Reviews are in! Morano as villain in warmist film is ‘terrifyingly impressive, sadistic’

morano in MOD[Note: Morano’s skeptical global warming documentary, ‘Climate Hustle’ is set to rock climate debate – Release set for later in 2015. Stay tuned…]

New Warmist film ‘Merchants of Doubt’ portrays Marc Morano as evil nemesis/arch-enemy of climate change promoters – Morano is ‘a grinning-skull nihilist’

Global warming movies sets out to smear skeptics, but ‘features ‘a semi-affectionate portrait of professional attack dog Marc Morano’

‘Merchants of Doubt’ director pushing to ban Morano & other skeptics from TV!

New York Times: Morano exemplifies ‘slickness, grandiosity & charm’

New York Times: ‘Morano is a cheerful and unapologetic promoter of climate-change skepticism’

Morano in starring role as villain in warmist film ‘Merchants of Doubt’ ‚Äì Morano: ‘I’m not a scientist, but I play one on TV’

Warmist review of Merchants Of Doubt criticizes film for being ‘swindled by the charm of charismatic talking heads’ like Morano 

Warmist Naomi Oreskes: ‘People like Morano have made a career out of being contrarians, and they are very good at it. When a scientist comes up against a well-trained, savvy person, scientists will always lose in the debate.’

Warmist Randy Olson laments: ‘Wish the enviros had someone comparable to Morano, but they don’t’

TV villain slogan: “If only he’d used his powers for good, instead of for evil.”

Morano responds to tobacco smear: ‘The warmists have it exactly backwards. It is the global warming proponents who are guilty of the tobacco tactics.’ See: Flashback: Warmists’ mimic tobacco industry tactics: ‘Like tobacco industry, Warmists’ manufactured uncertainty & fear by stridently proclaiming certainty & consensus based on dubious & uncertain modeled results predicting disastrous consequences of a warmer climate’

{youtube}j8ii9zGFDtc{/youtube}

Morano featured as villain in new warmist documentary: ‘Merchants of Doubt’ ‚Äì Marc Morano in warmist film: ‘I am not a scientist, although I do occasionally play one on TV — Ok — Hell, more than occasionally.’ ‚Äì ‘We (skeptics) the negative force, we are just trying to stop stuff.’

[Note: For those not interested in attempted smear job on global warming skeptics, Hollywood has the answer. See ‘Kingsman’ instead! See: The movie ‘Kingsman’: ‘The most subversive anti-AGW movie’ ‚Äì ‘This movie presents in Technicolor the awful nature of alarmists; they are elitist, narcissistic and misanthropic. And riddled in hypocrisy’]

Producer of new Oreskes Warmist film: ‘My goal was to make people angry that they are being lied to’ ‚Äì Morano featured as villain in new warmist film

NYT: Morano exemplifies ‘slickness, grandiosity & charm’ ‚Äì New York Times: ‘Morano is a cheerful and unapologetic promoter of climate-change skepticism’ ‚Äì NYT film review of warmist documentary ‘Merchants of Doubt’: ‘Public relations, in contrast, is built on slickness, grandiosity and charm. These traits are exemplified by Marc Morano, a cheerful and unapologetic promoter of climate-change skepticism and currently the executive director of the website Climate Depot. One of the film’s conceits is that the actions of Mr. Morano and his colleagues can be con games and magic tricks.’

Newspaper calls Marc Morano ‘terrifyingly impressive’ and ‘sadistic’ ‚Äì Daily Californian’s film review of ‘Merchants of Doubt’: ‘Marc Morano is one of the terrifyingly, impressive and yet sadistic experts with this skill set. His statements add shock and give viewers a hard-hitting wakeup call’

Morano featured in Newsweek Mag: Warmist filmmaker: ‘I think Morano’s very funny, he’s very smart’ ‚Äì Climate Depot featured as villain in new warmist Oreskes film

Mag. reviews ‘Merchants of Doubt’ ‚Äì Calls Morano ‘a grinning-skull nihilist LulzSec member’ ‚Äì Calls Climate Depot ‘leading site for climate change skeptics’ ‚Äì Excerpt: Morano is ‘a grinning-skull nihilist LulzSec member, hacking reality for the LOLs—a mirror-world Yes Man who has decided there’s more to be gained in being an actual yes man.’ ‚Äì ‘Morano, who ascended from accosting celebrities outside the men’s room for Rush Limbaugh’s TV show in the mid-1990s to debating Bill Nye on global warming on CNN in 2012, seems to relish revealing the secrets to his greatest illusions.

Warmist review of Merchants Of Doubt criticizes film for being ‘swindled by the charm of charismatic talking heads’ like Morano

‘Merchants of Doubt’ producer seeks media ban on skeptics: ‘Tell news editors: Stop booking climate deniers!’

San Francisco Chronicle Calls Climate Depot’s Morano ‘shifty’, ‘slick’, & ‘scary’ ‚Äì San Francisco Chronicle on ‘Merchants of Doubt’ film: ‘Much more powerful are the moments like the interview with climate change ‘expert’ Marc Morano, who luxuriates in his shifty tactics and misdirection plays. To him, it’s all fun and games — he’s both slick and scary.’

Salon Mag. calls Morano ‘a loathsome mercenary’ ‚Äì ‘Driven by perverse conviction…to jam his thumb into the eye of liberal orthodoxy’

Film Review: Morano is ‘the documentary’s most engaging character’ ‚Äì One of ‘sleazy spin doctors who will stop at nothing to obscure the truth’ ‚Äì ‘Merchants of Doubt’ ‚Äì The documentary’s most engaging character, after all, is self-described creator of chaos Marc Morano, who runs the climate denial site ClimateDepot and who frequently appears as an “expert” on network news. (“I am not a scientist, although I do play one on TV,” he explains.)

LA Weekly review: Warmist film features ‘a magnificent antihero in Marc Morano, a cheery, chatty prevaricator’ ‚Äì LA Weekly review of ‘Merchants of Doubt’: [Producer Robby] Kenner finds a magnificent antihero in Marc Morano, a cheery, chatty prevaricator who has made a mint by muddying water. His job is to promote skepticism of a truth that even Skeptic magazine believes in, and since Morano’s cocksure, and good at yelling on TV, he steamrolls over climate scientists on cable despite his lack of expertise. In interviews, he’s disarmingly guileless…The film and Morano agree on one thing: All that the deniers of climate change have to do to succeed is reduce the country’s certainty. They’ve been wildly successful.’

NY Post film review features Morano as a ‘shifty pundit’– ‘Merchants of Doubt’ doc pulls curtain back on shifty pundits’ ‚Äì ‘One oft-quoted “climate change skeptic,” Marc Morano, admits in the film, ‘I’m not a scientist, but I do play one on TV occasionally…hell, more than occasionally.’

Warmist producer of Oreskes film: ‘Morano was very funny, very charming, and I think does great damage, but he was honest’ ‚Äì San Fran Chronicle: Marc Morano, whose job it is to rebut climate change, is not only candid but also humorous. Kenner credits him with helping to set the tone of the film. “Morano was really frank,” he says. “That was a shocking interview. Any time I asked him a hard question, he was far from being insulted. Nothing could scare him. He was very funny, very charming, and I think does great damage, but he was honest.”

Read rest…

Continue Reading

Liberals Don’t Understand the First Amendment‚Äìor the Climate, Either

Willie SoonWillie SoonWe have written a number of times about the Left’s effort to smear scientists who don’t toe the alarmist line on global warming. Apart from generally suggesting that “deniers” be jailed, liberals are trying to discredit realist scientists by claiming that they are funded by the fossil fuel industry or other supposedly nefarious interests.

This is hugely ironic. The American environmental movement is paid for in part by oil interests‚ÄìRussian oil interests, which don’t want American petroleum developed via fracking. Beyond that, alarmist scientists are massively funded, to the tune of billions of dollars every year, by the worst special interest of them all: government. Governments have more at stake in the global warming controversy than anyone: they largely invented it, and use it as a pretext for a grab for power over their respective economies. Which is to say, over their citizens’ lives.

One aspect of the Left’s campaign is a series of 100 letters that Democratic Senators Whitehouse, Markey and Boxer have sent to conservative think tanks and fossil fuel-related companies, demanding to know about any “payments made in support of scientific research and scientists, as well as support for other efforts related to climate change….” Koch Industries was one of the 100 entities that received the Democrats’ letter, and we wrote here about the apt response from Koch’s general counsel, Mark Holden, to the three senators. Holden wrote, in part:

The activity and efforts about which you inquire, and Koch’s involvement, if any, in them, are at the core of the fundamental liberties protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. To the extent that your letter touches on matters that implicate the First Amendment, I am sure you recognize Koch’s right to participate in the debate of important public policy issues and its right of free association. …

In reviewing your letter, I did not see any explanation or justification for an official Senate Committee inquiry into activities protected by the First Amendment. Under the circumstances, we decline to participate in this endeavor and object to your apparent efforts to infringe upon and potentially stifle fundamental First Amendment activities.

The Cato Institute has sent a similar letter. I do not know how other parties have responded, if at all.

Now, in true McCarthyite fashion, Democrats have taken the position that companies and institutions that stand up for their constitutional rights must have something to hide. Ed Markey’s spokesman, Eben Burnham-Snyder, told the National Journal, “Companies that are supporting legitimate, scientific inquiry should have no concerns about responding.” That’s straight out of the HUAC playbook: “If you aren’t a Communist, you should be glad to answer our questions!” Or, “If you have nothing to hide, why do you object to the government reading your emails?” No citizen should be asked to account to the government for exercising his constitutional rights.

The fact that Democrats don’t support the First Amendment is nothing new. Senators Whitehouse, Markey and Boxer were among those who voted for a constitutional amendment that would have gutted the First Amendment by revoking the constitutional right to support candidates in political campaigns. I wrote at the link:

Note that under the amendment, Congress could both “regulate” and “set reasonable limits on” raising and spending money on elections. The power to “regulate” is not qualified by any other term of the amendment except Section 3, which means that a Democratic Congress would have the power to regulate campaign spending by prohibiting all spending on behalf of Republican candidates, or in opposition to Democratic candidates. Ridiculous! you might say‚Äìthat would obviously be unconstitutional. Not any more it wouldn’t be; not if the Democrats get their way. The First Amendment would be repealed as it relates to politics.

There is a reason, of course, why the Left is trying to clamp down on freedom of speech and is smearing realist scientists: it is getting clobbered in the scientific debate. The Left’s insistence that “the science is settled” is ludicrous, in view of the fact that at the end of 2013, the IPCC cut its prediction of future warming in half. The alarmists’ models have failed the test of observation, the only test that matters. They are no good.

For an introduction to the current state of the climate debate, I recommend this transcript of a day-long “Climate Change Statement Review Workshop” conducted by the American Physical Society, in which six eminent climate scientists participated. The event took place a year ago, but is representative of contemporary climate science, which is in its infancy: virtually every proposition is debatable, and debated. Andy May summarizes the proceedings at Watts Up With That?.

Finally, it should be noted that the real scandal here‚Äìthe US government spending billions of taxpayer dollars to fund poorly-done scientific research, but only if it supports a conclusion that facilitates the government’s power grab‚Äìis at last getting some attention. Dr. Judith Curry is one of the world’s most respected climate scientists. At her web site, Dr. Curry notes a paper on how politics and finance affect the climate “consensus.”

I have long been concerned about the role of IPCC in torquing the direction of climate science and promoting groupthink. I spotted a link on twitter to this very interesting paper, that has clarified my thinking on this issue.

Causes and consequences of the climate science boom

William Butos and Thomas McQuade

Abstract. Scientific disciplines, like economies, can and do experience booms and busts. We document a boom in climate science, sustained by massive levels of funding by government entities, whose scientific direction is set by an extra-scientific organization, the IPCC, which has emerged as a “big player” in the scientific arena, championing the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. We note the difficulties in obtaining definitive empirical clarity due to the complex nature of climate, the feedback between the effects of the IPCC’s advocacy and the government’s willingness to fund the science, the ideological and political agendas at play, the dangers to the integrity of scientific procedure in the context of ideological bias, and the poor performance of the “crony capitalist” enterprises that have grown on the back of politicized science.

Forthcoming in the Independent Review.

There is much more at the link, including this:

Science, in rare cases, is also susceptible to another sort of Big Player: one with the ability to portray a favored hypothesis as settled, consensus scientific knowledge even in the absence of a substantial body of confirming evidence. The IPCC has taken on that Big Player role in climate science.

You can see why the alarmists have gotten hysterical, going so far as to threaten to jail those who point out the flaws in their data and reasoning.

Source

Continue Reading

Gore 2016: ‘Here comes the Sun’

Gore wants youAs we consider alternatives to a Hillary Clinton candidacy, we hear of Senator Warren, Senator Sanders, former Governor O’Malley and others.  

Let me put Al Gore’s name on the table.

Mr Gore would bring a lot to a disenchanted base:

1) He can remind everyone that Bush stole the election, a topic that they love at the left-wing precints;
2) He can attack the decision to invade Iraq;
3) He can blame everything on Cheney, another popular rally line; and, 
4) Nobody gives a better speech on global warming.

The left needs a lift these days and Al Gore with  “Here comes the Sun” in the background would play well in primaries.

Gore won’t remind the base of  his hawkish statements about Iraq, or that he didn’t win Tennessee in 2000, or that the global warming meme is more and more controversial. He won’t bring up the fact that the Clinton-Gore record on trade agreements drove many liberals like Michael Moore to Ralph Nader. Last, but not least, it was the Clinton-Gore administration that gave us “rendition” jails where terrorists were detained without trial back then.
We won’t hear any of that from Al Gore but then again reality is not what the left is about.  

A Gore candidacy is the fairy tale that so many in the left need!  

So “Here comes the Sun” is my choice for the theme song. Get ready because Here comes Al!

Source

Continue Reading

Boston clinches snowiest season on record amid winter of superlatives

It’s official: Boston has set a new record for snowiest season. Through Sunday evening, the city had accumulated a total of 108.6 inches of snow, surpassing the old record of 107.6 inches set in the winter of 1995-96. Boston’s weather records date to 1872.

{source}
<div class=”flex-embed”> <blockquote class=”twitter-tweet” width=”500″> <p>Please RT: BREAKING NEWS: Boston breaks all time seasonal snowwfall total! 2.9″ as of 7PM, making it 108.6! <a href=”http://t.co/QheFpl5oXF”>pic.twitter.com/QheFpl5oXF</a></p> <p>— NWS Boston (@NWSBoston) <a href=”https://twitter.com/NWSBoston/status/577246272630980608″>March 15, 2015</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async=”” charset=”utf-8″ src=”//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js”></script></p></div>
{/source}

Although it was a snowy road to first place, it wasn’t necessarily a long one. Nearly all of Boston’s 10 feet of snow has fallen since Jan. 26, when winter’s first blizzard whipped through New England.

The Blizzard of 2015 on Jan. 26-27 may be more well-known as the “winter storm that wasn’t” in New York City. But in southern New England, it was anything but an underachiever. The storm went down in the record books for eastern Massachusetts after as much as 36 inches of snow fell between Monday and Tuesday, making it the snowiest storm on record in Worcester, Mass., and the snowiest January storm for Boston.

Read rest…

 

Continue Reading

The myth of ‘settled science’

march 2015 national geographicNational Geographic’s latest cover story has generated lots of attention because it sneers at those close-minded Americans — mostly conservatives, of course — who do not accept scientific “facts.” Only 40 percent of Americans (according to Pew Research Center) “accept that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming,” and the magazine finds it “dispiriting” that so many “reasonable people doubt science.”

National Geographic compares global warming doubters to those disbelieve NASA’s moon landing and those who think water fluoridation is an evil plot. How could so many dismiss “established science?”

Well, here’s one reason: The public has come to distrust government warnings and the scientific experts; they are often wrong.

Ironically, National Geographic’s sermon on settled science could have hardly come at a more inopportune time. In recent months, leading scientists have reversed themselves and have admitted their expert findings and advice were wrong on eating fat. After decades of telling us not to do so, we now learn that fat can be good for your diet and for weight loss. What we all thought to be true based on the expert testimonies, turned out to be precisely the opposite of the truth. Oops.

Forty years ago the experts warned of a coming ice age, now they are absolutely certain the earth is warming — and some of the same “experts” were onboard both scares. National Geographic even acknowledges this inconvenient fact, but it explains that this somehow actually helps make the case for global warming. If a scientific theory isn’t refutable — i.e., warming and cooling both prove climate change — then how is it science?

The magazine is incredulous that so many skeptics “believe that climate activists are using the threat of global warming to attack the free market and industrial society generally.”

Wait. Climate change activists are using the issue as a means of attacking free-market capitalism. This past summer major environmental groups gathered in Venezuela to solve leading environmental problems like global warming, concluding: “The structural causes of climate change are linked to the current capitalist hegemonic system.”

How is it paranoia to believe that the climate change industry wants to shut down capitalism when the movement plainly states that this is its objective? And how can a movement be driven by science when its very agenda violates basic laws of economics? I am no scientist, but I’m highly skeptical of a movement whose first advice is to steer the U.S. economy off a cliff toward financial ruin.

National Geographic’s next scientific claim is that “Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, one of the most powerful Republican voices on environmental matters, has long declared global warming a hoax. The idea that hundreds of scientists from all over the world would collaborate on such a vast hoax is laughable.”

Laughable? The entire history of the green movement is full of grand hoaxes and even catastrophic advice, dating back to the modern-day birth of this movement with Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring.” This was the green anthem that played a big part in the banning of DDT around the world — a move that contributed to millions of Africans losing their lives from malaria.

As for the claim that scientists would never “collaborate on a hoax,” what about the Climategate scandal, which the left to this day pretends didn’t happen? Shouldn’t the fact that some the leading climate change researchers were caught red-handed manufacturing evidence and suppressing data cause some degree of skepticism by even the media and the scientific community as to the validity of the “science”?

Nearly every environmental scare of the 1970s backed by hundreds of scientists as well as media, like National Geographic, was proved to be a hoax. We were assured then by the “experts” that the world was overpopulated, running out of energy, food, water, minerals, getting more polluted, and that the end result would be massive poverty famine and global collapse. Every aspect of this collective scientific wisdom was spectacularly wrong.

In 1980 top scientists in the United States government issued a report called “The Global 2000 Report to the President,” which was a primal scream that by 2000 the world would run out of oil, gas, food, farmland and so on. Just a few brave souls such as Julian Simon and Herman Kahn dared to contradict this conventional wisdom. They were disparaged then — just as climate change skeptics are today — as dangerous lunatics. Yet on ever score, these iconoclasts were right and the green scientific consensus was wrong. Start with the fact that hundreds of millions of Chinese — mostly girls — are demographically missing today because of the barbaric one-child policy, which the greens all supported as a way to save the planet.

The final insult of conservatives by National Geographic is this: “It’s very clear, however, that organizations funded in part by the fossil fuel industry have deliberately tried to undermine the public’s understanding of the scientific consensus by promoting a few skeptics.” So everyone who dares question the climate change theology has been bought off by industry polluters, but the climate change research brigades are pure as snow. Really?

In 2010 the Climate Depot identified more than 1,000 international scientists doubting the science of global warming. Are 1,000 scientists “a few,” and are they all bought off by the Koch brothers?

No doubt industry is funding some of these skeptics, but it is also true that the U.S. government and private foundations are funding to the tune of billions of dollars — President Obama wants $8 billion this year — for climate change research and activities. The best way to get defunded and to go unnoticed is to conclude global warming isn’t happening. Would anyone want to fund the green-industrial complex if the earth’s temperatures weren’t thought to be on a catastrophic path of warming or cooling?

What is most offensive and delusional about the National Geographic screed is that this magazine, which purports to be scientific, concludes that there is no room for debate on climate change — period, end of argument. This “settled science” argument isn’t meant to advance scientific inquiry and understanding, but to shut it down. What is the left so afraid of that it wants to cut off all debate and disparage all who question the consensus? Once liberals believed they should “question authority.” Now they insist on universal allegiance to every conventional wisdom.

One lesson of history is that scientific truth is the first casualty in ideological crusades like climate change. I am in no position to know whether it is happening or not, but as with half of Americans, I question this settled science, if only because of the Stalinistic approach that commands everyone to believe. Here again we see the intolerance of the left refusing to tolerate a minority opinion. By disparaging skeptics as imbeciles, stooges of industry and right-wing Republican ideologues, National Geographic isn’t advancing science — it is abusing it. For shame.

Source

Continue Reading 2 Comments

Gulf Stream Shut Down Caused By Geological Heat Flow

posterMovie poster from the B thriller, The Day After TomorrowIn May of 2010 the famous Gulf Stream, a major ocean current highway used by present day and ancient sailors for centuries, suddenly and unexpectedly shut down / stopped flowing. Why? Was the cause man-made global warming or a natural variation in deep ocean currents?

Most climate scientists were convinced that this shutdown was man-made. After all it fit their climate model predictions. Predictions which indicated that as human CO2 emissions increased the atmosphere would become much warmer and damage our oceans.

These climate models were purposely fashioned to mimic similar circumstances that led to the last Gulf Stream shutdown which occurred 11,000 years ago, which closely coincides with the end of the last glacial period, 10,500 years ago.

Climate scientists believed that there was a cause and effect relationship between these two events. A warmed atmosphere during the last glacial period acted to melt the polar ice caps. Melt water from the ice caps flooded the oceans, including the North Atlantic. This less dense fresh water disrupted set current patterns of the more dense Gulf Stream sea water.

The current disruption led to a temporary ancient “shutdown” of the Gulf Stream, which is part of the Thermohaline circulation (a system of interconnected ocean currents that girdle the planet). This ancient shutdown was portrayed in the melodramatic B thriller The Day After Tomorrow.

So when in May 2010 the Gulf Stream current actually did shutdown, most climate scientists felt that model predictions had been verified. To them it was clear, man-made global warming was already melting glaciers and leading to a disruption the Gulf Stream current. Emboldened with this knowledge they immediately flooded the media with articles contending that the shut down was unequivocal proof of man-made global warming. Furthermore, they stated that world climate patterns would be altered resulting in a wide range environmental catastrophes.

Big problem!

There were no catastrophes, and tomorrow came and went without a hiccup. The Gulf Stream current resumed its normal flow, and most importantly, a recently released research study has shown that inflow of freshwater from glaciers was not the cause of the 2010 Gulf Stream “shutdown.”  Confused and dismayed climate scientists have retracted doomsday predictions and revised invalidated climate models.

So what actually did shut down the mighty Gulf Stream current in May 2010?

The new research study concluded that an unusual ocean water warm cell was the culprit (Figure 1). The warm cell was well defined, geographically limited, and lay directly in the path of the mighty Gulf Stream current.  It acted to block the Gulf Stream current for a relatively short time period (Figure 2), then dissipated in strength at which time the Gulf Stream current resumed its normal flow.

fig1

fig2

Ok…fine, a warm water cell blocked the Gulf Stream current, but what created this unusual warm water cell? Why did it dissipate? There are seemingly more questions than answers.

Let’s start answering these questions by first discussing the new and revised consensus explanation of what generated the Gulf Stream blocking warm cell.

Climate scientists now state that the unusual 2010 North Atlantic warm cell was the result of atmospherically warmed ocean water. Worked something like this: Man-made global warming artificially overheated a portion of Earth’s atmosphere. Energy from this warmed air was transmitted and then focused into a specific area of the North Atlantic Ocean by wind driven ocean currents. This explanation seems extremely unlikely for several reasons.

First, the planet hasn’t warmed in 18-plus years, including the 2009-2010 period. There were no significant “local” pulses of high temperature air over the greater North Atlantic Ocean region during the winter and early spring of 2009-2010.  

Next, it seems extremely unlikely that atmospheric energy from equatorial regions could somehow be tightly bundled, and then transported great distances to a fixed and limited portion of the North Atlantic. This atmospheric energy focusing explanation of how the 2010 North Atlantic warm cell was generated is vague and at best highly improbable.

A much better explanation for the origin of the 2009-2010 North Atlantic warm cell is heat flow from geological fault and volcanic regions, specifically increased heat flow from deep ocean hydrothermal vents located along a portion of the Mid-Atlantic rift system. This increased rift system heat flow acted to warm the overlying ocean, thereby generating an unusually high-temperature ocean heat cell. Result? The heat cell slowed down the Gulf Stream current in May of 2010.

Evidence substantiating this contention is abundant and very strong:

  1. The geographical location / extent of the 2010 North Atlantic warm cell and the 2010 Gulf Stream current shutdown point perfectly match the geographical location / extent of a portion of the Mid-Atlantic Rift System (Figure 3). There is reasonable documentation that shows large portions of the deep ocean Mid-Atlantic Rift System, which underlies the warm cell, were actively emitting super heated and chemically charged water during the 2009-2010 time frames. For one the well mapped Lucky Strike Ridge portion of the northern portion of the Mid-Atlantic rift System was active during the 2009 time period. The Lucky Strike area is a group of deep ocean hydrothermal vents that draw it power from a well mapped deep mantle magma hot spot. The hot stop is 4 kilometers wide and 7 kilometers long, therefore a large and powerful heat source. Keep in mind much of the Mid-Atlantic Rift System is unmonitored and not explored. http://www.ipgp.fr/en/hydrothermal-seismicity-beneath-the-summit-of-lucky-strike-volcano-mid-atlantic-ridge
  2. Additional heat flow from other areas near Lucky strike might also have been active during 2009-2010. Keep in mind these areas are underexplored and under-monitored.
  3. The southern portion of Iceland, which lies along the Mid-Atlantic Rift System, was seismically and volcanically very active during the 2009-2010 time period. The Mount Eyjafjallajokull volcano erupted in March 2010, underscoring increased heat flow from the southern portion of Iceland which is an extension of the Mid-Atlantic Rift System. Seismic activity and likely increased heat floe preceded this eruption and started in the fall of 2009.
  4. Plate Climatology Theory states that major worldwide deep ocean currents, such as the Gulf Stream, can be dramatically and suddenly affected by episodic variations in rift system geological activity (faulting, volcanism, and hydrothermal venting). Increased rift system activity equates to increased release of super-heated chemically charged sea water and associated gases (primarily CO2 and methane) into the overlying ocean. The altered overlying ocean column then acts to redirect, or in some cases stop through going deep ocean currents. The above described 2009-2010 Gulf Stream “shutdown” is an excellent example.
  5. As per previous CCD postings, it has been shown that geologically induced heat flow from deep ocean rift systems and volcanic regions east of Papua New Guinea are the likely cause of strong El Nino’s. This shows that geological activity has the power to affect major ocean currents.
  6. Deep ocean hydrothermal vents are proven to turn on and off. This perfectly explains the sudden appearance and subsequent disappearance of the 2010 North Atlantic Ocean warm cell. Turn the hydrothermal heat “on” and a fixed, intense, and blocking “warm cell is formed in the overlying ocean. Turn the hydrothermal heat off and the overlying warm cell dissipates, thereby allowing the Gulf Steam current to resume normal flow. A simple, believable, and very specific explanation. No catastrophes, no complicated current or wind transfer of energy into distant deep ocean regions.
  7. Climate scientists have long cited atmospheric changes in wind and temperature as the cause of “unusual” natural variations in currents. It is here contended that these atmospheric changes are often the effect, not the cause. Atmospheric changes associated with the 2010 warm cell where “effects”, not “causes” of the warm cell.
  8. As a general comment, it is fair to state that climate scientists are “atmospherically” biased. They often force fit data and observations into an atmospherically based global warming context. It is what they know. It’s what they were taught, and lately it is very unfortunately what they are mandated to think. Challenging the consensus atmospherically based global warming theory is not only discouraged, it is apparently now illegal.

fig3

Man-made global warming was not the cause of the May 2010 Gulf Stream shutdown. Strong evidence shows that the cause was geological in nature, specifically heat flow from a portion of the Mid-Atlantic rift system. This adds yet another level of credibility to the theory of Plate Climatology.

Continue Reading 1 Comment

How the Royal Society is cherry-picking science, says ‘Fellow’ insider

royal digsIn an article posted yesterday in the Daily Mail, Professor Michael Kelly explains how he and 43 other Fellows wrote a letter to the Royal Society’s then-president that its position on global warming was premature and not supported by facts. That was five years ago. Since then, things have only gotten worse for the august Society.

The Royal Society, which is considered the longest running, most prestigious scientific organization still in existence, is also the British government’s scientific advisor, “receiving parliamentary grant-in aid.” The Society also “acts as the UK’s Academy of Sciences, and funds research fellowships and scientific start-up companies.”

The five-year-old letter, penned by Kelly et al, was a reaction to a Society document that stated, in part, “If you don’t believe in climate change you are using one of the following [eight] misleading arguments.”

To Kelly, already a Fellow, the “implication was clear: the Society seemed to be saying there was no longer room for meaningful debate about the claim that the world is warming dangerously because of human activity, because the science behind this was ‘settled.'”

And as one unidentified fellow told the BBC about the letter from the 43:
“This is a very serious challenge to the way the Society operates…In the past we have been able to give advice to governments as a Society without having to seek consensus of all the members.”

Their letter was written in the hopes of persuading the Society to rethink its position as it oversimplified the message.

But since then, Kelly writes, it “has become more, not less dogmatic ‚Äì despite the fact that since we sent that letter, it has become evident that there is even more uncertainty than previously thought. Carbon dioxide levels (CO2) in the atmosphere have continued to rise, but since 1998 there has been no statistically significant rise in global temperatures at all.”

Based on the Society’s stream of reports released in the past five years to the government and public, it has become even more forthright in its assertion that there is a strong link between CO2 emissions and climate change.

Professor Kelly’s primary complaint is that the Society was not following its long-standing mission and founding principle: ‘Nullius in verba’ or ‘don’t take another’s word for it; check it out yourself,’ regarding the theory that claims there is a link between increased CO2 levels and global warming.

Kelly goes on to write they wanted to warn the Society that it “was in danger of violating its founding principle.”

To Kelly, this five-year-old document signified the Society was putting politics over science and that “there was no longer room for meaningful debate about the claim that the world is warming dangerously because of human activity, because the science behind this was ‘settled’.”

In the article, Kelly notes that there has been no statistically significant rise in global temperatures for nearly two decades, even though CO2 emissions have gone up.

“This flies in the face of the confident predictions made by nearly all the climate computer models that the temperature would continue to rise as it did from 1975 to 1998. More than 60 different explanations have been proposed to explain why this ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ has happened, and their sheer number is the clearest evidence that the system that climate scientists are seeking to model is irreducibly complex. Human-sourced carbon dioxide is at best one of many factors in causing climate change, and humility in front of this complexity is the appropriate stance.”

Yet the Society continues producing a “stream of reports” ignoring the observed science. Kelly writes there was a pre-Christmas booklet labeled A Short Guide To Climate Science as well as a 2014 joint publication with the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) called “Climate Change: Evidence And Causes, and another report called Resilience,” just to name a few.

All these publications answer questions on sea level rise, temperatures, ocean acidification, and more. There’s only one problem: “The Society has ‘left out’ parts of the science, so the answers to many of the questions ought to be different.” That’s according to yesterday’s report from the academic council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Their report (PDF) was written by a slew of professors and researchers with backgrounds in a range of sciences.

“I have personal experience of [the Society’s] selectivity,” Kelly writes. “Last year, at the request of the president, I produced a paper that urged the Society’s council to distance itself from the levels of certainty being expressed about future warming.”

“I said it ought at least to have a ‘plan B’ if the pause should last much longer, [putting] the models into still more serious question. I got a polite brush-off.”

Kelly thinks the lack of nuance exhibited by the Society can be attributed to both scientific liability and legal liability. “Policymakers say they want ‘scientific certainty’. As an engineer, I find that amazing: we remain legally liable for what we say professionally, so will always qualify our statements. But the misleading lack of qualification in the statements made by the Royal Society and others is creating policy nonsense.”

As for the Climate Change Act that requires the “UK to cut its CO2 emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050,” Kelly writes that achieving that goal will incur “mind-boggling costs. Generating electricity from windmills has contributed to electricity prices increasing by twice the level of inflation over the last decade, with further huge rises to fund renewable energy to come.”

What no one seems willing to describe, or even admit, are the direct and indirect consequences of policymakers relying on uncertain science. Take for example aluminum production. “Most of the UK smelters have closed down ‚Äì helping us reduce UK emissions, but also exporting jobs,” Kelly writes. “We now import that aluminum from China, leading to CO2 emissions from shipping it here. Worse, most electricity in China is produced by coal, not gas, as in the UK. We are exacerbating the original global problem of global CO2 emissions, yet also pointing fingers at the Chinese. We really are leading the world in climate change hypocrisy.”

According to Kelly, politicians make decisions after gathering and reviewing all the evidence, both the pros and the cons, strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats.

“Those who fail to provide balance are not giving advice, but lobbying.” Kelly writes. “It is with the deepest regret that I must now state that this is the role which has been adopted by the Royal Society. And when scientists abandon neutral inquiry for lobbying, they jeopardize their purpose and integrity.”

Professor Michael Kelly is the Prince Philip Professor of Technology at Cambridge University and a Fellow of the Royal Society. According to Wikipedia, there are roughly 1,450 Fellows of the Royal Society.

Source

Continue Reading

Why my own Royal Society is wrong on climate change

Professor Michael KellyProfessor Michael KellyFive years ago, I was one of 43 Fellows of the Royal Society ‚Äì the first and arguably still the most prestigious scientific organisation in the world ‚Äì who wrote to our then-president about its approach to climate change. We warned that the Society was in danger of violating its founding principle, summed up in its famous motto ‘Nullius in verba’ ‚Äì or ‘Don’t take another’s word for it; check it out for yourself’.

The reason for our warning was a Society document which stated breezily: ‘If you don’t believe in climate change you are using one of the following [eight] misleading arguments.’

The implication was clear: the Society seemed to be saying there was no longer room for meaningful debate about the claim that the world is warming dangerously because of human activity, because the science behind this was ‘settled’.

We hoped we would persuade the Society to rethink this position. That document was revised so that the uncertainty involved in trying to model the climate was admitted. But since then the Society has become more, not less dogmatic – despite the fact that since we sent that letter, it has become evident that there is even more uncertainty than previously thought. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have continued to rise, but since 1998 there has been no statistically significant rise in global temperatures at all.

This flies in the face of the confident predictions made by nearly all the climate computer models that the temperature would continue to rise as it did from 1975 to 1998. More than 60 different explanations have been proposed to explain why this ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ has happened, and their sheer number is the clearest evidence that the system that climate scientists are seeking to model is irreducibly complex. Human-sourced carbon dioxide is at best one of many factors in causing climate change, and humility in front of this complexity is the appropriate stance.

Yet the Society continues to produce a stream of reports which reveal little sign of this. The latest example is the pre-Christmas booklet A Short Guide To Climate Science. Last year also saw the joint publication with the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) of Climate Change: Evidence And Causes, and a report called Resilience. Through these documents, the Society has lent its name to claims – such as trends towards increasing extreme weather and climate casualties – that simply do not match real-world facts.

Both the joint report with the NAS and the Short Guide answer 20 questions on temperatures, sea-level rises and ocean acidification. But a report today by the academic council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes several Society Fellows and other eminent scientists, states the Society has ‘left out’ parts of the science, so the answers to many of the questions ought to be different.

I have personal experience of this selectivity. Last year, at the request of the president, I produced a paper that urged the Society’s council to distance itself from the levels of certainty being expressed about future warming.

I said it ought at least to have a ‘plan B’ if the pause should last much longer, so calling the models into still more serious question. I got a polite brush-off.

The great 20th Century physicist, Richard Feynman, wrote in his autobiography: ‘Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can ‚Äì if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong ‚Äì to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.’ This the Royal Society has failed to do.

The reason for this lack of nuance seems to be that policymakers say they want ‘scientific certainty’. As an engineer, I find that amazing: we remain legally liable for what we say professionally, so will always qualify our statements. But the misleading lack of qualification in the statements made by the Royal Society and others is creating policy nonsense.

The Climate Change Act requires the UK to cut its CO2 emissions by 80 per cent from 1990 levels by 2050 – at mind-boggling cost. Generating electricity from windmills has contributed to electricity prices increasing by twice the level of inflation over the last decade, with further huge rises to fund renewable energy to come. Aluminium production is highly sensitive to energy prices, and most of the UK smelters have closed down – helping us reduce UK emissions, but also exporting jobs.

No one describes the consequence: we now import that aluminium from China, leading to CO2 emissions from shipping it here. Worse, most electricity in China is produced by coal, not gas, as in the UK. We are exacerbating the original global problem of global CO2 emissions, yet also pointing fingers at the Chinese. We really are leading the world in climate change hypocrisy.

The project to ‘solve the climate change problem’ is a modern version of the biblical Tower of Babel. We do not know how much the project will cost, when it will have been completed, nor what success will look like.

During my time as a government departmental Chief Scientific Adviser, I was always aware that politicians made the final decision on any issue on the balance of all the evidence. For this reason, civil servants are trained to draw their attention to all the upsides and downsides of taking a particular course of action.

Those who fail to provide balance are not giving advice, but lobbying. It is with the deepest regret that I must now state that this is the role which has been adopted by the Royal Society. And when scientists abandon neutral inquiry for lobbying, they jeopardise their purpose and integrity.

Professor Michael Kelly is the Prince Philip Professor of Technology at Cambridge University and fellow of the Royal Society.

Source

Continue Reading

Crony biofuel politics wag the dog

corn field 0Talk about the Norfolk terrier tail wagging the Great Dane. If they are to have any hope of winning their party’s nomination, Republican presidential hopefuls better support ethanol mandates, Hawkeye State politicos told potential candidates at the recent Iowa Agricultural Summit in Des Moines.

“Don’t mess with the RFS,” Republican Governor Terry Branstad warned, referring to Renewable Fuel Standards that require refiners to blend increasing amounts of ethanol into gasoline. “It is the Holy Grail, and I will defend it,” said Rep. Steve King, another Iowa Republican. It is vital for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and preventing dangerous climate change and weather extremes, said others.

Corn ethanol is big in Iowa, the March 7-8 Ag Summit kicked off the state’s 2016 election debates, big-time GOP donor Bruce Rastetter made his fortune from ethanol and hosted the event, and the first presidential primary will be held in Iowa. Moreover, Gov. Branstad’s son Eric directs the multi-million-dollar America’s Renewable Future campaign, which co-sponsored the summit and hopes to convince increasingly skeptical voters that the federal government must retain the RFS or even expand it.

Failure to back the RFS means sayonara to any White House hopes, candidates were told. Appropriately chastened, many normally free market proponents dutifully took to the podium to endorse the mandates.

Some cited national security as a justification. The RFS reduces demand for foreign oil, Jeb Bush asserted. Biofuels are a way for America to “fuel itself,” said Mike Huckabee. “Every gallon of ethanol … is one less gallon you have to buy from people who hate your guts,” Lindsay Graham added.

Others focused on allegedly unfair competition. Rick Santorum said the RFS helps ensure that other competitive products besides oil and natural gas “are allowed into [the energy] stream.” Scott Walker recanted his previous opposition and said someday the ethanol industry won’t need these mandates, but right now it “needs government assistance,” because “we don’t have a free and open marketplace.”

Bush and Santorum added that ethanol boosts corn-state economies and creates jobs “in small town and rural America.” Chris Christie said the RFS is “what the law requires” and we need to comply with it. Rick Perry seemed to say it’s time to end federal mandates ‚Äì and let states pick winners and losers.

That’s fine. But now that they have bowed to the biofuel gods, kowtowed to the small cadre of Iowa corn growers, sought the blessings of crony capitalist campaign contributors, and repeated the standard deviations from facts about green energy, climate change and national security, perhaps they will pay closer attention to other candidates, and to what’s actually happening in the energy and climate arenas.

Presidential hopefuls Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul remained firm in their belief that the RFS should be phased out now. Cruz has joined Senators Mike Lee (R-UT), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and others in sponsoring bills to abolish the corn ethanol RFS over five years.

If refiners and gas stations really are working with big oil to cut off access, Cruz suggested, “there are remedies in the federal antitrust laws to deal with that.” Otherwise “the right answer” is to let biofuels keep innovating and producing on their own, “and not have Washington dictating what is happening.”

Biofuel’s problem is not lack of access or unfair competition. It’s that the world has changed since ethanol subsidies and mandates were enacted in 2005. Back then, people more plausibly believed we were running out of petroleum, and global warming might become a serious problem.

But then hydraulic fracturing took off. This steadily improving 60-year-old technology turned the United States into the world’s #1 producer of oil and natural gas ‚Äì and the U.S. is now importing one-third of its oil, instead of two-thirds. Gasoline prices have plunged, making ethanol much less cost-competitive.

Motorists are buying less gasoline than the 2005 and 2007 ethanol mandates envisioned, so refiners don’t need even 14 billion gallons of corn ethanol a year, much less the 15 billion statutory cap. They’ve hit a “blend wall,” and are being forced to buy far more ethanol than they can blend into E10 gasoline. They certainly don’t need an extra 21 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2022 ‚Äì and innovators still haven’t figured out how to make that “advanced biofuel” at a profit.

Using tax dollars to prop up new subsidies, and imposing 15% ethanol gasoline mandates, would be a ridiculous response. The last thing we need is more citizen cash for crony capitalist cellulosic capers.

As to climate fears, no Category 3-5 hurricane has hit the United States since late 2005, the longest such period in more than a century, and perhaps since the Civil War. Tornado activity is also down. Arctic ice has returned to normal and Antarctic ice is at record levels. Sea levels are rising at barely six inches per century. The global frequency and duration of droughts, rainfall and snowfall is within historic norms.

Where is the crisis? The fossil fuel link? If human carbon dioxide emissions drive climate change, did steadily rising atmospheric CO2 levels cause all these blessings and normalcy, and average global temperatures to hold steady for 18 years? The far more likely answer is that the sun and other natural forces still dominate climate and weather systems, as they have throughout Earth and human history – and as actual, real-world temperature, climate, weather, solar and other observations strongly suggest.

IPCC, EPA, NASA, Obama, Penn State, East Anglia University and other climate models and alarms are completely at odds with what is happening on Planet Earth. No wonder alarmists are now so desperate that they blame every weather event on fossil fuels, and viciously attack scientists who point to reality … and threaten their Climate Crisis, Inc. money machine and regulatory power grab.

On top of all the corporate and scientist welfare, rip-offs and McCarthyite tactics, the manmade climate cataclysm mantra has also created a steady stream of corruption and scandal. Former Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber was forced to resign, after he and his fianc√© Cylvia Hayes profited (and failed to report $118,000 in income) from “green energy” schemes. Current Oregon Global Warming Commission chairman Angus Duncan is also president of the Bonneville Environmental Foundation, which makes millions from regional and national sales of renewable energy and “Green Tag” carbon offsets; he also helped write the state’s climate change strategy and cap-and-trade system!

Tens of billions of dollars in wheeling, dealing, nepotism and corporate-environmentalist-political cronyism is intolerable. The Branstad governor-son arrangement raises sniff tests of its own.

Then there are the practical problems. A few corn and soybean farmers get rich. But meat and poultry producers pay far more for feed, and family food bills keep rising. Perhaps worse, says the World Bank, turning half of the U.S. corn crop into fuel creates aid and food shortages in poor nations. More people stay hungry longer, and more die of malnutrition and starvation. The UN Food and Agriculture Association says this has caused food riots and calls it an environmental “crime against humanity.”

Ethanol-blends get fewer miles per tank than pure gasoline. They collect water, corrode engine parts, and cause serious maintenance and repair problems for lawn mowers, chain saws, snowmobiles, emergency generators and other small engines. Classic car enthusiast and former Late Night host Jay Leno says ethanol “eats through fuel pump diaphragms, old rubber fuel lines or pot metal parts, then leaks out on hot engines … and ka-bloooooie!” The older cars catch fire ‚Äì far more often than before E10 was required.

A new Oregon State University study says biofuels barely reduce fossil fuel use and are likely to increase greenhouse gas emissions. And US Department of Energy and other studies demonstrate that producing biofuels requires unsustainable amounts of land, water, fertilizers, pesticides and fossil fuels.

Not surprisingly, even many likely Iowa voters are now skeptical of federal ethanol mandates. Nearly half of them no longer support the RFS even if it helps some Iowa farmers. Republican presidential candidates who surrendered to a gaggle of Iowa corn growers and renewable fuel interests need to reflect long and hard on these ethanol and corruption realities, and the broader national interest.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), author of ‘Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death’ and coauthor of ‘Cracking Big Green: To save the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.’

Continue Reading

Mainstream Global Warming Reporters Are Biased, Unteachable, Lazy, & Unethical

cartoon-media-gwThe left-wing Washington Post, stepping up its advocacy, issued a set of words yesterday teaching the global warming controversy and ignoring science. Typical.

The somehow aptly named E Wemple gave us “NPR attacks alleged ‘attacks’ on climate-change skeptic.”

Wemple begins “On the front page of its Sunday edition of Feb. 22, the New York Times pretty much blasted a hole in the climate-change denial movement.”

False. And childish. Blasted a hole? Pretty much? Climate-change denial movement? This is advocacy, as I said, and not reporting. It is also rotten writing, which is the greater sin.

Wemple can’t be bothered to discuss the simple scientific fact that for decades climate models have been spitting out unskillful, basically wrong forecasts. This proves — logically proves — that the models are flawed, that they are in error, that they should not be trusted until they are fixed.

What are their flaws? Nobody knows for sure. If we did know with certainty, we could use that knowledge to fix the models. We know nobody has done this because the models are still broken.

Some reporters having just enough mental acuity to recognize that the thousands of predictions of doom have never obtained, and seeing dimly that this calls for an explanation, speak of “missing” global warming, or a “hiatus” or a “pause,” terms which prove the skeptics’ point but disguise it. The skeptic says, “The promised warming never occurred,” and the foolish scientist and ignorant reporter reply, “It has paused,” which is logically equivalent to what the skeptic said, but with the addition, “The non-existent warming will return,” a statement which is unproven and against the observational evidence.

So the models are broken. Even though nobody knows why, there are some guesses. One was put forth by Lord Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates, and Yours Truly in the paper “Why models run hot” (pdf).

This paper caused a sensation. Not so much in scientific circles — science moves slowly, a good thing — but in the camps of activists and (redundantly) the press. After the paper became internationally known at the end of January, my site was hacked.

Did you see that, Wemple? My site was hacked. All posts and comments from my database were deleted. My site was down for about a week. Thank the Lord, I had backups of most things.

Not much happened to Lord Monckton, who is independent, but the employers of Legates and Soon received FOIA requests to reveal their emails. Legates’s employers rebuffed the request because, as the four of us said, we received no money for “Why models run hot.”

But Soon’s employers happily gave over Soon’s emails to Greenpeace, and that cult-like organization discovered … nothing. There was nothing to discover. We said we received no money, and we didn’t, which was proved.

Having no handle on three of us, and not satisfied that our paper reminded the world that climate models are busted, Greenpeace floated the rumor that Soon did not acknowledge his “conflicts” of interest.

I had many exchanges with reporters explaining to them that there was no conflict. None seemed in the least interested (see the links below). Wemple is also not interested. He wrote “No matter your take on climate change, the facts about Soon’s funding and his failure to disclose conflicts are just that — facts.”

This is either ignorance or a calculated lie. I’ll let you decide which. Wemple repeats the charge against Soon as if it were true, as if repeating it were all the evidence one needed. This kind of thing happens so often in the press that you have to wonder if it’s taught in “J” school.

Never mind that Soon disclosed all his interest in all his papers, and in particular “Why models run hot”; never mind that it was Soon’s employer that signed all Soon’s contracts (and took about half the money); never mind that Wemple’s “charge” has been answered time and again.

Then came the witch hunt, which is still ongoing. Ruffians in Congress tried to strong-arm employers of several workers in climate science, not so much to discover but to frighten others, to teach the lesson Disagreement with the government Consensus will not be tolerated.

It is true that some pro-government-consensus climate scientists have received hate mail, but this is true, as I have documented, of myself and other climate skeptics. It is true that some pro-government-consensus climate scientists were hacked, but this is true of myself and of organizations like Heartland. (Do we remember Peter Gleick?)

It is true that skeptics like myself, Soon, and others, lose jobs and money because of our skepticism, as I document here, but it is also true that pro-government-consensus climate scientists are well-fattened at the government-grant trough. It it is true that pro-government-consensus climate scientists are lauded in the press as heroes, while skeptics routinely have muck thrown on them.

Yet Wemple (who manages to drop his own name in his “report”) is irked that somebody somewhere in the press pointed out that some skeptics like Soon have been attacked. Yes: That is the excuse for his column.

No matter your take on climate change, the facts about Soon’s attacks and my hacking and our perfect compliance with disclosure rules are just that — facts. Facts Wemple would prefer you not know.

I’ll send him this post. Any bets on whether he’ll read it?

The Why Models Run Hot Affair

In reverse chronological order.

Mainstream Global Warming Reporters Are Biased, Unteachable, Lazy, & Unethical

Journalist Bias For Sale Vs. Academic Freedom: More On The Soon Pseudo-Controversy

Coming Clean On My Global Warming Funding

Government Witch Hunt Of Scientists Begins: DOJ To Join In? Update! Inhofe Fights Back

For The Love Of Models: A Global Warming Allegory

Left Panics Over Peer-Reviewed Climate Paper’s Threat To Global Warming Alarmism

Goon Squad Fails To Distract Public From Fact That Climate Models Stink: Update 3

Response To Trenberth Over “Why Models Run Hot”

Reporting On So-Called Climate Reporters: Update 4

How Good Is That Model? Scoring Rules For Forecasts: Part I, Part II, Part III

Natural Variations In Weather DO NOT Explain The ‘Pause’: Update, With Letter to Nature

Government Funding Is A Conflict Of Interest: Cowardly Calls For Climate Scientist’s Firing. Update

Climate Paper Causes Chaos, Angst, Anger, Apoplexy! (Hacking?)

I Was Hacked

NEW PAPER: Why Models Run Hot: Results From An Irreducibly Simple Climate Model

[Note: This was first published at WMBriggs.com]

Source

Continue Reading

WashPost Film Critic Applauds Film Charging Climate Deniers Just Like Tobacco Lobbyists

cigaretteLiberal Washington Post movie critic Ann Hornaday is a you-had-me-at-Hello date when it comes to “climate change” documentaries. The latest is called Merchants of Doubt, comparing global-warming denial to denying cigarettes are bad for you.

Merchants of Doubt, a documentary by Robert Kenner, takes up where the 2006 global warming tutorial An Inconvenient Truth left off, probing the dubious annals of climate-change denial and the unholy alliance between corporations, partisan politics, pseudo-science and marketing that has given it traction despite clear scientific evidence and consensus.

The headline in the Weekend section on Friday was “Spinning out of control with a familiar formula.” Hornaday reports the book was inspired by the book of the same name by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. This means another Al Gore connection: He’s the first cheerleader for the book:

“Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway have demonstrated what many of us have long suspected: that the ‘debate’ over the climate crisis–and many other environmental issues–was manufactured by the same people who brought you ‘safe’ cigarettes. Anyone concerned about the state of democracy in America should read this book.”

Yes, the “state of democracy in America” stinks when one side doesn’t run over the other and squelch all debate. Back to Hornaday’s rave review:

Kenner traces the roots of their deception to the 1950s and early ’60s, when DDT manufacturers and the tobacco industry began pushing back their critics by falsely insisting that no consensus existed regarding the harmfulness of their products. With the help of such often-controversial public relations companies as Hill & Knowlton, these campaigns successfully passed as fact-based hard news, the invaluable “other side of the story” that an unquestioning press was eager to amplify in the name of fairness and balance.

It’s no surprise that, nearly half a century later, the playbook invented by Big Tobacco and perfected by food and chemical companies should be exploited by energy firms chary of government carbon regulation. But what’s disheartening about Merchants of Doubt is that the strategy still works so effectively, especially in a hyper-partisan, intellectually lazy, spin-addicted 24-7 news cycle.

Even more sobering is how tribal fealty trumps objective reality. Nowhere is that more evident than when a global warming denier, former U.S. congressman Bob Inglis of South Carolina, changes his mind, only to be faced with ignominy and the outrage of his fellow Republicans. When Merchants of Doubt isn’t making you mad, it makes you very simply, and overwhelmingly, sad.

In 2012, Hornaday gushed over the documentary The Island President about Mohamed Nasheed, former president of the Maldives, a chain of islands near India, who announced his people would be murdered by the West: “Whatever happens, even if we all die, we should not be angry with the people who murdered us. We can’t run climate change campaigns fueled by anger. I can’t tell the people [of the Maldives] that there are other countries trying to murder you. They’re trying to do good by their people according to their understanding.”

Hornaday introduced the murder quotes with this gush: “what emerges is still an impressive portrait of a charismatic, compelling leader punching far above his weight and managing to land a few blows.”

Source

Continue Reading

John Kerry lashes out at climate change skeptics, ‘dirty energy’

JohnKerrySecretary of State John Kerry, speaking yesterday at an event hosted by the Atlantic Council, criticized Florida Governor Rick Scott’s (R) administration for allegedly banning the term climate change from all communications. Scott has publicly denied claims that any phrases were forbidden by his administration.

Kerry said, “Now folks, we literally do not have the time to waste debating whether we can say ‘climate change.’ Because no matter how much people want to bury their heads in the sand, it will not alter the fact that 97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible.”

But according to an article first published in the Wall Street Journal on May 27, 2014, “The ’97 percent’ figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.”

“In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

“Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, Professor David R. Legates and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found ‘only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse’ the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming.” You can access the full article here.

Kerry has previously stated that climate change is as “big a threat as terrorism, poverty, and weapons of mass destruction,” and has been considered by some to be a “champion of combating climate change.”

Kerry’s remarks are part of a growing trend among Democrats in the run-up to the 2016 elections to silence climate change scientists and members of Congress who are skeptical of global warming. There is also a new climate change denier website where citizens are urged to contact and harass Senators and House Representatives who don’t follow the climate change narrative.

The actual host for the site is Organizing for America, a group with close ties to the White House, and who have contributed heavily to Democratic priorities in order “to mobilize support behind the president’s agenda.”

According to Kerry, politicians who don’t follow the global warming narrative, “will not be remembered favorably by future generations.” He also said:

“If we fail, future generations will not and should not forgive those who ignore this moment, no matter their reasoning. Future generations will judge our effort not just as a policy failure, but as a collective moral failure of historic consequence. And they will want to know how world leaders could possibly have been so blind or so ignorant or so ideological or so dysfunctional and, frankly, so stubborn.”

Mimicking Obama’s recent comments about the Keystone Pipeline carrying “dirty oil,” Kerry urged the country to transition away from “dirty sources of energy.” The Keystone XL pipeline, which needs the State Department’s approval to be built across international borders, awaits Kerry’s decision.

Once made, its ultimate fate resides with the President, who vetoed bipartisan legislation on February 24, 2015, that would have begun construction of the pipeline.

Kerry also commended Obama’s “Climate Action Plan” for lowering carbon dioxide emissions, which the Daily Caller noted as “praise that may be misplaced.”

Government data shows that U.S. emissions began to fall in 2007,” and Obama’s Climate Plan wasn’t announced until summer 2013.

Source

Continue Reading