‘Flat Earthers’? I rather think not…

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.

Penny Wong: sceptics are flat-earthers

My ignorance is this big.

This nonsensical comment utterly incensed me. She hasn’t moved on one inch in her understanding of the climate debate. Her robotic response to any challenge to her “faith” in the global warming consensus is the same as it always was.

In an exchange in the Senate estimates hearing, Queensland Senator Ian Macdonald challenged Tim Flannery’s ludicrously expensive appointment as pointless “High Executioner, Archbishop of Titipu and Grand Pooh-bah for climate” (or something):

IAN MACDONALD: Is it true that he’s getting $180,000 salary?

NAOMI WOODLEY: Harinder Sidhu from the Climate Change Department confirmed that’s roughly what professor Flannery will be paid for working three days a week.

HARINDER SIDHU: That’s about equivalent to, for example, what professor Garnaut is being paid for his services. [that makes it OK, I guess? – Ed]

IAN MACDONALD: So it’s much more than anyone sitting at this table is getting paid for a seven day a week job.

Then Macdonald skewered the bias inherent in the climate commission, and Penny just couldn’t handle it:

IAN MACDONALD: But you’re providing money to educate the public on their view of climate science and I assume from that in fairness you’ll be providing professor [Bob] Carter and his literally thousands of professional colleagues with similar funding so that they can educate the public on their view on the science.

PENNY WONG: Well Senator there are also people who believe the world is flat and the Government doesn’t fund that. (source)

And that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is the considered response of the former climate change minister. Is there any more to be said? I don’t think so: res ipsa loquitur.

UPDATE: Andrew Bolt posts on this here: Wong slimes experts who’d wipe the floor with her own

UPDATE 2: Cardinal Pell gets an earful from BoM chief in Senate estimates for daring to express sceptical views. Once again, Ian Macdonald goes to his defence.

Government climate adviser compares sceptics to "flat-earthers"

Censorship the next step?

See? We literally haven’t moved on one inch in this debate. Will Steffen, alarmist-in-chief to the Rudd government, wails that the climate debate is “infantile” – and his comments then perfectly make his point for him. Flat Earth Alert:

Speaking at a Melbourne summit on the green economy, Professor Will Steffen criticised the media for treating climate change science as a political issue in which two sides should be given a voice. [That’s the obvious next step of course – censorship of dissenting views – and to seriously think that the sceptics currently get a fair hearing in the MSM? Laughable]

While there were uncertainties about the pace and impact of change, he said, the core of climate science – that the world was warming and the primary cause since the middle of the last century had been industrial greenhouse gas emissions – should be accepted with the same confidence as the laws of gravity and relativity.

“Right now, this almost infantile debate about whether ‘is it real or isn’t it real?’, it’s like saying, ‘Is the Earth round or is it flat?’ [Climate change] is a hugely important question and yet we are not having a rational discourse in the media in Australia on this question. That is my biggest frustration.” He called on the media to focus on areas where there was not a consensus, including the link between climate change and the south-east Australian drought and how rapidly sea levels would rise. [Yet more calls for manipulation of the media to his own agenda]

This is the kind of crap that climate scientists are reduced to? Setting up pathetic straw men to then blow them over? We all agree on the basic science, that CO2 warms the atmosphere. What we disagree on is the complex science, like feedbacks and how much of the current warming is natural (which the IPCC doesn’t even consider), which neither you, nor your alarmist friends, nor your computer models have any clue about.

And to compare climate science to gravity or relativity or whether the earth is round or flat? I mean, really, you sure are scraping the barrel. Sorry, but the desperation is palpable.

Read it here.

Today's Gore-bull News


Gore-bull warming

Al Gore has been getting way too much publicity recently, thanks to the launch of his new fictional book “Our Choice”, which follows up from his last fictional book “An Inconvenient Truth”. Al Gore, as any fule kno, won’t debate climate change with anybody, and when someone hits him with a difficult question unexpectedly at a news conference, the microphone is snatched away and they are hastily ejected (see here).

But that doesn’t stop big Al from smearing anyone who disagrees with him, or the IPCC, as evidenced by this quote:

“The United Nations organized, along with the scientific bodies of the national academies of science and their counterparts, the 3,000 best scientists in the world [not true – Ed] from all of the fields that are relevant to this issue,” he explained. “Over the last 20 years they have conducted the most exhaustive examination ever on a challenge like this. [Or more strictly “the most exhaustive ONE SIDED examination” – Ed]

“They’ve issued four reports — they’ve all been unanimous [Not true again. Dissenters were silenced and the Summary for Policymakers only selected the views that fitted the agenda – Ed], and the last one called the evidence unequivocal. Now, does that mean there are still some people who are gonna have a contrarian view? No, of course there will still be some. But, there are still some people who believe that the moon landing was staged on a movie lot. You know, a significant percentage as it turns out … Or that the Earth is flat. But that doesn’t lead public policy makers to take both sides of that into account.” (source)

Also, Gore is now abandoning facts [how can you abandon something you never embraced before? – Ed] and is appealing to people’s religious beliefs. We all know global warming is a religion, now even Gore agrees.

Gore tells Newsweek magazine in a pre-publication interview, that he has been adapting his fact-based message – now put out by hundreds of volunteers – to appeal to those who believe there is a moral or religious duty to protect the planet.

“I’ve done a Christian [-based] training program; I have a Muslim training program and a Jewish training program coming up, also a Hindu program coming up. I trained 200 Christian ministers and lay leaders here in Nashville in a version of the slide show that is filled with scriptural references. It’s probably my favourite version, but I don’t use it very often because it can come off as proselytising,” Gore tells Newsweek. (source – h/t Andrew Bolt)

Proselytising? Al Gore? Surely not.

%d bloggers like this: