This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Climate Fanatics Run Into Public Relations Snag

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Pater Tenebrarum via Acting-Man.com,

Scientists Turn into Stalinists

Last week, we happened across a press report about a group of climate scientists so eager to shut up their critics that they want to employ the State’s police, courts and jailers for the purpose. Specifically, a group of academic (and presumably tenured) climate alarmists supporting the “CAWG” theory (CAWG=”catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”) have written a letter to president Obama, attorney-general Lynch and OSTP director Holdren, demanding that so-called “climate deniers” (or the organizations allegedly supporting them) be prosecuted under the RICO act (you can see the document here (pdf) – already its first paragraph is “alarming”, as they inter alia brag about things they have incorrectly predicted to happen for more than 35 years, such as an increase in “extreme weather”).

 

doom2

This is not the first time that climate alarmists are letting their inner Stalin hang out and are trying to impose a spot of Lysenkoism for the “good of humanity”. For those not au fait with Lysenko: the man was an influential Soviet biologist who came up with an erroneous theory “based on dialectic materialism” about how to improve crop yields. It never worked, but over the 44 years during which his influence lasted (!), more than 3,000 biologists were either fired, jailed and even executed for opposing his views (a number of modern-day radical climate alarmists are also on record for demanding the harshest imaginable punishments for “deniers”).

The Debate over the Poorly Conceived AGW Theory is not Over

Here are a few excerpts from the letter we want to briefly comment on:

“The risks posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increasing ocean acidity – and potential strategies for addressing them – are detailed in the Third National Climate Assessment (2014), Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.

(emphasis added)

Apart from the absurd insinuation that only “government-funded science is good science”, as if none of the people involved had any self-interests, science is not the result of some imaginary “consensus” or attains the status of holy writ once its conclusions appear in a government-sponsored paper. As an example, it took the “consensus” 40 years to accept Alfred Wegener’s theory on continental drift, by which time he was dead.

In principle there is nothing wrong with employing a conceptual approach in the natural sciences, but eventually, empirical data must bear hypotheses out. It is moreover not true that we can “afford” to bring industrial civilization to a standstill on the off-chance that the alarmists might be right one day, especially considering how wrong they have been so far.

Let us just briefly address the handful of things listed above. “Extreme weather events” like hurricanes and tropical cyclones have actually done the precise opposite of what has been and continues to be widely claimed – their frequency has declined to multi-decade lows (e.g. in Australia, the “lowest level of cyclone activity in modern history” was reported last year. US readers will have noticed that since Katrina a decade ago and the intrusion of Sandy, hurricane activity has actually been de minimis – statistics confirm it loud and clear).

 

hurricane_frequency-march2015

Global tropical cyclone frequency hits a multi-decade low – click to enlarge.

 

Rising sea levels: it appears the rise is so slow that the catastrophes that have been predicted since at least 1980 not only have not happened, but that the opposite has occurred in these cases as well. No Micronesian islands have sunk beneath the waves – au contraire, they are growing. Of the 50 million “climate refugees” that were certain to swamp us by 2010, only one has shown up to date, and this seems to be a case of someone trying to get a residence and work permit in a developed country by means of an innovative method. The exact opposite of the alarmist predictions happened in this case as well: the very regions that were supposed to be the main source of “climate refugees” and should have been almost depopulated by now have seen the strongest population growth on the planet.

We haven’t followed the debate on the “acidification of the oceans” very closely, but we note that there definitely is a debate, as this notion appears to be based on questionable data (a.k.a. “sparse and contradictory evidence”). Lastly, even the alarmists are acknowledging that there has been a near 19 year “pause” in global warming (although NOAA is scandalously altering past surface temperature records from their actually measured to “assumed” values, in order to create a warming trend literally from thin air). They have hitherto seen fit to provide 66 different excuses for why the forecasts of their models have been so completely wrong. It is very mean of Mother Nature that she refuses to cooperate with the alarmist agenda. Of course, that the central premise of the AGW theory might actually be wrong isn’t even considered by these worthies (luckily they haven’t yet found ways to retroactively fiddle with the satellite data).

 

pause

The Pause – satellite measurements have detected no warming for nearly 19 years

 

The sentence that “the poor will be endangered” unless we regulate industrialized civilization out of existence is preposterous in the extreme. Again, if you assume the exact opposite to be true, you will be correct. In the past, human civilization has flourished whenever temperatures were a lot warmer than they are today (e.g. during the medieval warm period, vineyards thrived in the Scandinavian countries and global population growth and progress both accelerated greatly).

One of the biggest problems with the economically damaging regulations demanded by the alarmists is precisely that they cynically deprive the world’s poor of the possibilities for development the rich countries had at their disposal (see this report for details). In fact, much of the proposed legislation is ultimately nothing but a socialist wealth distribution scheme (that will not only redistribute, but ultimately destroy wealth) – as its major political proponents are occasionally admitting in unguarded moments. As has been noted elsewhere, this is simply “ideology masquerading as science”.

 

Suppression of Dissent to Preserve the Gravy Train

It seems to us, all of the above should be seen as grounds for vigorous debate, both on the scientific and the political level, before any more harm is done by costly (and ultimately useless) legal activism. However, this definitely isn’t how the letter writers are seeing it:

“We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”

In other words, those who disagree with the alarmists (which is ever easier to do as one after another of their predictions fails to come true) should be treated like the mafia or similar criminal organizations. Needless to say, this would not exactly be conducive to scientific or policy debate. We have yet to see the opponents of string theory demand the jailing of its proponents (or vice versa), in spite of their fierce disagreements.

Our first thought was therefore that one should probably “follow the money” – that the alarmists are probably increasingly worried that their gravy train might be derailed; that their lavish grants and privileges, including their role as “philosopher kings” advising the politically powerful, could come under threat as empirical evidence against their theories keeps piling up. This has inter alia also led to a recent rash of ever more hysterical apocalyptic predictions (see e.g. the laughable “sea level rise” panic outburst from Über-alarmist Dr. James Hansen, which is even denounced by his fellow AGW alarmists – i.e., it is too absurd even for them).

Before we found the time to write this missive, reality has struck in the form of a rather sizable PR problem for the leader of the group of letter writers – and it has indeed to do with “lavish grants”. As Climate Depot reports, Scientist leading effort to prosecute climate skeptics under RICO ‘paid himself & his wife $1.5 million from govt climate grants for part-time work’”. You couldn’t make this up.

George Mason University Professor Jagadish Shukla a Lead Author with the UN IPCC, reportedly made lavish profits off the global warming industry while accusing climate skeptics of deceiving the public. Shukla is leader of 20 scientists who are demanding RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) charges be used against skeptics for disagreeing with their view on climate change.

 

Shukla reportedly moved his government grants through a ‘non-profit’. The group “pays Shukla and wife Anne $500,000 per year for part-time work,” Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. revealed. “The $350,000-$400,000 per year paid leader of the RICO 20 from his ‘non-profit’ was presumably on top of his $250,000 per year academic salary,” Pielke wrote. “That totals to $750,000 per year to the leader of the RICO 20 from public money for climate work and going after skeptics. Good work if you can get it,” Pielke Jr. added

(emphasis added)

AGW has indeed become an “industry”, albeit an entirely taxpayer funded one. It looks more and more like a giant racket. If it were only a racket, there would be no problem – but it also pursues an agenda, under the pretense that we need to “save the planet” from what increasingly looks like natural variations we have little or no influence over. The agenda however has a clear leftist-authoritarian bent, as all the demands and already implemented policies involve more regulation and government control over the economy, are harmful to economic development and progress, are bound to condemn the poor to remaining poor, and aim at redistributing wealth in a manner that will simply end up destroying it to the benefit of a handful of cronies.

That people obviously benefiting greatly from this racket have the gall to demand that the State treat their critics as major criminals in Stalinesque fashion is really jaw-dropping chutzpa.

Conclusion

The caste of climate alarmists reminds us strongly of assorted doomsayers throughout history. They have almost become a kind of priestly caste, accusing us of committing the alleged “sin” of capitalism, even while they reserve for themselves the right to partake of its fruits to an extent few others are able to (as Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore notes, “environmentalism has become a religion”). Mind, we don’t believe genuine environmental concerns should be ignored, but AGW looks more and more like a contrived non-issue. The hysteria that has been on display of late is probably an indication though that its proponents are actually losing the debate.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 09/26/2015 - 11:21 | 6596394 . . . _ _ _ . . .
. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

"the globe experiences successive "hottest year ever recorded" year-after-year, and people start moving en masse due to lack of water."

This is simply untrue and a mis-representation of the science behind this factoid. Insulting others won't make your drivel true.

Professor Lindzen tutors Tim Yeo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUT7hLtFXIk  (3:10)

All the data points for the last 15+ years are so close that they are within the margin of error. Choosing one or another to be the warmest is arbitrary.

Check your facts before you invoke pin-heads.

Sun, 09/27/2015 - 09:41 | 6598624 citoyenne
citoyenne's picture

2014- hottest year on record.

 

2015- hottest summer on record.

 

Check YOUR facts before you refer to pinheads!

Sat, 09/26/2015 - 11:29 | 6596432 Spiritof42
Spiritof42's picture

Keep on believing that "the markets" will solve everything; it's your religion and nothing will chnage your minds

LOL. Right now, the markets are telling us government taxes and regulations have done untold damage to the market. It's in repair stage now as governments all over the world collapse under the weight of debt. The USSA will probably be last. 

Oh wait. It's already happeing.

That description sounds like California, the home of socialist liberals.

Sun, 09/27/2015 - 09:47 | 6598633 citoyenne
citoyenne's picture

"Right now, the markets are telling us government taxes and regulations have done untold damage to the market"

Right now, the markets are telling me that MARKETS have done untold damage to "the markets". Speculation will always be a feature of markets. Enjoy!

Sat, 09/26/2015 - 12:50 | 6596686 citoyenne
citoyenne's picture

Carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber. That means it absorbs heat which would otherwise be radiated into space. It's a laboratory result that one can reproduce ad infinutm, the infrared absorption bands and strenghts have already been measured.

Adding heat to the globe is like putting a water-and-ice-filled pan on the stove over a low heat. That heat doesn't just "disappear" (matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, another physics fundamental) and whether the ice melts and the pan reaches a simmer in ten minutes or fifteen, or a bubble wells up in this post versus another, is unpredictable. But there is one thing that CAN be predicted: the ice wil melt and the water WILL heat up.

Yes, the globe is a complex non-linear system. Even if we were to be adding heat in a linear fashion (which we're not) the result wouldn't be a linear uniform increase in temperature. Some parts will get colder, most parts will get warmer, overall ice will melt but some parts will expand, some areas will get drier and some wetter, and the oceans will rise. Soil will (already is) heating .. cooling systems which rely on pumping heat into the "cool" ground are already having problems, and the permafrost is melting and heaving.

The jet streams will move toward the poles, they will (already are) curving a lot farther north AND south, and precessing a lot more slowly, leading to static patterns of extreme weather: the ridiculously resilient ridge, long-term droughts, polar vortices for example. But no matter what the specifics and locations, that added heat doesn't disappear, it just keeps accumlating and accumulating.

The "pause" in temperature increase, which most deniers make so much of, is a fantasy. First of all, there was NEVER a "pause" in increasing temperature, it just increased at a slower rate. Second, the temperture increase is about to step on the gas, since the heat absorbed by the western Pacific is about to be burped back.

I have looked into deniers' arguments IN DETAIL: I read the East Anglia emails around the so-called East Anglia scandal (the hocky stick remains the same, with or without that single data point), looked at the mechanics of the correlation between ice cores and CO2 concentrations, and I can tell you that they are all bunk.

I know you won't trust what I have to say, and frankly I have no interest in  repeating lengthy arguments to a dismissive audience. But I suggest that you should also look at the arguments - both pro- and con- IN DETAIL.    

Sat, 09/26/2015 - 12:59 | 6596711 citoyenne
citoyenne's picture

Carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber. That means it absorbs heat which would otherwise be radiated into space. It's a laboratory result that one can reproduce ad infinutm, the infrared absorption bands and strenghts have already been measured.

Adding heat to the globe is like putting a water-and-ice-filled pan on the stove over a low heat. That heat doesn't just "disappear" (matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, another physics fundamental) and whether the ice melts and the pan reaches a simmer in ten minutes or fifteen, or a bubble wells up in this post versus another, is unpredictable. But there is one thing that CAN be predicted: the ice wil melt and the water WILL heat up.

Yes, the globe is a complex non-linear system. Even if we were to be adding heat in a linear fashion (which we're not) the result wouldn't be a linear uniform increase in temperature. Some parts will get colder, most parts will get warmer, overall ice will melt but some parts will expand, some areas will get drier and some wetter, and the oceans will rise. Soil will (already is) heating .. cooling systems which rely on pumping heat into the "cool" ground are already having problems, and the permafrost is melting and heaving.

The jet streams will move toward the poles, they will (already are) curving a lot farther north AND south, and precessing a lot more slowly, leading to static patterns of extreme weather: the ridiculously resilient ridge, long-term droughts, polar vortices for example. But no matter what the specifics and locations, that added heat doesn't disappear, it just keeps accumlating and accumulating.

The "pause" in temperature increase, which most deniers make so much of, is a fantasy. First of all, there was NEVER a "pause" in increasing temperature, it just increased at a slower rate. Second, the temperture increase is about to step on the gas, since the heat absorbed by the western Pacific is about to be burped back.

I have looked into deniers' arguments IN DETAIL: I read the East Anglia emails around the so-called East Anglia scandal (the hocky stick remains the same, with or without that single data point), looked at the mechanics of the correlation between ice cores and CO2 concentrations, and I can tell you that they are all bunk.

I know you won't trust what I have to say, and frankly I have no interest in  repeating lengthy arguments to a dismissive audience. But I suggest that you should also look at the arguments - both pro- and con- IN DETAIL.    

Sat, 09/26/2015 - 18:09 | 6597441 DOT
DOT's picture

So the heating of that ice water does not produce any evaporation? Have you studied the cycles of variability in the Pacific that will "burp" that heat? What is your calculation of ECS? How much IR does CO2 emit back to space? Can you propose a mechanism for the dissapation of the RRR?

Sun, 09/27/2015 - 09:45 | 6598629 citoyenne
citoyenne's picture

"So the heating of that ice water does not produce any evaporation?"

 

Of course it does. The pan of water cools, but the kitchen in full of steam. How does that cool anything down??? The earth is a closed system, as far as "mass transfer" of heat is concerned.  The only way heat goes in or out is radiation.

"Have you studied the cycles of variability in the Pacific that will "burp" that heat?"

 

Yes. We're entering a cycle which will burp the heat back out.

 

Tue, 09/29/2015 - 23:36 | 6609551 Encroaching Darkness
Encroaching Darkness's picture

"the hocky stick remains the same, with or without that single data point"

Not quite. The hockey stick remains the same, EVEN WHEN THE MODEL IS FED RANDOM, NON-CORRELATED DATA. The model is wrong, and is addressed elsewhere in this thread above.

If ANY data produces a hockey stick, then the model is INVARIANT with respect to the data! If I fed in all the telephone numbers from the London telephone book and got a hockey stick graph, would that make an impression on you? Would you understand that the model is a fraud?

"But I suggest that you should also look at the arguments - both pro- and con- IN DETAIL."

I have, to some extent. The PRO side uses doctored data, ignores data that doesn't fit the theory and demands acceptance without proof. The CON side considers ALL the data (when the PRO side isn't busy hiding it), ignores "adjustments" that are ridiculous and biased and indefensible, and demands proof before acceptance. The CON side makes a much better SCIENTIFIC argument than the PRO side - and it is driving the PRO side nuts, since they cannot provide any proof for their arguments that isn't doctored, "adjusted" or cherry-picked into compliance.

Sat, 09/26/2015 - 13:56 | 6596839 ZIRPY
ZIRPY's picture

And everyone knows that droughts and floods never happened before the industrial revolution /sarc.

Sun, 09/27/2015 - 09:55 | 6598653 Teh Finn
Teh Finn's picture

You are the most scientifically illiterate person here.

Sat, 09/26/2015 - 11:11 | 6596381 . . . _ _ _ . . .
. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

Global Warming - Peer-Review Deception

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcp40a6IYdY  (16:02)

Sat, 09/26/2015 - 11:31 | 6596438 Consuelo
Consuelo's picture

 

 

Since man learned to organize in groups, he has worked tirelessly to gain control over his fellow man -- by whatever means necessary.   There will always and forever be, the struggle over those who wish to be free/left alone, and those whose Control Freakism disallows them of leaving well enough alone.

Sat, 09/26/2015 - 11:46 | 6596498 . . . _ _ _ . . .
. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

Professor Ian Clark Testifies at the Canadian Senate Hearing - December 15, 2011

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDKSkBrI-TM  (16:53)

CO2 does not push temperature.

400 ppm = 0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2.

The sun along with water vapour in the atmosphere are doing all the work.

The new environmentalism is about governance not conservancy.

Sat, 09/26/2015 - 14:54 | 6596988 The Indelicate ...
The Indelicate Genius's picture

"The most savage controversies are about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell

Sun, 09/27/2015 - 00:18 | 6598193 Zapporius
Zapporius's picture

You descendants of the english puritans are fucking retarded. Here is some Louis CK for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWZkwuILn_s

Mon, 09/28/2015 - 02:10 | 6601003 EarthHuman
EarthHuman's picture

Last! AWG is real. buy carbon credits, short fossil fuels

Mon, 09/28/2015 - 07:27 | 6601163 exomike
exomike's picture

We of the Scientific Consensus told you the tilting point was coming. We told you in time for those in power to do something. Bush II made sure you didn't even have that time.

The life support system of planet earth is now mortally wounded. It can't be fixed. You killed your greedy selves. Humans and other complex mammals are all going to die off. Humans have maybe two generations above ground tops. You killed yourselves off arguing your denial.

For twenty years now when deniers asked me what I thought of the man caused global warming or climate change “debate”. I would say, “There isn’t one.” Now, there is no reason to have one (a debate).

As Country Joe said, “... ain't no reason to wonder why, Whoopee we’re all gonna die!”

 

Good Riddance.

Wed, 09/30/2015 - 10:41 | 6610941 MEAN BUSINESS
MEAN BUSINESS's picture

exomike, although I reject your "good riddance", I understand why you feel that way. Anyway, after 25 years I too see the futility of debating the issue any longer, however, I am not going to sit quietly pre-Paris. When I say "all roads lead to Paris" I'm implying two things:

1) the seemingly disconnected events we read about everyday are manifestations of the extreme pressure building in the runup to the Paris conference and

2)Paris COP 21 is our last kick at the can and likely to fall rediculously short because so far there is virtually complete disregard for the core topic: "death controls". Radical Marijuana is correct: it is our out-dated political science that is killing us. I conclude:

1) Even if we enforced a ZERO-CHILD POLICY today, we would still have enormous challenges vis-a-vis CAGW and

2) one way or another (artificially or naturally), sooner or later, we will have a zero-child policy.

I would prefer an artificial one, sooner. 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!