Skeptics get banned, rejected, blocked and sacked from the mainstream media yet somehow Nature has a paper on Skeptics getting too much media. Believers don’t have to be an expert to control the news agenda, just a Greenpeace activist, or a teenage girl. Skeptics on the other hand, can be Nobel Prize winners, but the BBC won’t even phone them.
Nature, the former science giant, just launched the tenets of science over the event horizon. This paper is Argument from Authority rolled into false equivalence, and powered with cherry-picked errors in both category and in categorization. Nonsense on a rocket. It’s not what science is, and it’s not what journalism should be either. And Nature is supposed to be both. Judith Curry calls it The latest travesty in ‘consensus enforcement’ and the worst paper she has ever seen in a reputable journal.
….
Both David Evans and I get a mention on what is effectively Nature‘s blacklist. What an honour! No really — there are 386 great names. Even more of an honour is a mention on Judith Curry’s site “blogs she’s learnt something from”. (By some freak, my name comes right after Freeman Dyson and Ivar Giaver, Nobel Prize winner. Career-high I tell you!) But seriously, Marc Morano tops the Nature blacklist, and no man deserves it more. Congratulations Marc!
Methodoggogy
The contrived “study” compares bloggers, commentators and journalists with largely academic scientists, as if the two groups ought have comparable scientific citations or media mentions. Somehow paid scientists get more science citations and professional media personalities get more media. Who would have guessed? Or rather, who couldn’t?
The ratio of “scientific authority” to “media visibility” is pretty much guaranteed by picking scientists-with-funding and comparing them to the rag tag bunch of sacked scientists and independent opinion makers who make their own media channels in order to even get media.
There’s no pretense at symmetry in the way the two groups were picked: the big citation-free media-kings on the believer side don’t even get a mention. As Curry points out — no Al Gore. There are also no teenage girls getting on boats. No Leonardo de Caprio either. Did David Suzuki make it? Bill Nye? Hard to say. Apparently the supplemental information became detrimental information within 48 hours and has been vanished already.
So having constructed a meaningless study they get meaningless results, which appears to be the aim, because it’s an excuse to write headlines complaining that skeptics get too much media.
The press release is what it’s all about
“Media Creates False Balance on Climate Science, Study Shows”
The key point:
“It’s time to stop giving these people visibility, which can be easily spun into false authority,” Professor Alex Petersen said.
– Uni California Merced
Conveniently, they blur new and old media under the one label. The new “research” shows skeptical scientists are all over the new media, while unskeptical scientists get “the same” amount of mentions on the mainstream media. (Sorry about your coffee). Thus with loaded categories, contrived rules, and no principles, they can finally pretend that “media outlets” are interviewing skeptics out of some outdated sense of duty. Skeptics domination of blogs translates into skeptics get too much “media”.
It plays well for their victimhood status — another excuse for why climate scientists can’t seem to convince the world.
Purge the media
If only they could beat skeptics in public debates they wouldn’t need so many media rules:
The proper counterpoint to a climate scientist would be another legitimate scientist who could show competing data from the same experiments or show where the first climate scientist has made mistakes in his or her work. Having a non-expert oil lobbyist or politician respond to a peer-reviewed study or assessment by saying “climate change doesn’t exist” is not a credible argument or a means of balancing, Petersen said.
Since skeptics are sacked, defunded, and exiled, or even stranded at airports, if debate has to be from only certified approved, and paid gravy-trainers, that will pretty much end all debate, eh? Suits con artists and climate scientists.
Propagate your favourite ad hom conspiracy:
Author LeRoy Westerling lets rip with pure speculation
“It’s well known now that a well-financed propaganda campaign on behalf of conservative fossil fuel interests led mainstream media to frame reporting on climate change science as political reporting rather than science reporting,” he said. “Political reporting focuses its narrative around conflict and looks to highlight competing voices, rather than telling the story of the science.”
This, he said, has led to the false balance between scientists and a handful of climate deniers who have become regular commenters.
I think Nature should own this all the way. By publishing such a dismal paper, they gave all the authors the platform to get media interviews to put forward these baseless claims which he has zero evidence to support. Where was their rigor? Well…
This is their fancy-pants way of saying skeptics win in blogs and social media:
By simultaneously accounting for each individual’s scientific authority, our quantitative analysis contributes to the CC [Climate change] communication literature by revealing the degree to which prominent contrarian voices benefit from the scalability of new media, in particular the large number of second-tier news sources and blogs that do not implement rigorous information quality assessment standards.
…and that blogs are not as rigorous as Nature thinks it is. Except of course, this blog here would never accept a paper as pathetic as this one — except to mock it.
Rigor means 100% complete obedience
The “study” calls Roger Pielke Jnr a “contrarian” and Bjorn Lomborg, even though both accept all the IPCC scientific reasoning, they just don’t buy the disaster or the solution. So any step outside the church and pfft — you’re gone.
Roger Pielke has already pointed that out. Fabius Maximus wonders if that’s why the Supplementary information has disappeared in the last two days, deleted while they get legal advice or think up a better excuse. The data will be available on January 1 next year, long after the media headlines have been and gone.
So @nature has published a paper that includes me on a list of “contrarians” who reject climate science.
I’ve contributed to and defended the IPCC for 25+ years.
Yet such smears pass peer review.
What’s the remedy here?
Letter?
Lawsuit?
Other?
Such BS
It’s Cheese Food Science — by William Briggs
This paper is cheese food science, the kind Nature increasingly specializes in. Just like cheese food isn’t real food, which tastes good going down but which starts to come back up in a mean way twenty minutes later, this paper has a sciency name but which nauseates minds.
It doesn’t say a damned thing about whether anything any contrarian said was right or wrong, or even whether any expert scientist ever gets anything right or wrong. It only says, over and again, with slick graphics and thunk-tank prose, that contrarians aren’t to be respected solely because they aren’t in the The Club. It’s an article designed to make its cheese food authors, and their cheesy readers, feel well about themselves.
Commiserations to Marcel Croc, John McLean, and the fabulous BOM Audit team here who deserve to be on The Blacklist. Many other great skeptics may also have missed out on the US media focus or the 2016 cut off date. (Nothing after Trump won was included, because Trump distorts gravity fields or something.).
If only Unskeptical scientists had evidence, they wouldn’t need to work so hard to keep skeptical views out of the media
Other blog “Media” posts on the topic: Judith Curry | WattsUp | Fabius Maximus | William Briggs
- Media bias — ABC, CBS exclude skeptical scientists for 1300 days
- News media networks report global warming 92 times, versus global pause, zero times
- BBC secret exposed: Greenpeace, activists, BP decide what “science” brits see — Hello TwentyEightGate
- Third icebreaker abandons rescue of climate scientists boat in Antarctica, media fog, obscure, don’t say “climate”
- Richard Black — the fastest apologist for misbehaving scientists
- ClimateGate II: Handy Guide to spot whitewash journalism – The top 10 excuses for scientists behaving badly
- The Guardian-the-gullible: blind to whistleblowers, ignoring scandals, defender of feel-good teenage thinking
Abstract. We juxtapose 386 prominent contrarians with 386 expert scientists by tracking their digital footprints across ∼200,000 research publications and ∼100,000 English-language digital and print media articles on climate change. Projecting these individuals across the same backdrop facilitates quantifying disparities in media visibility and scientific authority, and identifying organization patterns within their association networks. Here we show via direct comparison that contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists. Yet when comparing visibility in mainstream media sources only, we observe just a 1% excess visibility, which objectively demonstrates the crowding out of professional mainstream sources by the proliferation of new media sources, many of which contribute to the production and consumption of climate change disinformation at scale. These results demonstrate why climate scientists should increasingly exert their authority in scientific and public discourse, and why professional journalists and editors should adjust the disproportionate attention given to contrarians.
The Spot Where a Reference Would Normally Go
LeRoy Westerling’s Twitter account.
Image: Wikimedia Earth Adapted from Tesseract2
It really shows how desperate the advocates have become.
‘Nature’ has to get personal because they have no answer to climate analysis by Soon, Ned Nikolov, David Evans, Tony Heller, Tim Ball, etc.
and that is the problem with nature. They can not prove rising atmospheric CO2 levels cause any change in the weather or climate, so they’ve reverted to personal attacks and more nonsense.
So well done Jo and David for getting on the blacklist of honorable scientists. I sure it will not be as traumatic as being on one of Stalin’s blacklists but it come from the same ideas.
I’m sure that the blacklist will grow as the truth about ‘global warming’ scam filters through, as this world cools.
531
Add to that list.. “Mother Nature”
She does not “believe”.
370
Lets hear it for Mama Nature, non-believer numero uno, bravo bravo!
Great way to start a Saturday morning (before I head off for work): BoM warns of –
• hail and possible SNOW for southern West Oz today (Bluff Knoll)
• a week of freezing snow for VIC and NSW alpine areas
• same situation here with roads closed already (not from ‘heat’ but freezing snow/ice)
• ski fields CLOSED or ON HOLD due to ‘blizzard’ conditions
Congrats to Jo and David and all the rest of us… huzzah!
280
Hi Jo & David
Truly there is an honours list of scientific skeptics.
And you are both on it.
You are part of . a great and honorable company
Scientific pilgrims
In a world of ignorant ‘believers’
Congratulations !
Bill in Oz
170
Bingo!
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-17/snow-on-bluff-knoll-heralds-chilly-perth-day-after-storm/11424158
Next stop (via Adelaide) the Snowy Mountains: freezing snow from Sunday till Thursday:
http://www.bom.gov.au/vic/forecasts/fallscreek.shtml
Naughty Mother Nature – she just won’t listen to the ning-nong Nature nutters. Bravo!
P.S. Hope you fellas and fella-esses don’t lose your power in the midst of the chill: crank up the home fires…
111
Love to get a little sno at Mount Lofty here in SA
The kids and my lady would all go nuts with delight
And our scared warming alarmists would all be freezzzzzzing !
PS I actually checked the month temp stats for Mt Barker
As measured by the shonky & wacky
BOMb weather station over the back
Supposedly the long term average Maximum is 14. 3
but the average as measured by the wacky temperature gauge is 13.4 !
That’s 0.9 degrees colder than the long term ..
It’s getting cold in Mt Barker SA !
https://www.weatherzone.com.au/sa/mount-lofty-ranges/mount-barker
30
13.4?
That’s what the loonies over here a few years back were ripping their nighties over:
NZ’s ‘average’ had kookastrophically risen from 13.3 to 13.4 (must be their standard ‘fear factor’ number).
Meanwhile, after a frigid soggy day today, tomorrow’s warming has created this headline:
https://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/218256-watch-out-black-ice-and-frost.html
If you wanna see what real snow looks like Bill – and real mountains to boot –
here’s my old stomping grounds, The Remarkables, looking mighty fine at sunset:
https://www.metservice.com/skifields/the-remarkables
10
Andy; in the previous thread, KK asked me to outline how I calculated the impact of CO2. I did reply to that at 1.2.1.2.1 at 9:16 pm. Its a long post but maybe the data is of interest to you as well. It also includes an analysis of what would happen if there were no GHG in our atmosphere and if you have not done this analysis yourself I think you might find the answer extremely surprising indeed! Certainly not what CAGW advocates would claim.
20
Hi Michael,
Could you provide a link to the ‘previous thread’ please. I am particularly interested in the no GHG analysis in light of recent work by me and Philip Mulholland in that scenario:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/27/return-to-earth/
30
Sure Stephan; its the thread “time mag – buttering up believers” on this (Jo Nova’s) website. Just scroll down Joanne’s list of articles. Posting order become somewhat chaotic when there are too many replies so it may be a bit hard to find but its a long post the sequence number is 1.2.1.2.1 and it was posted at 9.16 pm. The no GHG scenario is extremely interesting. I would be very interested to hear your comments on my analysis. In the mean time I will look at your post
regards
Michael Hammer
20
Stephan; I had a quick look at your paper on WUWT. It is going to take me some time to fully appreciate it and since blogs move really fast I wanted to reply quickly so apologies if I have not fully appreciated what you wrote. It would be great to communicate in more depth directly, maybe Joanne can pass over our email addresses to each other.
Some observations; we have 3 cells on Earth because of coriolis forces. Air rising at the equator is moving at 1600 km/hr. As it moves polewards the radius of rotation reduces so the equatorial air is moving faster than the static air (hence jetstreams) and this higher speed causes it to move outwards in the plane of rotation. If that is resolved into forces parallel and perpendicular to Earths surface it can be seen that the force parallel to Earth’s surface pushes the air back towards the equator limiting its polewards motion. An equilibrium is established between the rate at which the air slows down allowing more poleward motion and the rate at which the air cools causing it to sink. This equilibrium defines the extent of the Hadley cell.
I think you mentioned a temperature inversion at the poles(maybe I got that wrong). At some times that does occur but I cannot agree that it is the permanent situation. If it was there would not be descending air at the pole. Instead consider, the pole surface absorbs short wave solar energy and radiates as a black body allowing it to reach an equilibrium temperature (ignore seasons for the moment) but at the tropopause over the pole the air will radiate at the GHG wavelengths but it is not capable of absorbing short wave solar energy so there is no real equilibrium. It will cool until it becomes denser than the surrounding air at which point it will sink just like at the edge of the Hadley cell. The result is very cold descending air over the pole – a more or less permanent high and this is what drives the polar cell.
The question is, what sets the boundary between the Ferrel and Polar cells. Most texts gloss over this issue although they do say this boundary is weak and I have even seen comments questioning whether the Ferrel cell is really present or just an abstraction. I suspect the real reason is the poleward outflowing air from the Hadley cell acquires more and more easterly velocity (west wind) relative to the surface as it moves to higher and higher latitudes again because of the decreasing radius of rotation. Hence the roaring forties, the furious fifties and the screaming sixties. This again causes it to be driven outwards in the plane of rotation but now it is the velocity component perpendicular to the surface that is important creating the upwards motion at the boundary between the Ferrel and Polar cells and defining the latitude at which that occurs. At the same time the outflowing air from the Polar cell is moving slower than the surface so it sinks below the outflowing Hadley cell air helping to drive the latter upwards.
So while the driving force for the Hadley cell is rising air at the ITCZ the driving force for the Polar cell is descending air at the pole. The Ferrel cell is simply the result of these 2 driven circulations.
In this scenario it is again the presence of GHG that is critical. Without GHG radiation to space at the tropopause over the poles there would be indeed be a permanent temperature inversion and no polar cell.
There are some other fascinating issues coming out of this anaysis. For example, the literature claims CO2 is well mixed throughout the stratosphere yet this is not compatible with the Nimbus data. 1/3 of the atmosphere is above the tropopause. If the CO2 were well mixed that would mean about 200 to 700 abs worth of CO2 (700 at the line center, 200 over the P and Q branches) above the tropopause so the tropopause could not possibly radiate to space. In fact the lower stratosphere is also at 220K so the radiation to space at 14.7 microns is probably coming from there but even so, its well below the top of the stratosphere. What is really interesting is a tiny blip at the middle of the CO2 band in the Nimbus data. Radiation at right on 14.7 microns is coming from a warmer region. Why? Because that is where the absorption/emission is at the peak so only the last 1/2000 of the CO2 column radiates to space at that wavelength and the recorded Nimbus temperature tells us the altitude of that final vestige of CO2. Even that is well below the top of the stratosphere. We can even infer something about the concentration gradient from the width of the blip and ti looks pretty steep to me. In short this data suggests CO2 is pooled (stratified) in the lower stratosphere. Does this mean the CO2 concentration in the lower stratosphere is higher than at the surface? It should although that conflicts with what I have seen claimed in the literature. Seems to me a paradox that needs resolution.
This post is becoming really excessively long, I had better stop for now.
60
Hi Michael,
Happy to communicate directly so I agree to Jo giving you my personal email address.
Haven’t had time to review your work yet.
Please read our material again. I say that the Ferrel cell operates as a sort of cog wheel which regulates the energy flow from the Hadley cell to the polar cell and thereby helps to maintain hydrostatic equilibrium despite any radiative capability (or any other destabilising factors) in the atmosphere.
The poles are generally locations of subsiding air and if an inversion is present it just diverts the downflow towards lower latitudes.
I’m sure that our scenario is correct and that the convecting mass of an atmosphere is the true cause of the surface temperature enhancement as per our model.
GHGs really are irrelevant to surface temperature but do have a miniscule effect on circulation patterns as a result of the convective adjustments needed to neutralise their thermal effect.
The temperature in the lower stratosphere is determined by ozone and not CO2.
40
Hi Stephan;
Ferrel cell a cog wheel. Yes i can see what you mean by that and I don’t have a major issue although I do wonder how tight the coupling is between the Hadley cell and the Polar cell.
Yes the poles are certainly a region of subsiding air ie: high pressure regions. However that ONLY comes about because of the presence of GHG in the atmosphere. Without the GHG’s high altitude air leaking from the tropics (only a small amount but enough) would cause a permanent temperature inversion over the poles stopping any subsidence.
The convecting atmosphere being the main cause of surface temperature control- yes, it may be the direct driver but the point is that one ONLY gets convection because of the presence of GHG’s. Without GHG there would be no convection so I dispute the claim that GHG have minimal impact on surface temperature. You might claim minimal direct impact but since GHG allow convection to occur their role is anything but minor. Having said that, I believe there is strong negative feedback in the climate system which means the incremental impact of changing GHG concentrations is minimal.
My view is that water vapour GHG warming is logarithmic (saturated so driven by line broadening) while cloud cooling is close to linear (since cloud cover is nowhere near 100% just look at a photo of earth taken from space). If the temperature goes up more water evaporates but that in turn means more rainfall and thus more cloud cover. The combination of logarithmic warming and linear cooling works to establish a setpoint for climate which is maintained by strong negative feedback. In that case the 0.86C warming impact of doubling CO2 to 560 ppm would be substantially reduced and is thus not a significant risk.
20
Oh, I meant to mention. The temperature of the lower stratosphere controlled by ozone not CO2? No I disagree with that. The temperature of the UPPER stratosphere is controlled by ozone (or more accurately by absorption of solar UV energy) because that is where the UV component of sunlight breaks up O2 to form ozone. Because there is a temperature inversion in the stratosphere the upper and lower stratosphere are largely uncoupled from each other. I would claim the tropopause temperature is largely controlled by water vapour and the lower stratosphere by CO2 although these two are tightly coupled so maybe its better to say the entire region is controlled by water vapour and CO2.
20
Michael.
Have had a look at your previous post but see that it agrees with the AGW position that with no GHGs there would be no convection and an isothermal atmosphere.
Not true.
There would still be a lapse rate due to conversion of KE to PE in uplift and the opposite in descent.
Convection cannot be prevented where there is uneven surface heating in the horizontal plane.
As for ozone determining the temperature of the lower stratosphere, that is an observed and well known fact.
Keep working on our model until you get it.
50
Hi Michael.
I have just found your contribution.
It’s late night here so I will not comment in detail at the moment.
However, have a look at this comment on WUWT by Dan Pangburn August 20, 2019 at 7:12 pm
You are right to equate the atmosphere to a heat engine, but wrong to ignore seasonality. All planets and moons are only ever lit on one side and so it is the night hemisphere and the dark winter pole that provides the cold sink of the heat engine. Notice how Ferrel cell storms are always more powerful in winter.
Then have a look at this file of Dome Argus temperature records for the austral winter of 2008. Notice the impact of the infrared atmospheric window on surface cooling of the icecap and how surface air inversions regularly get destroyed by turbulent mixing. Then look up katabatic winds and the concept of mobile polar highs. Note next the direct physical connection between the upper troposphere jet stream and an active surface katabatic cold front. Note also the direct physical similarity between mobile polar highs and submarine turbidity currents and how the low pressure associated with these cold air outbreaks is a consequence not a cause of the cold air advection. Finally have a look at the structure of the atmospheres of Venus and Titan and notice the absence of any Ferrel cell in the atmosphere of these slowly rotating globes.
You are right about Coriolis force limiting the latitudinal reach of the Hadley cell on fast rotating Earth, but it is this mechanical process that forces the upper air back to the surface in the Horse latitudes and not the inefficient process of radiant emission by gaseous air at the top of the atmosphere.
10
Michael
Here are three important papers on the subject of The Coriolis Effect, planetary rotation rate and the latitudinal reach of the Hadley cell:
Persson, A.O., 2005. The Coriolis Effect: Four centuries of conflict between common sense and mathematics, Part I: A history to 1885. International Commission on the History of Meteorology 24pp.
From the abstract of Hunt, B.G. 1979: The Influence of the Earth’s Rotation Rate on the General Circulation of the Atmosphere. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Vol. 36 (8), 1392-1408.
From the abstract of Del Genio, A.D. & R. J. Suozzo 1987: A Comparative Study of Rapidly and Slowly Rotating Dynamical Regimes in a Terrestrial General Circulation Model. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Vol. 44 (6), 973-986.
10
From https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/15/visibility-and-invisibility/ the list has been saved by Philip Mulholland …
Here is the list saved on the Wayback Machine.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190814205232/http://climatlas.com/tropical/media_cloud_list.txt
It’s also available as noted by Paul Matthews at ..
Nicholas, the list of ‘contrarians’ is here:
http://climatlas.com/tropical/media_cloud_list.txt
I’m not on the list 🙁
110
Still in moderation?
60
tom0mason said:
Neither is Andy, 🙂
Couldn’t find myself …
they’ve missed a few!
70
Is there one, once respected, science organisation or journal that hasn’t succumbed to this one-sided group think?
271
As egregious as this pernicious paper and the contamination of the scientific process is the real story is and has always been the media. I listen to 2SM and it is astounding. On Saturday mornings and Sunday afternoons it is wall to wall alarmism and left wing issues; in particular the woman called Poppy invites and encourages obvious Get Up and Greenpeace advocates; any scepticism is not tolerated, interruptions a la abc q&a style and eventually angry hang ups occur.
Now with the takeover of 2GB by Fairfax and nine there is simply no media outlet where sceptical and non left voices can be heard.
The print media is even worse with only a couple of sceptical voices being heard. It’s all Greta and the other loons of alarmism.
Until sceptics can get a sustained voice on the media I am not optimistic about what is going to happen in Australia.
280
Have you looked on YouTube for sky news Australia? They seem to have some brains left functioning!
151
The guy from Outsiders, Rowan Dean, is a genuine sceptic in that he disputes the science of alarmism. The rest however seem to take the Bolta weak approach that Australia’s contribution to AGW is so small any effort is disproportionate in the face of what China, India etc are not doing; that is, they accept alarmism but argue Australia is a small contributor. In my opinion that is not only wrong but actually plays into the hands of the alarmists.
270
Luke warmers are a pest, which we have to contend with until global cooling kicks in.
In regards to media, these characters may offer a solution.
‘Alex Waislitz’s Thorney stable has taken an equal share in the newly acquired Australian Community Media group alongside former Domain boss Antony Catalano.’ SMH
90
I’ve written to Peta several times about the error in resorting to that silly argument. I’ve talked about it in person with Paul Murray too. The only ones that seem to get it are as you say Rowan Dean and Ross Cameron before they booted him.
In general, though, you will find that Rita Panahi, Caroline Marcus, Jane from Brisbane are all pretty skeptical, as are Michael Costa and Campbell Newman.
150
I have this gut feeling that when The Cat says he wants to produce really good quality journalism, he means no propaganda.
“My aim is to make us the biggest and best regional group in the country and that means we have to expand, not shrink,” Mr Catalano told staff last week, according to The Canberra Times.
“I prefer to grow businesses and we’re in the business of journalism. If we produce really good quality journalism then you are doing a good thing by the business.”
FinReview
40
What do you expect from the MOST biased journal in popular science articles, not least but ALSO including ‘
NewFake Scientist’.As for William Briggs! (my fav mathematician).
“This paper is cheese food science, the kind Nature increasingly specializes in. Just like cheese food isn’t real food, which tastes good going down but which starts to come back up in a mean way twenty minutes later, this paper has a sciency name but which nauseates minds.”
BRILLIANT!
100
I’m disappointed not to be there after more than 12 years work.
I have recently prepared a paper aided by a modelling expert which shows clearly that a greenhouse effect can occur with no radiating gases present just from the mass of an atmosphere conducting and convecting.
It was rejected for publication without even a review and one of the grounds was that it did not accord with consensus science.
On that basis science would never progress.
It has however been published by several sceptic sites and is available on Researchgate.
There is a powerful lobby blocking new science on climate related matters whenever it does not fit the preferred narrative.
90
” just from the mass of an atmosphere conducting and convecting”
And CO2 does not affect convection, and because of its radiative properties, increases conductance.
20
Hi Andy
Radiative gases affect convection via their effect on conduction but the net effect is equal and opposite between rising air and falling air for a net zero effect overall.
If you want more please see here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/27/return-to-earth/
but I don’t wish to derail this thread.
40
Basically what I said. Zero effect on convection.
It has been shown in double glazing tests that if a radiative gas is put between the double glazing , you get increased energy transfer.
20
Jo, if you have not already done so, have a peek at Monckton’s piece at WUWT.
20
Well worth looking at it. It’s a long piece I haven’t managed to finish yet.
10
Thanks for the ‘INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHIONS IN SCIENCE’ lede, Jo- I’m sincerely flattered.
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2019/07/new-conde-nast-climatogy-journal-for.html
10
When will they do your GQ shoot?
10
There’s a certain poetic symmetry between this paper and headline-grabbing climate “science” such as Mann’s and Marcott’s hockey sticks: start with an otherwise indefensible conclusion, then select and massage the data post-hoc to support it. It’s very post-modern and relative – almost any conclusion can be reached according to the creativity and ingenuity of the author in the selection and statistical manipulation of the data.
230
It is also interesting that their ‘naughty’ list appears to be taken directly from DeSmogBlog presumably because they couldn’t work up a list themselves.
Just how useless can the UN Church of Climatology zealots get?
270
Much more useless by the look of this
“The Way Of The Woke”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2019/08/14/the-way-of-the-woke/
80
Or, as Arthur Bryant put it “he possessed to a high degree the ability to start from a shaky Preposition and argue with impeccable logic to a highly suspect conclusion”.
It could describe the AGW believers except they don’t use logic at all.
90
It doesn’t need to make sense, the authors don’t need to do their own work. It doesn’t need any supporting evidence, reason, proof or supplementary material. It just needs to make enough noise to drown out the doubts over the consensus position rattling around their own heads every day. It is completely and utterly Orwell’s ‘Two Minutes Hate’ – a distraction for the faithful and deterrent to any dissent. That the authors and publishers can indulge in this seemingly child like level of reasoning is testimony to the fact that rather than operating in its absence, cult mentality feeds off a certain type of intellect when mixed with self-interest.
20
I keep wondering how so many people can keep up the facade that they are accomplishing something worthwhile for so long without stumbling over the fact that their lives are devoid of any kind of lasting satisfaction. What do they get out of being dishonest that trumps the feeling of real accomplishment?
I have no answer, only the question. Is there really something satisfying to so many people in being dishonest? If that’s the way it works then they have perverted human nature to the point where I don’t recognize it.
330
The thugs of climate science only need to convince the thugs of government that the government thugs will gain power and sinecure positions if they transfer wealth from those who create it to those who don’t and can’t.
It is a transfer based upon government extortion, physical coercion, and laws passed (you have to pass it to read it) in the middle of the night. So far it has worked. Hence the climate science thugs continue working the same scam. They will continue working the scam until there is no more wealth to be stolen.
Again! Why do we keep on feeding them? They would be done for in little more than a month if we stopped creating excess wealth for them to steal.
220
As in ‘Atlas Shrugged’…
90
Well…look what protesters in HK have achieved against a thug commie govt so far…..
All we’d need to do is effectively refuse to pay the carbon tax, and the whole ponzi scheme would collapse.
60
Roy
Maybe similar to wind and solar power – more of the same is supposed to provide fulfillment?
40
It is at best a pretense. More of the same failed methods can only fail themselves. Which is then used as an excuse to do more of the same which is itself intended to fail. Rinse and repeat until everything fails. Thereby destroying the products of the human mind which consequently destroys the human mind. THIS is their ultimate goal.
They have so defaulted on the use of the basic capacity of humans to use their minds, they cannot stand the fact that others can and do use their minds. They are enraged by that stark contrast between their own failure and the success of others they can only destroy. THIS is evil incarnate. It is capable of only destruction of that which has been built. It cannot build.
30
” Philip Mulholland
August 16, 2019 at 2:56 am
What an incredible honour to have your name appear on the same list as Freeman Dyson.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/15/visibility-and-invisibility/
150
That’s because you haven’t got your Nobel … yet.
Our nomination had a slight hiccup with the paper work! 🙂
210
Re the “supplemental Information” – here if you want it
“[UPDATE] I’ve put the Supplementary Information as a zip file on my Dropbox public folder. It’s 23 megabytes … I think Dropbox will handle it, but let me know if it doesn’t.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/15/visibility-and-invisibility/
70
Jo…saw the mocked up cover….ouch!!
🙂
140
Yep, its a first class effort, congrats Jo.
110
It also occurs to me that ( and many others no doubt ) that the more the Establishment tries to shove nonsense down peoples throats with higher levels of unscientific hysteria, the bigger the joke they become, to the point where now they are now completely ignored.
Has Climate “science” just arrived at its “Let them eat cake” moment?
180
Steve:
I think that they are more worried about not getting more cake for themselves.
130
Upping the ante
“Fraud, breach of right of privacy and libel by Nature Communications @NatureComms”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/16/fraud-breach-of-right-of-privacy-and-libel-by-nature-communications-naturecomms/
[The word fraud is being quoted here and is acceptable.] AZ
100
AI, a magnificent systematic dissection in his usual style by Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.
Dave Fair August 16, 2019 at 12:26 pm
Reply
Monckton of Brenchley August 16, 2019 at 2:04 pm
220
” I have won nearly every case in which I have had to defend my reputation against the likes of the defendants.”
What he’s is trying to say is that there was one, and he lost it.
Bravo! , sir – your Question Time skills rival those of Tony Blair and the Feet Brothers !
00
Watch that space!
40
Sounds a bit like another one of those “poll” things that seem to be the only recourse left to the “climate believer” (whatever that is).
They seem to think that opinion polls and other warped surveys are somehow relevant to actual science.
Quite bizarre.!
140
Andy:
IF Their Figures are correct they are saying that the divide is 40% to them and 60% to us.
Personlly I would put the numbers of their opponents around the number of locusts in a plaque. Judging purely by the numbers who frequent “Denier” blogs compared with their increasingly hysterical attempts at getting attention. Look at the number of trolls they can muster, not just here but at more welcoming site like the comments in The Australian; Stan, Woddles, Peter “the engineer”, SillyFilly all frantically posting multiple times yet not getting to 10% of replies.
The one thing they are good at is choosing confusing labels; Climate Deniers for those who keep pointing out the number of times the climate has changed is but one example. 97% of world’s scientists when that original result was more like 2.3% agreeing is another.
50
More welcoming is right. The aforementioned are too scared to post here.
40
GD:
They aren’t banned from posting here, it is just that their claims would be examined and torn to shreds.
NoTricksZone had a troll calling himself SOD (presumably for Science of Doom) for years, but then he switched to euanmeans. The engineers there made mincemeat of his ideas. He seems to have disappeared.
20
Christopher Monckton hits back with legal action.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/16/fraud-breach-of-right-of-privacy-and-libel-by-nature-communications-naturecomms/
[The wrong word is in the URL.] AZ
110
When are we exactly going to see and actual court case? About time.
40
Cheers for the link. I just read it. What a bloody legend is Lord Monckton.
00
Skeptical? Apart from a very small alleged increase in average temperature over a hundred years, in thirty one years not a single prediction of man made Global Warming has come true. So who needs skepticism? Who needs to deny? After 30 years it is all history. A self evident fantasy. The proposition of man made Global Warming has turned out to be utterly wrong. That’s not skepticism. That’s the truth.
It’s not as if a single prediction was wrong. None of them were right.
As for the unfathomable allegation of an increase in ‘extreme events’, the reverse has happened. Hurricanes have halved. Why is a mystery but it proves one thing, self appointed Climate Scientists have no idea what is going on.
It would be great though if the respected name and profession scientist was reserved for those people who actually have substantial tertiary qualifications in one or more of physics, chemistry, mathematics and disciplines for which these qualifications were essential. For a claimed expertise in the weather, it should be mandatory that the scientist has qualifications in meteorology, which would eliminate 99.9% of all Climate Scientists. It’s a travesty that someone with only a degree in English can call themselves a scientist or climate scientist.
As the incredible idea of “The truth of Climate Change as determined by keyword searches”, this is not science. When the Americans put men on the moon, they didn’t have the computer power of a modern laptop or phone. Computers do not make people smarter, just lazier. Computers do not turn people into scientists. The name scientist should be protected as is doctor or lawyer. It has cost the world so much to indulge these climate science carpetbaggers.
310
So true TdeF.
Apart from urban warming that is smeared through to the whole of the mess that is the “global surface temperature mean” (and other highly dubious data manipulations)..
In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 or so years that can be slated down to human influence.
The answers is, there isn’t any significant change.
For our very short period of history, we have lived in with a truly benign and stable climate.
240
The alarmists answer every bit of information from the point of view that it might be voiced by a ‘scientist’, but not a CLIMATE scientist.
While these same people discuss automobiles, cricket, electricity, politics, etc. ’til the cows come home without knowing squat about the subject, any venture into the scam and a person is not allowed to voice an opinion unless they are a CLIMATE scientist.
So far as I’m concerned, there is not more a dic\discipline called “climate science” than there is a discipline called “rocket science”.
80
Hi, I’m a climate scientist, (cli-mate-seantist.) Nuthing I have done or studied or hind-cast spanning decades, (give or take a year or two,) has come true, and everything I have projected and extrapolated has been falsified by real data, or proven to have come from bad programs, post-hoc add-justments and exaggerated sources of no reasonable (political)validity.
I have published nuthing but what has been pal-reviewed by my fellow seantists, (all of whom are sharing my guv-uh-mint grants and research money along with bureaucracies benefiting from fearful conn-sequences of what I hind-cast, project, extrapolate,) if money is not syphoned into massive research grants for me and my pal-climate-seantists. Trust me. I want to take your money, ruin yr future and kill millions with my stated intention of raising energy costs and starving innocents. DO-NOT-LISTEN-TO OTHERS who are more skilled than I, for -I AM-A-CLIMATE-SEANTIST.
50
Dang, got them brackets wro-o-ong. (Bracket creep.)
30
Quite right! All projected changes or calamities have exhausted their time. I can’t name one such “prophesised” event coming about and I have challenged many to name one. It’s as if the whole thing is looking up a gunbarrel highway in summer.It is one of the biggest comeons and failed predictions in history.People inanely believe it nonetheless.
30
To TdeF @ # 12:
who said:
You’re looking in the wrong place! It’s the Klimateers who are creating extreme events not the climate nor the weather. I’m amazed the authors of the supposed paper hung themselves out as such a target for legal action, along with Nature Communications. Gobsmacked.
Oh well, if the road-rollers line up and run over them one after the other, they can’t say it’s anybody else’s fault but their own.
I don’t think I’m guessing when I say Viscount Monkton may well have been waiting for this sort of “extreme event” . It takes extreme stupidity to stand directly in front of a rapid fire anti-tank gun as fitted to the modern battle tanks.
Someone recently asked if we had reached “peak stupidity“. I can now answer that question: Nope! Look! :-).
How the mighty have fallen. Nature has just thrown it’s reputation onto the scrap heap.
There’s something else planned by the world’s media for the month of September (or was it October?). In light of this, it will be interesting to see if the stupids continue or whether they sit up, smell the coffee and pay attention:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CasualUK/comments/93mqcn/happy_yorkshire_day/ as advised 🙂
30
Frederick Loewe and Alan Jay Lerner, the composers of the musical “My Fair Lady” were alert to this in 1956:
“In Hartford, Hereford and Hampshire,
hurricanes hardly happen”
Prescient, I say.
20
If this gig ever gets stale, Joanne can always make a living as a satirist. Brilliant, brutal dissection of an arrogant sham. The Nature cover is truly inspired.
What takes years to build can be destroyed in minutes. Nature, once the gold standard of science journalism, is now on a par with desmogblog.
290
I have a friend whose ambition was to get a “Letter to Nature” published.
I tell him that his real mark of success is that he didn’t.
230
It was once a worthy achievement but not now.
80
Laughable, in the UK, the most influential media like BBC TV and radio, ITV, CH4/5 deny a voice to anything except 24×7 extremist alarmism.
Even the Daily Mail now carries daily, often multiple, alarmists stories on climate change and air pollution deaths straight from the propaganda machine.
160
Speaking of silly ideas, did I read correctly that the UK, as it rapidly circles the bottom of the pan, was planning on banning gas fired water heater boilers in favour of heat pumps?
Nothing wrong with heat pumps, but also nothing wrong with boilers…
130
Yes there is an intention to do away with natural gas central heating, some mumblings about converting some of it to hydrogen (god help us!).
To realise how ridiculous this is, peak gas demand is about 5 times peak electricity grid demand. Whenever wind farm operators and the MSM boast about how many homes their windmills are powering, they ignore central heating power usage and all other users – industry etc. – a deliberate deception on how effective they are. We are already struggling to keep the grid up, imagine with all heating electric and electric cars etc. we are going to need to generate many multiples of the electricity grids current capacity.
It’s delusional, and going to be ruinously expensive too.
50
In fact it cannot be done, which makes it very interesting. At some point the idea has to collapse.
20
‘Liberal:’ ‘favourable to individual liberty, espousing civil liberties under the rule of law.’ Word change, sea-change most strange.’Liberal:’ ‘ espousing censorship and all-devouring state-control over individual liberty.’ – Oh Humpty!
70
Monckton of Brenchley’s take on this issue:
“Fraud, breach of right of privacy and libel by Nature Communications @NatureComms”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/16/fraud-breach-of-right-of-privacy-and-libel-by-nature-communications-naturecomms/
[The word fraud is being quoted here and is acceptable.] AZ
140
Wow and thanks Ricdre,
I’ve not read it all yet, but Wow again. I’m delighted he’s challenging them, and in great detail. But his challenge is particularly powerful as he’s in a position to follow it through in a way few can. And giving them just 7 days to respond is delightful.
Thanks again,
Dave B
111
That quotation is a little tautological. It cannot be a reputable journal, if it publishes ‘consensus enforcement’.
310
Welcome back, Rereke!
190
Rereke Whakaaro:
Hope you are well.
Nature was founded to publicise Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection after 2 previous Journals taken over by the ‘believers’ went broke, so the subtitle Journal of Fashions in Science is rather apt.
180
Hmm, so much for sneaking back, unnoticed …
180
Dude, most of us thought the worst had happened; glad you are back!!
180
Welcome back – yes. Sneaking back – no way.
Cheers
Dave B
120
To quote the late Terry Pratchet, “I ain’t yet dead”.
Which is ironic, because we were the same age, and we both saw service, in the RAF.
210
Rereke and sneaking back in…two things I’d have normally never thought could co-exist….
Welcome back.
80
You?
Sneak?
On this blog?
In yer dreams mate! 🙂
Welcome back.
The rumours of your demise were just a little exaggerated, to slightly misquote Samuel Clements.
Let’s just say, the lack of a certain brand of humour was noticed.
40
Missed yr avatar, Rereke,so cool. )
30
I must be psychic! I was thinking a few minutes ago, before I read this far down the comments, how much I have missed both you and ROM. Great to see you back. :)))
110
Annie
I noticed ROM having a word or two on a Weatherzone forum a while back
70
Good to hear that Another Ian, thank you.
40
What?
You thought that people don’t read the comments here??
70
Well, I don’t read my comments, so I don’t expect other people to read them either.
80
So!
As in debating
For the sake of argument what I said yesterday has no bearing on what I say today. Nor does that on what I will say tomorrow?
40
Rereke, if I know you at all then at least half that statement is, for the sake of politeness shall we say, incorrect.
20
Oi! Where’ve you been, Rereke?
I hope you’ve brought a note!
Good to see you back.
20
I’d say they’re still living on borrowed capital. Moreover, in many subjects the papers are fine.
10
Why do bad scientists and their friends get more support than good scientists? Trollope explains:
“A man in the right relies easily on his rectitude and therefore goes about unarmed. His very strength is his weakness. A man in the wrong knows that he must look to his weapons; his very weakness is his strength. The one is never prepared for combat, the other is always ready. Therefore it is that in this world the man that is in the wrong almost invariably conquers the man that is in the right, and invariably despises him.” (Barchester Towers)
160
Yeah except when youre in the right, you have moral fortitude that allows you to burn through the dross of evil that attacks you…..
It balances out in its own way.
60
Try Katie Hopkins and “The Lion of London Bridge”
30
Nothing new here. The descent into, and captivation by political ideology is not a novel phenomenon. Nature Communications, its authors and pal reviewing apparatchiks repeat the past, with a twist of Alinsky for good measure. Historically, robust German science, redolent with Nobel Prizes, collapsed as the leading scientists deserted their universities and institutions, fleeing for their lives once the Nasties had taken over. It is likely that German science never entirely recovered.
Nonetheless, it seems reassuring that Nature Communications would go to such lengths to highlight the problem and allow the authors to suggest their thuggish authoritarian solution: “These results demonstrate why climate scientists should increasingly exert their authority in scientific and public discourse, and why professional journalists and editors should adjust the disproportionate attention given to contrarians.”
Further justification to engage in censoring the MSM, TV, and internet may look good but it does not work. Historically, censorship engages the Streisland Effect. Besides, a new information media culture is emerging, supplanting in many ways what went before. This and the obvious, that a new conservative age is rising injects the desperation so obvious in this Nature Communications puff piece.
A snap shot in the opening sentence betrays the game:
“Since the early 2000s there has been little disagreement among scientific experts over the fundamental evidence supporting the existence, origin, and societal significance of anthropogenic climate change (CC)1,2,3,4.
References 1, 2, 3, & 4 refer to:
1. National Research Council, et al. Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
2. Oreskes, N. The scientific consensus on climate change. Science 306, 1686–1686 (2004).
3. Cook, J. et al. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024 (2013).
4. Cook, J. et al. Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 048002 (2016).
As the citations suggest, like all scientivist puff pieces, there never was any attempt to debate the settled politics, merely to further highlight it and to dodge the science at any cost.
130
“Since the early 2000s there has been little disagreement among scientific experts over the fundamental evidence supporting the existence, origin, and societal significance of anthropogenic climate change (CC)1,2,3,4.”
That in itself is a totally false statement. There never was any mass agreement, many real scientists in the geophysics field have mentioned this. All was in the fantasy of the IPCC and MSM co-horts that run the show (AGW scam).
60
Written right in the abstract itself.
“…that contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists.”
How did this got past review? What exactly do they think they comparing here? Apples and Rocks?
130
If I didn’t know better, I would assume that the “contrarians” were actually holding sway, if you ignore the, “duh, I don’t know”, demographic.
130
What are they comparing? I was thinking Apples and Bananas…
70
I am thinking gin and tonic. 🙂
Sorry to disappear … but you know what I am like …
80
G&T …wonderful summer drink…..once the sun is over the yard-arm of course….
30
Refreshing on a hot summer day too and wonderful on a hot humid evening in the Arabian Gulf! Get some in Dubai Duty Free on the way in 🙂
20
‘ … and blogs that do not implement rigorous information quality assessment standards.’
At the moment we have Ian, Fitz and Gee Aye to keep an eye on us and attempt to hose down our hilarity.
140
We continually ask “them” for “rigorous information quality assessment standards”
ie. just a little bit of actual empirical science…..
But the AGW apostles/collabrators (PF, Ian, GA) are never able to produce any.
80
“Projecting these individuals across the same backdrop facilitates quantifying disparities in media visibility and scientific authority, and identifying organization patterns within their association networks.”
Who writes this pompous dreck? And how do they manage to “quantify” visibility, authority and disparity as if such mushy abstractions were sedimentary layers or bugs under glass?
Love the bolded “here we show” in the abstract. It’s like: “Look mummy, I’m an academic now!”
As for “professional journalists and editors” in the mockingbird media…time to take Fredo Cuomo for a row on the lake.
130
Yesterday on Their ABC Radio National I heard Malcolm Turnbull being interviewed about “climate change” (as though he was an expert) and the reporter asked the question should (conservative radio host) Alan Jones be removed from his position due to him being a climate skeptic.
130
Here is the interview. It’s sickening.
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/drive/malcolm-turnbull-on-the-pacific-islands-forum-talks/11422930
100
And who invited him to the Pacific Forum?
80
Who is Malcolm Turnbull? Someone they got because Bill Shorten didn’t win.
130
So, according to this paper, getting published in the MSM — in Nature for instance — is of no more consequence than being published in a blog. Evidently the people at Nature agree and, in publishing this paper, they have shown the statement to be true.
150
Congratulations, Jo, you are officially a Non-Person.
91
More correctly, persona non grata.
80
I love what you’ve done with the magazine cover Jo, great improvement.
170
Satire at its finest, brilliantly illustrated, nothing can stop us now.
90
“Nature Communications ‘blinks’ over slimy climate blacklist from @UCmerced authors”
From the Article: “It seems like our complaints (and complaints from hundreds of others) are having an impact, this was just added to the peer Reviewed article Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians on the Nature Communications website. This was just posted:
16 August 2019 Editorial Note:
This is an update of an editorial note issued on August 15. Readers are alerted that the editors are aware of a number of criticisms related to this work. These criticisms are being considered by the editors. The Supplementary Information for this Article is currently unavailable due to concerns regarding the identification of individuals. We will publish an update once our investigation is complete.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/16/nature-communications-blinks-over-slimy-climate-blacklist-from-ucmerced-authors/
90
Check this comment there – MIT is also in strife
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/16/nature-communications-blinks-over-slimy-climate-blacklist-from-ucmerced-authors/#comment-2772114
30
Congratulations, Jo. 🙂 You are in fine company. Outlasting your detractors is the goal. In the end, they’ll lose.
I wonder. Is it possible to wager on the AGW scam and if so, I wonder how. I’d like to get in early whilst the odds are decent. Might be a rare opportunity to earn some easy quid.
Perhaps set up a Jo recipient account for wagers. I’d drop USD 1000 on that for no ice free arctic for the next 10 years at odds better than 2.5 to 1.. Proceeds towards Jo.
Watching the warmist heads explode would be totally worth the effort.
Just a thought. I’d love to make the warmists pay for their folly. That’s where the satisfaction is, for me.
100
Hmm, “Nature” huh! I must make sure to pick up a copy when I’m in the Woolies’ checkout line next week.
80
The Left never give up in the promulgation of their lies.
With Donald Trump “the Russians” didn’t work so now he’s supposedly “racist”.
With “climate change” any scientific criticism of supposed anthropogenic global warming was by “deniers” and uneducated fools, now any legitimate skepticism of the AGW hypothesis (not really a hypothesis but “settled science”) is because “deniers” get too much publicity and need to be censored.
120
Plus he is antisemitic, despite having jews in his family. He is anti immigration, despite being from immigrant stock, married to an immigrant and his mother was Scottish. There is nothing bad which has not been said about Donald Trump. However consider that despite having everyone examine his background carefully, three wives and head of the Miss Universe pageant for a decade, no one had laid a finger on him, where the Clintons may well go down in history as criminals. Except that they are innocent. It is reminiscent of Julia Gillard’s attack on Tony Abbott as mysogynist. Like Climate Change, only the facts are wrong.
150
More good stuff from the irrepressible Terry McCrann on the foolishness that is wind power in the Weekend Oz today.
100
In that vein
“How sustainable is renewable energy in Australia?”
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2019/08/16/how-sustainable-is-renewable-energy-in-australia/
“This is a draft of a chapter in the work in progress to explain why Wind and Solar power cannot replace coal and gas to provide reliable power until massive amounts of wind and solar power can be stored to use when the sun is not shining and the wind is low
The key point is to take account of the choke point in the supply of wind and solar power. That is the lowest point, the worst case scenario. We have to plan for the worst case otherwise sooner or later large parts of the grid will go down, even whole states. How many times a year can we afford that?”
Seems like a good start.
100
Overall, since 1988 when man made Global Warming was announced and after three expired armageddon predictions of 10 years and now a fourth, these CCS, Climate Change ‘scientists’ who have earned their entire living from the man made Climate change for a third of a century should be able to say without fear of contradiction, “I told you so”. Not one can.
There are two questions left. When will they admit they were wrong and can they ever afford to do so? The cost to humanity is extreme, all to make a few people rich plus a lot of bankers and windmill vendors and solar vendors and a lot of failed hot rock and tide entrepreneurs. Lord Monckton’s Profiteers of Doom.
Plus the ongoing absurdity that alternatives to coal, gas and nuclear are cheaper? Apart from abundant hydro where it exists as in low population mountainous New Zealand and Norway, where is wind or solar cheaper? As for Green, Dr. Bob Brown, Australian Greens leader would disagree violently, as usual. There should be an Australian hypocrisy award.
120
An Enemy of the State is a person accused of certain crimes against the state, such as treason.
Describing individuals in this way is sometimes a manifestation of political repression. For example, an authoritarian regime may purport to maintain national security by describing social or political dissidents as “enemies of the state.” In other cases, the individual in question may have in fact endangered the country and its population.
It’s a small step from this naming of people as enemies of the state to exclusion, censure and censorship, removal of the right of free speech and actual repression. This is clearly the intent of the article. It’s not about science.
80
IMO the important issue here is that the good Viscount Monckton is raising the issue of fra_ud againt the perpetrators of this article, as well as the somewhat lesser charge of the lib_el of hundreds of scientists and others. Whilst the perps may issue a fulsome (or even craven) apology to those they libe_lled which may prompt some of those libell_ed to go no further, I don’t think any apology would cut any ice with a judge deciding a case of fra_ud as massive as this. Given the wide circulation of the journal, I am looking forward to see which jurisdictions (if any) have prosecutors that have the gonads to take up the case. If even one does, at a minimum it should serve as a salutary warning to those perps and their kith and kin to be far more circumspect from now on. We will have to wait and see…
130
See Discussion section of the paper:
“Yet, while an anthropogenic cause is supported by an overwhelming majority of climate change scientists (CCS)5, climate change contrarians (CCC) have successfully organized a strong voice within politics and science communication in the United States.”
One almost feels sorry for them. They have had the media in their pockets for years, and yet – allegedly – their shrill warnings are being ignored by the public.
Furthermore, an “unaware” public is “a threat to society and planet”? Wow. How Orwellian.
Perhaps the public is indeed aware, but simply suffering from apocalypse fatigue syndrome.
And note this weird claim: ”the CCC community is too small to encompass the complexity required to grapple with the fundamental issues of CC science.”
Only a big group of modeller-mathematicians can possibly understand the complexity of “climate change”.
“Thus the time has arrived for professional journalists and editors to ameliorate the disproportionate attention given to CCCs by focusing instead on career experts and relevant calls to action.”
There is hope. For “despite the challenges posed by new media, there are also new opportunities.
One relevant example that borrows from the post-publication peer-review system in science is the new media tool climatefeedback.org, which allows expert scientists the opportunity to annotate, grade, and correct inaccurate CC information published in the media.”
CHECK OUT this site: climatefeedback.org
At first glance, they seem to have provided sceptics with a platform for a serious critique of their reasoning.
It would be ironic if, in their rush to provide the public with the “truth”, they reveal the “woolly thinking” that underpins their alarmistm.
60
“Only a big group of modeller-mathematicians can possibly understand the complexity of “climate change”. ”
Takes special qualifications to feel at home with DFS’s
(DFS = data free statement)
50
The Greens benefit from people referring to “green”, just as the pen company “Biro” became the generic name for ball point pens.
And the “Climate Change” hoax words including “Carbon” and “Pollution” have also become part of the everyday language.
The socialists masquerading as environmentalists thank us for our sales and marketing promotional assistance.
70
“…that contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists.” I am confused. Does this mean that a scientist that disagrees with the IPCC world view is automatically rebadged as a contrarian, stripped of his/her qualifications? More importantly, “scientist” encompasses a swath of professional callings that provide no more insight into matters surrounding the effect of greenhouse gasses than any other profession. For example a geologist has far more insight into atmospheric makeup and climate over the past half a billion years and the probable future cyclical trends than a paleontologist. No matter what one’s personal belief may be it is evident that “Nature” has abrogated science and embraced junk journalism.
90
Grist doubles down with another study:
15 Aug: Grist: How do countries cover climate change? Depends how rich they are.
By Kate Yoder
Deadly heat waves, violent downpours, wildfires that seem to get more intense every year — the climate crisis leaves no part of the globe untouched. But around the world, the media spins warming and its effects differently. The No. 1 sign of how the press in a given country talks about it? Wealth.
Richer nations tend to politicize the issue, while poorer nations more often present it as a problem of international concern, according to a new study (LINK) published in the journal Global Environmental Change. Researchers in Kansas and Vietnam analyzed more than 37,000 news articles from 45 countries and territories using computer algorithms and found that the strongest predictor of how a given country’s press will cover climate change is Gross Domestic Product per capita. In short: The way a country’s media reports on global warming is based on the resources available to combat it.
Coverage in affluent countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, and Spain, focuses on the political debate over how to use ample national resources to address global warming — or whether to do so at all…
Rich countries also tend to frame global warming as a scientific issue — which makes sense, considering that they can devote more dollars to science research. But the study also found that science wasn’t always portrayed accurately. Outlets in richer nations often highlight the voices of people who deny the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by humans. (That consensus among scientists, for the record, has now likely passed 99 percent).
It’s a recurring problem: A new study in the journal Nature Communications found that between 2000 and 2016, prominent climate deniers were featured in a whopping 50 percent more articles than hundreds of scientists…
https://grist.org/article/how-do-countries-cover-climate-change-depends-how-rich-they-are/
21
Christopher Monckton drew attention to Desmog’s connectoin in his piece on WUWT.
here is Sophie Vorrath on DesmogUK confirming same, with no denial from Desmog itself:
13 Aug: DesmogUK: Climate Deniers Receive More Media Attention Than Climate Scientists — Research
By Sophie Yeo
Alexander Petersen, the paper’s lead author and assistant professor at the University of California Merced, questions why contrarians are still visible in the media at all.
“This is a challenge to modern information systems, which can readily scale up any voice to a very large magnitude. We’ve demonstrated objectively the degree to which new media can really amplify small positions,” he told DeSmog.
“Journalists should have moved beyond this supposed debate that really doesn’t exist, and should move onto other aspects of climate change communication – for example discussing how policy should proceed to really take action. Yes, there’s a small pool of these sceptics but it’s not clear to me why they’re even in the conversation.”…
The contrarians on which the paper focuses are kept anonymous.
***The database was assembled partly through data gathered by DeSmog, which did not have any role in the research…
https://www.desmog.co.uk/2019/08/13/climate-deniers-receive-more-media-attention-climate-scientists-research
did Sophie write the bit about the contrarians being “anonymous” before the list was taken down?
50
You have to love the word ‘sceptic’. In this context is it is implied that sceptics have another agenda or are ignorant or both. Even paid agents of big oil.
However as I have written so often, all scientists are skeptics. That is not a criticism, it is the essential part of Rational science.
Rene Descartes believed nothing was true until proven beyond any doubt and that based on evidence and subordinate truths which are proven beyond doubt. To call a scientist a sceptic is a statement of fact.
People who believe without evidence are religious, priests, druids, not scientists. If they earn money from their professed beliefs, they are carpetbaggers, opportunists and con men. The list is long. Then you get politicians and windmill and solar farm and desalination plant salesmen. There are levels of hell.
70
for the record.
I commented – #31 – on jo’s “Time Magazine…” thread – 15 Aug 2019, with link to:
14 Aug: Phys.org: Climate deniers get more media play than scientists: study
by Marlowe Hood, AFP
PIC: Trump-mocking “climate protest”
Caption: Climate deniers have garnered far more media attention than prominent climate scientists over the years, fuelling public confusion and a slow response to global warming.
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-climate-deniers-media-scientists.html
I prefaced the link with:
“even more unbelievable…and it’s an AFP piece which has been picked up by Japan Times, Global Times China, Saudi Gazette, Straits Times, France24, Yahoo etc”.
update: add to that Manila Times, Jakarta Post, (MSM only). almost all carry the AFP piece.
in a way, I congratulate Marlow Hood/AFP. Reuters/AP/AAP etc don’t seem to have touched this study, which I don’t think is what the CAGW mob want being published so close to the NY climate summit. however, Hood’s stuff gets around – presumably in Franch-language press too.
Muckrack: Marlowe Hood, Senior Science and Environment Correspondent and Global Coordinator for Climate Change
AFP environment & science reporter, herald of the Anthropocene
Biography:
Based in Paris, I report on and coordinates coverage of science, health and the environment for international news agency Agence France Presse. Armed with degrees in Chinese studies (UCSC, Princeton), I worked in Beijing from 1985 through the dramatic events of June 1989, first as a stringer for the Wall Street Journal and then as Beijing bureau chief for Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post. Subsequently, as a freelance investigative reporter based in New York, I explored the nexus of organized crime and “people smuggling” from China. In 1995 I moved to Paris and joined AFP, where I oversaw the creation of award-winning data-driven platforms following a stint in the agency’s graphics service. From 2007 through 2011, I was a science and environment correspondent, a beat I resumed — after developing news apps in partnership with Twitter — ahead of the COP21 climate change conference in 2015. As a teacher during two decades at the Institut Français de Presse, I saw dozens of students embark on journalism careers in France, the US, China and elsewhere.
***In 2016, with funding from the UN Foundation, I wrote and presented a 10-part video training series for journalists on climate change…
I see myself today as a herald of the Anthropocene.
525 ARTICLES
https://muckrack.com/marlowe-hood
could only find one that is not AFP:
6 Aug: DiscoverMagBlog: Heat Will Kill Thousands in Chinese Cities Each Year From Climate Change
By Roni Dengler
As Europe’s latest heat wave showed, climate change is scorching the Earth…
“All countries in the world need to work together to limit the global warming, since this would significantly reduce risks and the impacts of climate change,” Chinese Academy of Sciences ecologist Su Buda, who led the new research, told Discover via email…
The model projected that 50 to 67 people per million would die from heat-related causes if climate change was kept under 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F). But that number balloons to 60 to 80 people per million if Earth were to see 2 degree C (3.6 degree F) warming. The finding shows “an additional 0.5 degree C warming … will result in an additional 27,900 to 33,200 thousand heat-related deaths per year,” Buda said…
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2019/08/06/thousands-will-die-in-chinese-cities-each-year-from-climate-change/#.XVefYuR7nIU
20
only MSM pieces found on the topic of this thread not by AFP are:
14 Aug: Cosmos Mag: New and old media give climate contrarians visibility
They get the headlines when balance isn’t sought, study suggests.
Nick Carne reports
When researchers from the University of California, Merced, analysed around 100,000 articles and blogs they found that contrarians appeared in 49% more of them than scientists who support the consensus view that climate change has an anthropogenic origin.
However, this fell to just 1% when they looked only at 30 mainstream media sources “that implement quality control through traditional editorial standards”.
Even here, though, contrarians get “disproportionate visibility”, Alexander Petersen and colleagues suggest, because of the mainstream media’s ingrained tendency to always seek counter positions when writing on contentious issues..
https://cosmosmagazine.com/society/new-and-old-media-give-climate-contrarians-visibility
15 Aug: Newsweek: U.S. Media Gives Way Too Much Air Time to Climate Change Deniers Who Don’t Know What They’re Talking About, Study Finds
By Hannah Osborne
VIDEO: 44secs: Fox News clip: Marc Morano on Beto O’Rourke’s $5trillion climate change agenda
“It’s time to stop giving these people visibility, which can be easily spun into false authority”, University of California Merced Professor Alex Petersen said in a statement…
Last year, the U.K’s BBC was found to have broken accuracy guidelines in 2017 after Lord Nigel Lawson – a known climate change denier – made inaccurate statements that went unchallenged. Following the incident, the broadcaster sent out a memo to staff saying it gets climate change coverage “wrong too often” and that journalists “do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate,” the Guardian reported…
In a study published in Environmental Communication (LINK) in 2018, researchers looked at how information from climate deniers is spread. It found climate denying groups Watts Up With That and the Global Warming Policy Forum “makes use of social media affordances to craft the appearance of legiiimacy” and that they manipulate scientific information and circulate it to “shape environmental discouse practices.”…
https://www.newsweek.com/media-air-time-climate-change-deniers-scientists-1454498
20
Pat, re your
Disco/Mad/Bloat: Heat Will Kill Thousands in Chinese Cities Each Year From Climate Change
1989-2019 (from Jim-jam Hanson’s Cooked Congress Con-speech to Golly Greta’s childish moody tantrums) is 30 years, one whole ‘climate cycle’ according to the WMO’s misguided politricking, yet it’s still snowing in China this very day… in the middle of summer!
https://www.snow-forecast.com/maps/dynamic/china?over=none&symbols=snow&type=snow.last7days
Admittedly most of the climate scientism dєиyiиg snow has been up on the Tibetan Plateau and along the Himalayan/Hindu Kush ranges but hey, “climate change is scorching the Earth” is just one more false accusation among many… and their name is legion.
50
btw when I congratulate Marlowe Hood, it is because, even the false premise of the study, would cause people to question whether the “science” was really settled.
16 Aug: TheChronicleOfHigherEducation: Princeton Climate Scientists Tried to Ignore a Campus Skeptic. Then He Went to the White House.
By Marc Parry
Princeton, N.J.
William Happer’s move to science adviser to President Trump raises questions about how scholars should respond when facing outsiders’ attacks on their foundational knowledge.
This content is available exclusively to Chronicle subscribers.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Princeton-Climate-Scientists/246971
can’t access any more except, perhaps, this line, with no context. not even sure it’s part of the above:
Princeton, because of its contrasts, is a unique lens on these problems.
50
Happer is finally being utilised, Donald is fighting an election and needs to convince the electorate that coral bleaching is natural.
“There is no evidence that coral bleaching is intensifying now or will in the future,” reads the comment, attributed to the NSC. Two sources said it was written by William Happer, a prominent skeptic of climate change. “Coral reefs have bleached and usually recovered throughout their evolutionary history.”
PhysOrg
60
Supplementary material and data files were quickly removed because individuals were identified. The authors are natural scientists moonlighting in social science, and unaware of the rules that govern working with human subjects.
While ignorance can be excused at the start of a project, the paper had a two-year gestation period and referees and editors did not bother to check either.
180
Amazing failure of famed Nature “rigor”
150
Jo
Wouldn’t that be par for the course these days?
70
Some things are so woeful you don’t need awareness of rules governing etc. And as for any survey being “scientific”…maybe they don’t have to be shallow, manipulative push polls, but they always are. Educating generations with tick-box and true-false has resulted in this intellectual catastrophe.
Nope. No excuses. When a dog does a job on your carpet you don’t just watch where you tread while awaiting further deliberation. This disgraceful dreck shouldn’t have made it past the first email or phone call.
130
That is pretty bad Richard.
“NATURE” is supposed to be The Science Journal with impeccable credentials.
Authors, Editors, Referees all failed! Are Referees the same as Peer Reviewers? If not the Peer reviewers also failed. Talk about the “Crisis In Science”
For those with a bit of time this is very good reading:
The Irreproducibilty Crisis of Modern Science.
https://www.nas.org/storage/app/media/Reports/Irreproducibility%20Crisis%20Report/NAS_irreproducibilityReport.pdf
70
We were not actually human subjects, as they did not work with us.
40
Collecting data about human subjects is borderline. The crossed over that border when claiming that we are part of a political movement. Membership is confidential information, and publishing members’ name is not only unethical but illegal.
40
I guess scientist quietly get on with being scientists. Yet you pump this guff out on the inter web, 24/7. Crazy.
210
See 41.3.
50
“I guess scientist quietly get on with being scientists”
Real scientists do,
Cliamet scientists, not being real scientists, make large blustering media based declarations which although always easily refuted, have nevertheless made those loud garish headlines they were so seeking.
See if you can pump out some actual real science, Ross, so far you have none.
90
Abstract: We really, really don’t like dissent.
80
VIDEO: 5min22sec: 14 Aug: TVNZ: ‘Climate change contrarians’ receive 49 per cent more media coverage than scientists, US study finds
On TVNZ 1’s Breakfast today Shaun Hendy, Professor of physics at the University of Auckland explained the idea of “false balance” in news stories about climate change and how it’s impacting peoples’ understanding of the issue.
“I think this is something we’ve sort of been trying to combat for a long time, this idea of false balance that when you have a climate scientist talking about climate change, then you’ve got to have a contrarian,” Prof Hendy told TVNZ1’s Breakfast this morning.
“Partly, it’s to do with the way news works, right? It’s not newsworthy that, from year on year, 97 per cent of climate scientists still think that climate change is occurring.
“When a news story happens, you want some controversy, and so often, you get those two opposing viewpoints being presented – but they’re not equal.”
It comes after a recent study of 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers found that 97 per cent of scientists believed climate change was occurring.
The other three per cent, Mr Hendy said, will “often be people questioning things that always goes on”.
“We’re always questioning science, but we eventually we sort of come to a conclusion. When a plane crashes, we don’t go, ‘Wow, gosh, that theory of gravity. If only scientists could sort that out.’ We assume that something’s wrong with the plane, not our theory of gravity.
“Climate science is reaching that point, where we’re becoming so confident that … the questions, the uncertainties are really quite small and extreme.”
He said climate change doubters will seek out confirmation bias through the media they consume – which often includes the experts the outlet gives a platform to.
“We all do that. We’re constantly deluged with information, and the information we tend to like to consume is that information that confirms our own beliefs, so if you’re sceptical about climate, you’re going to naturally just end up consuming media that portrays that scepticism – that’s just part of being human, unfortunately.
“As an individual, you’ve got to work to overcome those biases that you have from your information sources that you’re seeking.”
Prof Hendy said the media needs to stop debating over climate change’s existence.
“We’re not having that debate in science and so when we’re having that debate in public, we’re not really representing the science accurately,” he said. “The science has moved on and journalists should as well.”
He added that New Zealand media, including Radio New Zealand and TVNZ, “have by and large done a pretty good job.”
“There are a few media outlets that provide platform for climate change deniers, but largely, I think New Zealand media have moved on and some time ago.”
“We’ve all been on social media. This is probably where most people will encounter climate change denial.
“Go on to Facebook, go on to Twitter, post something about the climate and very soon, you’ll find yourself arguing with climate change deniers, so those outlets with less control – they provide a platform where people who want to deliberately mislead can go and misread information.
“Often, what I’ll find is that [climate change deniers] are picking up on pieces of science that were maybe true – there were real questions maybe 60, 70 years ago – and so people are still questioning that.
“They don’t realise – or at least, they’re ignoring the fact that scientists actually sorted that out a long time ago, so there’s a grain of truth, often, in what they’re saying, but actually, the science has moved on.”
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/climate-change-contrarians-receive-49-per-cent-more-media-coverage-than-scientists-us-study-finds
Greg in NZ posted about Prof Shaun Hendy in comment #16 on the following thread:
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/04/bom-homogenization-errors-are-so-big-they-can-be-seen-from-space/
40
I am so over this late 20th century attitude that you have to have academic credentials with letters after your name to be credible and listened to.
So let’s look at some of the greatest “scientists” of all time:
Sir Isaac Newton, an honorary Fellow of Trinity College in Philosophy, not science or mathematics.
Charles Darwin, studied medicine at University of Edinburgh Medical School until he lost interest and dropped out, not an anthropologist.
Louis Pasteur, graduate school
Thomas Edison, self educated
And one more, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, the greatest engineer in history never did finish that watch making apprenticeship.
Today everybody goes to university to get a dumbed down degree because most people aren’t smart enough to get a proper one. You know when a paying Chinese student who can’t speak English can get a degree in English literature the system is broken. Academic qualifications aren’t worth the cloud storage they are written on, and they don’t make you the sharpest tool in the shed.
110
neil,
agreed.
Darwin did take a degree i.e. BA in preparation to become a clergyman and “retire” to a country rector where, with his father’s money he would live a (very) comfortable life. Contrast that with Wallace who had minimum formal education (due to family poverty) but was just as capable (and in my opinion better) than Darwin on nature. Or Huxley, who basically taught himself (and became known as one of the best read of his generation).
40
I, for one, will raise a toast to Alfred
(having sailed across the Lombok Strait)
hear, hear, to the Wallace Line!
20
I am so incensed by this attempt to stifle free speech (and valid scientific debate) that I have contributed some more cash to your chocolate fund.
Thank you so much for fighting against the flood of misinformation in the media and the Beano comic that Nature magazine now resembles. The rot started in the UK when the BBC said it will no longer interview anyone who doesn’t support the “consensus”. The cancer spread to our Universities and schools where “wrong thinking ” is now punished.
I will do all I can to spread the word with the help of your invaluable posts.
Thank you again.
90
You missed “important politicians” like the sitting Vice President of the United States, Senators and Congressmen!
30
Proud to be listed with Jo et al. I have an article coming on this study titled “Blacklisting climate skeptics will not work.” As the study itself says, skeptics dominate the blogosphere and we cannot be controlled there. Liberal MSM is already irrelevant to the climate debate so even if they stopped mentioning us nothing would change.
It is amusing that alarmists frequently do not understand their own findings. Blinded by bias.
50
I can scarcely believe the image of the front of ‘Nature’ which heads this post. This was once a well-respected science journal – now it looks like a tabloid news-stand rag; unbelievable, gimmicky nonsense.
The editor should be ashamed.
What’s going on?
30
Jo mocked it up –her name is on the right side of it.
40
Hi Serp – well, I fell for that one! 🙂
I really should have looked closer and thought a bit more – but it says a lot for the state of affairs when I associate ‘Nature’ as having the potential to knock out something as stupidly gimmicky as this.
Thanks to Jo for a good laugh!
00
Did you notice that it is 386 against 386? They could only come up with 386 “climate scientists”, so they cut off the list of contrarians at 386. That’s why so many of you are not on the list, even those that have published in listed blogs, such as myself. There are likely more than 100 more contrarians with long publishing histories.
40
Reflecting on earlier denier rolls (like the one at DeSmogblog), I’ve been wondering when these guys would wake up to the fact that at some point posting an ever-lengthening list of deniers begins to backfire. So you may well be right.
20
Did you notice that it is 386 against 386? They could only come up with 386 “climate scientists”, so they cut off the list of contrarians at 386. That’s why so many of you are not on the list, even those that have published in listed blogs, such as myself. There are likely more than 100 more contrarians with long publishing histories.
20
In a nutshell, climate alarm is just “recreational lying”
20
I have been retired for many years, but when I was publishing papers in the 1960s and 1970s, it was considered an honour to have a paper published in Nature. Nigel Calder was the Editor then. As a geologist/palaeobotanist, my papers were mainly in the field of stratigraphy – or earth history – which necessitated a great deal of work on the environments and climates of past times. I became involved in this field in 1958, and in 1962, I met the great HH Lamb who first published the now famous graph showing climate change since zero AD. I was also able to show the Mediaeval Warm Spell and the Little Ice Age from historical and geological evidence, as well as varying hot and gold periods from various geological intervals as far back as about 4 billion years ago. Believe me, the climate constantly changes, from very fast, after a volcanic eruption, for example, to very slowly, over periods of many millions of years.
There is no such thing as a universal, global climate. Just look at any weather forecast map on TV! And forget trying to detect climate change in short intervals of 30 years as IPCC thinks you can. That is weather!
By the way, I have been married twice. my 120 or so publications in peer reviewed journals, are under my first married name of Muir.
120
And yet when I point out to people some really extreme weather that meant nothing except that weather does as it pleases and not what we want, those convinced there’s a problem apparently don’t even try to confront any challenge to their favored belief. There is a total inability to read the circumstantial evidence that contradicts the consensus view that amazes me.
In Southern California snow below about 1,500 feet is unheard of. And if it happens at an elevation of less than 800 feet it is impossible. Yet in 1949 on each of two consecutive nights we got 4 inches of snow. I know because I was eye witness to it. It didn’t mean anything except that it snowed on those two nights…elevation about 775 feet.
The first week of March here where I live is cold and chilly. Yet the first week of March, 1962 it was 100 °F or more everyday that week. And again, I know because I was here and read the thermometer myself.
But when I tell believers about these two events they don’t understand why I’m even mentioning it. Those were temperature and general weather records that show how variable weather can be, pretty extreme for here. And they mean nothing because they were not followed by more of the same. Yet these same people will believe a year of record temperatures of less than a degree means the world is coming to an end. A few years of drought in Southern California has been repeated over and over in the past but no, according to no longer governor Jerry Brown, it means drought from now on.
It must depend on who is saying it. Somehow the IPCC, NASA, politicians (need I mention AOC) etc. are authorities you cannot challenge. But the evidence of your own eyes, your own experience is not to be believed. For instance, not a single dire prediction that came from the global warming camp has come true. But this means nothing and the official word means everything.
I don’t get it, why do people not think for themselves?
60
Do they stop thinking when they think somethink called “the Science” tells them?
10
“So you’ve made enemies, good for you. It means that at some stage of your life, you have actually stood for something”-Winston Churchill. A few years ago, antifascistactionsydney had a smear page. They “outed”, slandered and doxxed assorted patriots, but alas, they buried it under a paywall when they realised that it was not so much a hall of shame as a hall of FAME.
Wear their smear and shaming with pride. Skeptics will all have to compete with each other to be the first to crack how to get though to people that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming/ “climate change” is a massive hoax. I know I relished being public enemy number one for the feral, rancid left for a couple of weeks, which suggests the #1 denier will be a very coveted honour.
Their shrill name calling means you are hitting a raw nerve. You are over the target, so just pretend you are a pigeon.
40
A list of all my favourite people. I’ve met or communicated with at least ten of them.
20
Is it the Science that Greta would have us Unite behind?
20
Then one day skeptics of globul warmin will realize that vaccine studies are as inane as that stuff, getting categories wrong (anyone old enough to have lost his vaccine documents can be labeled not vaccinated or status not clear), mixing data with made up signal, ending with a conclusion (vaccine and autism show a correlation at p<.05) and reporting the opposite. The level of "journalism" in the medical field is as abyssal as in energy, climate, politics, geopolitics…
00
Test on whether this paper has merit.
Survey who is more well known; Greta Thunberg or Willie Soon.
00