Climate alarmists rape language between two El Ninos. When an El Nino is in progress, they like to show graphs and pretend to be scientific. They particularly like linear trend lines.
In the lull between two though, they grow restless. The engines of moral outrage and hatred start revving. ‘Science’ cannot sustain. Words become casualties in the attempts to whip up the nervous energy and excitement needed to provide momentum.
Concepts, and your reaction to their destruction, become their very fuel.
They don’t like it – when someone gives it to them in the newspapers.
‘How dare the prestige press – which we literally own – print the heresies of the enemy’ – they seem to go. ‘Think about the readership! ‘What thoughts would enter their minds were it our communion be questioned, disrupted?
Here’s Hereward Corley in the Financial Times:
Corley is talking about this article: a somewhat rambling piece about why Extinction Rebellion is different than the countless other environmental movements that have come before.
Stuck in right in the middle is this (emphasis mine):
If the new movement can focus on climate emergency, and not mind whether it is capitalists or communists who find ways to keep fossil fuels in the ground, preserve rainforests, achieve a quantum leap in battery storage, and gear up carbon capture and storage, it deserves to gain a much wider hearing.
You can look at the online mob started by one Andrea Sella in the twitter thread starting with the one below:
Think about it: Corley’s is a letter to an already published article of a few hundred words – it is already a response, to begin with.
But that doesn’t matter. It cannot be allowed to exist.
- How can the response pass without a response?
- This is ‘slander’! (do computer models have feelings, and reputations? Who is slandered here?
- He worked for big (palm) oil (Kees van der Leun seems to have forgotten he works for a renewable energy outfit himself)
… and so on and so forth.
If the timing is correct, Andrea Sella’s already dashed off a multi-signatory letter to the Financial Times castigating them for their audacity, their utter nerve.
In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the mob whipped itself up into a frenzy and came down hard on the FT that they withdraw Corley’s letter.
I have to say though, I find Hereward’s Corley’s points to be largely correct: computer models are the only instruments that can produce climate projections, they are largely unable to simulate the past (1910-1940 warming, anyone?), warming is good, so is CO2, and Extinction Rebellion -induced policy disasters will only make life for those in developing countries worse. Not just for those in developing countries though.
More reason to suspect the letter won’t survive.
Roger Pielke Jr has complained several times on Twitter about Scott Waldman of EENews labeling him a climate skeptic in an article. Science magazine, that bastion of propriety, has republished the pay-walled article here.
There is a long thread here explaining what happened – juicy email excerpts included.
Roger wants EENews to characterize him and his position correctly, and that’s fair enough.
But since when is being labeled a skeptic – inadvertently, or even deliberately – character assassination?
One could understand if the word ‘denier’ was used. But, skeptic?
Should Pielke Jr be in such a rush to salvage his reputation from alleged insult from every dog and pony outfit that he surrenders simple words that mean nothing nefarious to the climate police?
It’s like watching George Costanza rushing out of a children’s party when a fire breaks out.
Or, knowing the kind of people he deals with in his field – a field of his own choosing – knowing the kind of ratfuckers they are, eager visit consequences upon you for being labeled a skeptic on EENews, Pielke Jr should have perhaps carefully avoided criticism of climate science.
By his own logic, that is the only way of being ‘smeared’ as a climate skeptic.
The latest kid on the climate activist block – and these are constantly born each year – is Extinction Rebellion, a UK-based boomer-adolescent activist group whose ranks are swelled with academics.
Extinction Rebellion has made a name for itself making absurd demands, and pulling assorted antics that include stripping, marching, yelling and vandalization. Which is required to get news coverage, which in turn legitimizes their actions by leading to a Wikipedia page because Wikipedia will only quote official news sources.
Their latest stunt was a traffic-snarling march around London that included smashing glass and painting graffiti. Activist ‘Olivia Evershed’ is quoted by the AP as saying:
If we don’t do anything to change this, our children will die”
This is the new breed of climate activism: marked by utter vapidity and ignorance. This is a generational shift in action.
David Rose posted:
This is Richard Betts’ response:
That’s right: the only way you’re going to get criticism of idiots like Extinction Rebellion from Richard Betts is if Rose repeats the IPCC catechism at the Mail on Sunday. Even then, Betts will deign to explain why ’emissions need to be zero,’ i.e, why Extinction Rebellion is correct.
There are no responses from Tamsin Edwards, Doug McNeall, Gavin Schmidt or ‘Climate Feedback’ ( basically Victor Venema’s ego pad).
In the past few weeks to months, scientists were dewy-eyed about Greta Thunberg, a child who is perhaps the first documented case of ‘scienxploitation.’ Not one person who seemed a bit concerned about the use of children in pushing political agendas, either.
There is a tacit silence in the face of scientific ignorance of the young. This is something new, something missing in earlier years. This is climate activism admitting defeat: they need to go down to 10- and 12-year olds to find believers.
No, scientists don’t have to criticize activists once in a while to balance out some kind of a scorecard. But science doesn’t need deal-making of any kind to be shown correct, either. No journalist is under any obligation to be stenographer for the IPCC
Activists have dragged the name of science into the mud but that doesn’t seem to bother scientists much. Here is the website of ScientistsWarning whose UK head is Alison Green, a lead signatory to Extinction Rebellion’s latest letter to the Guardian:
… and on and on it goes, with more junk buzz words like ‘fly less’ and links to organizations equally as ridiculous as ‘the Alliance of World Scientists.’
Where are the scientists who will laugh these clowns off the podium?
I am moving off Twitter. The problems I mentioned three years ago regarding Twitter have only gotten worse. The platform is in the forefront of engineering a new ‘safe’ internet haven that only disgusts me with each passing day. The censoriousness, the shaming campaigns, the monetization of shaming campaigns and destruction of people’s reputations and lives, the struggle sessions, and last but not least, the fake happy tweet collections called ‘Moments’ – there is only so much plastic Silicon Valley crap one person can take.
What would I miss the most? Interacting with my ‘twitter friends’ – a group of people whose faces and messages I saw everyday. Honestly, I would be incredibly happy if I got to continue to talk to them on a different platform, or even see their posts occasionally, anywhere. And the odd chance to interact directly with people whom you respect and admire.
I plan to get back to writing more. This would be a ‘new’ intellectually satisfying and fruitful way to do things that drew me online, in the first place.
Stephen Lewandowsky has co-authored (yet another) paper attacking climate skeptics. His colleagues-in-arms this time are long-time climate consensusite Jeff Harvey , Bart Vergheggen, and a cohort of ecologists along with Michael Mann. First author Harvey is well-known to climate commenters as a rant-prone passionate bulldog for the climate cause.
The main supposed finding of the paper is that zoologist Susan Crockford is the source of a number of skeptical blog posts. Harvey and colleagues claim a large figure (80%). The authors then claim to identify a ‘majority-view’ position in the polar bear literature, which they say is diametrically opposite of the Crockford-based blog position/s.
Polar bear alarmism has a checquered history and scientists Ian Stirling, Steven Amstrup and Andrew Derocher have been prominent proponents. All three have made several statements pushing a specific line – that polar bears are under severe threat, that anthropogenic global warming is the cause, and that their ability to adapt to changing conditions is limited. Of note here, the paper is co-authored by Ian Stirling and Steven Amstrup. Susan Crockford has been critical of both scientists on her blog and other venues.
My first thought was on seeing the Harvey et al text was whether the so-called ‘majority-view’ papers mainly cited Stirling, Amstrup and Derocher papers in support of their views. Did they identify a view present in the literature which traced its antecedents to their own papers?
It turns out the situation is much worse.
Of the 92 papers included in the study, 6 are labeled ‘controversial.’ Of the remaining 86, 60 are authored or co-authored by Stirling or Amstrup, or Derocher. That is, close to 70% (69.76%) of the so-called ‘majority-view’ papers are from just three people, 2 of whom wrote the attack paper themselves.
In other words, Stirling and Amstrup did not discern an organically coalesced body of opinion from several polar bear papers by sifting through the literature. They did not even uncover a body of literature supporting a particular stance that cited their own work, as self-referential as that might have been. They ‘found’ their own papers to constitue a ‘majority-view’ in the polar bear literature!
Stirling and Amstrup attack Susan Crockford for not following the ‘majority-view’ and the ‘majority-view’ is what’s expressed in their own papers.
But there’s worse to come. The authors list 6 papers as being ‘controversial’ for eliciting ‘critical comments and discussion in the peer-reviewed literature.’ It turns out Stirling, Amstrup and Derocher themselves wrote comments to 4 out of 6 of these papers. Put another way, Stirling and Amstrup labeled papers they did not like ‘controversial.’
It is no wonder the ‘majority-view’ (green triangles above) displays such a tight cluster of perspectival homogeneity. It is not a majority view but rather a minority one, of just three scientists. The near-absolute lack of variability in opinion along the PC1 axis is likely just due to standard boilerplate alarmist text in the papers of Stirling, Amstrup and Derocher, repeating the mantra of polar bear doom from melting ice, rather than any emergent phenomenon in polar bear literature.
A true majority view (if there can be such a thing) can be discerned only if a representative sampling of the polar bear literature is carefully assessed, with attention to their scientific content (as opposed to mere headcount), the nature and strength of supporting evidence presented and the caveats that scientists are careful enough to always include. In such a setting opposing viewpoints cannot be dismissed as being controversial merely because they oppose one’s own views.
The paper has several hallmark characteristics of a Lewandowsky piece: the language is dominated by ad hominen attack (for e.g, the word denier occurs 31 times) and the text is notable for a number of false statements. The authors purport to analyse ‘the views’ of blogs but ascribe views to the blogs themselves followed by analysis of the same views. Last but not the least, the full data from the paper is not made available. But the fatal flaw of non-independent analysis by the paper’s authors renders its conclusions invalid.
Pielke Jr is on a path of re-entry into the climate debate. His offering is a Powerpoint presentation of how ‘climate politics’ is ‘Manichean paranoia.’
Manichean paranoia, huh. What Pielke Jr means is the people involved are stupid yobos who don’t know how to fight. This is something he learned, while floating high above it all. What he also means is that underneath the thick rancor and vitriol flying around there is a problem, waiting to be solved.
Pielke’s position in his Powerpoint is nothing new. There has always been a handful of people who (a) believe in the climate cause (b) think they are smarter (c) know everyone else is a dupe.
So what’s his plan to solve the climate crisis?
Here it is, as it emerges deep into the presentation in slide #57 of a total of 62:
That’s right: the solution lies in starting off with a ‘carbon tax’ and moving on to ‘energy innovation policies.’
No prizes for guessing that these ‘energy innovation policies’ are never revealed in the remaining 4 slides.
Pay attention however, and it’s the same alarmist magic dust in disguise: something called ‘innovation’ will happen with a ‘carbon tax’ (which is yet to take place, despite all the tax governments presently collect), fossil fuels are ‘dirty’ (what was that thing about Manichean paranoia again?), and how increasing fuel costs will make alternatives ‘cheap’ (like how a steak becomes cheap if McDonald’s is coerced to charge $50 for a burger).
While this gruel-thin piffle makes its appearance towards the end, much of Pielke Jr’s slides are taken up in describing his persecution at the hands of the Obama administration. He even has recommendations for the climate debate. One of them is this:
It is hard not to laugh at this eye-watering hypocrisy.
Many years ago, I wrote an post critical of Pielke’s Jr’s claim that the ‘climate debate is over.’ The science is settled and public opinion overwhelmingly supports climate policies, Pielke Jr claimed. I disagreed. The article was published at WUWT.
Pielke Jr didn’t like it. He doesn’t take well to criticism.
Soon, Anthony Watts, who runs WUWT, was contacted by either Pielke Jr or Pielke Sr. Watts collaborated with Pielke Sr on some studies, including one that was headed toward publication. Pielke Sr was supportive of his efforts, in general. Pielke Jr had to have expressed displeasure at criticsm directed at him, appearing on a blog friends with his dad. The message was clear – take the article down or prepare to face blowback. This put Watts in a fix – he did not want to jeopardize a working relationship so he did the next thing he could.
The article was taken down.
Cockamamie excuses of threats were given as an excuse for the take-down. The real reasons were never revealed or discussed, until now.
Despite what he says above, Pielke Jr did not ‘seek out those with whom he disagreed,’ did not ‘engage,’ and nor did he ‘agree to disagree.’ Instead, he sought to penalize ‘engagement.’ Instead, pressure was applied via backchannels to effect censorship.
Regardless of what you might hear, climate alarmists—of all stripes—do not want to engage, debate, or attempt pragmatic politics. The best example is Roger Pielke Jr himself.
He’s done it. Donald Trump has taken the United States out of the Paris agreement.
Trump’s administration, perhaps predictably, employed the unfairness of Paris to pull out of the accord. But the question remains: is a fair Paris-like agreement possible? Or, even more fundamentally – should a Paris-like agreement be allowed at all?
Under Paris, if India or China built a coal power-plant, you wouldn’t hear ‘India adds power generation capacity, x million connected to the grid for the first time.’ Instead, the headlines would read: ‘India expected to fail meeting Paris target, expected to hit threshold for penalties soon.’
That would have been the real, disastrous legacy: an full-scale ethical inversion. Any positive would have been turned into a negative. That is the intended goal of the climate movement: an agreed-upon global constraint on energy use and a Malthusian corruption of the imperatives of modern life.
Dishearteningly, nearly everyone in the climate debate has fallen into the same rut. ‘Paris is a bad agreement because it won’t accomplish anything for the climate.’
Does this mean that a global arrangement that actually chokes off fossil fuel use enough to measurably impact climate would be a good one? Assuming the model calculations to be correct…?
For over two decades, developing countries hid securely behind the ‘common but differentiated responsibility’ curtain. Post-Copenhagen, their own development was turned against them by the Obama administration under John Kerry and Todd Stern. With the toehold of not having to make any sacrifices in the present, India and China boldly auctioned off their economic independence at the altar of Paris. India would continue business-as-usual, gets loads of free money from the Green Climate Fund, and provide access to domestic ‘markets’ for solar power, ‘microgrids,’ and spread subsidy largesse around. In return, it would come under a measurement and verification regime in the not-too distant future.
The climate activists make no bones about it – controlling energy use in the developing world was the real prize. This is Politico on the real ‘triumph’ of Paris:
The real triumph of Paris wasn’t America’s promises; it was the serious commitments from China, India and other developing nations that had previously insisted on their right to burn unlimited carbon until their economies caught up to the developed world.
The counter-argument from skeptically-minded lukewarmers, like Matt Ridley, was that this was terribly unfair to the poor in the developing world. Yes it would be, but the question remains: are the poor in India special? Compared to the poor in Scotland? or Pittsburgh?
Above all, ‘Paris’ was a testament to the vanity of international leaders at a particular moment in history – Obama, Cameron, Hollande and Modi.
Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris agreement has called India and China’s bluff. It has reminded countries that to pursue self-interest is the best policy. Trump has reminded them not to chase mirages of ‘leadership’ at the ‘global stage.’ Milksops offered as bait to the vain will not feed the poor.