…
A couple of weeks ago Associated Press (AP) decided to change the way it refers to the imaginary monsters called “climate change deniers”. Apparently after years of namecalling, they think maybe “climate doubters” would be better. (Hands up all the people out there who doubt we have a climate? Exactly.)
Maybe one day AP will start to write in accurate English?
Why now? After a relentless decade of petty illogical names, AP are not dropping the term because it’s insulting, baseless, or an abuse of any literal English language definition. Instead, they have only just noticed the nasty implications of holocaust denial? Really?
… those who reject climate science say the phrase denier has the pejorative ring of Holocaust denier so The Associated Press prefers climate change doubter or someone who rejects mainstream science.
Perhaps the real reason they stopped using it is because they finally realized how the unscientific poisoned term is making believers look … unscientific. Can anyone find me one homo sapiens denialia? Who’s a political activist then, and not a scientist? To the Guardian and Slate commentators who protested the loss of their favorite insult I say, yes, please, keep the “climate denial” coming. It is so overdone, it helps skeptics. Don’t stop now!
The AP StyleSheet wants reporters to use the term climate scientist and climate doubter. The Jo Nova stylesheet will stay accurate: there are skeptical scientists, and there are unskeptical ones. Anyone who believes a model can measure the climate better than a satellite is not a scientist.
We’re keeping the name skeptic
But as AP stops “denier” and swaps it for “doubter”, they’ve also said they won’t use the more accurate and correct term “skeptic” for climate skeptics. In a backhanded way, the AP are conceding that skeptics have won back the term skeptic, and what really worries the herd-followers is that they are looking unskeptical. As I said in 2009, what’s the opposite of skeptical? — Gullible. Look out, here come the suckers.
When I first started blogging, skeptic was a term of disdain, people would write to me regularly telling me to avoid the term and call myself a climate realist. But I would have none of it. We wanted the word skeptic back. (Now we are coming after the term scientist. )
Here’s how AP tries to justify not calling skeptics “skeptics”:
Some background on the change: Scientists who consider themselves real skeptics – who debunk mysticism, ESP and other pseudoscience, such as those who are part of the Center for Skeptical Inquiry – complain that non-scientists who reject mainstream climate science have usurped the phrase skeptic. They say they aren’t skeptics because “proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims.” That group prefers the phrase “climate change deniers” for those who reject accepted global warming data and theory.
The fake skeptics
AP wants to call fake skeptics “skeptics” but not allow skeptics to use the term.
Some of the most unskeptical people on the planet call themselves “real skeptics” and meet in clubs to bravely denounce spoon benders and astrologers. I tangled with one called Skeptico in my early blogging – I naively thought real skeptics would not use argument from authority, and would be interested in empirical evidence instead of popularity contests. Instead I discovered that there is a class of people out there who desperately want to think they are independent thinkers, but on pretty much every topic they side with mainstream progressive opinion. These are a fake skeptics who trumpet their membership as if it makes them terribly clever, but swallow the fashionable approved line on any topic that has actual political importance. We can usually find them on the same side as “political correctness”. Repeat after me: the government is always right. These are the people who talk about logical fallacies, who know what they are, but use them ad lib, and the make up excuses as to why it’s OK. They’ll tell you argument from authority is poor reasoning, but then use it themselves and say it’s a legitimate way to do things in science.
The Committee for Skeptical Enquiry are just such a group. They write about “near death experiences”, and solve politically hot mysteries like the truth of the “Daedalus Sea Serpent”. Bravo, eh! (Think Bill Nye, James Randi, Dick Smith, and Richard Dawkins).
But while they pretend to fight for reason, they advocate the namecalling term “denial” of those “who refuse to accept the reality of climate change”? Here’s news for AP: no one denies the reality of climate change (except the drones who say the climate was perfect before the T-Model Ford was invented). The reality is that 28 million weather balloons say the climate models are wrong, and 35 years of data from two satellite systems agree. Not to mention countless proxies from every continent on Earth and 6,000 boreholes sunk below the worlds oceans. The models can’t model the past climate, why would any skeptic think they might work on the future?
The “reality” the CSI are fighting for is one defined in unaudited committee reports and based on computer simulations, not reality as defined by observations.
My recommendation to AP: call real skeptics skeptics, and call those who believe everything big-government says “believers“.
The AP wants to drop the term “skeptic” and perhaps that is right for them. Science is all about everyone being skeptical of everything other than the scientific method itself. We do not take others word for anything. We look to experimentation to provide evidence in favor of theories. We realize that what “everyone in science knew to be true” often turned out to not be true as more data came in. The history of science is littered with examples of wonderful theories slain by ugly little facts. But the AP has been anti-science for generations. Perhaps they should not use the word “skeptic” as they don’t know what it means or why scientists must be skeptics.
441
Mark, I need to make it clearer, AP will still use the term Skeptic but only for the unskeptical “clubs” which believe everything the government says.
311
Personally I much prefer to spell the word “sceptic” rather than the North American “skeptic”. Other than that, I think the most absurdly titled website is the extraordinarily unsceptical John Cook’s skepticalscience.com, the go to site for the gullibles posting on the Fairfax comments pages.
200
Everything in John Cook’s life is an oxymoron. His achievements are little more than a bunch of binary digits in an expanse of yet more binary digits that mean a lot more than his.
100
People who believe the grabbermint are idiotic to say the least.
I was at the bank a while ago, and the teller required some grabbermint “I.D.” of me to ensure I was me. I told her that everything the grabbermint knows about me is what I gave them. She replied that the rules weren’t designed to make any sense.
Cute huh?
100
Officially approved “sceptics” only. Licensed sceptics even. Like “authorised” priests of religion in some former communist states.
40
It’s sad. I was part of the “skeptic” group for a long time. I think it was just a mix of quirky factors (including big influx of younger, liberal members looking for more social relevance) that lead to this group being so intolerant of climate dissent. I wrote my own perspective of the history of this group on another climate blog. For the most part they just don’t get the irony-they think science has spoken and there is nothing left do do but call names.
40
Not really a surprise. After all, today’s news has an Australian “reporter” being interviewed internationally touting “climate refugees”, sea level rise and vanishing islands (his name is Sykes) with no balance in the reporting at all. The media as cheerleaders not reporters.
190
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-09-28/sinking-states
Sorry, here’s the link to his original “article”, he’s now on CBC, CTV, CNN, and BBC touting his line.
80
Climate change is a fact. I’m a sceptic of the political established UNFCCC and its claims of CAGW. I’m also sceptic of the political organization IPCC that is based on and supporting the UNFCCC.
00
Climate is always changing..
Not so much over the last 100 or so years , though.
00
So to make it short I’m sceptic to policy based organizations and its creation of policy based “science”.
00
“Those who reject climate science say the phrase denier has the pejorative ring of Holocaust denier so The Associated Press prefers climate change doubter or someone who rejects mainstream science.”
“Rejects mainstream science”??
What exactly is that supposed to mean?
As I have said repeatedly. The accusation of cherry picking leveled at AGW skeptics by climate alarmists simply acknowledges that there are many facts and observations which call into question the nature of the relationship between CO2 and climate as described by AGW theory.
Conversely there are less opportunities to cherry pick “mainstream” sciences such as the physics related to gravity. Since we dont see many instances of things falling upward (unless Tim Flannery predicts they will fall downwards, he is reliable enough in his failures to potentially affect the laws of physics). Therefore you dont find many skeptics of gravity, because physics is an actual science, whereas climate modeling is something akin to scattering rodent bones and reading them for guidance.
So I take great offence at that description also. It is, as usual a complete misrepresentation of the facts. The kind of misrepresentation that AGW alarmism is built on from stem to stern.
361
Actually, despite the best efforts of the AP, it seems that climate change denial is quite healthy and well, so much so that it may require law to eradicate denial.
“It could be made illegal for any government, corporation (or presumably individual scientist) ever to question the agreed “science” again.”
“Including senior judges and lawyers from across the world, the three-day conference on “Climate Change and the Law” was staged in London’s Supreme Court. It was funded, inter alia, by the Supreme Court itself, the UK government and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).”
“As one of the two UN sponsors of its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, UNEP has been one of the main drivers of alarm over global warming for 40 years. The organiser and chairman of the conference was the Supreme Court judge Lord Carnwath, a fervent believer in man-made climate change, who has worked with the Prince of Wales for more than 20 years, and with UNEP since 2002.”
140
So let’s make sure I have this clear…
Firstly, proponents of Climate Change chanted ‘the science is settled‘.
Then they talked about science being a ‘consensus‘.
Now, science has to be ‘agreed‘?
…’agreed‘ meaning that it must support THEIR political narrative…Instead of actually exploring, discovering, and understanding what is really going on.
So basically, we now have activist-politicians and activist-judges/lawyers imposing their will on the people because the people reject the nonsense? …For a movement who accuses their opponents of “anti-science”, they sure do practice a lot of anti-scientific behaviour. eg: Make mass claims. Create theoretical models which aren’t verified experimentally. Politicise data and science itself to suit a agenda or narrative.
Meanwhile…
I’m becoming suspicious of The Turnbull Govt…
Wind farm watchdog’s powers ‘not enough’ for crossbench senators
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/powering-australia/wind-farm-watchdogs-powers-not-enough-for-crossbench-senators/story-fnnnpqpy-1227563927842
Doesn’t this sound like a watchdog has been de-fanged in order not to be an obstacle to wind power?
(A cherished renewable energy source for proponents of Climate Change).
170
Mr Dyer … has worked in the renewable energy industry.
And of course, we are all prepared to accept Mr Dyer, appointed by an alarmist, is going to be absolutely impartial on the subject!
130
I was thinking about the penchant the UN has for politicising usual English terms and words, ‘climate change‘ being a classic example.
Most recently I have become increasingly aware of repeated seemingly euphemistic reference to ‘civil society‘ in UN documents, which is defined by the World Bank here. Here one should write ‘civil society’ within quotation marks because it is defined by the UN parlance to mean and imply something other than the meaning imparted from the two words, civil and society.
Ominously, the UN definition of ‘civil society’ is described in UN World Summits and Civil Society The State of the Art by Mario Pianta, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (2005),
To me, when the UN speaks of ‘civil society’ they imply those organisations and individuals that ‘play a key role at major United Nations Conferences and are indispensable partners for UN efforts at the country level‘.
UN sponsored and cultivated activism. Nothing less. Global reach for global governance, necessarily “independent from governments and private firms, and operating outside the international reach of states and markets.” No wonder they object to being held to account.
60
Well yes, it seems the UN is very happy to tag, bag and throw you in the corner, unelss your one of th ebig players at the UN table.
Problem is, once people work it out the UN will fall – they cant kill everyone, which is what it would take for them to get away with it.
I have long predicted there would be global riots once the avergae Joe works out the UN is nothing more than a global parasite.
60
I find it incomprehensible that the polemic used to threaten ‘deniers’ with intellectual and possibly physical incarceration fails to result in reflexive and unbridled outrage. Has our sense of freedom and free speech become so unconsciously constrained by the diet of hysterical political correctness orchestrated by climate offendodrons that now spout ‘climate justice’?
60
For over twenty years now I have insisted that since scepticism implies some doubt, and therefore I am not a sceptic because I have never doubted in the least that the entire bloody global warming scam is nothing but crap!
150
Well rejecting “mainstream science” is a double edged sword for them:
It means :
(a) Mainstream science is wrong – yep….
(b) Most climate “scientists” are wrong – yep….
(c) That the bulk of the population is either irretrievably dim and/or been swindled – yep…..
It also means :
– As my wise grandmother used to say “If all your mates jumped off the roof, would you do it too?” –
Which implies a,b & c above, but throw in group think, rent seekers chasing buckets of cash and a pristine opportunity for the Left to show its fangs and its true inner self for what it really is by slagging off people who dare question their attempted end run around democracy by exploiting people gullibility and misplaced but well meaning trust in them…..
And by the usual hijacking of a phrase to twist it into something else entirely – note the “mainstream science” phrase is an appeal to conformity and/or authority.
This implies anyone who dares question The Big Lie is “fringe”
Frankly I’m over it all. Whenever I hear someone banging on about it I start asking hard questions…and more…and more….watching them go incandescent with rage as you ask fair but poignant questions is a sport in itself….and when they lash out they look like prize dills.
OH well, it had to come….
50
OriginalSteve, I agree, it is entertaining to ask questions of believers that have the potential to either lead them to an on-the-road-to-Damascus-moment or as you suggest, ‘incandescence’.
I nibble gently at the edges to begin with….do you happen to know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere?….often followed by….did you wonder how much is anthroprogenic?….I find with astonishing repetition that it’s rare to get beyond these two, which rather speaks to your point (c), or simply that the they could care less, perhaps a little like the frog being gently cooked.
30
Agreed !….Its the old “” AUTHORITY ” said so ” trick !!!
Herr Goebbels would be proud !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB2Ft3t7ceg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9bEOB3x0dQ
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-AXhzg12yOI8/VIP_CPD2B9I/AAAAAAAAgac/c9dcHdYUnGU/w907-h587-no/endenhofer.png
00
‘Mainstream Science’ in the past has meant:
1. Flat Earth Theory,
2. Sun Revolves Around the Earth,
3. Phlogiston Theory,
4. Cold Fusion,
5. Phrenology,
6. Earth was created in 4,400 BC.
So, its meaning has remained the same.
50
Not ‘Mainstream Science ‘……….. ‘CONsensus Science ‘ …..that is , not Science at all .
When their (true b’lver) faith does not fit the facts ……then they fudge the facts to fit their faith !!!……………….This is not Science …….This is Propaganda being masqueraded as Science ………Big Difference !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9bEOB3x0dQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB2Ft3t7ceg
00
Just wondering…after reading heaps of the comments here, Safety, what happens if they don’t discover the “graviton” or they discover a mechanism for gravity that “mainstream” physics had already poo-pooed. Like something out of left field, a modern day Hannes Alfven, given a rough ride by mainstream physics. See, we don’t really understand how gravity works at its deepest level. We only have theories, incompatible ones at that. Jes’ sayin’.
10
The term should really be “climate action denier” or just Right-tribalist, as denialists/’skeptics’ (a misnomer) have 10-20 different (sometimes conflicting) arguments, some of which include an acceptance of AGW or even CAGW, but all unite under the core themes of 1.) We shouldn’t pay anything or adjust our lifestyles to address this issue, and 2.) We hate the lefties, the lefties are wrong.
649
Hi Stephen,
As a long term member of the Warmist camp before my apostasy, I don’t think that I actually fit into any of your convenient little boxes.
391
The politics of left or right should have no influence on the science. As many independent thinkers are found among those whose politics is relatively right of centre it is unsurprising to also find there many sceptics. Unfortunately, for many believers the side is more important than the scientific method.
413
I agree with you, so riddle me this: why is it that those who accept the science come from all political philosophies (or none in particular), while those in the ‘skeptic’ camp come almost exclusively from the right-wing or libertarian persuasions? Seems rather too strong an association to be coincidental.
Ideology overcomes everything, including the best education, and this is particularly so with the industrial-strength right-inclined varieties.
344
I am a geologist and my position comes from looking at unpolitical rocks. The Evaluation of paleoclimates is my bread and butter over the last 25 years, well before this (you) politicised this. Rather talk about politics riddle me with the scientific argument.
420
Because believe in it or not it’s a great excuse to advance the Socialist International. and when all it will cost is other peoples money, and no development for the Third World, hey why not.
301
I dont really have a political ideology when it comes to science.
I am ready to be convinced of AGW tomorrow, if someone shows me some decent evidence to support the theory.
As it stands right now my position is that I have seen enough strong evidence to support the notion that the relationship between CO2 and climate activity is at best misunderstood and very probably misrepresented. There are simply too many very sound arguments against conventional AGW for me to put a great amount of store in it.
Everything I believe is up for debate as far as I am concerned. My only desire in relation to knowledge is that the knowledge I espouse is fact, or as close to known fact and or balance of probability as research can place me. Beyond that, my politics are insignificant and totally unrelated. I have no desire to prosecute a false agenda on any topic.
280
I agree with you – political persuasions have no place in a discussion of science.
The political views of people are irrelevant to the practice of science. What matters is the (1) completeness and (2) conformance of the measured, physical evidence of changes to climate parameters with the predictions of the Man Made Global Warming hypothesis.
If you want to convince a scientific skeptic that what you assert has a factual basis – present compelling evidence of well formed, measurable predictions, coming true.
Or are you stuck with hand waving?
Graphically here.
Simple failure of prediction with observation.
191
An arbitrary and overly brief period of time to assess a longer-term trend… or, see ‘the escalator’.
What hiatus?
533
Actually, Stephan, I agree with you. Far too short a period to establish a trend – as was the previous 40 years.
But…
The IPCC left it’s arse hanging out there by making all those predictions (which they call scenarios, as if that’s going to fool anyone…). Reality came along and took a giant bite out of it. So what do they do? They work like crazy to cover said arse, and they lie and lie and lie and lie…
I’m not half as big a skeptic about climate change as I am about climate change enthusiasts.
180
Your right of course Uncle Gus.
But lets be real, 200 years is an insignificant time period also. The data used to formulate the models is like saying you now the exact details of every grain of sand on the beach from looking at one teaspoon.
50
So you have been attending the cartoonist’s lectures, could you encourage a few more of your classmates to come this way?
We could have a rumble before Paris.
140
Stephan, according to your eponymous “escalator” graph, which resembles nothing of the sort as the last three steps since c.1995 have each become successively smaller, yet the CO2 continues unabated. Pretty unconvincing Stephan, although I will concede that is what an escalator does when it reaches the top of its path before disappearing under the floor to begin its return journey.
So now then,let’s assess the longer term trends you refer to.
Here for example.
No wonder you and your ilk want to legislate against ‘deniers’.
151
Hi Stephen,
What Hiatus? – That would be the UN IPCC’s Hiatus.
From the IPCC’s AR5.
I’m referring to the UN IPCCs AR5 – So according to you – the UN IPCC just plain got it wrong. Those “deniers” at the UN need to “get with the program”. Probably a bunch of Libertarian, Right Wingers eh? Funded by Big Oil are they?
As for the Escalator – LOL!
262
I see that no Warmist has been brave enough to attempt to reply and reconcile the UN IPCC use of the term “Hiatus”. (Although someone gave me a thumbs down w/o reply…)
Stephen –
[1] Do you have any more personal pet ideas that disagree with the UN’s Authoritative position on Climate Change (TM)?
[2] Do you experience emotional discomfort when you realise that you disagree with the Warmist UN IPCC accepted Authority?
[3] When you find yourself misaligned with the dominant, hegemonic narrative as promulgated by the UN IPCC, how long does it take before you close the gap and adopt the Authoritative position.
[4] Do you do your thinking on bended knee – or do you take a supine position of abasement first?
Just Curious as to the operations of the Slave mind – it’s always fascinating to me, the many ways in which human beings abrogate moral and intellectual responsibility to others.
ExWarmist
110
Nonsense, Stephen. I am an “old school” environmentalist, and I certainly don’t buy into the Gaia climate hysteria.
263
3 red thumbs? Stephan, otter-child and ??? Noticed that they have no real arguement to make. again.
11
Say Bill, did you forget to notice that I WAS BEING SARCASTIC?
Sheesh.
00
Because for the left, belief in CAGW is a compulsory doctrine. For the right, it is a matter of what one thinks the factual truth is. Ergo, no skeptics at all on the left, a mixture on the right. But since the fact that this theory is utterly bogus is crystal clear, the ones on the right who believe it have been a bit too uncritical of the “science is settled” mantra that saturates the zeitgeist.
210
I highly recommend Dan Kahan’s blog and research on the subject:
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/
He’s collected a lot of data and at least to me has a very convincing case for two things:
1. A person’s political leanings are a very, very good predictor of their assessment of the risks of climate change.
2. The more a person knows about science (regardless of political leanings) the more confident they are in their assessment of the risks.
He finds the same pattern in a lot of political issues in the US. Another good example is gun control. Political leanings very well predict whether a person thinks more gun control will reduce crime. And the more anyone (regardless of leanings) knows about crime statistics, gun control policies, and the like, the more confident they will be in their assessment of gun control’s efficacy.
83
A lot of people on the right, excluding libertarians, have anti-science religious beliefs.
A lot of people on the left have secular anti-science “religious” beliefs — climate change is their “religion”.
It’s actually unusual for a person to have no beliefs based on faith.
I try to be one of those people — but my lack of beliefs can offend both the left and right !
Concerning climate change — wild guess computer game forecasts of the climate 100 years in the future ARE NOT SCIENCE — yet they are the ONLY basis for claiming a climate change catastrophe is coming!
251
Well said Richard.
70
Stephen,
Riddle me this:
Why is it that believers become skeptics, but skeptics don’t become believers?
293
I am a constant advocate for using credulist instead of believer, warmist, alarmist, etc. It sounds a lot nicer and is pretty much the exact antonym for skeptic.
130
Because it’s an emotional threshold reaction, which tend to be one-way. For example, I’ve met a number of righties who were once lefties but some feminist or ultra-PC idiot (people who tend to annoy me as well btw) ticked them off along the way, so they decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater and their lot in entirely with the right. Not a nuanced reaction in response to new evidence, but an emotional ‘fit’ and subsequent team-switching exercise – and once the switch is flipped, no amount of evidence will flip it back.
111
Stephan,
That would suggest you object to people thinking independently, having free will, exercising freedom of speech – rather a fascist belief system you have.
111
Note here how Stephan intimates that those of us from what he calls ‘the right’, (you know, everyone who disagrees with his point of view) are uncaring people who base everything on emotion only.
I know for certain what would stop this CAGW belief thing stone motherless dead in its tracks.
All they have to do is co-ordinate every coal fired plant to shut down, and the whole thing would just go away. Complete shut down, not just offline, and still burning and turning, but shut everything down, so, no emissions at all.
An absolute fact, because after happened, there is not one politician (because, after all, it is only politics now) in his right mind would even contemplate that happening ever again.
The whole thing would be over.
I know this, as do a lot of others.
The plants would shut down totally, and within hours, they would be ordered to start up again. That would take three days, to get things back to normal.
The whole thing would just go quietly away.
The point here, in reference back to what Stephan intimates, that his righties, as he says, couldn’t care less, I find in myself that I actually dread something like this happening, and hope that it never does, because it would be absolute unmitigated chaos for three very long and violent days.
So, I know the answer, but have this fervent hope that it never never actually happens.
See the quandary here?
It’s so frustrating when you know the answer and are resigned to the fact that it will never happen, and pray that it never happens.
It would also end the debate about renewables just as quickly.
So, Stephan, your ideology about what you think about how we feel is so totally wrong. Your superiority complex is showing through.
I am ever so gradually reaching the point now where it’s time for me to ease back and stop what I’m doing, as it’s all just so pointless.
Tony.
162
Don’t go away tony….I appreciate what you do….and the simple sense you bring to things! Cheers.
111
I agree with Phil. Please stay Tony. There are many here who value your efforts and regular input to these pages.
81
Tony, don’t lose heart. I am one who really appreciates all you research and write for us here on Jo’s blog. I am sure there are many like me who find your input very good. Please don’t stop, if you can bear to continue. Annie.
40
Tony, before backing away from internet discussion entirely, I suggest you at least try to learn to use paragraphs.
03
‘while those in the ‘skeptic’ camp come almost exclusively from the right-wing’
That is simply not true, I have always voted for the left side of politics until this war of words erupted over climate change.
You appear to be all fired up, have you been attending the Cook et al classes?
190
“attending the Cook et al classes”
Ah…. The antithesis of science.
201
‘Ideology overcomes everything, including the best education,’
The pushing of AGW propaganda in Australian schools is a crime against humanity.
180
I too, am a geologist, and I prefer to let the facts speak for themselves.
Unlike you ‘Stephan’, I do not feel the need to politicise everything I do, or everything I think. Nor do I see how it is possible to politicise science and still call it legitimate science.
180
Ahh, the climate gullible Stephan with his bulletproof arguments again.
Ever heard, correlation isn’t causation. Wouldn’t you think that people smart enough and motivated enough to critically check out climate change claims themselves might also be smart enough, motivated enough to see through the pseudo economics of socialism / communism (eg the idea that you can get rich by spending more than you earn on depreciating assets) and thus this particular political correlation might have a single ancestor – intelligence, education, or maybe laziness (or lack thereof). AGW scepticism increases with educational qualifications in hard science domains ( science and engineering ), now that’s an interesting correlation?
170
The answer is very simple, and I am astounded that it was not apparent from previous posts. For many of those on the Left, the side is more important than the scientific method.
120
Ah, der. Consider what a traditional right ideology espouses – freedom of thought.
120
I am old enough to remember the brouhaha over the coming ice age in the early 70’s.
Maurice strong blamed the cold on CO2 as well.
However, having learned science in the old school, I have developed a rule of thumb:
Whenever some half-baked wet-behind-the-ears nincompoop uses the phrase “the science”, it is a sure fire indication that the individual is not even aware that science is a PROCESS, and is certainly not an authority or a Deity, and that the individual using the phrase would not even be able to identify the difference b etween his anus and a post hole.
120
Stephan the obvious answer is that educated right wingers, who eschew studying nonsense like political “science “and most of the arty farty subjects that Leftists drool over, are into and invariably are proficient in mathematics, physics and chemistry and are more qualified for useful careers in disciplines like engineering and geology.
The result is they are pretty well equipped to examine and evaluate the postulates of genuine climate science and work out just how far off the pace alarmists who invariably because of their inadequate relevant education really are.
As a reader and critic of Left Wing Journals like “The Nation” that major in “climate change” there is little doubt its climate alarmist scribes are appalling ignorant of any relevant science. Like a whole raft of Lefties its great unintelligent love of human caused climate change stems from its hatred of capitalists. And what better sort to attack than those who deal in fossil fuels? Is it about Science? No. Leftwing economic doctrine? Yes.
That’s why Lefties with rare exceptions are incredibly dumb when it comes to climate science but are full of useless alternatives to things that work. And that is the reason Lefties are alarmists. Nothing to do with the science when it is properly understood.
90
Stephan; Back away from the mirror.
Take slow careful moves, slide your feet.
Then consider the projection, What be these leftwing/rightwing species?
Most birds need both wings in unison to fly.
Secondly the scientific method requires the user to use rational thinking to the best of their ability and then share said reasoning with other rational persons for the express purpose of testing the hypothesis to destruction.
What of your speculations can be tested?
40
Stephan, you are SO right! I mean, just look at the things that have been accomplished in taking action on the climate:
Orangutan habitat being wiped out and the Orangutans themselves on the verge of extinction.
Forest being clear-cut for biofuel plantations.
Forest being clear-cut for biomass burning, such as the Drax plant in the UK.
Forests being clear-cut for wind turbines.
Food prices rising ever higher as animal feed- CORN- is subverted to biofuels.
Rubber-tire reefs that break up, fall apart and kill more than they ostensibly ‘saved’ – especially dolphins.
A $22B desal plant in Australia which has sat USELESS since it was built, at the cost of $1B a year in upkeep.
And so on.
And so forth.
Yeah, we need ‘action.’
332
I mostly agree on this one.
But I wouldn’t call myself just a right-tribalist. Yet Judith Curry has publicly noted how much tribalism there is around, among scientists as well. Mr. Cook and his site are one of the worst collections of left-tribalism, where some sites collect right-tribalists.
Tribalists are bad because science is not important to a tribalist, only supporting one’s own tribe and bashing the other tribes.
181
Totally agree. Hence my above comment on the conspicuous ideological homogeneity of the ‘skeptic’ camp, relative to that which accepts the science on AGW.
If your rational faculties are being led by a simplistic hate of all things government and taxation, your conclusions will inevitably be suspect.
337
What is this ideological homogeneity of which you speak?
A preconception lurking within your own mind perhaps?
Evidence lacking?
190
The ideological homogeneity of the skeptic camp is caused by ejection of all skeptics from the ideological leftist camp. Really, your inversion of the obvious is too silly to keep on repeating and embarrassing yourself.
180
Stephan you’re attempting to use Russell’s Teapot as an argument for reason where the teapot is visible tangible empirical evidence.
There’s an old saying about a little bit of psychology…..
90
Again, Stephen,
Name three skeptics who have become believers.
I can name many believers who have become skeptics – in fact every believer who became a skeptic on this site – hit me with a green thumb.
491
James, I once worked for one of the “climate action” groups.
Then I started looking at the (lack of) science behind the CAGW arguments.
I was also a Labor voter for quite a while.
Then I grew up and started engaging my brain, two things that Stephen has yet to manage to do.
311
Likewise AndyG55, a friend and I once looked at designing industrial CO2 scrubbers for installation on city streets – then I looked at the science behind the hysteria and found none, so I just used good old common sense and history books.
221
What got me was the discovery of the lack of the scientific method within the Warmist position.
I also don’t believe in Astrology, Tarot, Palm Reading, Numerology… for the same reason.
221
Im a bit late to the party, but just for Stephan’s education, give me a green thumb if you would likely vote for Labor or greens if they dropped the global warming indulgences and stopped spending more than the nation earns?
I count as 1
100
Stephan,
That’s the problem with projecting – you always judge others by your own actions.
231
Stephan,
You write: “If your rational faculties are being led by a simplistic hate of all things government and taxation, your conclusions will inevitably be suspect.”
If this is correct then can you explain why it’s only ‘paranoid, irrational, simplistic haters’ who troll climate skeptic sites?
GI nailed it – you’re projecting…
181
Stephan,
Since when did legitimate science depend on ones political persuasion?
Do the laws of thermodynamics change depending on ones political beliefs?
121
Agreed. I have always followed the line of logic through an argument, and found that even when someone perhaps whose politics I might not agree with has a sound argument, it would be wrong not to admit they were at least right.
As such, I find it hard to stomach from a fairness point of view, why people cant at least be fair. Politics can sometimes be an ugly irrational beast. What I find a bit unsettling is people who would put politics ahead of reason.
90
Fanatacism has no place in a civil society.
10
Agreed, although thge Left seem to be trying to fracture society so ugly stuff can be normalized…..
10
It doesn’t. AGW exists and affects you no matter your political ideology. Said ideology will, however, predict your willingness to accept it.
01
The only ideology on display is yours, stephan. If you were intellectually honest you might realize that.
00
Why do you always resort to political arguments rather than a science based argument?
It appears you only feel comfortable discussing topics which are unable to be tested by the scientific method.
20
Hello Hugh
Is this you, or are there two Hughs
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/weekend-unthreaded-96/#comment-1752894
10
Tribalism, aka politics, aka normal human behavior…
00
Stephan,
We should not pay for solutions that don’t work. Also, we shouldn’t pay unelected bureaucrats undisclosed billions of dollars to redistribute those funds according to their whim without any accountability, to “solve” a non-problem with non-solutions. We shouldn’t increase real poverty and real disadvantage in third world countries by preventing their access to cheap sources of energy in response to a speculative problem with little actual evidence and bountiful supposition in support of it.
Do you really think that a breakthrough in say cold fusion technology, that provided a real, scalable, and legitimate alternative to fossil fuels that any skeptic would oppose investment in it? Of course not, but unfortunately those of us who doubt the wisdom and science behind CAGW and its proposed mitigation clearly resent the utter stupidity of the average gullible alarmist who cannot grasp the concept of base load energy provision, and thinks that inefficient and intermittent renewables will somehow, by magic, reduce CO2 even though they are CO2 intensive in manufacture, require fossil fuel back up and have limited lifespans to justify their price tag and the environmental damage they cause.
What is risible about the average leftist is that they are often the ultimate hypocrite, often elitist, often intensely racially prejudiced (while paying lip service to affirmative action) by engaging in widespread racial profiling and patronising of perceived inferiors, sanctimonious about war and violence whilst acting as apologists for the most extreme violence and genocide when it suits their political narrative, precious about any criticism from opponents but then serially engaging in the most abusive and aggressive actions toward those same perceived opponents when it suits them.
One of the main concerns any skeptic like myself has about this whole Global Warming ambit by the leftist, Bilderberger types is the potential for it to provoke a rising ultra-right wing Neo -Nazi or fascist type response, which would be a disaster for all concerned and bl00d on the streets being a very real possibility if Western civilisation falls down as a consequence.
This is more and more likely as a consequence of the misplaced alarmism of activists masquerading as scientists, and due to the economy destroying actions of clueless politicians at the behest of these ignorant people who haven’t considered the full ramifications of their actions, or else those who are deviously undermining the West for political purposes. What they fail to consider is that their particular political brand may not be in line to profit as a result of society breaking down, but instead may actually be signing its own de@th warrant due to unforeseen powers filling the vacuum left by such a “successful” destruction.
301
Actually Stephan we should be able to say ‘scientist’ and understand that to mean a skeptical, investigative, honest and objective person. We should be able to read their peer (not pal) reviewed published work and be informed. We should not expected to recite/chant its conclusions let alone the sexed up drivel that the accompanying press release cobbles together as nibblies and free content for a lazy MSM.
Thanks to the corrupting influence of the politicisation of ‘climate science’ and the home branding of academic endeavour we cannot so need some other words to carry us through.
240
I can assure you that my skepticism is based on the science and not my political views. In fact when I first studied this issue my political views were not as they are now.
Furthermore, my opposition to “climate action” is not based on politics as much as it is based on math. None of these climate actions add up. They will have no effect on climate.
Leaders of the ACC movement have as much as admitted that it is not so much about the climate or the environment or the science as it is about “re-making the global economy” and “re-distributing wealth.”
230
My objections to Climate Action is as follows.
[1] Reason: The physical, measured evidence strongly suggests that the threat of increasing CO2 concentrations in the Atmosphere is vastly overstated.
[2] Compassion: The implementation of carbon trading will beggar the dwindling middle classes of the developed world and will murder the poor in the developing world due to lack of access to modern technology and energy systems, while further enriching the already stupendously wealthy.
190
Carbon trading …carbon taxes = global theft >>>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBVFpYN0iNo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB2Ft3t7ceg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9bEOB3x0dQ
We elect these f…..r politicians to come up with better and more elaborate ways of stealing our money while they BS us , how they do good for us !
Occasionally a good politician like Bloom gets in , and exposes the truth , buts then get forced out by the global club of thieves and criminals !
20
Dave,
The wealth redistribution is via the fiscal black hole at the UN, the UN is trying to be oxfam or red cross, they want to supercede multilateralism and become the clearing house for aid so thay can skim what they want for themselves and thier NGO mates. They want this funding, UN funding, to be locked in by treaty. This is an attempt to TAX BY TREATY. The UN equivalent to halal certification or various green certs as the NGO protection rackets run.
Redistribution (ie Welfare) is not the aim, locking in UN funding is the game – it’s obvious when you think about it.
140
Stephan, are you one of those that will iron spike a tree and chain yourself to it in order to “save” it, then return home in your SUV to your Tasmanian Oak furniture?
Are you one of those that will gladly chide everyone for the use of THEIR light switch, but ignore Earth Hour for yourself?
I expect your answer to emanate from a cave with you furiously pedalling a generator to power your interweb-troller.
161
Stephan, surely all scientists are inheirantly sceptical of everything, except when it comes to their own, deeply held beliefs, which their would never think of questioning.
50
Stephan = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straitjacket#mediaviewer/File:Straitjacket-rear.jpg
20
You’ll regret me you said that.
02
You sound like one of Elizabeth May’s lackies.
10
There’s always a clown aka true b’lver ….a song for you >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx-t9k7epIk
10
Stephan , is this the climate action you refer to ??? >>> https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-AXhzg12yOI8/VIP_CPD2B9I/AAAAAAAAgac/c9dcHdYUnGU/w907-h587-no/endenhofer.png
I bet you can’t wait for your little Paris Climate Marxist Hajj to impose great big new global taxes !
I suspect if this eventuates , you and your band of ratbags will be very pleased with yourselves !
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/climate-change-warnings-over-the-years.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9bEOB3x0dQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB2Ft3t7ceg
10
Oh nooooo . . . If they stop calling me a ‘denier’ I might lose my sense of identity.
I’ve been called a denier so many times over the last decade, that I almost thought I was a new species and had started identifying with the label; Homo UnSapien Denialum (somewhere between a pygmy and a neanderthal based on the respect the ‘Sapiens’ have been showing me).
I was beginning to wear it as a badge of pride.
I agree we should retain ‘skeptic’, though I’ve tried ‘doubter’ on for size, and I suppose I can live with that half-pejorative if I have to, because it can be worked into a witty response much easier than ‘denier’.
“I DOUBT CARBON CREDITS AND DERIVATIVES CAN COOL THE PLANET!”
. . . or . . .
“I DOUBT AL GORE’S ECO FUND ON THE ISLE OF JERSEY PAYS ANY TAX!”
I guess it works ok, and I’ll grow into it.
281
Simply lol. This is exactly what climate action efficiency doubting is all about.
150
Jo says
Skeptics? Deniers? Perhaps we should all start using Realists and let the shrill look a little less real
182
How about just “Empiricists” , as opposed to those whose belief relies on “Modellers” and “Meddlers” (a la NASAs GISSTEMP).
130
Realist is the better word. Most of the warm fuzzy thinkers don’t know what the heck the word Empiricist means. WORSE if you look it up you have this problem:
10
I will revel in the pleasure from watching the unjust accusers attempting to reclaim any moral ground that they lost entirely from their own blinkered actions.
Please continue painting towards that corner, I promise I won’t offer any advice. 🙂
160
LOL..
Nice one Yonnie.
I can’t wait until GISS or NOAA amass so much huibris that they publish tamperatures as a vertical line or adjust them up to an impossible 60C.. That’ll be the end of ’em.
60
Olaf. are you from the deep south, or did you just create “tamperatures” to describe the data files of GISS, NOAA, BOM etc etc!!
40
I like tamperatures…
Sounds fitting.
10
I have been thinking ofmaybe a more religious connotation as opposed to the believers of CAGW:
Noun: agnostic
|ag’nós-tik|
Someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something
= doubter
A person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)
50
You cannot have it both ways,Jo. You can’t call the scientific community liars, cheats, schemers, frauds,….and all of the other derogatory terms that you have spat out form your column here, and then seriously choose to be thin skinned about the the the one term used to describe people who refuse to appreciate the immense body of effort and the evidence based conclusions of the global scientific community. Frankly, Denier is a great term to describe your position, a term you should wear with pride. Skeptic is a wishy washy term, a “bob each way” term. “I knew the science was probably right but I had a doubt so I thought that I should say something” kind of a position. N that is not you, you are a bold Libertarian, Denialist has strength of conviction, that is the term for a true leader.
Perhaps though you would prefer to be called a scientist, and that you can be when you have actually done some scientific research, presented it (published it), and achieved the recognition of your (science) peers. Your partner, David, is attempting to take this very step, and from what I have read the scientific community keenly awaits the publication of his research in mainstream scientific journals.
341
I only use terms I can define in English and substantiate with evidence.
You, for example, qualify for “concern troll”.
402
That is a new one to me, and would apply if I ever claimed to share your views, something which I don’t think that can be said of me at all.
318
Read the def.
Obviously a “concern troll” would not share my views. That is the point.
202
Joe; You gave him one sentence, which was a sentence in 4 parts separated by commas. Its obvious BilB only read up to the first comma and stopped.
BilB; when you learn to read, comprehend, and reply to the printed statement (not what you think was said), we’ll start to take you seriously.
10
Actually Jo, I don’t think Bilge has any concern except for his own rantings.
121
I can think of a good descriptor for BilB that rhymes with troll, but it starts with “a”……..where is Ruari today?
91
I prefer the term Lysenkoist.
20
BillB, it will be banned from what you term ‘mainstream scientific journals’ like Galileo’s work. Climate science has all but given itself to the spirit of Lysenko.
The models are risible for a range of reasons ranging from mesh size to the algorithmic defects David Evans points out. Their comparison with the satellite data objectively confirms their bias. The surface thermometer record is simply not fit for purpose regarding a ‘global’ temperature and certainly not for the sort of tealeaf reading that is indulged in.
At an individual station level the data is not fit for purpose of a local record due to station technical specifications, heat island effect and station relocation. The ocean data (canvas buckets FFS!! ditto and the adjustments to both sets are so fraught with adjustment bias they are not credible.
I mean who can honestly take the recent GISS adjustment into oblivion of ‘the pause’. What are they saying? That they did not how to adjust the data properly 10, 20, 30 years ago? That they only just figured out how to do it? How hard can it be? How convenient can it be is the more pertinent question.
Witness credibility is the issue here BillyBoy.
172
BilB, there are a few definitions of skeptic but the most commonly way it is used, the meaning is a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions. So saying that its inappropriate because the consensus is overwhelming is just drivel, especially as it comes from a school of philosophy to assert nothing.
Denier on the other hand is a unit of weight for threads. Offensive (intentionally) because of its use with Holocaust. Stupid because someone like Lomborg doesn’t contradict the conclusions from the IPCC reports, so not a denialist of the science but political policies derived from it.
But what do you call someone like Shukla?
91
‘Frankly, Denier is a great term to describe your position, a term you should wear with pride.’
As a card carrying member of the Denialati I reject your assertion that we should be called deniers.
71
‘Skeptic is a wishy washy term, a “bob each way” term.’
I tend to agree, but keep in mind Skeptics are divided into two camps: lukewarmers and coolists.
The lukewarmers maybe correct, if the hiatus lasts another decade I’ll be forced to concede we have been saved by AGW.
80
You have missed the point. The name I use for CAGW believers is “alarmists” – because it is 100% accurate & undeniable – they are trying to raise an alarm. The name I use for skeptics is “climate realist” because they want to know what is real and I have watched them now since 2008 and I observe that their concern for the truth is genuine. I am willing to include an alarmist as a realist IF!! just once, one of them would answer my question, which I have repeatedly asked: What is the evidence in favour of CAGW?
(Just so you know: “It’s got hotter” isn’t evidence. Neither is “We dang caahn’t tink o’ no oder ting dat might be makin it happin.” And especially, neither is “But if you think we’re wrong, you must be a conspiracy nutter.”)
Back to my answer to you: The terms I use are “alarmist” and “realist”. But what I say about the people in those categories depends on their behaviour. A huge number of alarmists are liars. That’s an allegation of fact about them, not a label being applied to them: I allege, correctly, I believe, that every alarmist physicist is either incompetent, hasn’t looked into the issue, a liar, or insane. I am alleging a fact about them, not applying a label. And when we widen the field to non-scientists, we have other groups such as the genuinely misled, the trusting, and so on, which are not necessarily criticisms. You will never see me label alarmists as liars because not all are, and because non-alarmists can certainly also be liars. So calling them “The liars” would not distinguish them from others.
In brief, there is nothing whatever inconsistent in demanding that a label be acceptable whilst making allegations that would not be acceptable as labels. An negative allegation can be answered; a negative label is simply dishonest.
80
On the ABC TV yesterday morning they had a female from the CSIRO who said that it is getting warmer. One thing that has been recognised that when people lie their voice changes. This lady scientist’s voice did change when she said it was getting warmer.
40
A climate agnostic.
40
Dropping the terms may be one thing and it wouldn’t be the first time. Outlawing of the practise quite another; meeting at the building of the UK’s highest court,
“Judges plan to outlaw climate change ‘denial’ ”
” a semi-secret, international conference of top judges, held in the highest courtroom in Britain, to propose that it should be made illegal for anyone to question the scientific evidence for man-made global warming, “
141
That would be a classic own goal – the opportunities to lampoon people who need to legislate “conformity of belief” are without end.
160
Spending my Sunday beachcombing on the Web littoral, I came across this:
https://ipccreport.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/notes-on-sands-lecture_ty.pdf
Quite educational.
60
An interesting read, Thanks Kevin.
30
Nicely summed up in the Conclusion there Kevin, that Developing Countries growth ambitions are the problem ( if there is one with Co2) & not disbelief that there s a problem (whether their actually is or not).
“CONCLUSION
Professor Sands believes that climate change is “one of the greatest and most vital challenges of our age” and asserts that in view of its “real and imminent challenges … the international courts shall not be silent”.
These are honourable sentiments. However, he also believes the way for the courts to make a contribution – the “single most important thing [they] could do” – would be “to settle the scientific dispute”. And to do so by “finally scotching claims” that he thinks are not based on established fact.
But, for the courts to purport to settle a legitimate scientific disagreement, would strike at the essence of the Scientific Method – the basis of scientific practice for over 150 years. It would risk bringing international law into disrepute.
Professor Sands may consider that a risk worth taking. However he might perhaps note that it’s not disputes about science that are making it so difficult to reach a global agreement to reduce GHG emissions. The problem derives from the understandable wish of the developing countries – responsible for about 70% of global GHG emissions and comprising 82% of the world’s population (including virtually all the world’s poorest people) – to develop their economies and to eradicate poverty. Following China’s example, they believe that the provision of reliable, affordable energy, derived largely from fossil fuels, is the best way of achieving these goals. And the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change specifically entitles them to give such action overriding priority.
Robin Guenier, October 2015”
70
It brings to mind two of the greatest Fails in recent history: the Inquisition (Galileo) and Piltdown Man. The only upside to Piltdown Man is that it was a hoax right from the start.
Same as CAGW*.
History repeats.
Because idiots insist on it. Prof Sands should be reminded of that.
*(The enhanced Faraday Tyndall Arrhenius hypothesis has been proven wrong through over 70 papers over the last century and the Maxwell Clausius Carnot theory was proven correct by Feynman in the 1950s, yet the IPCC resurrected the Arrhenius idea because it suited the IPCC’s agenda, which makes it a deliberate hoax.)
80
Since very few skeptics deny that some CO2-induced warming has occurred in the period 1950-97, such a law carries little threat. And it should be phrased generally. Anyone denying scientific fact like “satellites show zero warming since 1997” should also be liable to the penalties of denial.
112
Make no mistake, such a law would have but one purpose. To stifle any remaining expressions of dissent that social, academic, commercial or pecuniary pressure had so far failed to.
Citizens of all but the more recently Westernised Democracies are largely ill equipped to resist
60
I deny that there is any scientific proof that any measurable warming has ever been caused by CO2.
Geologists have not found any evidence of a CO2 – average temperature relationship in climate history, EXCEPT for natural caused warming of the oceans causing them to release CO2 in the air 500 to 1,000 years later.
There is evidence that warming increases CO2 — there is no proof of the opposite relationship.
Why believe anything without proof?
I question everything.
I assume nothing.
I am an “ultra-denier” — I believe the deniers are not skeptical enough !
Not that this really matters:
(1) More CO2 in the air is good news for plants, and the people and animals who eat them.
(2) Moderate global warming is good news
(3) Global cooling is bad news.
Note: (1) is supported by a huge number of scientific experiments, while (2) and (3) are supported by anecdotal written records.
170
Totally agree Richard.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/weekend-unthreaded-96/#comment-1753001
60
“deny that some CO2-induced warming has occurred in the period 1950-97”
Excuse me ????
There is absolutely NO CO2 warming signature in the whole 36 years of the satellite data, despite that being a period of higher CO2 than last century….
The only warming in the satellite data is the approx. 0.26C step caused by the prolonged 1997-2001 El Nino and associated events. The slight warming trend before has been cancelled by the slight cooling trend after.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/plot/rss/from:2001.2/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1996/trend/plot/rss/from:2001.2/trend/offset:-.26
And between 1940 and 1970 there was cooling (if you examine un-gavinated data).
It is totally illogical that CO2 was warming the planet last century, then suddenly stopped warming the planet this century.
131
Another name for “un-gavinated tempertaures” is “tamperatures”
80
Andrew…it was your last sentence I green ticked, not what went before.
21
Any pretend law that purports such extraordinary power, requires extraordinary evidence. There is none and therefore void ab initio.
70
Matty, you have been seduced by the headline – see Kevin’s link above leading to Robin Guerniers take down of the sad Professor Sands who wants the UNs International Court of Justice to decide the issue. Clearly he hasn’t actually READ the treaty which would be the only legal basis of the ICJ intervention.
UNCFCC Article 7 (2) ” The Conference of the parties, as the supreme body of this convention…..”
Article 14 Settlement of Disputes:
In any dispute between parties a party my submit the dispute to the ICJ only if the other parties agree.
Ironically the EU as “a regional economic integration organisation” can only submit a dispute to any process decided by the COP and has no right to engage the ICJ.
In other words nobody, accept the COP itself, can submit the question to the ICJ and the Professor is talking ‘fait le cul’ as usual.
Indeed it seems to me that the framing of a “Denial” statute will encounter the problems which arose in South Africa over the “Immorality Act” strictly necessary for their social policy.
Now there’s an idea- perhaps we can develop a concept here – “academic apartheid”.
70
Here is the draft document for the paris global warming scam meeting…………..very scary !!
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/69/L.85&Lang=E
Australia must not sign this communist document !!!!!!!!!!
Turncoat turnbull – the minister for goldman sachs and carbon dioxide (plant food) trading.
He has to go.
Global warming is the greatest scam in human history !!
Carbon dioxide is plant food and not pollution !!!!!!
40
More proof that they fear us. No one goes to such an extent to silence someone he does not fear. We need to keep confronting the world with the lack of evidence for man caused climate change, the doctored up data, the propaganda, etc., none of which match what you can observe every day if you just take a good look.
Revolutions have begun over being silenced. We must stick with our cause and not give in.
10
Frankly, as skeptical as I am of the proposition that increasing atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentration will make climate catastrophe more likely—and that increasing global average temperature won’t actually make it less likely—I’ve never been able to get as exercised as the bloggers over the term denier.
What does bother me is the term progressive as used, for example, in the head post. Most “progressives” oppose the use of fossil fuels, which has raised billions from poverty, freed up manpower to cure disease, and provided the resources to clean up the environment: if there’s anything they are not for, it’s progress.
120
I prefer the term “REGRESSIVES” in referring to the far-left-wing anti-progress cult.
111
I personally think that the key problem for the “Progressive” movement was the Copernican Revolution and the unseating of the Authoritarian Dogma (of the Church/King), and the decentralization of Humanity with a shift to a reason/evidence based paradigm for understanding the world.
I.e Progressives need the following as core features of their world view.
[1] Humans are significant, cosmically important, and powerful agents in the world – as opposed to insignificant, cosmically irrelevant, and largely powerless.
[2] Authority determines the facts and enforces compliance by punishing unbelievers.
The Modern world is the problem – the Medieval world is the solution.
Yes – I use the term Regressive from time to time to describe them. It’s important to understand the psychological need for intellectual and emotional security that drives them to cling to Authoritarian power and knowledge structures.
80
Progressive hinderance and destruction of all benefits wrought by technical civil society.
Progressive; Like rust.
Progressive as the Blind worms gnawing on the foundations of civilization.
They are progressing very well at the moment.
The over abundance of persons feeding from the public trough, actively hindering the activities of those who fill that trough, implies the progressives have almost reached peak success for such destructive activities.
Forward.
Lemmings first.
10
http://www.gifbin.com/bin/320sw0sw7847.webm
00
Wot’s in a name? Regarding ‘skeptical’
versus ‘unskeptical,’ I would have thought
the latter precluded the scientific method,
(Feynman.) Also a requisite for science, i’d
say is ‘curiosity.’
Personally, something I’m skeptical about
are those model projections on which to
build a case for CAGW and we must act NOW!
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/figure-1-4-models-vs-observations-annotated.png
90
Another link, Marcia Wyatt at Climate Etc
‘ A perspective on uncertainty and climate
science.’ One of her charts highlighting
the problems of understanding a complex
interacting system.
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/slide02.png
70
When asked if I’m a denier I simply say that I keep an open mind. That either encourages them not to feel threatened, opening them to discussion or drives the inquisitor potty, depending on the character involved.
If anyone gets singled out it tends to become them by their own actions.
100
Unskeptical ‘science’ believed,
Their models which left them deceived,
Though their faith was so strong,
Real skeptics claimed wrong,
To heed ‘data’they thought preconceived.
130
This is a catastrophe.
Denier was a great name, since it was so far from the truth — it is the warmists who actually “deny” 4.5 billion years of climate change — for them climate change started with the ramp-up of manmade CO2 after 1940 … and as if to demonstrate how dumb their CO2-greenhouse theory was, manmade CO2 in the air increased rapidly from 1940 to 1976 … and the average temperature went DOWN !
Leftists are always going to call us names — could have been worse than “denier”.
Skepticism is the most important characteristic of clear-thinking scientists.
In protest to the AP, I’m going to call myself a Skeptical Denier.
I believe few deniers are skeptical enough !
In time I hope they will move in my direction:
(1) Global warming is good news,
(2) More CO2 in the air is good news, and
(3) No one can predict the future climate — the computer games are climate astrology, and even Mr. Evans’ model is likely to be wrong — it’s impossible to model a process that is poorly understood — climate change is a process with a lot of questions and few answers.
(4) Optional: Call leftists “warmunists” (makes them go berserk, like throwing a banana in the monkey cage at the zoo)
PS: That was a joke.
I actually have great respect for monkeys.
171
How is this a catastrophe? Names come and go like flies. I’m still what I was before the AP decided to change their style guide, so is Jo and so are you. The cause is still the same — find the truth.
The fight will go on regardless of the AP.
10
The catastrophe line was just a joke. Many of my jokes are not immediately, or ever, recognized as jokes. However I will continue trying to be funny. Because my wife appreciates my humor, and often compares me to Rodney Dangerfield: “You look a lot like Rodney Dangerfield”.
10
It is better to be lucky than smart
It is my strong belief that that is the best we got as predictors of the future
someone eventually looks smart
and usually they were ignored or called names at first
AP isn’t being noble
they are just being forced to recognize that nature is running the table
my prediction is that the warmists will soon be burning their uniforms
I’m feeling lucky
60
A few once tried “burning their uniforms” to blend into the crowds but ended up at Nuremberg anyway……
60
This old favourite tub thumper always makes me smile.
Let’s here it one more time before the term gets lost forever in the anals of political correctness 😉
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx-t9k7epIk
50
I think they started using “denier” in a effort to lump us in with Holocaust deniers. One can deny the Holocaust (in the face of overwhelming evidence), but you can’t deny the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy, because there aren’t any (sorry, Billy).
They also went from “global warming” to ‘climate change’. We’ll see what name they’ll use next.
In another arena, the went from “Socialist” to “Progressive” when they found out that “socialist” doesn’t have the same warm fuzzy feeling it used to.
50
“Rejects mainstream science?” This is the new packaging of consensus science by AP. If enough people agree with something, it must be right, a sort of scientific and populist democracy. Rene Descartes would be appalled. Peer review? That means sending your work to someone you already know agrees with you.
The word skeptic has backfired on the name callers. Simply because skeptic is the core definition of a scientist. Now the name callers want to reclaim it. It means the edifice of people agreeing with each other is collapsing, if only because the world is not warming.
So the long IPCC retreat from frozen Copenhagen to Paris began in 2009, fighting rearguard actions all the way. Now the carbon tax empire is collapsing and the name calling is ineffective, Pachauri is gone and the skeptics are winning and ‘the science is in’ something. Their only hope is Malcolm Turnbull, a traitor to the electorate, promising a new tax to save his friends. We all have good reason to be sceptics.
After all, the fundamental prediction of man made Global Warming is entirely wrong. Who cares about the failed logic? There is no need to be skeptical anymore. After two decades and trillions of dollars, the warmists are just wrong. Now what to do with 220,000 windmills?
50
There’s a penchant these days to fight loose and hard by ‘redefining’ words and terms. ‘Climate change’ is now a classic example that a UN committee politicised by stealing it from common English usage by imposing their own definition on it. It is a transparent and deliberately obfuscating tactic. So, the life-cycle of ‘skeptic’ has done its dash. In time the nonsense of ‘climate change’ will follow.
PS Jo.
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry = CSI
40
This post got me thinking about the Australian Sceptics whose numbers have included fervent climate hysterics Dick Smith and Phillip Adams.
The internet is a wonderful resource and a little clicking led me to a paper which I think is the text of a small booklet now out of print called Greenhouse Hokum by R J Long dated Brisbane 1988.
It’s well worth reading, it’s not some ‘sky dragon’ nonsense, but a remarkably clear and even prescient summary of the then known science (which hasn’t progressed much except for computer power) and the motivations of the CAGW pushers.
Well worth reading.
110
manalive
Have read about one quarter of it..
all this was going on back in 1988.
It is very well written and before its time. A great find, that someone could so clearly state the main issues.
What is troubling is that this Global Warming Death by CO2 Induced Incineration monster has been on the loose for so long
and is still threatening to bring western civilization to its knees
KK
90
Bout half way through and it is brilliant.
KK
40
Jo, I didn’t read through all the comments, so pardon me if this has been mentioned.
As an American car lover and former gearhead I *must* take extreme exception to your “T-Model Ford” wording.
It is the “Model-T Ford” (and don’t you forget it!).
60
Ford, Model-T!
10
Jo,
A few years ago my wife read an ad for “Sceptics in the pub” in our local paper.
The idea was that the sceptics organisation in a nearby town would meet over a pub meal to be followed by a discussion.
During the usual “who am I and why am I here” session, I said I was a “climate sceptic”. I might as well have said I was a “pedophile ax murderer”.
The leader of the group finally responded “We’re thinking of changing the name of our group so people don’t think we’re climate change deniers.”
“Do you want us to leave?” I ventured?
During the course of the evening I heard from a woman who believed in flying saucers and a particularly gutsy fundamentalist Christian who was unashamedly using the group to defend against attacks on his beliefs. He got plenty of practice.
Finally, near the end, one member explained the precautionary principle loudly and slowly so even I’d understand. “If I had a mole on my arm and the doctor suggested removing it, I’d go ahead even if there was a chance it wasn’t cancerous.” This was greeted by knowing nods and smiles from the rest of the members, all except Ms. Space Invader who was, I believe having an actual visitation.
My response “Well, would you still agree if the diagnosis was to cut off both your arms and legs even if the doctor had made his diagnosis based on your astrology chart?”
For some reason we have not been invited back.
Pat
120
Pat
I’m an old man now but it has only been in the last few years that I have come to grips with the absolutely bizarre nature
of the human bean in society.
I must have been brainwashed as a kid to believe that stuff about a civil society and democracy and “doing the right thing”.
I obviously shut out so much so that I could concentrate on getting past all of the issues faced as a worker, a parent and member of society.
The reality is that we are pushed and moved mentally by group behavior and we want to belong.
Hard to resist, hard to spend a large part of your life learning the unbreakable rules of science and nature only to find yourself stuck in
a Religio-Politico CO2 Propaganda nightmare. At least we are in a better place than the euro-zone; they are stuffed.
What incentive is there to work, save and build when at any moment your town May be selected by Bruxelles to host another 150,000 new voters for you and yours, being rich and effluent, can now support.
KK
70
Did you mean effluent rather than affluent KK?!
40
🙂
Both Annie
bruxelles sees the non voters of the eeu as both if I’m not mistaken
30
I thought you might say that!
30
So you are both Annie and there is only one hue.
Everyone is changing icons.
🙂
10
I hadn’t noticed my icon had changed. It has happened before and then changed back to the original. Hmmm! Is that WordPress at work? I am the original Annie, I don’t know of another, so far!
00
Oh…old one back again!
00
Check the spelling of the email address you used. I think the picture you get is dependent on the exact email address. Try it — just spell it differently and click preview. Than correct it and click preview.
I discovered this completely by accident by getting my email address wrong and saw the changed picture only after I had posted the comment.
10
KK,
Those of us who do the real work that keeps society going always get the shaft if you know what I mean. After 47 years of working to create something that my employer would only pay me for if I created what he wanted, I’m sick at the way the world has become seduced by the “free lunch”.
20
Free, of course, at my expense and yours because we stole what we created and built from those who do not create or build.
30
The day comes when they finally realize (usually too late) that RAH was correct: TANSTAAFL!
00
Pat Lane,
The word zoo comes to mind. 😉
10
Sorry to post this again but I am doing so for those that haven’t yet seen it. Why can’t Australia have some informed and intelligent pollies like US Senator Ted Cruz who understands the myth of CAGW?
https://youtu.be/Sl9-tY1oZNw
61
5 Oct: New Statesman: Emad Ahmed: “Climate doubters”: Associated Press changes the way it refers to climate change deniers
Does the news agency’s style guide change create false equivalence?
Seth Borenstein, AP’s climate science journalist, tried (miserably) to defend the change on NPR’s On the Media radio show. At one point, the host Bob Garfield kindly cuts Borenstein off by stating the reporter was trying to create a “false balance” after he said there should be two sides to the climate change discussion. Borenstein hit back saying he had never been accused of false balance, not realising he was just being accused of it that very moment.
He continued his defence by insisting the word “denier” has negative connotations due to it being used to describe those who dispute the Holocaust. But Holocaust deniers ignore facts just like climate change deniers, and are never socially accommodated.
“Climate denier” is the most sensible term because such individuals don’t recognise the reality of the ever-changing world shown by science that the climate is warming due to human activity. You only have to look at the current Republican presidential candidates to get an idea of the type of people who don’t engage with modern research.
***After all, the major conservative parties in other large countries seem to be at peace with recognising the existence of climate change…
http://www.newstatesman.com/2015/10/climate-doubters-associated-press-changes-way-it-refers-climate-change-deniers
***indeed. almost all EU Govts are conservative and all claim to believe in CAGW, as do many individual US Republicans, Australian Liberals & conservative govts in “small countries” (as opposed to New Statesman’s “large countries”).
I am not left/right/centre or any other political label, but I voted for so-called “left” parties (until I started voting informally long before I became CAGW sceptical, based on the Climategate emails/BBC Paul Hudson’s “Whatever happened to global warming?” article and subsequent research of my own).
when I did believe in CAGW, I had the sense like many friends from the left/right/centre & no politics, who are now CAGW sceptical for the most part, to realise I was merely believing, because there was no way I could KNOW if CAGW was real. it certainly wasn’t evident, especially as Climategate exploded long after the PAUSE had begun.
40
Obtuse generalisations are meant to mean something “sciency” are they.??
Lets play generalisations then…”accept the science” is accept without any form of critical thinking a consensus view..is that okay >????..it means nothing and is a lousy appeal to authority.
Most people who “support climate action”..whatever that garble means… are mostly from the left…you must have missed that.
Here is a question..how come most left wing “climate change advocates” dont know anything about the actual science…
And most from the left are incapable of reading climate audit.com..dont care about data manipulation dont care about the trillions that have vanished “fighting climate change”..and all to the man use cars and are connected to the grid..???
Hang your flipping head…
Thanks..more critical thinkers must come from the right..you must have seen that coming..??
Yes it does…see my points about the green world view…and left wing indoctrination is obviously working if you can come up with such asinine and dumb questions.
Were you demonstrating against the finkelstein enquiries conclusions.???.which would have been insane..of course not..you were asleep and missed it…like most stuff.
I get sick of talking to hypocritical lefties who know zero about the subject and basically have a mildly insane world view about science…yet know nothing about it..
And when cornered..think that by not knowing anything..protects them from answering questions…
Brilliant tactic team $CAGW$.
I am guessing your about 14 years old.??
70
.. and communicating from mummy’s basement.
Apologies to basements everywhere. Communicating is too nice a word I feel.
50
Maybe this is of some explanation >>> https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-GZjFFdpmJWE/VgiRFai5wvI/AAAAAAABap0/AlFqkhOpOl8/s557/c59b0644-0c2b-48c0-9d49-da37df549682
I suspect that there will be many of these at the upcoming ‘Last Hoorah ‘ of the Paris Climate Marxists’ Hajj , anxious to sign away our freedoms, rights , and wealth in particular !
Someone has to fund their eternal dole checks !!!
00
Slightly OT but this poll result on Andrew Bolt’s sight is enlightening. Can you see who loves Turnbull ? I’m referring to the second poll –part way down the article.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/newspoll_no_lead_for_liberals_under_turnbull/#commentsmore
20
Yep, at this rate the Libs could easily walk away from the Coalition and Turnbull would have his broad church.
30
10 Oct: Washington Times: Kellan Howell: EPA spends millions on military-style weapons, watchdog group reports
The Environmental Protection Agency has spent millions of dollars over the last decade on military-style weapons to arm its 200 “special agents” to fight environmental crime.
Among the weapons purchased are guns, body armor, camouflage equipment, unmanned aircraft, amphibious assault ships, radar and night-vision gear and other military-style weaponry and surveillance activities, according to a new report by the watchdog group Open the Books…
“Our report discovered that when the EPA comes knocking they are armed with a thousand lawyers, arrest/criminal data, credit, business and property histories, plus a ‘Special Agent’ with the latest in weaponry and technology,” Mr. Andrzejewski added.
The agency spends nearly $75 million each year for criminal enforcement, including money for a small militia of 200 “special agents” charged with fighting environmental crime…
Among the findings were hundreds of millions of dollars on high-end office furnishings, sports equipment and “environmental justice” grants to raise awareness of global warming.
The report also reveals that seven of 10 EPA employees make more than $100,000 a year and more than 12,000 of its 16,000 employees were given bonuses last year despite budget cuts.
The EPA also employs more than 1,000 attorneys, making it one of the largest law firms in the country…
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/10/epa-spends-millions-on-military-style-weapons-repo/
40
spooky
30
Carbon is a dangerous environmental pollutant, didn’t you know? The EPA needs its own private army to deal with Karbon Kriminals.
60
One has to question how this can possibly be legal, even in the US.
40
It is NOT Constitutional but that hasn’t stopped the Federal government with the help of a compliant Supreme Court from doing what they please.
20
Ross –
I’ve posted the following on Bolt’s thread – hope it gets through the mods!
guess publishing the poll Monday instead of the usual Tuesday wasn’t to quickly cover for the jeering at the conference, but to mark the opening day of Parliament? lol.
if the greens overwhelmingly love the new PM, why does The Australian report “Based on preference flows from the last election, the one-point shift from the Coalition to the Greens lifts Labor’s two-party vote”?
why doesn’t The Australian report what only PollBludger William Bowe seems to have reported “The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1631, by ***automated phone and ***online polling.”?
***so easily manipulated.
Sky’s Kieran Gilbert on radio with Mike McLaren this morning was utterly dismissive of disgruntled liberals or public dis-satisfaction over the PM’s lack of proper response to the murder of Curtis Cheng. they have nowhere to go, so they’ll be back voting for the party was Gilbert’s attitude.
—
Gilbert also claimed security & intel services in canberra are thrilled with Turnbull’s low-key response to the killing of Curtis Cheng – it’s just what they wanted he said.
Sky News is ecstatic:
12 Oct: Sky News: Turnbull’s approval soars in Newspoll
The latest Newspoll shows ***voters believe the Liberal Party did the right thing by replacing Tony Abbott…
***I thought Labor/Greens were thrilled Abbott was PM, because it meant they would win the next election!
11 Oct: Crikey: PollBludger: William Bowe: Newspoll: 50-50
The second Newspoll since the leadership change delivers MalcolmTurnbull a strong result on personal approval, but an unexpectedly weak one on voting intention.
The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1631, by ***automated phone and ***online polling.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2015/10/11/newspoll-50-50-10/
Bolt has new thread which includes “Reader Dani said TWO standing ovations at the NSW Liberal council for Tony Abbott”
THE INCESSANT POLLING AND REPORTING ON POLLING (ABC & FAIRFAX RADIO NEWS JUMPED ON THIS NEWSPOLL OVERNIGHT AS MORE PROOF OF TURNBULL’S POPULARITY) IS DEGRADING OUR DEMOCRACY. IT’S ALL DODGY POLLING TO ME, EXCEPT FOR THE DAY OR SO BEFORE AN ELECTION WHEN THEY USUALLY PUT OUT SOMETHING CLOSER TO REALITY IN ORDER TO SAVE FACE.
60
A quote from Richard Lindzen says it all ….. ” Grotesque Misrepresentation ” and ” We have this kind of Idiocy ” !!!
Pretty well sums up the True B’lver Brethren and CAGW fraud in general !
Money ( so called Renewables), Political Agenda ( Marxist New World Governance by an unelected U.N.), and general eco – loons ( probably watched Avatar too many times ) ……the major makeup of the upcoming Paris Climate Hajj!!!
The latest ….. Who needs Science when you have CONsensus and Propaganda ???
Herr Goebbels , would be proud !!!
All this CAGW / CACC garbage or whatever the Trendites call it this month , needs to be put to the sword , and its instigators imprisoned and /or institutionalized !!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9bEOB3x0dQ
https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10151822_780828808674484_3962412029208471167_n.jpg?oh=edcb408f1fb801632d81f941380c2234&oe=56919895
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYj5baVfB0Y
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/climate-change-warnings-over-the-years.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB2Ft3t7ceg
CAGW /CACC = Great big World Government , Great big new taxes , and great big new regulations ,which suit only the self proclaimed ruling class …..little wonder , that this junk science keeps persisting , not to mention a multi trillion dollar global industry , all on the tax payer !
40
I agree that “Regressive” is an apt label for those who believe human-induced CO2 concentration increase is a problem and should be solved by global redistribution of wealth.
50
“Denier”: A measure of fineness of weave in negligee, stockings, etc.; Alternative unit of measure: “Tex”.
We can now grade ourselves according to our opacity:
“0 denier” = see-through;
“70 denier” = opaque.
It makes just as much sense!?
40
Something to singalong to at the upcoming Paris Medieval Climate Hajj >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx-t9k7epIk
40
Something to singalong to at the upcoming Paris Medieval Climate Hajj >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx-t9k7epIk
40
I hadn’t seen that one.
20
The Associated Press (AP) is the spawn of 5 NYC newspapers. As such, English is not the first language of the AP. Please, be not too harsh on them. {Wordsmithing is tough!}
50
Perhaps they should just report the news and not add commentary. Then the name problem would disappear for them.
10
Journalists and consensual Scientists… !
I wonder how the press treated those who were skeptical of the “Piltdown man” discovery and how for over 40+ years they reported on it as the truth. (I always was led to believe journalists sought after the truth). But what were the Press doing during all those decades… and where was the scientific community ?
It would seem we are in yet another period of news reporting “fogs” and Institutionalized Scientific impotence, Perhaps it will require a repeat performance of an Australian to uncover the truth.
50
Jo
You might have to censor!
“consensual scientists” – I once overheard a comment re a local newspaper on a staff transfer to the tune of “Who do you have to bed now to get your picture in the paper?”
Could well work the other way I suppose.
20
First, CO2 and water are plant food. We would seem to want more, not less. Get rid of all the CO2, and we all die. Why support this lunacy?
Second, after four and a half billion years, the Earth’s surface is no longer molten. It has definitely and most assuredly cooled. This happened in spite of CO2 levels being far higher in the past.
It might be that “anthropogenic” CO2 behaves differently. Maybe 400 ppm of “anthropogenic” CO2 warms things, where 7000 ppm of “natural” CO2 doesn’t – well, 7000 ppm in the past didn’t manage to stop the surface cooling, did it? Maybe “anthropogenic” CO2 is filled with n Rays, or orgone energy! Super phlogiston, even!
What a laugh! Fact determined by consensus? Maybe by journalists? Next thing you’ll be trying to tell me that “climatology” (the study of historical weather averages) is a “science”!
Try and find a climatologist who can tell you how the “climate” of Tasmania is defined in scientific terms, and get him to produce a graph showing how it has changed in the last 100 years! Oh well, I suppose we have an instinctive need to believe the unbelievable.
60
DiHodrogen Monoxide, in the view of the alarmists, is a serious chemical hazard; one you can never wash off your skin once exposed.
10
Dihydrogen Monoxide FAQ
On April 1, 1998, a member of the Australian Parliament announced a campaign to ban dihydrogen monoxide internationally.
In 2001 a staffer in New Zealand Green Party MP Sue Kedgley’s office responded to a request for support for a campaign to ban dihydrogen monoxide by saying she was “absolutely supportive of the campaign to ban this toxic substance”.
Neal Boortz mentioned on the air that the Atlanta water system had been checked and found to be contaminated with dihydrogen monoxide. A local TV station even covered the ‘scandal’. A spokesperson for the city’s water system told the reporter that there was no more dihydrogen monoxide in the system than what was allowed under the law.
Actress Kris McGaha and a camera crew gathered signatures from people considering themselves “concerned environmentalists” to sign a petition to ban DHMO.
In 2007 Jacqui Dean, New Zealand National Party MP, wrote a letter to Associate Minister of Health Jim Anderton asking “Does the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs have a view on the banning of this drug?”
In February 2011, during the campaign of the Finnish parliamentary election, a voting advice application asked the candidates whether the availability of “hydric acid also known as dihydrogen monoxide” should be restricted. 49% of the candidates answered in favor of the restriction.
(above from WIKI)
Do we really want these people who allow emotion to rule them in control of our lives?
30
Sounds like an episode of this hour has 22 minutes’ “Talking to Americans”
00
DiHydrogen Monoxide, in the view of the alarmists, is a serious chemical hazard; one you can never wash off your skin once exposed. (oops sorry for the earlier finger problems)
20
I think I am a “normalist” – I believe the weather will remain normal. As for the climate, that is just prediction, so it is irrelevant.
You can’t predict the future and you’ll never be able to! (see what I did there ;))
80
Funny thing, all weather is normal. Even if humans are having some effect on it, so what? That’s normal too.
20
I’m a sceptic, not a skeptic.
70
I c.
30
Same here RoHa
20
good to see Orlowski on CAGW at the Reg again:
2 pages: 11 Oct: UK Register: Andrew Orlowski: Top boffin Freeman Dyson on climate change, interstellar travel, fusion, and more
When physics gurus speak, they speak to El Reg
What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger. It’s clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago. I can’t say if they’ll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable…
It’s very sad that in this country political opinion parted. I’m 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side…READ ALL
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/11/freeman_dyson_interview/
30
btw I worded the bit about Orlowski badly. I didn’t mean he’d been away from The Reg, but that he hadn’t been doing the CAGW stories.
40
If there was a modern complaint, it is about “Climate Change”. The world has thousands of climates and they change over decades. Remember the terrible dust storms in the US in the 1930s. The seas rise and fall over millenia. Lakes drain and the monsoons stop and new lakes form. Europe has lost all its glaciers in a mere 10,000 years, so the time homo sapiens has been in Europe, which is why people can live there now.
Firstly there is the unspoken implication that “Climates Should Not Change” when in fact Climates have always changed. North Africa for example, from a monsoonal tropic to 80 million people trapped in the narrow Nile valley, up to 90% of all Egyptians in a 35 metre deep valley often only a few hundred metres across. About 3500BC, the fresh water Black Sea rose 300 metres when the Bosphorous crashed,creating the legend of Noah and driving a mass exodus. You can read about it in the Bible. Climate Change. The Aral sea was drying up from the time of Alexander and so was the Caspian, but it is clearly Climate Change. Islands have been emerging and vanishing in the Pacific, but if someone lives on them, that should stop immediately and someone should pay. Especially coral atolls, formed as islands sink.
Then there is the idea that man and man alone has caused unwanted, dangerous and irreversible Climate Change. No one has even offered an opinion on how this Climate Change works, but if you say it is not true, you are a denier. Now a skeptic is in the very odd position of not knowing which part to question first as the press now do not even bother to report an actual argument.
The easiest path is that it is all true. Whatever the press says. About anything. 97% of ‘Climate’ scientists, a job which never existed before, has become 97% of all scientists according to President Barack Obama. Al Gore, Tim Flannery, all are now ‘climate scientists’. It is a cheap, self awarded qualification.
Even speculative Man Made Global Warming has segwayed to “Climate Change” without any change in temperature. So the very difficult part is knowing what to be sceptical about, as any real science argument has long ceased. It is all true, because the President of the United States says it is and he is a lawyer. Christiana Figureres, anthropologist and the IPCC head appointed by her family which run Costa Rica agrees. We should all be communists and hand over the cash.
What’s a skeptic to do when there is nothing to be skeptical about? Having lived at sea level through twenty years of this nonsense, I have yet to see a single thing change. I do remember a long drought though. Climate Change then.
80
Has anybody clarified John Cook’s CV? Typically, someone of his age who earned a science degree from a third-rate university would have most often become a lab tech or a high school science teacher. Much less often, a science journalist. But, in any case, John Cook didn’t get a PhD scholarship to Oxbridge or MIT or Stanford or Caltech or Harvard or Princeton or Berkeley. Or any other highly competitive real-science PhD scholarship.
I became skeptical/ skeptical about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming after the U East Anglia-Climate Research Unit emails were leaked (not hacked, but effectively proved to be a UEA worker-insider’s release).
After four years working and learning under honest scientists, I was exposed to high-federally-funded fake science. I was co-authored on a fake result. I quit research, The results were only “slightly doctored” nearly really observed, but I knew it was misinformation-promulgation.
In the leaked UAE-CRU emails, the crooks talked about:
A. Removing weather/climate data that could be subject to FOIA requests. That’s fraud.
B. Lobbying for removal of unsympathetic climate-science-journal editors.
C. Redefining “peer review”.
D. “Hiding the decline” and “Mike’s Nature Trick” referring to setting up a specific proxy-climate record from 1000 AD to 1960 AD, but hiding the same proxies’ data after 1960, because they showed global cooling.”
I recognized these emails for what they were: antiscientific tomfoolery. Interestingly they were produced by “scientists” who had attended second- and third-rate universities, and were working at such.
John Cook’s 97% study should have had the disclaimer, I’m working on my psychology degree at a third-rate university, and I’ve discovered what third-rate scientists believe. 100% admit that without government grants, they’d have no careers, and 99% admit that marijuana smoking helped them to see reality.
30
Yale-educated Kolbert, who flies wherever whenever, says fear is the answer:
10 Oct: Irish Times: Lisa Marlowe: Is Paris treaty all that stands between us and mass extinction?
Author Elizabeth Kolbert says fear, not morality, could impel people to act
We are now rushing headlong into a sixth mass extinction, but this time the culprit is man, Elizabeth Kolbert writes in her best-selling book, The Sixth Extinction; An Unnatural History, which won a Pulitzer Prize last April.
***Kolbert travelled the world, from the Americas to the Great Barrier Reef to Europe, to document vanishing frogs, bats, rhinoceroses, coral…
Kolbert’s book explains the “dark synergy” between climate change, the acidification of the oceans and “fragmentation” – the fact that “Tundra is crisscrossed by pipelines . . . Ranches and plantations and hydroelectric projects slice through the rainforest”…
“So far,” Kolbert said, “there is not a clearly documented case of a species driven to extinction by climate change.” But global warming is pushing temperatures to extremes not seen for hundreds of millions of years. Life forms may not be able to adapt. “All the scientific literature predicts that climate change will become a major driver of extinction over this century.”
Humans are already fleeing the results of climate change, especially in Africa. “The refugee crisis in Europe should be a wake-up call,” Kolbert said. “It’s a vision of what’s to come in a world where life is going to get harder and harder.”…
Almost no one in Europe now doubts the reality of climate change.
“Europeans are coming to it from the perspective of a continent that saw terrible things in the past century. They’ve come to believe in the need for global co-operation.
“I don’t think that consciousness has come to every part of the world yet. In the US, we still have presidential candidates who are doing extremely well in the polls who deny global warming exists…
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/is-paris-treaty-all-that-stands-between-us-and-mass-extinction-1.2385995
Kolbert is ex-NYT, now New Yorker.
the following novel-length piece on another jet-setter, Figueres, still rates as one of the most hilarious pieces ever written on CAGW:
24 Aug: New Yorker: Elizabeth Kolbert: The Weight of the World
Can Christiana Figueres persuade humanity to save itself?
In contrast to most diplomats, who cultivate an air of professional reserve, Figueres is emotive to the point of disarming—“a mini-volcano” is how one of her aides described her to me. She laughs frequently—a hearty, ha-ha-ha chortle—and weeps almost as often. “I walk around with Kleenex,” another aide told me.
Figueres, who is fifty-nine, is an avid runner—the first time I met her, she was hobbling around with blisters acquired from a half marathon—and an uninhibited dancer…
“I’m very comfortable with the word ‘revolution,’ ” Figueres told me. “In my experience, revolutions have been very positive.”…
***Figueres spends much of her time travelling around the globe…
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/24/the-weight-of-the-world
60
“pat”,
Seriously what do these imbeciles use for a brain ?
Clearly they have nothing between their ears !!
60
Except, of course, for the innocents who are murdered in the name of the revolution.
20
Extinction? Extinction from what? Being so successful that we have the greatest safety from harm the human race has ever known, unprecedented longevity, freedom from hunger… …the list is too long to reiterate. So there are problems, the situation is improving because of the very technology they want to condemn to oblivion.
Maybe there will be war. But extinction? No way.
20
Andrew Revkin: Governments need to take panic out of climate change (theAustralian)
. . .
Panic is all they have!
If there is no urgency, there is no emergency!
60
‘…avoid a generation forming opinions based on poor or biased data.’
Too late, they have already been brainwashed.
50
The real problem is that it’s already firmly embedded in public policy all over the world. The governor of California just signed into law a bill requiring all electricity in the state to be from “renewable” sources by 2030. I can cite other cases for you (the EPA for one) but this should tell us all that the urgency has already nearly panicked those who govern us.
There is an emergency. And real or not real isn’t the question. It’s being shoved down our throats right now as I type this.
The agreement that counts for anything is already in place. 🙁
30
PS:
Good luck, Jerry, you’ll need it. The last current percentage from renewable I saw was about 3%. But even if it’s now greater than that it’s an insignificant part of the total.
10
Correction: 50% of all electricity in the state to be from renewables by 2030.
I need some coffee.
10
Some rum would make it easier to tolerate the green-freaks….copious amounts of rum!
00
OT: I was accosted yesterday at the local hardware store while I was explaining to my grandaughter why I don’t use CFL bulbs and the pollution issue regarding them. Some green-freak woman was literally shrieking at me for failing to realize that I was destroying the planet.
00
Bill,
I don’t know if you’ll see this but go back to the same hardware store and argue the benefits of LED bulbs and see what your antagonist says. Some of them are actually worth talking about now. Those made by an outfit named Cree are taking over space on the shelves at my local Home Depot and I’ve had 11 of them in service, some since January of this year and not a single failure. Out of a dozen CFLs I bought last year only 3 have not failed and one of them was never in service at all. The other 2 were in use but replaced when 1 of the 3 in a fixture failed. That’s what I call a good example of a bad example.
You can’t beat a 24 – 25,000 hour rated lifetime measured against failure of the CFLs within less than 100 hours for most of that original batch of a dozen.
10
I should be complete here. Making the LED chips and associated electronics has its associated pollution and disposal problems too. But at least it’s not mercury and it’s a well understood industrial waste and electronics disposal problem.
And you can drop one or stomp it into the ground for that matter and nothing is likely to be released into the environment, toxic or otherwise.
10
A nice merlot too!
00
here’s a Poll you can bank on!! Reuters’ analyst is first off the rank, while Bloomberg comes in as #3:
9 Oct: ReutersCarbonPulse: Mike Szabo: POLL: Analysts raise EU carbon price estimates, big jump for 2018-2020
Analysts have increased their estimates for EU carbon prices, modestly raising their forecasts for end-2015 and 2016 compared to the last Carbon Pulse poll while boosting, on average, their expectations for EUAs by at least 9% for the final four years of Phase 3 (2013-2020).
Front-year EU Allowance futures will end 2015 at €8.60, according to the mean estimate of 11 forecasts submitted by analysts…
From 2017 onward, most of the analysts were more bullish compared to three months ago…
The analysts raised their longer-term forecasts by even larger margins; They predicted prices would end 2018 at €13.35 (up 17.1% from the previous forecast), end 2019 at €15.95 (up 24.6%), and end 2020 at €19.05 (up 13.1%)…
Below are selected comments from the analysts supporting their latest price forecasts:
#1) Marcus Ferdinand, Thomson Reuters Point Carbon: “We think that increased confidence in the stability of the regulatory set-up will continue to be an underlying supportive factor for EUA prices going forward, and that the role of policy events as major factor for short-term price volatility will significantly decrease.”
“We expect the market to be stronger influenced by non-political fundamental factors. Towards the end of 2015, we expect EUA prices to be driven by a favourable clean dark spread and utility hedging demand … (And) while the persistent bearishness in the wider energy complex could spill over to carbon on a temporary basis, we think that lower coal prices could actually help the clean dark spread to remain at favourable levels, hence supporting coal burn and corresponding EUA hedging demand.”…
#3 Jonas Rooze, BNEF (Bloomberg New Energy Finance): “We expect the need for abatement in the form of fuel-switching to drive prices up to €30 by 2020, though dropping gas prices present downside risk to this forecast.”…
http://carbon-pulse.com/poll-analysts-raise-eu-carbon-price-estimates-big-jump-for-2018-2020/
30
they’ve thrown in the towel.
read both. love the correction at the top of the second piece:
12 Oct: Reuters: Alister Doyle: Enforcing a global climate deal: speak loudly, carry no stick
Negotiators have several terms for the way they plan to enforce any deal reached at global climate talks in Paris this December. “Peer pressure” and “cooperation” are a couple. “Race to the top” is the American buzzword.
What you won’t hear mentioned is the word “sanctions”. Or “punishment”.
For all their efforts to get 200 governments to commit to the toughest possible cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, climate negotiators have all but given up on creating a way to penalize those who fall short.
The overwhelming view of member states, says Christiana Figueres, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, is that any agreement “has to be much more collaborative than punitive”, if it is to happen at all.
“Even if you do have a punitive system, that doesn’t guarantee that it is going to be imposed or would lead to any better action,” Figueres said…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/12/us-climatechange-summit-sanctions-insigh-idUSKCN0S506320151012
12 Oct: Reuters: Alister Doyle: Laws help enforce some environmental treaties – but not on climate
***(This version of the story corrects paragraph five to say “only recently has the science become good enough” from “the science is not good enough”.)…
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/10/12/us-climatechange-summit-lawmaking-idUKKCN0S506A20151012
50
Christina: the entire thing is a punishment-for the human race.
10
Can’t believe you’re bending over like this. WUWT did the same. Now they not only own the 98% meme and the US president’s ear, they own the language of debate. No wonder your nation is in the dire straits it is. I’ve said this before – you people need to differentiate your selves from your sheep, grow a pair, and quit giving up hard-fought ground.
70
I once had a conversation with a close friend that used to be in the Parachute Regiment, i ask him about the recruitment\ interview process he went through,he told me he was marched into a large room and stood infront of a desk where 3 officers sat, the rest of the room was empty other than a single chair in the far corner,an officer then ordered him to sit down and he immediately sat on the floor,he told me that if you hesitated or looked around the room for a chair to sit on you failed that particular interview process. It is ofcourse very necessary that a frontline soldier should react to orders instantly and without question in the heat of battle,but i wonder if climate science institutions had a similar interview process , how many of us skeptics that see ourselves as individual freethinkers would be looking around for a chair to sit on compared to climate believers sitting on the floor without hesitation.
60
OUCH,
If climate alarmism was anything to do with facts and data, this would hurt badly
http://notrickszone.com/2015/10/10/inconvenient-truths-2014-global-natural-disasters-down-massively-no-trend-in-tornadocyclones-since-1950/#sthash.mHNCs8Rv.dpbs
But we all know that climate alarmism is NOTHING to do with facts and data.!!!
61
Curious. When I saw the name, Bill Nye, my mind immediately conjured up a picture of Davy Jones, of “Pirates of the Caribbean” fame. Why should that be?
20
And maybe, just maybe, some day they will do what a journalist is supposed to do and report, leaving out their commentary and the names altogether.
Don’t hold your breath while waiting for it though.
40
On this debate, snap.
“The best bit from the alarmist viewpoint is that though you’re going to lose the pejorative term denier, you’ll also be losing the term skeptic. That is simply not acceptable to me and I think others.”
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2015/09/24/framing-the-debate/
Pointman
31
You make a convincing argument.
Its in our best interest to remain a pariah sub culture.
10
12 Oct: ClimateChangeNews: Megan Darby: ‘Unreadable’ UN science reports hampering climate action – study
You need a relevant PhD to understand IPCC summaries, find researchers, arguing for clearer writing
That is the uncompromising verdict of a study from Kedge Business School published in Nature Climate Change on Monday…
“Global action on climate change might be seriously hampered,” said study lead author Ralf Barkemeyer.
“If governments are not able to understand the scientific facts presented to them, how can they hope to reach consensus or joint
decision?”
Given the complexity of IPCC output, the public relies on media interpretations, which researchers found tended to take a more
pessimistic tone than the source material.
Tabloids newspapers in particular were more likely to use negative terms like “disaster”, “storm” and “crisis”, in contrast to the neutral phrasing of IPCC content…
Some observers have suggested the IPCC employ science writers and graphic designers to make the reports more accessible…
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/10/12/unreadable-un-science-reports-hampering-climate-action-study/
Josh has a cartoon and a link to Nature here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/12/monday-merry-nursery-rimes/
20
Great cartoon, Pat. Keep them coming. And, from all of us, thanks for doing so much grunt work in tracking down all these news reports.
10
12 Oct: ReutersCarbonPulse: Alessandro Vitelli: ANALYSIS: Cheap coal trumps climate to elevate risk of high-carbon lock-in
Low prices and reliability are trumping climate concerns as emerging economies keep fossil fuels at the forefront of plans to feed
massive growth in energy demand, while campaigners are forced to look beyond weak UN negotiations in an effort to stop them.
Current carbon-cutting pledges by countries are set to drive a rise in global temperatures to 2.7C, well above the 2C limit nations agreed and on course to induce catastrophic storms, droughts and floods this century, researchers at Climate Action Tracker (CAT) found…
CAT judges that even by achieving its INDC, China’s emissions would grow by 33-44% above 2010 levels by 2030…
With the cost of most renewable energy technologies still requiring government support, even in the most advanced economies, most
developing nations are choosing to seek more cost-efficient generating technologies…
“Given that coal maintains cost and availability advantages in many locations and the growing demand for energy in emerging economies,
coal is still expected to be a major component of the energy system in 2030,” said PwC’s Grant…
Amid slim prospects of the UN climate pact driving post-2020 ambition beyond the current batch of INDCs, environmental campaigners are
seeking alternative avenues to prevent the construction of hundreds of new coal plants, all of which could run for another 50 years…
India, however, appears less willing to engage and is adamant that coal is at the centre of its development agenda, said Greenpeace India’s Nandikesh Sivalingam.
http://carbon-pulse.com/analysis-cheap-coal-trumps-climate-to-elevate-risk-of-high-carbon-lock-in/
12 Oct: CarbonBrief: Mapped: How the UK generates its electricity
In recent years, the UK has added thousands of renewable power schemes to its ageing and dwindling fleet of coal, nuclear and gas plants. Yet these older sources still supply most of the UK’s electricity…
However, the UK has no clear strategy to change its still-heavy reliance on coal. Despite a relatively high carbon price and prime minister David Cameron’s pledge to phase the fuel out, some 31% of UK electricity last year came from coal (black area, below)…
A chorus of concern over capacity from some analysts and sections of the media is consistently rebuffed by National Grid and the government, which insist plans are in place to keep the lights on. Sub-sea electricity interconnectors, shown in our map and with capacity set to more than double over the next five years, will also help to buffer ups and downs in the UK’s supply and demand…
http://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-the-uk-generates-its-electricity/
10
12 Oct: UK Telegraph: Lexi Finnigan: Britain faces longest winter in 50 years after earliest ever arrival of Siberian swan
The arrival of winter, traditionally heralded by the migration of Siberian swans, has come early as 300 birds flock to Britain
Temperatures are currently five to 10 degrees below average in parts of western Russia and eastern Europe and are expected to drop to the minus 30s…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/11926752/Britain-faces-longest-winter-in-50-years-after-earliest-ever-arrival-of-Siberian-swan.html
12 Oct: Otago Daily News: ‘Fantastic snow and a fantastic winter’
”We’ve just had so much snow – well over 3m, which is on par with the record,” is how Cardrona Alpine Resort general manager Bridget
Legnavsky summed up the ski area’s 2015 season on closing day yesterday.
”Incredible amounts of snow and really cold – that’s what you need for a good ski season. And it’s not just Cardrona. All resorts have
had a good season. It’s great for New Zealand. Fantastic snow and a fantastic winter gets more visitors here.”…
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/queenstown-lakes/358958/fantastic-snow-and-fantastic-winter
10
12 Oct: IceAgeNow: Climate skeptics are “assholes,” says French politician
“Pour NKM, les climato-sceptiques sont des “connards.” Thus reads the headline in the Figaro, a French newspaper.
On Monday evening, asked what she thought of climate skeptics, French politician Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet (NKM) answered thusly:
“In my mind it’s very clear. I’d say it’s assholes,” she blurted.
“I would detail that a little bit,” she added. “When we say it’s going to improve tourism, it might be true if the temperature increased by two degrees. But that is not what climate change is. It multiplies “extreme weather events,” that is to say that where there is desert it’ll be even more dry, and where there are problems of a hurricane, it will there be still more,” she insisted.
“You cannot link an extreme weather event to climate change, but we know that multiplication is linked…
http://iceagenow.info/2015/10/climate-skeptics-are-assholes-says-french-politician/
apparently NKM was referring to Verdier below:
(google translation)
7 Oct: Le Monde blog: Philippe Verdier , Mr. France Televisions weather, is it climatosceptique ?
His voice is immediately recognizable . Philippe Verdier , Mr. France Televisions weather, no longer speaks of the rain and the weather, but the climate. No more reassuring on upcoming weather, the trailer of his book Climate Investigation, published on 1 October in the Ring Publishing, shows clearly conspiratorial tones…
“We are hostages of a planetary global warming scandal, a war machine designed to keep us in fear. Basically, there are the scientists manipulated, politicized, corruption, sex scandals and policies that serve only their image and their thirst for power, blinded media revved and censor under pressure from their shareholders […] mercantile NGOs and religions in search of new creed. ”
Ouch! We’ll have to buy anticomplotistes lightning rods …
http://bigbrowser.blog.lemonde.fr/2015/10/07/philippe-verdier-monsieur-meteo-de-france-televisions-est-il-climatosceptique/
10
Too many people have fallen for the faux respect the AP is tossing out to the public by deigning to change the execrable “denier” for the banal “doubter”. Both are deceptive. “Doubter” in some ways is worse- after all, who doubts there is a climate?
20
strange story! oddest thing is how BBC’s McGrath reports it:
12 Oct: BBC: Matt McGrath: Alaska mulls extra oil drilling to cope with climate change
Expanding the search for oil is necessary to pay for the damage caused by climate change, the Governor of Alaska has told the BBC.
The state is suffering significant climate impacts from rising seas forcing the relocation of remote villages.
Governor Bill Walker says that coping with these changes is hugely expensive…
He wants to “urgently” drill in the protected lands of the Arctic National Wilderness Refuge to fund them…
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34501867
20
relocation of WHAT villages, exactly? From a sea level “rise” of how many millimetres?
00
PwC says…
12 Oct: AFR: Mark Ludlow: Australia needs to toughen up carbon policies, says report
Australia will need to double its historic rate of decarbonisation if it wants to meet its target of a 26 to 28 per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2030, according to a new report by consulting and accounting firm PwC…
“This implies that a significant increase in effort is required. So business can expect a step change in climate policy and regulation in the short term to achieve this goal,” the PwC report found.
The federal government has already come under pressure to tighten its so-called “safeguard mechanism” to force big companies to change their behaviour and cut their pollution levels.
This has intensified following the ascension of Malcolm Turnbull to prime minister with hopes federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt may take an even stronger suite of policies to global talks in December…
The PwC report found globally there had been a 1.3 per cent fall in carbon intensity since 2000, but there needed to be a reduction of 3 per cent to achieve Paris targets…
The report found Australia’s Paris targets were more ambitious than the Europe Union but less than other countries such as Canada…
Not surprisingly, the report found coal-fired power generation would remain a dominant energy source, but was coming under pressure from renewables.
http://www.afr.com/news/politics/australia-needs-to-toughen-up-carbon-policies-says-report-20151011-gk6oh8
10
Alarmists and Skeptics feels about right.
‘Austria looks to be hit by heavy snow, with some areas forecast to get a foot. One reader asked if such snow events are unusual for this time of the year. The answer depends on weather you are a skeptic or a global warming alarmist.
‘For skeptics this is perfectly normal and is the sort of thing seen over the past 100 years – it’s weather as usual. For alarmists on the other hand, well, they said these events would be rare – even in mid winter. Snow is what we call for alarmists “inconvenient events”.
– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/10/12/early-winter-deep-frost-rolls-over-central-europe-heavy-snow-falls-over-poland-romania-slovakia/#sthash.LXgPnWEK.eSgmv02E.dpuf
20
One way to shut up a climate alarmist is to point out that their use of the term “denier” demonstrates their lack of knowledge of what the debate is about. It’s not about whether or not the climate exists or whether or not climate change exists. It’s about how much do humans impact the climate and how harmful or beneficial will the change in climate be.
00