How to annoy a climate scientist – a guide

How annoying can you be?

How annoying can you be?

The Guardian helpfully provides a handy cut-out-n-keep guide for how to get up your local climate alarmist’s nose.

Graham Readfearn gives the poor little lambs a platform to wail about all the injustices they have to put up with. Here are the edited highlights:

Andy Pitman

From our very own doorstep, UNSW Sydney. Andy doesn’t like unqualified people saying the moon is made of cheese (as all climate sceptics believe of course), and should basically shut up. Freedom of expression doesn’t rate very highly at UNSW, clearly.

Everyone knows sceptics don’t believe the moon is made of cheese… they believe the moon landings were faked, stupid! Duh! [Read more…]

Sick: Disasters good for putting climate on agenda: Figueres

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.

Nuccitelli brings out the Consensus Calculator


Already getting a lot of use…

I cannot believe how rapidly Dana Nuccitelli (he of Un-Sk Ps-Sc fame) has wheeled out the ACM Consensus Calculator to rubbish a study which rejects the ludicrous 97% figure that he and John Cook constantly bandy about.

When a survey reveals significantly less of a consensus than Un-Sk Ps-Sc would like, the CC is employed to make sure that it is “really” still 97%. The survey in question is this one by the American Meteorological Society, which shows that out of 1800 odd members who responded, only 52% believed that the cause of recent warming was “mostly human”. This will never do:

The misrepresentations of the study have claimed that it contradicts the 97 percent expert consensus on human-caused global warming. The prior studies that have found this high level of consensus were based specifically on climate experts – namely asking what those who do climate science research think, or what their peer-reviewed papers say about the causes of global warming.

The AMS on the other hand is not comprised primarily of climate experts. Some of its members do climate research, but only 13 percent of survey participants described climate as their field of expertise. Among those respondents with climate expertise who have published their climate research, this survey found that 93 percent agreed that humans have contributed significantly to global warming over the past 150 years (78 percent said it’s mostly human-caused, 10 percent said it’s equally caused by humans and natural processes, and 5 percent said the precise degree of human causation is unclear, but that humans have contributed). Just 2 percent of AMS climate experts said global warming is mostly natural, 1 percent said global warming isn’t happening, and the remaining 4 percent were unsure about global warming or human causation.

The authors also note that they asked about contributions to global warming over the past 150 years, whereas climate scientists are most confident that humans are the dominant cause of global warming over the past 50 years. Some survey participants sent emails implying that if the question had more narrowly focused on the past 50 years, even more respondents might have said that global warming is mostly human-caused.

Importantly, most AMS members are not climate researchers, nor is scientific research of any kind their primary occupation (for example, weather forecasters). Among those AMS members who haven’t recently published in the peer-reviewed literature, just 62 percent agreed that humans are causing global warming, with 37 percent saying humans are the main cause over the past 150 years.

Following it so far? Nuccitelli then repeats the study’s conclusions that any divergence from the “consensus” is more about “expertise” and “political ideology” than anything else (Lewandowsky anyone?). Judith Curry points out that the AMS has a history of plugging the alarmist line:

A year ago, the AMS issued a Statement on Climate Change, see my blog post on this.  Excerpts from their statement:

“It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.

The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate.

Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous.”

I was harshly critical of this statement, which was written by a group of volunteers and then approved by the AMS Council.

So it’s little wonder that the authors of the study look for any extraneous reason to justify the lack of agreement with the supposed consensus.

And just in case you haven’t got the message, Nuccitelli concludes:

In any case, the 97 percent expert consensus on human-caused global warming is still a reality.

A figure which comes from a study of which he and Cook are the authors, naturally.

Source (h/t Real Science)

Climategate vs The Afghan "War Diary"

Hycposiry from The Grauniad

Richard North contrasts the media treatment of the Climategate “leak” with that of the War Diary files posted on Wikileaks relating to the conflict in Afghanistan. We all know, because the media told us, that the Climategate emails were “hacked” or “stolen”, despite the fact that the material was, by and large, well ordered and relevant, and has all the hallmarks of a leak. But what about the War Diary?

Big news of the day is how “a huge cache of secret US military files” provides a “devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan”. They have been obtained by the “whistleblowers’ website” Wikileaks in what is described as “one of the biggest leaks in US military history.”

The files have been made available to The GuardianThe New York Times and the German weekly Der Spiegel, with The Guardian in particular, pushing the boat out, running multiple stories and linking to the files.

But do we see here, or in The Independent, or even in The Daily Telegraph – which also features the files – any suggestion that they are stolen?

Largely, is seems they have been “revealed” or “leaked” and the contents “disclosed”. But nowhere do I see the word “stolen” – so far. How so very different this is, then, from the treatment of the “Climategate” files, which had the media, and especially the left wing press, spluttering in its muesli.

We even had The Times report that: “UN officials have likened the theft of e-mails from university climate researchers to the Watergate scandal, ” and that was after them claiming that “computer hackers were probably paid by people intent on undermining the Copenhagen summit.”

Thus, whatever the merits or otherwise of “release” of the “war logs”, as The Guardian is calling them, the difference in treatment is quite remarkable. Some might even call it hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy? From The Guardian? Surely not…

Read it here.

Lemmings: 56 of world's moonbat media print the same editorial

Pious nonsense

Pious nonsense

Even The Age doesn’t fall for it, sensibly preferring to rely on its own views rather than cutting and pasting other editors’ nonsense. And nonsense it most certainly is, written by the most lefty and greeny of the world’s newspapers, the UK Guardian. Full of pious platitudes and vacuous statements, it is a painful read:

Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record [“on record” being since about 1850, conveniently ignoring the MWP and the Roman warm period – Ed], the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage [Haven’t read the CRU emails yet, then? – Ed]. Yet so far the world’s response has been feeble and half-hearted.

Climate change has been caused over centuries [yes, exactly, without any help from humans – Ed], has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.

“Taming” the climate? Really? Good luck with that! And then there is the inevitable rush towards global socialism, and the accompanying scaling back of Western economies:

Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions.

The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.

Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.

And in doing so, it will condemn billions of people in developing countries to a life of misery and poverty. Finally, the predictable, tired and hackneyed “green energy myth”:

But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels.

As if renewables can replace fossil fuels in the next 20 or even 50 years! It’s nothing short of a joke. And the biggest joke of all is that all of this will be pointless. The effect of CO2 emissions on the climate is so small that all the trillions of dollars that will be wasted as a result of any Copenhagen Treaty will make not an iota of difference. Just like Kyoto made no difference either. The climate will do what the climate will do, and there ain’t nothing we can do about it.

Pious climate nonsense.

Read it here.

Head-pop at UK Guardian over Australia's "deniers"



Why oh why oh why can’t the “deniers” just stop asking awkward questions, and just trust us?

I mean, we global warming scientists always tell the truth, don’t we? Our scientific ethics are as pure as the driven snow. We never exaggerate and peddle scare stories just to get a good headline, we never fudge and fiddle data to make it fit a pre-conceived agenda, we never destroy original observations so they can never be checked, and we are always completely transparent about our scientific methods, happy to comply with each and every FOI request that we receive.

Now back to the real world… The famously moonbattish Grauniad advocates censorship in order to ram through the global warming agenda. Only the title and the sub-heading are required:

Why do climate deniers hold sway in Australia?

If Australia does not silence its sceptics and reduce its emissions there is a real risk of the nation becoming uninhabitable.

Apart from the fact that “silencing sceptics” is the antithesis of the scientific method, reducing Australia’s emissions, by 5%, 10%, even 100%, will make not one iota of difference to the climate, local or global, and will have no bearing on whether the nation “becomes uninhabitable.”

Don’t forget that the opposite of “sceptical” is “gullible.”

Idiotic climate madness on an epic scale.

Read it here (h/t Climate Depot)

Moonbat media plays down CRU leak

Moonbat media

Moonbat media

Of course we could rely on the lefty media, in thrall to the global warming bandwagon, to trivialise the significance of the leaked emails and documents.

The Guardian (UK) huffs and puffs and wheels out the “poor ikkle alarmists” routine:

Over the past five years, Mann and Jones in particular have been subjected not only to legitimate scrutiny by other researchers, but also to a co-ordinated campaign of personal attacks on their reputation by ‘sceptics’. If the hacked e-mails are genuine, they only show that climate researchers are human, and that they speak badly in private about ‘sceptics’ who accuse them of fraud.

It is inevitable as we approach the crucial meeting in conference in Copenhagen in December that the sceptics would try some stunt to try to undermine a global agreement on climate change. There is no smoking gun, but just a lot of smoke without fire. (source)

And in the same paper Michael Mann gets very hot under the collar: [Read more…]

%d bloggers like this: