Nothing is more dangerous than a polite conversation.
On April 28th Brett Stephens wrote his first NY Times column, but dropped a complete bomb, he made it seem respectable to not robotically accept every bit of wild hyperbole about climate science:
“Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.
None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know — as all environmentalists should — that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power.”
Climate scientist Michael E. Mann launched the hashtag #ShowYourCancellation this week after the paper’s public editor defended the decision to hire the former Wall Street Journal columnist, dismissing its so-called “left-leaning critics” who they claimed were leading a “fiery revolt.”
Mann called for people to prove to the Times that they were actually ending their subscriptions to the paper over Stephens…
#showyourcancellation Many ppl believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. Not a good reason to hire an editorialist who shares their idiocy
— Kimberly Latta, PhD (@Kimberly_Latta) April 29, 2017
Things aren’t going too well for the Subscription-Cancellers, the aren’t that many unsubscribing, judging by the tweets at hashtag #ShowYourCancellation.
This”ll be the best thing for the NY Times if they don’t cave in.
How about a reasonable conversation on what to do about our warming planet?
“creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. ”
This appears to be the core problem. It not only says a climate claim has been wrong. ‘Whenever’ implies it has happened more than once. Outrageous.
To express doubt is offensive and no climate claim has ever been wrong. Doubt is not acceptable.
I wonder if people have ever heard of rational science, philosophy or the enlightenment? Did they miss the last three centuries of human development? Do these people have no self awareness? If nothing is to be questioned, how can you know if anything is true? If nothing is to be questioned, what is the difference between science fact and science dogma? Did Michael Mann suffer for nothing?
390
The cat is forever out of the bag !
151
Wow…a MSM outlet that doesnt function like a bunch of catty 15 year olds…I’d love to see that…
80
It’s certainly telling a different story.
00
They are just one example of the current rise in primitive tribal loyalties, which have throughout history been inextricably rife with inherently divisive and habitually bloody dogmas.
“There is so much incompetence, all around, even in this ‘advanced’, ‘thoroughly modern’ age, because we are living in a climactic time, of ascendance of false, divisive dogma over good, honest reason.” See
“This Age of Scientific Dogmatism”
Simply, the tribal commitments to false dogma we see in the world now (some very old, as in mankind’s religions, and some fairly recent, as in the sciences), shows that people–including the “experts”, insofar as they have been miseducated–are not so “advanced” or “modern” as they want VERY much to think.
162
I blame smart phones…it allows a bunch of people who shouldnt have access to the public sphere ( due to lack of critical reasoning ) and skew public opinion due to limited mental capacity. Its the ugly truth that a bit of google-derived “knowledge” is dangerous to democracy….
51
That’s a little too totalitarian for me. Kim uses the same reasoning.
30
Having in the US for 20 years, my anecdotal experience is that there are more like @Kimberly_Latta, PhD, than young-earthers. In fact, I never met a single young-earther.
The hatred from the Left in America is far more intense and far more dangerous, often using a “straw man” and outright vilification.
straw man
noun
1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument.
70
To repeat my comment on this with Bishop Hill:
Bret Stephens, New York Times. To be followed by responses of such vitriol:
Unidentified Twitter user.
Adriana Heguy, a genomics scientist and professor of pathology at NYU. What future for genomics and pathology is there, now, with minds like that involved?
How will the alarmists explain their behaviour when its reprehensibility becomes utterly undeniable, as it surely will?
311
About half that temperature change is from altering past data.
461
And the other half was from an over active sun.
231
Cheshire sun spots ::, they come and go, come and go-o-oh…
http://www.artfixdaily.com/images/cache/Oct18_cat218x580_c.jpg
10
Who knows.How can anyone tell.
50
Climate Gate 1 & 2 – the release of hacked emails between UN IPCC people plotting about how to fool us.
And some worrying what might happen to them if we find out.
80
‘How will the alarmists explain their behaviour when its reprehensibility becomes utterly undeniable, as it surely will?’
The same way terribly performing politicians do after retirement, complete arrogance buoyed with the excuses of die hard party liars of history.
170
The Prison Guard defence: I was only following the orders of my superiors …
20
RR said
Can you point us to the ‘indisputable’ evidence that humans have any influence over global warming? All the ‘evidence’ so far is from ‘adjusted’ (fiddled) data sets that have been used to cool the past and warm up the present.
242
I did not say that, ivan, I was merely quoting something that Bret Stephens wrote in his article. I stick by two indisputable facts: there has been warming since the Little Ice Age (else we would still be in the Little Ice Age, of course), and that we are around to observe the event. Everything else is just supposition and conjecture.
330
I agree, RR, temperatures have increased since the Little Ice Age. The UN’s globalists tried to use that obvious fact to deny all humanity access to natural energy after WWII:
_ a.) In rest masses of every atom except Fe-56
_ b.) Fossils of the plants that stored past sunlight
110
Sorry RR, but you fooled me by saying it was your comment on Bishop Hill without saying it was a comment on a comment, either that or being on the go for nearly 24 hours straight is messing with my thought processes.
90
And here we all are, commenting on comments regarding previous comments in response to other comments, that some of us didn’t make.
Is there any wonder, that my brain hurts.
10
00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrCPIrs90eg
00
Is there any wonder, that my alleged brain hurts? 😉
From Ernie(lawyer) “Will, what is on your alleged mind?”
00
But …
he said mean things about the Clinton campaign too.
Apostate!
170
This hysterical over-reaction to a perfectly rational article demonstrates alarmists are pathologically unable to face any scrutiny or criticism of their religion, no matter how well-crafted or nuanced the case.
If their science is so ‘settled’ they’d relish chances to go head to head, to engage in debate and tackle questions head-on, because they’d likely win and in the process beat down yet another opponent. But they don’t because as we all know a well-prepared sceptic will win against alarmists probably 8 out of 10 times, and THAT’S why they don’t want debate.
250
You raise a good point. If, as has been demonstrated, the level of outrage and hysterics generated by such a mild statement is identical to that caused by the utterance of any other level of “denial”, then why should “deniers” waste their time trying to find subtle and smart ways of convincing these rabid anti-scientific zealots of anything at all?
Of course, taken another way, each massive over-reaction could well be an own-goal for said zealots, as greater numbers of rational people see these lunatics for who they really are, and wonder why there is a need to punish and destroy those who do not share the same supreme and total adherence to the faith of climate change.
180
It’s just standard faire for the hard-core alarmists. Take pity on their plight. They were within sight of the Holy Grail. Hillary had the presidency in her grasp until it was so rudely ripped from her claws by the American Mid-West and Floridian voter. Hopefully Trump will drive a stake into the climate change heart.
The NY Times was getting drowned in the swamp occupied by the far Left media. Trump was certainly not going to pander to them. I like to think the editors realised there was market opportunity and political advantage in moving back to the middle ground.
110
The ugly truth is this is also why a lot of americans ( who are right-leaning politically ) have bought and will continue to buy lots of firearms.
The Left, off the leash, is a dangerous bloodthirsty beast….Mao, Stailin, Hitler, Pol Pot….
Here in Oz of course the unoffical disarmamement has already started. No prizes for what may come next.
40
They better not debate with me. I take no prisoners.
20
Yes, mass exodus !
Thanks to Climategate in 2009 and Trump’s election in 2016, the cat is out of the bag:
The public now knows the NY Times has been force-feeding us globalist propaganda as news.
150
Thank you, Brett Stephens, for having the courage to challenge dogmatic, unscientific reporting from within the hallowed halls of the “The New York Times,” itself.
If Brett Stephens survives, I’ll subscribe!
150
I’m sure the NYT can survive with or w/o your subscription. Sites like this OTOH, isn’t it thanks to them that the NYT felt moved to make such a move?
30
“Science progresses one funeral at a time”
Said to define the overturn time of “settled science”. However, since the Global Warming Narrative was always politics not science a different time scale applies.
“A week is a long time in politics” mis-attributed to Harold Wilson.
It has always puzzled my why Politicians still cling to a credo which is rapidly bringing them grief and heartbreak against their own future prospects. The same is true of journalists who, for 30 years, have spun the (almost) inexhaustible potential of ACGW for copy, but the limit has been reached. There is now nothing new left to say and their client base is bored rigid by the incessant whining.
This is now the time for a new narrative – that the whole farrago is a deceit by a rainbow coalition of vested interest.
This is the first sign that the MSM is recognising that there is infinately more mileage now in challenging the established meme than supporting. This is what the alarmist camp has always feared hence the hysterical reaction.
They have always feared a challenge that required justification. God knows sceptics sites, this one not the least, have libraries of material just begging to be mined.
How many “alarmist” could even begin to coherently state a case?
Consider;
“Present shortcomings include
Significant uncertainty, by a range of three, regarding
the sensitivity of the global average temperature and
mean sea-level to the increase in greenhouse gases,
Even larger uncertainties regarding regional climatic
impacts, such that current climate change predictions
have little meaning for any particular location,
Uncertainty in the timing of the expected climate
change,
Uncertainty in the natural variation”
from: https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_11.pdf (11.2) IPPC ARI 1990
On uncertainty;
“The scientific strategy to achieve effective prediction of the
behaviour of the climate system must be based on a combination
of process studies, observation and modelling Sections 1 to 10 of
this report identified several areas of scientific uncertainty and
shortcomings To narrow these uncertainties, substantial scientific
activities need to be undertaken The following 5 areas are
considered the most critical
1) control of the greenhouse gases by the Earth system,
2) control of radiation by clouds,
3) precipitation and evaporation,
4) ocean transport and storage of heat, and
5) ecosystem processes”
On Models;
“Model validation is a prerequisite to reducing uncertainties
The interaction between observational data and
numerical modelling is a continuing process It is essential
for the development and testing of these models, for their
operation and for their validation and eventual application
to prediction Confidence in models depend on comparisons
with observations Modellers must identify data
sets needed, their temporal and spatial scales of measurement
and the required accuracy and simultaneity of
observations The observational system must be designed
to provide such measurements and the data analysis and
information system must be able to transform these
measurements into usable parameters.”
After 27 years, how well have they done? It looks to me like an F- .
160
If 27 years of research had been conducted in way which made some effort to be objective and scientific, then who knows what may have been discovered. Maybe not much at all, but at least it could be held up as a credible contribution to scientific knowledge.
130
“…Uncertainty in the timing of the expected climate change…”
It’s always seemed to me that that uncertainty is *absolute*, even where supposedly serious climate researchers are concerned. They have no compunction at all about predicting something to happen in, say, twenty years time, and then claiming victory when something vaguely like it seems to be happening the following summer.
Hurricane Katrina is a case in point. *Not* one of a chain of superstorms, but the fact that those were only supposed to happen halfway through the century didn’t stop activists from claiming it was “just the beginning”.
10
Warren Meyer…apparently virtue-signaling on the Left offcially requires that everyone denounce the article as the most evil thing ever written (actually reading it is apparently optional).
130
The answer to your last question, Jo, is to wait. Do nothing. Or more precisely, do nothing that potentially can do more harm than good.
And perhaps a review of a the precautionary principle as well. Because it now appears that the burden of proof has shifted from those taking action having to prove that their actions will do less harm, to those advocating no action having to prove that the actions being advocated will do more harm. Seems to me the debate regarding solar and wind power has fallen into this type of situation, particularly noting that at no time have I seen any calculation that shows net CO2 emissions reducing from the implementation of these two sources of energy.
80
“TRADUCES ” AND ” CENSORIOUSLEY ” great words but what has that got to do with science , has superior knowledge of science been trumped by athletic use of grammar , I might be better off listening to lord Monkton ,why do you even take notice of this bollocks , when if you do , you give them some credibility
27
Traduce is an odd word. In French it means to translate. In English it means to lie, vilify.
Censoriously is also odd, too be over critical where to censor is to prohibit or omit. So both are very unusual words of debatable meaning which suggests a pomposity to hide the content or to avoid plain speaking. It didn’t work.
101
If you want your blood pressure to go through the roof, read the comments to the article. I think “wow” pretty much covers it.
Can’t change their minds, won’t change the subject . . .
120
How dare The New York Times hire,
A writer to raise warmist ire,
Causing some to freak out,
Because any who doubt,
Their beliefs must be a ‘denier’.
230
And if you wonder why I mentioned Lord Monckten , it is because his grammar is impeccable , yet his logic is flawed
116
He’s always up for a debate. Perhaps you should throw your hat into the ring. Post the result on U Tube.
20
…and so it starts. However, history tells me, just like global cooling and all the other scares, this will just quietly disappear. Nobody wants to admit they were wrong.
60
OFF TOPIC BUT – APOLOGIES – I FORGOT TO POST THIS IN A TIMELY MANNER ON WEEKEND UNTHREADED
For anyone who doesn’t know about this and is interested in old steam and internal combustion engines (plus a heap of other stuff), it is worth checking out. A celebration of industrial civilisation giving fossil fuels and the machines that use them (that’s one way to look at it anyway).
May 6th and 7th.
The twice yearly Lake Goldsmith Steam Rally near Beaufort, 2 hrs drive from Melbourne.
http://www.lakegoldsmithsteamrally.org.au/
50
Lots of huffing and puffing, things going round in circles, lots of hot air and CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere while the crowd applauds.
Are you sure it isn’t an undercover warmist conference? (that’s one way to look at it anyway).
70
The man has a way with words, a top class scribe.
“We live in a world in which data convey authority,” Stephens wrote. “But authority has a way of descending to certitude, and certitude begets hubris.”
80
No no no , you simply don’t get it , Monkten is an expert on logic reason and critical thinking , and really good with English grammar , but he does not apply the same princible’s to his religion , its cherry picking at its worst , ideology is what it is , it does not matter if it is religious or political , it always ends up with a select few controlling the many
116
Monckton is excellent in his presentations and his language is significant. More than most he has worked tirelessly to expose the lack of science in Global Warming and in the opportunistic solutions to this non problem. So he invented the phrase “profiteers of doom”, probably second only to Delingpole’s Watermelons.
240
I dont doubt that Tdef , but why should he try to moralize me based on his faith , when he has no facts to base his faith on , especially when he expects us to accept his scepticism on climate science and not conjecture
114
I have been to one of his lectures where he pulled An Inconvenient Truth apart with facts, graphs and data, not moralizing. He wrote one paper on the heating of the planet through the decrease in cloudy days over the Pacific. If there is any part where he talks morals it is in the damage Global Warming ‘solutions’ are having on the third world in preventing access to energy and raising food prices as food is turned into biofuel. No, I think you are talking about someone else.
170
THATS BASED ON RICHARD LINZENS CLOUD, IRIS THEORY , I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT THAT , BUT WHY DOES MONCTON NOT USE THE THE SAME LOGIC WHEN IT COMES TO HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEVE
18
With respect Tdef , LINDSEN talked about cloud albedo being a thermostat , its logical , its obvious , but Monktons fall back on his religion , is a matter of faith not science
16
The CSIRO was once in disarray.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-05-02/csiro-missing-in-action-on-climate-advice/8479568
60
You know what made me genuinely swear out loud? These sentences:
“…CSIRO has guidelines for its researchers, which encourage them to speak publicly about their areas of expertise — provided they do not stray too far into policy. But that distinction can be difficult to draw and the resulting uncertainty, according to CSIRO’s critics, has left scientists feeling frustrated and fearful…”
How in the $#@# can speaking publicly about their research, and only their research, stray into the realms of public policy unless said scientists are patently unprofessional? If they are unable to do the simplest of all scientific tasks – report what they observe – then they should be fired.
My oh my, how the CSIRO I once proudly worked for has sunk to an abysmal level. Surely the whole organisation cannot be full of such sorry excuses for scientists?
160
I was going to link that article but not surprised someone got to it first.
There’s some golden quotes in there, Jo.
Jaw dropping. Just what Jo has been saying for about 8 years.
160
Its a scoop for Anna Salleh and Gregg Borschmann (Science Friction) at our ABC. I don’t want to read too much into it, but it looks like a small crack in aunty’s CC facade, which will obviously widen as time goes by.
40
Perhaps not so. They managed to put in a quote from a different time sequence that “proved” that all these muzzled scientists were actually ardent global warmists.
“Another five years earlier, this time under the Howard government, then chief of CSIRO’s climate change division Dr Graeme Pearman was reportedly forced out the door. Dr Pearman says this was because he spoke out about the need for strong CO2 reduction targets and carbon trading — a view that did not accord with Coalition policy.
“The real problem was that the message of climate change itself was being rejected,” Dr Pearman says. “It was inconsistent with the worldview here in Australia. We were a resource nation, making significant incomes from the selling of coal and gas; we didn’t want to see that world shaken.””
10
You have reminded me about the BoM management inquiry requested by the minister responsible when PM Abbott was the leader, BoM admitted to errors and omissions contained in their climate change department media releases. The releases did not match BoM historical record data.
And the PM suggested to his Cabinet that an independent audit be conducted (due diligence) but he was turned down by a majority of votes. Noting that a while later he was replaced in 2015 by one of those ministers who had undermined him since 2009.
60
The gang of four: Bishop, Morrison, Hunt and Turnbull.
20
Is that not your instinct as a man , to say look I will look after me and my own despite what you throw at me , despite how you tell me how to live , despite how you try to control me , just leave me alone to raise my own , that is all I ask
16
DO NOT MORILISE TO ME , I DONT CARE IF YOUR MICHAEL MANN OR CHRISTOPHER MONKTEN , DONT CARE IF YOUR RELIGIOUS OR POLITICAL , I WILL LOOK AFTER MY OWN , DESPITE YOU TRYING TO RULE OVER ME AND MINE , I WILL NOT SUCCUM TO GLOBILISM , I CHALLENG YOU ALL TO A POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS DEBATE , AND I WILL DESTROY YOU , BASED ON FACTS THAT WE DO KNOW , TAKE ME ON ,
120
Dear Dave, the vast majority of people on this blog are seekers after truth. The truth, in whatever aspect of life we consider, is what motivates us. I prefer not to be ‘shouted’ at belligerantly but wish you well. Please don’t shout!
100
BTW I am not one of your red thumbers!
30
Yet?
40
I also misspelt belligerently…saw it as I pressed post comment, too late to amend…rats!
40
Guys, it’s clear that Dave isn’t very well in the head so just leave him be.
50
He maybe a practicing satirist?
20
Certainly not a practicing scientist.
20
Hey Dave take it easy mate, no one is trying to personally attack you in any way shape or form, I’m not being aggressive or condescending just a little concerned for your current disposition, is everything ok?
20
Perhaps if you stopped shouting, learnt to spell, and tried a little proofreading, you might fare a little better. Foaming at the mouth is such a poor look.
10
The whole concept of cancelling a subscription to a publication because of one writer
is asinine. Kind of like suggesting to people to sell their car because of a faulty
spark plug. A single writer, no matter how good or bad does not make a break a newspaper
the size of the New York Times…
130
Similarly, destroying industrial civilisation because of a faulty hypothesis that an increase of atmospheric CO2 is due to anthropogenic activity and that CO2 goes on to cause a supposed increase in global temperatures is equally asinine but with far mor serious consequences.
100
Yes indeed, asinine.
What next in the land of over-reactions, I wonder? Government policies and subsidies which seriously damage the economy, and introduce severe instabilities to the electrical grid – just because of an increase in the concentration of a trace atmospheric gas? Oh…
150
The irony is that subscribers have fled the Melbourne Age and the New York Times because they are so stridently left and unbalanced, interpreting every event through their political views. Jewish people flee both as being extremely anti Semitic. Now subscribers are encouraged to flee the New York Times because they are not left enough! This supports Larry Pickering’s astute observation that in the face of the resurgence of the right of politics, the left are going even harder left.
Announcing that the Democratic party do not want members who refuse to accept abortion on demand is amazing. Then Jeremy Corbyn’s demand that the UK remove nuclear weapons harkens back to Malcolm Turnbull’s Great Uncle George Lansbury, head of the British Labor party who said Hitler was a nice Christian and totally lacking in ambition and no threat and rearmament was unnecessary and provocative. In Australia we are told by the ABC that we should not have Australia day and not honour our war heroes on Anzac day.
The only thing keeping Green champion Malcolm Turnbull in power is the appalling nature of the opposition and they are getting far worse as support for Pauline Hanson grows.
The other phenomenon is that political parties no longer care what their supporters think. What they think is all that matters. Whether Gay marriage or Global Warming or taxation, the political elites ignore the voters but control the parties with an iron fist. Macolm Turnbull has alienated most Liberal voters as deluded conservatives through his mouthpiece Nikki Savva. Bill Shorten and Daniel Andrews just ignore the electorate. Even Hilary Clinton called Americans deplorables.
This is the new reality, politicians ignoring voters and stacking the parliament with their friends and allies. It is why Abbott is on the back bench despite having won in a landslide and Rudd too, out of parliament. Politicians believe in Gay Marriage and Global Warming and unrestricted migration. It is only the people who think these are not right. Now even heads of companies like Qantas are demanding their say on these subjects. This is the attempted rule of the elites, including the overpaid, privileged professional political classes and they love their carbon taxes.
170
The great polarisation on a number of fronts is about to hit us big time. Each one of us will soon have to stand up and be counted either for or against certain critical issues. Many will be threatened into submission while some will have to tolerate much abuse if not the loss of their livelihoods for standing up for what they truly believe. It might not be as bad as the persecutions suffered by many during the worst of the dark ages, at least I hope not. As for Turnbull the sooner he goes the better. The mere sight of him makes me sick. This might sound silly but I personally now prefer Shorten to be PM than Turnbull despite all the bad things we know Shorten stands for. That says a lot about both. I just hate pretenders of the worst kind. Of course I won’t be voting for either major party come election time while the current leaders are in play.
90
The same with me.
70
Ditto. They all nauseate me; you can see their attitudes written in their faces. That’s why I distrusted Tony Blair, Obama, Cameron and Turnbull right from the outset, not to mention Dopey Dan.
71
I have the same reaction to the same people, I also trust my cat for I have found in life that it is not the people that hate cats that are a problem, it is the people that cats do not like that are the problem. It is the same inbuilt sense that was most likely important in the past to keep us safe.
I am in my 8th decade and in my entire life have never seen the world so f568ked up, propaganda as news, science as propaganda taught in our schools to brainwash the young. It will all end in tears.
20
And me – every morning I wake up, reach for my iPad and say to my wife – “I wonder if Turnbull resigned overnight?'” – only to be continually and sorely disappointed.
30
Latest news on One Nation is that a new allegation has been lodged by a Labor Senator that they should be deregistered as a political party because they failed to disclose changes to their party structure which they are required to do by law.
30
Wow.,..desperate stuff if you have to stoop to that point.
Hanson has shaken them up big time and they are panicking due to the trump affect, or more precisely – trumps win was a catalyst for the release of pent up frustration at the Left and its awful doctrine of hate toward anyone with independent thought or indiviualism…..which is most of humanity…
40
By reporting on the news I have become your target?
Please explain.
10
Then tell me this Annie , I come from a society that was based on a feudal system that lasted a thousand years , do you want me to return to that system , is this struggle that we are on not about avoiding that , for all that time you disarmed us , succumbed and made us comply to your gods will , is the future to be that even you Christians succumb to a new world order , a global religion called climate change , because as a Christian you believe in stewardship of the earth so you can easily be conned , do you really want to be part of a new feudal system that replaces the one that you Christians set up in Europe in Roman times , or do you think it might be a good idea to fight against a new totalitarian feudal slave society that you Christians imposed on us in Roman times
12
You are imputing ideas to me that I do not possess Dave. I am not answerable for the sins of the past any more than I am responsible for ill-treatment of indigenous people in the past. I believe in fighting for the truth and for freedom against any form of bullying control. I am not going to make any further posts on this. Regards, Annie.
80
cop out and move on then Annie , don’t let me bother you , I am thick skinned , I can take it anyway , all the best despite our little spat , you know I respect you and wish you well
12
You are 200 years too late Dave. The Enlightenment and the Age of Reason are over.
What ever we choose to believe or not believe now is the time to defend our culture from attack.
Western Democracy has brought us great benefits, culturally and socially and economically. In particular the freedom of the individual is the singular achievement.
Western Democracy is under attack both from without and from within our own society. All the other systems seek to suppress the individual in favour of collective or group allegiance and action.
Western Democracy may have been invented in ancient Greece but it has flourished only in Christian nations in the West.
I do not want to loose those benefits. Beating up Christians and Christianity is unhelpful, in my opinion.
.
40
Feudalism is a system of land tenure. It has nothing to do with religion and has existed in many disparate places and at many different times
00
It doesn’t make sense unless one recognizes that it’s another Climate Warrior operation against anyone who doesn’t toe the line.
Mann is an advisor to ClimateTruth these days,and that group is skilled in these kinds of strong-arm tactics. Mann may not even have had the idea for the #ShowYourCancellation campaign himself. And ClimateTruth works right from the Center for American Progress/ contemporary Democratic party (/ Saul Alinsky?) playbook.
10
some background on Stephens’ WSJ period…by a critic. unfortunately, linked WSJ columns require subscription apart from opening paras:
2013: PhysicsToday: Bret Stephens, harsh Wall Street Journal critic of climate scientists, wins Pulitzer Prize
The award recognizes only certain columns from 2012, none reflecting his climate-wars participation
by Steven T. Corneliussen
(Steven T. Corneliussen, a media analyst for the American Institute of Physics, monitors three national newspapers, the weeklies Nature and Science, and occasionally other publications. He has published op-eds in the Washington Post and other newspapers, has written for NASA’s history program, and is a science writer at a particle-accelerator laboratory)
http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.4.2441/full/
might as well note the following:
Wikipedia: Bret Stephens
Stephens began working as a columnist at The New York Times in late April 2017…
He formerly worked for The Wall Street Journal as the foreign-affairs columnist and the deputy editorial page editor and was responsible for the editorial pages of its European and Asian editions…
He is known for being part of the right-wing opposition to Donald Trump, and for his climate change denial…
He is married to Corinna da Fonseca-Wollheim, a music critic who writes for The New York Times…
He was previously married to Pamela Paul, the editor of The New York Times Book Review..
20
will WSJ continue to publish some CAGE sceptical pieces?
hope so.
30 Apr: CapitalResearch.org: The op-ed below appeared in the print edition of the Wall Street Journal on April 28, 2017, and can be viewed online here (LINK) (subscription required):
A Climate Hysteric’s Fake Enemies List
Who really has the power in the climate-change debate?
by Dr. Steven J. Allen
(Mr. Allen is vice president of the Capital Research Center in Washington)
In a widely cited 2014 study, the sociologist Robert Brulle purportedly exposed a network of nonprofit groups executing “a deliberate and organized effort to misdirect the public discussion and distort the public’s understanding of climate change.” He provided scant evidence of the public’s ignorance but lots of numbers supposedly exposing its source: center-right groups that form a “climate change counter-movement.”
Mr. Brulle’s smoking-gun statistic—call it the Brulle Number—was the combined annual income of 91 alleged conspirators. He calculated that from 2003 to 2010, these groups’ revenues averaged “just over $900 million” annually. The media twisted that into an even more extreme claim: “Conservative groups spend $1bn a year to fight action on climate change,” as a Guardian headline put it.
That’s false twice over…
Once corrected, the 2010 Brulle Number shrinks by 93% to only $100 million. That’s an imperfect estimate, but we’ve posted our data online at ***ClimateDollars.org. Unlike Mr. Brulle, we welcome debate…
Yet the nonprofit funding on both sides is dwarfed by federal programs that assume the dangers of climate change. The best estimate, based on Office of Management and Budget data, is that from 1993 to 2014, federal expenditures exceeded $166 billion in 2012 dollars.
Who really has the power?
https://capitalresearch.org/article/climate-dollars-in-the-news-read-dr-allens-wsj-op-ed/
***Climate Dollars: How one flawed study fooled the media and poisoned the debate on climate change
http://www.climatedollars.org/
20
Most of the Left are martinets.
martinet
ˌmɑːtɪˈnɛt/
noun
a person who demands complete obedience; a strict disciplinarian.
“the woman in charge was a martinet who treated all those beneath her like children”
synonyms: disciplinarian, slave-driver, stickler for discipline, taskmaster, taskmistress, authoritarian, tyrant; drill sergeant
80
Also chauvinists
Feeling or displaying excessive or prejudiced support for their own cause, group, or sex.
60
Most of the Left are in for a very rude shock…..good….
20
Let’s hope so!
10
Yet more proof that those with at least some critical thinking powers like Bret Stephens are hated by the climate change alarmists and their cohorts the leftists who have absolutely no critical thinking capabilities whatsoever. As for the New York Slimes who cares?
30
“Things aren’t going too well for the Subscription-Cancellers, the aren’t that many unsubscribing, judging by the tweets at hashtag #ShowYourCancellation.”
Maybe they’ll claim the Russians hacked the Twitter tag.
🙂
30
Why is it that you all criticize global warming and yet you don’t argue with your own religion or political view
26
that’s an assumption and I suspect,and hope, is one that is boring the mods as much as it is boring the other readers.
The idea that every time someone is skeptical about something that they then need to lay out their entire skeptical process about every single thing they believe in is ridiculous. Are you going to haunt this blog stating this, often in all caps for some reason, every single time someone is skeptical about something/anything?
130
thankyou for bringing ME back to earth GEE AYE , BUT I STILL HAVE TROUBLE WORKING OUT HOW PEOPLE CAN CHOSE WHAT THEY WANT TO BE SCEPTICAL ABOUT , LIKE SOME KID IN A WOOLWORTH SWEAT STORE
110
doubtingdave, what part don’t you understand about not putting the body of your posts in caps?
70
I have no idea what place you belong in Dave, but I hope it is a safe one.
I don’t think you read what I wrote. So here is what you wrote and it is a repeat of what you’ve written about 4 times now
basically true
is both unsubstantiated, especially using an absolute like “all” (sane people never use absolutes in arguments) and irrelevant to any argument made about something else.
Like I wrote – are you expecting everyone to display every effort they have made to be skeptical about everything they believe in. Your expectation is absurd.
Seek help.
I’ll stop now as it is redundant to derail this post in this manner.
90
Well said GeeAye.
40
clever shit mate, but totally irrelevant , if you actually want to try and understand my point of view , its so easy to be a contrarian isn’t it
10
I’m not being particularly clever. It is more that you are not being clever at all.
00
Credit where it is due Gee Aye.
Well done!
20
There is a time and a place for everything. This blog focuses on the Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming (CAGW, since rebranded as AGW or just Global Warming).
There is not space here to argue religion or politics; though government policy is part of the GW movement, the government itself is not encouraged as a topic here (generally speaking).
You are allowed to sceptical of whatever you want. As are we. What is not received politely is when people tell us what to believe, or what we should be sceptical about.
Put forth your arguments; and if we are interested in the subject we’ll respond one way or another. No need to preach or to shout, thanks.
70
I agree with Greg.
There is a time and a place and also an appropriate means.
You can make localised observations about the weather, but that is not climate.
You can simulate weather patterns in a computer model, but that is not weather.
You can simulate climatic processes in a computer model, but that is not the real climate.
You can stick your head out of the window, and get it covered by bird droppings, and deduce from that, that birds are nesting under your eves, and there is sufficient bird food to go around. But that is not understanding birds.
All of these things are models, and all must be interpreted in different ways.
The problem with the models for climate science is that they are almost always interpreted in the light of politics, and in providing the politicians with the means to change society into something other than what the majority might prefer.
That is something and nothing to shout about, except at the appropriate time and in the appropriate space.
80
Reneke +1776, my highest honor.
40
On the internet, at least.
30
Stan,
Thank you, I appreciate the significance of +1776. But, the highest honor you can pay me, is in spelling my name correctly.
30
Doubting, please SHUT UP!!!!
30
Dave could go to the Open Fred and SHOUT to his heart’s content.
10
If he did that, he would frighten away the bards.
10
DDave – Some people have a belief system that allows for “irrational” acceptance of higher, better-than-human powers – they maintain a core set of beliefs, one that can neither be proved nor disproved – and privately held religious belief is not what is at stake. Each one of the world’s persons should be able to believe, or not, in their chosen deity(deities)or lack thereof. Yes, quite a few here like to be a bit forthright in their condemnation of those who are not of a certain belief, but that’s on them, not you, or me, or many here.
I can see you are bothered by the assertion that the left has values at odds with the right regarding beliefs and personal choices – and that the left, the liberal, is by that virtue -wrong- and not wrong because of misguided or stubborn acceptance of CAGW. Ignore that portion of the blog. I do. It isn’t relevant to what the weather is or isn’t doing, as the weather doesn’t care on bit about us or what we believe.
00
o/t
2 May: Australian: Graham Lloyd: Brain can ‘hear’ wind farm noise, study finds
Continued exposure to very low frequency noise or infrasound below the level of hearing may cause symptoms such as sleep disturbance, headache, dizziness, panic attacks and depression as reported internationally by people living near wind turbines, a major German study has found.
The study, which used brain scans to monitor the response to auditory stimulation, identified significant activity linked to low frequency noise just below the test subjects’ audible range.
Similar brain activity was not found at sound levels above the level of hearing, overturning established theory that “what you can’t hear does not affect you”.
The research was conducted by a team at the Max Planck Institute and published this month in PLOS one.
Wind farm advocate, Professor Simon Chapman, emeritus professor of public health at Sydney University, dismissed the research findings. “Infrasound is ubiquitous,” Dr Chapman said…READ ALL
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/brain-can-hear-wind-farm-noise-study-finds/news-story/5304c539c2c291a739a4af4e82b71c90
12 Apr: PLOS One: Altered cortical and subcortical connectivity due to infrasound administered near the hearing threshold – Evidence from fMRI
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0174420
50
What would the high-rise building dimension wind turbine model do when operating?
10
The negative reaction towards Bret’s article is not surprising given our major banks can be so easily swayed into believing the climate change alarmist nonsense is real and as a result avoid financing coal projects whenever there’s a protest. The vocal minority are so loud they speak volumes over the silent majority. Turnbull is equally gullible and the master fool. It all will have to change if we are to break this vicious downward spiral into the abyss.
130
With banks I suspect that at least part of their problem is very young executives who come from the cafe latte society of graduates.
90
Same applies to stock market analysts.
Same applies to climate scientists.
Same applies to warmists.
50
same question as I ask below.
If you decry the young inexperienced soft coffee drinkers being employed, the older, experienced, short black glugging execs that you like so much, put them there.
10
Speaking (well typing) as one of the been-there-done-that-seen-it-all-before brigade, I can honestly state that knowledge and experience will always be relegated to the back seat, in the face of enthusiasm, the latest iPhone, a new suit, and Italian shoes.
20
So who hires these people?
10
People just like them.
20
Surely they have only just arrived on the scene
10
1 May: New York Magazine: What If Climate Scientists Are Guessing Wrong?
By Jonathan Chait
Newest New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, a conservative refugee from the increasingly Trumpist Wall Street Journal editorial page, uses his first column to imply, without quite stating outright, that somebody (the world? America? liberals?) overrates the certainty of climate science…
Stephens warns, “History is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power.” It is sad and dangerous that the cost of too-rapid adaptation of green-energy technologies is the only “human wreckage” Stephens seems capable of imagining.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/what-if-climate-scientists-are-guessing-wrong.html
praise from the MSM today for the following:
1st US offshore wind farm powering more of Rhode Island
ABC News/AP – 10 hours ago
The Block Island Power Company says it shut down its diesel generators and transferred the island’s electrical grid Monday, a savings of nearly 1 million gallons of diesel fuel annually…
(The power comkpany) says Block Island’s 2,000 electric customers now have access to cheaper and cleaner energy at stable prices…
1 May: Daily Caller: Andrew Follett: Offshore Wind Farm Costs $150,000 Per Home Currently Powered
An offshore wind farm in Rhode Island went online Monday, but building it costed $150,000 for every household powered.
Three miles off the coast of Block Island, R.I., the wind farm is currently generating enough electricity to power 2,000 homes, but building the five turbines costed $300 million. That’s roughly $150,000 per household just to build the turbines, not to operate them.
The extremely high cost of offshore wind doesn’t worry environmentalists and progressives however, because, as Salon.com says about the project, “it’s the precedent that counts.”…
Offshore wind power is expensive because installing and maintaining any kind of infrastructure underwater is extremely difficult. The salt water of the ocean is incredibly corrosive and makes operating such facilities difficult and expensive.
A larger offshore wind farm in New York will cost anywhere from $25,000 to $15,625 for every home it powers, according to calculations previously made by The DCNF.
Despite the extremely high cost, federal officials want to power 23 million homes with offshore wind by the year 2050. Offshore wind is so pricey that early investors, like Germany, plan to stop building new turbines to lower the costs of electricity
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/01/offshore-wind-farm-costs-150000-per-home-currently-powered/
26 Apr: US News & World Report: Report: AP: Officials Were Warned a Year Before Turbine Snapped
RHODE ISLAND: Reports show Rhode Island officials were warned about an unstable 100-foot wind turbine at Salty Brine State Beach nearly a year before it fell.
The turbine lasted seven years before snapping in half last March in a storm where wind gusts reached 60 mph.
Records show a company charged with inspecting the turbine sent an email about missing bolts to the state Department of Environmental Management in 2016.
DEM officials say the wind and missing bolts caused the tower to collapse, but claim the inspection company was responsible for fixing the issue.
The contractor told WPRI-TV he could not remember if work was done to fix the bolt problem.
30
Ok, I’ve had a bit to drink
a few jarsso I won’t go through all the comments.Has the NYT realised that Donald Trump isn’t going away and a bit of diversity of opinion might be good for the bottom line?
Unlike the Grauniad?
50
Jo, please change my avatar to clipe’s. I’ve had a few jars, too.
30
renewables’ rage in Rhode Island:
30 Apr: CoventryCourier: Kendra Lolio: Planning commission delays vote on Lewis Farm Road solar project
After hearing hours of testimony for and against a proposed solar project on Lewis Farm Road Wednesday night, the Coventry Planning Commission has decided to postpone a vote until its next meeting on May 17 at 7 p.m.
Coventry Solar, LLC has proposed to build a 1 megawatt solar panel array on a 133-acre site in Greene. About 8 acres of the property would be cleared for the setup, which would include 3,000 panels spanning 4 acres of land…
The panels will be between 7 and 10 feet high with large screws bolting them 8-feet into the ground. They are cleaned with water only and require very little maintenance.
Coventry Solar also filed an application for an interconnection service agreement with National Grid who will be receiving the power generated by the panels. They will eventually be updating the nearby utility poles. The company has agreed to accept the energy generated by the site for a 20-year contract.
According to Russ Lacaillde, a Captain in the Western Coventry Fire District, there is very little data to help fire departments understand how to handle solar panel-related emergencies.
“We’re talking about copious amounts of water we’d be using, and we’re not going to be putting that on live electricity,” Lacaillde said. “These have a clean bill of health right now, but long-term we don’t know and that is a concern of ours.”
“I am not opposed to alternative energy,” said Donna Rustigian of Hopkins Hollow Road. “I am opposed to disrupting the rural character and the zoning ordinance. Is anyone tracking the acreage loss we’re experiencing due to renewable energy?”
“I still don’t believe these panels aren’t full of some type of toxin,” said Deb Skaling. “I don’t want to be the town Coventry’s guinea pig to see if something happens. This doesn’t belong here.”
Resident Jason Trahan pointed to a lack of data on the long-term effects of solar farms, and said he was also concerned about the lack of data on how property values would be impacted.
“Don’t gamble with our futures on a lack of data,” he said to the commission.
John Shields, a resident of Carrs Trail, where another solar farm is being proposed by Wind Energy Development, owner of the nearby turbines.
“Once it’s gone we’ll never get it back,” Shields said. “Forty years from now people won’t be saying ‘thank God the solar fields and turbines,’ I’m hoping they say ‘thank God they saved Coventry’.”
“Coventry has to look at them and see them but gets nothing from it,” said Johnna Harrington of Hopkins Hollow Road. “None of the power comes back to Greene. It doesn’t benefit the Western end of Coventry at all.”
Pam Zabel, who resides on Flat River Road, said that she couldn’t see the benefit in cutting down trees to make room for renewable energy sites.
“Trees hold carbon, and when you cut down down you release it,” she said. “I am opposed to cutting down trees in order to make solar power happen.”…
http://www.ricentral.com/coventry_courier/planning-commission-delays-vote-on-lewis-farm-road-solar-project/article_254bf5e0-2dca-11e7-940e-f756d3b19820.html#tncms-source=article-nav-next
2 Apr: CoventryCourier: Kendra Lolio: Turbine neighbors are fed up
Residents in Greene say they are becoming increasingly concerned and frustrated over the effects of the turbines installed in Western Coventry by Wind Energy Development, LLC…
Councilwoman Karen Carlson, who said she receives at least two complaints about the turbines per day, visited West Log Bridge Road to see for herself what her constituents had been talking about. She said that although she was a bit early to witness the flicker effect of the propellors, she could hear the noise emanating from the structures…
“I can understand how it makes people crazy,” she said. “Honestly it was like this drone of a jet that just kept going.”
Carlson has heard from residents that both the flicker effects and noise have been issues. Some residents have said that even in the winter with all of the windows closed they can still hear the sound. She has also received a complaint from a West Greenwich resident, who she claimed is even more disadvantaged because all of the towers are on the Coventry side…
“The zones are not industrial and they shouldn’t have been allowed there in the first place,” said Daniel Shields, a resident of Carr Trail. “I live approximately 2,000 feet away from the closest turbine and on a typical day the volume is about as high as a jet flying over consistently.”…
30 Apr: CoventryCourier: Kendra Lolio: Council votes to extend solar moratorium
Resident Linda Ferry echoed the sentiments of Elderkin.
“We’re not against alternative forms of energy, but put them where they belong. It doesn’t make any sense to strip animal habitats and cut down healthy trees and put up a machine,” she said before receiving applause from members of the audience…
“Greene is a precious place,” said William Gallery of Cahoone Road. “I’m stunned that one person can change the entire community because they have money and influence.”
Paul Rollins of Carrs Trail said that the residents of Greene are frustrated by the situation and their desire maintain the area’s rural character.
“This is frustrating the hell out of us and we’re frustrated with you people for not taking the lead,” Rollins said. “I think this has taken some years off my life.”
At the beginning of the meeting Monday night, councilwoman Carlson spoke briefly on the turbine issue during her district update.
“We’re not ignoring it,” she said. “We’re working hard to try to come to a resolution, and when I have good news I’ll let you all know.”
http://www.ricentral.com/coventry_courier/council-votes-to-extend-solar-moratorium/article_ee60c3a8-2dc9-11e7-90ba-a399bdcb37a6.html
10
Can windmills be declared toxic pollutants just like CO2?
50
CO2 is not a toxic pollutant. Windmills are.
50
Please excuse some self-promotion, but some time back I wrote this little piece on the subject of “scientificness”:
https://withtwist.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/tarquins-travels/
40
Apart from the pretence that CO2 is heating the planet and all the Climate Change and Global Warming and windmills are about fighting the pollutant CO2, the one chemical from which all life on earth is made, there is another attraction.
This is the word ‘renewables’. It is a deceitful word which implies ‘free’ and ‘eternal’. For those people who go surfing the waves are free too. This is an amazing attraction for people who think that ‘renewables’ means an end to costs and promises endless supply.
In fact coal and gas are natural and free too. In Victoria they can meet our energy needs for centuries. Of course there is a cost but it has been paid already and Hazelwood was running at 95% of capacity when it was closed. So we are spending billions on windmills which are not free and need to be replaced roughly every twenty years and are short term, unserviceable and replaceables. More billions on solar panels with the same life expectancy, all without reducing by one joule the basic amount of electricity we need as a guaranteed minimum.
So it is deceit. Nothing is free. In fact free coal is 4c kw/hr where wind is 8c kw/hr and while centuries from now we might need another source, we have time to plan and perhaps put the research into alternative sources than medieval windmills.
We had the same push with diesel against petrol. So many Green people bought diesel as less polluting because they used less fuel. Now they are facing taxes on the fact that they are substantially more polluting. Windmills and solar panels contain huge amounts of heavy metal, 300kg of Neodymium in each windmill and cadmium and other heavy metals in the solar panels. Both break existing laws about heavy metal pollution, bypassed because they are ‘renewables’ and the cleanup will be a major problem.
So while the Times goes on about the planet, their push for windmills, diesel, solar panels, renewables and minimizing CO2 does not make any sort of sense in the long term. As for CO2 being pollution, it means humans are walking pollution and natural coal and natural gas are providing the energy to make windmills and solar panels to no particular advantage except the vendors and operators.
However to doubt that CO2 is the problem is apparently not permitted. It is more likely Donald Trump is right. The ignorant and dictatorial media are the problem.
30
Interesting comment TdeF. For some time now i have been encouraging people to refer to wind farms and solar panels as “unreliable intermittent energy” not “renewable energy”.
Coincidently, and through no effort of mine, I have noted that recently Tony Abbott is using exactly that definition. We all should, because that is exactly what it is. For the life of me, I cannot understand how a piece of equipment that may not last more than 15 years and then needs a $500,000 replacement can be called “renewable”.
20
My letter to the NY Times:
It must be very rare for a columnist to write a column that is so quickly and thoroughly validated by hundreds of comments in a few hours. I am particularly ashamed of my fellow liberals and NYTimes readers for proving Bret Stephens’ point. He worried about the certainty that people have and hoped for a more reasonable discussion of the issue, in this case climate change. Instead, he received multiple vile comments, including in probably more than a hundred comments the particularly vicious use of the term “denier” with its overtone of Holocaust denial. There were no discussions of anything pertinent to the question, just the tired argument from authority: “97% of scientists…” People, you just proved his point!
I do congratulate the Times for making an effort to leave its comfort zone (although the Times is a main propagator of the hateful term.)
—
Excellent comment Lance, — Jo
40
Methinks the august Dr. Michael Mann doth assert himself a little more than his real station in life will support, considering that his work, at its very best for him, is questionable and at its worst has been thoroughly debunked by the simple application of good sound numerical analysis.
And if the New York Times is losing subscribers simply because, by either mistake or intent, they allowed their readers to have a glimpse of honesty, then I think that’s the best kind of justice available on this Earth.
When you play fast and loose with facts you need to be prepared to get bitten. It’s too bad the exodus appears to be trivial.
10
Read the latest from Dr. Curry. – https://judithcurry.com/2017/05/02/nyes-quadrant/
It will give you a laugh!
20
Yeah! Bill Nye.
He’s the guy, is Mr. Nye.
Just ask him, he’ll enlighten your eye.
Why Mr. Nye, sans your grace we’d all just die.
So great is Mr. Nye, he’ll save the world with blink of eye.
Or cause such laughter that we deny his eye.
Oh what then, pray tell, of Mr. Nye?
Terrible poetry in honor of a terrible imposter. 🙁
00