Essay by Eric Worrall
All the muted climate claims of previous years apparently represent climate scientists holding back for fear of intimidation.
Years of climate scepticism have done untold damage
Erroneous claims, scientific caution and poor media coverage held back policymaking on global warming
Switzerland is generally feeble at making global headlines.
…
I say “we” have failed to act, but that is not quite right. Those determined to preserve an overwhelmingly fossil-fuelled economy bear an outsized responsibility. And this week has been a reminder that others are not blame-free. That includes those of us in the news media and, to some extent, the UN body that delivered Monday’s report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
…
Bob Carter, an Australian geologist, scoffed that the climate had always changed; there was nothing odd about recent warming and trying to end it was as pointless as trying to stop an earthquake. This would be unimaginable today. Likewise, it is bracing to look back at an editorial a few days later in the Las Vegas Review-Journal headlined “Global warming alarmists push false premises”.
…
An absorbing new insider’s account suggests the impact on scientists was real. In his book, Five Times Faster, former UK government climate adviser Simon Sharpe reveals that, far from exaggerating the climate threat, scientists have often shied away from giving governments worst-case scenarios.
…
Read more: https://www.ft.com/content/bcc3e9db-96a8-4ae1-a536-5496d88720f4
I’m shocked at the accusation. WUWT doesn’t intimidate alarmist climate scientists, we encourage them to speak their minds, so we can entertain our readers with all their wildly wrong predictions. How much fun would we have missed, if climate scientists kept all their end of world fantasies bottled up?
“”poor media coverage””
Now, that is funny. And it’s total bolleaux
What you say is actually demonstratively provable, the mainstream media’s efforts to ram CAGW down the throats of the public is anything but “poor.” In the case of the U.S. PBS NewsHour nightly news broadcast, I only update my GelbspanFiles blog page of their Clima-Change™ bias pile when they feature a new IPCC / NASA / NOAA scientist in their broadcasts, but their “imminent climate catastrophe” discussion with Katharine Hayhoe Monday night is added to my overall running count, which now stands at 1,442 major mentions of the global warming topic. From 1996 to the present time, only seven of those times at the NewsHour had any semblance of purely science points from the skeptical side of the issue.
How many “news” organizations have proclaimed that they will no longer giver any time to anyone who doesn’t agree that CO2 is going to kill us all?
Further and further into madness.
Nothing like Half Baked ideas based on Over Cooked datasets wrapped in LewPaper creating a MannTastic hokey stick
The bible has something about cognitive dissonance.
As Openai puts it (but not JamesVI version)
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
Another one is sometimes called gaslighting Accusing your opponent of the same dirty tricks as you yourself are doing. Goebbels was an expert at that
But thanks for the general hiolarity to M.E Mann Greta and Al the Gbore
“”cognitive dissonance””
Doublethink
Based on the work of Saul Alinsky, whose books I tread in 2014:
(1) It is important to ridicule your opponents to create the illusion that they are fools not worthy of debate, and
(2) Keep your opponents on defense by throwing charges at them faster than they can respond. The charges range from mild ridicule to claims that are completely false.
Donald Trump used Alinsky tactics to win in 2016. His only mistake was to use the tactics on fellow Republicans running against him in the primaries, creating permanent enemies. Trump violated Reagan’s 11th commandment when attacking fellow Republicans.
Alinsky-syle politics is necessary for Republicans to win elections.
I made that claim in 2014 in my newsletter ECONOMIC LOGIC simply because the tactics work. All the Republicans I knew did not agree with me. Republicans work with facts, data and logic, they claimed, not ridicule and character attacks. So I can understand why Trump turned off some Republicans in 2016 based on what Republicans told me in 2014.
Unfortunately, election fraud is stronger than Alinsky tactics, and that’s what happened in 2020.
“Based on the work of Saul Alinsky, whose books I tread in 2014:
(1) It is important to ridicule your opponents to create the illusion that they are fools not worthy of debate, and
(2) Keep your opponents on defense by throwing charges at them faster than they can respond. The charges range from mild ridicule to claims that are completely false.
Donald Trump used Alinsky tactics to win in 2016. His only mistake was to use the tactics on fellow Republicans running against him in the primaries, creating permanent enemies. Trump violated Reagan’s 11th commandment when attacking fellow Republicans.”
In Donald Trump’s case, his Democrat opponents *were* fools, so no “tactics” needed. All Trump needed to do was point out the truth. He didn’t need to make things up like ole Saul is advocating.
Donald needs to follow Reagan’s advice and not speak ill of other Republicans. Trump doesn’t need to belittle any Republican opponents. He does so at his peril.
Trump should take the advice everyone is giving him and be magnanimous and not personally attack other Republicans and if he did so I think he would be the Republican nominee for president.
If he continues with the personal attacks he is only going to do himself harm and ultimately will do all of us harm if his behavior causes the Democrats to remain in power. Then we are all screwed.
Be nice, Donald. And you will win. Run on your past excellent record of governing. Nobody can touch you there. Smile and be kind and don’t call women “horseface”. I know it sounds cute to some, but it is offensive to most. Tone it down, Donald. Or lose the country and the future to the radical Democrats/Communists.
Trump may be a boor, but that’s probably the only way to get through a media that’s 99 44/100% behind the deep state. Progressivism is the real problem, and if the perpetually offended can’t come to grips with that, we’re already well down the road to serfdom.
“In Donald Trump’s case, his Democrat opponents *were* fools, so no “tactics” needed. All Trump needed to do was point out the truth. He didn’t need to make things up like ole Saul is advocating”.
I can’t stand Shrillery Clinton, but she is did well in 2016 considering her negative charisma, practically ignoring middle America, and not enjoying campaigning like husband Bill Clinton does.
Alinsky did not advocate for making things up back in 1971.
If a Republican believed climate change was no big deal, contrary to government bureaucrat scientists, an Alinsky style strategy would be to ridicule him as a science denier. With “science” defined by scientists are employed by the government.
Democrats (Hillary Clinton) have upped their Alinsky strategy to making up complete fabrications, such as Trum- Russia collusion, that most likely would not have worked in 1971.
When Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals in 1971, there was not enough leftist pro-government bias in the mainstream media to get away with complete fabrications. There were anti-government Vietnam War protestors in the media. It was not until the false claim of Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction in the early 1980s that investigative reporting seemed to end.
What are the seven rules for radicals?
The Rules
Weapons of mass destruction and programs to build more were both found in Iraq. There were no false claims.
Beyond that, Saddam was doing everything in his power to make everyone believe he had them. He thought that such a belief on the part of the world would make him immune from attack.
You are a warmonger misinforming readers here.
The second US attack on Iraq was a genocide of Iraqi people that was not justified
It was a disgrace, and illegal per the 1948 Geno-cide Convention, which the US signed. The US committed to stop genocides anywhere in the world, not cause them.
The OLD Iraqi gas weapons were LATER found buried underground, not ready for use. That is far from the claim that Iraq was ready to use weapons of mass destruction. And since when are weapons of mass destruction a justification for an attack? Lots of nations in the world have weapons of mass destruction.
There was no indication old, buried Iraqi weapons were ready for use, were used, or would have been used if Iraq was attacked.
And they were not used when Iraq was attacked by the US.
However, previously, Iraqi poison gas weapons were used by Iraq in its war with Iran,
The US cheered for Iraq to defeat Iran. Nothing was said about the use of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in that war.
Based on what appears to be your harebrained theory: It would be justified for Russia or China to attack the US right now, because the US has weapons of mass destruction (nuclear weapons). Weapons of mass destruction in the US that are far more powerful than old poison gas weapons buried underground in Iraq, discovered AFTER the US attacked Iraq, with no indication they were still potent, or would ever be used, and they were not used even when Iraq was viciously attacked by the US.
Tom, I think any hope you may have that Trump could play nicely is forlorn. I see his latest is to imply DeSantis is gay and or a pedo…..
“when he is unfairly and illegally attacked by a woman, even classmates that are underage,(or possibly a man) I’m sure he will want to fight these misfits like I do.”
Hey but maybe he will find God and change.
Trump’s biggest strength is that he’s bombastic.
His biggest weakness is that he doesn’t know when to stop being bombastic.
If I had a copy with me, I’d stomp on it as well.
A one minute section of the following video, beginning at about 1 minute in, is instructive.
That can also be termed as Psychological Projection. Seeing your own worst traits reflected in others actions
A right little Solomon come to judgement is our Pilita . Wot a whopper . She will go far in the stinking morass that is MSM Could advise presidents too if she genders and minotoritises right as well.
The incorrectly named “theconversation”, which no longer allows conversation, has used the same logic. Apparently the IPCC got the Antarctic warming wrong because they were too scared to tell the truth.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0kpYndeR3Nw3c4oUPidKN95ZHHTk6e15inV6go2DgYRsrrNfRmB12EYGa38RCWBuPl&id=176084152419221&mibextid=Nif5oz
It’s the Conversion….
I prefer The Monologue. Seems to fit!
Yes, that’s more like it.
Could also be The Narrative, The Dictate, The Perversion, The Screed, The Dogma, etc.
Just highlight the “CON” !
The Conversation rag started permanent bans on scientists who told it scientifically, about a decade ago.I believe that I was the first scientist to get the cuts. Sometimes I wonder about the maturity of the guy they had newly appointed to censor, who was in the news for another reason. He had met a new term for an odd male homosexual act and was asking around for explanations. That was the calibre of the censor when meeting a 70 y O guy with a well-known set of scientific achievements to balance against his pimply nothingness.
Climate research these days is all so much about the.fantasy of the mind and the achievement of a dreamy ambition. Measurement, experimentation, deduction are so 20 th century (until things start breaking and falling down).
Wake up, The Conversation. Geoff S
.I believe that I was the first scientist to get the cuts.
Put that on your resume
Leftists censor the best scientist first
It’s a leftist tradition.
I have had my comments deleted on The Conversation more than any other medium — except maybe Yahoo!
With 90% of the ice on the planet on Antarctica, the obvious failure of Antarctica to warm and melt (based on total ice mass, not local melting near underseas volcanoes) is a major problem for sea level rise scaremongring.
The leftist reaction is either to lie about Antarctica or avoid the subject.
Utterly shameless.
I wonder if Pilita Clark is in favor of nuclear electricity generation, as at least a partial offset against fossil fuels? Ms. Clark, as an Associate Editor at Financial Times, has hopes for fusion, but says it isn’t appearing anytime soon. So, all other greenie energy dreams don’t work, but writing about them pays handsomely. Skeptics and Deniers on one side and show me the money on the other.
The only scientists being “intimidated” are the legions who would speak out about the climate nonsense if not for fear of personal and professional attacks by the much better funded Climate Fascists.
This is just more bleating about how people would “believe their bullshit” if only the “media” and their favored “scientists in name only” would just be EVEN MORE alarmist and one-sided than they already are.
Reminds me of James “press release by the dozen” Hansen’s whining about being “muzzled” by the Bush administration.
Classic Marxist AgitProp. Accuse them of what you are guilty of before they accuse you.
“Climate Skeptics Have Long Intimidated Scientists from Full Disclosure”
And all the available evidence points to the exact opposite. One of the first scalps taken by the [Orwellian] shrinking violet tendency was, as I recall, one Dr David Bellamy. He questioned the so-called science of AGW at an intergovernmental policy committee meeting in 1992. In 1996 he was already opposing wind farms and didn’t give it up.
“Bellamy steps up wind farm fight”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4161267.stm
Later in 2004 Dr Bellamy committed heresy when said the climate change scare was “poppycock”.
Now, his contemporary, David Attenborough, has done very well; despite the Walrus’ ice-free confusion induced lemming like behaviour lie being caught out.
“Our Planet makes a point of saying what other nature series have not—the wonders they’re showing are endangered because of humans—and the footage is perhaps the most shocking part of a series full of discomfiting moments. Contrary to popular belief, not even lemmings dive off cliffs. Why would a walrus? Polar bears weren’t harassing them. The camera crews were filming from afar so their scents and sounds wouldn’t spook the skittish animals. Then why? What were walruses even doing on cliff tops in the first place? Our Planet offers a clear answer. “This is the sad reality of climate change,” Lanfear told me. “They’d be on the ice if they could.””
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/04/why-are-walruses-walking-off-cliffs/586510/
Climate alarmists have much in common with an accumulation of packed ice crystals, and for them control of the narrative is everything…
The new UN climate report airs the dirty truth about fossil fuels
It seems scientists are sick of being ignored – Michael Mann
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/ipcc-un-climate-change-fossil-fuels-rcna75909
And they complain about poor media coverage?
Totally fracking deluded!
This victim mentality is a clear sign that they are losing the plot – so why don’t we all just be nicer to little deluded Climatology Inc. and let them have their way!
I have been studying leftists since 1972, when I was associated with them for a year because of their Vietnam War protests. Even as a teenager, I began to notice characteristics of leftists I didn’t like, that were not obvious at first:
(1) They were anti-Vietnam, but not anti-government (as long as they could get Democrats in charge), and
(2) Truth is not a leftist value
(such as making predictions of doom to scare people and control them)
I became a libertarian in 1973 and never voted for any Democrat again.
Leftists respond to contrary opinions and facts in four ways.
Debate is rarely a response.
If you were a leftist, would you debate your beliefs?
Of course not, you’d lose every debate.
(1) Ignore all contrary information
(aka confirmation bias, which is easy with the pro-leftist mass media)
(2) Attack the motives of the source
(aka Big Oil funded)
(3) Character attack the person delivering the message
(aka “you’re a science denier”)
(4) Distract by continually making lots of new scary predictions about CO2 and claiming prior predictions are “worse than we thought”. Spew new claims so fast that opponents do not have the time or manpower to refute all the claims (aka Claim climate science is settled, but keep making new claims about CO2 at a rapid rate, contradicting your claim that climate science is settled)
In 1997 I decided the climate change movement was a religious movement that was 99% politics and 1% science. That was probably an exaggeration. In recent years I’ve said 90% politics and 10% science.
The 10% science is that humans can affect the climate in several ways. The 90% politics is claiming the effects are bad news, when in fact, adding CO2 to the atmosphere is good news. And if there is global warming from that (some is likely) it should mainly affect colder nations (except Antarctica) in colder months, and at night, as in the 1975 to 2023 period. Which is also good news.
The 90% politics is using brainwashing to convince people CO2 is evil, and the future is grim from CO2 emissions, unless they do as they are told by “experts”, without questions. And that is why I hate leftists: Because truth is not a leftist value.
Excellent. Your three points about how leftists respond to contrary opinions is right on target.
I remember a colloquium lecture about the threat of global warming to polar bears in which I’d asked something like “If it is just the area warming up that is a threat to them, how did they survive the temperature changes of the last 10000 years?”. My recollection is that the speaker responded by saying that there had been no significant temperature changes in that time period and that I must have either been looking at sources that weren’t credible or maybe I misunderstand the diagram and I was looked at as if was a kindergartener who had asked a totally stupid question.
Everything is f****** gaslighting with these people
” Climate Skeptics Have Long Intimidated Scientists from Full Disclosure ”
Alarmist now playing the poor victim role? Who would have imagined, when they get (and got in last decades) full, repeated and permanent coverage from msm?
If scientists can’t speak the truth they have no business being scientists
If those claiming to be scientists can’t speak the truth they
have no business beingare not scientistsfixed it!
There’s a difference between not speaking the truth, and not speaking.
A lot of skeptic scientists feel the need to not speak up at all, rather than being harassed and fired by the alarmists.
So those so called scientist in the USSR who ended up in gulags because of their views and those so called scientist in China who were stoned to death by their students for teaching information accepted elsewhere in the world were doing the wrong or the right thing?
No wonder China and India are building so many new coal burning power plants(-: They don’t really care about reliable energy or understand the correlation between fossil fuels and a country’s efficient economic drivers. They don’t really understand that CO2 is a beneficial gas, greening up the planet and that it’s a scam targeting the richest countries of the West and giving poor Asian countries the CO2 emitting green light because they haven’t had their fair chance to destroy the planet yet.
They’re just being confused by evil skeptical scientists trying to destroy the planet with the scientific method (-:
“…poor media coverage”
ROFL!!
“The dog ate my press release!”
And here I thought that they were trying to maintain at least the illusion of being actual scientists. Silly me.
From the article: “In his book, Five Times Faster, former UK government climate adviser Simon Sharpe reveals that, far from exaggerating the climate threat, scientists have often shied away from giving governments worst-case scenarios.”
That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.
There’s not enough climate change scaremongering,he says!
“Those determined to preserve an overwhelmingly fossil-fuelled economy bear an outsized responsibility.”
Or course- we don’t care if the planet burns up and the oceans boil. We want big profits now- screw future generations and the planet. /sarc
Conservatives think liberals are dumb.
Liberals think conservatives are evil.
Remember the VP recently telling a story of how as a young child, she asked her mother why Republicans were bad people?
Conservatives think liberals are dumb.
The blind followers, perhaps. Not so much the leaders.
From the article: “WUWT doesn’t intimidate alarmist climate scientists”
What really intimidates alarmist climate scientists is they don’t have any evidence to use to refute the claims of skeptics who say that the alarmists don’t know what they are talking about.
“WUWT doesn’t intimidate alarmist climate scientists””
The truth does.
You said it better than I did. Short and sweet! 🙂
Strange, the argument seems to be – “If climate scientist weren’t intimidated then they would have endorsed more radical climate policies.” If that’s not putting the politics ahead of the science then I don’t know what is.
Up is down again today. Such is life in the compulsory Climate Crusades march.
File this under climate fiction in the children’s section.
He also has a blog, which contains a few short pieces written over the last year.
https://fivetimesfaster.org/blog/
Wikipedia:
Ms Clark is quite entitled to her scientific opinion:
https://www.ft.com/pilita-clark
…but even wokeepedantia acknowledges Clark’s eminence in his fields of study and his position in a simple lede sentence. Then again, the first rule of yellow journalism is that the dead can’t respond or sue for slander.
Yes, this is a perfect indicator that anything to do with “climate science” and “climate change” is indeed a religious cult. None of the tenets or dogma can be questioned, and any one who does (or did) is marked as a heretic.
The University of Helsinki confirmed this anew on Monday by announcing that it was giving climate hysteric Greta Thunberg an honorary doctorate…in theology.
Well. Now that sorta puts things in perspective.
They are intimidated for the same reason people generally do not step in front of an approaching train wearing a Superman outfit. Reality hits even the most magnificent fantasy with unrelenting force.
This afternoon’s email from NetZero:
(It’s not easy to add any more is it)
1) Shell warns IPCC’s Net Zero target may not be hit until … 2100
The Times, 22 March 2023
2) The UN’s newest climate report is a woke dumpster fire masquerading as science
The Daily Caller, 21 March 2023
3) UN report predicting climate catastrophe in 2030 met with mockery: ‘Every single prediction’ has been ‘wrong’
Fox News, 20 March 2023
4) UN climate study proves the fight to lower global temps won’t work
Editorial, New York Post, 20 March 2023
5) Cheryl K. Chumley: The ‘climate time-bomb’ is coming!
The Washington Times, 21 March 2023
6) Matthew Lynn: The UN’s ‘scientific’ climate report is nothing more than confected hysteria
The Daily Telegraph, 21 March 2021
7) Michael Shellenberger: The UN is a climate “Disinformation Threat Actor”
Public Substack, 20 March 2023
8) Brendan O’Neill: Climate hysteria is a luxury belief we can no longer afford
Spiked, 21 March 2023
9) Ross Clark: The UN’s global Net Zero target isn’t realistic
The Spectator, 21 March 2023
edit: Ooops,
I didn’t think it would come like that but it’s nice that the links seen to be alive.
there is a reason you don’t see any climate alarmists participating in climate debates – even they know they will look foolish and as the head of the UNIPCC stated some years ago – the climate movement is really more about destroying capitalism than the environment
Question:
How to avoid a debate loss?
Answer:
Don’t debate.
Of course we don’t intimidate scientists. I see this as an act of desperation from the global warming lobby. There people are loosing the debate and need to resort to gutter tactics to try and regain ascendancy.
scoffed that the climate had always changed
Do they believe that this is an incorrect statement?
Maybe they are Creationists.
That ‘climate has always changed‘ has often been listed as one of the big denier lies.
“Peer Review as Shadow Cancelling: If you think academics can avoid abuses by keeping out of politics, think again.” by Bruce Oliver Newsome • 21 Mar 2023
Those of you who recall climate gate from a few years ago remember how the “climate scientists” said they were going redefine peer review to shut out skeptical voices.
One can only conclude that questioning climate science is a form of intimidation. An aggression. Probably racist, too.
Snowflakes everywhere. Remember when scientists were required to support their conclusions with facts and data? When they had to use logic and reason? You know, back when science was real?
If there is a more self-important, smug, irritating a-hole than Hey-Ho I have yet to see he/her/xi/xer. May she find herself in a pile of polar bear dung that reaches just above her nostrils.
The main source of intimidation is the vague awareness that bold-faced lies and out and out fraud will ultimately be overcome by the public’s access to the truth, and the fact that nature will present reality in the form of normal weather/climate every time someone looks out their window. Global warming alarmists, like all fraudsters, know that one day the masses may come knocking on their doors with some very difficult questions to answer. Ill deeds attract punishment as money attracts prophets of doom.
While the chicken littles run around squawking and seeking perpetual attention the rest of us will be aware that we are living in the absolute best time for human society in terms of health, longevity, wealth, freedom, and security. The only thing that has a serious possiblitiy of taking us back to the stone age is the belief that our use of energy is a bad thing rather than the defining ingredient in human success while preserving a healthy natural world.
wealth, freedom, and security for the average person is seeming more and more like a historical narative
“Erroneous claims, scientific caution and poor media coverage held back policymaking on global warming“
says Pilita Clark, the so-called “science journalist” with a BA in English.
She may just be having a mid-life crisis: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/2023/03/20/pilita-clark-the-envy-at-work-that-dares-not-speak-its-name
She is apparently realizing that a life spent hyping climate hysteria was wasted, accomplishing nothing.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ve been under the impression that it’s the skeptics who are intimidated. Threats of cancellation or worse, science papers being rejected etc.
They’re the ones being quiet and holding back.
Has anyone ever been fired because they proclaimed climate doom and gloom?
On the other hand I know of quite a few who have been fired for disagreeing with them.
“Those determined to preserve an overwhelmingly fossil-fuelled economy bear an outsized responsibility.”
Being sceptical about climate change science and one’s views on transitioning to non-fossil fueled energy sources are independent ideas.
Transitioning without the aim of “carbon free” is a different requirement with a different time frame.
We are making progress. These jokers haven’t seen anything yet.
“scientists have often shied away from giving governments worst-case scenarios.”
Now that is hard to imagine!
Maybe they have been holding back RCP1269375629.5
The FT is junk rag these days
A great example of wishful thinking:
Bob Carter, an Australian geologist, scoffed that the climate had always changed; there was nothing odd about recent warming and trying to end it was as pointless as trying to stop an earthquake. This would be unimaginable today.
Please, show us the data that debunked Bob’s opinions.
(Consensus of alarmist scientists does not count.)
Thank you for your efforts. I have not only been entertained, but also put at ease, something which at this point in time is rare and precious.