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.
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.