Reposted from The Heartland Institute
SEPTEMBER 12, 2020
By Jim Lakely
BUCKLE UP! Let’s break it down and debunk tons of lies about Legates, climate science, the scientific method, and The Heartland Institute.
It’s not often that I read a MSM report and think that every single paragraph is full of sh!t. But this NPR story about Heartland friend and esteemed climate scientist David Legates has falsehoods in every single paragraph that doesn’t simply identify him.
Well done, NPR — which reached out to Heartland for comment on a Saturday two hours before they published this story “on a tight deadline” for a story they were obviously working on for days. Your tax dollars subsidize this fake news, by the way.
Let’s break it down and debunk tons of lies about Legates, climate science, the scientific method, and The Heartland Institute. Buckle up … and this is just a quick rebuttal. A more-comprehensive one — based on the Climate Change Reconsidered series Legates helped produce, is warranted. Lead paragraph:
David Legates, a University of Delaware professor of climatology who has spent much of his career questioning basic tenets of climate science, has been hired for a top position at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Legates has, indeed, been “questioning basic tenets of climate science,” if you substitute the word “science” for “dogma.” The very definition of science, in its most-basic sense from The Enlightenment to 2020, is “questioning the basic tenets” of current assumptions.
The ignorant taxpayer-supported NPR reporter Rebecca Hersher is ignorant of this basic fact of the scientific method. Again: She’s paid, in part by you, to be a “science writer” for National Public Radio. After some factual boilerplate, here’s paragraph #4:
Legates has a long history of using his position as an academic scientist to publicly cast doubt on climate science. His appointment to NOAA comes as Americans face profound threats stoked by climate change, from the vast, deadly wildfires in the West to an unusually active hurricane season in the South and East.
David has not “used his position” for anything. He’s examined the data for many, many years and has not seen proof that humans are the chief drivers of climate change. Americans in the West threatened by wildfires have the extreme never-cut-any-tree-down “green” polices pushed by the Sierra Club and other luxuriously funded leftist groups to blame for their misery.
BTW: This year’s hurricane season is, indeed, active, but that is only getting back to normal after almost historic years of inactivity. But the legacy media ignores all those facts. Because “disaster” sells, even if you have to make it up.
Global temperatures have already risen nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit as a result of greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels. Warming is happening the fastest at the Earth’s poles, where sea ice is melting, permafrost is thawing and ocean temperatures are heating up, with devastating effects on animals and humans alike.
Ok. “nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit” … since when? The climate science reporter doesn’t say. Shouldn’t, on a basic level, there should be some context to that? Oh, well. I guess NPR readers/listeners don’t need that basic information. And is it the result of greenhouse gases? No proof of that in the National Public Radio story — which Americans think they can count on for comprehensive journalism.
The earth is warmer than it was before the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, when humans started burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But temperature readings in the United States were as warm or warmer in the 1930s than today, when global emissions were a tiny fraction of today. That is the kind of fact that Legates examines as a scientist.
Paragraph #6:
In 2007, Legates was one of the authors of a paper that questioned previous findings about the role of climate change in destroying the habitat of polar bears. That research was partially funded by grants from Koch Industries, the lobbying group the American Petroleum Institute and ExxonMobil, according to InsideClimate News.
That was not just “a paper.” It was a peer reviewed paper. Funny how NPR, pushing an agenda, fails to mention that very important fact. Legates didn’t just “write a paper” that “someone” published. What a joke.
Polar bears populations are also thriving, another fact that is easily found and debunks the idea that their habitat is being destroyed. And Inside Climate News is a garbage outlet that pushes alarmism, not climate science. Research stands on its own on the science. Note how there is no attempt by NPR to counter the paper, just a smear. This is typical. NPR, like most garbage media outlets, never cite anything to debunk the science presented by “skeptics.”
This is the game: The corrupt media just refers to their other reporting by garbage media to make it smell better. Newsflash: The stink is still there.
Paragraph #7:
The same year, Delaware Gov. Ruth Ann Minner sent a letter to Legates expressing concern about his opinions on climate change, given that he was the state climatologist at the time. Minner asked him to refrain from casting doubt on climate science when he was acting in his official role. Legates stepped down in 2011.
A politician definitely knows more about climate science than Legates. Sure. And, again, Legates wasn’t “casting doubt on climate science,” he was engaging in climate science. His sin was that his examination of the data differed from climate politics dogma. No wonder he resigned. He was employed by ideologues, not even objective laymen with an open mind.
Paragraph #8:
Legates also appeared in a video pushing the discredited theory that the sun is the cause of global warming. In testimony before the U.S. Senate in 2014, Legates argued that a climate science report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change erroneously stated that humans are causing global warming.
Jeez! Where to start. A lot of BS packed into such a small amount of words. Hey, NPR. You linked to Legates’ lecture. Now how about a link to something that proves his thoughts are “discredited”? Lame. How about mentioning that the UN IPCC reports completely discount any role of the sun in their reports, which you seem to consider holy writ?
Paragraph #9:
Legates is a professor in the Department of Geography and Spatial Sciences at the University of Delaware. He is also affiliated with the Heartland Institute, a think tank that has poured money into convincing Americans that climate change is not happening and that the scientific evidence — including evidence published by the agency that now employs Legates — is uncertain or untrustworthy.
This is 100% wrong. If Rebecca spent even 10 minutes looking over Heartland’s website, and our Center on the Environment, or our climate conferences, or the Climate Reconsidered series, or our Climate Realism site, or our Climate-At-A-Glance site, she would know that Heartland has never posited that “climate change is not happening.” Such a proposition is absurd.
The question that The Heartland Institute raises — via the hundreds of scientists we worth with across the globe — is that human activity is not the main driver of climate change. That is what the data shows, including NOAA’s. They just don’t like to admit it. Legates, hopefully, will not let them get away with more alarmism via hiding the pea.
Paragraph #10
Advocates who reject mainstream climate science, such as those at Heartland, have had a leading role in shaping the Trump administration’s response to global warming, including the decision to exit the Paris climate accord.
Eureka! We’re making progress. The Heartland Institute did have a role in Trump rejecting the Paris Climate Accord and has helped shape his “response to global warming.” We are proud if that, and every American should be grateful. in truth, every word of this paragraph is an accurate statement, other than “reject mainstream climate science.”
I know that’s a trope the ignorant media likes to trot out, but the idea of “mainstream” or “consensus” climate science does not adhere to the scientific method. Let’s allow Nobel Prize Winner and participant in the Manhattan Project Richard Feynman state it clearly and distinctly — the universal law of the scientific method — in just one minute.
Paragraph #11:
Steve Milloy, a Heartland board member and part of Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency transition team, says he welcomes the Legates appointment. “David Legates is a true climate scientist and will bring a great deal of much-needed science to NOAA,” Milloy writes in an email to NPR.
I submitted independently the same statement to NPR. Well done, Steve!
Paragraph #12:
But climate researchers slammed the NOAA decision to appoint Legates to a key scientific position.
What a surprise. And notice that Rebecca didn’t put “other” in front of “climate researchers” in this set-up. David knows more about the climate and has researched it more than the very next person Rebecca quotes.
Paragraph #13:
“He’s not just in left field, he’s not even near the ballpark,” says Jane Lubchenco, professor of marine biology at Oregon State University and head of NOAA under President Obama.
Contrarians in science are welcome, Lubchenco says, but their claims have to be scientifically defensible. That’s why official groups like the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change review the entire range of scientific research before reaching a conclusion.
The chances that Jane Lubchenco has read anything David Legates has written or listened to anything he’s said about the climate is zero. If she did, she wouldn’t say anything she said. It’s embarrassing, really. He only cites data. And the reason why the Climate Change Reconsidered series exists, is because they IPCC (a political, not scientific organization) ignored anything that went against their alarmist dogma.
Paragraph #14:
Over the last 20 years, in his work and public statements, Legates has rejected the overwhelming peer-reviewed research that shows human activity is the main driver of a dangerously changing climate.
Legates has not “rejected the overwhelming peer-reviewed research that shows human activity is the main driver of a dangerously changing climate.” He has examined the same data and come to a different conclusion. That is called science. And Legates has defended his conclusions in public, repeatedly, for many years. And the only coverage Legates gets for that from NPR an other no-nothings in our corrupt and incurious mainstream media is the kind of crap in this article. This does not serve readers or science. Here’s an idea, America’s “science journalists”: How about you report what he says and encourage other scientists to challenge it with their own science?
Nah. They prefer leaning on jokers like … wait for it … Michael Mann to confirm their alarmist narrative.
Paragraph #15 and #16:
Michael Mann, professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University, says in an email to NPR that Legates has, throughout his career, “misrepresented the science of climate change, serving as an advocate for polluting interests as he dismisses and downplays the impacts of climate change.”
Mann adds: “At a time when those impacts are playing out before our very eyes in the form of unprecedented wildfires out West and super-storms back East, I cannot imagine a more misguided decision than to appoint someone like Legates to a position of leadership at an agency that is tasked with assessing the risks we face from extreme weather events.”
The Heartland Institute is hosting its 14th International Conference on Climate Change in April in Las Vegas. The media’s favorite climate alarmist is welcome to come make his case, in front of David Legates, at that conference.
Michael Mann will refuse to defend his assertions, as he always does. (He’s blocked all who disagree with him on social media.) Maybe there’s a story there, NPR.
Delicious rebuttal Mr. Lakely !
I, too, have spent the day lodging numerous complaints at NPR and with the NPR ombudsman.
NPR’s ad hominem attack and libel most closely resemble the work of a petulant internet troll.
I wonder if that many easily disprovable lies, rises to the level of libel.
It’s time to start hitting back at these terrorists.
In order to prove libel against a public figure, you need to demonstrate both a reckless disregard for the truth and malice. Neither should be tough to prove.
And hopefully after TRUMP! is reelected, along with a Republican House and Senate and a couple more Supremes, they can update FEDERAL libel and slander laws to overturn the 60’s Supreme court rulings that allow this type of “reporting”.
Can one honest scientist make a difference? Lets hope so.
I made the observation yesterday that much, if not all and more, of the global warming Australia has experienced this century is a function of airplanes.
When Australia rolled out is Automatic Weather Station network during the 1990s and early 2000s those stations were predominantly located at airports in rural areas; often shifting the regional location from the local post office. Having them at the airport enabled easy servicing in remote locations.
The AWS network use electronic instrumentation with fast response and limited time filtering. The records give a clear jump in maximum temperature after the record became electronic and locating them ay airports meant they could peak on engine exhaust fumes rather than the car exhausts or cow farts at the local post office.
At Darwin, the Airport temperature record shows the introduction of larger aircraft operating at that airport.
We have the same duckers and weavers here in Australia. After our devastating bushfires in late 2019 and early 2020 we had a Royal Commission to find out what went wrong. We do know that the greatest problems were the lack of hazard reduction, particularly in public lands, a prolonged dry spell and hot westerly winds. The finding however blamed “climate change” because then no single person is then responsible and the whole of mankind can take the blame especially any conservatives who try to apply science. CC is the go to get out of jail free card for environmentalists and their patsys in the government and the MSM.
The worthless, lilly-livered Republican Congress didn’t have the courage to get rid of the taxpayer funding of NPR and PBS when they had control of both houses and the White House. Shame on them. No reason the taxpayers should be funding any of the leftist (or, for matter, if it were so, rightist) propaganda. If there’s some value to these enterprises, and I believe there is, let some others finance it entirely.
Bingo
Not only should NPR-PBS-CPB not receive government funding, as political propaganda broadcasters, donations to then should not be tax deductible.
Not doing this when they had the chance is another one of Paul Ryan’s failures. Can’t wait until he returns from influence peddling on Wall Street and tries running again as a caring conservative a la Kasich.
It sure would be nice if the GOP won the House-Senate-Presidency and actually did what they have campaigned on for the last 40 years.
If I wanted to get into a bar fight, I might have wrote a similar post.
If wanting to avoid causing a bar fight (what’s the fun in that), I might take it down a notch or two.
Or three.
The avalanche has already begun; it is too late for the pebbles to vote.
IOW, the NPR article was the opening volley of punches. You either defend yourself, or retreat. Personally, I’m tired of retreating.
Get Trump re-elected and then defund these assholes. Long overdue.
I would assume that all of the climate warming “journalism” is now in the realm of “advocacy journalism.” According to Wikipedia, it is: “. . . a genre of journalism that adopts a non-objective viewpoint, usually for some social or political purpose.” There is no pursuit of truth for truth’s sake.
Truth in the media is really in the mind of the reporter/editor/editorial board, etc. Truth is immaterial – it is what that person’s perception of reality is. If it feels good, it has to be real. No amount of factual presentation of evidence will change their perception of reality. To try to do so will only make them mentally implode, hence there can be no argument, for they have their “consensus” and little to give in valid rebuttal. The reality is that there can be no consensus in the realm of true science. Science changes when there are true scientific breakthroughs. Our purveyors of modern science and journalism would be perfectly happy to live in the realm of Ptolomaic Geocentrism, for they would have their consensus for it and they would feel good about it. They are the center of their own universe.
I’ve been using the phrase “perception is reality” for many, many years now.
People are unwilling to think any more it seems. Unbelievably (to me) most people trust the media to be reporting accurately and truthfully. I don’t believe I’ve come across a single “science journalist” that has any actual training in science beyond the high school level. Remember, journalism school is often in the Humanities section (or Arts for those of us in ‘Merica’s hat) – no requirements for a mathematics or statistics course whatsoever. Yet these folks are somehow qualified to assess and report on scientific topics? Hardly.
Funny, the Koch Foundation has been a big supporter of NOVA. In one pocket, out the other.
NPR needs to be defunded. No more public taxpayer money for them or PBS!
Why must we fund those who present only one side – only left wing propaganda? Their agenda is open and naked, and it’s not a pretty sight. Or an accurate one, or a scientific one.
Dr. Mann sued Dr. Ball for saying that Mann belonged in state pen not in Penn State. He dragged it out until the judge dismissed the case because of inexcusable delays. link
The problem for Mann is that he didn’t present required evidence, nor did he appear in court to be cross examined. That gives rise to adverse inference.
Because of Mann’s conduct in the case against Ball, we can infer that Mann does indeed belong in state pen. Mann has thus admitted that he is a criminal.
When I saw that NPR report, the very first thought I had was how much of a fun / maddening exercise this would be for AGW skeptics to count up the sheer number of inaccuracies / false premises contained in that screed. Jim Lakely has done what we all would have done, and did so fabulously!
count up the sheer number of inaccuracies / false premises contained in that screed.
Just count all the words.
There’s gonna be a lot of butt-hurt Progressives on the morning of November 4th, Ms. Hersher included
I just hope we know that soon.
If the Democrats come to believe that they can win in the House what they couldn’t win from voting, you can expect to see them do everything in their power to make sure enough states are able to report their numbers by mid-November so that the election can be thrown to the House.
I sent the below ‘message’ to NPR, asking to give it to Rebecca ( . . i have decided i am going to START DOING THINGS LIKE THIS, and would like to recommend other do the same . . ). We need to start PUSHING BACK harder, and sending them a LOT of replies from the ‘general public’
“Your article by REBECCA HIRSCHER titled “Longtime Climate Science Denier Hired At NOAA” is quite far from the truth in my opinion. Please check out the ‘rebuttal’ of this article here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/13/real-climate-science-from-david-legates-seems-to-scare-the-media-will-it-scare-noaa/
I would like some HONEST feedback and discussion from Rebecca on her information vs. the ‘rebuttal’.
Why does she feel her information is accurate? What is her opinion on the rebuttal?
And i would like more than just ‘ . .what, are you a ‘climate denier like they are’ . . ?
I have been following the ‘Global Warming /Climate Change’ issue for over a decade, since the 4th IPPC report came out. I have no doubt the increase in CO2 has the potential to result in some warming, but other atmospheric circulations, ocean circulations, and even solar cycle from all that i have read FAR overwhelm any CO2 increase in the last 50 or so years.
I could suggest seeing what people like Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. John Christy would say about your article; rather than someone like Michael Mann. In my opinion, he is as dishonest as Al Gore and his ‘inconvenient truth’ movie. .
As mentioned, i would really like a reply from Rebecca. “
For the sake of clarity, and to drive home the point to the smug and sanctimonious climate ignoramuses populating every media outlet, please refer to them as “data denier” or “science denier”. For example, “Your article by data denier Rebecca Hirscher…” is a vast improvement on “Your article by Rebecca Hirscher…,” and more accurate.
Martin C
September 13, 2020 at 8:56 pm
“…As mentioned, i would really like a reply from Rebecca.”
Good luck with that! But still, no harm in trying…
“temperatures have already risen nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit “.
In my part of the world, temperature has risen by more than 15F. Since this morning…
It is indeed so important to put any temperature rise (or decrease) in context.
Just went through (quickly) a WaPoo article. Another place whose writers and editors flunked Science 101.
They all think the Paris Accord was about CO2 and global warming. Fools.
Even the Washington Post did a somewhat less aggressive hit job:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/noaa-taps-david-legates-professor-who-questions-the-seriousness-and-severity-of-global-warming-for-top-role/ar-BB18ZOmW?ocid=msedgntp
“. How about mentioning that the UN IPCC reports completely discount any role of the sun in their reports, which you seem to consider holy writ?”
wrong
Essential NOT wrong
Poor Mosh, your comment is, yet again , nothing more that a gnat’s fart.
Are you out contact tracing today?
That would involve exercise, so no would be my take.
He will be sat attacking a keyboard gently.
Care to explain why because if you can’t, you are equally wrong. Step up, explain why.
Once again, steve admits that he can’t back up his claims.
Once again the drive-by English major shows why he’s not taken seriously.
I hope he isn’t still claiming modern warming is just part of a “cycle”.
I hope you still aren’t claiming that atmospheric CO2 causes warming
Perhaps you should learn about the AMO cycle, and the other many cycles in the climate.
Or you could remain just dumb ignorant you.
Not only does he still claim it, he agrees with Slow Joe that it’s an “existential” crisis.
What warming?
Maybe Loy-doh means the effect of consecutive El Ninos as the tropical oceans warm from a series of strong solar cycles and reduced tropical cloud cover.
Also the effect of the AMO and PDO…. that’s what Loy is talking about, isn’t it Loy… Doh !
Why shouldn’t he make that claim. Such a cycle is quite clear in the climate record.
The simple litmus test I trust most: if the Left has a conniption, it must be right. Keep up the good work, President Trump. Drain the swamp, and faster if you please. Still not tired of winning.
Marxists really are pure scum.
How the hell we ever even let them get a foot in the door is beyond me!
That’s very insulting. You owe scum an apology for comparing them to Marxists.
“Warming is happening the fastest at the Earth’s poles, where sea ice is melting, permafrost is thawing and ocean temperatures are heating up, with devastating effects on animals and humans alike.”
Tell that to the humpbacks crawling all over the Australian tropics now we don’t want them for oil-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/nt-scientists-weigh-up-options-to-help-move-humpback-whales-out-of-kakadu-s-east-alligator-river/ar-BB1904oB
“Northern Territory Government scientist Dr Carol Palmer is part of the emergency response to guide the whales out of the river.
In an interview with ABC Radio Darwin, Dr Palmer said a team of experts was looking into the use of whale calls and also underwater noise pollution to encourage the wales back out to sea.”
In South Australia there’s a $100,000 fine or 2 years imprisonment for merely interfering with marine mammal remains and these bozos want to interfere with live humpbacks doing what they do best. Having a tropical holiday.
Who on earth are NPR/ I went to their website, but they don’t say, I guess your just supposed to know by osmosis. NPR, well National is a good guess but it could be New, or even Nuovo (far more cool). Pissing? Can’ be that. Pretentious? Sounds good. The last one is obvious. So My guess is that they are Nuovo Pretentious Rubbish. I’m right, aren’t I?
Close enough for government work.
I don’t know what browser you use, but mine says right in the window/tab title “National Public Radio”. But yeah, they do seem to assume you know what “NPR” is on the page itself, as even their about page doesn’t really spell it out. I’m think it really stands for “No Propaganda Rejected”.
This comment is outside the topic, at least a bit, but I have myself tested various ‘greenhouse gases’ in a test box that I have made with 12 temperature sensors spaced equally from bottom to top. CO2 have a warming effect close to the bottom, and a cooling effect at the top, but most rusprisingly, water vapor have the opposite effect. My testresults shows that the bottom becomes cooler where water evaporates, and the top becomes warmer where the water vapor condense. This effect will, in my uneducated opinion, counter the heating effect of CO2 in the lower troposphere.
I used a 30x40cm heat bed for 3D printer as the heat source at the bottom of a WxDxH 30x40x60cm insolated box with IR-reflecting aluminium tape on all walls, and a transparent kitchen foil at the top. This foil only absorb 5% of the radiation inside the box, but keeps the various gases inside the box.
I know that this box is not representative for the complexity of the entire atmosphere, but it shows at least in principle various effects CO2, air and water vapor have on IR and LWIR. It wouldn’t surprise me if the same physics can be applied to the atmospheres CO2 and water vapor.
My own, non qualified, conclusion is that the increase of CO2 levels will itself cause more warming at the surface, but that the feedback from increased evaporation of the sea will counter that effect with a considerable amount. Quite contrary to the main stream narrative which tells us that the increased water wapor will cause additional heating at the surface.
Interesting.
I have done some more tests. Now with CO2 + water. In this test box, water vapor will displace some of the CO2, most at the top (Water vapor is lighter than air, and definitely lighter than CO2). but the general outcome after adding water to the heated bed to let it evaporate, the bottom temperature sunk, and the upper temperature rised, when comparing to measurements with CO2.
With this experiment I am confident that water vapor is a stabilizing ‘gas’ that prevents a runaway effect from CO2s primary effect on temperature. Even if the over all temperature did rise, it will stabilize at a lower temperature, compared to CO2.
Note: Water vapor is absorbing more energy in the IR spectrum than CO2 does. So it should be expected to see indications of a runaway effect in the testbox. At least an over all higher temperature. The experiment proves that hypothesis wrong. In spite of being a more potent IR absorber, water vapor do stabilize the temperature at a lower temperature than what CO2 alone is accountable for.
I hope this information is helpful, but feel free to make your own experiments to verify. I cannot post pictures here. If I could I would post pictures of my test facilities for you to replicate. Not very professional equipment, but good enough for simple experiments.
That’s funny, I’ve ALWAYS assumed that for decades now.
Umm. NPR is not taxpayer funded.
They do win some competitive grants, but that’s a tiny fraction of their revenue and has little to nothing to do with the daily operations.
Umm. NPR funding is a complex process.
While I can’t confirm the numbers at this link, you still might be interested:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/10/how_public_is_nprs_funding.html
MR. Rogers: Ummm, ever heard of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?
But you don’t understand, as long as the money is funneled through a third party, then NPR is being funded by congress.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
is NOT being funded
Bob, that’s what NPR certainly would like you to think, but as John F Hultquist, the truth is a lot different. While a case can be made that the majority of NPR funds don’t come from the taxpayer, a larger portion than you think clearly does.
While NPR only admits to 5.6% in direct Federal, state, and local government funds, that’s not the only source of government money going into their coffers. Ever hear of The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), they chip in $10.1% and they’re funded almost entirely by the government, so that right there brings NPR government funding up to 15.7% add to that the approx. 2% in grants that you referred to and we’re up to 17 or 18% (in other words that’s 1 out of every 6 dollars, that’s *not* a tiny fraction by any stretch of the imagination) and that’s before even looking closely at how much government money is involved in their other stated revenue streams (a lot of university funding comes universities that are funded in large part by the government as well, for example).
Jane Lubchenco did a demonstration (available on Utube; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuttOKcTPQs) using dry ice to prove that CO2 makes water acidic (duh) and vinegar to show that acidic water reacts with calcium carbonate (double duh). I note she did not use the CO2 saturated water to dissolve the calcium carbonate.
Never drink anything carbonated; it would dissolve your teeth.
” it would dissolve your teeth”! Not mine! Due to an incident in my early teens, I now have a stainless steel plate. Let’s see CO2 have a go at that! (Especially if it’s naturally produced, as in beer….)
NPR and PBS are funded by the public To Report – not to Advocate via propaganda. In Feynman’s terminology, those public broadcasters have become the Land of Moogles. It’s time they were Defunded, the state to which other public broadcasters are now being forced.
https://order-order.com/2020/07/06/defund-the-bbc/
This MSM story came up on my phone this morning, so I came to WUWT to search for David Legates in the WUWT search engine. But, thanks to you, this article was already posted. And you rebutted it in a way I couldn’t do – I hope NPR responds – good luck with that.
Good job!
– JPP
Excellent post. Whenever I here some MSM idiot accuse a real climate scientist like David Legates of challenging the “consensus,” I cringe. Challenging the consensus opinion is what scientists are supposed to do! Repeat after me, “consensus is politics, challenging the consensus is science.”
“Legates has not “rejected the overwhelming peer-reviewed research that shows human activity is the main driver of a dangerously changing climate.” He has examined the same data and come to a different conclusion. ”
Not quite correct: Legates has examined the data and found none to support assertion of human causation. The “overwhelming peer reviewed research” referred to by author Hersher does not exist unless you are willing to call failed model projections data. Without the models there is no data that demonstrate causation of measured warming to be CO2 let alone CO2 from fossil fuels.
Is there any way to get her or her employer to site this research? Is there any way to get them to show evidence that the climate is “changing dangerously”?
Since you posted that contemptibly stupid piece, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide, back in 2010 I haven’t read any of the very predictably pro-fossil fuel nonsense you publish. To comment on only that 2010 piece, I can tell you I totally demolished it mathematically by showing that the “tapering off” of the CO2 influence is an artful deception, incorrectly assuming a static, linear CO2 presence, and not the true CO2 increase that is accurately measured at the Scripps Institute observatory on Moana Loa. I showed that downward forcing is not only not tapering off, but that it is actually increasing rapidly. Judging from the heated denialist rants in your comments threads I think it would be a waste of time trying to get them (or you) to understand.
So you believe that every single paragraph in this MSM report is full of facts???
I was sickened during reading it. But I guess you don’t have a BS meter as I saw
all this as AGW stuff was highly suspicious probably 30 years ago…
– JPP
Since you posted that contemptibly stupid piece,…back in 2010 I haven’t read any of the very predictably pro-fossil fuel nonsense you publish.
And yet you’re still here a decade on. Hmmmm.
1) WUWT publishes a variety of articles by a variety of authors, even authors with views that contradict other authors. The post you cite is from a different author to the post you are replying to now, so really has nothing to do with the current article.
2) Even you could get published here if you were to submit an article on a subject that is on topic for this website, even a rebuttal article to another article published here (there have been a number of rebuttal articles published here over the years, as you would know if you’d ever get your head out of your own backside). Go on, give it a try sometime. Or do you prefer to do your crowing about “demolishing” from the comfort of never having to show your work to be scrutinized by others?
I sent a message to WUWT today that contained a typo. My correct email address is given below.
Reply: check ~cr
“History of using his position as an academic scientist to publicly cast doubt on climate science.” Isn’t it how science – even climate science – is supposed to work?
“Gender questioning” is celebrated.
Questioning measurements, numerical methods, simulations, extrapolations… not so much.