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.
I have to somewhat disagree with this approach to dealing with alarmists. The died-in-the-wool, fanatical, true believers cannot be reasoned with, since unreasonable people are unable to reason. The only approach for these true believers is to mock, ridicule and marginalize them in the eyes of those who have yet to drink the climate koolaid.
For those who have been deceived by Big Media, Big Government, and Big Green, but have yet to become members of the climate cult, you can use tactics 2 and 3. But those tactics will not work with the true believers of the cult.
I think you may have missed the fundamental lesson from Alinsky.
Always make sure what you are demanding cannot be met. And above all, make sure that if by some catastrophe the demand is met, that you are well away from any role in implementation. So we should welcome the California plans.
The Californian climate activists are about to find themselves in the disastrous position of having their demands accepted and the State Government seriously attempting to implement them.
The problem is when this happens that things have gone exactly the wrong way around. They were trying to use their ideas to organize around, which hopefully could take them to power, at which point they could forget about implementing them. What they needed was to be able to say, put us in charge and we will implement.
Alas, what is happening is the existing establishment has accepted and will implement them when they are as far away from power as ever. The establishment is going to be able to say, we did what you wanted, we tried. It failed. Or rather, they will say, you failed. See folks, these people do not deserve to gain power. Because that is what it is about.
Climate as a thing is of no interest to the activists. Its just something to organize around and justify taking power. Just like race and gender are of no interest to them, as policy questions. They are just something to make demands about, the more impossible the better. Don’t demand reform of the police. That could happen, or the establishment could try. No, demand their abolition. That is pretty certain not to happen.
You can only understand climate activism if you accept that the particular topics and controversies are not what its about. There is no point arguing the science or technology. Its not about that at all.
Actually, California may have got it right, without meaning to. Just as Minneapolis and Portland may have. By conceding to a demand which was made in the first place because it was ridiculous and unobtainable, they may have exploded the whole movement. Give it till the due date for zero carbon, lay in some popcorn, and watch the fireworks.
If I were a California climate activist, this is the point where I would be holding urgent meetings on the theme of how do we get ourselves out of this one. I expect they are.
It may not just be the California climate activists – many other Alisky-ite activists seem to be getting close to having their demands met.
I think Alinsky underestimated the chance of government giving in.
Another Alinsky tactic is to force the other side to live up to their standards.
Constantly ridicule any warmista who lives in the suburbs, especially if they have a standalone home. If they take anything other than mass transit, they are a hypocrite, even electric cars aren’t good enough, they are still wasting huge amounts of energy.
Drive, or worse, fly anywhere for a vacation, let them have it.
Force them to realize how unrealistic their demands are by forcing them to live their standards.
The Climate Juggernaut has to be attacked from all sides. We shall fight them on the beaches, and everywhere else, and we shall never surrender!
So just to be clear, the thousands of climate scientists around the world who disagree with Rud are all part of a global criminal conspiracy (“obvious deliberate ‘criminal gross negligence’”)
Maybe, maybe not, however the 10’s of thousands of actual scientists who disagree with the so called climate scientists are definitely not part of the conspiracy.
It’s not a conspiracy.
But if you have studied climate change, have a couple of Phd students to look after and no other specialisms… what are the chances that you will ever find that the climate sensitivity is too low to be harmful?
A thousand individual decisions make up an institution.
And an institution enforces its own survival.
There is no secret cabal. It’s just a blunder writ in past-funding-requests.
To me, it is clear that there is no “Greenhouse Effect”. That whole idea is simply not reconcilable with observations over any day, decade, century, millennium or millions of years. Earth has maintained a habitable environment for maybe a billion years. The reason is water over the surface.
Look at the current surface temperature across three tropical oceans:
All regulate the maximum to 30C give or take a degree. There is no ocean surface water cooler the -2C.
This result is not some delicate energy balance. That is just unscientific drivel. It is the result of powerful ocean surface temperature regulating processes.
Just leave the church of believers of”Greenhouse Effect” for a few minutes and contemplate an alternate view. Cloud formation over tropical oceans cause them to regulate to a maximum of 30C. Ice formation over polar oceans limit their minimum temperature to -2C. The global average temperature ends up at 14C give or take a degree. Oceans on average a tad warmer because there is more tropical ocean than polar ocean and land a tad cooler because it is on average 800m higher and in the presence of radiative gases guarantee a lapse rate set by gas law.
Forget all the hocus pocus of radiation and transmission (and, heaven forbid back welling LW radiation). Ice is the dominant radiating surface at ground level and in the atmosphere. It ranges in temperature from 220K to 273K so it is no wonder the average radiating temperature is 255K. No “Greenhouse Effect” needed.
I dare say most people here are true believers. They have taken the “Greenhouse Effect” bait hook line and sinker. They are as much of a problem as the dimwitted who think a global economy can be run from the sun and wind as the sole energy source using present technology. They have already conceded scientific analysis through their inability to really understand the energy balance on Earth.
There you go again,using the scientific method.
You will be certified a heretic and burnt as a witch,for you mock “The Science” with logic and reason.
It is pretty bizzare that water is so easily dismissed by Climatology ,when water is weather.
At least on a water world like earth.
It is sad to see so many people get tied up in this hocus pocus “Greenhouse Effect” and disregard simple observation for way more complex, tortured physics world of E-M energy going up gradient; photons like gatling guns going in all directions. You name it and climate “science” is the most tortured “science”. It leaves Ptolemaic astronomy in its wake by a long margin.
This is the learned response from Australia’s climate experts to the attached graph:
These incompetents are long past reality. It is so small in their rear vision that they no longer see it. As long as their model is middle of the road they are completely satisfied.
Absolutely, there’s nothing that they don’t understand better than a size 14 up the clacker ! Talking and whining is not an option with the warmunista.
I think this is why Curry posts more on psychology than direct climate science because these people are beyond being reached by science.
It’s collective madness.
Mockery is the tool
Dear Mr. Rud,
Many THX for your arcticle: I fully agree with you. My argumentation against climate alarmists is rooted in my past. I was born in East-Europe in a state of the so-called “democratic socialism”. I took part in the popular movement in 1989-90 to bury the “democratic socialism/communism”. The most important lessons learned from the collapse of the “democratic socialism” were:
—Natural laws could not be raped by political and ideological slogans, and at the end of the day the natural laws will prevail
—Distorting the market economy is very unhealthy, and sooner or later will lead to complete economical and social bankruptcy. Of course market economy is not ideal, however no any better alternative is known.
Based on these two practical experiences, I am optimistic concerning the final outcome of the fight between climate alarmism and climate realism. However, the way to neutralize the lies of the climate alarmism would be long and hard way, and will cost enormous amount of suffering for the mankind. However, the final outcome is clear. Example: If somebody would have told in 1989 that KGB would have had not more than 1 year, this person would have been sent immediately in a psychiatric ward. And the KGB would have been dissolved in 1990.
Currently I live in Germany, in one of the most “climate alarmist states” of the world under A. Merkel. However, a popular movement is on the way against the climate alarmism (supported officially strongly by the German state). In this early phase of the movement the best real scientists lead the climate realist movement. In the second phase the methods of the other side should be taken over. However, instead of indoctrination, a fact und evidence based elucidation of the masses (of the ordinary people) should be undertaken in a language which could understood also by ordinary people. The climate alarmism use very well known marketing methods to adress the masses by simply understandable messages of the climate alarmism. Maybe the WUWT community could produce similar “easy reading”-type climate realist messages. A first excellent example are the two presentations from Dr. Spencer on climate crisis. Another practical example: “97% of scientists say that there is a climate crisis, catastrophale globale warming,, etc.”. This statement has already been rebutted many times textual. However, the text of the rebuttals is long and not easily understandable by ordinary people. What about to create one picture (slide) to debunk this scam? One picture tells more than than thousand words. Another case: One of the main idea behind the “Great Transformation” to influence (to change) the climate by the mankind. What about to demonstrate graphically, that in climate/weather changes much bigger and stronger natural forces are involved than the current capability of the mankind? Here is a first such comparison table (in German). Maybe somebody could help with a good visualisation idea (unfortunately I am also more “text-driven”): I have seen a film to illustrate the distances and masses of the planets in our solar systems. Even children could see immediately that our planet is only a very small one in our solar system. Similarly a good visualisation could show even for ordinary people, hat mankind eventually can not influence the climate because much stronger natural forces are at work. The sites “everything climate” and “reference pages” of WUWT would be the right first steps, however the WUWT community should not remain at these first initial steps: The currently available cases should be improved, and the list of illustrated cases should be extended (and systemised) considerably: We should make us “campaigne capable”. Dear WUWT community: Could somebody help us on this field? Thank you in advance.
I recommend http://notrickszone.com/
regular reporting from Germany.
As regards the Wall, it was well known it would fall with about 3 months accuracy. The economy was imploding and the forecast at a press conference at Berlin’s Kempinski Bristol Hotel on Oct. 12, 1988 was right on the mark.
When the Wall fell, Kohl admitted they had no plan whatsoever for the eventuality.
No understanding of physical economics at either side of the Wall , then or now.
The other foot is about to fall now, and 2008 was just a toe in the water…
I would go about it in a completely different direction: instead of “follow the money” it would be “fight the bad influence of money”. Legislation is needed to enforce that grants to public research institutions (Universities included) must fulfill at least two conditions:
First: the grant cannot exceed a certain percentage of the institution’s budget (5%?), otherwise dependencies are generated which are very detrimental to science in general.
Second: any attempt to exert influence on the research priorities or the election (or dismissal) of staff of the institution via the grant money is strictly prohibited by law.
Something similar with respect to peer reviewed scientific journals would also need to be implemented.
A lot of “believers” are more like moths being pulled to a street lamp (the money). Without
these false incentives, a lot of them would be doing something possibly more useful.
So, you’re saying “there ought to be a law”, or words to that effect. This is the main premise of “progressive” government, which, as it continually moves leftward, is how we got to this point in the first place. I don’t pretend to know how this ends, but either the body politic pulls back from the abyss by eschewing centralized control over our lives, or the whole thing collapses into a collectivist heap with the worst on top.
You’re absolutely right. The best would be that no regulation is necessary. Unfortunately, these people have come to a point where they stand practically above our laws. A law is only useful if abuse is observed and only if it has the effect of stopping or at least reducing it. There are too many left wing billionaires out there throwing their money around for political motives. Earlier, philanthropists used their wealth for the public good, and not to take away our freedom.
Dr. Steven Novella has stated that the US could have 70% of US energy supplied by solar and wind by 2050. His blog (https://theness.com/neurologicablog/) constantly hypes magic batteries and claims solar and wind is the most inexpensive form of electricity production.
He claims oil and gas producers have received 4.3 Trillion dollars in government subsidies. Anyone who challenges his proclamations is called a fool. When confronted with Koonin’s recent book, he stated “Koonin is wrong!”.
The damage caused by a cargo cult scientist like Novella is incalculable.
Excellent analysis and conclusion!
We must not bring a knife to a gunfight, as a metaphor for the battle for Truth we find ourselves in. If the other side constantly plays dirty, give them a taste of their own medicine.
Honestly, endless logical arguments won’t persuade true believers in this “post modernism” climate.
Use ridicule and satire and as Gad Saad describes it invoke your inner “honey badger” to combat the wokists and DIE religion nutbars. (Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity) This applies to the Climate Cultists too who have succumbed to detrimental idea pathogens.
Here is an example of how to eviscerate a stupid belief with satire, using the very idiotic precepts that belief system espouses: (and I might add by using their exact language in ridicule of them, he never gets cancelled)
https://www.gadsaad.com/post/diversity-inclusion-and-equity-die-and-the-death-of-meritocracy
On being a “honey badger”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1BKOZi-oo4
And a longer talk on how to stand up and fight for your principles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQM6gu6jjNc
Gad Saad teaches that to end this madness we must all become “soldiers of reason” and fight back against these idea pathogens, not just acquiesce, or make timid arguments.
The ‘climate emergency’ is pushed by government, news media, big business, charities, academia etc… The public will go along with this in the short term because when people have no personal expertise they tend to believe what they are told by ‘respectable’ authority, hence are vulnerable to the ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy. Unfortunately scientific arguments such as those presented on this site have little or no impact because they are not widely reported and even if they were they are inevitably too technical for the non-scientist and we are back to the point above – who will people believe, the academic climate establishment backed by the government or a few eccentric dissenters?
I do believe that there will be a turning point however. Sooner or later the constraints inflicted on the general public will grow to the point that people will pay attention – the cost of energy, intermittency of supply, cost and convenience of transport etc. The public will start to take a more critical look at what is being pushed on them and why – is there really a ‘climate emergency’ and will the painful actions being inflicted actually avert it? Activists may enjoy a little self-denial but most people do not, especially if it is forced on them and they see little or no return from it. The Covid pandemic may have helped a little, people have had a taste of a restricted lifestyle, industries and economies have seen a contraction but there has been no measurable impact on CO2, so just how much sacrifice will it take?
Despite the apparent solid concensus, significant sectors of the press and politics will ‘change horses’ if it becomes provident to do so, it is therefore important to continue to present counter-arguments even if they gain no immediate attention – their day may yet come.
Rud ==> From Frank Fischer (2019) Knowledge politics and post-truth in climate denial:on the social construction of alternative facts, Critical Policy Studies, 13:2, 133-152, DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2019.1602067
“In this understanding,science not does not stand alone; rather, it is part of what co-production calls ‘truth regimes’ that involve sets of norms and institutions constructed by the state. An idea advanced earlier by Foucault (1991), a society’s regime of truth constitutes its ‘general politics of truth,’ which specifies the kinds of discourses that are accepted and turned into carriers of what is taken to be truth, the mechanisms that enable people to differentiate true from false claims, the ways in which truth claims are legitimated and sanctioned, the procedures and techniques given value in the quest of truth, and the standing of those who are responsible for declaring what counts as truth (Rabinow 1991). As such, knowledge produced by the science of a truth regime is seen to carry particular meanings of the objects of investigations and therefore has a built-in social bias, including possible political intentions behind the construction of the object.”
IPCC produces a “truth regime” that enforces adherence to both a particular interpretation of “facts” and especially to the proscribed policy solutions to the created/imagined problem.