…
Forecast the Facts wants newspapers to label anyone who disagrees with them as mentally deficient deniers. Climate change is settled, beyond debate, and the evidence is overwhelming, but the the team with all that certainty seems awfullly scared that the public might listen to their critics.
Look at the first line of their defining statement Who We Are: “Forecast the Facts is dedicated to ensuring that Americans hear the truth about climate change”. In this case the truth is not about the planetary atmosphere so much as “facts” about newspaper word use, opinions of science pin-up personality, and a club with a long nerdy sounding name. The research they want to share is not about the troposphere, but about their “success” in silencing alternate views: can we cancel an ad campaign, or harrass an executive who is not toeing the line?
Forecast the Facts is a grassroots human rights organization dedicated to ensuring that Americans hear the truth about climate change: that temperatures are increasing, human activity is largely responsible, and that our world is already experiencing the effects. We do this by empowering everyday people to speak out in the face of misinformation and hold accountable those who mislead the public.
Their human rights concern is as deep as their science. They empower everyday people who agree with them, and want to shut the damn rest of the voices up. Lately their campaigns are titled “Condemn Climate Censorship”. Indeed.
Skeptics just want newspapers to use accurate English (please write to the editors to tell them). A “denier” must deny something, and in a science debate, it implies someone denies evidence. So what is it? I’ve been asking for specific climate evidence for five years. You’d think if the planet was at stake, perhaps someone could find it? Others say deniers deny the consensus, but a consensus is a vote, a poll an opinion, not science. We don’t vote for the Laws of Motion.
Using standard English definitions, those who believe in phenomenon without evidence are gullible. Those who want evidence are rational. If skeptics deny the need to obey opinion polls, it’s because they are scientists. This is not the battle of denier versus scientist, it’s the battle of rational versus the gullible.
Skeptics want a scientific debate. Believers want editors to start namecalling instead.
“Deniers Are Not Skeptics”: New Research on Leading Papers Shows the Need for Greater Scrutiny in Reporting on Climate Denial
According to new research conducted by Media Matters in coordination with Forecast the Facts, the country’s leading newspapers have repeatedly used the inaccurate term “skeptic” to describe those who deny the basic scientific facts of climate change.
The study reviews published content from three leading newspapers from December 23, 2014 to March 23, 2015 that used a specific term to describe a person who denies that climate change is real and driven by human activity — both scientifically well-established facts. The three-month study revealed some disconcerting statistics:
The New York Times incorrectly used the term “skeptic” in 9 articles;
The Washington Post in 6 articles;
The Los Angeles Times in 4 articles.
An example of this incorrect usage of “skeptic” can be found in a November 10, 2014 article in The New York Times, in which Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) — who’s called climate change “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated” — was labeled a “skeptic.”
In December 2014, a large group of Fellows from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), including Dr. Mark Boslough and Bill Nye, penned an open letter to the media, asking that they “please stop using the word ‘skeptic’ to describe deniers.” The CSI Fellows wrote as follows: “As scientific skeptics, we are well aware of political efforts to undermine climate science by those who deny reality but do not engage in scientific research or consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong. The most appropriate word to describe the behavior of those individuals is ‘denial.’ Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetrating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry.”
Following the open letter from CSI fellows, Forecast the Facts launched a petition to support their call. More than 28,000 Forecast the Facts members have signed on so far.
On May 6, Forecast the Facts sent letters to executive and standards editors at these three publications and, in response, opened up dialogue with editors at both The Washington Post and The New York Times. New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan also wrote in the Public Editor’s Journal on May 7, “readers are right to watch these choices carefully. The difference between skeptic and denier…may seem minor, but it’s really not. Simply put, words matter.” The Los Angeles Times has not yet commented.
Forecast the Facts and its 170,000 members will continue to monitor climate coverage in leading newspapers for the incorrect usage of “skeptic” in regards to climate change. Forecast the Facts has also launched a petition to the Associated Press, asking that they add an entry to the AP StyleBook providing guidance on use of the term “skeptic” in the context of describing those who disavow well-established scientific facts.
Forecast the Facts ran the malicious campaign to use stolen and fake documents to intimidate donors to the Heartland Institute. See Heartlands response to Forecast the Facts. Is that Forecast the Fakes?
Next, anyone that FtF deems a Denier will be branded with a D on the inside of their right forearm. This will facilitate future identification and speed ostracism of the offending individual.
350
What sort of a dopy name is Forecast the Facts? If the alarmists had any actual facts that supported their claims they could present them and we could could consider them. Instead, using data manipulation and dodgy models, they make up dubious “facts” for decades or more into the future and expect us to accept them without question. Then this mob F the Facts comes along to confirm all of that. What an own goal!
241
Yes perhaps a better name would be F%$^ the Facts ?
It is entirely certain that one cannot forecast a fact but only hind caste it.
catastrophic global warming is not a fact in terms of weather or climate,it is a hypotheses and mere conjecture which is being reeled in on a monthly basis by observation.
For the true believers in Global Destruction, the only way to deal with observations or reality is to deny facts. Thus it is the Doom Mongers who are in denial. Of course the fact that the same people appear to be in love with the mobile crucifix(ae?) ,hate oil, and love to hug a tree gives me good reason to believe that they are entirely demented as perfectly illustrated by the head of the phlegm coloured party in GB , the Australian harridan nutcase.Those who wish to deny rights to the 3rd World, who deny cheap energy to the working classes ,who deny the right to be upwardly or downwardly mobile sociologically speaking have a brass neck to call me and any of us deniers.
I just hope the “J,accuse” moment arrives in my lifetime.
110
Facts cannot be forecasted. So the name of this grassroots human rights organization is just plain wrong. You can clearly tell none of the people involved are into science. (Let alone know what science is with a name like that!). The lack of logic makes me suspicious that this is just another Leftie activist campaign.
Forecasting is a prediction. Even with our current technology, weather forecasting is roughly 60% accurate. And that’s only for the next 24 hours or so! The accuracy drops like a sack as weather girls and boys of free-to-air news outlets talk about their “7-day forecast”.
Remember the low pressure system on the East Coast of Australia that resulted in sudden flooding in NSW a few weeks back? NO ONE was able to predict that! It caught EVERYONE by surprise. No expert. No Climate Change advocate. NO ONE knew it was going to happen.
And they have the bloody gall to claim all sorts of nonsense will happen in 10, 20, 50, 100 years? Give me a break! My BS Meter is broken!
This is activism. Nothing more. No science here.
Look carefully at how these types of politically Left leaning organisations butcher language in order to cover their intentions:
“grassroots human rights organization”
=> Activist club. (I thought this was about Climate? What does human rights have anything to do with it?)
“empowering everyday people to speak out”
=> They need more people to push their rhetoric.
“our national conversation around climate change remains polluted, and public understanding of the issue continues to fluctuate widely.”
=> They are unable to control the narrative. The public is not chanting the narrative! ie: losing public support on this issue!
Wait a minute…
“Forecast the Facts is a project of Citizen Engagement Laboratory.”
=> What the heck is the Citizen Engagement Laboratory ?!
* Does a quick search *
Citizen Engagement Laboratory
=> http://engagementlab.org/
Look at their description on their ABOUT page!
CEL was created in 2008 by Ian Inaba, James Rucker, and Daniel Souweine as a home for social entrepreneurs like themselves and a launching pad for new ideas and people powered projects that seek to change the world by leveraging the power of the internet. Since then, CEL has worked with dozens of startups, entrepreneurs, and philanthropic partners to expand the impact and reach of people powered change.
I get it now!
“social entrepreneurs” and “social changemakers” => Activists
“Citizen Engagement Laboratory” => Activist Organisation
“Forecast the Facts” => Activist Campaign
“seek to change the world by leveraging the power of the internet” => Organising activism via online.
And if you don’t believe me that this is nothing more than a Leftie activist group (with commercial-style dressing), read through the descriptions of the people at “Citizen Engagement Laboratory”. (Cookie-cutter Lefties!)
=> http://engagementlab.org/people/
Remember folks, facts and analysis don’t matter to activists. It is about the narrative and rhetoric. Its about getting public support. This is why everything is “social” to them!
…What they don’t understand is that the silent majority of the public are literally getting sick of these Left leaning issues in general. People are sick of being beaten over the head by all sorts of nonsense and they are no longer listening. The Climate Change “high times” are over. People are waking up to the endless “Conferences” involving many private jets, lavish conference centers (resorts), and the involvement of the privileged class…And it doesn’t make activist happy!
Which explains why they are doubling down on their BS! They honestly believe if you beat the public over the head with political narrative long enough, they will win!
120
It will get to a tipping point – people will have to decide whether to :
(a) Completely ignore pretty much every govt authority figure ( BOM, CSIRO etc etc ), thus completely discrediting the govt and making the country marginally ungovernable
(b) Go along with the lie.
My hope is they will go for (a) , as otherwise they are endorsing it and all the awful stuff that will go with it.
More people have died from Communism than WW2.
341
They’ll find themselves in a quandary. How will they rank the rampant denialism, by the size of the ‘D’? Deny Forecast-the-Facts, deny MSM, deny the skience, deny the IPCC, the UN etc etc….all this denying gets very exhausting you know. Perhaps the ‘D’ sewn onto your shirt have a colour to indicate the denier level achieved?
120
They wouldn’t know a quandary if it kicked them in the shins.
They will open the borders. Australia currently feeds about 60 million people. With the benefit of third world labour costs that could be doubled. It could be increased again with the benefit of third world consumption rates.
This will happen very quickly once the borders are opened. The third world will migrate here.
How many rooms in your house? Including yours.
20
Seriously.
I was thinking about having mu wrist tattooed “DENIER” perhaps with a number. Perhaps Jo, Mr Watts and Lord Monckton could organise a registry of “DENIERS” so we can all have a number which we could then use in any which way we chose.
I’m not joking, I really have had a gutful of LewnyCook and co, time to throw it back in their faces.
80
Be careful with the tattoos.
The SS tattooed themselves with the SS symbol under their armpits . This is how the Russian used to pick them up and excecute them on the spot. You don,t want be excuted in the near future if things go out of control . Mind you they already have the lists of people that are habitually being vilified. Hitler was not born as an anti-Semite, he grew into it. Like in the 1930-ties this verbal violence against us grows in intensity. What is unthinkable today it will be normal tomorrow and the hunt for people with the tattooed world d….ier will be synonymous I,m afraid with the SS in their eyes, not the oppressed Jews.
80
Who was it that first proffered the following definition?
Denier: anyone who suspects the truth.
30
Where do I line up for my ‘D’?
20
Research conducted by left wing rag media matters. Say no more. This is typical of left wing politics. Can’t get your way because your facts are wrong and you have no scientific evidence then throw tantrums, lie, obfuscate, twist, denigrate and name call. They are losing and they don’t like it. The more they use these tactics the more smart mainstream people realize the fraud, which is CAGW.
262
Illustrated recently after the British Election.
Left wing vandals desecrate women’s war memorial.
This is how democracy is venerated by the loony left.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/05/13/labour-supporter-appalled-by-lefts-puerile-antics-after-uk-election-defeat-n1998165
40
“As scientific skeptics, we are well aware of political efforts to undermine climate science by those who deny reality but do not engage in scientific research or consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong. The most appropriate word to describe the behavior of those individuals is ‘denial.’”
The irony: it burns.
491
Oh God, they’re even working with Media Matters, a far left propaganda group funded by George Soros. Facts and these people are complete strangers.
421
How ironic. Soros the face of grubby capitalism in bed with people that hate what he represents? Why is this? Is this the drawbridge effect that Delingpole talks about in his book “the little green book of Eco-fascism”. Meaning that once I am rich I don,t want anyone else to get rich? Or he grew some warped sense of morality based on guilt and decided to go to the other side. For me he was always a poster creature that represented what was wrong with the latest version of long dead free capitalism. He has done more for an average person to hate capitalism then the Marxist propaganda, the abc, BBC and years of the lefty media all together.
80
To debate, primarily, one must present verifiable and verified facts and a logical chain of induction, deduction, and reduction based upon those facts. Secondarily, one must point out the errors in the oppositions recitation of fact and in the chain of logic used to reach the opposing conclusion. The focus is on the content and structure of the argument rather than the the attributes of person presenting his argument. Both sides must agree that reality, reason, and logic are the central point of the process.
Yet those who have asserted “the science is settled” do not have even a pretense of such things. This is in evidence by their reliance on “consensus” and the assertions of their “significant others”. The bottom line is that they have faith and their faith determines the numbers used in support of their arguments, which in turn is used to validate their original faith starting point. There is no there, there.
Hence, there is no actual debate possible because there is nothing upon which to found such a debate. The two sides of the so called debate are as if from two completely different universes. The only thing in common is that the words used by either side sound the same. There is no common point of reference by which either side can verify and validate the argument presented by the other side. It is worse than trying to pick yourself up by pulling on your boot straps. There are no straps, no boots, and no gravity holding you down to work against.
The most one can accomplish debating on matters of faith is to have something that follows the superficial form of a debate. Which, by necessity, totally lacks the necessary content and process of an actual debate. As was once said it would be “full of sound and fury but signifying nothing”.
The only edge we have is that if they were to be left to their own devices, they would soon starve to death. Don’t bother to argue with them. Simply stop feeding them. You can do that by refusing to be consumed as a sacrificial goat. Any power they have is what you have yielded to them. They are nothing on their own.
362
If only science were that easy. The heliocentric models of the solar system were not accepted for centuries because the stars couldn’t be very far away or they would have to be be extremely large. It took the relevation that the stars looked so large in telescopes because of an abberation by the lenses for people to accept heliocentric models.
What is even more of problem is when you rely on facts that are not the results of your own experiments. You stray from pure science when you use others’ results so you are never denying the science when you are sceptical of those results.
101
I think your last paragraph is key to this whole debate. Everybody is reliant on everybody else’s data. A lot of work was based on the hockey stick, and those who used it are still hunting for surrogates to bolster the conclusions from their own work.
This post is about, “If you can’t change the math, let’s try changing the language.”
251
Changing the language is also called PC….aka cultural marxism
190
Original, exactly.
50
“If only science were that easy.”
I suggest that science really is that easy though its perspective is quite different from that of debate.
Debate is about one or more persons presenting arguments to one or more other persons and refuting their counter arguments. The person or persons who “win” the debate prove nothing but that they were more effective at debate. The position they hold may or may not be true. They win the debate by simply being better debaters.
Science is about discovery, identification, validation, and repeatability of process in reference to some aspect of reality. The opponent in science is not a person. It is a realty that neither hides nor presents its arguments. You cannot debate with reality. Reality does not argue. It simply is. Any argument you might make is irrelevant to reality.
Those who do science must focus on finding out what reality is as opposed to arguing for what he might think, hope, or wish that it might be. The only “win” in science is the discovery of what reality actually is and being able to demonstrate that that you actually have made the discovery.
The bottom line is that debate can be about science but it is NOT science. The two process are very different and have very different goals.
200
My example was of how “discovery, identification, validation, and repeatability of process in reference to some aspect of reality” would have lead you to the same erroneous conclusion until someone discovered a crucial piece of information from left field. In a pro-AGW world, you would have been barred from finding that last piece of the puzzle if it was contrary (I feel dirty now).
40
“In a pro-AGW world, you would have been barred from finding that last piece of the puzzle if it was contrary”
Apparently you believe one must exist and function by permission and acceptance by others. If that were to be true, we would still be swinging from tree limbs in the jungle.
There was NOTHING about consensus or agreement with others in my specification of the process of science. Such things are not necessary for “discovery, identification, validation, and repeatability of process”. All they require is a continued contact with reality and full fidelity with reality. If something is true it is true independently of what others will permit or accept.
50
Apparently, you’re as thick as brick.
No! I’m just pointing out that the scientific method is
discovery, identification, validation, and repeatability of process in reference to some aspect of reality, then new discovery and start all over again.
10
You may think you said that but I can’t find that meaning in your words. Rather than insulting me for not being able to read your mind, why not make sure you meant what you said and said what you meant?
It is interesting that you reveal more of your thinking in your every attempt to explain what you meant. Specifically the content that was neither implicit nor explicit in your earlier attempts.
On my part, I said explicitly what I meant and meant exactly what I said. My purpose was to delineate the fundamental and very important difference between debate and science. I did exactly that.
Clearly both processes can be repeated so that fact is a similarity rather than a difference. Hence the ability to repeat is not relevant to my purpose which explains why I did not specify it.
10
You quoted the relevant sentence. How can that be interpreted as “Apparently you believe one must exist and function by permission and acceptance by others. If that were to be true, we would still be swinging from tree limbs in the jungle.”
Not insulting you for not being able to read my mind but pretending that you could. I used an example where all the available evidence and knowledge would have lead you to think heliocentric models were flawed. You would have had no choice. It required more understanding of light to clear things up.
00
Thanks for that Lionell. Their use of “the science is in” has always left me speechless, partly because, knowing where they’re coming from I know they”re wrong, and partly because, in that context I actually agree that is is “in”. Just not the way they claim. Their “in” is inconsistent with what is known . My “in” is that their “climate sensitivity factor” is zero , amd that Maurice Newman is right.
So if I was somehow forced to reply, under oath, whether or not I agreed with their assertion, without qualification whichever answer I gave would be a perjury.
It’s a very clever piece of propaganda.
Cheers,
D
152
Paris must be getting closer. Panic is setting in.
390
There is certainly something motivating this onset of panic.
180
bemused,
Perhaps people have noticed, despite all the forecasts, it’s got colder and less stormy.
151
Yes, the extremely cold weather and heavy rains that we’ve been experiencing down south lately sure has made a few wonder WTF is going on. I reckon Queensland will be full of climate worriers looking to warm their bones this winter.
120
Queensland might be feeling that El Nino didn’t arrive this week as announced, but has been around for a while. Very dry.
About the panic. After the election of the Abbott government the panic merchants redoubled their efforts. My reckoning is that those efforts are bearing fruit.
In theory democracy says that 50% plus one rules. PUP showed us that this ain’t necessarily so. The protest vote that went horribly wrong. I have an awful fear that the panic merchants have very near the numbers.
Maurice Newman’s recent excellent publication has gained heart warming support, but we need a lot more support yet. There should have been more of it over the last two years.
50
Don’t worry Ted , I forecast an early snow fall in Paris in November. /sarc
Seriously, I think you have a point – the squeaky wheel is getting a lot of media lately.
My major hope is the recent news that Putin is getting very friendly with the Chinese will ultimately derail Paris. China stopped Copenhagen and we know the Russians think AGW is rubbish. Putin would probably like to “put the spanner in the works” just to show how powerful he is.
20
They must be in Seine.
420
You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
60
Making the seine bad pun over and over again is the definition of inseinity
50
Chuck L
It all depends on whether or not he signed the sanity clause in the contract. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_Sy6oiJbEk
30
They’ll be in Seine in late November. 😮
Especially if the carbon treaty fails!
Abe
50
Perhaps, condemn climate censorship please ?
(Союз Советских Социалистических Республик)
Once the UN pre-defined the term ‘climate change‘ science was consigned to irrelevance. The klimate skientist establishment became a giant political stooge. Forecast the Facts bear testament to the Orwellian mindset that has subsequently developed.
Politics has always been the venue in which the contest between the insanity of eco-marxism and the humanity of rationality and freedom of choice would be played out. One may ‘adjust’ the data, conceal the original material and massage the models, but you’re likely to have considerably more trouble with the truth, with ideas and with freedom. The plethora of fiddlers like Forecast-the-facts merely serve to prove the point don’t they?
251
Jo,
Obviously this didn’t come from FtF then
“Heisenberg’s Theorum on Green Energy Measurement
May 13, 2015, 6:41 pm
Theorum: A media article on a wind or solar project will give its installation costs or the value of its energy produced, but never both.
Corollary 1: One therefore can never assess the economic reasonableness of any green energy project from a single media article
Corollary 2: For supporters of green energy, there is a good reason for Corollary #1.”
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2015/05/heisenbergs-theorum-on-green-energy-measurement.html
Some interesting comments re IT – shades of the Queensland Health payroll job
280
I am more intrigued by the proposition of if a windfarm were to fall down one night would anybody notice?
30
The CAGW cult is drifting into dangerous waters here, this type of ingrained idealism will drive seemingly ordinary people to commit acts of ‘control’ as the manifesto demands.
How is this any different to other past terrorist causes SS, IRA, PLO etc other than the acts of violence have yet to occur?, if laws anti terror are in place to prevent such actions then this line of thinking should be looked at very seriously.
Greg above, Soros is the type to happily give such orders without getting a speck of dirt on his hands.
241
Forecast the facts is an interesting oxymoron. Facts relate to past occurrences , forecasts relate to the future. The name says everything about the AGW movement. They treat as facts forecasts that have continually proven to be wrong. No wonder they resort to name calling semantics to try to remain relevant.
352
Yes, I too thought their name was strangely appropriate.
272
I know the leftist media like to call us skeptics names, but this is what happens when you (Jo) report the facts (news) better than they do.
After all who cares about what ABC, BBC, CNN think or say, everyone gets their news from Youtube and blogs.
Now “Forecast-the-Facts” is another of those little “projects” from the highly superfluous group CEL (Berkeley CA) who brag about working with major groups for political change , but when you look at the list they are very obscure , nobody ever heard of them kinda groups.. essentially impotent groups of greenies.
Now, even though Paris is looming and I am sure the IPCC are gonna report something special for their “herds” of loyal followers,
I can’t help thinking beyond Paris, and 543 days into the future when Obama leaves office and he is replaced with a Republican administration.
If I may make a prediction , then a climate change of the financial sort will be in our future and “Forecast-the-Facts” will be flushed away so quickly that it will have seemed that CEL have swallowed a 3 or 4 boxes of diet pills.
Note: the GOP want to cut 5 Trillion off the budget 😮
231
Alarmists must not be allowed to reclaim the word skeptic/sceptic.
SKEPTIC has power.
Questioning absurd statements is seen as a good thing. Even John Cook realizes that. He called his blog Skeptical Science, even though it is nothing of the sort. He even called himself a skeptic.
Things are obviously hotting up. The alarmists desperately want action at Paris. If they are defeated at Paris the future of the world may once again move forward into the sunny uplands where reason and the search for truth prevail in the guidance of human affairs.
A rule of advertising is to stay on message. Alarmists are trying to relabel skeptics as deniers. But that is confusing and at least muddies the waters, which is not what the alarmists need right now.
Alarmists seems like a suitable term for our opponents and has been widely used. It has negative connotations (eg chicken little and the boy who cried wolf once too often). It could be useful to freshen up the message by adding gullible, eg gullible alarmists. It might also be time to rerun the storm trooper images from skeptical science, which illustrate their tactics.
251
Peter,
Totally agree. When they reclaim that word it is all over, not so much a problem of losing the word but of seeing the power of the
media and new intelligentsia finally confirmed. Having said that I am not so confident about the eventual outcome.
Words do change meaning as seen in the happy, light, summery word “gay” I knew in kindergarten to the new meaning where it helps to
describe someone whose sexuality is somewhere in the spectrum between male and female. Disclaimer: I fully empathise with “gay” people
and if the use of the word can help in any way I am happy to see it in its new situation.
Back to Skeptic. I am not sure the average Joe is going to be able to maintain his understanding of what a true Skeptic is when he has
so readily been snowed by the World Rule – Leave It To Us _ We Know Best – CAGW – UNIPCCCC Movements.
When you read comments on this site over time it becomes apparent that there is a very high concentration of expertise in matters
closely related to “Climate Science” and that it is far more accurate than any of the drivel coming from our Climate Change Departments
in Universities which are little more than Pol Science/Sociology/Environmental Awareness faculties.
Recent examples have been in the area of electricity production {Tony} and sea level measurement (Dariusz) along with the expert
commentary by many whose main contribution is in bringing us always back to the centre of the discussion where COMMON SENSE is the
most highly prized tool of analysis.
Unfortunately the ” average Joe or Joline” is not going to know the truth about Scepticism until they decide to do the hard work and
throw off the people whispering in their ears and SEEK FOR THEMSELVES.
Unfortunately that is just too much hard work, which means we need better, more honest and truthful Leaders.
What chance that ?
KK
141
From the New Shorter Oxford Dictionary (so hence the English spelling):
sceptic n & a [Fr. sceptique or L. scepticus in pl. sceptici.
Followers of the Greek philosopher Pyrrho, f. Greek skeptikos, pl. skeptikoi, f. skeptesthai look about, consider, observe, rel. to skopein, skopos: see SCOPE n]
A n 1 philos A person who maintains the impossibility of real knowledge of any kind (now Hist.), a follower of the greek philosopher Pyrrho of Elis (c 300BC), a Pyrrhonist; a person who holds that there are no adequate grounds for certainty as to the truth of any proposition whatever.
2 A person who doubts the validity of accepted beliefs in a particular subject; a person inclined to doubt any assertion or apparent fact.
3 A person seeking the truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite convictions.
4 A person who doubts the truth of (important parts of) the Christian religion; loosely an unbeliever in Christianity.
130
It would seem to me, based on the above definition, that however they now want to be known, they lost their case when Al Gore stated, “The Science is Settled, and the Results are In”, or words to that effect.
90
So,
THEY can’t even apply to be honorary sceptics because they hold rigid views?
KK
60
Yes, that might be the case …
50
Given that the Shorter Oxford Dictionary doesn’t give much change out of six inches, I’m lost. Don’t admit to any of those descriptions, so I must be a Denier then.
Can’t remember which of my siblings inherited Mum’s dictionary, so can’t look it up. Would have been a 1950s edition.
20
There is an aspect to FtF that is anachronistic. They are appealing to ‘old’ MSM; print, Broadcast. But there is a new communications medium, loosely the internet, more specifically in four general forms: MSM ported over (HuffPo), blogs (here), Facebooky thingies, Twittery thingies. Even organizations as bad as ISIS play this new media game. In the last three new media types, warmunists have been taking a pounding. Hence disappeared comments at RC and SkS, and the many Mann tweet embarassments. As ‘Millennials’ increasingly take over (each generation gives way to the next eventually), things will increasingly go against the warmunists. They probably know that. The battle for COP21 Paris is reminicent of the Battle of the Bulge Christmas 1944– throw everything you have at the Allied salient, cause if you fail the war is over. One senses warmunists are realizing that now.
190
And like the Battle of the Bulge the defenders are relying on the weather only in this case rather than low cloud and fog they are hoping that a strong El Nino event might bring with it a big jump in the av. global temperature.
80
And there was us thinking the warmunists DIDN’T want the GMT to rise…
20
Aw, nuts!
30
At the Battle of the Bulge, it was the attacking Germans who relied on poor weather.
10
Their name is cunningly devious.
‘Forecast the Facts’ is an absurd oxymoron, facts are actuality: “… actual existence, typically as contrasted with what was intended, expected, or believed …” (New Oxford American Dictionary).
Predictions cannot by definition be facts.
130
Hi Lively
It seems to me that this kind of language usage is nuanced and professional. Gore did spend 300 M$ on PR didn’t he?
Another mind-bending example is the application of probability to past events, as in “the hurricane was made more likely by AGW” Past events were “rare” or “frequent”, Probability applies to future events.
81
Makes a change from here where Jo ‘Broadcasts the facts’ and tends to let others do the forecasting.
10
Some of the better Sceptical blogs should pick a number of icons used and abused by the urgers and show the difference over the last 100 years. And the last 50 years as ell.
Like deaths from natural disasters then and now. ( a 97% drop)
Like SLR then and now. At least 30 recent PR studies show zip difference or a deceleration. Ditto for glacier retreat since 1950.
Like the lack of a tropospheric hot spot at a 10 klm height above the tropics.
A number of studies show a world wide Med WP, including the Antarctic as well.
Polar bear numbers are 4 to 5 times higher since 1950. 5,000 in 1950 and about 25,000 now.
At least 90% of increased co2 emissions will come from the developing world until 2040. Western countries will nearly flat line over that period.
Recent results from a SE OZ study shows we are now experiencing the lowest temps for thousands of years.
There is now a hurricane drought in the USA with a near record period since the last land falling severe hurricane.
And the last super cyclone hit the Qld coast in 1801. A number of earlier super cyclones hit OZ during the LIA. See ABC Catalyst “Super cyclones.”
I could go on and on with PR links covering heaps more of the icons of their CAGW. Their claims are all BS and the mitigation of so called CAGW is the greatest fraud and con for the last 100 years. Simple maths and science proves the case.
182
Sieg Heil! The Climate Brown shirts have a forum to plot silencing any dissidents. Whats next? Warmist youth?
142
That’s the point of Denialism101X. Primary school science (I use the term loosely) for bright eyed true believers to silence the deniers. “I was born in 1989 so learnt about global warming all the way through school, but your course has taught me so much about the science behind it, for instance I didn’t know about infra red radiation.” Not verbatim but that’s close to what one commenter said. Also much appreciation for being taught that deniers are motivated by political ideology to fit the evidence to preconceived beliefs- sound familiar? Watch for another wave of ignorant trolls.
232
Ken, bring them on. I hope the trolls visit here with their new insights.
202
This I’ll brighten your day.
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/scientists-earth-endangered-by-new-strain-of-fact-resistant-humans
21
We have been told that they make up 97% of the scientific community. This I doubt.
20
The scary part is that some green fruitbat will take it seriously.
00
“Another wave of ignorant trolls” for denial in a conga line of commentary, an everyday event for this site.
(You are fast filling up the moderation bin, with your empty comments) CTS
[Fair point CTS, but I’ll hit approve because this is as good as it gets from the fans of CAGW. He is a case-study. — Jo]
321
I gave this a green tick because of Jo’s comment.
We need Silly here to show the capacity, or otherwise, of the opposition.
But, we don’t need every turkey who fronts up; just the one example is enough.
KK
90
Talking about trolls and sf comes out. Touched a raw nerve?
60
What always amazes me is the massive, public, cognitive dissonance of alarmists who call for the silencing of sceptics.
If your so called science (and that’s a compliment) is so “settled” it should be utterly irrelevant how many people agree or disagree with it. But aha! That’s the point isn’t it? Its the consensus that’s “settled and the sheeple within that consensus don’t want it questioned.
As I keep saying to the bed wetters, how many people would you need to form a consensus large enough to overturn the theory of gravity by sheer weight of opinion? Even if you toss in that other thing that counts slightly less than opinion(in AGW), peer reviewed papers. How many?
If you believe there is a number, its basically no wonder you have swallowed the alarmism bait, hook, line and sinker. If you don’t believe any number is relevant, then why do you keep refereeing to consensus size as evidence of your crackpot delusion?
All the alarmists have is each other. Just like the religious, their faith is shored up by the weight of agreement, rather than the weight of evidence. That’s how you can tell its superstition and not science folks.
142
You are right safety guy, this AGW stuff is preached to our children from day one at school. Once upon a time we had a bit of religious instruction
this has now given way to constant religious instruction on the new god Gaia. Not much has changed except that now we are all sinners just for being
alive and breathing.
The true believers of this new cult and their leaders look down on the mass of humanity as surplus to requirements, no different to Stalin or Pol Pot.
We are the new heathens as unbelievers, thus we threaten the gates of their citadels especially those places we once called our places of higher learning.
Universities and usurpation of, by people of doubtful character, believing in their superiority and brainwashing gullible youth in this new religion are one
of our biggest hurdles. This fight for sanity will be long and hard.
122
You can wash yopurself of original sin by baptism; by purchasing carbon offsets. Offsets which force poor people into more miserable lives.
Makes you feel good, eh?
60
If original sin is the making of CO2 then it’s apt that baptism should be with water.
10
I am quite vocal in my denial of CAGW I also pen quite a few messages on Facebook and in particular the Guardian and have been helping S.Mittich in trying to express some of his comments in a more understandable manner and will continue to do so.
In my experience you have to deal with brainwashed children , or adults under the age of 30 who have only ever been taught to fear the terror of global warming to an even greater extent than I as a child brought up in Catholicism was taught to fear the devil and all his works and later on the Soviets and their deathly ambition. It really is a growing up exercise and a realisation that not everything you were ever told was or is true.
Those doom mongers over 30 are of a mind set which cripples new thinking or examining fresh perspectives.They are of the old school of left wings champagne (proseco?) socialists and their belief in CAGW is allied to their entire perception of themselves and their trendy (ex) luvey dovey relationships with their friends and fellow Guardianistas . I do not know if you guys in Australia get the TV show ,”have I got news for you” run, obviously by the BBC where the views of the leading panelists are stuck in the 1980’s;kick Thatcher, hate the Tories, love the trade unions,and damn everyone else with sneers and slander masquerading as humour.
Ben Elton was a brilliant exponent of such “humour” and of course it chimed with popular thinking , but as times have moved on , paradigms have been broken , the brave new world looks a lot like the cowardly old world and these peoples ‘ jesters have become anachronistic. Part of the new World philosophy is of course political correctness fully embraced by said clowns , no more jokes about paddy down the pub, the black guys in the neighborhood or mothers in law, god forbid comments on religion! Cartoons are now a dangerous territory and the walls have ears, now only jokes about Conservative politicians are possible , discussions about the left wing politicos are verbotten!
So we come to the fact that the Police are now involved in anything which might be deemed to be a “hate Crime” ,abuse of muslims, Irish, Scots (i,m one of them), blacks, one legged people, any disabled people ,multi culturism,
and to a degree I can see the point on racism especially , but I never objected to being called Jock or being accused of being able to peel an orange in my pocket , “sweaty sock ” was a tad derogatory but I will sue no one for calling me it. But how long now will it be until being a denier is on the same level as a discriminatory crime?
There are raving lunatics out there who consider those of us who confound their rhetoric as worse than murderers, next time someone calls me a denier , I,m going to call the police, lets get our retaliation in first guys!
40
A new wave of warmist attacks,
On any who dare doubt their ‘facts’,
When they falsely accuse,
Those of skeptical views,
As they hunt with the media in packs.
302
Excellent Ruairi. 🙂
10
Every creepy elite needs its grassroots human rights organization.
91
‘Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics.’
As a member of the Denialati I strongly protest.
We tend to have similar views but are quite different in our thinking. For example Andrew Bolt is a Sceptic who believes AGW is alarmist fraud, yet I doubt if he would join the Denialati who say global cooling began in 2003 and the planet is in big strife.
102
Far be it from me to discourage any new effort to get at the truth in this issue. However, I would point out that first of all it would help were they to actually use facts instead of supposition, innuendo and outright falsehoods. Beyond that, it might be a good idea, I suppose. In the same way that hitting yourself in the head with a baseball bat might be a good idea … for some, if not for others.
Secondly calling those who disagree “deniers” reminds me of the old maxim: “When you go pointing at some one, there is one finger pointing at them and three pointing back at you.” Calling someone a “denier” says more about the one doing the calling than the one being called.
And third, I’ve added a couple of new terms to my Climate Change Dictionary: Climatista and Alarmista. You can see it here: http://wp.me/p4MyHW-8S
102
Love it!
31
Jo, good to see the use of “gullible” it needs to be used a lot – start with tagging as a gullible Greg Hunt along with all the other pollies pushing us back into being cave dwelling troglodytes; if they were not gullible the promoters would have to move on. It’s really a Ponzi scheme that relies on gullibles to contribute: if no one invests it fails but if it gets going and investor cease it will collapse and if it keeps going it will explode causing untold damage not only to the investors but many more will suffer collaterally.
152
Fascinating. “journalists have granted undeserved credibility” What? Skeptic has real credibility. Now who is losing the name calling game?
So warmist doomsayers are trying to reclaim the word skeptic, perhaps recognizing that it is the basis of all science and that most people are naturally skeptical or just disinterested.
You would have to think the complete failure of the temperature to change for twenty years would have raises a little skepticism in even the most dedicated believer. Plus no hot spot. No increased storms. No missing polar ice caps. The snow never left and the world has seen freezing winters not seen since the mid 1940s. How are those drowning polar bears? Obviously the ones at the South Pole have all drowned.
So now there is a movement to deny skeptics the name and insist they are really deniers who are liars? This name calling is getting very silly.
Soon there will be war on heretics and apostates. Their punishment will be eternal fire. Ironic.
122
Deniers are not skeptics?
Just who is a ‘denier’?
And, what is a ‘skeptic’?
~ ~ ~
> Al Gore likens skeptics to racists, homophobes and violent alcoholics (video via wuwt)
> Tim Wirth (the guy who turned off the air conditioning and opened the windows at Hansen’s global warming hearing in June 1988) had this
to say during the live video feed: “Skeptics are ‘truly evil people”
~ ~ ~
> Authors John Cook and Haydn Washington analyse the approaches of those who deny climate science with a new book.
It’s called Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand, by Haydn Washington and John Cook. (abc.radionational)
Quote Haydn Washington:
“All scientists should be sceptical, but scepticism is a search for the truth, if you look at the actual definition, and denial is hiding from the truth
and running away from it.
So people who actually say they are sceptics on climate change, in fact mostly they’re not.
All scientists should be sceptical, but in fact they are denying it because it’s what they want to believe.”
~ ~ ~
“… denial is hiding from the truth and running away from it. ”
“So people who actually say they are sceptics on climate change, in fact mostly they’re not.”
~ ~ ~
John Cook discusses Denial 101x on reddit.com, May 5:
“iii.I already am a climate skeptic because skepticism is a good thing – skeptics consider the body of evidence before coming to a conclusion
(sorry, I know that’s just semantics but it’s an important point).”
Tim Flannery sets the record straight: I am not a climate sceptic. (theage.com)
. . .
I have another word for Cook et al, but it will put me in moderation.
As for “forecast the facts”, may I recommend any from Famous Forecasting Quotes:
“Those who have knowledge, don’t predict. Those who predict, don’t have knowledge. ”
–Lao Tzu, 6th Century BC Chinese Poet
122
Forecast The Facts?
Forecasting generally replies on models, n’est ce pa?
So how the heck can you forecast “facts”?
The mobius mind of CAGW true believers/apparatchiks at work. Self referenced unto the grave.
182
Very well spotted Ursus. Maybe its code for something in their world.
82
Ursus Augustus
My forecast is that in the future facts will not be forecast.
🙂
91
They want to call me an idiot or a denier, fine. I’ll return the favour, call them what they really are: fascists.
121
Forecast the Facts: your press release heading ends with “reporting on Climate Denial”! what is “CLIMATE DENIAL”?
is it not the most Orwellian shorthand for “manmade global warming” yet?
York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan says: “Simply put, words matter.”
OK Margaret, how about insisting NYT write “manmade global warming” and not the generic “climate change” when writing about the subject of AGW, & instruct editors to replace generic climate references with MMGW at all times, whether written by your own writers or in op-ed pieces by others. also stop writing “climate scientist”, “climate expert” & the like – be specific.
NYT lets McKibben do the name-calling, ForecastTheFacts-style! LOL.
12 May: NYT: Bill McKibben: Obama’s Catastrophic Climate-Change Denial
(Bill McKibben teaches environmental studies at Middlebury College and is the founder of the global climate campaign 350.org. )
Now, having watched the Arctic melt, does Shell take that experience and conclude that it’s in fact time to invest heavily in solar panels and wind turbines? No…
And the White House gave Shell the license. In his first term, President Obama mostly ignored climate change, and he ran for re-election barely mentioning the subject until Hurricane Sandy made it unavoidable in the closing days of the campaign.
Theoretically his second term was going to be different. The president has stepped up the rhetoric, and he’s shown some willingness to go after domestic greenhouse gas emissions. His new regulations on coal-fired power plants will be helpful, as will his 2012 rules on fuel efficiency for cars and trucks. And his nonbinding pledge that America will cut emissions in future decades may make the upcoming climate talks in Paris less of a fiasco than earlier talks in Copenhagen…
And yet Mr. Obama — acting on his own, since these are all executive actions requiring nothing from Congress — has opened huge swaths of the Powder River basin to new coal mining…
This is not climate denial of the Republican sort, where people simply pretend the science isn’t real. This is climate denial of the status quo sort, where people accept the science, and indeed make long speeches about the immorality of passing on a ruined world to our children. They just deny the meaning of the science, which is that we must keep carbon in the ground.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/opinion/obamas-catastrophic-climate-change-denial.html?_r=0
102
Fascinating isn’t it.
The number of people I have argued with that Obama is actually an extremely pro fossil fuel POTUS. He may be an alarmist in public, but he is clearly a realist in private. You don’t preside over your nation’s transformation from a net oil importer to a next exporter and genuinely believe your destroying the planet at the same time.
Worst business model ever, kill all your customers.
Just goes to show, you really cant trust politicians no matter what they say. They are as likely to be lying about the stuff you don’t agree with as the stuff you do.
Behind the scenes of his weak and disappointingly banal administration, he would no doubt be hounded by other realists who make compelling arguments about the difficulty of “containing China” and “dealing with Russia” using 4 solar panels and a LiOn battery. The backroom discussion about the fantasy of converting to renewables and remaining viable as a nation at the same time would be like listening to wizards arguing with alchemists. As Dawkins reminds us, when a priest cant start his car, he doesn’t fall to his knees in prayer, he opens the bonnet like anyone else. We are all realists and those that manage to deny it effectively end up kneeling in churches, tied to trees in forests and stuck on ice breakers in the dwindling ice.
141
Uh-oh. The tropical hotspot has been “rediscovered”. No prizes for guessing by whom. See WUWT.
100
Yes Martin, the good old ship of fools outfit themselves.
They ‘adjusted’ some (very thin, patchy) “data” and OMG, its the missing heat and the tropical hotspot hanging out together! It must be lurve!
Its hockey schtick spooky in its convenience vis a vis Paris, n’est ce pa? Why its almost a proxy for the excitement over at Camp CAGW.
40
Just testing myself before December —
“En Paris, ce n’est pas dangereux du tout et c’est très formidable”
10
whilst McKibben, in his NYT op-ed writes: “The president has stepped up the rhetoric”, Jesse Jenkins at The Energy Collective ignores Obama’s “rhetoric” instead claiming McKibben’s ***rhetoric is way over the top &, in the NYT op-ed domain, ” rhetorical flourish is the name of the game”!
(lots of links in the text)
14 May: The Energy Collective: Jesse Jenkins: President Obama Approves Drilling in the Arctic: Should We Be Outraged?
The decision was greeted with outrage Tuesday by climate activist and author Bill McKibben, who challenged the Obama Administration’s decision to repeatedly offer up new fossil energy resources on public lands.
***In addition to the Arctic, the Obama Administration has opened up new swaths of Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico waters to oil and gas drilling and approved leases for new coal fields in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin region.
While acknowledging President Obama’s steps to cut emissions from power plants, cars, and trucks, McKibben goes so far as to call Obama’s decisions on oil and coal leasing the equivalent of climate denial…
McKibben’s ***rhetoric is way over the top. (Chris Turner call it outright irresponsible, and he may be right). After all, this president has done more to confront climate change than any other American president.
But as New York Times reporter Coral Davenport notes, there’s an obvious tension between the president’s effort to cement his legacy as a climate champion and his repeated decisions to unlock more domestic fossil energy resources for extraction.
McKibben knows this, and he’s found what I imagine is a personal “pain point” for the president and is exploiting it by publicly challenging his green credentials.
As Matthew Nisbet, a professor specializing in climate communications, has argued, McKibben’s tactics can be polarizing, and he is unlikely to convince new supporters to rally behind the climate cause with this kind of rhetoric.
Yet by publicly challenging Obama’s legacy, McKibben may also be effective at hitting the president where it hurts.
How those tactical considerations balance out in the end is unclear, at least to me…
On substance, Michael Levi at the Council on Foreign Relations raises several good points (as usual) in reply to McKibben…
***The Obama Administration’s view seems to be that as long as we are consuming oil or coal, we might as well be consuming domestic resources to the benefit of the U.S. economy…
That position isn’t anything close to climate denial. But it’s also far too simplistic…
As I’ve argued before, I think there’s some truth to this, but McKibben repeatedly overstates it.
Playing whack-a-mole and trying to block all extraction efforts is a losing strategy in the long run. Unless we have real substitutes for oil and coal, we’ll continue burning these fuels, and efforts to constrain supply will have only limited impact on demand.
In short, efforts to constrain off fossil energy supplies will never be central to tackling climate change. Michael Levi is right there.
***Our primary efforts should concentrate on reducing demand for fossil fuels.
At the same time, Obama keeps unilaterally opening up new federal lands and waters for fossil energy extraction…
***Bill McKibben’s condemnation of Obama is over the top, and applying the term “climate denier” to this president may complete the transformation of this term into a cudgel used to club anyone who disagrees with your favored climate strategy.
At the same time, what else is new? It’s an op ed after all, a domain where ***rhetorical flourish is the name of the game…
http://theenergycollective.com/jessejenkins/2227536/president-obama-approves-drilling-arctic-should-we-be-outraged
Jesse Jenkins responding in comments:
Just to clarify, when I say “focus on the demand side” I mean demand for fossil fuels. That includes (principally IMO), developing substitutes for fossil fuels — aka alternative supplies of clean, affordable energy.
As I said, the supply side is not irrelevant, for many of the reasons you outline. But it is a losing strategy to try to constrain off enough supply to limit CO2 emissions. In the absence of substitutes, demand for fossil fuels is too substantial, and you can’t halt enough fossil fuel extraction with this kind of action. Activists just don’t have anywhere near enough leverage—Venezuala or Iran or Russia don’t care much about what U.S. climate activists do for example. That’s why I say the supply side is relevant, but will remain secondary to ensuring fossil fuels become obsolete.
Benjamin Franta replies:
Thanks for clarifying. Respectfully, though, the problem still stands: the phrase “demand for fossil fuels” doesn’t appear to mean anything…etc
media darling:
Jesse’s BIO: Jesse is a researcher, consultant, and writer with ten years of experience in the energy sector and expertise in electric power systems, electricity regulation, energy and climate change policy, and innovation policy.
Jesse authors the Full Spectrum column at TheEnergyCollective.com and is a recognized ***thought leader with over 10,000 followers on social media. He has delivered invited testimony before the United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and his research has been featured in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Time Magazine, Newsweek, National Public Radio, and other media outlets. Jesse has appeared on several national television and radio broadcasts and his writing has been published in the pages of Discover Magazine, Forbes, Atlantic Monthly, The Hill, San Francisco Chronicle, Baltimore Sun, Yale Environment 360, Ensia, and other publications.
Jesse holds a MS in Technology & Policy from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he is currently pursuing a PhD in Engineering Systems and researching the future of the electricity system, including the impact of distributed energy resources and the transition towards low-carbon power systems. His academic research focuses on the economic regulation of the electric power sector, computational modeling of electric power systems, the role of technological change in decarbonization of the global energy system, and technology policy and innovation systems. He has published peer-reviewed papers in the journals Energy Policy and WIREs: Climate Change and been awarded fellowships from the MIT Energy Initiative and the National Science Foundation.
Jesse worked previously as the Director of Energy and Climate Policy at the Breakthrough Institute and as a Policy and Research Associate at the Renewable Northwest Project. He earned a BS in Computer and Information Science at the Univ. of Oregon.
82
“Deniers Are Not Skeptics”
tru dat
61
But, from the point of view of the believers, skeptics are deniers, and rightly so. Because we, “refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine, etc.); refuse to admit the existence or reality of (mankind’s ability to impact the climate in any meaningful and permanent way).
My dictionary was still open, and so …
81
Fair enough, you know it and I know it, but it boils down to a semantic exercise. The green/left use this as a distraction, lets not talk about the science, and with their obfuscation technique honed at Deltoid they bog the discussion in triviality.
If global cooling is coming within a few years we need to go out on a limb and explain what is happening. We believe in climate change, but not the warmist variety, because our sun is the main driver and its become inactive.
112
Napoleon had to be exiled to st Helena as he denied his defeat. Adolf denied his defeat until may be a few days before his death. Joseph was no different when he died alone on that sofa. Even his guards denied for many hours his death too scared to open the door. Mid. East tyrants, all is repeated ad noseum.
It is seems the higher they climb the more ultimate denialism is entrenched even if this ultimately leads to their own death. Imagine flannery or gore with the ultimate power. Death of untold millions and destruction of civilisation would be their destiny that would dwarf Neros, or Caligula,s excesses.
40
Guardian praises “this administration” and then references “the Obama administration”, with Cindy saying it should say “no” when Obama has already said “yes”!
Alice in the comments says what Cindy couldn’t/wouldn’t:
14 May: Guardian: Cindy Shogan: Arctic drilling for ‘extreme oil’ is risky – and letting Shell do the work is reckless
Drilling in the Arctic is dangerous and irresponsible and no oil company should develop there
(Cindy Shogan is the executive director of Alaska Wilderness League in Washington, DC.)
***America’s Arctic Ocean belongs to all of us…
***This administration has made a strong commitment to working towards mitigating climate change…
The Obama administration has a responsibility to our planet; they should demonstrate real leadership and say no to Shell’s reckless and dirty plans…
COMMENT by Alice Ayers:
Unfortunately Obama has proven to be nothing more than a lay down, bending over for big business while he flaps his jaw with statements that are in complete contradiction to his actions, counting on the fact that most Americans don’t pay close enough attention to separate truth from fiction.
From his free pass to criminal bankers, to his support of energy companies in the business of fracking and drilling, to his drone assassination tactics, to his support of NSA blanket surveillance and persecution of whistle blowers, to his opacity with the press and the public regarding important negotiations like TPP, he is one sorry excuse for a president.
That he granted Shell a permit to drill in the Arctic is no surprise to me at this point. He’s the biggest corporate whore in the history of the US Presidency.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/13/arctic-drilling-for-extreme-oil-is-risky-and-letting-shell-do-the-work-is-reckless
The Australian & Sky are reporting this story.
ABC & Fairfax still ignoring it. it doesn’t fit their Obama narrative, but maybe they’ll jump on it now!
14 May: Seattle Times: Protesters launching kayaks to ‘unwelcome’ oil rig to Seattle
As the Polar Pioneer continued its trek from Port Angeles to Seattle’s Terminal 5 on Thursday, activists in kayaks took to the water
By Coral Garnick and Daniel Beekman
The rig left Port Angeles about 1:45 a.m. and entered Elliott Bay about 3 p.m…
Cassady Sharp, a spokeswoman for Greenpeace’s campaign against Arctic drilling, said activists in kayaks and other small watercraft would escort the rig into Seattle’s harbor as an “unwelcome party.”…
Zoe Buckley Lennox, one of a crew of activists from various countries who climbed aboard the underbelly of the Polar Pioneer and spent a week there last month as it made its way across the Pacific, was at the park preparing to re-meet the rig she calls her “frenemy.”
***The Australian said she’s been impressed by activists in Seattle and is glad her stunt raised awareness here…
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/protesters-launching-kayaks-to-unwelcome-oil-rig-to-seattle/
14 May: Globe & Mail: AP: Phuong Lee: Protesters in kayaks prepare to meet Shell’s oil drill rig in Seattle
Environmentalists are planning a three-day so-called “festival of resistance” starting Saturday. Smaller groups of experienced kayakers have also been training to confront the rigs when they arrive in Elliott Bay, though many said they plan to observe safety zones that the Coast Guard has set up around the ships…
“There’s a sense of gravitas around this moment,” said Bill Moyer (Backbone campaign), who has been helping train protesters in paddling techniques and kayak safety for the demonstration scheduled for Saturday dubbed the “Paddle in Seattle.”…
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/protesters-in-kayaks-prepare-to-meet-shells-oil-drill-rig-in-seattle/article24432250/
72
“Skeptics just want newspapers to use accurate English ”
I am available for consultation.
(And I would like Channel 10 to stop saying “unpreeeecedented”. The “pre” in should be pronounced like the “pre” in “president”.)
100
Wait for all intensive purposes and for some foul reason.
71
if we want to forecast the facts: a brilliant new study from UNSW:
“Researchers have published results in Environmental Research Letters confirming strong warming in the upper troposphere, known colloquially as the tropospheric hotspot. The hot has been long expected as part of global warming theory and appears in many global climate models. The inability to detect this hotspot previously has been used by those who doubt human-made global warming to suggest climate change is not occurring as a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions…”However, one thing this improved data set shows us is that we should no longer accept the claim that there is warming missing higher in the atmosphere. That warming is now clearly seen… tropical warming is equally strong over both the 1959–2012 and 1979–2012 periods, increasing smoothly and almost moist-adiabatically from the surface (where it is roughly 0.14 K/decade) to 300 hPa (where it is about 0.25 K/decade over both periods), a pattern very close to that in climate model predictions. This contradicts suggestions that atmospheric warming has slowed in recent decades”
Another fiction bites the dust: please inform David Evans of the facts.
(Did you read the paper carefully?, you missed some lines in it showing that it is not what you think it is) CTS
228
Sure, 28 million weather balloons that are designed to measure temperature and humidity are wrong wrong wrong, but if we use the wind to tell the temperature a glorious party results. It doesn’t take much to impress you does it, oh anonymous sillyfilly?
301
Jo, can you explain why the hot spot is considered a fingerprint of GHG-caused warming?
02
Tristan,
O/T. I’ve posted a reply to your challenge on the Scandal of Sea-Levels thread.
Enjoy and cheers.
Abe
30
Tristan, did you know you can search this site by keyword?
Try “missing hotspot”
20
I see claims that the hot spot is a fingerprint of CO2-caused warming, but no rationale for those claims.
32
Anthony Watts did a post on this and the comments are informative, in particular Crispin of Waterloo.
‘Is the Hot Spot seen in all tropical zones? If it does not appear, then it is a local phenomenon, not a result of “CO2 physics”.
141
sf,
Outstanding, three contradictions in the first line: brilliant, new, and study.
141
sf,
PS if you want to forecast the facts stop using failed models.
131
You missed my dismantling of that earlier on this blog, SF. I won’t repeat it for your convenience.
130
Please explain how a “hotspot” arises in the upper troposphere?
The troposphere expands and contracts. The upper atmosphere, where the troposphere expands into, it is -90C
Any additional heat leads to additional expansion , the higher , the colder. Are you looking at a less cool spot when you say hotspot? Are you measuring above a volcano which is having its heat dispersed faster than you can blink?
Enough of this nonsense about upper troposphere hot spots.
110
Bill Illis,over at WUWT,effectively destroys the paper with data:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/14/claim-climate-scientists-find-elusive-tropospheric-hot-spot-over-the-southern-ocean/#comment-1935363
60
Method:- An “improved data set”? Same old, same old data manipulation, hockey stchick style.
Motive:- And the Paris eco-fascion parade not far away, too.
Opportunity:- Never let a chance go by, oh Lord, Never let a chance go by..
50
George Santayana
The fresh hysteria which appears to be ramping up with each month ticked off for the advent of the end of year conference, is rather a worry. The last time in history there was a similar hysteria was the 17th Century Witch Hunts. Then there appeared to be good reason with times so much colder. Growing seasons were severely restricted, and what there was, was so wet the grain grew Claviceps purpurea or rye grain ergot, leading to whole villages suffering the debilitating and frightening effects of St. Anthony’s fire or ergotism. Plagues passed through with some regularity. Population across northern Europe crashed. To the people of the time, it had all the appearances of Satanic interference.
Superstition and gullibility appear to be two sides of the same coin. The third side of the same coin (tetrahedral coins, anyone?} is a worrying rabid hatred for anyone deemed a non-believer. I’m beginning to wonder if the public burnings will reappear. That would be a real worry.
Less hysterically but still gullibly, the NZ Government is asking its citizenry for their expressions about what should be taken to The Conference through a web page at climate.contribution@mfe.govt.nz. It’s interesting. It leaves some wiggle room for those of a sceptical or even scornful slant of mind even though the video is completely tied to the IPCC cant in every way. As seen on Radio.
Thank you, Handjive for:
– the title of the book; “Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand,” by Haydn Washington and John Cook is one book I’m going to acquire (2nd hand of course …) as it will become a collector’s item in time. (How wrong could they possibly be?)
– and for the “Famous Forecasting Quotes.” They raised a smile.
40
Delusions from the lukewarmer fringers and frankers as eloquently described by Dana Nuccitelli:
“It’s the hottest trend in climate denial. Long gone are the days when people can publicly deny that the planet is warming or that humans are responsible without facing widespread mockery. Those who oppose taking serious action to curb global warming have mostly shifted to Stage 3 in the 5 stages of climate denial.
Stage 1: Deny the problem exists
Stage 2: Deny we’re the cause
Stage 3: Deny it’s a problem
Stage 4: Deny we can solve it
Stage 5: It’s too late..
On the one hand, it would be nice not to have to keep debunking myths about the reality of human-caused global warming. On the other hand, Stage 3 denial isn’t all that different from Stages 1 and 2. Ultimately they’re all based on denying some set of inconvenient scientific evidence, they’re all used to oppose policies to curb global warming, and people will bounce back and forth between the various stages of climate denial anyway.”
So good on the realists for bringing the debate back to fact rather than the adherence to the debased and sullied voices of denial.
(Did you proofread your name calling filled comment?) CTS
[Oh, let him go. This is a good case study in how empty their aggressive, namecalling is. As usual, he merely states with audacious bluff that he has evidence, but doesn’t name it. The namecaller is hurt by their namecalling. His brain is unable to think clearly about this topic, he “knows” with a religious conviction that he is right. Either that or he is lying straight out, which might be why he hides behind anonymity. Who can tell? – Jo ]
225
Stages of Climate Alarmism:
Stage 1: Begin with preconceived notions of the alleged fragility of planetary environment, a naïve belief in the pristine qualities of pre-industrial human existence, and add a modicum of pagan worship of the Earth as a divine entity which mankind has sullied through his activities.
Stage 2: Add an intense distrust, fear and/or hatred of human endeavour, modern technology and industrial activity, and western society as a whole.
Stage 3: Cultivate a burning desire to overturn years of personal frustration and impotence by “making a difference” on a global scale.
Stage 4: Inculcate with Marxist indoctrination at University leading to enhanced antagonism to the captains of industry, or other powers that be.
Stage 5: Convert environmental concerns into career path by choosing to study Applied Geography, relabel it as Climate Science so one can convince oneself that one is being scientific. The absence of many of the elements of scientific method, a lack of clearly defined terms, falsifiability or observations which run contrary to predictions of that theory fail to persuade you otherwise.
Stage 6: Gloss over any gaps in the hypothesis of CAGW in the sure knowledge that all those teachers educating you and all your colleagues share your beliefs, and hence could not possibly be in error. You are happy to be accepted in the group of like-minded people whom you admire. You belong!
Stage 7: Acknowledge that some outsiders do not share your beliefs, or that of your fellow experts. Convince yourself of their inherent dishonesty, their stupidity, or their being in the pay of some nefarious persons unknown. Hatred of these naysayers and their misdeeds in obstructing your just and noble cause becomes intense to the point of madness.
Stage 8: These so called sceptics have become the bane of your existence. Must prove them wrong so that truth can prevail and the world can be saved before it is too late. Observations are failing to provide a clear enough picture and not convincing enough to dispel these interlopers, so in the interests of bringing the truth to the fore, results must be reinterpreted to cover gaps in the data which, if they were present, must surely convince these nasty people who deny our cause of the error of their ways and the need for “action”.
Stage 9: It is all going pear-shaped. Weather is so unpredictable and climate change that we all know is there is hidden behind the noise in the data. Must remove this noise to paint a clear picture. That will show them.
Stage 10: Damn those sceptics. If I ever get them alone in a room with me for 5 minutes I’ll…………………
250
Great stuff Winston. The religion that undergirds the misanthropy of these as yet officially uncertified nutters is Paganism.
That works both ways by harming millions if not billions of our fellow humans in denying them adequate cheap energy and also in their attempts to silence in anyway those who show them they lack any understanding of the science they use to hide their fundamental religiosity.
Paganism equals human sacrifice in both those ways to appease, in this case, “Mother Earth”.
60
Winston,
Random, unjustified violence. Verbal or otherwise. This is so them.
Made my day! 🙂
Abe
40
Having reached stage 5, its probably too late to warn people of imminent cooling.
50
First they called me antiscience
Then they called me antitree
Now they call me antigravity
30
“it would be nice not to have to keep debunking myths about the reality of human-caused global warming”
It would be truly nice if rational people didn’t have to keep debunking the myth of human-caused global warming and could devote their time and energies towards REAL issues such as pollution.
00
“Temperatures are increasing”? My fat aunt they are. Here in western Denmark the current temperature is two degrees – and it’s late spring, with summer just around the corner. The Believers are living in a very funny sort of fantasy land.
222
Ah! yet another fool who can’t distinguish weather from climate.
227
sillyfilly,
And yet another fool who can’t distinguish observations from models.
202
James Bradley: I don’t think that ‘sillyfilly’ has observed much!
130
C500,
sillyfilly only sees what its propaganda says the models predict, sadly the models are based on CO2 and the models have all failed, leading to the only conclusion possible – that CO2 is not a factor – something sillyfilly refuses to see.
But as is the case with sillyfilly, censorship and aggressive moderation on pro-global warming blogs prohibits the opportunity to debate with ‘deniers’.
Its own philosophy to shut down debate actually denies it the very thing it craves.
That’s ironical.
160
I think the space ships leaving silly, and they’re just waiting for you.
80
Still waiting for that cross-correlation coefficient from Veizer’s paleotemperature and the Berner & Kothavala GEOCARB III … … … …
(Challenges issued: 30+ Challenges answered: 0 [issued a new one yesterday]
30
Climate is the statistics of weather. Perhaps you could elaborate on the difference for us. Plus explain just how many years are involved in the statistics, what years those are, why those years are used etc. If you’re going to push the statistics of weather, you should know what statistics are used, how they are calculated and the calculus basis for the statistics. Or at least be able to provide that data. At present, it seems there are mulitple years, multiple methods and little continuity in any of the methods. So how about enlightening us on how climate is calculated and why.
20
I have just read that my alma mater, Glasgow University, has decided to divest itself of all shares in carbon based fuel companies, while Edinburgh University wisely has decided not to do so, deity pressure from students and staff. I sent the GU this email.
I am astounded and deeply disappointed that Glasgow University has decided to divest itself of all investments in industries related to fossil fuels.
The justification for this appears to be that, by doing so, the University is making a contribution to “saving the planet” by attempting to reduce so called Anthropogenic Global Warming.
As a Science Graduate of Glasgow University I find it beyond strange that those that manage its finances are blind the the increasing scientific evidence that is repeatedly refuting the computer modelling theories of the global warming community, many of whom obviously attend or work at this University.
Coal, oil and natural gas will continue to provide the majority of the essential energy that Scotland, the UK and the rest of the world needs to maintain the standard of living that we enjoy now, and to bring those living below the subsistence level in countries in Africa and other parts of the third world to the same standards. To ignore this fact is to ignore reality and you are to be pitied for your decision, which will impact financially and, eventually, socially on my University.
Luckily, Edinburgh University has not fallen for the same ideologically driven action.
201
Oops, that should have been “despite pressure from”. Sorry
40
What ridiculous grandstanding by a university. When did the loonies take over?
Can anyone explain how driving the shares in oil companies down does anything more than increase profits for others? Do people really believe the world will buy less oil if it is cheaper or shares in profitable oil companies are cheaper? Where is the logic? If divestment is punishment, punish away. Utterly irresponsible idiotic and fiscally culpable behavior. Apply the same silly logic and faux morality to chemicals, cars, planes, banking, mining, food and invest in nothing. In fact buy gold bars and bury them. That may be the cunning plan. Not a bad one but not one requiring that anyone on the investment board should be paid or have any qualifications at all. It is all about appearances.
100
I wonder if we can sue the Guardian and its Editorial team for conspiracy to defraud the public?
They say sell the sheeple sell , the price drops , State owned assets fall in value, the Church says “me too, me too ” unbridled passion for the love of humanity ,such a shame it is not returned.
Their “keep it in the ground” motto obviously applies to their heads and not fossil fuels and if I may be so bold ,I would suggest a slight amendment :-Keep it stuck firmly up your fundamental orifice.
So the Guardian sells its shares when the price has bombed ,,brilliant the beneficiaries of the trust should sue the Trustees for negligence. A move unparallelled since the great sell off of Britain’s gold reserves just before the spectacular increase in said commodity by Leftie Gordon Brown “we don,t need no steeenkeeeng gold “
60
2 pages: 13 May: Daily Caller: Ron Arnold: Climate Alarmist John Kerry Invests Massively In Fossil Fuel Stocks
http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/13/climate-alarmist-john-kerry-invests-massively-in-fossil-fuel-stocks/
following is for those who can access it. i’ve only read these excerpts from the start:
13 May: WSJ: Bjorn Lomborg: The Honor of Being Mugged by Climate Censors
I believe in global warming but also in responsible policies to address it. That can get you in trouble.
Opponents of free debate are celebrating. Last week, under pressure from some climate-change activists, the University of Western Australia canceled its contract to host a planned research center, Australia Consensus, intended to apply economic cost-benefit analysis to development projects—giving policy makers a tool to ensure their aid budgets are spent wisely…
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-honor-of-being-mugged-by-climate-censors-1431558936
61
whilst i defend Lomborg in the UWA matter, i am not a fan. what i do find amazing is how the CAGW crowd – students/MSM etc basically shot themselves in the foot when they had his Centre dropped by the Uni.
i find this article very strange:
11 May: National Post: Bjorn Lomborg: Bjorn Lomborg: We should listen to scientists, not only when it suits our preferences
PHOTO CAPTION FOR GIANT ANTI-CAGW BILLBOARD: Many of the same celebrities who refuse to vaccinate their children are fervent promoters of the consensus view on climate change
How come we sometimes listen to scientific arguments, but sometimes disregard them entirely? Pew Research Center has done a survey comparing scientists’ and the general public’s attitudes towards subjects ranging from Genetically Modified Foods (GMO) over(sic) climate change to evolution. The overall conclusion is that science holds an esteemed place among citizens and professionals, but the study also reveals that the public is sometimes very selective with scientific evidence…
But the single largest opinion difference between the public and scientists is the safety of GMOs. Where 88 per cent of scientists agree that it is safe to eat GMO foods only 37 per cent of the public agrees. There is also a 40 percentage point gap on the safety of pesticides, where the public worries much more than scientists find reasonable. It seems that the public sometimes has a selective hearing or get distorted messages from interest groups and media.
On climate change, there is also a gap, albeit smaller than on GMOs and pesticides, 87 per cent of scientists agree that climate change is happening and is manmade whereas only half of American adults agree…
Climate change is real and happening, it is safe to eat GMOs and food grown with pesticides and of course, you should get your child vaccinated.
(575 mostly meaningless comments)
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/bjorn-lomborg-we-should-listen-to-scientists-not-only-when-it-suits-our-preferences
in the middle of the article:
Related:
Anti-vaxxers among Canadians of all demographics, poll finds: ‘It could be your neighbour. That’s the scary thing’
Sen. Ted Cruz, a climate change denier, will oversee NASA. What can go wrong?
40
Thanks very much for that pat. I have wondered whether Lomborg was at all skeptical of scientists pronouncements, but it appears not at all. Somehow he believes that economists and analysts need to be questioned, but government funded scientists are angels who rise above confirmation bias, personal incentives, and an indoctrinated education.
Disappointing that he thinks we ought be obedient and switch off our brains.
30
Public Editor Margaret Sullivan also wrote in the Public Editor’s Journal on May 7, “Readers are right to watch these choices carefully. The difference between skeptic and denier…may seem minor, but it’s really not. Simply put, words matter”.
Words and good English do indeed matter.
I find the American penchant for reinventing the English language odd. As an example, in a music magazine I once read this: ‘How to figure out hot licks off of records’.
Also, I’ve seen ‘I wish I’d of had one when I started’.
This goes hand in hand with ‘go figure’ and ‘you do the math’ – why not ‘maths’?
Bicycle parts have been given new names as well. A wheel rim is now a ‘hoop’, a brake disc is a ‘rotor’, and, in my opinion the best of all, a seat post (which joins the frame to the saddle) is, bizarrely, now a ‘seat mast’. A complete bicycle is a ‘rig’, according to magazines I’ve seen.
The rot seems to have crept in since the mid 1970s, because I have an American science book from those days, and it uses good standard English.
I have the feeling that the next world war will start because some nincompoop can’t speak English properly, and the missiles will be launched because of a misunderstood order to fire!
80
14 May: Guardian: Adam Vaughan: Boris Johnson rejects London motion on fossil fuel divestment
Mayor dismisses call to divest £4.8bn pension fund from oil, coal and gas saying UK needs fracking to avoid relying on energy imports
Boris Johnson has rejected a motion by the London assembly calling on City Hall’s pension fund to divest from fossil fuels, arguing the UK needs to press ahead with fracking to avoid being reliant on the Middle East and Russia for gas.
The mayor of London, who was appointed to the cabinet this week, said that a more realistic approach was needed than divestment, which he called a “sudden cliff edge”.
A transition away from fossil fuels was needed instead, the Tory MP said, blaming Labour for failing to invest in new nuclear power which he claimed had left the UK reliant on gas for its energy needs in the medium term…
“The question then is where does one source this natural gas? From Russia and the Gulf or from beneath our own feet?”he wrote to the chair of the assembly on Tuesday.
“That question clearly answers itself and we are therefore going to need to invest in exploiting our own domestic energy reserves and explore the potential for fracking in the UK.”…
The mayor was responding to a motion passed by the assembly in March calling on City Hall’s £4.8bn to divest from oil, coal and gas on climate change grounds…
He added that he had no power over the pension scheme, the London Pension Fund Authority, although he said it must act in accordance with its fiduciary duty.
Senior figures in the financial world including the World Bank’s chief and the governor of the Bank of England have warned blah blah…
Jenny Jones, the Green party London assembly member who proposed the original motion, said: “The mayor’s reckless indifference will only hurt pension scheme members in the long run, whether from the havoc of climate change or a collapse in fossil fuel asset values…
Ben Stafford, head of public affairs at WWF UK, said blah blah…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/13/boris-johnson-rejects-london-motion-on-fossil-fuel-divestment
61
Since all these institutions wish to rid themselves of fossil fuel investments, I think we’ll see some canny people buying as many shares in the petrochemical industry as they can!
50
“a motion by the London assembly calling on City Hall’s pension fund to divest…….”
That reminds me that with Whitlam we saw that the party which despised the monarchy was a bunch of little kings. And with Hawke we saw that the party which despised capitalism was a bunch of would be tycoons. With other people’s money.
21
14 May: CarbonBrief: Sophie Yeo: Countries fail to set shipping climate target
Countries rejected the opportunity to place a global emissions reduction target on the shipping industry at a meeting of the International Maritime Organisation in London this week.
Proposed by the Marshall Islands, this would have been the first time that a cap was placed on the sector, which is projected to grow in the decades ahead as trade and the world economy expands.
But the lack of consensus over how to collect data on shipping emissions put a stranglehold on the discussions, with many nations unwilling to sign up to an emissions reduction goal without a sure way to measure progress…
More than 90% of global trade goes by sea…
Yet shipping emissions are projected to grow in the coming decades. A recent report by the IMO projects they will grow by 50-250% by 2050…
In addition, there is the fundamental clash of principles between the efforts of the UN’s climate body (UNFCCC) and the IMO when it comes to reducing emissions.
The UNFCCC makes decisions based on the concept of “common but differentiated responsibility and respective capability”. This means that the richer countries that have historically been responsible for causing climate change have to take on the bulk of the actions today to solve it.
In the IMO, however, this would lead to a dead end. If one nation imposes less desirable regulations, a ship can simply “reflag” under another country…
***Campaign groups Oxfam and WWF have suggested that, in order to overcome this clash of principles, money generated by any carbon tax imposed on the shipping industry could be poured into the UN’s Green Climate Fund – a bank designed to fund green projects in developing countries…
This week, the Marshall Islands proposed that the IMO should adopt a “quantifiable and ambitious” target to reduce emissions from shipping in line with keeping the world below 1.5C – a limit to planetary warming that the country has repeatedly called for within the UN’s climate negotiations.
These tiny islands, located in the Pacific, hold the third largest shipping registry in the world, which provides the developing nation with one of its few sources of regular income.
This is a double-edged sword: while its economy is dependent upon this polluting sector, it also faces an existential threat due to the sea level rise caused by climate change…
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/05/countries-fail-to-set-shipping-climate-target/
***Oxfam & WWF aren’t elected.
below is written before the failure above:
14 May: Guardian: Karl Mathiesen: Marshall Islands may stop registering oil rigs, says foreign minister
But he admitted that the 183 drill ships and platforms that reportedly sail under the Marshallese ensign were an uncomfortable reality as one of the tiny nation’s major sources of income…
De Brum said that his government may consider rejecting oil rig registrations, but the act would be useless in isolation and would only damage a business worth $5m each year, 2.5% of the country’s GDP.
“That may very well be a political decision made by our cabinet, that we will no longer register oil rigs. If that’s the case we want to make sure that they don’t just go register elsewhere and do the same thing. This exercise should have some positive result and the best way to do that is get everybody involved,” said De Brum…
“While we are in agreement that there must be divestment, we have to take into account the dependence of the country on the amount we earn from our ship registry. And the fact that, if we drop a platform, it merely goes on to Panama or Nigeria and does the same thing.”
On Monday, the US government decided to allow Shell’s Marshallese-registered oil rig to proceed with drilling in Arctic waters. De Brum said the decision was inconsistent with president Barack Obama’s proactive rhetoric on climate change…
Shipping causes about 3% of annual global emissions, roughly the same as aviation. Yet both sectors operate beyond the control or ambition of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the body that oversees international climate negotiations…
De Brum’s call was backed by the EU on Wednesday, who have also argued for targets to be put in place for shipping emissions. But a source within the IMO told the Guardian that it was unlikely the organisation would act at all before the Paris climate conference in December – which will set the tone for global emissions reductions…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/13/marshall-islands-may-stop-registering-oil-rigs-in-future-says-foreign-minister
41
In my outpost of rural Britain, I had never heard of “Media Matters”, until I saw a jaw-dropping interview with its founder, one David Brock. “Brock” (from the Welsh “broch”) is another word in the UK for the badger, our largest land carnivore and, appropriately, in light of Mr Brock’s performance, our largest member of the weasel family (Mustelidae). The subject matter of Brock’s interview is entirely OT, but his performance was utterly shameless and he ended up sharing another common characteristic with badgers: roadkill.
60
There’s no need to disparage badgers.
10
Jo
If it hasn’t been said already remember the quote
“Forecasting is difficult, particularly about the future”
70
Another Ian
I understand that the UN is to debate an update to this popular maxim —
“Forecasting is difficult, particularly about the future.”
¯
change to
¯
“The past presents difficulties, particularly the forecasting”
30
It’s the belivers who cannot cope with facts and substitute their own reality. Gavin Schmidt recently tweeted about a video that was put on YouTube featuring Gavin and his virtual reality. He’s not responding to any of my relies to his tweet.
· Has NASA taken over from Disney Studios on the entertainment front?
· Which model “scenario” predicted the present plateau in global temperatures? (@ 4:50)
· Which models have incorporated how clouds form and produce rain? (@ 2:27) Have you told Kevin?
· You seem to hold a minority position on the skill of models to predict temperature, rainfall change & sea level (@ 4:30)
I didn’t even suggest that he missed the opportunity to deploy Mike’s Nature trick to hide the plateau (@ 4:50)
80
Silly Filly really knows her stuff
just watch her cut and paste when the going gets rough
she can recite septical seance from A unto Z
and she seems to be enamored of Nuttyjelly
and tho she trys to be clever with all of her might
it is hard to impress when her science is so sh&*^te
Jog on Silly Filly ,the stables not far, so I hear
and nowhere as cold as the upper troposphere.
100
🙂
00
Yes FTF is deploying a Saul Alinsky (rules for radicals) method here.
Look at rule 8 and 12 in particular.
The thing to remember is that Saul’s “rules” can be used by Skeptics just as well.
30
Fascinating really. Articles on Global Warming with not a single piece of actual Science mentioned. Forecast facts is a meaningless phrase as facts can only be in the past tense. So belief without logic. Semantics and name calling.
All religions have a basically incredible core, a fantastic event or story which takes the miracle of faith. With Global Warming, the complete absence of any warming does not seem to deter anyone. That is the surest sign it is a religion.
70
Mosey along to Bishop Hill for the latest cartoon by Josh.
30
Skeptic is a pretty simple and clearly defined word.
There are now those who would redefine it.
But nowhere can I find written this strange and apparently widely accepted new meaning:
“Smarta**e sciency type who believes he/she is absolutely correct on a certain matter, and that anyone else who may disagree is a dimwit.”
30
The IPCC is branching out into the music industry !
After many years in the publishing world with famous titles such as
“Swimabout” – The tale of a sister and brother abandoned by their father in the Australian outback after it has been deluged with rising oceans
“Brave New World” – A novel set in the future and deals with population reduction, psychological manipulation, and classical conditioning. The IPCC have denied there is a previous book by the same title (No records exist).
” Five go mad in East Anglia ” – a story about scientists from UEA trying to solve the Mysteries of Climate Change.
“AR5” a story set in an apocalyptic future and deals with a scandal about Sex, destruction of scientific equipment, and cash for Video Gaming Computers.
The media has welcomed the move stating that the IPCC is a “great talent of our time”, and although the media itself are considered unethical, spineless misanthropes by rest of us , they have awarded the IPCC “best in their category ”
The IPCC have selected a group of young undergrads to star as their new “boy band” and initially asked the public for help in naming the group. However this was abandoned as many responses failed to pass censorship for bad language. Therefore the IPCC has decided upon the name “The Beatles” which many are calling a blatant example of copyright infringement, However IPCC have denied this, saying that the name is unused since they expunged all records of the music industry prior to 1971.
The IPCC band’s first release is due in December and is titled
“Here Doesn’t come the Sun !”
40
Global Gullibles! I like it. Has a nice ring to it and a credible contrast with Sensible Skeptic.
30
The warmists are backed in a corner
As the weather is not getting warmer
So as mad as riled hatters
They got Georges’ mate Matters
To pressure the papers to conform- a!
Now their Forecasts, failed predictions
Their Facts, tortured prognostications
They want the freedom to differ
Attract penalties stiffer
While the rest endure energy privations.
When their new world order is endorsed
And the coastlines heavily submersed (LOL),
They’ll need trustworthy heavies
To collect energy levies
And ensure Deniers’ sentences are enforced.
30
“climate contrarian”, “climate contrarian” “climate science denialists”, yet “Lomborg does accept that climate change is a problem”?
15 May: Guardian: Graham Readfearn: How conservatives lost the plot over the rejection of Bjorn Lomborg
Danish climate contrarian Bjorn Lomborg was rejected by the University of Western Australia. Was this really Australia’s own “Scopes Monkey Trial”?
PHOTO CAPTION: Danish climate contrarian Bjorn Lomborg
When Australia’s conservative commentariat lose the plot, wow do they really lose it…
This was Australia’s very own “Scopes Monkey Trial” … a “disgrace to universities”… a “grotesque betrayal of the tradition of free thought” … a “craven surrender to the mob”. And that was just News Corp’s climate science mangler-in-chief, Andrew Bolt.
Henry Ergas, a columnist in the Australian, quoted the likes of Aristotle and Daniel Defoe to conclude “that we can speak the truth only when we can say how things really are. If our universities can’t, they don’t deserve to exist.”…
The Australian National University academic Will Grant pointed out that indeed universities did engage in soft censorship all the time. “It’s called learning”, wrote Grant…
Lomborg himself said he had been the victim of “toxic politics, ad hominen attacks and premature judgment” before penning a column in the Murdoch-owned Wall St. Journal…
Lomborg does accept that climate change is a problem, but over the years his think tank has placed the issue well down a list of priorities…
He has been accused of cherry-picking data and ignoring climate science findings that challenge his own positions.
Yet he is a hero among conservatives and many climate science denialists.
***Lomborg also says the world’s poorest, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, need fossil fuels to drag themselves out of their “energy poverty”…
What really happened is that too many academics found Lomborg’s methods wanting and his historic views on climate change to be offensive…
The question now is, will any other leading university be willing to take Lomborg on?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/may/15/how-conservatives-lost-the-plot-over-the-rejection-of-bjorn-lomborg
Readfearn is paid to write for the MSM!
10
***Sharan Burrow pops up again:
14 May: Guardian: Simon Bowers: Former FSA chief warns of carbon bubble threat from climate change
Lord Turner, formerly Britain’s top financial regulator, has become the latest finance sector grandee to warn that investment industry valuations are in need of urgent review in the face of the threat posed by climate change.
The former chairman of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) warned of “a major set of problems … in the relationship between finance and the real economy”. He said national economies, banks and businesses were effectively being encouraged to prioritise short-term returns and “do nothing about climate change whatsoever”.
Turner is regarded as uniquely placed to assess the long-term investment industry’s readiness for climate change threats having largely authored the UK pension reforms a decade ago and served as the first chairman of the influential quango, the Committee on Climate Change.
His remarks follow comments from former US Treasury secretary Hank Paulson, who last summer warned of a “climate bubble that poses enormous risk to both our environment and our economy”, calling for better informed “business and investor decision-making worldwide”…
Turner was speaking as some of Britain’s leading long-term financial analysts, under the auspices of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA), published a paper calling for urgent research to be carried out into the failure of the investment industry to grapple with the looming challenges presented by climate change.
Lead author Professor Richard Werner, the economist credited with coining the phrase “quantitative easing”, said academics and finance professionals had “failed dismally” in addressing how markets should treat threats such as global warming…
*** AODP director Sharan Burrow, general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), which has the largest number of pension members in the world, said: “People must understand that the real owners of these companies aren’t governments or the super-rich anymore, but ordinary workers like themselves who trust their retirement funds to protect their savings from the ravages of climate change…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/14/former-fsa-chief-warns-of-carbon-bubble-threat-from-climate-change
00
this morning, ABC’s Geraldine Doogue talks to former banker, Jeremy Balkin (Australian, now based in NY) about the type of capitalism we might live with.
to regain trust, financial markets must consciously & actively allocate capital for positive impacts, not just for profit.
Balkin argues the MILLENNIAL GENERATIONS will be the ones to fundamentally drive this.
Balkin mentions energy efficiency, renewables, Super Funds. won’t answer whether investors will be happy with less return on their money.
AUDIO: 16 May: ABC Saturday Extra: Geraldine Doogue: Finance for good
Former banker Jeremy Balkin argues why we need to fundamentally reshape values in the world of finance, and how his generation will be a force for driving positive impact in society…
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/saturdayextra/jeremy-balkin/6472102
so much Geraldine could have told us about Jeremy:
2011: BRW: John Kehoe: Banker eyes Senate seat
A 30-year-old Macquarie Group banker who wants to follow in the footsteps of Malcolm Turnbull hopes to fill the seat held by retiring senator Helen Coonan.
Jeremy Balkin is an environmentalist, philanthropist and adviser at the Macquarie Family Office, which manages money for families who have $100 million or more in assets.
His entry into the Liberal Party selection process could pit banker against banker. Arthur Sinodinos, a National Australia Bank executive and former chief of staff to prime minister John Howard, is a potential candidate…
Sources close to Mr Balkin said he was encouraged by Mr Moore to follow his political dreams and would run for the NSW Senate seat.
“No comment,” Mr Balkin told The Australian Financial Review yesterday. He worked on Mr Turnbull’s 2004 election campaign. A Liberal Party member in Mr Turnbull’s Sydney eastern suburbs seat, Mr Balkin is a former head of the Vaucluse Young Liberals and UNSW Young Liberals.
The son of businessman David Balkin, he is on the board of charity JNF Australia, the environmental arm of the Jewish group that raises funds for greening Israel…
http://www.brw.com.au/p/national/banker_eyes_senate_seat_LgkxJH0Ikq6fBpymUSKefO
HuffPo in January: Anti-Wolf Of Wall Street Jeremy Balkin On His Wakeup Call To Change The Culture Of Finance
“My mission in life is to positively influence the allocation of capital, make money by doing good,” he said in his TED Talk. “If we can change the culture in finance, we will change the world.”
Five years after founding Give While You Live, Balkin established Karma Capital, which “matches great ideas with capital”, to further his mission…
10
Pat. Your round-up above of news about Turnbull’s protege, I found worrying. Reminiscent of Al Gore and David Blood (formerly of Goldman Sachs) Generation Investment Management LLC which invested in GE’s Energy Division which encompasses wind, solar, nuclear. Remembered GE’s Big Wind ad campaign in Australia? Obama also has a nuclear link with backers in his home State; and helped set up the now defunct Chicago Climate Exchange. This is the problem with the Liberal Party, like Janus, there is a big business component that needs the paper-thin moral virtues of environmentalism to validate rather mundane investment schemes. (I say ‘schemes’ but that is not the word that immediately came to mind). I think we have done very well to have Tony Abbott in charge, despite the ABC’s obvious and failed attempts to help unseat him.
20
schemes >>> scams ?
20
“According to new research conducted by Media Matters in coordination with Forecast the Facts, the country’s leading newspapers have repeatedly used the inaccurate term “skeptic” to describe those who deny the basic scientific facts of climate change.”
You could just as well say “according to new research conducted by the Vatican in coordination with Saudi Arabia, God exists”.
60
“Forecast the Facts” was originally a campaign to pressure TV weather presenters to link any “extreme” weather to “global warming” during their presentations, hence the name which seems odd to posters here. They may not have achieved the intended result and have switched to print journalists who are more predisposed to the message.
http://forecastthefacts.org/weathercaster_watch/
A parallel pressure campaign, “TV Mets” run by Climate Central under the slogan “Leveraging the power of trusted messengers” seems also to have run into headwinds against the members of the American Meterological Society.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/23/video-new-survey-shows-tv-weathercasters-increa/203392
10