Science News and National Geographic for the same reason and about the same time.

I do subscribe to Astronomy magazine which is a very fine magazine. Its editor on occasion gets off track and does an article about climate, scoffing at skeptics. But he’s only done that once or twice, and I’m hoping he will stick to astronomy and leave Human-caused climate change out of it. Otherwide, I may have to write a letter to the editor. 🙂

MarkW
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 27, 2020 10:43 am

“such as restrictive voter ID requirements”

The only people who have ever been restricted by voter ID requirements, are those who aren’t allowed to vote in the first place. Which is why the liberals fight so hard against them.

Coach Springer
June 27, 2020 4:16 am

“In the context of climate change research, misinformation may be seen in the types of behaviour and information which cast doubt on well-supported theories, or in those which attempt to discredit climate science. ”

No question where they’re headed with or without a “well, we don’t mean REAL skepticism.” Just that which attempts to discredit the currently favored view of currently favored scientists. I have a major problem with the concept of “well supported theories”beings beyond casting doubt, as well. This is a complete set up for censorship and government run life that will be propped up with a few “academics” as long as they toe the line. These are the academics that hope to rule, yet will be used as initially willing puppets.

M__ S__
June 27, 2020 4:17 am

If people have no argument they resort to ad hominem, demagoguery, demonization. The next step they take is coercion and even violence.

The very last thing they want is a free and fair discussion of ideas

We see this in a lot of areas these days.

Phil Salmon
June 27, 2020 4:35 am

“The Great Terror” by Robert Conquest is relevant reading for these times. A great green terror is the inevitable destination of the current trajectory of green politics as its entrenching intolerance moves towards violence and repression.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Terror

“The Great Terror” was a game-changer opening the eyes of western public opinion to the almost unbelievable scale and visciousness of Stalin’s purges. For many left leaning intellectuals it was a pivotal moment of disillusionment with the hitherto almost romantic popularity of Soviet communism.

The most important aspect of the book was that it widened the understanding of the purges beyond the previous narrow focus on the “Moscow trials” of disgraced Communist Party of the Soviet Union leaders such as Nikolai Bukharin and Grigory Zinoviev, who were executed shortly thereafter. The question of why these leaders had pleaded guilty and confessed to various crimes at the trials had become a topic of discussion for a number of western writers, and helped inspire anti-Communist tracts such as George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon.[16]

Conquest argued that the trials and executions of these former Communist leaders were a minor detail of the purges. By his estimates, Stalinist purges had led to the deaths of some 20 million people. He later stated that the total number of deaths could “hardly be lower than some thirteen to fifteen million.”[17]

Wolf at the door
June 27, 2020 4:47 am

Joseph Zorzin-“Usually respected Penn State scientist Michael Mann”!!
Have you read the climategate emails?? If not read them ,if you have read them – well,I don’t like putting people down but….

Sean
June 27, 2020 4:48 am

Simple answer:

Science IS debate. When the debate is over there is no more science.

Nullius In Verba or loosely translated, take no ones word for it.

Are Dr’s Treen, Williams and O’Neil familiar with the motto of the Royal Society?

Stonyground
Reply to  Sean
June 27, 2020 7:43 am

“Are Dr’s Treen, Williams and O’Neil familiar with the motto of the Royal Society?”

I don’t know but the Royal Society seem to have forgotten it.

Wolf at the door
June 27, 2020 4:54 am

Joseph Zorzin-“Usually respected Penn State scientist Michael Mann”!!
Have you read the climategate emails?? If not, read them ,if you have read them – well,I don’t like putting people down but….

MarkW
Reply to  Wolf at the door
June 27, 2020 7:17 pm

You need to write that to the person that Zorzin was quoting.

Mike Ozanne
June 27, 2020 4:58 am

” the right to free speech does not include a right to deliberately spread false information which leads to harm”

The content of many US Newspaper and Current Affairs programs would suggest that this is not entirely true… 😛 🙂

igsy
June 27, 2020 4:59 am

I wouldn’t have a problem with fines or imprisonment for those who improperly implemented principal components analysis, resulting in false claims of having found the dominant signal in historical northern hemisphere temperatures. Nor for those who routinely sample on the dependent variable via pre-analysis correlation screening, also resulting in a misleading representation of past temperatures.

commieBob
June 27, 2020 5:12 am

Defund the universities … sort of.

Most people don’t need education beyond community college.

Universities act like businesses. They want the maximum number of customers. That means they need watered down programs so anyone can get in and most can stay in and keep paying tuition for four years. The result is the Grievance Studies departments with just about zero intellectual rigor.

One solution is for the universities to have quotas. example: a school could have 10,000 students. 500 of those have to be in engineering, 500 have to be in law, and 500 have to be in medicine. There should be a rule that a university can produce PhDs at a rate proportional to it the retirement rate of its professors. The number of PhD candidates a professor can supervise should not be measured in batches. Getting into university should be a competitive process.

The way it is now, universities are willing to crank out an endless supply of grievance studies graduates who, upon graduation, are saddled with a bazillion dollars of debt and no good job prospects. The situation is bogus from every perspective I can think of.

MarkW
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 27, 2020 7:19 pm

For many, the ultimate payer for college is government.
Unfortunately Democrats love ignorant and hate filled voters.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  commieBob
June 27, 2020 5:35 am

“an endless supply of grievance studies graduates who, upon graduation, are saddled with a bazillion dollars of debt and no good job prospects. ”

Let them eat tofu.

commieBob
Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 27, 2020 6:08 am

If they were willing to shut up and quietly munch their tofu, I would agree.

Marx (Karl not Groucho) called the class of useless people the lumpenproletariat. Perhaps he could not imagine anything worse, but that’s what these folks are. They can’t do anything useful but they think, due to their supposed higher education, that they should be the boss.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 27, 2020 9:56 am

Tofu, or not tofu.
That is the question.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  commieBob
June 27, 2020 8:06 am

commieBob
Unfortunately, your characterization of higher education (at least in the US, with which I’m familiar) has been true since at least the 1970s. It is like a Ponzi scheme. The more people who have degrees, the more difficult it is to get a job without a degree. The people who need a job are coerced into extending their formal education, even if they have no talent for academic-like activities. I suspect that my parents, who were high school dropouts during the Great Depression, had better academic preparation than most of today’s college graduates.

commieBob
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 27, 2020 9:00 am

Since I’ve been retired for a while, I can say the following:

If you live in Ontario, and I suspect anywhere in Canada, and you have good enough marks to get into a decent (university) engineering school, you should study engineering technology at a community college. Why??

When you graduate with your three year diploma in engineering technology, you will probably get a job and you will probably be supervised by an engineer. A couple of years of such experience is one of the requirements for a professional engineering license. Now, you can work on the educational requirements full or part time.

If you go straight into a four year engineering degree, you will probably not get a job that will give you the right experience for your professional license. In Ontario, only 30% of people with engineering degrees are working in engineering … and no, they’re not doing anything more remunerative. link

The bottom line is that community college is a better bet, for engineering at least, than university. If you’re so inclined, university can come later.

BTW, the former dean of engineering at the University of Waterloo started out as an apprentice in Britain. Can anyone tell me if that’s a feature of the British system?

Anyway, back to your point Clyde. People think they need a degree. That’s by no means a given.

Robert Austin
Reply to  commieBob
June 27, 2020 9:51 am

“Defund the universities … sort of.”
Not just “sort of”.
There are way too many degree granting universities in the first world. Most students have no real purpose or goal for attending and graduate no more learned than they were upon entry. Some graduate intellectually confused and unemployable (grievance studies) with hideous debts. The flagship example of higher education gone rogue is Evergreen College where untouchable graduates dare not put their college education on their resume.

Alasdair Fairbairn
June 27, 2020 5:28 am

To me the CAGW Meme has gone viral and is now acting as an intellectual virus infecting across a wide range of human activity and thinking. It is as much a pandemic as Covid-19; but operates within the logical processes in the brain, rather than in physical biology.
It is easy to identify articles or individuals which have been infected by this virus; but very difficult to challenge due the powerful automatic defence mechanisms used by this virus.
I could expand on this; but I am sure many will comprehend what I say.
Sadly I see little hope of a vaccine being developed to control this pandemic; as vested and political interests are now totally entrenched.

Ulric Lyons
June 27, 2020 5:45 am

The conclusions of institutional climate science is the prime source of misinformation. Because it is based on the false and unquestioned assumption that natural variability of weather and ocean cycles are internal, chaotic, and unforced. Evidence of these processes being discretely solar driven is also evidence that they have not begun to explain global change, and they never will while they believe them to be internal variability, like shadows on the wall of Plato’s cave. Though given that our needs are primarily the prediction of regional seasonal weather patterns and of ocean phases, global change is largely irrelevant and cannot predict either. It’s a huge white elephant.

Brian
June 27, 2020 6:28 am

The perversion of science, publication, and the professional integrity on which they rely will continue.. so long as those holding the purse strings continue to pay for it.

Could be the most important positive feedback in climate science.

2hotel9
June 27, 2020 6:35 am

So, to put it more precisely, the very people creating misinformation about climate want to put people who refuse to accept their lies in prison. Go for it.

ScienceABC123
June 27, 2020 6:43 am

More evidence science and politics is always a bad mix. One seeks the truth, the other power and control.

Editor
June 27, 2020 7:44 am

” the right to free speech does not include a right to deliberately spread false information which leads to harm. ”

I am not sure that that is a legal definition — a legal principle. If it were, then the Main Stream Media would constantly be jailed when a journalist gets a story wrong and the people riot.

I think it revolves on the INTENT to cause harm — not intentional false information — politicians do that.

MarkW
Reply to  Kip Hansen
June 27, 2020 10:53 am

In libel cases, you don’t have to prove that the person knew the information was false in order to prove damages.
The only exception is for people the courts have declared to be “public figures”.

AndyHce
Reply to  Kip Hansen
June 28, 2020 2:13 am

You don’t think that a significant percentage of the media coverage of the latest BLM affair was intended to cause harm? If so, it certainly backfired on the media.

n.n
June 27, 2020 8:39 am

Obviously, burn the witches and dunk the warlocks. We already have witch hunters in the streets of our urban jungles, and warlock judges presiding, let’s throw another baby on the barbie and get all the witches and warlocks Planned.

Joey
June 27, 2020 9:18 am

Khmer Vert

Just Jenn
June 27, 2020 9:20 am

Ok so their premise is that misinformation on social media should be punished.

Let’s just do a small sample experiment: go jail the Flat Earthers and we’ll see how that goes first OK? That will be the sample size for your great social movement to deny anyone with a viewpoint not your own.

Go for it. We’ll sit back and see how far you get.

Flat Earth believers are the perfect niche group to test your hypothesis on–why? Because they are true dissenters and disbelievers in a globe model that can be reproduced though science and experiment with consistent results.

Anyone can test the globe model with established principles. Not anyone can test the alarmists theory because they refuse to produce their raw data in order to do it. So go for it, jail the FLERFERS and when sitting in court in front of a judge you will need to PROVE that they are doing harm by not believe in a globe model. I want to see you try–because you have no idea that in doing so, you are positioned under the sword of Damocles.

AndyHce
Reply to  Just Jenn
June 28, 2020 2:20 am

“because they refuse to produce their raw data in order to do it”

More like they refuse to produce their data because they know it doesn’t work. Like all such minded folk, they constantly attempt to turn it around by claiming dissenters are doing what they themselves do. Quite often I have seen their defense against reality expressed as “the data is no good” or the even more blatant “the data doesn’t matter”.

Tom Abbott
June 27, 2020 10:09 am

From the article: “In a similar way, climate alarmism may also be construed as misinformation, as recent online debates have discussed. This includes making exaggerated claims about climate change that are not supported by the scientific literature.”

Yes, making exaggerated claims about climate change that are not supported by the scientific literature is exactly what Alarmists do. Alarmists should be asked to provide evidence that CO2 is doing what they say it is doing. Don’t be surprised when they don’t have an answer, because they don’t have an answer.

From the article: “There is a negligible amount of literature about climate alarmism compared to climate scepticism, suggesting it is significantly less prevalent. As such, the focus for this article is on climate scepticism.”

There’s some twisted logic.

From the article: “Climate change misinformation is closely linked to climate change skepticism, denial, and contrarianism. A network of actors are involved in financing, producing, and amplifying misinformation.”

Skeptics don’t peddle “[Human-caused] climate change misinformation”. All skeptics do is ask for evidence from the Alarmists? How is that misinformation? Just because skeptics require evidence before believing a claim? That’s a skeptic’s job, requiring evidence. The Alarmists don’t have any evidence, so they divert attention by claiming skeptics are on some sort of disinformation campaign, when all skeptics are doing is telling Alarmists to back up their assertions about CO2 and the Earth’s climate. One little bit of evidence is all it would take and the skeptics would convert to believers, but we have to have that one little bit of evidence first, and even though it is requested on a daily basis, no Alarmist ever steps forward and supplies that evidence. That should make a reasonable person think that maybe the Alarmists can’t back up their claims Asking a person to prove a previously unsupported assertion is not disinformation or misinformation. Prove it, Alarmists. That’s what skeptics say, and that’s what Alarmists don’t want to hear.

From the article: “It is clear that skepticism, contrarianism, and denial are concepts often associated with climate change misinformation. It should be noted that this is not skepticism in its original meaning as an integral part of the scientific method, but in its frequently applied usage to mean those who doubt climate change or reject mainstream climate science.”

Actually, it *is* skepticism in its orginal meaning. Skeptics of Old said, “Prove it”. Skeptics today say the same thing. Alarmists throw a lot of things out there that they claim is evidence for Human-caused climate change but when examined closely, it turns out it is not evidence, it is just unsubstantiated speculation and assertions. Unsubstantiated being the key word.

From the article: “Calling imprisonment for climate deniers “Blunt and risky” is not the same as describing this horrible policy option as “ineffective”.”

I would like to see them try to lock up skeptics. If they are crazy enough to try that, then it would be time to go to Plan B.

From the article: The USA has a constitutional right to free speech, but there are limits on that right; the right to free speech does not include a right to deliberately spread false information which leads to harm. Someone who falsely shouts “fire” in a crowded theatre to cause a stampede is not protected by the right to free speech. Some green academics argue the principle of prohibiting speech which causes harm should be applied to climate deniers. Al Gore called for climate deniers to be punished in in 2015.”

The people spreading false information are the Alarmists who claim Human-caused climate change is an established fact, when nothing could be further from the Truth.

The Alarmists can assert it, but they can’t provide any evidence for it. So that’s where we are. And that is where we will continue to be until evidence is provided. Al Gore or no Al Gore.

Alarmists can shut the Skeptics up with just one piece of evidence. That’s all they have to do. But they can’t do it because they don’t have any evidence, and they won’t admit it.

This post can serve as an example: Let’s see how much evidence is provided to refute the skeptics. The Alarmists have been challenged. Let’s see if they step up. Don’t hold your breath waiting for them to speak. They won’t speak up because they have nothing to say. This post will be more evidence of that. Silence from the Alarmists when challenged.

A
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 28, 2020 2:24 am

“I would like to see them try to lock up skeptics.”

Germany has been doing this for decades to skeptics of certain German government declared “truths”. This generates a little complaint but nothing even slightly effective.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 30, 2020 4:33 am

As you can see, no Alarmist took up the challenge of providing evidence for Human-caused climate change. That would be because there is no evidence of Human-caused climate change for them to provide. This is the outcome every time alarmists are challenged about Human-caused climate change. All those really smart guys that contest the issue here and elsewhere have nothing to say when challenged to provide evidence. They go silent, as they are now. Those who are undecided about Human-caused climate change should take this into consideration.

And in reply to A: The United States is a lot different from Germany. At least until/if the Democrats get back in power and then all bets are off as far as our personal freedoms go. Democrats would definitely like to put people in jail who disagree with them. On anything.

Matthew
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 30, 2020 9:44 am

Jail is where it starts. That’s not where it ends.

MarkW
June 27, 2020 10:17 am

That’s one constant with socialists. Any disagreement with them is considered a crime. First they lock you up, and when that doesn’t work, they start killing disenters.

D Cage
June 27, 2020 10:28 am

Climate change. Welcome to the the new minority report sci – fi world of imprisonment for pre crime. Too bad the oracle is in this case proven by nature 100% incompetent at getting the criminal right and in the words of Richard Feynman nature cannot be fooled. Surely it is not too much to ask or worthy of imprisonment that the foundation data for science by the pre crime oracle costing us billions meets the standards used by a bottom end chain here for novelties intended for Christmas crackers and costing a Pound in UK money rather than just meets the self set standards of peer review.

John Robertson
June 27, 2020 12:01 pm

Years ago a wag published a “Bafflegab to plain speech” translator.
If you forced the writers of this “Paper” to first define their terms,for what on God’s earth is a “climate denier”?
And then translated this wordy piece into plain english..
The result is “We Good,all who doubt us Bad”.
Agree with us or we will beat you.

goldminor
June 27, 2020 12:46 pm

Here is a great example of how schools are failing their students. This is from CNBC ” …as the only country in the world whose pieces are scattered in all four hemispheres and across 1.3 million square miles. ..”. … https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/27/op-ed-china-gains-political-influence-in-strategic-outpost-kiribati.html

Nik
June 27, 2020 1:40 pm

If dissent is banned, blocked, or rendered mute, there is no science.

And the left always projects what they fear most being turned against them.

TBeholder
Reply to  Nik
June 29, 2020 4:57 am

Well, yes, but usually they can tell hysterical projections from feasible threats. They want perks for pretend-heroism, not “become an hero”. Or per Moldbug, «In a country where witch-hunting is a stable and lucrative career, and also an amateur pastime enjoyed by millions of hobbyists on the weekend, we know there are no real witches worth a damn».

My guess is that many of those involved are not completely thoughtless, thus remember that everything those swimming leftward with Cthulhu introduce is, indeed, eventually turned against them, thus remain moderate.
Since movements are not led by the moderates, they can drag behind only so far before losing cohesion. But since it’s always about power and troughs with free chow, when one crowd’s support hesitates, it’s left behind by another. If there are other spear-points that achieve more, anything that cannot be tied to them solidly (“intersectionality”) withers a little, because it stops looking like a quick way toward power and troughs.
Right now, 10:10 still didn’t get to shoot anybody who dares to disagree, while masks and looting with side dish of arson are visible. Since they are, obviously, coordinated, Gretins are not going to do any big stunts until masks and looting wither, as it would be a waste of effort. Thus on this “front” it’s the time of moderates — invested, entitled, but not driven by predatory instincts.

Sir Darren Porter
June 27, 2020 6:41 pm

Re-education through labour. Green = Red

TBeholder
Reply to  Sir Darren Porter
June 28, 2020 9:06 am

Green on the surface… which is why Delingpole named these fellows “watermelons”.

J Mac
June 27, 2020 7:15 pm

Ahhh Yes! Embrace Diversity! And, if they don’t agree with the narrow slice of the spectrum you believe in, punish and imprison them! It’s the tradition fascist means of enforcing socialist diktats.

Ted
June 28, 2020 6:28 am

The steps as written are peer review for official statement.
For a scientific argument, #3 needs to be ‘Support your argument with data, including the raw data and methodology’.
Step 4 should be reveiewers questioning any parts of the argument that aren”t proven.
In addition, the last two steps need to be repeated after publishing- as you said it shouldn’t matter who the reviewer is.
Phil Jones revealed that scientific peer review does not happen in his field, and that the independant review of papers is being actively repressed.

raygun
June 28, 2020 9:04 am

“…well-supported theories …” is just what it is, a theory, nothing more, nothing less. Until the “theory” is solidified with actual raw data time and time, again, then it is JUST DATA, NOT theory. To hell with ‘models’.
Hell, any weather reporter has trouble ‘predicting anything beyond several days, much less a week, without their satellite images. I wouldn’t stake my welfare and future on a wild arse guess, especially someone with a PhD in earth sciences or mental health. With dozens and dozens of factors (and hundreds of ice cores and tree rings), it still is a GUESSING GAME.

raygun
June 28, 2020 9:32 am

I recommend putting the argument and radical science for GW/CC/GND/SRJ/BLM (I thought BLM stood for Bureau of Land Management) and whatever, on hold till 2030, and then we can look at the situation and say “all of this is a bunch of hooey” (BS).

%d bloggers like this: