Guest post by Rud Istvan,
I reflected on some of my recent comments/posts both at WUWT and Climate Etc. A pattern became apparent that I want to try to elucidate. The motivation is simple. The climate/energy debate has advanced beyond he said/she said ‘facts’. Koonin’s new book Uncertainty (which I just finished reading and which originally inspired this guest post) does much to advance a more nuanced perspective by highlighting factual climate ‘inexactitude’ (aka wrong stuff) and related ‘uncertainty’ (aka unknowable stuff) in the climate debate. But his ‘science’ approach partly lacks counters to the extra ‘religious climate believer so science immune’ dimension touched on here, albeit Koonin does touch on it lightly in his ending chapters. This post intentionally isn’t such a ‘light touch’.
As an introductory example, ‘climate believers’ ignore the intermittency and lack of grid inertia that their renewable solutions (Green New Deal, GND) automatically introduce. This may just be from physical ignorance of alternating current electricity complex math (a+bi, using the square root of minus 1, physically indicating phase shift). But after many blog interactions, I now think it more likely comes from deliberate willful ignorance, which in US law is defined as ‘criminal gross negligence’… “knew, or should have known”.
There are many other examples of climate science ‘criminal gross negligence’.
For example Dr. Susan Crockford exposed the ‘polar bear experts’ who claim polar bears are endangered by (modeled) diminished summer Arctic sea ice, when in truth, about 80% of their annual feeding caloric intake depends on the spring seal whelping season—when nobody claims Arctic ice diminishes.
For example, claimed GAST temperature rise depends on ‘negligible’ (per BEST) UHI plus insufficient land based measurement stations infilled for global coverage. A classic example of the latter is BEST station 166900 (footnote 24 to essay When Data Isn’t in ebook Blowing Smoke). BEST 166900 is the South Pole’s Amundsen Scott, arguably the most expensive and best maintained weather station on the planet. BEST ‘automatic adjustment algorithm’ compared it to McMurdo, 1300 km away on the coast and 2700 meters lower in elevation. The BEST quality control algorithm concluded that the Amundsen Scott measurements for 26 extreme cold months must be excluded based on McMurdo—NOT. BEST automatically but wrongly warmed Amundsen Scott.
For example, Fabricius (NCC, 2011) claimed Milne Bay corals were declining from ocean acidification (OA). Her SI showed that her one barren (7.8 pH) seep was toxic because of H2S, as toxic to marine organisms as cyanide is to us— and for the same reasons. (Essay Shell Games in ebook Blowing Smoke, the first of two major illustrated and extensively footnoted examples in that ebook essay debunking the Seattle Times major series, “Sea Change”.)
There many other similar subsequent guest posts here and at Climate Etc.
So, how does this climate perversion of true science continue for several decades? What motivates obvious deliberate ‘criminal gross negligence’?
There are at least three answers as to why ‘climate gross negligence’ continues.
First is money, in the form of tenure and government grants. Go along to get along. Mann’s bogus 1999 paleo hockey stick is but one famous example. He got rich and tenured off a VERY bad paper, since thoroughly discredited. His bank account does not care.
Second is academic acceptance; peer pressure if you will. This is what drove Dr. Judith Curry from Georgia Tech’s Chair of Earth Sciences position, by her own explanation. Young climate scientists hoping to rise cannot be apostates, and she could not in good conscience counsel them otherwise.
Third is ‘being cool’. There is no other explanation for John Kerry as Biden’s ‘climate czar’. It is stupid and ultimately self-defeating, but definitely a big plus at any present MA cocktail party. AOC and her GND is a lesser example of the same ‘cool’ social phenomenon from Brooklyn in Congress.
So, what to do?
There may be some effective counters beyond ‘science’, to which true climate believers are apparently immune. The following three suggestions are all borrowed from Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals’, long since used against skeptics labeled as deniers. My proposal is to counterattack, not by using the Marquis of Queensbury rules skeptics usually employ, but rather by using the Alinsky rules.
First is to freeze the enemy and then ridicule it. Mark Steyn did this very effectively against Mann with his book “A Disgrace to the Profession (volume 1)”. Unassailable, since Mann hasn’t yet responded and it has been now years since the implicit ‘Volume 2’ threat was made in writing.
Second is to make the enemy live up to its own rules about climate science. This was Koonin’s central point, made repeatedly in his new book.
Third is to go outside the expertise of the enemy. Renewable intermittency and lack of grid inertia are expertise examples previously discussed herein, which Greens ignore or do not even comprehend, because outside their expertise.
Concluding reflections
Many here at WUWT may have, as I previously did, thought that a ‘scientific’ rebuttal sufficed against warmunists (see footnote 22 to essay Climatastrososphistry in ebook Blowing Smoke for the precise derivation). It does not. They have a socio-religious belief system (Greta Thunberg being an example) that requires stronger counter measures.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Arguing with a True Believer on climate change is reminiscent of arguing with a devout Marxist, or a devout Jehovah’s Witness.
Or playing chess against a pigeon
Some of the proposals or even present implementations amount to inflicting pain on premise of unproven hypothesis, or even worse knowing that premise is false, in which case it is criminally irresponsible.
Climate scientists should be continuously warned that: It is invalid legal defence that defendants were “only following guidelines” and so are not responsible for their actions when advising those who eventually create and implement criminally irresponsible laws.
Like the German soldiers just following orders from their leaders. And the German public- most of it- claimed they were unaware of the Holocaust. Likewise, the public will in the future claim they were misled about the climate- not wanting to admit they were too lazy and/or stupid to seek the truth. (I had to edit this to avoid moderation having used a word- a name apparently verboten with WordPress)
Published science papers should be required to comply with the same legal standards that prospectuses for stock market investors have to meet.
That is, all uncertainties, risks in assumptions & statements MUST be clearly & unwaveringly stated, under pain of criminal charges & penalties.
Be careful what you wish for. These institutions of higher indoctrination, will invite the lawyers to the party and you will need a law degree in addition to a science background to translate the papers into anything close to readable but i take your point about hypothetical assumptions driving action without disclosure.
I spent spent many hours back in the ’70s debating with devout born againers. One of them always had an answer to anything I said. In the ’90s, he got arrested for ripping off some old people.
The point of the argument isn’t to change the mind of the alarmists.
The aim is to convince the public watching the argument.
So true. And my approach to the watching public as inspired by Judith Curry’s recent post:
This transformation of society seems to have caught fire across the globe, the Pope has published an encyclical, the UN and politicians, business leaders will change our working life, hybridizing capitalism with major social change, compressing this change into a 10 to 30 year period, with a highly confident expectation this climatization movement will make for a better, healthier and kinder world.
To believe in alarming climate change supported by leadership from all major western realms allows, no encourages, the blaming of our globe’s ills, and there are many, on a single simple cause, carbon dioxide, to which the solution is, to eliminate it. Not a day passes without a multitude of articles and broadcasts attributing climate change to be the cause or result of almost anything one wishes to name. Climate change can be blamed or credited for anything the woke folks designate, good and bad.
Climate certainly affects us all, but attributing its cause as man-made fails to account for climate over the millions of years before 1950, the year attributed to the commencement of the massive damage inflicted by humans. How can such attribution make any logical sense? Seventy years of human influence can overcome millions of years of natural variability? High on hubris seems closer to reality.
There remain massive knowledge gaps in our collective understanding as to what factors drive climate change – warming or cooling, drought or flood, sunspots or galactic rays, etc. It’s complicated, and certainly not simple, although the media and politicians try to convince us so. And sad to say, they have done a very good job of it. Vilifying hydrocarbons and pipelines is a major industry of radical environmentalism, western governments and business leadership. This is the new world order until western populations discover they have been hornswoggled by their elites.
Carbon dioxide certainly has its warming effect, but as a radiative gas it radiates not just in the direction of the earth’s surface, but to space as well. The concept of CO2 as a blanket that only warms on one side is simple, but inaccurate. Simple conceptions can lead to simple solutions that are totally ineffective and unnecessary. Nonetheless, the globe, less China, Africa, Russia and India, that is the West, believes fervently carbon dioxide is an enemy pollutant so powerful the world’s nations must band together to conquer this humanmade armageddon.
The major arbiter of right and wrong 400 years ago was the Roman Catholic church, a potent force even today, with its own dark view of climate change as human made, as described in the Pope’s encyclical, Laudato Si’. In the days of Copernicus who hypothesized Earth revolving about the Sun, and Galileo a hundred years later, these thinkers were met with derision, scorn and Inquisition trial. The most powerful organization on the globe denied the exploration of the theory, and even after proven as accurate, official church recognition took some 200 years after the fact.
Not much has changed today as countries are climate shamed and excoriated by western world leaders and their controlled international monetary funds and world banks. Climate agreements are seen as breakthroughs although not one signatory to the Paris agreement has met their targets or can be expected to reach them. Blowing more smoke, these same countries try to outbid the next with unattainable new sham carbon reduction targets.
Today, the United Nations, its myriad institutions, President Biden of the USA, the European Union and the Catholic church form an immense, moral, spiritual and financial force in the full belief that the carbon dioxide molecule is a dangerous pollutant; an existential threat as it were. These significant players have settled on a single simple cause factor, supported by the simple science of carbon dioxide as the control knob of temperature. If such was the case, the rise of global temperatures should never vary from an ever upward trend in concert with the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The solutions proposed and in the offing will neither be simple, sound nor satisfactory. But they will be enormously expensive and disruptive, all in the name of climatization.
The climate change narrative suffuses everything in our society today, and Biden’s recent speech to Congress underscores that very theme. Everything happens due to climate change nowadays, and thus our whole society must conform to its dictates and transform our society in the name of climate change, and its forerunner, global warming.
What do we do when the climate cools, as it will? A reverse climatization and burn more fossil fuels?
Great comment Keith.
But I must challenge this sentence –
“Today, the United Nations, its myriad institutions, President Biden of the USA, the European Union and the Catholic church form an immense, moral, spiritual and financial force in the full belief that the carbon dioxide molecule is a dangerous pollutant; an existential threat as it were.”
None of these people & institutions really believes the whole global warming / climate change conjecture.
But it is such an effective platform for them upon which to prosecute their main agenda – holding the reins of western societies – they will use it for all it’s worth.
“This transformation of society seems to have caught fire across the globe”
Only in the Western Democracies. The rest of the world is acting in a rational manner.
by our own understanding that will not work and that will mean we will need to adapt.
Well put!
And so… True believers are never fearful of the opposing argument’s consequences. For example, the Jehovah Witness is preparatory for a future cataclysmic event, the second coming. He is quite capable of thinking rationally about AGW. Let’s say he fears God and nothing else.
The JW is immunized against AGW hysteria, because he only takes his eschatology seriously. He won’t argue with a warmist, he’ll say it is a sign of the times (end). But he is perfectly capable of understanding the benefits CO2 fertilization and how UHIs have distorted the temperature record. The JW has a relatively open mind about AGW. But not about the second coming.
CAGW is a secular apocalypse. (Covid was played exactly the same way). The AGW priest-kings who speak in the name of authority (We follow the science – trust us) As Greta says, “I am not important, listen to the scientists, they are telling us what to do” Our problem is everyone, (JW types excepted) believes in science. It’s the only authority left. And science has no voice, no oracle to tell us what it all means. All science has is experiments and data. Real scientists don’t speak, their data is their voice.
And we are losing because fear is always deeply embedded in the human psyche. We are saying don’t be afraid of the coming apocalypse. Too late… They are already afraid.
As a scientist, I have slowly been watching and trying to understand the general erosion of science over the last 30 years and I have come to believe that “climate science” was the initial domino or injection point of the phenomenon. As other disciplines observed and noted climate science getting away with it, they thought “why not us as well”?
It used to be that if you had to retract (or correct) an article you published in Nature or Science, your career was over. However, now we are now living in an age where the New York Times has become the National Enquirer (or Pravda) and Nature is a caricature of one of the more dodgy scientific journals of the past.
And so I think the phenomenon we are all witnessing is a general “war on science” and the meritocracy that goes along with it. And the only reason I can think of is that the progressive segment of the population is simply discontented with the “human condition” in general. And if science reinforces this “limited view”, or constrains the Left, then it has to be undermined.
Thomas Sowell has devoted an entire book to this topic, the “constrained verses the unconstrained” visions of life:
A Conflict of Visions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Conflict_of_Visions
For what it is worth…
We live in the Post-scientific Era.
Science (actual science) is the most effective antidote to fear based propaganda, of which CAGW and COVID are two glaring examples.
The corruption of science is no coincidence. There are forces at work who wish to gain absolute power. To do this they must be able to control populations through fear. But science, when done properly, can break through the fear. That is why it has been attacked and eroded (largely from within, but not by actual scientists). Is not dying, it’s being ki11ed.
Religion has become far more limited in its ability to control and instill fear into a society (The hypocrisy and criminal behaviors of its proponents has seen to this).
The climate crises is now the tool of choice as a vehicle for instilling fear this control of a society.
People are literally willing governments to remove more freedoms, rebuild socioeconomic systems ‘in his image’ and committing trillions of magical fairy dust dollars to better serve the climate crises prophets. It’s proponents are able to comfortably and systematically attack and destroy the careers of those who dare challenge the rhetoric! (Religion was able to exert similar control in terms of true scientific progress in Medieval times, which seems to be where we are headed again lol!)
California for instance is a great example of this new religion in action, rather than hold the state to account for the piss poor management of forestry and the associated fire risk, representatives are literally able to wave the ‘climate crises get out of jail free’ card and absolve any accountability!
It will not end well unfortunately
Excellent!
I think you’re spot on Rud. The younger people I work with have Marketing degrees, degrees in Communications, English degrees, etc., etc. When I try and lay out for them the things we know and the things we don’t know about the earth’s Climate, the response most often is ‘duh, science Doug’. It’s actually a fascinating phenomenon to observe. I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer to be sure but I’ve got a world class 4 year degree in Physics and I’m being scolded by Marketing majors on “science”.
This is a cultural and political movement that needs to be countered in those domains as Rud has correctly pointed out.
I’ve run into similar situations. I’m a meteorologist but when I begin to explain the flaws in the climate alarmism arguments, people think I’m trying to trick them. After all, they saw Bill Nye on TV warn them about ‘climate deniers’.
We’re battling large, societal forces that include academia, the media, politicians,, and advocacy groups. All we have are the facts. My suggestion would be is ask your English major colleagues to defend their beliefs. Instead of trying to convince them, let them try to convince you.
“Instead of trying to convince them, let them try to convince you.”
Excellent suggestion and I will use it given the opportunity.
The problem I find is the Appeal to Authority fallacy is not recognized as a fallacy by non-scientists. For this group of marketing and liberal arts grads, Appeal to Authority arguments were how they were taught science in college-university classrooms on subjects that required math (like differential calculus) they couldn’t fathom because they avoided those subjects in high school and college.
.
This is where the take-over of institutions like AAAS, NAS, APS, and AGU by those intent on pushing pseudoscience, data cherrypicking, and refusal to acknowledge uncertainties is so harmful to our society.
If it were just the few like Mann or Schmidt pushing junk science, the rest of the community would put them into professional exile. Instead the reverse is happening as Rudd pointed on Judith Curry’s experience.
“the Appeal to Authority fallacy is not recognized as a fallacy”. The problem indeed; absolutely perfectly summarized….
“We’re battling large, societal forces that include academia, the media, politicians,, and advocacy groups. All we have are the facts. My suggestion would be is ask your English major colleagues to defend their beliefs. Instead of trying to convince them, let them try to convince you.”
Excellent idea!
Good idea. I would ask them what scientific data convinced them and remind them that political data(consensus) and computer model data are not scientific evidence and appeal to authority is a scientific fallacy.
You are battling Nick…he is all in with clutched pearls.
THE science- as in THE Bible
The science as in the Twilight faith (i.e. conflation of logical domains, beliefs outside of a limited frame of reference, inferential or creative logic), the Pro-Choice religion (i.e. selective, opportunistic, relativistic), the liberal ideology (i.e. divergent), empathetic appeals, and threats of cancellation.
…. coupled with multiple voices in the head reaching a robust consensus.
Very well put. My go to strategy now is not to argue but simply ask those woke individuals to present their evidence that would convince me of their case. “Tell me why you believe that”. It doesn’t take more than a few questions before you get to the point where it is clear to me and to them that they have no scientific understanding of evidence to support their belief, they are simply repeating what they have heard from others and what they choose to believe out of laziness or a sense of unearned intellectual comfort.
So true. Fundamentally, their argument is entirely based on what they have been told by the MSM. Asked to present evidence for their beliefs, they flounder.
The most visible example of this was the president of the Sierra Club refusing to respond to Ted Cruz’s pointed questions on the data and simply repeating “We side with the 97%” over and over. It was clear he had no knowledge of his own and had no intention of examining the issue critically. It was quite horrifying to watch.
Rud, you should add this to your bag of tricks.
Just did. Hard to be all over all of this all the time. Noted.
You might ask these marketing majors what they think their lives would be like without fossil fuels…. IMO while many people may not budge upon hearing a science based counter argument, the vast majority would be horrified if they had to live out the rest of their lives like the Amish simply to ostensibly hold the worlds’ climate steady. That’s the key, I think, to defeating this whole climate change crusade – remind people of what they will have to live without if they choose to obey the Gretas of the world. Talk of figures, charts, graphs and the like will bore many people (especially if they don’t really understand them) but the idea of losing most all of the industrial age’s amenities will!
Yes – THIS. Those who bray the loudest about “climate change” tend to be clueless about the consequences of their own campaign of “action” to “solve [NOT!] the non-existent “crisis.”
It’s incredibly frustrating arguing with True Believers, but there is one technique which works. Point out to them that temperatures today are significantly LOWER than they were 1000 and 2000 years ago (Medieval and Roman Warm Periods). They will be unaware of these facts. Then ask them to identify any deleterious effects caused by the warmth.
More likely they will educate you that Mann proved that warm periods are never global. You can then show them 70 studies proving the MWP all over the earth, contradicting their claim, and they still won’t believe it, or even consider it. Because this is about tribal affiliation, not facts or science.
Their tribe believes in catastrophic global warming, socialism, and humans as a plague on earth. Their tribe automatically opposes anything that the other tribe holds dear, without critical analysis. My tribe rejects catastrophic global warming, embraces markets, and sees humans as the greatest resource for prosperity. But my tribe also automatically opposes anything that the other tribe holds dear, because we’re all flawed with the same human nature.
I neglected to mention another useful line of attack with CAGW cultists: ask them what disasters befell the Earth when CO2 levels were higher than they are today (most of Earth’s history, in other words).
Then they employ “But it’s different this time” and stick to it.
Graem & Rich:
How to talk with a true believer:
I attended a 2 day conference at ASU entitled “Polarization in Civil Society” which
mainly concerned the Right-Left divide in politics. But I think the take-home message also applies
to the AGW vs Skeptic chasm.
Precepts:
1- Believers of all stripes are not usually swayed by arbitrary facts.
2- Believers have invested too much social, intellectual & emotional capital to risk altering their view.
3- Believers think (or are taught to think) all those who disagree are evil, not just misinformed.
4- Due to #3 it is acceptable to silence, censor, and even dehumanize all those who disagree.
It is this last tactic that allows the two sides to talk past each other. Why bother to learn the other sides’
position when its easier to just call them names and ignore them? (Especially when it seems to be working!)
The solution was to try and develop some connection with the other person by making a list
of all the things that you two could/should agree on BEFORE discussing the areas of disagreement.
This puts your opponent in a new place since now you have a common set of principles that should limit
the dehumanization tactic, forcing them to (maybe) concede you might have a principled position. By acting
reasonable, showing humility, and even humor, you can make it more difficult to be dismissed. Adding short, poingnant stories to humanize the issues can also help.
For Climate Change my strategy is to start off by getting agreement on some general facts from which a discussion can commence. For example I say “Before we start you maybe surprised at how much we agree on. Like, over 90% of skeptics agree on these things: it is getting warmer; man-added CO2 since 1950 or so has likely warmed the planet; man can affect the regional climate; the most commonly referenced climate reports (IPPC, SREX, etc) are the ones I will be basing my statements on (ie not blog posts or newspaper articles); thermometers go back only 170 years or so; ARGO ocean data only from 2005 or so; … (I’m sure you can add many more but don’t do a “Gish Gallop” and overwhelm them. After getting concurrence on several facts, pick one topic and calmly & politely present your take on it. Don’t be afraid to say “I don’t know”, or “Skeptics don’t have the answer either”…).
And don’t forget that most people have not spent any time researching climate. They only know what they see/hear on the MSM. It is the “Dupes” that skeptics need to have these discussions with; the “Knaves” who profit from the climate hysteria are probably immune to this approach.
And here in Arizona we are having another fine weather day that is completely compatible with climate change. LOL
The IPCC’s Global Warming Potential (GWP) numbers need to be exposed and ridiculed. Unless I’m wrong and have successfully fooled myself as Dr. Richard Feynman warned, the GWP numbers are a farce. If methane increases by so many parts per billion and similarly CO2 increases by that many parts per billion, it’s obvious that the increase in global temperature caused by CO2 will be nearly nothing and the GWP number times nearly nothing is still nearly nothing.
So hold the climate crusaders to their GWP numbers claim, and ridicule them for trumpeting their misleading GWP statistic
That isn’t difficult, considering the specialized backgrounds of many who call themselves climatologists. However, their behavior, when shown to be wrong, suggests that most have no shame and, therefore, are unaffected when a normal person would be embarrassed.
I still like the idea of a Red Team, Blue Team debate.
I think we are past the time for a red team/blue team debate. The radical greens will just fill the air with their latest pack-of-lies.
Please see my post on this page, excerpted here:
To end 2020, the climate doomsters were proved wrong in their scary climate predictions 48 times – at 50:50 odds for each prediction, that’s like flipping a coin 48 times and losing every time! The probability of that being mere random stupidity is 1 in 281 trillion! It’s not just global warming scientists being stupid.
These climate doomsters were not telling the truth – they displayed a dishonest bias in their analyses that caused these extremely improbable falsehoods, these frauds.
There is a powerful logic that says no rational person or group could be this wrong for this long – they followed a corrupt agenda – in fact, they knew they were lying.
The global warming alarmists have a NO predictive track record – they have been 100% wrong about every scary climate prediction – nobody should believe them.
The radical greens have NO credibility, make that NEGATIVE credibility – their core competence is propaganda, the fabrication of false alarm.
Exactly, no credibility, no repercussions, and only secular lucre. Why would anyone, over a 60, 70-year lifespan not go along to get along and reap the rewards or at least mitigate risk of cancellation. Many, even a majority, will take a knee.
That is probably true. Which is all the more reason to have a public debate, moderated by unbiased referees, to demonstrate to the general public the level of depravity.
How else can we convince the public that they are being manipulated when irrational liberals control the MSM?
A scientific rebuttal might suffice, but all too often all we get here is name calling (‘warmunists’) and a reprint of a piece of science rebadged as ‘claim’ with no contradicting science based evidence.
this is increasingly an echo chamber for US Republican prejudice, not science or climate related
“with no contradicting science based evidence.”
This is precisely the problem I have with you and wokelings like you who have chugged the climate change kool-aid. How many times have I asked you to back up your claims with science-based evidence only to receive a response of total silence?
For instance: How long is your record, Griff?
Griff is just a driveby commenter now. He pledged to leave WUWT altogether some time ago because he was constantly humiliated by those far more knowledgeable than him (not difficult) but couldn’t resist coming back.
So all he does now is drop a comment and run. He thinks it’s clever if he never has to justify or reason. Like we’re all going to suddenly fall over at his pearls of wisdom.
The pest is seriously not worth bothering with.
You even don’t recognise science holding in your hands,so you can’t render a judgement about.
Meanwhile as usual you didn’t debate anything, just the usual empty windbag comments then run away.
I post regularly in forums about this stuff, even posted that fine post by Eschenbach about where is Climate Emergency, in one forum many warmist/alarmists COMPLTELY ignored the content of the post, instead attacks the source or the writer, that is what they now commonly do.
They are brainwashed and lying to themselves now, debate is no longer what they do, they are deep into the propaganda that they are ignorant and stupid.
This blog post remains UNCHALLENGED!
Sunsettommy, I read your discussion on that blog. Outstanding performance. Not one bit of science put forth to counter Willis’s post. Wear their insults as a badge of honor. You put forth solid science, defend it and yourself well, and the wokelings can’t stand it.
That is very kind of you, but it was Willis E. who did the hard work making the very fine post, I just defend it well because of it.
I worked out a while ago that “warmunist” is only ever used by bots and false-flaggers.
It’s so clearly ridiculous and insulting that it can only be used by those with no human emotions or those seeking to ridicule their own side.
No, just an observation of failed predictions.
It’s clear that you don’t know anything about science or engineering from your incessant stupid comments, griff. That part is clear. However, not even a science-illiterate like you can be ignorant of the fact that this blog has a strong participation from across the English speaking world. Many participants respond knowledgeably about issues in Great Britian, Australia, and many other places – people who may not give a rat’s clacker about the sad state of American politics. So, given that not even you can be oblivious to the world-wide insightful understanding of climate issues, where could your off base comment be coming from? You’re obviously
trying (fecklessly) to belittle the strong scientific, political, and sociological contributions of this site. Why? Is the discussion about worshipping the false God of climate religion striking too close to home?
People may not like your comment, but I think you are right. The “critical side” is not what it should be and is doing a poor job in “rebutting”. But I am going to change that once and for all. Here is a tiny little outlook to what science actually is.. 😉
Oh.. forgot to say, this is reflectivity of water (and absorptivity and emissivity respectively..)
“People may not like your comment, but I think you are right. The “critical side” is not what it should be and is doing a poor job in “rebutting”.”
Rebutting what?
This skeptic says there isn’t anything to rebut. It’s up to those who make claims about the climate to show evidence of their claims. If they don’t have any evidence, and a skeptic points that out, then that’s all the rebuttal a skeptic needs.
That’s what we have here now in climate science: We have a lot of unsubstantiated climate claims and skeptics say, “where’s your evidence”?, and the alarmists go silent because they don’t have any evidence.
And I say it is lazy. Why criticize when instead you could settle the science once and for all?
griff,
You’ve been challenged many times on this forum to present factual, peer reviewed data to prove your position, and I’ve yet to see you produce in a single instance. Posting links to data from others, which many/most times is either debunked or ironically runs contrary to your position is all I can recall. Feel free to step up something of substance in your copious spare time.
Also, would you try and convince the frequenters on this forum that it exists, in the many years it has, as simply a forum to parrot opinions of Republicans/Conservatives and completely deny the factual data that is presented by persons with impeccable credentials? That nothing posted/debated is true and backed up by real science? If yes to these two questions, then I’d say you’re doing a fine job of indirectly insulting people here without having to result to name calling.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for evidence from Griff. He doesn’t have any.
Bad advice. Scientific rebuttal doesn’t seem to work on you because you lack reason and honesty. You have the attitude of an immature, petulant teenager, caught in the act but repeating, nevertheless, the same lies over and over.
Oh please, Griff, your side, aka the Climate Liars started the name-calling, branding us as “climate deniers” or “science deniers” or simply “deniers”. So all we’re doing is returning the favor.
Also claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is in the pay of big oil.
Sort of like griff claiming that Germany is getting 60% of it’s electricity from wind and solar.
As to the label of warmunist, most of the leaders of the control CO2 movement have been quite open about their desire to over throw capitalism.
Perhaps another tact against the climate religion is for some skeptics to play the role of climate emergency missionary on steroids so much as to look totally nuts to ordinary people who aren’t familiar and never will be with any of the science pro or con- all they know is what they read in the MSM and what they see on mindless TV. Mix in with the excessive mockery some truth about the vast sums of money that will be needed to transition to a “clean and green” world. Say things like, “we shouldn’t mind that millions of acres of forests and fields will be converted to clean and green solar panels in order to save the planet and we should view them as beautiful”. And, “you shouldn’t mind having a 500′ tall wind turbine next to your home- it’s your obligation to save the planet”. The speaker or writer should seem extremely panicked- and say nice things about Greta Thunberg. Etc., etc.
Then again, this is what’s already happening by the alarmists and so far much of the public seems to love it- so the mockery has to go to a higher level. Uh… maybe do a video showing future folks living in huts with a donkey out front for transportation- while looking up as John Kerry and Ale Gore fly overhead in their private jets. And, show rich Chinese tourists driving by in big SUVs- and stopping to take pictures of the American and European serfs enjoying their clean and green living.
Unfortunately, I live in Massachusetts where you can count all the climate change skeptics on one hand.
Invade this [neighborhood], occupy that [city], operate a protection racket, but with actual liability? Who will, can stand in the way of [social] progress?
But at least we are not wanting for Jackasses….
It’s worth noting that the Believers refused to debate the Sceptics over 20 years ago.
That’s a long time for closed-minded bubbles to build their castles in the air.
Refusing to debate was the key moment when the Believers ceased to be Scientists and became Believers. It’s a very high level of certainty to say “We don’t need to consider that we might be in any way incorrect”. A level of certainty that is not based on observations or long-established science.
After 20 years it is now based on institutional authority. There are whole career paths that support each other even though there is no real foundation.
Environmental Journalists scrutinise Environmental Scientists whose output is promoted by Environmental NGOs and so influence Environment Departments of Governments who dare not cease funding the Environmental Scientists lest the Environmental Journalists turn on them.
Castles in the Air. They cannot be undermined by reason. They just need to fall out of fashion and the illusion will pop.
It is the rising powers of the East that will set the fashion in the future.
Pop.
“It is the rising powers of the East that will set the fashion in the future.”
In particular, a war with China!
Well, yes, if the communists don’t take a knee to the socialists. They should know their place. There can be only one.
“thought that a ‘scientific’ rebuttal sufficed against warmists. It does not.”
Useful insight and fully agree. Thank you.
The problem is that any normal person has an innate concern for the degradation of their environment. Alarmists use this and the precautionary principle to their great benefit, plus human fondness for tales of apocalyptic morality.
It’s very tough to fight emotion with “future” fact, as anyone with a teenage daughter with a dubious boyfriend can confirm…..
I think one important aspect is disparagement of debate. I blame the evolution crowd. They certainly won the debate against the intelligent design crowd, but they developed a sort of arrogance. Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins both agreed not to debate prominent creationists. Eugenie Scott, who founded the National Center for Science Education coined the term “Gish Gallop” to denote running off at the mouth with more arguments than can be responded to. These give them precedents to avoid debate. This is basically a premise that the other side is not worth responding to. It’s sort of a form of cover for the argument from authority and ad hominem attacks. The big problem is that they keep major points of fact out of the discussion.
“Won the debate” against intelligent design? Have you followed any developments whatsoever in molecular biology? Every time we look, we see more intricate designs, machines, and information processing. Even the venerable Tree of Life fails to explain functional genomic systems, like echolocation, nearly as well as dependency graphs such as used in computer programs.
Creation or process? Science is, with cause, a philosophy and practice in a limited frame of reference relative to the observer. Evolutionary and extra-universal (“divine”) creationists each establish their beliefs with articles of faith (e.g. assumptions/assertions, trust). Ironically, the latter are, in principle, less influenced by secular lucre, consensus, and more likely to acknowledge a separation of logical domains.
n.n
No one of the ‘fishes’ going a bite there.
They know better by now.
🙂
Actually the belief in God is derived from philosophy. The premise of atheism, materialism, is a failure. Perception? Intentionality? Qualia? Crickets. The development of Information Theory even more destroys materialism. Note there is a creationist theory called “successive creationism” which speculates that God supplied the necessary information during the “evolutionary” process.
Very odd to miss the point entirely.
The GND is not from AOC, nor Kerry, nor Biden, but rather from Prince Charles of the U.K. as is well documented. It is his very own Great Reset, as clearly expounded on at the Davos keynote. Regime Change for the USA was announced at the FED confab by none other than ex Bank of England chief Mark Carney :
https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/mark-carney-investing-net-zero-climate-solutions-creates-value-and-rewards
Net-Zero is from whom, pray tell?
Shadow boxing is hardly ¨stronger counter measures¨. This is hardly some teenager religious cult!
And after all Alinsky, the subject of Hillary Clinton’s thesis, is known to have had : “over-the-shoulder acknowledgment”, at the outset of Rules for Radicals, of Lucifer as “the first radical known to man”—someone who “rebelled against the establishment … so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom”.
Both Obama and Hillary used Alinsky’s methods. Look at the results!
The devil is in the details!
Rud – thank you for this paper.
For the record, Alinsky Rules are the progeny of Lenin and Goebbels propaganda tactics – calculated falsehoods and brutal thugism.
I won’t stoop to Alinsky Rules because they are inherently dishonest, and I think you won’t either, but telling the truths about the warmists and their decades of deceit is sufficient. My recent paper calls out these lying scoundrels and their 30 years of failed predictions of global warming false alarms.
CLIMATE CHANGE, COVID-19, AND THE GREAT RESET
A CLIMATE, ENERGY AND COVID PRIMER FOR POLITICIANS AND MEDIA
By Allan M.R. MacRae, Published May 8, 2021 UPDATE 1e
Download the WORD file
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/climate-change-covid-19-and-the-great-reset-update-1e-readonly.docx
[excerpt]
THE GREENS’ PREDICTIVE CLIMATE AND ENERGY RECORD IS THE WORST
The ability to predict is the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence.
Climate doomsters have a perfect NEGATIVE predictive track record – every very-scary climate prediction, of the ~80 they have made since 1970, has FAILED TO HAPPEN.
“Rode and Fischbeck, professor of Social & Decision Sciences and Engineering & Public Policy, collected 79 predictions of climate-caused apocalypse going back to the first Earth Day in 1970. With the passage of time, many of these forecasts have since expired; the dates have come and gone uneventfully. In fact, 48 (61%) of the predictions have already expired as of the end of 2020.”
To end 2020, the climate doomsters were proved wrong in their scary climate predictions 48 times – at 50:50 odds for each prediction, that’s like flipping a coin 48 times and losing every time! The probability of that being mere random stupidity is 1 in 281 trillion! It’s not just global warming scientists being stupid.
These climate doomsters were not telling the truth – they displayed a dishonest bias in their analyses that caused these extremely improbable falsehoods, these frauds.
There is a powerful logic that says no rational person or group could be this wrong for this long – they followed a corrupt agenda – in fact, they knew they were lying.
The global warming alarmists have a NO predictive track record – they have been 100% wrong about every scary climate prediction – nobody should believe them.
The radical greens have NO credibility, make that NEGATIVE credibility – their core competence is propaganda, the fabrication of false alarm.
__________________________
.
.
Allan
If you don’t like Rules for radicals. I recommend Vaclav Havel’s, Power of the Powerless. Havel’s tactics are based on speaking the truth.
“To end 2020, the climate doomsters were proved wrong in their scary climate predictions 48 times – at 50:50 odds for each prediction, that’s like flipping a coin 48 times and losing every time!”
I think the climate change claim failures should receive a lot of attention.
One hundred percent climate change claim failure rates ought to give even the climate change religious fanatics pause. And the alarmists cannot refute the “100 percent wrong claim” because it’s true, provably so.
I have always thought the best counter would be a government pursuing real environmental policies and letting them do their work. Ignore the lure of renewables and invest in nuclear power. Try and make electricity cheap and reliable so people then use it to heat their homes. Change standards for insulation and building codes to make human structures more environmental. Ignore the religious aspects of of climate change and focus on environmentalism and then you would have an impact on climate change if it turned out we were all wrong and needed to do something, but at the same time all your steps would have been concrete, practical and pushed the human ball forward.
I know that some may argue that nuclear is either expensive or dangerous, but the problem with nuclear has always been political and bureacratic rather than scientific or engineering. It needs a political solution.
A government that moved in these directions could say things like, “we are not doing this because of climate change, but rather because it simply makes sense”
After all, look at examples like Germany where government that professes to be trying to improve things has to increase coal use.
Burning coal is bad for air quality and human life quality, it make sense to replace it with something that works and is clean.
Isn’t tha what the French have done with all of their nuclear power plants?
I thought they were talking about shutting theirs down – stupidity knows no bounds.
In fairness, modern coal plants with modern pollution controls aren’t “bad” for much of anything. Making things cleaner has merit, but one can go way beyond the point of diminishing returns.
Making things cheaper and more reliable, however, is always beneficial. The question is whether nuclear power, with the current state of technology and (perhaps more importantly) the current state of politics, is capable of that.
Coal produces high levels of radon gas even if well scrubbed. All I know is air quality has improved where I live as coal was shut down. We are 60% nuclear in Ontario and all our bad air comes from Michigan.
If you lived in a coal plant smoke stack, the levels of radon might get high enough to worry about. A few miles away from that smoke stack, the increase in levels isn’t enough to measure.
Since the 70’s there have been many environmental measures enacted. Claiming that everything you may or may not have seen was caused by the elimination of coal shows that yours is an emotional rather than a rational position.
I have found that true believers are impervious to truth and facts. They simply close their eyes, cover their ears, and scream so as not to hear what us deniers have to say. There is a lot of great information available that totally discredits the climate change hype, but the media will not report it and in fact, as evidenced by the reaction to Koonan’s book, will look to smear anyone with expertise who goes against the narrative – just like with Curry, Lindzen, Happer, likely you Rud, and many others. I fear that the only way enough people will wake up is for there to be a massive grid failure affecting millions of people with lot’s of deaths where the cause is so obviously due to over reliance of unreliables on the grid that the blame cannot be placed anywhere else. That will still not likely change the minds of the hard core true believers, but it may be enough to wake up large numbers of people who have not been paying attention. The left does a masterful job of creating fear to gain control and power – COVID is a perfect example. To be successful, we will need to figure out a way to create fear of unreliables and get the media to report on it. Mark Mills wrote another excellent article for the WSJ – Biden’s Not-So-Clean Energy Transition – WSJ – that highlights once again the massive mineral requirements for “clean” energy and the enormous environmental impacts mining for those minerals imposes.
In other words, we need more February Texas type events.
I heard Tucker last night blame windmills for the Texas rolling blackouts.
He also had a few other critical things to say about Human-caused Climate Change. He’s been talking to Dr. Koonin, I’ll bet.
It will be interesting to watch Tucker interview Koonin. That’s coming up soon. I hope we don’t have to subscribe to Fox News Streaming to see it. Make this available to the general public, Tucker, because it affects all of us, even those who don’t have a subscription.
Heh – I hadn’t scrolled down this far yet. ;-D
It just happened, if perhaps not on the scale you suggest, in Texas in February.
As I predicted the moment I heard about it, the media immediately flooded the communication “channels” with BS about how the blackouts had “nothing to do” with the amount of wind power relied upon by the Texas grid, which is of course pure nonsense – the wind power falling off a cliff WAS the domino that drove the blackouts. Yet the true believers lap up the BS from the “media” as fact and their “belief” system is unshaken.
As the North Vietnamese general says after his forces are defeated in the film “We Were Soldiers,” “many more will have to die – but the end result will be the same.”
Many more will have to freeze to death in the dark before people awaken from “the Matrix.”
Nitpick, but essential: i is not sqrt(-1), that is mathematically wrong. That would imply that i = -i, which is clearly not true. The correct definition is that i * i = -1.
i * i = -1
i^2 = -1
take square root of both sides
i = (-1)^(0.5) = sqrt(-1)
They are equivalent
In normal algebra, the square root of a positive number is always assumed to be positive, so that sqrt(4) = 2, not -2, although both +2 and -2 are solutions to the equation
x^2 = 4.
and nobody will contend that +2 = -2.
When solving a non-factorable quadratic equation ax^2 + bx + c = 0, the quadratic formula is expressed as
x = -b/2a +/- sqrt(b^2-4ac) / 2a,
If the discriminant D = b^2-4ac is positive, and there are two real roots, sqrt(D) is assumed to be positive, and the two roots are
x1 = [-b + sqrt(D)] / 2a and
x2 = [-b – sqrt(D)]/2a.
The square root of the discriminant is considered positive, and the +/- sign indicates that two roots are obtained by either adding or subtracting sqrt(D) / 2a from -b/2a.
If the discriminant is negative, the roots are complex, but then (-D) is positive and has a positive real square root, and sqrt(D) = sqrt (-1) * sqrt (-D) = i sqrt(D), if i = sqrt(-1) is considered “positive”. The two roots are then obtained by either adding or subtracting
i sqrt(-D)/2a from the real part -b/2a, to obtain
x1 = -b/2a + i sqrt(-D)/2a
x2 = -b/2a – i sqrt(-D)/2a
Saying that i = sqrt(-1) does not imply that i = -i. If we multiplied both sides of i = -i by i, we would get i^2 = -i^2, and if i^2 = -1, this would lead to -1 = +1, which is clearly wrong.
The concept of complex numbers is difficult for many people to grasp, because what does i mean physically? Is it the length of the side of a square whose area is -1 square units? Which is probably why i (and all multiples of it) are called “imaginary” numbers. Its real usefulness comes from solving second-order differential equations, which can result in solutions of the form y = exp(a + bi)x, where a and b are real numbers, and using the Euler relation exp(ix) = cos x + i sin x to generate oscillating solutions.
But when it comes right down to it, people don’t have to understand complex numbers to know that there are phase shifts between applied voltage and current in LC circuits, which can easily be demonstrated with an oscilloscope.
As for global warming theory, the problem is that most of the “expert” computer modelers are using non-physical equations to predict the effects of additional CO2 in the atmosphere, and ignoring very important effects. For example, there is no physical basis for the century-old Arrhenius equation
dT = K ln (C/Co)
used by the IPCC, since this results in practically unlimited warming at high concentrations, and removing all the CO2 from the atmosphere would result in infinite cooling (if C=0), which is physically impossible. The correct equation to use would be the Beer-Lambert equation, integrated over all IR wavelengths, taking into account interference by water vapor and the lapse rate.
Then there’s the assumption that relative humidity remains constant if air temperatures rise. Since warm air can hold more water vapor than cold air (according to the vapor-pressure curve of water), maintaining the same relative humidity requires increasing absolute humidity (mole fraction water vapor). Physically, this requires evaporating water out of the oceans, which requires heat transfer from the air to the water, which can negate about 50 to 70% of the warming effect of additional CO2 in the atmosphere (depending on temperature and humidity). Relative to atmospheric warming, this is a strong negative feedback, but where is this feedback in the computer models?
It’s possible to program a computer to do anything the programmer wants, whether to predict catastrophic warming, or shut down a crude oil pipeline, or steal an election. But if the equations used do not reflect physical reality, what good is the model?
Of course, the average non-meteorologist may not understand the inner workings of climate change models and why they are flawed. But the models can be proven wrong by simply comparing actual temperature change over the past 30 to 40 years with those predicted by the same models in the past, and arguing that if the models couldn’t predict the recent past, how can we trust them to predict the more distant future in the year 2100 and beyond? If the past temperature increases were less than predicted, perhaps we should apply a downward correction to those predicted by the models for the future.
Or if someone is predicting catastrophic sea level rises in the future, show that the sea-level rise in the recent past has been at a nearly constant rate, and extrapolate that linearly into the future, and ask whether future generations can deal with less than 1 foot sea level rise per century.
Of course, young people (like Greta Thunberg) who have little life experience can be easily fooled by disaster-mongers, just like they can be lured into religious cults who predict the end of the world for a few years into the future, or into socialist political schemes, not knowing that all past socialist regimes have been horrible failures. But older people, who have heard these disaster predictions for over 30 years with very little actual climate change, can point to past predictions and what actually happened, and ask people “Can you believe future predictions from people who couldn’t predict the past?”
This is why the climate fearmongers are trying to fudge the temperature data from the 1930’s downward (hide the decline), and modern socialists are trying to hide the past failures of socialism by deleting them from history classes. We who have experienced more history (both climatological and political) first-hand need to tell them the truth, which will set them free.
I never expected that a small math aside would lead to such math arcana comments at WUWT.
Now, as a math ‘addict’, my commenters can also ponder the following equation using all five ‘magic numbers’ using an Euler theorem (better, there is a whole book on each of the five ‘numbers’, the best being ‘The History of Zero’)…and then please add for your pleasure a sixth irrational number derivation/application book for fun Phi [the Golden Ratio]).
So for the first five magic number books:
e^(i*pi) +1 =0. Wow! AKA Euler’s identity theorem. Enjoy pondering.
That is demonstrably false using real (not imaginary) numbers.
2 is a square root of 4. That does not mean that – 2 =2.
Arguably, the correct term is that +/- i = sqrt(-1). Then debate whether i is the same as – i, and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
100% agree. In the debate about climate change, energy and environment. The radicals have been using “science” as a prop while ignoring all scientific principles and instead, propagandizing the populace with fear of fossil fuel Armageddon and promises of green salvation.
In contrast there are many of us who understand what the science actually shows and what engineering and lived experience promises us will be the spectacular failure of the current version of virtuous, green, renewable energy systems. We have tried to make our case largely through reason and science-based argument. It is like fighting off a rapid dog by reciting poetry.
When I try to describe the world we would have if we remove the fossil fuel energy infrastructure that made our current society flourish I tend to use more graphic descriptions than would be typical of a sober scientific discussion. I don’t think the description is an exaggeration but I hope that it may seem more real given the recent events stimulated by the rise of woke, social justice, magical thinking governance in western wealthy democracies.
Every living thing will become a source of food as the industrial agriculture we depend on collapses. This means the term “endangered species” is replaced by “dinner” and the word “endangered” becomes a needless adjective when applied to anything 8.5 billion humans can eat. Every stick of vegetation becomes fuel or building material. Forrests once again will be flattened and burned just to keep people warm and sheltered. Supply chains won’t reach more than a few miles from your front door (if you still have one). Conflict which we have been spoiled to live without for so long will become a daily life and death fight over resources that are rapidly disappearing. Never mind fear of rogue distant nations, your nearest neighbor will be you enemy. The rule of law will be replaced by the rule of force. The environment which is supposed to be the biggest beneficiary of the “green new deal” will look like a move set from Mad Max.
The recent events show a glimmer of what could come if voters don’t demand a different direction. We’ve seen the blackouts, the fuel line ups with the beginnings of violence as individuals fight over just the perception of a shortage, the rise in food, fuel and building matgerial prices, the rise in conflict in Israel, and the increasing international challenges to western democracies after the US votes in a passive, demented president who believes we can live without reliable energy.
The ability to convince voters using logic and reason that they are heading for disaster if they support the progressive agenda is severely limited. We know the science and observed reality are on our side but we need more than that to change direction. We need to highlight the very real danger to each and every individual of continuing on this path. We need to engage emotion and the sense of self-preservation in every one of us.
Fighting off rapid dogs is preferable to fighting off rabid ones
Oops.
Rules for radicals is very good.
Remember, sceptics are the radicals.
Big climate (aka marxists, socialists, radical environmentalists) is the common enemy.
Informing the public that they will lose their, cars, steaks holidays is a valid component In a multi pronged campaign against big climate.
Objective, rational, independent thinkers do care about learning science-based facts behind a debatable argument, whereas proselytizing alarmists supporting a meme as a means to gain wealth, power and/or control of others never have and never will.
N.B., a meme is defined as: an element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation.
Correct ! socio-religious belief cannot be removed by facts. Especially not for persons like Greta Thunberg. She has asperger syndrome.
Typical for those kind of persons is an obsessive focus on one topic.
But how much of that is part of her legend? Her family are all actors and performers. She is molded and groomed for a potentially life long career as a goad. Asperger can be simulated, or empathetically “diagnosed” through something like Munchausen’s by proxy, or played by even a weak acting prodigy.
Correctly labeling her as having mental disorder or deficiency got at least one critic canceled as “thousands rose to her defense.” It is part of the mis-direction. Her personal incompetence is THEIR competence. Ignore it, or you’re making their point. It is like publicly jeering at stigmata. The CCP just fell for this yesterday.
Mortal gods and goddesses. A Twilight faith (i.e. conflation of logical domains). A Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, relativistic (“ethical”) religion. A liberal (i.e. divergent) ideology. Speaking facts to truth will only reach people who are not already subscribed, invested in green schemes, infested with social contagion, or forced to take a knee (e.g. journolism and the fourth estate, popular culture, the rarefied air in ivory towers, cancel culture, allegations of diversity). The problem is that even if you reach people… persons on one point, they will still bend to other special interests, and their better judgment will be overridden by peculiar interests. A progressive path and slope, smoothed with promises, hopes of secular, narcissistic returns.
You started off well, then made the same mistake. For over 80% or more of the “Alarmists” this is not a “Science” issue — it is a “religion” issue. I have precious formal training in “science” but do have a MDiv (clergy master’s degree). I recognize dogma and religion when I step in it. And what I hear is “dogma”. In a secular society that is now 2+ generations past the “everyone goes to church” phase of American history, they have no other religious training, and this fills that void in their lives. It as everything — human sin, end of the world scenarios, the need to atone, etc etc etc. Oh, and the most telling sign of a “religion” — insufferable believers who try to convert everyone, and want to burn the rest at the stake.
A faith or argument of trust, also a conflation of logical domains. A religion (i.e. behavioral protocol) including morality in a universal frame, its relativistic sibling “ethics”, its politically congruent cousin “law”. An ideology to realize them in practice. An organization to proselytize and normalize. A secular incentive to reach (or force) a consensus.
It’s very simple and it works with the race industry etc etc etc
As long as there is a problem, there are positions of influence, power and much funding to be had.
If these problems were solved tomorrow what would people like Mann, Oreskes and all the others do? They have a vested interest in ensuring nothing is solved, only prolonged.
Very good point. I am a physician working in the Canadian public health system. I think overall we have a good system but with high inefficiencies and over-consumption of services due to poor decision-making. I always felt that the duty of a health system is to make it self as close to redundant as possible by keeping people healthy from birth to grave. The goal is health, not health services. And yet I see the system I work in as largely oriented towards creating jobs and income for those who work in it, whether clinicians, support workers or the massive supporting industries of pharmaceuticals, medical devices and information technology. I don’t expect individuals to work for their own impoverishment, but someone in charge should be on the side of the patients and taxpayers. Where is that voice.
The climate change industry is trying to solve an apparently nonexistent problem with expensive and useless, if not dangerous solutions. It makes the health care system look spectacularly benevolent.
Healthy mother, healthy baby, healthy life. From conception to grave.
And that is with “socialized” medicine that supposedly leaves the “evil” profit motive out of it. As I like to say, the “healthcare industry” is not about “healthcare” at all; it is more correctly the “disease management” industry, again, like the “climate industry,” one with zero incentive to “cure” anything, because that kills the golden goose.
I’ve been thinking along the same lines for quite a while. Despite the quality of information here and at sites such as Climate Etc most of the climate crowd are either under qualified to understand it or choose not to understand it in the interests of personal gain or beliefs.
There’s none so blind as he who will not see…..
I don’t think that the argument can be won by using science (common sense) – it needs something more radical /basic.
The problem here, as with so many other issues of the day, is that a large number of people are living off ideals as opposed to real life. That has been encouraged and regularly rewarded so it’s a tough nut to crack.
That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t keep trying.
Gosh, welcome to reality!
Many realists have paid little attention to you and the lukewarmer WUWT since the early days of the revelations of unquestioned climate fraud–ClimateGate emails, Mann’s Hockey Stick debunking. Y’all danced to the tune of the barbarians sacking civilization while Rome was burning.
Experts on covert influence, covert action, subversion, and cultural destruction warned y’all that the Climate Cult were Politically Correct Progressives. You were warned that the PC-Prog mission was to destroy Normal America (and associated cultures)–specifically the American capitalist system, but the entire culture as well. You were warned that they did not care about real science and scientific methods, or facts.
WUWT response? You devoted increased energy to ever more detailed scientific refutations of the frauds. Extensive many-hundreds-of-thousands of words poured across the blog screen, with detailed intramural discussions on minute issues about “climate sensitivity” and “back radiation,” etc., etc. etc. You groveled to the barbarians:
“Yes, man warmed the climate. Yes, CO2 is bad. The only disagreement we have with the PC-Progs is the answer to the question: ‘How bad is CO2?'”
You deplatformed and ostracized many who had the courage to say: “The emperor has no clothes.”
You increased efforts to “publish papers” in the Cult’s “peer-reviewed” journals. In other words, you begged the barbarians for permission to critique their methods of sacking the city. Anthony Watts published a paper! Yee ha! What an accomplishment! Here we are, 10 years later. So what?
So, again, welcome to reality. The city has been sacked. It’s leveled. The ruins are smoking. The fire’s out. The barbarians sit on the throne.
What’s your plan now?
Lukewarmer???
So we imitate the warmers and start lying in order to support our position?
Rud, You might want to edit the title of Koonin’s book from “Uncertainty” to “Unsettled”.
My bad. Thinking his message, not the actual title. The hyperlink takes to the correct book and title.
I’ve started using “Natural Climate Change Denier” as in
Them: “You’re a (expletive) climate change denier!”
Me: “No the climate changes all the time, but you’re a natural climate change denier”