The previous two posting show that the real purpose of the leaders is to take down Capitalism using man-made global warming as the cover. They concluded that global warming probably would not likely be dramatic enough if they just reported their scientific findings. So, let’s see what a spokesperson of this movement decided would have to be done:
“On one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but—which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.”
“On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination.”
“That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula.”
Schneider knows that to be honest will not work. He is obviously endorsing the scary scenarios. And it worked.
Along the way, some of the scientists challenged Schneider’s plan. For example, emeritus professor Daniel Botkin related this story:
“Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate. They tell me that my belief in open and honest assessment is naïve.”
Obviously, they disregarded Botkin’s opinion. But those scientists have left a body of exaggerated predictions that demonstrate how poorly their technique has been. Yet, however poorly their predictions have been, the media has fulfilled Schneider fondest wish without thinking twice. For example, they not only do not care how many bad predictions Al Gore has made, and often they find the most alarming part of his prediction and exaggerate it even more. There is a problem with the reporters. Do you remember what Ben Rhodes said about the reporters that covered his press releases promoting the then President Obama’s pact with Iran regarding Iran’s plan to make nuclear weapons?: Rhodes braggingly said that he could get them to write anything he wanted because:
“The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”
Ok, so what about these predictions? You are going to have to work a little to see them. The work will be to click on links to these predictions. There are many lists of failed prediction available, but alas, if I included them all, this would not be a posting, it might be more like a tome.
The National Weather Service (NWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are complaining that the current government shutdown is really endangering US citizens because it has stopped some research. The organizations posting titled “The government shutdown is putting the US further behind in a weather-forecasting race with Europe” however suggests that the issue is a race with Europe more than saving us from serious problems.
The shutdown is in its 26th day and it has the potential to make poor predictions about the 2019 tornado and hurricane seasons, alleges NSW and NOAA. Their predictions were way off for both tornados and hurricanes in 2018. But one wonders about how much this shutdown has impacted their work. Being that the 26 days have contained 6 Saturdays and Sundays and more to the point the entire Christmas week as well as the following New Years week. Probably not much would have been done in that period of time. This sounds like a CYA or a political statement about the stakes in the shutdown.
Speaking of lost time, they tell us that in 2012, the European weather forecast system predicted that Tropical Storm Sandy would make US land fall and our system said it would not. So this is 6 plus years later and our agencies have not caught up with the European system. What is some small part of 26 days got to do will the fact the European system has been better than ours for at least 6 years?
The posting tells us:
“Atmospheric scientists and meteorologists tend to agree about one thing: Europe is better than the US (and arguably the rest of the world) at predicting weather.
Frankly, I don’t get it. The actual data is ignored by dedicated warmers. In the period that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been the warmer’s authority on all things related to climate science, the forecasted temperatures have greatly exceeded the actual recorded temperatures. All one must do is look at the following chart:
The forecast temperatures, generated by a banks of computers, are well above the measured temperatures. The satellite and balloon actual measurements confirm one onther, And the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is higher than the warmer computer operators expected so the gap between real and computer forecast temperatures should even be greater. If this gap had only existed for just several years, one might say that we should wait a while because It might possibly start to get smaller. But that is not been the case. As the years go by it has grown larger. The chart shows the satellite and balloon temperatures as rising in this chart. That was caused by the El Nino. Those temperatures are now trending down. Overall, the measured global temperature as shown is rising, but this is due to natural forces with only a minimal amount due to CO2.
Temperature is the driver for their forecasts of all the catastrophic thing they imagine will happen. Melting glaciers, disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, sea level rise of many meters, droughts, floods, tornados, hurricanes, loss of species, massive migrations, diseases moving in a polar direction etc. are all a function of the very high projected global temperatures.
They keep teasing you by telling you that there is “tipping point” that if reached will result in an uncontrollable ramp-up of temperature that will have catastrophic results. Can we really believe this as their prediction batting average is not very good?
I used to be a frequent contributor of “letters to the Editor”. Most of my letters asked why the media continued to publish these outlandish forecasts that did not come true. That they should review the history of what they have published and that they would see the prediction’s failure rate was very high. Aren’t the media supposed to be skeptics? Not necessarily about just global warming but everything? They are not fulfilling their obligation to their subscribers. And that is reflected, obviously, by the decline of subscribers and their withering loss of credibility which has them now rated near the bottom of the polled lists.
To summarize, if the actual temperature is not skyrocketing, the warmer catastrophes are not going to happen. All their bloviating is just that, blovating. They must keep you worried so they can continue to get money from you and the government to keep them alive.
Some of you may have noticed that my postings have almost been non-existent for many months. I have had some health setbacks that have kept my posting near zero. Trigeminal neuralgia is a nasty thing to have. I am on my second bout with it. About 14 years ago, I had my first encounter. As Trigeminal sometimes does, it went into remission after about a year. But now it is back. Medication allows me to have mostly pain free days. Having compared notes with my niece who has had Trigeminal longer than I have and much worse, we both find that moving your neck in the ways that one does when typing and reading, really aggravates this damned condition. I think I am now in condition to continue my blogging- I hope.
°If cbdakota were appointed the EPA Administrator, he might begin his work issuing this statement:
I thank President Trump for my nomination and the vote approving the nomination.
Our mission will be that the EPA continues to protect the environment and at the same time does not stifle our Nation’s productivity.
Our initial review of the EPA has found some activities, regulations and guidance documents that need to be critically assessed, cancelled or expanded. The following are several of the items that illustrate the issues we uncovered and our plan to deal with these issues:
The Endangerment Finding (EF) needs to be re-evaluated, revised and updated using current science. The EF is largely based upon the IPCC pre-2007 climate science, making it more than 10 years old. Furthermore, the projections of temperature, sea level and other variables do not match the actual measured temperature and sea level data. These EF projections greatly overstate the size of the changes thus putting into question the amount of endangerment.
This afternoon, I received an email from the Heartland Institute saying about what I said in my yesterday’s posting. It also clears up the misinformation put out by the New York Times. The Heartland email:
Can the media greenwash Trump?
President-elect Trump met with theNew York Timesand the media quickly unleashed an interesting spin.
The “breaking” (fake) news story was that Trump had somehow changed his views on global warming.
This would seem a major flip flop after Trump repeatedly said during the campaign he would withdraw the U.S. from the UN’s Paris climate agreement and vowed to set the U.S. back on a pro-energy course.
CFACT’s friend Joe Bast, head of the Heartland Institute, publicized a more detailed transcript of Trump’s meeting with theTimesand, lo and behold, what Trump actually said is right in keeping with his campaign pledges.
Marc Morano posted a detailed analysis atClimate Depot, picked up today by theDrudge Report,to help clear the record about this exchange. As Marc explains:
Senator Whitehouse (D-RI) is calling for RICO investigations of skeptics and fossil fuel companies. California legislators writing a bill allowing for the prosecution of climate change dissent—fortunately it died this past Thursday. Seventeen State Attorney Generals investigating Exxon. Calls to silence skeptical views are becoming more frequent. A number of major US newspapers are prohibiting discussion of Skeptical views. This theme parallels the Social Justice Warriors efforts to impose their view of politically correct and thus allowable speech. The First Amendment to the Constitution is under siege by the media and the government itself. The Amendment was designed to prevent the Government from squashing dissenting views and is often considered the medias first line of defense from the government crackdowns such as are common in socialist, communist and dictatorial governments (e.g. Venezuela, China and Iran.)
”Climate science acts like it is fighting a holy war. There are only those who are just and those who must be silenced and stopped at all costs. Anyone who mounts reasonable logical, empirical, or skeptical challenges to the orthodoxy must be ruined, not by counterfactual evidence, but by vicious attack”.
Obviously the warmers are not winning the hearts and minds of free people. One reason for this is that the disinformation primarily comes from the warmers. The predictions of catastrophe are many and they have not come true. And you do not need to be a climate scientist to understand how the warmers continue to get it wrong. The mainstream media is complicit in the distribution of this disinformation.
Look at these postings where you can get some idea of how poor their predictions are:
Warren Meyers is posting on his website, Coyoteblog.com an essay on Global Warming (aka global climate change). Meyers is quite good as an explainer of issues because he can do it without making them too complex for most people to understand. The following, is the first of perhaps 6 parts. I plan on rebloging them all.
I suppose the first question I need to answer is: why should you bother reading this? We are told the the science is “settled” and that there is a 97% consensus among scientists on …. something. Aren’t you the reader just giving excess credence to someone who is “anti-science” just by reading this?
Well, this notion that the “debate is over” is one of those statements that is both true and not true. There is something approaching scientific consensus for certain parts of anthropogenic global warming theory — for example, the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that concentrations of it in the atmosphere have a warming effect on the Earth is pretty much undisputed in all but the furthest reaches of the scientific community.
But it turns out that other propositions that are important to the debate on man-made global warming are far less understood scientifically, and the near certainty on a few issues (like the existence of the greenhouse gas effect) is often used to mask real questions about these other propositions. So before we go any further , it is critical for us to get very clear what exact proposition we are discussing.
At this point I have to tell a story from over thirty years ago when I saw Any Rand speak at Northeastern University (it’s hard to imagine any university today actually allowing Rand on campus, but that is another story). In the Q&A period at the end, a woman asked Rand, “Why don’t you believe in housewives?” and Rand answered, in a very snarky fashion, “I did not know housewives were a matter of belief.” What the woman likely meant to ask was “Why don’t you believe that being a housewife is a valid occupation for a woman?” But Rand was a bear for precision in language and was not going to agree or disagree with a poorly worded proposition.
I am always reminded of this story when someone calls me a climate denier. I want to respond, in Rand’s Russian accent, “I did not know that climate was a matter of belief?”
But rather than being snarky here, let’s try to reword the “climate denier” label and see if we can get to a proposition with which I can agree or disagree.
Am I, perhaps, a “climate change denier?” Well, no. I don’t know anyone who is. The world has had warm periods and ice ages. The climate changes.
OK, am I a “man-made climate change denier?” No again. I know very few people, except perhaps for a few skeptics of the talkshow host variety, that totally deny any impact of man’s actions on climate. Every prominent skeptic I can think of acknowledges multiple vectors of impact by man on climate, from greenhouse gas emissions to land use.
Basic physics? Far from it. The greens are trying to sell this. A recent posting on this site has a video in which Carol Andress of the Environmental Defense Fund uses this line in a debate with Marc Morano. Ms Andress seems particularly ill informed so she had to resort to this line of “Just Basic Physics”.
It should come as no surprise that General Circulation Models (GCM), the basis for more comprehensive computer climate models, are based on differential equations, as are weather forecasting models and hurricane path prediction models. As we all know, weather forecasts are not very accurate, only giving a general idea of conditions a few days out, and hurricane models generally cannot predict the point of landfall until just before a storm comes ashore. But GCMs are different from weather programs even though they use some of the same equations. That is a refrain often repeated by supercilious climate modelers. It is true that climate models also include extra factors like sea ice models and “parametrization” for things like clouds. Unfortunately for them their models are not immune to the laws of computation that make their short term cousins grow more and more inaccurate over time.”
James Spann is an AMS certified meteorologist and Host of WeatherBrains. His views on the connection between man-made global warming and the severe
Houston Post Photo
flooding that parts of Texas have recently experienced were posted in a Medium Corporation blog, titled “The Age Of Disinformation”. I have selected several things he has to say :
“No doubt national news media outlets are out of control when it comes to weather coverage, and their idiotic claims find their way to us on a daily basis. The Houston flooding is a great example. We are being told this is “unprecedented”… Houston is “under water”… and it is due to manmade global warming.
Yes, the flooding in Houston yesterday was severe, and a serious threat to life and property. A genuine weather disaster that has brought on suffering.
But, no, this was not “unprecedented”. Flooding from Tropical Storm Allison in 2001 was more widespread, and flood waters were deeper.”
“Flood events in 2009, 2006, 1998, 1994, 1989, 1983, and 1979 brought higher water levels to most of Houston, and there were many very serious flood events before the 1970s.”
I experienced a serious flood event in the 1970s in Beaumont, Texas. One day heavy rain began to fall in North East Texas, supercharging the Neches River. By the time the rain arrived in South East Texas, where Beaumont is sited, the Neches River was running over its banks. Adding to that, Beaumont got roughly 10 inches of rain in a 24-hour period . When the rain stopped, sightseers in canoes were paddling down the street in front of my house.
One more lifting from Mr. Spann’s posting:
“Back to my point… many professional meteorologists feel like we are fighting a losing battle when it comes to national media and social media hype and disinformation. They will be sure to let you know that weather events they are reporting on are “unprecedented”, there are “millions and millions in the path”, it is caused by a “monster storm”, and “the worst is yet to come” since these events are becoming more “frequent”.
You will never hear about the low tornado count in recent years, the lack of major hurricane landfalls on U.S. coasts over the past 10 years, or the low number of wildfires this year. It doesn’t fit their story. But, never let facts get in the way of a good story…. there will ALWAYS be a heat wave, flood, wildfire, tornado, tyhpoon, cold wave, and snow storm somewhere. And, trust me, they will find them, and it will probably lead their newscasts. But, users beware…”
Again as I did yesterday, I am reblogging a terrific posting from WattsUpWithThat by Paul Driessen. I have covered these topics on a number of occasions, but Driessen lays out the case about as well as can be done.
Guest opinion by Paul Driessen
Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA), other senators and Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) recently sent letters to institutions that employ or support climate change researchers whose work questions claims that Earth and humanity face unprecedented manmade climate change catastrophes.
The letters allege that the targeted researchers may have “conflicts of interest” or may not have fully disclosed corporate funding sources. They say such researchers may have testified before congressional committees, written articles or spoken at conferences, emphasizing the role of natural forces in climate change, or questioning evidence and computer models that emphasize predominantly human causes.
Mr. Grijalva asserts that disclosure of certain information will “establish the impartiality of climate research and policy recommendations” published in the institutions’ names and help Congress make better laws. “Companies with a direct financial interest in climate and air quality standards are funding environmental research that influences state and federal regulations and shapes public understanding of climate science.” These conflicts need to be made clear, because members of Congresscannot perform their duties if research or testimony is “influenced by undisclosed financial relationships,” it says.
The targeted institutions are asked to reveal their policies on financial disclosure; drafts of testimony before Congress or agencies; communications regarding testimony preparation; and sources of “external funding,” including consulting and speaking fees, research grants, honoraria, travel expenses and other monies – for any work that questions the manmade climate cataclysm catechism.
Conflicts of interest can indeed pose problems. However, it is clearly not only fossil fuel companies that have major financial or other interests in climate and air quality standards – nor only manmade climate change skeptics who can have conflicts and personal, financial or institutional interests in these issues.
Renewable energy companies want to perpetuate the mandates, subsidies and climate disruption claims that keep them solvent. Insurance companies want to justify higher rates, to cover costs from allegedly rising seas and more frequent or intense storms. Government agencies seek bigger budgets, more personnel, more power and control, more money for grants to researchers and activist groups that promote their agendas and regulations, and limited oversight, transparency and accountability for their actions. Researchers and organizations funded by these entities naturally want the financing to continue.
You would therefore expect that these members of Congress would send similar letters to researchers and institutions on the other side of this contentious climate controversy. But they did not, even though climate alarmism is embroiled in serious financial, scientific, ethical and conflict of interest disputes.
As Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT atmospheric sciences professor emeritus and one of Grijalva’s targets, has pointed out: “Billions of dollars have been poured into studies supporting climate alarm, and trillions of dollars have been involved in overthrowing the energy economy” – and replacing it with expensive, inefficient, insufficient, job-killing, environmentally harmful wind, solar and biofuel sources.
Their 1090 forms reveal that, during the 2010-2012 period, six environmentalist groups received a whopping $332 million from six federal agencies! That is 270 times what Dr. Willie Soon and Harvard-Smithsonian’s Center for Astrophysics received from fossil fuel companies in a decade – the funding that supposedly triggered the lawmakers’ letters, mere days after Greenpeace launched its attack on Dr. Soon.
The EPA, Fish & Wildlife Service, NOAA, USAID, Army and State Department transferred this taxpayer money to Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, Nature Conservancy, Natural Resource Defense Council, National Wildlife Fund and Clean Air Council, for research, reports, press releases and other activities that support and promote federal programs and agendas on air quality, climate change, climate impacts on wildlife, and many similar topics related to the Obama war on fossil fuels. The activists also testified before Congress and lobbied intensively behind the scenes on these issues.
Between 2000 and 2013, EPA also paid the American Lung Association well over $20 million, and lavished over $180 million on its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee members, to support agency positions. Chesapeake energy gave the Sierra Club $26 million to advance its Beyond Coal campaign. Russia gave generously to anti-fracking, climate change and related “green” efforts.
Government agencies and laboratories, universities and other organizations have received billions of taxpayer dollars, to develop computer models, data and reports confirming alarmist claims. Abundant corporate money has also flowed to researchers who promote climate alarms and keep any doubts to themselves. Hundreds of billions went to renewable energy companies, many of which went bankrupt. Wind and solar companies have been exempted from endangered species laws, to protect them against legal actions for destroying wildlife habitats, birds and bats. Full disclosure? Rarely, if ever.
In gratitude and to keep the money train on track, many of these recipients contribute hefty sums to congressional candidates. During his recent primary and general campaign, for example, Senator Markey received $3.8 million from Harvard and MIT professors, government unions, Tom Steyer and a dozen environmentalist groups (including recipients of some of that $332 million in taxpayer funds), in direct support and via advertisements opposing candidates running against the champion of disclosure.
As to the ethics of climate disaster researchers, and the credibility of their models, data and reports, ClimateGate emails reveal that researchers used various “tricks” to mix datasets and “hide the decline” in average global temperatures since 1998; colluded to keep skeptical scientific papers out of peer-reviewed journals; deleted potentially damaging or incriminating emails; and engaged in other practices designed to advance manmade climate change alarms. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based many of its most notorious disappearing ice cap, glacier and rainforest claims on student papers, magazine articles, emails and other materials that received no peer review. The IPCC routinely tells its scientists to revise their original studies to reflect Summaries for Policymakers written by politicians and bureaucrats.
Yet, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy relies almost entirely on this junk science to justify her agency’s policies – and repeats EPA models and hype on extreme weather, refusing to acknowledge that not one Category 3-5 hurricane has made U.S. landfall for a record 9.3 years. Her former EPA air quality and climate czar John Beale is in prison for fraud, and the agency has conducted numerous illegal air pollution experiments on adults and even children – and then ignored their results in promulgating regulations.
Long-time IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri has resigned in disgrace, after saying manmade climate change is “my religion, my dharma” (principle of the cosmic order), rather than a matter for honest, quality science and open, robust debate. The scandals go on and on: see here, here,here, here and here.
It’s no wonder support for job and economy-killing carbon taxes and regulations is at rock bottom. And not one bit surprising that alarmists refuse to debate realist scientists: the “skeptics” would eviscerate their computer models, ridiculous climate disaster claims, and “adjusted” or fabricated evidence.
Instead, alarmists defame scientists who question their mantra of “dangerous manmade climate change.” The Markey and Grijalva letters “convey an unstated but perfectly clear threat: Research disputing alarm over the climate should cease, lest universities that employ such individuals incur massive inconvenience and expense – and scientists holding such views should not offer testimony to Congress,” Professor Lindzen writes. They are “a warning to any other researcher who may dare question in the slightest their fervently held orthodoxy of anthropogenic global warming,” says Dr. Soon. Be silent, or perish.
Now the White House is going after Members of Congress! Its new Climate-Change-Deniers website wants citizens to contact and harass senators and congressmen who dare to question its climate diktats.
Somehow, though, Markey, Grijalva, et al. have not evinced any interest in investigating any of this. The tactics are as despicable and destructive as the junk science and anti-energy policies of climate alarmism. It is time to reform the IPCC and EPA, and curtail this climate crisis insanity.
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: Saving the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.
Watch EPA secretary demonstrate that she is in over her head.