Is climate ‘misinformation’ criminal negligence?

19 March, 2014 by

Wants to apply criminal sanctions to scientific argument

Torcello – criminal sanctions to scientific argument

An assistant professor of philosophy at the Rochester Institute of Technology, Lawrence Torcello, claims that climate ‘misinformation’ should be treated as criminal negligence.

Writing at the taxpayer-funded, and invariably Left-wing, Conversation site, Torcello compares the dissemination of climate ‘misinformation’ with the liability of scientists in relation to the L’Aquila earthquake in 2009:

The earthquake that rocked L’Aquila Italy in 2009 provides an interesting case study of botched communication. This natural disaster left more than 300 people dead and nearly 66,000 people homeless. In a strange turn of events six Italian scientists and a local defence minister were subsequently sentenced to six years in prison.

The ruling is popularly thought to have convicted scientists for failing to predict an earthquake. On the contrary, as risk assessment expert David Ropeik pointed out, the trial was actually about the failure of scientists to clearly communicate risks to the public. The convicted parties were accused of providing “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information”. As one citizen stated:

We all know that the earthquake could not be predicted, and that evacuation was not an option. All we wanted was clearer information on risks in order to make our choices.

Torcello links to the inevitable ‘97% of climate scientists believe…’ myth and continutes:

We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.

Criminal negligence is normally understood to result from failures to avoid reasonably foreseeable harms, or the threat of harms to public safety, consequent of certain activities. Those funding climate denial campaigns can reasonably predict the public’s diminished ability to respond to climate change as a result of their behaviour. Indeed, public uncertainty regarding climate science, and the resulting failure to respond to climate change, is the intentional aim of politically and financially motivated denialists. (source)

But as with all those overcome with such totalitarian instincts, the arguments could quite easily be turned around. For example, the 97% figure Torcello cites is itself a blatant example of climate misinformation. It may be that 97% of scientists accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that an increase in the proportion of that molecule in the atmosphere will increase warming. But to claim that 97% of scientists subscribe to the alarmism of catastrophic AGW vastly overstates the certainty of the science.

As a result of that overconfidence in the apocalyptic projections of climate models, many of the poorest in society will be denied access to cheap electricity as a result of harsh emissions reduction measures, and will be prevented from enjoying the economic growth from which others have benefitted. If those emission reduction measures are eventually shown to be unnecessary, and that many have suffered as a result, should those responsible for the 97% figure be held criminally negligent as well?

Or perhaps these too:

  • Those who intentionally play down any natural influence on the climate (e.g. casually ignoring or dismissing solar effects), with the same end result? Should they also be held criminally negligent?
  • All those environmental activists who have ensured that piles of grey literature have been incorporated into the IPCC reports, to ensure that the worst possible scenarios are always communicated to the public? Them too?
  • The IPCC scientists themselves, perhaps, for intentionally offering up ‘scary scenarios‘ in order to capture the public’s attention and force governments to take action? That’s pretty shocking.
  • Those who engaged in blatant scientific misconduct, as evidenced by the Climategate emails? Hiding the decline sounds like intentional misrepresentation to me. That’s not just negligent, it’s wilful.
  • Those who use climate change as a Trojan horse for their own political ends, e.g. advocating a return to socialism, or to force through social justice reform? Surely that is climate misrepresentation as well?
  • The Greens, who shamelessly exaggerate the risks of climate change for their own political advantage?
  • Even the governments that have relied on so-called ‘independent’ climate advisers, such as David Karoly and Clive Hamilton (no, don’t laugh), on their climate panels, such as the Australian government’s Climate Change Authority? Ditto?

I could go on…

Once again, we see the double standards that are applied to the consensus and those that challenge it. The moral here is that those in glass houses should not throw stones.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,

‘Vote of no confidence’ by the Great Unwashed

17 March, 2014 by

Isn't that treason?

Isn’t that treason?

Not quite sure where their lessons in the principles of democracy ended up… Probably on the rest of the educational scrap heap, along with reading, writing and arithmetic, to make room for sustainability, Aboriginal and Asian studies. All thanks to the Left’s cultural infiltration of our schools.

If you check the various photos of the event carefully, you will see all the far left extremist rent seekers that you’d expect (Socialist Alternative, Greens etc), mixed in with a smattering of the anarchy symbol and, of course, the inevitable ‘F**k Tony Abbott’ – charming. Where are the leftist media with their outrage at that? Missing in action, of course. Compare and contrast with their treatment of the far less offensive “ditch the witch” slogan.

But here’s a clue, for those pictured and all the rest who took part in these tawdry demonstrations: there was an election in September 2013. The Coalition won it by a thumping great majority (yeah, it happened, get over it). You will have your chance to vote them out again in 2016. That’s democracy. Until then, nobody cares what you think. Got it?

PS. And just to preempt the inevitable comparisons with the protests during the Gillard government, that was a minority government held together by a couple of independents. The proper course of action should have been to let the people decide in a fresh election, rather than cling on to power without any genuine mandate, as Labor did.

Filed Under: Aussie Politics

Bill Bryson’s warmist mates

15 March, 2014 by

Lots of warmists

Lots of warmists

I was at a performance of the Bill Bryson Show “Many a True Word” at the State Theatre in Sydney last night, in which the author was interviewed by Ray Martin, and read passages from his books. It was entertaining, if you were of the Left and a warmist, that is.

Almost the first thing Martin quoted from Bryson’s Down Under was that no-one outside Australia seems to know who the Prime Minister of Australia is. “Kevin Rudd?” Bryson quipped. Gentle laughter from the audience. But when Martin mentioned Tony Abbott, there were actually jeers and boos from the partisan crowd, and the resident ‘sand artist’ on stage had a disparaging puppet with budgie smugglers and big ears. Cannot imagine the same kind of treatment being meted out to, for example, Julia Gillard, can you? But Tony’s just a thick bogan and fair game for the intelligentsia of Sydney, right?

If that weren’t enough, there were video clips from some of Bryson’s pals interspersed within the interview. The first was president of the alarmist Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse, a well-known climate propagandist who stitched up James Delingpole on an episode of Horizon (see here). The programme was based on the typical ‘science under attack’ line, with Delingpole misled into believing it would be an investigation with ‘no preconceptions’, when in reality it was the usual BBC alarmism, criticising ‘deniers’ for daring to ask awkward questions of The Cause. Watts Up has more here.

If that weren’t enough, the third clip was of another of Bryson’s ‘pals’, failed end-of-pier crystal ball reader and Gaia freak, Tim Flannery. Go here for a list of all the posts on ACM that deal with this twit. My evening was going rapidly downhill by this point.

To finish off, Paul Nurse was back on video for the Q & A session at the end, to ‘ask’ Bill why politicians wouldn’t listen to scientists – a question which sounded more like a plea. “Who is the science minister?” Bill asked. “We haven’t got one,” replied Ray, followed by a general shaking of heads in disbelief at the morons we now have in charge here in Australia. Politicians in the last Labor government listened to ‘scientists’ like Flannery, and we ended up with pointless carbon taxes that did nothing for the climate, and sent our economy into a tail spin.

And yes, we do have a science minister, it’s Ian Macfarlane, under whose portfolio science falls (see here).

With friends like those, Bill, there’s not much hope.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

UK: Committee on Climate Change smears critics

14 March, 2014 by

Matt Ridley (from rationaloptimist.com)

Matt Ridley (from rationaloptimist.com)

Just like the Climate Change Authority here in Australia, the UK’s Committee on Climate Change is packed with warmists. It is also led by a zealot, Lord Deben (see here), who has interests in big green and is massively conflicted.

Despite all that, Deben has no problem in smearing critics of his propaganda mouthpiece, as this article by rational optimist Matt Ridley at Bishop Hill evidences:

Lord Deben is chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, a body funded by the British taxpayer. He draws a salary of more than £35,000 from you and me. On the masthead of its website the committee claims to give “a balanced response to the risks of climate change” and “independent, evidence-based advice to the UK government and Parliament”.

Yet the committee consists entirely of people who think climate change will be dangerous; no sceptics or lukewarmers are on it, even though most hold views that are well within the “consensus” of climate science. Under Deben’s chairmanship since 2012 its pronouncements have become increasingly one-sided. Deben himself is frequently highly critical of any sceptics, often mischaracterizing them as “deniers” or “dismissers”, but has never to my knowledge been heard to criticize anybody for exaggerating climate alarm and the harm it can do to disadvantaged people. These are not the actions of an impartial chairman.

In the past year, as I shall detail, Lord Deben has three times launched sharp criticisms of me for arguing that some climate change projections are exaggerated. In each case, I have replied with detailed rebuttals based on peer-reviewed scientific literature to show that his criticisms were wrong, but my replies have been dismissed or ignored by Lord Deben. I suppose I should be flattered that this vendetta against me indicates that he clearly feels that my arguments threaten some part of his agenda. But on this third occasion he has sunk to a new low. (source)

The similarities to the Australian equivalent are striking. Read the whole thing.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Climate apathy ‘a cause for celebration’

12 March, 2014 by

Climate sense

Climate sense

Brendan O’Neill, writing in the UK Telegraph makes the valid point that environmentalism is diametrically opposed to the ordinary human desires for wealth, health and happiness, and the rejection by the public at large of climate hysteria and alarmism is worthy of celebration:

But has the public really tuned out from eco matters because it doesn’t understand them, because it is perplexed by “expert discourse”? I don’t think so. I think the reason people are switching off from the enviro-agenda is because they disagree with it. They just don’t buy the idea that capping carbon emissions is the most important thing in the world, more important than growing the economy, increasing wealth, and being free to choose to live in a big house with the heaters permanently switched on and Tesco just a short 4×4 drive away. They see the mean-minded, sacrifice-demanding politics of being green as a challenge to the thing that has motored human communities for millennia – the desire to create a world of plenty, an overflowing “land of milk and honey”, a utopia filled with stuff and comfort – and they don’t like it.

Environmentalism is, by its own admission, a campaign against the public and our historic desire for more things and freedom. George Monbiot has stated this baldly. Environmentalism is “a campaign not for abundance but for austerity”, he says. “It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less… it is a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves.” And that is precisely how most people experience environmentalism – as an extraordinarily elitist drive to reprimand and possibly even punish the people for daring to want more; as a top-down, hectoring effort to make us acclimatise to austerity and give up on that age-old dream of a “great production that will supply all, and more than all the people can consume” (Sylvia Pankhurst). If environmentalism is a “campaign against people”, then it makes perfect sense that the people bristle at it, even hate it and deny its “truths”. (source)

And just to be clear, this does not mean ‘denying’ the existence of climate change, or the contribution that man has made to it. It is about denying the environmentalists the free rein they desire to dictate the response.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Bondi shock: Fewer big waves due to climate change

11 March, 2014 by

Surfing at Bondi, circa 2100

Surfing at Bondi, circa 2100

UPDATE: The paper actually predicts less storminess, which is in direct contradiction to what is generally assumed will result from AGW.

Almost as iconic as the koala (threatened by climate change) is the surfing at Bondi, which is, er, threatened by climate change:

Bondi Beach surfers warned of fewer big waves due to climate change

Surfers in eastern Australia have been warned that large waves could become less frequent, as the number of days with waves of 12 feet or more will drop by up to 40 per cent by the end of the century.

Researchers have warned surfers along Australia’s east coast that the days of big waves are set to end, with climate change expected to cause a severe drop in the frequency of large ocean waves.

The study, published in Nature Climate Change, found the number of days with large waves of 12 feet or more on Australia’s east coast will drop by up to 40 per cent by the end of the century and about by 20 per cent over the next 30 years. The findings were based on measurements from five buoys in deep ocean waters located about four to eight miles off the coast of the state of New South Wales. These measurements were collated with storm data collected from the atmosphere.

“Results are remarkably consistent between different [climate models], allowing anthropogenic influences to be clearly demonstrated, with fewer days with large waves expected to occur in eastern Australia due to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations,” the study says. (source)

So there you have it, in black and white. I reckon a new (naturally occurring) ice age might have a similar effect, given sea levels would drop by hundreds of metres, and there isn’t much we can do about that either.

The abstract is here (if you really want to read it).

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Sick: Disasters good for putting climate on agenda: Figueres

6 March, 2014 by

EU parasite

UN parasite

This EU UN parasite should be sacked. Perhaps she should visit the wrecked homes and businesses of those flooded in Somerset or on the banks of the Thames.

Those disasters had little, if anything, to do with climate change (chronic lack of dredging in Somerset – probably because of some moonbat environmental diktat, and the Thames had worse flooding in 1947 when CO2 was ‘safe’), but that doesn’t stop Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of UNFCCC, scoring tasteless and offensive political points out of others’ suffering:

Figueres said: “There’s no doubt that these events, that I call experiential evidence of climate change, does raise the issue to the highest political levels. It’s unfortunate that we have to have these weather events, but there is a silver lining if you wish, that they remind us is solving climate change, addressing climate change in a timely way, is not a partisan issue.“

She added: “We are reminded that climate change events are for everyone, they’re affecting everyone, they have much, much longer effects than a political cycle. Frankly, they’re intergenerational, so morally we cannot afford to look at climate change from a partisan perspective.” (source)

‘Silver lining’? Witch.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Is Skeptical Science wilfully dishonest or just plain stupid?

28 February, 2014 by

sks_Consensus_Gap

Dishonest or stupid?

It has to be one or the other [or maybe both – my bet is on both – Ed]. Because no matter how many times the 97% figure is shown to be misleading, they keep on plugging away with it, witness the latest example, with the accompanying graphic on the right:

The epidemic of climate science false balance in the media

False balance in media reporting on climate change is a big problem for one overarching reason: there is a huge gap between the 97 percent expert consensus on human-caused global warming, and the public perception that scientists are evenly divided on the subject.

This can undoubtedly be traced in large part to the media giving disproportionate coverage to the opposing fringe climate contrarian views. Research has shown that people who are unaware of the expert consensus are less likely to accept the science and less likely to support taking action to address the problem, so media false balance can be linked directly to our inability to solve the climate problem. (source)

What this translates to is frustration that the media (for once) isn’t being taken in by Un-Sk Ps-Sc‘s statistical gymnastics.

Un-Sk Ps-Sc have refined this kind of nonsense into an art form, in order to maintain their dogmatic narrative in the face of any contrary evidence. For example, many writers on climate from both sides of the debate have acknowledged that there has been some kind of levelling off of temperature in the last decade or so, or a pause, but not Un-Sk Ps-Sc, oh no. Using classic misdirection, Un-Sk Ps-Sc forgets about surface temperatures, on which it previously obsessed, and shifted focus onto the mysterious ‘missing heat’ in the oceans, claiming that warming continues as rapidly as before. See here for more on that.

Likewise with the nonsensical 97% consensus figure, which, each time it is used, subtracts yet another chunk of what little credibility Un-Sk Ps-Sc may have once had [not a lot – Ed]. Notice that “agree on global warming” is vague enough to allow a huge swathe of opinion to be included, therefore supposedly supporting this ludicrous percentage. But maintaining this fictional number is essential to the autocrats at Un-Sk Ps-Sc, because it can then be used to bully media organisations into giving even less time to any contrary arguments than they do already, i.e. to silence critics.

It is likely that a similar percentage of sceptics ‘agree on global warming’ to the extent that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, humans have added CO2 to the atmosphere and that the additional CO2 will have caused some warming of the planet. But if the question were more honestly framed, for example, what percentage of climate scientists ‘agree on global warming’ AND consider that the effects on the climate are likely to be catastrophic AND consider mitigation to be the only option, and I suggest the figure would be considerably lower.

The ‘false balance’ that Un-Sk Ps-Sc harps on about isn’t about whether climate change is happening or whether humans are in part to blame, but more about the magnitude of the problem and how we should respond.

But that doesn’t make for anywhere near as nice a graphic, does it?

They can’t back away from it now, of course, given that there’s a Guardian column, written by Un-Sk Ps-Sc’s Nuccitelli, with 97% in the freaking title…

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

ACM’s sharp words for Lord Deben: sling your hook, mate

27 February, 2014 by

Isn't this the most punchable face you've ever seen?

Isn’t this the most punchable face you’ve ever seen?

Lord Deben, formerly John (Selwyn) Gummer, is a climate change evangelist who happens to be chairman of a company (which he formed) to advise other corporates on ‘environmental responsibility’.

But he’s also the chairman of the UK’s Climate Change Committee. So on the one hand he’s driving government policy towards tougher environmental and sustainability requirements, whilst on the other providing advice, at huge cost no doubt, to companies on how to manage those additional requirements. Anyone not able to spot the conflict of interest there?

He also likes spending other people’s money – like when he claimed £36,000 (AU$67,000) on MPs expenses for gardening at his house. Nice work if you can get it, right?

Anyway, along with all the other climate zealots, Gummer likes to lecture others on the folly of their ways, and disparage those who disagree with him – even elected Prime Ministers of other countries – as reported in the FT’s article ‘Lord Deben’s sharp words for Australia’s approach to climate change’:

Lord Deben said he had discussed climate change at length with Mr Abbott before last year’s Australian election, “and I got five different views during that period of time”.

Five? Really?

He said he had a similar conversation with Mr Abbott’s mentor, former Australian prime minister John Howard, whom he said was also “absolutely unscientific about it”, and appeared to have read only one book on the subject, by the former UK chancellor Lord Lawson, who says there is great uncertainty about the potential risk of climate change.

Gummer and his ilk are the only ones being unscientific.

“I have high hopes that people in Australia will recognise that the rest of the world is going in the opposite direction,” said Lord Deben, adding that not every Abbott government minister shared Mr Abbott’s views.

More lies – the world is rapidly retreating from action on climate change (much to Gummer’s disappointment, no doubt). What planet is he on?

“It’s a joy to go and listen to some others, like [communications minister] Malcolm Turnbull who clearly seems to take a more sensible view,” he said. (source)

I just sprayed coffee all over my keyboard – thanks for that.

Well I have a few sharp words for you, pal: mind your own damn business.

The FT has more here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

‘Flat Earthers’? I rather think not…

25 February, 2014 by

No sceptic would be a member…

Flat Earth Society: No sceptic would be a member…

One of the favourite ad hominem terms employed by climate headbangers is “Flat Earther” – someone stuck in the ignorance of the past, tied up in a belief system that has long since been abandoned.

But for climate zealots like Cook ‘n’ Lew, it’s far easier to portray their critics as uneducated rednecks with psychological issues (with a bit of name-calling thrown in) than to engage with their arguments and respond to them.

The reality, as usual, is very different, as the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum discovered (h/t Bishop Hill):

A sceptical consensus: the science is right but catastrophic global warming is not going to happen

A recent survey of those participating in on-line forums showed that most of the 5,000 respondents were experienced engineers, scientists and IT professionals most degree qualified and around a third with post graduate qualifications. The survey, carried out by the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum, asked respondents for their views on CO2 and the effect it might have on global temperatures. The results were surprising. 96% of respondents said that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing with 79% attributing the increase to man-made sources. 81% agreed that global temperatures had increased over the 20th century and 81% also agreed that CO2 is a warming gas. But only 2% believed that increases in CO2 would cause catastrophic global warming.

So what’s going on?

Above all, these highly qualified people – experts in their own spheres – look at the published data and trust their own analysis, so their views match the available data. They agree that the climate warmed over the 20th century (this has been measured), that CO2 levels are increasing (this too has been measured) and that CO2 is a warming gas (it helps trap heat in the atmosphere and the effects can be measured). Beyond this, the survey found that 98% of respondents believe that the climate varies naturally and that increasing CO2 levels won’t cause catastrophic warming.

So not only are sceptics a scientifically literate, highly educated and very well informed bunch (far more so than the majority of arts-degree journalists, politicians and inner-city green activists), but also nearly four-fifths of respondents would pass the standard test for “belief” in anthropogenic global warming (myself included, by the way). It’s the ‘C’ that prefaces the ‘AGW’ that sceptics take issue with – the magnitude of the warming and whether it’s a problem, whether there is any point in trying to mitigate, or whether we just do what all of life has done for that past three billion years, and adapt.

Yes, a very small minority of sceptics do not believe that man has caused at least some warming through the burning of fossil fuels. One could possibly argue that this very small minority should perhaps be less offended by the term ‘denier’ than the rest of us. But to label the entire sceptic community as ignorant deniers is 100% wrong – on both counts. But don’t expect the headbangers to take any notice…

We could do a little survey here as well – put your area of expertise and qualifications in the comments – no names required. Let’s see what we come up with.

Jo Nova has more here.

Note: By the way, I have a Masters Degree in Engineering from the University of Cambridge (1990), and am admitted as a solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales. So there.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,
«Previous Page
Next Page»