Communication Dilemmas #1: Wishing Death on People Without Losing Them

Part of being a science communicator is hoping a natural disaster kills as many members of the audience as possible, as soon as possible, with as much media exposure as possible. As a communicator myself, I’d like nothing better than for thousands of middle-class white people to die in an extreme weather event—preferably one with global warming’s fingerprints on it—live on cable news. Tomorrow.

The hardest thing about communicating the deadliness of the climate problem is that it isn’t killing anyone. And just between us, let’s be honest: the average member of the public is a bit (how can I put it politely?) of a moron. It’s all well and good for the science to tell us global warming is a bigger threat than Fascism was, but Joe Q. Flyover doesn’t understand science. He wants evidence.

So we’ve probably reached the limits of what science communication can achieve. At this point only nature herself can close the consensus gap—or the fear gap.

Cognitologist C. R. R. Kampen thinks the annihilation of a city of 150,000 people might just provide the teaching moment we need:

You see, consensus is so often only reached after a painful confrontation with evidence.

Knowing this, I hope against knowledge of her expected track that Cyclone Ita will wipe Cairns off the map. Because the sooner the lesson is learnt by early confrontation, the better one more population will be suited to anticipate and mitigate the vast weather and climate (+ related) disasters that lie in the immediate future and to lose all distractions on the way.

(Let me dispel, right up front, a common and perhaps forgivable misinterpretation of this family of argument: no, Kampen doesn’t mean to suggest the destruction of a single city would be sufficient. That’s just a silly strawman. Like all scientists, Kampen is acutely aware that a single data point, such as the deletion of Cairns, would not even be attributable to man-made global warming with any confidence—let alone would it prove the planet was worse off, taking all metrics into account, under BAU. What we’re talking about here is a possibility which, with luck, would start a conversation on climate action, not end one.)

One thing science communicators have learned the hard way is that simply blurting out the truths you know isn’t good enough. Some ideas need to be framed more carefully than others. (Dan Kahan might say “scientifically.”)

Unfortunately, Kampen’s writing is almost naïve in its candor. One can only hope the forces of anti-science never hear about it, because it’s veritably ripe for their favorite rhetorical tactic: cherry-picking, or ‘quoting.’

Let’s pretend, solo ad argumentum, that I’m on the Monckton side of the Subterranean War on Science. Now let me inform you that Dr Kampen once wrote:

I hope against knowledge of her expected track that Cyclone Ita will wipe Cairns off the map.

Wow. Taste the difference? By the simple trick of telling people that Kampen hopes they die without saying what he writes next (wherein he clearly explains that it’s for their own good), a rhetorician with no conscience—like a denier—could simultaneously make Kampen look like a sociopath and pander to the false stereotype of the greenie-as-armchair-genocidaire.

That’s what we call, in science communication, an own goal.

To sum up, here’s a list of “Do’s” and “Don’t’s” for those times when you just wish the climate would hurry up and vindicate the science by killing people:

DON’T:

• say so

DO:

• always return to the real issue: the dangers of the denialist agenda

[Edited for fanatical accuracy. —BK]

283 thoughts on “Communication Dilemmas #1: Wishing Death on People Without Losing Them

  1. Martin Clark

    “Joe Q. Flyover doesn’t understand science. He wants evidence.”
    Translation: Joe Q. Flyover DOES understand science. That is why he wants evidence.
    But doesn’t get any evidence.
    As someone who has had, for decades, responsibility for promoting resilience to climate events in NE Australia, I am becoming very tired of “science communicators” who know absolutely nothing, but think they can teach me and other professionals how to suck eggs. There is nothing unusual about Ita. There was nothing unusual about Yasi. We do not have a problem with “climate change”. Our problem is climate sameness. The climate is mostly benign. Except when it isn’t.
    Cyclones are not getting more frequent or severe. Global average temperature has not risen for 17 years 18 months. During the same period, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by around 10%. CO2 has NO effect on temperature.
    You people make the problem worse. Not only do I have to encourage people to go a few more bolts and plates above the design wind speed, or a few more millimetres above the minimum habitable floor level, I now have to spend time explaining to them that the science that you people are communicating is bunk.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Doubting Rich

      “Translation: Joe Q. Flyover DOES understand science. That is why he wants evidence.
      But doesn’t get any evidence.”

      Excellent. Directly to the heart of the problem.

      Where is the empirical evidence for high residence times of CO2 in the atmosphere? Where is the empirical evidence that most of the warming from the late 1970s to the late 1990s was mostly caused by man-made CO2, unlike identical earlier warming? Where is the empirical evidence that there is strong net positive feedback in temperature in the climate?

      Where is the empirical evidence that the models tell us anything useful at all? I can point to 3 independent lines of empirical evidence that they are wrong, and run too hot.

      Like

      Reply
    2. Brad Keyes Post author

      I now have to spend time explaining to them that the science that you people are communicating is bunk.

      CN strives for a mix of effectiveness and truth at all times, so we welcome any and all corrections, by credible sources, of any scientific error we may have made. You are encouraged to look around until you find one.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Doubting Rich

        What is the evidence then? The burden of proof is on you to defend this “I’d like nothing better than if thousands of middle-class white people died in an extreme weather event—preferably one with global warming’s fingerprints on it”.

        I assume (please correct me if I am wrong) that you mean it to persuade people that global warming in your weasel words is both man-made and likely to be dangerous to mankind, as labelled CAGW. Otherwise we either cannot (if it is natural) or need not (if it is not dangerous) do anything about it.

        This is a scientific error. There is no evidence whatever that warming is either mostly anthropogenic or likely to be seriously harmful in the foreseeable future.

        Climate has always changed. The change in the last century has not been unusual (I assume if you know anything about the issue that you know both these things; therefore I do not need to find any source). Therefore you need to provide empirical evidence that the change is caused by man and is likely to be harmful You need to provide credible sources (and no, models that are known to be wrong are not credible sources, nor are papers written using model results however eminent the author).

        Like

      2. Popeye

        Brad Keys

        [Mods: Brad’s surname has a second “e”! You just blew all your credibility. The questions below may appear compelling / important, but we can safely ignore them now.]

        Simple question for you and all the other so called intellectuals (including warmist scientists).

        What temperature is the CORRECT temperature that we should aim for to benefit the ecosphere?

        IOW – tell us all here WHEN the temperature of the earth was PERFECT and why it didn’t stay at that temperature!

        Sheesh – some people think they FN know it all – looking forward to this answer🙂

        Cheers,

        Liked by 1 person

      3. dagwud

        “[Mods: Brad’s surname has a second “e”! You just blew all your credibility. The questions below may appear compelling / important, but we can safely ignore them now.]”

        If they were given 3 guesses, would the “Mods” need all of them to identify which logical fallacy is present in the above statement? The same fallacy is in the above article, but it is, by no means, the only one present.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Doubting Rich

    Hahahaha

    The irony of you lying about those with whom you disagree cherry picking as you say how great the tactic of cherry picking is!

    There have always been tropical revolving storms. If a TRS does wipe out Cairns then that is an horrific tragedy, but you would be lying through your teeth if you claimed that was evidence of climate change, let alone if you then used it to connect that climate change to human influence. That would b cherry picking a single incident in one area and claiming that it is evidence of changing climate.

    Given that the accumulated cyclone energy in the world has reduced over time, and for example the USA has had the longest recorded period without a cat 3 or above hurricane making landfall, you are cherry picking. You even admit it yourself.

    So you give no example of sceptics cherry picking, and one example of alarmists wishing to do so, even if people die so they can (they already did so over the lives of those who died in Katrina; must have laughed their heads off at that one). So the evidence is that alarmists, not sceptics, cherry pick. The whole scare is based on cherry picking of course. They pick around 20 years of warming in the late 20th century, warming at an almost identical rate to a similar timespan early in the century before man-made CO2 can possibly have had significant influence, and ignore every other time period, including the last 17 years! That is cherry picking.

    “It’s all well and good for the science to tell us global warming is more dangerous than Nazism”

    Are you really saying that Nazism was beneficial? I thought that was illegal in Germany. Science tells us that so fa climate change in the 20th century has been beneficial. So if it is more dangerous than Nazism, then you are saying that Nazism was even more beneficial. Science does not even tell us if the 21st century will warm or cool, there are different hypotheses. If it warms it will almost certainly do so by less than 1 degree, and that will still be beneficial.

    “By the simple trick of telling people that Kampen hopes they die without saying what he writes next (wherein he clearly explains that it’s for their own good)”

    For their own good? You see, the Nazis thought what they did was for the good of the people. So did the communists. They forget that many people lose whatever they had, and many more their lives. Then no good came of it.

    Using one incident to lie about climate will not do anyone any good. Many people will lose a great deal by the storm he hopes will hit, many more by the unnecessary economic damage done in a Canute-like attempt to stop climate doing what it has done for 4.55 Ga – changing. People are already starving because arrogant, foolish people have demanded that food be converted to fuel. People are already suffering illness and early death due to solid-fuel stoves, because rich white people decided that they should discourage building of coal-fired power stations.

    Oh, but they are black people in Africa or brown people in Asia, and you don’t care about them, do you? You are a rich white person in Europe, who along with rich white people in N America and Australasia make up almost all the environmental movement. They can afford it.

    There is no evidence whatever, not one iota, that weather-related disasters are increasing in frequency or intensity. Even the corrupt, biased IPCC has been forced to admit this. Your hero is hoping people die and others lose everything they own so that he can lie to people about climate change.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Brad Keyes Post author

      Using one incident to lie about climate will not do anyone any good.

      Of course. Our piece explicitly concedes that “one incident” would not be enough.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Doubting Rich

        Sorry, maybe I was not clear enough, but that is not my point. My point is that selecting times and locations when TRSs happen but ignoring the times and locations they don’t happen is cherry picking. That is why storms are only relevant if we take long-term, world-wide statistics. That is why even this is not important enough to measure the effects of the natural warming we have been experiencing since the 1650s. For that we need to look at all harmful weather phenomena.

        That is why sceptics point out things like the fact that the US has been rather cold this past winter. We do not do so because we think that cherry-picking is good, but to point out to alarmists that cherry picking is bad. If it can be done both ways, that different figures can be picked to tell both cases, then cherry picking is going on and all the data need to be included.

        Like

    2. Brad Keyes Post author

      You see, the Nazis thought what they did was for the good of the people.

      Not the good of all the people though. Why is Hitler universally condemned? Because of his heteronormative, ableist ideology which entrenched the privilege of people who “looked right.”

      Imagine we’re in Germany, 1940. Put yourself in the place of, say, a marriage-free woman of color with a disabled child, who converted to Judaism. Now, are you honestly going to tell me you have the same opportunities for promotion in the corporation you work for as the white Catholic man in the next cubicle?

      Seriously? You’re really saying that? Boy o boy. You’re living in an ahistorical fantasy land.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Doubting Rich

        Again you miss the point. Good intentions lead to evil outcomes. Of course I used extreme cases (and it is odd that you jump straight to the less extreme one: communism was a far more destructive ideology; of course it is behind much environmentalism and CAGW alarmism too, so perhaps you wish to avoid dwelling on that), the rhetorical device is fairly common, and it was you brought up Nazism.

        Like

      2. Doubting Rich

        Actually, I would like to correct my own reply. It would be more apt to say that evil things are excused by claims of good intent, and sometimes those good intentions are genuine.

        People are dying, people are living brutally hard, short lives because of Luddites, some of them well intentioned, using claims of “environmentalism” and wanting to destroy industry and capitalism. Destroy the very things that have improved and extended lives for billions of people in unprecedented fashion, and in the process are starting to actually improve the environment where the development is greatest.

        Like

      3. Lou Ann Watson

        “ideology which entrenched the privilege of people who looked right.”
        in your statement, just replace the word “looked” with “thought”…voila! we have you and people of your ilk.

        Like

      4. Brad Keyes Post author

        Lou Ann,

        Thanks for your comment—that’s actually a really good way of putting it. It’s one of the best explanations of what science communicators do that I’ve come across—our job is about “positive discrimination” or “affirmative action” in favor of people who are correct, at the expense of people who are wrong. You don’t mind if I “steal” it, do you?

        Anyway, glad you like our work, please keep reading!

        Brad

        Like

      5. Kennymac

        Could you communicate to me what the scientific name of the model that correctly predicts the earth’s climate? I want to Google the model by name. Simplicity is a key to good communication. What’s the name?

        Like

      6. Brad Keyes Post author

        I want to Google the model by name.

        Aw, that’s nice. Earth to general public: We all want things.

        I want a big fat Koch payment for moderating here, especially since I have to do double duty rebutting comments—unfortunately that’s not going to happen because ClimateNuremberg is on the scientific, not the skeptical, side.

        We just don’t have enough dark money to pay a second researcher, so would it kill you to wait your turn, Kennymac?

        Sorry to be brusque, but I don’t think you quite grasp how many hours per day the average science communicator wastes dealing with questions from the general public instead of communicating science.

        Like

      7. Kennymac

        “A communicator would perhaps be expected to know the name of what he is communicating.”

        Was that Lewis Carroll?

        Like

      8. Larry Logan

        Why do you come up with the canard of ‘Koch’? Do you think the ‘realists’ websites are getting paid by Koch? JoNova is using her own pennies, as is McIntyre as is Watts as is…

        Soros is ‘the’ large contributor, along with monies into Fenton Communications which is the backer of alarmists sites (and came up with the Alar scare and others). Sorry, but the money is on the warming side, as there’s money to be made in carbon offsets, renewable energy credits and on and on. There’s no way for a realist to make money just by showing data that contravenes the IPCC.

        Like

    3. cohenite

      One of the really great tragedies of AGW is the use of the term cherry-picking; I believe the sales of cherries and Cherry Ripes have plummeted as a result.

      Like

      Reply
  3. Brad Keyes Post author

    “communism was a far more destructive ideology; of course it is behind much environmentalism and CAGW alarmism too”

    Right. And MI5 killed Princess Di.

    Deniers really need to read Merchants of Doubt, which explains where their silly conspiracy theories come from: they’re just a false narrative implanted by a secret coalition involving the Murdocracy, Big Everything and Big Everything Else, who’ve been working behind the arras of world history for decades (since at least the Tobacco Wars) towards a single ultimate, unspoken, unwritten goal: global denial of science itself.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Doubting Rich

      What conspiracy theories? I have mentioned no conspiracies.

      The UK environmental “charities” developed from or in parallel with CND, with many of the same people. CND was funded at least in part by the KGB. It was riddled with communists. Environmental organisations throughout the world are filled with old lefties, some are communists and fellow travellers.

      It just shows why you struggle to communicate. You actually, hilariously, advance a bizarre conspiracy theory in a comment complaining about a conspiracy theory that I did not advance.

      Of course we know there were minor conspiracies in the climate cabal. Mean, petty little things, like conspiring to break FOI laws, and conspiring to corrupt peer review to get poor alarmist papers published and sound sceptical papers rejected, or even get editors fired. We know because emails were leaked discussing these, they are not in dispute. However I don’t think there is an over-arching conspiracy, just a web of self-interest. Far more petty, selfish and disgusting than some competent conspiracy.

      Like

      Reply
    2. Doubting Rich

      P.S. You need to read “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert” which explains the true nature of the IPCC as an activist rather than scientific body, and “Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors” by James Delingpole which shows the connections between the environmental movement and the hard left.

      Like

      Reply
      1. cohenite

        DR, what I think Brad is really saying is that he secretly loved Lady Di; and who amongst us didn’t?

        Like

    3. John Fonteine

      Are you truly that daft???????? I live in Canada and I have still two feet of snow in my front lawn. We have experienced three Arctic Vortices. The Great Lakes have been covered with ice for 96% of their total surface. I know Europe had a very mild winter, but we made up for that. The local newspaper has kept track of the “ice off” date of Lake Nipissing since 1901. That is 113 years for the mathematically challenged. I took that data and put it in graph form. There is NO warming trend whatsoever to be spotted over more than a century. Keep on drinking the kool-aid.

      Like

      Reply
    4. Not Buyin' It

      Translation: I’ll see your conspiracy theory and raise you one! Alternate translation: You’re all crazy conspiracy theorists because you have been brainwashed by rich and powerful influencers…IT’S A CONSPIRACY I TELL YOU!!! What a nutter.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
    5. Dan

      Whatever, dude. No doubter penned: “but Joe Q. Flyover doesn’t understand science. He wants evidence.”

      THAT, my friend, is something you would expect to find on the cutting room floor of the Onion because it’s just too stupid to even work as parody.

      Like

      Reply
    6. Lou Ann Watson

      AGW believers always throw the word “science” around as if they own it and anyone who doesn’t swallow their propaganda is a Neanderthal…for decades “science” told us that we should eat “low fat” foods because the high fat content was killing us. any doctor or scientist that dared challenge that “consensus” was pilloried. fast forward to 2014, long term studies have determined that it was a fraud perpetrated on the public using faulty “science” by consensus. just plug in the latest warming consensus, using computer projections that can’t be proven. i’m using an outcome of a long term scientific study and applying that method to my thought process when considering other supposedly irrefutable “science” claims. see? just shouting “science”doesn’t make you right

      Like

      Reply
  4. Geo Joe

    Fundamentally there are no data nor scientifically validated physical demonstrations that tie CO2 activity to the types of extreme warming or climate change that the Alarmists continuously prattle on about. The entire CO2 thesis rests on two columns: Consensus, which is irrelevant in science at the best of times and computer models which are an exercise in torturing data until you get the result that you want.

    The Consensus is demonstrably false and imaginary and is only espoused by eco-radicals clinging to their copies of the Cooks paper and dreams of One World Government (with them in charge of course). Likewise, the computer models are so unstable that simply running the same program on different computers yields different results, thereby violating immediately the scientific tenet of reproducibility of results. And we won’t even get into the inability of the models to match real world data.

    As Tom Cruises’ character Joel’s sidekick stated in the movie Risky Business: “It’s all bullshit Joel. I’m surprised that you listened to any of it”.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  5. DaveA

    If a town full of drunk European backpackers needs to be wiped off the map for people to take climate change seriously then so be it. Inaction is as good as mass genocide so sacrifice the few to save the many applies.

    (On reflection a more convincing climate communications message would probably leave out the “drunk European backpackers” aspect)

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Doubting Rich

      “Inaction is as good as mass genocide so sacrifice the few to save the many applies.han I am online”

      No it isn’t. In the absence of any evidence that action is better than inaction, it is the rational course.

      Like

      Reply
    2. cohenite

      I think it’s a bit unfair to single out European backpackers; only the other day I was dropped into by a Japanese backpacker surfer. Let me tell you more than Fushi flew as a result. And by the way isn’t it terrible what they say about fish stocks.

      Like

      Reply
  6. Don B

    Because of global warming my golf game has deteriorated, and sometimes so has my spelling, but the former is truly a disaster. Even though it is just one data point.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  7. Scott T.

    “C. R. R. Kampen thinks the annihilation of a city of 150,000 people could provide just the teaching moment we need” – is this article for real or some sort of sarcastic, online humor magazine post. The statement above and the entire first paragraph of this article are insanely, hateful ideas. Surely no body wishes for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people just to make their point about climate change. Shouldn’t Dr. Kampen be charged with some sort of crime for wishing such terrible destruction on anybody. If there should be any climate-related criminal trials in the future, it should be for certifiable nutcases that would present such a case for the willful deaths of other world citizens.

    Like

    Reply
    1. cohenite

      I don’t think he is wilfully causing the deaths of 150000 people; maybe he is wilfully wishing for a 150000 deaths but who knows? If wishing were a crime they’d throw away my key for what I’ve wished about my ex.

      Like

      Reply
  8. tsuhtt1

    “Lies, Deception and Alarmism” is what the IPCC and their ilk were designed to “create and promote” with a dose of genocide for good measure http://wp.me/p7y4l-rU9

    Lies, Deception and Climate Alarmism intended to:
    Shaft humanity
    http://wp.me/p7y4l-lnm
    and Whack Mother Nature


    http://www.examiner.com/article/green-energy-solar-farm-cooks-birds-mid-flight
    All in the name of “saving the planet” from the sins of those pesky humans the Climate Alarmists loath and fear so much.

    Like

    Reply
  9. tsuhtt1

    “Lies, Deception and Alarmism” is what the IPCC and their ilk were designed to “create and promote” with a dose of genocide for good measure http://wp.me/p7y4l-rU9

    Lies, Deception and Climate Alarmism intended to:

    Shaft humanity

    http://wp.me/p7y4l-lnm

    and Whack Mother Nature



    http://www.examiner.com/article/green-energy-solar-farm-cooks-birds-mid-flight

    All in the name of “saving the planet” from the sins of those pesky humans the Climate Alarmists loath and fear so much.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  10. nige t

    “he wants evidence”
    Indeed, Brad, that’s the big problem.

    Sadly, your average Joe (or moron if you prefer) fails to understand that evidence isn’t easy to find. In fact, it’s extremely hard to find.

    Of course, the paucity of the evidence increases the uncertainty which makes the crisis we face even worse than we thought.

    But the science must be heard. It’s telling us to act and to act now.
    So, we’ve got to silence the denialists who encourage the morons to demand the evidence.

    I think we need a drastic solution. A final solution, if you will.

    After all, if we want that omelette…well, you know how it is, Brad.

    Like

    Reply
    1. scottctate

      The science is not telling us to act now – it is telling us to understand the full complexity of something as huge and global as climate change. And as for a “final solution”, you are using a truly vile, hateful phrase. If you live in Germany, could you not be prosecuted for suggesting such a thing or even using that phrase?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
    2. cohenite

      Indeed; certainty about any result is declining but a certain result is becoming more certain. I don’t see how you can quibble about that.

      Like

      Reply
      1. nige t

        Too kind.

        I’ve never been a hero for a day before…

        Nor even for a minute.

        Now I know how Brad feels everyday [insert smiley emotikon here]

        Like

  11. cinnamoncolbert

    would you please post, at the TOP of this post, a disclaimer that this is satire or irony ?
    cause if it is serious, then as a person who thinks climate change is real, I think you are seriously deranged

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Julian

      A disclaimer you say?
      Wouldn’t that run the very real risk of alerting people?
      Satire, like climate change, is only as real as you think it is.

      Besides, there’s no evidence of satire here, though there might be a consensus.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Julian

        > Denier !!!

        Strewth, you nailed me dead to rights on that one so I had to look it up in the dictionary.

        Denier:
        1. Noun – denier – a unit of measurement for the fineness of silk or nylon or rayon; “with an evening dress one wears 10 denier stockings”

        2. Noun – denier – any of various former European coins of different denominations.

        My cover is obviously blown.
        I’m either a cross-dresser or a coin collector.

        Does this dress make my bum look big?

        Like

  12. TruthTeller

    Comments like this could only come from the ancestral home of Josef Mengele. “These people need to die… for their own good. It will provide a teaching moment, and benefit all of humanity. And besides, liebchen, it would just be so damned much fun to watch.” Shame on you, Germany, for forgetting. Shame on you for allowing this THING to dwell among you. When they begin to grin and salivate over their fantasies, it’s only a matter of time before they begin proposing that nature is too sluggish, and “we must wait no longer, but take action ourselves.”

    This isn’t a story about “science” vs. “evidence”. It’s about monsters living among us, and our unwillingness to admit that we’ve seen their faces before.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  13. Jay Currie

    Rarely have I seen the warmist dilemma so well put. To change the world you have to get people to want change. Because people are not really very bright, morons for the most part, they won’t change because models say things are only going to get worse…the morons want evidence. And what better evidence than the death of a few hundred thousand white men, women and children in a weather event? After all, the morons are too stupid to realize that, ackrding to IPCC endorsed “science” such events can’t be attributed to warming. Rather they will get all emotional about the pics of little white children drowned and bloated.

    Then they will realize that, despite no evidence of warming for over seventeen years, those drowned children are a warning that the models will not be mocked.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  14. Pingback: Global Warming Loon: “I’d Like Nothing Better Than If Thousands of Middle-Class White People Died In An Extreme Weather Event”… | Weasel Zippers

    1. Brad Keyes Post author

      Thank you for your question.

      Science encourages questions!

      We trust CN’s detailed About page gets rid of your questions. If questions persist, please tell one of our friendly Moderators so that they can start the escalation process.

      Like

      Reply
  15. Julian

    We’ve come a long since since Prof. Stephen Schneider jumped off the twig.

    And Stevie boy had this problem pegged right from the start.

    “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 broadbased 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”

    I expect he’d be so proud that his legacy lives on.

    Like

    Reply
      1. Julian

        . . let’s just say they didn’t like it. They didn’t like it one bit.

        Haha . . you were very naughty over there.

        [Accusation of disingenuity snipped—CN Mods] seems unfortunately an ineffective transporter of communication to the ones (arguably) most in need.

        The AGW crowd, by contrast, have amassed (and creatively invented) quite an effective parallel language for their promotional efforts.

        Like

  16. NikFromNYC

    OMG what an idiotically wannabee genocidal fascist. It’s a proven scam now. Go home already. Everybody else has. Not a soul is talking about climate here on the Upper West Side where I’ve lived for twenty years. Oh, they still want to ban fracking in New York, but that’s because of fire water that doesn’t exist. The proof of the scam is here:

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Brad Keyes Post author

      I’m not in the eponymous city anymore. Sorry, I’ve been lazy—haven’t made time to change the tagline since I got back to Australia.

      So your comment is flawed.

      Like

      Reply
      1. cohenite

        Well said Betty; but just to clarify when you say subconscious do you mean the author was not conscious when he wrote his article, sort of like automatic writing?

        Like

  17. skatingonglue

    @nige t:

    “Of course, the paucity of the evidence increases the uncertainty which makes the crisis we face even worse than we thought.”

    Incorrect. The paucity of evidence increases the already near certainty that “climate change” (formerly global warming) is a colossal hoax.

    In short- you can’t prove it, you have no evidence, and you are talking out of your- errrr, hat.

    Like

    Reply
  18. skatingonglue

    As for the author’s fervent hope that thousands of middle class white people die:

    You first, liebchen.

    Rather ironic that this “science communicator” is writing from Nuremburg.

    What is it with fascists (eco or garden variety), killing and Nuremburg anyway?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  19. richard

    In the past, climate problems wiped out civilizations.

    Yes, that’s what traditionally happens, but this time the problem might not be so self-correcting.

    Or it might. (I’m not sure which is more frightening.)

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  20. Dante

    Where’s the massive green boom, and the resulting spike in oxygen levels? Militant warmists like you can’t even comprehend fifth grade science. Also, your wish for thousands to die is a repugnant reflection of your own dirty soul. You yearn to be validated so badly that you would wish harm on people?

    You are a joke, and you can bet we’re laughing.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
      1. Brad Keyes Post author

        That fills me with despair, and alarm!

        Cheers Binny—knowing CN is making a difference, one member of the public at a time, makes all our effort worthwhile. We’re certainly not getting rich. But that’s OK. The anti-science spokesmodels can keep their rivers of dark funding; I’ll take the quiet satisfaction of doing something small but meaningful to close the fear gap any day of the week. And twice on Sundays.

        Like

    1. Brad Keyes Post author

      Thank you for sharing your story, Teresa.

      Years ago, a peer-reviewed article tried to tell you who becomes a Nazi. But it failed.

      You spent years not knowing.

      Then you came to ClimateNuremberg.

      And we answered your question. We helped you where the literature could not.

      I’m humbled by this. Not in the sense of actually being humbled, but the opposite: proud.

      That makes it all worthwhile. All the criticism, all the hard work, all the self-doubt—it was all worth it. Thanks, Teresa—thanks for reminding us why we got into science communication.

      Like

      Reply
  21. mosomoso

    I get called Nazi all the time for being a touch skeptical on climate matters. Really, if these people would just let me have a closer realtionship with Austria, a fair slice of the Sudetenland and maybe a land corridor throught to Danzig I’d be perfectly happy to cut down on the oxygen emitted by Poles, Russians, Brads and so on. People are too quick with the Nazi label.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Julian

      “People are too quick with the Nazi label.”

      Well, exactly.

      Joe Q. Flyover is mostly too quick to dismiss the science and probably isn’t even aware of the nuance contained therein.

      Anyway, chicks dig a guy in u

      [Dear commenter,

      The last word of your comment was redacted because it was clearly an allusion to dishonorably-obtained intellectual or artistic property. CN does not encourage or tolerate such tactics.

      We may agree with the SkS team, and we may even agree with the things they say in private, but we also respect their right to say them. In private.

      We expect your cooperation.

      Thank you,

      Mods]

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. Julian

        The last word of your comment was redacted because it was clearly an allusion to “the Cookie monster?”.

        Gawd, they even did the penguins on the hat . . .

        In the face of strict Moderation policy, I find tugging the forelock is often the best course.
        With that in mind, I’d like to respectfully request that perhaps not all ‘u’ words should be verboten.

        I would offer that if, with a little forethought, we had utilised ENIGMA communications astutely, Herr Cook might have arranged a U-boat to be strategically placed off the coast of Cairns. That way, a timed strike from close at hand could have the desired effect while being suitably obscured by all that wind and rain.

        Thus, the notion of missing heat hiding in the ocean could be supported by empirical evidence – a missed opportunity, I think.

        Like

  22. Peter Crawford

    What has this Kampen dude got against Cairns? I mean it’s probably a shithole but come on. Why not wish for death and destruction on Sydney or Perth? Surely that would concentrate minds more sharply. He seems a bit of a lightweight to me.

    Like

    Reply
  23. Indianahomez

    dude; you got crushed on your own blog.

    anecdotally speaking, and I’ve done some research; nobody, absolutely nobody, gives two wits about AGW.

    That said, you really should do some introspection regarding your views. Even if(and that’s a big EVEN) your are 100% correct in your beliefs; the road you are willing to walk to achieve your gratification(the “i told you so”) is abhorent.

    I believe completely that you do not understand, nor believe that you are anything like Hitler or Stalin; but, when good natured people en masse accuse you and others of your ilk of such things; you should at least pause for some introspection.

    It’s either that; or you are disingenuous, and know exactly who and what your are, and that the drivel you spew is false.

    You can have it either way.

    Actually, lets put it to the test; do you deny being a socialist?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  24. Pingback: Climate Science Communicator Supports Our Cause | People for a Population-Free Planet

  25. John Torres

    Global Warming is such an interesting theory. Some day we night have enough evidence to support this hypothetical guesswork. If the models ever begin to become reliable this hunch about future climate patterns will definitely deserve a second look.

    Congrats on the race-baiting. Giving Sharpton a run for his money!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  26. Larry Logan

    My field is branding and marketing. Periodically I see the same ‘climate communications’ groups bemoan that they’re just not getting people properly riled up.

    The problem isn’t the method; it’s the content.

    The method worked until recently, when average citizens began to look at the data. The more people study the actual observations and data, the less they are ‘believers.’ The most dangerous groups to alarmists are well educated groups. (University researchers don’t count. Too much money, too much putting a finger on the scales, a la Climategate, Lewandowsky, Mann, etc.)

    Only in a parallel universe of true religion can you have a group that is <2% correct based on their climate projections but claiming they are 95% right! (IPCC).

    Like

    Reply
  27.  D o u g   C

    In a similar vain ..

    OPEN LETTER

    (copy to Prime Minister of Australia)

    11 April 2014

    Attention: Paul Ryan
    Director Climate Change Science Team
    Department of the Environment
    GPO Box 787
    CANBERRA 2601

    Dear Sir

    Your reply PDR: MC 14-009992 is far from satisfactory.

    You refer primarily to climate change, not the issue I raised, namely that standard physics can be used to prove beyond doubt that all the carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has no warming effect. Likewise, water gas, water vapour and suspended water droplets in Earth’s atmosphere result in cooler surface temperatures, not warmer ones as the IPCC would have the world believe.

    The IPCC has a political agenda emphasised by Al Gore. Australia has failed in its duty of paying due diligence to proper analysis of the physics involved. Climatologists are not physicists. The issue relating to the effect of carbon dioxide is deeply entrenched in the physics of radiative transfer and thermodynamics. Would you go to a medical practice to have your teeth filled? Why then do you consider climatologists (who have very limited knowledge and usually mistaken understanding of physics) to be suitable peers of a physics-related matter?

    Here is what a retired physics educator said about my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all”:

    Essential reading for an understanding of the basic physical processes which control planetary temperatures. Doug Cotton shows how simple thermodynamic physics implies that the gravitational field of a planet will establish a thermal gradient in its atmosphere. The thermal gradient, a basic property of a planet, can be used to determine the temperatures of its atmosphere, surface and sub-surface regions. The interesting concept of “heat creep” applied to diagrams of the thermal gradient is used to explain the effect of solar radiation on the temperature of a planet. The thermal gradient shows that the observed temperatures of the Earth are determined by natural processes and not by back radiation warming from greenhouse gases. Evidence is presented to show that greenhouse gases cool the Earth and do not warm it. John Turner B.Sc.;Dip.Ed.;M.Ed.(Hons); Grad.Dip.Ed.Studies (retired physics educator)

    In your reply you do not even cite a single paper that you think proves that standard physics shows carbon dioxide causes warming. Yes I know there are some, but I can rebut every single one.

    For example, one of the problems involves incorrect understanding of the process described in modern statements of the second law of thermodynamics which states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy. The process described explains why gravity induces a thermal gradient in any planet’s atmosphere, crust and mantle, just as we see evidence thereof in a Ranque-Hilsch vortext tube which you can read about in the article talk pages on Wikipedia. This thermal gradient would produce surface temperatures about 10 degrees hotter on Earth than we observe, but fortunately water molecules in the atmosphere reduce the magnitude of the gradient so that the supported temperature at the surface boundary is cooler. Studies show this to be the case. If the IPCC were correct about their “greenhouse effect” of water, then moist rainforests would be expected to be about 20 to 30 degrees hotter than dry regions at similar altitudes and latitudes. That is not the case, and so the IPCC greenhouse effect is fiction.

    Another major problem is that the IPCC authors assume that back radiation can help the Sun warm the oceans. But it is well known that back radiation from a cooler atmosphere does not penetrate water, whereas the solar radiation reaches down into the ocean thermoclines. But, the very fact that solar radiation does penetrate several metres into the oceans, means that over 99% of it is transmitted right through the thin surface layer which could be considered perhaps just 1 centimetre in depth. But a black or grey body is not transparent, and, in any event, there is no adjsutment in the models and NASA / Trenberth / IPCC energy budget diagrams that reduces the intensity of solar radiation by 99% or more for the 70% of Earth’s surface that is ocean. So they use Stefan-Boltzmann calculations quite incorrectly to “prove” that their combination of back radiation and solar radiation supposedly raises the surface temperature by 33 degrees from an isothermal state. Even that assumption of an isothermal state is wrong because it is not the state of thermodynamic equilibrium with no unbalanced energy potentials. It would have unbalanced energy in that it would have more gravitational potential energy per molecule without any compensating reduction in mean kinetic energy per molecule – that is, without a reduction in temperature at the top.

    Then the IPCC uses 1980’s assertive statements from books which claim there is a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus. Well, the temperature of any location on the equator of Venus falls by 5 degrees at night (so Venus could have cooled right down by now) but it then rises by 5 degrees in the four-month-long Venus day. How does the required energy get into the surface? The radiation from the Sun has been measured and is less than 20W/m^2, whereas about 16,000 W/m^2 would be required to cause the temperature to rise. No radiation from the colder atmosphere can do so.

    Then you may wish to turn your attention to the nominal troposphere of Uranus where it is hotter than Earth’s surface at the base thereof, even though there’s no surface or solar radiation.

    So I hope you now understand, Sir, that there is no science reviewed by suitable peers which can be correct if it concludes that back radiation from carbon dioxide (one molecule in 2,500 other molecules) is causing Earth’s surface to be warmer than it otherwise would have been.

    In the field of medicine, Australia does not tend to lap up results of Amercian research. In the field of climatology, such “science” is blatantly corrupt, as revealed in Climategate emails. There has been no warming since 1998 and this period of slight net cooling will be about 30 years in duration. There is no reason to assume that the long term 1,000 year cycle of warming and cooling by about two degrees will not continue, being regulated by planetary prbits, and it is due to start 500 years of cooling within the next century or so.

    You must, by now, realise that there are serious errors in the radiative greenhouse conjecture. I quote from the website of Principia Scientific International (representing hundreds of scientsists who know the “science” is faulty) …

    Dutch Professor Richard Tol has resigned from the Climate Panel of the UN. Professor Tol disagrees with the biased negative conclusions of the latest UN climate report. The consequences of climate change are being systematically over-estimated, according to him. “The Panel is directed from within the environment lobby and not from within the science.”

    I attach a plot of up-to-date temperature data from Dr Roy Spencer’s website showing the double peak of the 60 to 65 year cycle in 1998 and 2003, and I also attach the cover of my book.

    Australia has not exercised due diligence in this matter and the responsibility would appear to rest solely upon your shoulders to rectify the situation.

    If I do not receive a satisfactory response covering specifically all the issues raised herein and supposedly rebutting the hypothesis in my book (the text of which was previously supplied in my earlier correspondence) then I shall most certainly take this matter further via the Government Ombudsman and possibly the media, even if in paid advertisements which I can comfortably afford.

    Yours sincerely

    (signed DC)

    Like

    Reply
  28. john robertson

    Makes you cry don’t it.
    [Accusation of insincerity snipped] is almost a dead art.
    I blame TV laugh tracks, generations of people regarded as too thick to have a sense of humour so the producers tell them when to laugh.
    The suggestion up post that you should notify us gentle readers of your [Accusation of insincerity snipped] intent….
    It’s [Accusation of insincerity snipped—Three strikes. You’re out. CN Mods.] ain’t it?
    Warnings defeat the point.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  29. James Phillips

    Yes, you’d think the list of “don’t”s and “do”s at the end might at least have been a little bit of a hint that

    [Accusation of insincerity snipped—Mods]

    was afoot. But you’d be wrong apparently.

    Like

    Reply
  30. Puddin (@netguy17340)

    There has never been permanent global warming. Ever. No evidence. Never has been. CO2 levels rise and fall. Polar ice cap levels rise and fall. The earth is far too resilient to let man destroy it. In response to this imbecilic article; rational, evidence demanding thinkers, would like to see ALL supporters of global warming drown in their own blood. We could then use your otherwise worthless carcasses to fertilize the soil and rid the world of climate baters.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  31. Kennymac

    I would like to know about the science. Can the author tell me the scientific name of the model that correctly models the earth’s climate? I want to Google it by name. Because if there is one thing science does well, it’s name things. What’s the name?

    Like

    Reply
  32. Marcus

    In spirit, the author’s lust for vengeful death and retribution are no different than Fred Phelp’s lust for the death of US soldiers on the battlefield because the public-at-large failed to comply with his hateful homophobic agenda. Be it “Yahweh” or “Science” the impulse is essentially identical. Pity the miserable souls In thrall to such angry gods.

    Like

    Reply
    1. David Pittelli

      Well, the notion that homosexuality will and should incur God’s wrath on the planet is a lot crazier than the notion that CO2 will cause catastrophic warming of the planet. The former relies on magical beliefs and is not supported even by most interpretations of the Bible, not to mention belief systems not based on the Jewish-Christian Bible. The latter may be flawed or speculative science, but is based on a number of plausible theories and interpretations of the empirical evidence. I rather agree with your main point, however, as my comment here indicates.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Kennymac

        “Well, the notion that homosexuality will and should incur God’s wrath on the planet is a lot crazier than the notion that CO2 will cause catastrophic warming of the planet.”

        Except that no one here is talking about homosexuals. We’re talking science. If anything here resembles a religious discussion, it’s the alarmists who threaten us with disaster if we don’t accept their faith whole cloth. Because they offer no evidence. Or science.

        Like

    2. Kennymac

      “In spirit, the author’s lust for vengeful death and retribution are no different than Fred Phelp’s lust for the death of US soldiers on the battlefield because the public-at-large failed to comply with his hateful homophobic agenda.”

      Fred Phelps was a Democrat. Wanna bet the author is as well?

      Like

      Reply
  33. David Pittelli

    “By the simple trick of telling people that Kampen hopes they die without saying what he writes next (wherein he clearly explains that it’s for their own good), a rhetorician with no conscience—like a denier—could simultaneously make Kampen look like a sociopath and pander to the false stereotype of the greenie-as-armchair-genocidaire.”

    No, CAGW skeptics (most of whom are not GW or even AGW deniers) are well aware that the Catastrophists wishing for mass death sincerely believe that such deaths are for the good of the planet and/or for the surviving humans. Yet the wish for mass death remains arrogant and sociopathic. Imagine a social conservative in 1990 who said that AIDS deaths were a good thing, as they corrected the excesses of gays and swingers who might otherwise brew up a disease even more deadly and transmissible; he would be equally offensive, arrogant and sociopathic, despite his sincerity and even if we regarded his counterfactual as plausible.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  34. cRR Kampen

    David Pitelli, what if powerful opinion and electorate forming forces back in 1990 denied that AIDS existed or if it did, was no real danger? What if they worked against research, medication, prevention and all that? What if the public accepted this crap like they actually do in some African countries?
    What else than reality could teach what is going on then?
    And what would you say those AIDS denying priests really wish for?

    Like

    Reply
    1. Kennymac

      And what of Galileo, who was forced to recant the truth to the “consensus” of his day? A consensus that was ruefully wrong.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Brad Keyes Post author

        What “consensus” of Galileo’s “day”? (Which day?)

        Please provide evidence, in the form a contemporary peer-reviewed paper-counting study, that a vast majority of credible, actively-publishing astronomy experts were ever in denial of Galileanism.

        Like

    1. Brad Keyes Post author

      Captain Nathan Algren: “I shall look for you on the field of battle”.

      Google Scholar records no such statement.

      Like

      Reply
    1. WSG

      Hope this helps: “Science Communicators” don’t know or understand anything, or even bother to go and find out about anything – They just point at a chart and tell everyone they’re doomed, think Bill Nye, Al Gore, Heidi Cullen etc, that sort of thing.

      Cartoonist John Cook is a climate Science communication fellow at the University of Queensland for example. If you’ve mastered crayons, you too could be a “Science Communicator”.

      Like

      Reply
    1. Brad Keyes Post author

      I hope you die from drug gang related activity. Live on cable news.

      Ms Personally,

      Your comment violates CN’s easily-guessed Moderation Policy against the expression of inflammatory ideas.

      (Seriously, Speakin, that’s a horrible thing to ideate. I hope for your sake that Speakin Personally is a pseudonym, because potential employers might see what you’ve written someday. Did you even stop to think about that?)

      Normally we would quarantine such a sentiment, but on this occasion we’ve voted to leave your thoughts intact so as to give other readers a glimpse of the sheer unpleasantness of the anti-climate camp.

      As a science communicator I thank you for your assistance.

      Like

      Reply
      1. MJF

        Sooo, when she says it, it is horrible and inflammatory, when you say it, your just another “science communicator” doing his job, saving the world? Got it. Is this like a spin off site by The Oxxxx?

        [Implied accusation of insincerity greeked.

        MJF, if for some reason you feel unable to abide by CN Moderation Policies (see upcoming post listing them) you are welcome to take such science-subversive rhetoric elsewhere.

        Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to say obviously silly things.

        —CN Mods]

        Liked by 1 person

  35. John B.

    “The hardest thing about communicating the deadliness of the climate problem is that it isn’t killing anyone.” This sentence communicates the deadliness of the climate problem. That wasn’t so hard was it?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  36. UKIndian

    I brought this post to the attention of Prof. Ugo Bardi at his website (http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.it/2014/04/climate-of-intimidation-frontiers.html) but instead of commenting on its content, he says I am mistaken in my belief of being funny. I am deeply impressed by this ability of scientists, particularly climate scientists (is he one of those?), to read people’s minds. Perhaps, as you have pointed out elsewhere that is how they ascribe various beliefs to deniers even when said deniers explicitly deny said beliefs.

    Like

    Reply
  37. Vira

    Great idea! Let’s start the kill or cull with you, your over-privileged kids, your family, your like-minded friends and cohorts. If you are really serious about the health of the planet, please, please, engage in a mass suicide of protest. The earth will thank you. I’m hopeful you will do it in an environmentally friendly manner.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Marcus

      Vira, Seriously – you think his children, family and friends deserve to die? Responding to hate in this way doesn’t make you righteous or correct, it just makes you a mirror image of the same dark and misbegotten psychological impulse.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  38. James Phillips

    I apologise for my previous post. What I was trying to say of course was that you’d think the list of “don’t”s and “do”s at the end of the article offered final confirmation (as if that were even necessary) of the utterly serious and entirely nonsatirical intent of the article. I really can’t explain how I managed to get it so wrong before.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Brad Keyes Post author

      Apology accepted.

      In future, please bear in mind that commenting at CN is not a human right, but a privilege revocable at our consensual whim.

      Like

      Reply
      1. H.D. Kline

        It’s because there’s a fine line between genius and idiocy. KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. Just as a matter of interest, are you a peer-reviewed PSYCHIATRIST?

        Like

    1. Brad Keyes Post author

      Thanks for the insight into your mindset.

      Our pleasure, Lowell! (That was a key motivation for creating CN: to explain not just how the climate works and thinks, but also how we communicators do.)

      You should seek professional help.

      Yes—and you’ve distilled a key theme running through all our public outreach, so-called ‘credentialism.’

      The message to ordinary people is: you need to seek your science from qualified, peer-recognised scholars attached to reputable institutions, not (say) retired Canadian mining millionaires with cobwebbed Participation Certificates in Maffmatix from Teh Oxford.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Larry Logan

        Steve McIntyre, the retired mining executive is an expert in statistical methodologies. He wasn’t giving us Science when he shoed the enormous failings of Michael Mann. He just showed that Mikey can’t run Excel. When Mann’s Tiljander graph was upside, McIntyre pointed that out and Mann said, “makes no difference, I’m still right.”

        If a mere *cough* mining executive could demonstrate how wrong Mann (and so many others) are wrong, then that shows you that the *cough, science* of those scientists was pretty poor.

        Einstein was a little man in the German patent office when he developed his most extraordinary theories. He wasn’t a peer reviewed scientist. You’re arguing from authority. And we know now that peer review in climate science has become pal review.

        Like

      2. Bigbill

        That’s my big beef with Al Gore opening his big mouth all the time. He is a rich polluter who makes scads of cash off carbon dioxide offsets and has no scientific credentials whatsoever. Ever time he opens his mouth most I persuaded folks look at his lack of education and Greenie cash flow and see right through him.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Steven

        “…the public needs to start getting its science from qualified, peer-recognised scholars attached to reputable institutions…”

        Exactly.

        Like Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, MIT, who–among many other “qualified, peer-recognised climate scientists” reject anthropomorphic global warming.
        http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html

        MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming ‘Silly’ – Equates Concerns to ‘Little Kids’ Attempting to “Scare Each Other”
        http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=7E60E3FA-802A-23AD-4291-E3975CBB96CB

        Or perhaps those climate scientists who recently signed the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change:
        http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=1

        “We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change …

        “Hereby declare …

        “That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.”

        Here are 10 out of the 200 or so scientists who signed it:

        Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Engr., Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, Emeritus Prof. of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.

        Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.

        Bjarne Andresen, PhD, Physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

        Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant and former climatology professor – University of Winnipeg, Science Advisory Board member, ICSC, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

        Joe Bastardi, BSc, (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State), meteorologist, State College, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

        Matthew Bastardi, BSc (Meteorology, Texas A and M University), Florida, U.S.A.

        Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Dept. Biotechnology and Nutrition Science, Merian-Schule, Freiburg, Germany

        Bruce Borders, PhD, Forest Biometrics, Professor, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, U.S.A.

        William M. Briggs, PhD., Statistical Consultant (specializing in accuracy of forecasts and climate variability), U.S.A.

        Stephen Brown, PhD (Environmental Science, State University of New York), Ground Penetrating Radar Glacier research, District Agriculture Agent Cooperative Extension Service, University of Alaska, Fairbanks Mat-Su District Office Palmer; Alaska Agriculture Extension Agent/Researcher, Alaska, U.S.A.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Patrick

        So, where I come from, science is the study of evidence to determine a model that accurately predicts the future condition. When the global warming society continually warns us of the cataclysmic future that their models predict, yet refuse to deal with the fact that their models don’t predict what’s going on today, well the evidence says that the model is in error, and the message is alarmist in nature.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. Fred Framp

        The trouble is, even the IPCC has been forced to admit that “extreme weather” events are not connected with AGW, in fact the number of Hurricanes (to take an example) has steadily decreased over the past 30-40 years.

        Therefore your desire to see lots of “white middle class” people die is nothing more than an extreme form of race and class based genocide. I seriously believe that your levels of hatred are pathological in nature and you are another mass murderer just waiting to happen. Somehow you think it is OK because the people you want to kill are white. Perhaps you should hope that the dead are mostly infants and elementary school pupils for better”impact”, but still white of course.

        As a practising psychologist, just like Lewandowsky, I can accurately diagnose you over the internet, and you are a danger to humans and humankind, suffering from extreme climate paranoia.

        Liked by 1 person

      6. Lowell

        Brad, I’ve kept up with the comments and made a few myself. After reading yours and the proponents’ arguments for AGW, I’ve concluded that this is a [Accusation of disingenuity snipped—CN Mods] site. Like the Oxxxx or Mxxxx Pxxxxx for Global Warming [Insinuations of disingenuity greeked—CN Mods]. The arguments for global warming being made here are ridiculously funny. They require a suspension of belief in reality to be believed. If you really are a science communicator, you and your guys are doing a poor job. [Accusations of disingenuity snipped—CN Mods]

        Like

      7. H.D. Kline

        Lowell,

        I’ve concluded that this is a [Accusation of disingenuity snipped—CN Mods] site. Like the Oxxxx or Mxxxx Pxxxxx for Global Warming [Insinuations of disingenuity greeked—CN Mods].

        I won’t say “Wow. Just wow.” or it will start to sound corny. I will say that I would never have thought that you would be the type to break the FIRST RULE OF CLIMATE NUREMBERG at all, let alone so egregiously, forcing Brad to apply multiple snips to the offending post. I can only assume that exceptional circumstances led to your outburst, and I am sure it is not one you will repeat. If I was in any way responsible for provoking you into it then I sincerely apologise. I probably need to tone it down a bit, but can I help it if DENIALISTS KEEP MAKING ME WANT TO SHOUT THEM DOWN???

        Like

    2. Narciso Tiles

      Jellyfish have been around for about 650 million years. They have thrived without a heart, brain or blood … That must be good news for Brad Keyes.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
    3. H.D. Kline

      Ms Nicoll above may be a peer-reviewed PSYCHIATRIST. I have made enquiries. If she is, which I very much suspect, she might be able to help?

      Like

      Reply
    1. cRR Kampen

      Within my country, Holland, I’m known for the hope of ‘the flood of the millenium’ like happens twice per dozen years in other parts of Europe by this age. The exact place I live is fairly particularly at risk.

      No-one asked me whether I was ‘happy’ with Typhoon Haiyan. Would this because everyone actually understands what I’m saying and conclude I was indeed shocked by Haiyan, and never wished the Philippines such a fate?

      Climate revisionism thrives in the rich, decadent west and this is to be said for that decadence: when a city like Cairns threatens to get ‘wiped off the map’ like Darwin was in 1974, at least evacuation measures and survivability against shortages or disease after the disaster renders death tolls negligable compared to those of the defenceless people in Tacloban, Chittagong or even, as has been shown, New Orleans.

      Like

      Reply
    2. Brad Keyes Post author

      Of course you wouldn’t want to volunteer to be one of those dead would you.

      Like Faust, I’m tempted.

      But the idea of leaving my work as a science communicator unfinished seems almost selfish. Sure, if I weren’t already doing so much to combat the anthropogenic climate denial crisis in my day job, I’d be freer (ethically) to consider your idea. Ultimately it’s a matter of doing the most good for the most people—utilitarian calculus, if you will.

      It also strikes me as a somewhat “easy way out” of the fate that’s locked in for all of us. What right would I have to take someone else’s place on the metaphysical lifeboat?

      At the end of the day, I couldn’t put myself forward in good conscience.

      Thanks for this great thought experiment, retired!

      Like

      Reply
      1. arctic_front

        What does ‘science communicator’ actually mean? Ridiculous liar? Buffoon? No, buffoon is wrong, that is exclusively reserved for Al Gore. Propagandist? Chicken Little?
        Joke?

        Liked by 1 person

  39. Robert Beck

    “…Joe Q. Flyover doesn’t understand science. He wants evidence.”

    Good Grief. Can’t we just get over the whole evidence thing? What does evidence have to do with science, anyway?

    If the evidence conflicts with the narrative, the narrative must take precedence. Never let the facts interfere with a good story. If a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes the truth; a big lie will flourish, while a small lie withers due to lack of interest.

    Thus spake Science in the service of political interests.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
      1. Homer

        Real science still wants evidence along with a least one falsifiable and enough rigorous record record keeping made available openly so others can verify the results.

        As for this thing called “climate science”, I don’t what it is but it sure isn’t science in any real sense.

        Like

      2. Kennymac

        The alarmists speak of a faux “consensus” as if that were part of the scientific method, which of it isn’t. They speak as if science were now a democracy. What a bunch of fools.

        Like

  40. geek49203

    So a “denier” is akin to a person who denies that Hitler killed 6+ million people (kinda a cruel thing to do) but a “scientist” (or whatever the other side is called) is willing to sacrifice a few cities the size of Grand Rapids in order to “start a conversation.”

    Seems to me we’d have a “conversation” if, say, one side didn’t use the word “denier” ever time they point to HADCRUT and ask you where the warming with it. The right answer might be to explain how HADCRUT might be wrong, or how it’s just a pause, whatever. The wrong answer is a hissy fit going into a meltdown followed by an exercise in Godwin’s law (“denier”).

    Do you want a conversation, or not?

    Like

    Reply
  41. George Tobin

    Just a thought… but do those who publicly advocate or celebrate suppression, repression and death for climate heretics also promise to kill themselves once it becomes obvious even to them that the lukewarmers are right? Seems only fair.
    The over-sensitivity of the IPCC models is now undeniable–we are out of the 95% range when compared to empirical reality and the gap is still growing. The attribution of “extreme weather” is only done by true believers. Others notice that the frequency of tornadoes and hurricanes is utterly unchanged or declining.
    Maybe alarmists should all wear brown shirts to symbolize our future baked earth and to celebrate the glories of groupthink. It will also make you easier to spot when it’s time. Just a thought.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  42. Walter J Horsting

    Our sun was its most active in 8000 years during cycles 21-23 and the planet warmed, now during sun cycle 24 it’s the least active in 170 years and the Great Lakes and Niagara Falls froze, as our sun declines into cycle 25 expect 30-100 years of a cold grand minimum. AGW fans seem to deny climate cycles of 30, 60, 176, 1500, 2500 and ice ages.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Peter Yates

      Yes, I think the writer is ‘sick’ of observing the doctrines and schemes of the CAGW cult members. … Don’t worry, the history of cults shows that many members will leave the group when they realize that the ‘predictions/projections’ turn out to be little more than the output of contrived computer programs, .. and science that is based on empirical evidence will once again prove to be the correct method for explaining the complex and chaotic nature of Earth’s environment.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
    1. Brad Keyes Post author

      R.B. Phillips,

      Thank you for sharing that sad truth.

      It’s important, however, to bear in mind that the “anti-heroes” who deny science are only a tiny, and monotonically-dwindling, fringe within the scientific community. They get disproportionate airtime because of the sheer man-bites-dogness of being an anti-science scientist.

      (Oh, and: massive funding through “dark” channels, ideological usefulness, false balance, …did I leave anything out?)

      But your adolescent heroes are still out there. The Michael Manns are still out there.

      The media may try to ignore, subvert and silence the good guys, but it doesn’t follow that you should be skeptical of your adolescent dream-content. Not for one second. Keep the faith—please. It’s only a matter of when, not if, the consensus of science finally carries the day.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Tom C

        why do you try to discredit the people who don’t believe in AGW? Aren’t you supposed to discredit their argument? I am not a moron and I have read enough, in many different places, that makes me wonder what is going on with the IPCC et al. Incorrect models, ludicrous predictions that never come true (e.g. ice free artic ocean, glaciers disappearing in south asia), and conflicts of interest (Al Gore and Raj Pachauri having financial stakes in green technology)

        What first got me wondering about AGW was in 2008, when it was reported that Sept. 08 was the hottest September ever. Then it came out that a clerical error led to all of the temp data from August 08 being incorrectly re-entered as Sept temp data. The error didn’t bother me. What bothered me was James Hanson (NASA climate scientist) claiming he is not responsible for the incorrect reports that have bad data because he doesn’t control the data. ????

        Then I discovered that he was on the cover of Time magazine in the mid 70’s claiming we were headed for another ice age? Huh?

        Color me skeptical.

        Liked by 1 person

  43. Art

    Not only is the complete lack of empirical evidence to support the global-warming debate extremely telling, even in the realm of simple logical discussion as was done in the comments here between Brad Keyes and Doubting Rich, the alarmist side comes out appearing fairly frantic.

    So much for the dissolute logic of too many science communicators, that they manage to accomplish the exact opposite of what they hope to achieve.

    Hint to global-alarmists. If you truly believe that climate change is anthropogenic then get on the next plane to China and argue your point with them, instead of wishing for the deaths of middle-class white people, many of whom have already been sufficiently propagandized to happily flush-away their hard earned tax dollars into your grand green toilet.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  44. JimO

    No, Geek, they don’t want a conversation – they just want the deniers to shut up and go away, they don’t want inconvenient questions or data that’s contradictory to their religion. Which is anti-science and therefore – religion.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. geek49203

      I’ve got the MDiv, and yes, I see tons of actions will are more akin to religion than what I used to think was “Science”. So I’m prepared to discuss this as a religion as well. I invite them. Perhaps they’d benefit from someone who spent 4 years in grad school studying theological logic?

      PS — I’ll see the MDiv for what I still owe on it, I don’t use it anymore, except to really p*ss off people who either say “thus saith the Lord” or people who claim they’re not dogmatic instead of scientific.

      Like

      Reply
  45. shortpigeon

    Yes! Yes! I agree! I have been trying and trying to get people to believe in the FACT of flying unicorns, but the morons want EVIDENCE! Jeez! I’m an expert, they should just trust me!!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  46. Lowell

    It’s tough selling global warming to a freezing public. What a PR nightmare. Even Don Draper would have a problem selling that.

    If the deniers were somehow eliminated that would only solve part of the problem. The ultimate solution would be for mankind to not exist. Then the earth would be pure.

    Like

    Reply
  47. Roscoe Pilsner

    Wow…this is the first time I have read this website. You guys really are your own worst enemies. Don’t get me wrong…I can understand your frustration over not being able to make your point. But do you really think this kind of extremist approach does anything to further the debate? I can imagine that there are hundreds of climate scientists who would urge you guys to “stop helping”.

    Do you realize that so called “denier” sites are sending people to this post in order to reinforce their readers’ opinions that climate science has gone ’round the bend?

    But it is still a free country and each is entitled to his own voice. Maybe you should consider sounding less frustrated and helpless and more rational and confident. Just a suggestion…

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Kennymac

      They could even try science for a change. There is a reason Michael Mann didn’t want to reveal his “scientific” data in his own libel case. Talk about libeling yourself!

      Like

      Reply
    2. Gkerr

      Dilemma. How to be rational and confident when you are neither. The data does not and never has supported CAGW. From the beginning it has been a ruse by a stew of shrewed and gullible, mercenary and fascist, self-interested and fanatical. The data is flawed, miscollected, massaged, extrapolated, tortured, tweazed, embargoed, spun, pencil titrated like a sophmoric chemistry major. The models have all failed because the data is rigged and models are arrived at based on a priori misconceived notions which would make a Manachee weap with jeolousy.

      Like

      Reply
  48. Homer

    Wow. [redacted] one.

    [redacted] this post was for real. I had to look at your other posts before I realized [redacted]

    Well done! You definitely had [redacted] for a bit.

    [What will it take to get empower you people valued people to abide by ClimateNuremberg’s clear comments policies?

    Do you need me to write them down?

    —CN Moderator]

    Like

    Reply
      1. Homer

        😉

        [CN Moderator:

        Wow. Just…. wow.

        A smiley-face? That’s the sum total of “Homer’s” considered, scientific, peer-reviewed response to an article about thousands of human beings potentially losing their lives?

        ClimateNuremberg’s crystal-clear Comments Policies (see upcoming post) normally frown upon hate speech, and a fortiori hate emoticography, but the editorial consensus was to leave this “contribution” in place for educational purposes.

        “Homer,” the mask has slipped.

        This is the kind of anti-mannkind mindset the science movement is up against, folks.

        By the way “Homer,” which planetocidal staging-post was it that referred you here:

        WUWT? The Marc Moronosphere? Unsuper Nova?

        (I ask purely from ornitho-primatological curiosity. Trivia: I was one of the earliest science communicators to champion the use of the “Know Thy Skeptic” strategy.)

        —Brad]

        Like

  49. Helen R Wells

    “So we’ve probably reached the limits of what science communication can achieve.”

    Well no, but I feel your pickle.

    You have reached the limits of the desired effect your communication can achieve. Which is substantial, given that you are literally and figuratively blowing into the wind. The problem is no anthro-carbo-thermo-climo-apocolypto-evil doing theory has every been able to accurately predict future outcomes from past events. It is very hard to communicate your correctness with illustrations of total failure.

    Science was able to communicate Quantum Mechanics. Nobody wants to believe such nonsense but the accurate predictions were so useful, it became increasingly easier to suspend disbelief. As AGW predictions continue to spectacularly fail, and more its beachfront-residing proponents are revealed to be fraudulent/hateful/crazy, no amount of enhanced communication short of gun muzzles will convince anybody.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Brad Keyes Post author

      If there were a multi-trillion dollar industrial complex called Big Certainty, you can bet Heisenberg would have been subjected to the same unprecedented barrage of hostile and time-wasting scrutiny as Michael Mann and the rest of contemporary science’s leaders.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Gkerr

        Oh but there is a multi-trillion dollar industry called Big Government vibrating harmonically with Big Science Educrat Grant Collector and Big Green Opportunist (Al Gore et al).

        Like

      2. Kennymac

        Isn’t it revealing the Michael Mann won’t even reveal his” data” in his own libel case? What kind of “scientists” won’t reveal their data? A charlatan, that’s who.

        Like

  50. RollTide1987

    I wouldn’t mind if you’re one of the dead. You could be a martyr for the cause. What an honor that would be for you. And the best part about it? No one would care. You’d just be a statistic.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  51. chris

    “And just between us, let’s be honest: the average member of the public is a bit (how can I put it politely?) of a moron.”

    And, just between us, it’s obvious that you’re easily worth TEN of the average members of the public. See what I did there? (I feel the need to point it out since you’re ten times as much of a moron as an average member of the public.)

    “It’s all well and good for the science to tell us global warming is a bigger threat than Fascism was, but Joe Q. Flyover doesn’t understand science. He wants EVIDENCE.” (emphasis added)

    Yeah, morons often do want evidence for things in which they believe. In fact some morons even insist on the scientific method requiring empirically verifiable evidence. What a bunch of idiots.

    Like

    Reply
    1. WSG

      “In fact some morons even insist on the scientific method requiring empirically verifiable evidence. What a bunch of idiots.”

      Yes I despair too. It’s obvious they’ve been hanging out around the denier blogs when they start asking for evidence for things – It’s a sure tell. I’m an optimist though – we need to do the best we can with the morons we have, and maybe, just maybe, we’ll be able to engineer a better class of moron with new technology before it’s all to late. Fingers crossed.🙂

      Like

      Reply
    1. Brad Keyes Post author

      If only every member of the public made conversions so easy:

      I’ll believe it’s a crisis when people like you who tell me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.

      Good.

      Speech acts are acts!

      Now that you believe climate change is a crisis as promised, you’ll probably have a lot of questions. A good place to get rid of them is http://www.skepticalscience.com. If your questions persist, please feel free to ask a ClimateNuremberg moderator for help.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Larry Logan

        Brad, if you send folks to the hack jobs at SkepticalScience you’re showing that you *really* don’t have a clue. Send them to Watts where all sides can be and are heard. (It’s the largest climate science site by an order of magnitude, so if it’s consensus you want to stand behind, then you’ll find it there.) SkS bans posters who don’t follow the orthodox line.

        Like

  52. eric76

    We are currently in a warm period between glaciations in our current ice age known as the Holocene. Unless we can put this ice age behind us, the Holocene will end sooner or later and cold weather and glaciation will return, maybe in as little as a few hundred years.

    When the cold weather returns, significant populations of the planet are going to be short of food and starvation is sure to be a major problem. And there could easily be major wars as industrialized countries take what they can get closer to the equator.

    Global Warming isn’t scary, but the lack of Global Warming is very scary.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Gkerr

      We are currently well beyond, some 10,000 years beyond the peak warming interglacial following the last great ice age which was some 22,000 years ago. We are well into the long term cooling period which will end in the next great ice age. Toast the sun and hope it keeps on pumping heat.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. eric76

        Some people confuse the periods of glaciation with ice ages.

        We are in an interglacial warm period of an ice age that began something like two and a half million years ago. The appearance of an interglacial warm period does not mean that the ice age has ended.

        But yeah. The best we can hope for is that Global Warming is real and postpones the next period of glaciation or even brings this ice age to and end.

        Like

  53. Pingback: Parody Proof « See Emily Play

  54. Mythx

    Allow me to translate

    “Yes much better that an extremely large group of people die, than i even entertain the possibility that I am wrong”

    What the hell is wrong with you?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  55. heartlandpatriot

    Always the same with leftists: they think they are “wise, mighty, and elite” and everyone else (the masses) is stupid, and thus need the leftists to watch over them and take care of them. And the leftists incrementally take this further, bit by bit, until they are killing people by the millions, “for their own good”, the way Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and all the other panoply of socialist/communist dictators have done. “Science communicator”, what a worthless job. I have more respect for a woman flipping burgers or a man picking up trash in a park than I do for someone like the author of this ludicrous piece.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  56. Kimberly Weninger

    You know what I’d like? For all the asinine, idiotic moron’s with an agenda to white people would do me and many others a very large favor and go to some damn Island somewhere so we can quit hearing BS like this comment…..”I’d like nothing better than for thousands of middle-class white people to die in an extreme weather event—preferably one with global warming’s fingerprints on it—live on cable news. Tomorrow.”. Can you make that happen please? Because your stupidity at showing our supposed stupidity is making you look like what you are….an ass.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  57. geek49203

    Ya know what I’d love? I’d love to remove that $1 billion per day being spent on “global warming”, just to see if the true believers believe this once there is no hope of financial gain. You know, funding for stuff, maybe rock star status like Dr. Mann, etc? Once that money is gone, and with it all hope to push a political agenda of items that were previously rejected (ie, enforced vegetarianism), and THEN you still have believers, I’d be more receptive.

    Oh, and when people stop using limos and private jets to get to far away places to talk about how CO2 emissions are bad. ‘Cause you really can’t just plant some trees as an act of contrition, some sort of act of secular substitutional atonement. When I was a few 747’s full of Congresspeople flying to Copenhagen, I didn’t exactly find CO2 to be the dire problem, ya know?

    Like

    Reply
  58. James Phillips

    Homer, shamefacedly I confess I too was guilty of an earlier inappropriate comment. Accept your error, recant, and you will find our host magnanimous. Large of brain and gracious to a fault, all hail BK.

    Like

    Reply
  59. Lowell

    I guess I’m one of the morons you’re trying to win over and not doing a very good job. I’m so moronic I have a Bachelor of Science degree, a very expensive solar telescope, a healthy degree of curiosity and a long lifetime of learning experiences.

    It would be a good idea in the climate study arena to include the investigation of the temperature changes or lack of changes on other planets in our solar system. Do you know if the average temperature of Mars or Venus has varied over time? If indeed there were similarities in temperature variances between Earth and other the other planets in our solar system, is that part of the model being used? It seems to me that the other planets would be a good control group.

    Like

    Reply
    1. H.D. Kline

      You SCIENCE DENIALISTS always try to impress us with your Qualifications, or confuse us with Facts and Figures and your misconceptions of “Scientific Method”, but methinks you are not a CLIMATE SCIENTIST Like George Monbiot or Stephan Lewandowsky??? What qualifications do you have in POSTNORMAL SCIENCE or POSTMODERNISM? This is stuff for the big boys – and girls – I’m not sexist! If you actually knew ANYTHING worth knowing about CLIMATE SCIENCE you would know that quaint ideas like “control groups” went out with the ark. Today it’s all about consensus and SOPHISTICATED computer models. May I politely suggest you GET WITH THE PROGRAM???

      Like

      Reply
      1. wsg

        OK, as no one else seems prepared to bring up the elephant in the room, I’m going to do it – *Dunning-Krugger*

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
        “The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.[1] Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding.”

        The term Dunning-Krugger is bandied around as being a bad thing, but there is an upside as well; how would Schmidt, Trenberth, Jones, Santer. etc, or even the IPCC be able to talk with such (95%) certainty that we are all doomed because of science, if it weren’t for Dunning Krugger!

        Like

      2. Lowell

        I’m not a climate scientist or a science denier. I consider myself a science communicator. I give talks on astronomy and participate in public outreach events with my telescopes. I don’t have any qualifications in POSTNORMAL SCIENCE or POSTMODERNISM. I don’t even know what those things are. I was not trying to impress anyone with my qualifications. I was just explaining to you and your ilk that even so-called “morons” can have college degrees and a high degree of understanding. And I do know lots about computer modeling. It’s what I do, although my modeling uses real math and can predict exactly what’s going to happen because I build accurate models with no guessing and no extrapolations.

        So control groups are out? If Mars’ temperature variations matched those of earth that would not be a data point or would “YOUR” scientific method throw that data point out because it didn’t fit the model?

        Like

    2. H.D. Kline

      Lowell,

      …I don’t have any qualifications in POSTNORMAL SCIENCE or POSTMODERNISM. I don’t even know what those things are.

      We learn from POSTMODERNISM that truth is a social construct, and that there is an implicit circularity between premise and conclusion, cause and effect. Ultimately it’s why THE OBSERVER’s thoughts influence the outcome of experiments in QUANTUM MECHANICS. You might like to visit the popular science section of your local bookshop to learn more about that??? POSTNORMAL SCIENCE is what you get when apply POSTMODERNIST principles to update the kind of outdated “normal science” that you seem familiar with. Putting it in terms you might understand it’s kind of like SCIENCE 2.0. As you can see from the diagram at POSTNORMAL SCIENCE POSTNORMAL SCIENCE is what protects SCIENCE from an explosion of IGNORANCE.

      And I do know lots about computer modeling. It’s what I do, although my modeling uses real math and can predict exactly what’s going to happen because I build accurate models with no guessing and no extrapolations.

      Well, there’s your problem! Struth! You do the easy stuff. I bet you don’t even know how to design an ACCURATE CLIMATE MODEL that uses extrapolation???

      So control groups are out? If Mars’ temperature variations matched those of earth that would not be a data point or would “YOUR” scientific method throw that data point out because it didn’t fit the model?

      Well of course! If the data doesn’t fit the model then we know the data is wrong, so we have to find data that does fit the model. If I may politely remind you, THAT’S CLIMATE SCIENCE 101, DUDE!

      Like

      Reply
      1. Lowell

        H.D. said, “If the data doesn’t fit the model then we know the data is wrong, so we have to find data that does fit the model. If I may politely remind you, THAT’S CLIMATE SCIENCE 101, DUDE!”

        So you only accept statistically extrapolated data that fits your model and you reject any observed data that doesn’t fit your model? And your model trumps reality? That doesn’t sound like science at all. Actually that sounds exactly the opposite of what science is. So CLIMATE SCIENCE is the opposite of real science? I guess it’s that POSTMODERNISM, POSTNORMAL SCIENCE thing you mentioned.

        Thanks for the explanation.

        Like

      2. H.D. Kline

        Lowell,

        So you only accept statistically extrapolated data that fits your model and you reject any observed data that doesn’t fit your model? And your model trumps reality? That doesn’t sound like science at all. Actually that sounds exactly the opposite of what science is. So CLIMATE SCIENCE is the opposite of real science? I guess it’s that POSTMODERNISM, POSTNORMAL SCIENCE thing you mentioned.

        Thanks for the explanation.

        Don’t mention it.

        This is a relatively minor quibble, but I question your use of the unfamiliar term “real science” in place of the conventional NORMAL SCIENCE. “Real science” seems implicitly to involve some kind of value judgement, as if “real science” (i.e. normal science) were somehow “better” or “more real” than any other kind of science. In my opinion normal science, being a more objective, value-neutral term, is preferable.

        Also, I would not say that postnormal climate science was opposite to normal science. In one sense it could be said that the postnormal and the normal are “DIFFERENTLY SCIENCED”, to coin a phrase, and I definitely think we should all learn to celebrate difference.

        Like

  60. Steve Davis

    As a “middle class white american,” I suppose i have no choice but to take offense to your commentary….no matter the intention. Yes it does usually take the a large scale event to spur any change in the thought processes of humanity, but that doesn’t necessarily indicate that you need to wish that upon your intended audience, either. Your reason for this, I assume, is the middle class white people make up the largest demographic of economic contribution. That means that some of us are in fact intelligent enough to research our own data concerning the issue of climate change, as well the ECONOMIC impact of “trying to fix nature.” As far as I have researched, and based on some liberal extrapolation of that research I admit, it will cost the industrialized governments of the earth hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars to make a small dent in our environmental foot print. That alone is enough to say no thanks. I don’t guess I am willing to bankrupt a country to improve our environmental footprint by 5-10%.

    No matter the data, its not economically viable to do so. I’d rather feed and clothe and educate my kids.

    But I guess you’d rather my kids die,to help push your agenda. Based on that, I guess you know how to fill in blanks: “Go _______ yourself.”

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  61. geek49203

    This is where I raise my hand and say, “Hey, that ‘global warming’ thing has changed since 1998. That Al Gore / Michael Mann ‘hockey stick’ graph was long ago discredited. If nothing else, the temps stopped rising! So now we’re talking about man-made catastrophic ‘climate change.'”

    ‘Cause I think we all agree that the “climate” changes, with or without humans. And we can all agree that since the Little Ice Age, and the last glacial period before that, the trend would be to higher temps, with or without humans. And we can all agree that, generally speaking, life on this planet adjusts well. Those are NOT the questions at hand.

    The QUESTION, therefore, is whether human activity has presented us with a dire, immediate catastrophic climate change that requires dire, draconian action, up to and including shutting down our industries and reassigning wealth from the rich to the poor. And THAT is the question, one that (according to this author) us whities don’t want to discuss.

    Like

    Reply
  62. nige t

    “Because we need a climate Nuremberg” !!???

    What sort of shit is that?

    What was wrong with “musings on climate, science and climate science”? or whatever!!!!??

    I know ~180 replies to this post.

    You’ve hit the mainstream, Brad. You really have

    Now, you can take on Watts and that Canadian twat…

    If you think you’re hard enough.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. geek49203

      That Canadian “Twat” who blew holes in Mann’s statistical methodology, and proved that you could get a hockey stick out of the numbers in a phone book?

      And then you wonder why people don’t believe the warmists… it’s either the “Twat” thing or the bad statistical method, not sure.

      Like

      Reply
      1. nige t

        Yeh, that’s the canadian I meant.

        And lots of genuine climate scientists think he’s a wanker.

        And they should know.

        All I know about the git is that He uses something called “R” whereas proper
        climate scientists use FORTRAN.

        I know about this stuff

        Like

      2. Larry Logan

        The reason why warmists label McIntyre a ‘wanker’ is an Alinksy. If you can’t argue the facts, argue the man. The problem is that McIntyre is a superb statistician. Climate scientists typically aren’t, nor do they understand physics. In Climategate we saw that Phil Jones, #1 at East Anglia, had challenges with Excel. And emails by their administrator lamented these guys couldn’t count.
        McIntyre has pretty taken the whole lot down, Trenberth et al. Therefore, he must be destroyed. He must not be allowed to show the man behind the curtain.

        Like

    2. Brad Keyes Post author

      “What was wrong with “musings on climate, science and climate science”? or whatever!!!!??”

      To be a good science communicator you have to be able to not only listen to the general public’s suggestions, but know when it would be even better to do the exact opposite, which is an instinct that only comes with experience—and this is a good example. Thanks for the suggestion nige!

      Like

      Reply
      1. nige t

        Sage, as ever, Brad.

        The feedback is gratis, though it sometimes hurts the ears,

        No matter, I’m wearing ‘ear defenders’

        why isn’t everybody happy nowadays?

        I know I am

        You don’t know of any jobs for ‘science communicators’ do you?

        Not exactly my line of country…but hey, how hard can it be?

        Like

  63. Marcus Aurelius Rhodes

    As one who’s been there, done that, I have some bad news about your peer-reviewed delusions, and real scientists: It’s all crap. Peer review doesn’t really happen, and, even when it does, it doesn’t really work. Science has once again become the tool of the monied elite’s power plays, just like the ‘science’ of eugenics in in 1930s Germany. Honesty is the real issue here, and those with the podiums and government funding appear to have none at all.

    Then there are the ‘community organizers’, and ‘science communicators’ who not only do nothing, they know nothing, but put on airs as if they did. Well wrote Heinlein when he penned that ‘most scientists are really nothing more than test-tube washers and button-pushers’. And ‘communicators’ are really nothing more than evangelists for the religion du jour, one that is truly guilty of all the things they blame on other religions.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  64. Fritz

    Does it bother you at all that the “climatologists” predicting weather/climate Armageddon (i) have no PROOF of their theories, and (ii) have every incentive (financial and otherwise) to predict dire consequences of “global warming?”

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Brad Keyes Post author

      wow, it’s like witnessing the birth of a James Bond villain.

      I love it! Yes, climate change really is like some criminal mastermind who’s just getting started in his reign of mischief, isn’t it?

      And the best thing about your analogy is there’s real, peer-reviewed science saying our brains respond differently to threats in human (or animal) form than to equally-risky, but impersonal, dangers. So I hope you don’t mind me stealing it! “The Anthropocene, Year 0: like witnessing the birth of a James Bond villain.”

      Like

      Reply
      1. GabrielHBay

        Brad, I can’t match your wicked [Accusation of disingenuity snipped—CN Mods], but many thanks for initiating one of the most entertaining threads I have seen in a long time. My first visit here, thanks to JoNova.

        Liked by 1 person

  65. jpattitude

    Good grief. As a firm believer in the value of individual liberty as a benefit to society as a whole and as a conduit to God for the individual himself, I always support unfettered access to the Internet for everyone… then I see something so stupid, so off-the-wall screwed up, so phenomenally loony – something like this in other words – that my whole belief system is thrown into question. I hope I haven’t twisted a synapse out of alignment just reading this crap.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  66. D.Warbucks

    maybe it’s time to start stringing up the warmists who say things like this. they’d love nothing more than another go at Stalinism – none of that nasty, yucky dissent.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  67. DrCruel

    I entirely sympathize. Lots of climate scientists have supported the climate change scam, first when they purported that big monied capitalist interests were responsible for global cooling and more recently that big monied capitalist interests were responsible for global warming. Some of these people have already been caught in the lie, and the public is losing patience with this nonsense. Lots of grant money and an entire carbon credits industry depends on the scam being kept solvent. Given how callous socialists have been in the past with human life, having a few hundred thousand people die is a small price to pay to keep the eco-socialist elite in clover. Or so it would be from the Left’s standpoint, I suppose.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  68. Kennymac

    It’s funny that someone who fancies themselves a communicator can’t reveal the scientific name of the model that correctly model’s the earth’s climate.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
      1. Brad Keyes Post author

        therain,

        this is textbook conspiracist ideation (or will be, once the cog-sci textbooks catch up with the state of Professor Lewandowsky’s art):

        “I would think they are hiding the name to prevent future embarrassment.”

        Riiiight.

        And MI5 killed Princess Di, and Prince Phillip is a drug trafficker, and the moon landings were pre-enacted on a Hollywood sound lot, and the 9/11 attacks were actually carried out by a clandestine network of terrorists who knew each other, and all seven multinational tobacco giants secretly colluded to spend the entire 1980s feigning ignorance of the truth that cigarettes are dependency-forming, and every single one of the world’s rabbis and imams have managed to set aside their minor differences long enough to cover up the fact that there is no God for, oh, only the last 1400 years, and the Piltdown Man is a hoax by Teh Darwinistas…

        have I left anything out?

        Like

      2. Kennymac

        You certainly are a persuasive communicator. Have you come up with the name of the model that correctly predicts the earth’s climate? Or should we take it on faith that you and your hell breathing brethren are correct?

        Like

      3. therain

        So what’s the answer, Einstein? I was actually being humorous, as there is no model that correctly predicts the earth’s climate. All attempts by warmers have been comically inaccurate.

        Like

      4. Brad Keyes Post author

        “I was actually being humorous, as there is no model that correctly predicts the earth’s climate.”

        Oops—I missed the humor. Misunderstandings occur, and in this case it was your fault for making a humorous remark on a non-humor site about a deadly serious subject.

        The crystal-clear ClimateNuremberg moderation policies (see upcoming post for list) specifically seek to prevent such misunderstandings by taking a hard line on facetious remarks, which are both tonally incongruous (and to some readers, upsetting) and misleading for the reason alluded to in my previous sentence.

        Normally your violation would result in your being invited to take your opinions elsewhere—there are plenty of radically pro-free-speech sites that would be happy to tolerate your sarcasm, such as http://www.skepticalscience.com— plus the removal of your contributions (including those where no violation was evident, but in which ironic intent was fundamentally impossible to rule out, for the reason alluded to in my penultimate sentence). You are probably aware that this protocol is standard discursive hygiene in the pro-science blogosphere.

        However as it is conceivable that you simply failed, in good faith, to guess the exact nature of our moderation policies we have voted (by split decision) to allow you to keep commenting here. Please do not abuse our hands-off philosophy by persisting in non-literal commenting.

        Like

  69. Pingback: UPDATE: Dr Kampen defends himself | CLIMATE NUREMBERG

  70. Andrew in Toronto

    In future, please bear in mind that commenting at CN is not a human right, but a privilege revocable at our consensual whim.
    Kind of like your view of allowing humans to live.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Kennymac

      All of us, included Brad, know there is no scientific name for a climate model that correctly model’s the climate. Because there is no such model. You have to take what they are saying on faith. Or else pay the eternal price. You know, like a religion! LOL!

      Like

      Reply
    2. H.D. Kline

      If you knew ANYTHING about climate models, Lowell, or whatever your name really is you would know that an ensemble of many models is used??? Is Brad supposed to remember the name of hundreds of different models? Who do you think he is – Harry Houdini?

      The fact of the matter is that CLIMATE SCIENTISTS have shown, using SOPHISTICATED statistical techniques that are even beyond the ken of most statisticians, that the output of an ensemble of slightly inaccurate computer models can be combined to produces a MUCH more accurate result. So accurate, in fact, that it might soon be possible to dispense with temperature data entirely. That is what we call THE CLIMATE??? IT DOES NOT NEED ANOTHER NAME!

      Like

      Reply
      1. Lowell

        My name is really Lowell. And a model of the climate would be a climate model. The climate is the climate. One is reality, the other is not.

        Along with calculus, physics and all that other college stuff, I took some statistics classes. I can remember at least one thing from statistics classes, that being, “There are lies, damn lies and statistics.” The professor was trying to get across the point that statistics can be manipulated to achieve the results you want. What are the chances he was lying. Calculate that.

        Like

      2. Larry Logan

        Lowell, similar to my comment earlier, where the current climatologists keep tripping up is in the physics and statistics. You can do physics without climate modeling, but you can’t do climate modulating (correctly) without physics — as the modelers keep building models that ‘defeat’ physics. Modelers get hoidy-toidy and complain they’re being criticized by “non-climate scientists” who don’t have standing of some sort, and the physics guys say, “yes, but we know that 2+2=4.”

        Like

      3. H.D. Kline

        Lowell,

        My name is really Lowell. And a model of the climate would be a climate model. The climate is the climate. One is reality, the other is not.

        You’re just TRYING to confuse me! As I EXPLAINED, in answer to one of your other queries, thanks to an immense body of POSTMODERNIST THEORY we now know that truth is a social construct. You’ve obviously been studying NEURO LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING, where they say “the map is not the territory”, and now you’re trying to argue from analogy that the model is not the climate. Well Have I Got News for You! It’s not up to the likes of you or me to decide which is real, it’s up to the 97% consensus of climate scientists, and my understanding is that it’s very much the models that are in favour.

        Like

      4. Larry Logan

        The models are in favor? Out of 123 models, only 2 are considered ‘close.’

        http://nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow.jpg (look at circles & squares

        97%???
        The 97% figure comes from an online survey in 2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (her survey, a Masters students) from the University of Illinois. It was sent to 10,256 with 3146 responding, which was whittled down to 75 out of 77 supposed “expert” ’active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even the majority of skeptics agree with.

        More recently we have the study by activist John Cook (a “Climate Communicator, sans PhD), in which only 0.54% (65 of the 12,000 abstracts rated) suggest that humans are responsible for more than 50% of the global warming up to 2001, contrary to the alleged 97% consensus. (Cook’s published numbers actually show 98% by his ‘math’ but he used the 97% number to attempt to be consistent with Doran.)

        IPCC Expert Reviewer Dr. Richard Tol has shown the Cook survey for the embarrassment it is, as has McIntyre and many others. Cook had the gall to take Tol’s papers and ‘classify’ only 10 of Tol’s 122 eligible papers, then rated 5 of 10 incorrectly, and the claim that 4 of 5 “endorsed” CAWG rather than correctly report them as neutral. Cook got his numbers by crowd-sourcing with activist volunteers, hardly robust!

        Like

      5. Kennymac

        “It’s not up to the likes of you or me to decide which is real, it’s up to the 97% consensus of climate scientists”

        Really? Is science a democracy now? Would 51% be enough? Or does it have to be 97%, which has been proven bogus, as has the rest of the alarmist data anyway. And when did they add “consensus” to the scientific method? Could you source that for me?

        Like

      6. H.D. Kline

        Really? Is science a democracy now? Would 51% be enough? Or does it have to be 97%, which has been proven bogus, as has the rest of the alarmist data anyway.

        “Yes”, “yes” and “preferably”. It’s as simple as that, yes???

        But if you wish to understand why, I can lead you to the door, but you must walk through it yourself. To that end I suggest you read the ridiculously-entitled Climate Change and the Death of Science. Look past its author’s RABID DENIALISM and PARANOID IDEATION, and I think you will find yourself great deal closer to the answers you seek.

        Like

      7. Kennymac

        And when the scientific method has been amended to include “consensus” by a peer reviewed credentialed panel in an open forum, your comment will be valid. Until then it’s on the wish list of those who hope the rest of us won’t notice that the alarmists have no evidence to back up their specious statements. BTW, can you give me the scientific name of the model that correctly models the earth’s climate. Because if there is one thing science does it’s name things. What’s the name of you exalted model? I want to Google it.

        Like

      8. Kennymac

        See the debunking of yet another alarmist claim in the comment by Larry Logan directly above. Lift your eyes and see the light!

        Like

      1. Penny Robinson Fan Club

        Galveston. 1900. Est. 10,000 dead and the island devastated. Long before “Global Warming”. And making the point for the racist perfesser who specifically wants WHITE PEOPLE dead. I don’t think a lot of white folk died in Bangladesh. For that mater, the deadliest hurricane in history was in 1780, killing some 25,000 across the Caribbean.

        There have ALWAYS been severe weather events. And in point of fact, both the frequency and severity of hurricanes have been in a downward trend since the 40s & 50s.

        http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

        Like

      2. cRR Kampen

        Galveston also happened before modern engineering re e.g. sea defences and before meteorological warnings enabling evacuation measures. When a modern western town gets ‘wiped off the map’, e.g. Darwin 1974, fatalities are vastly reduced.
        But please let’s not get started on Katrina/New Orleans – or who the majority of the dead were. Katrina made the US look like any poor third world country.

        Note: I did not forget about some 16.000 Aborigine and Torres people in Cairns. Who would?

        Like

  71. bluegrasschick

    Seems like everyone has soundly covered the fact that you appear to be severely psychologically disturbed. Therefore, I’ll simply say God loves you dearly and will overcome anything that you ask of Him with a pure heart. That would mean you need to ask forgiveness for your sins and claim His mercy through Jesus. I’ll be praying for you. I know the written word comes across as facetious at times, but I promise you I’m being sincere and am praying that I’ll meet you in heaven one day.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  72. Shub Niggurath

    Lowell, you are skating on the thin ice. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by the common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing. Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.

    Like

    Reply
  73. Kevin

    Wow. Just wow. I guess until hundreds of thousands of people die from the idiotic anti-progress policies of the climate alarmists, john Q. Flyover just won’t realize what a bunch of evil narcissistic anti-science thugs they really are. Never trust a scientist who tells you not to be skeptical.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  74. Pingback: News of the Week (April 13th, 2014) | The Political Hat

  75. Pingback: AGW Promoter Wants Thousands of White Middle Class People to Die - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

  76. ScienceGuy1775

    The problem is, the science does not support the theory of global warming. Just because you say it does in order to fit you agenda does not mean it really does. In fact, the science says the exact opposite of global warming – that we are heading for an ice age. The history of Earth says this also.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. eric76

      We are in an ice age now and have been for more than two and a half million years. The next ice age cannot begin until after the current ice age has ended.

      Don’t confuse ice ages with periods of glaciation. We are currently in an interglacial warm period. When the next period of glaciation begins, we will not be entering a new ice age, just another period of glaciation in the current ice age.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  77. Pingback: Smoking Gun (UPDATE: Parody) | Countenance Blog

  78. revnantdream

    H.D. Kline
    April 13, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    Just as a matter of interest, are you a peer-reviewed PSYCHIATRIST?

    Are you implying sir that one needs to have a certificate or label like Psychiatrist to be a professional mind twister with other peoples emotions? That only Westerners can enable transsexual mutilation.There are many fine witch Doctors in the World who do a better job. Particularly Africa which makes me think racism is living on this thread These tireless third World care givers are just as competent if not more so than western whites.. Since they use organic products , not big Pharma.
    This science communicator would make a better appeal if he first re-purposed his wife & children.
    Once dead than he can do more like create a human plague. The death lovers would adore him.Hands on holiness for the planetary mother goddess.
    No one ever said being a science BS artist was easy.
    Peer review is just another Party favour by friends. Any one who disagrees with you of course, is no peer.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  79. ethan earthavenger

    I wish to congratulate CRR Kampen for having the good taste to desire Cairns eradicated, wiped off the map Carthage style.
    It’s a shithole, with a mudflat for a beach and water full of Irukandji & Box jellyfish.
    And still more deadly pests roam the streets – Ice & alcohol addicts.
    Unfortunately though, they denizens of Cairns are of all hues and races, so the hoped for ethno-masochistic wet dream of a ‘tropical white genocide’ draws a blank there.

    KKK’s views also sagaciously shares much in common with the sharmans , prophets, wiccans and religious wisemen throughout the ages, in that what the unenlightened see as mere ‘weather’, they see through that mask to reveal ‘weather’ as the messenger and augury of humans wicked sinfulness & that his deity creates such malstrom’s to vengefully, ‘smite the wicked’.
    The ‘carbon sinners’ will yet face Gaia’s wrath !

    Like

    Reply
  80. James Phillips

    Kevin, I think you’re being just a little bit silly there. The hope was for the population of Cairns (only about 150,000 people) to die, not “hundreds of thousands”. If we’re hoping to rationally advance science here then I think it’s important to stick scrupulously to the facts.

    And anyway, it now – regrettably in some eyes – looks like Cairns has been spared this time round. But think for a moment what it would have meant if it had in fact been obliterated by some sort of vaguely climate-ish event. While there would of course be understandable short term pain and sadness, over time their sacrifice would be repaid many times over if governments were forced to enact the level of stern control and behaviour modification required to counter the looming climate crisis-gate. The people of Cairns would be true martyrs, albeit reluctant ones perhaps.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. cRR Kampen

      To be frank, James: *whew*.

      Small detail though – the body counts (and their ethnicity) were imagined by others, not me. When Cyclone Tracy wiped Darwin off the map in 1974 there were still a horrific 71 dead out of the (mostly evacuated) 47.000 citizens but at least western cities don’t lose like Tacloban. Although I’ve some doubt whether New Orleans wasn’t African.

      Like

      Reply
  81. Shelgeyr

    “Joe Q. Flyover doesn’t understand science. He wants evidence.”
    This is all the proof I need the author doesn’t understand science. Science doesn’t exist without evidence, and the evidence must be revealed and available for others to replicate the experimentation. Otherwise, you only have esoteric models based on hidden and suspicious evidence cranking out unverifiable results solely to foster a political viewpoint. That may certainly be the state of “Climate Science(tm)” today, but that isn’t actual science.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  82. richard40

    “but Joe Q. Flyover doesn’t understand science. He wants evidence.”
    And here was old naieve me thinking that science was all about evidence, aparently to radical environmentalists it is about something else.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  83. TyreByter

    “CLIMATE NUREMBERG” SHOULD READ “CLIMATE SALEM WITCH TRIALS” …SAME EVIDENCE WAS USED TO DECLARE NONCONFORMISTS “WITCHES” TO BURN AT THE STAKE.

    SCUM LIKE THIS WERE THE “GOOD GERMANS” WHO LOOKED THE OTHER WAY.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  84. antics

    At last, an article which says what we think.

    I always get excited by news of a major storm system [sexually to some extent]. It can be ‘stimulating’ viewing to watch news of a severe storm. Unfortunately in recent years we are not getting the climax we want. They either fizzle out or hit somewhere unimportant. Even Australia is not much better than the Philippines. It may be useful for the local activists to point out how the new government is wrong, but who else would really care. What we need is another Katrina. Even though it was 9 years ago it always seems like it happened just yesterday. I am sure, like me, many environmentalists still have fond memories of it.

    I regret not becoming a Climate Scientist. What is attractive about it is that you do not need to be clever, in fact this can be a liability [Judith Curry!]. All you need is the imagination to link anything that happens to Climate Change, and most importantly issue a dramatic press release. In fact it seems like we are at the stage where you do not need to write a paper or do any research – just issue a press release which the media round the world will instantly re-broadcast. If the ‘paper’ is behind a pay-wall who is going to check? Not sure if it has been done but I think it should be tried. It would make a climate scientist’s time so much more productive.

    I keep on thinking that a nuclear war would achieve all the IPCC’s objectives. If our civilisation could be destroyed then resources are now so inaccessible by primitive means that it could never be rebuilt. Something we all want really. It should achieve the objective of moderates like David Attenborough who want global population reduced to a billion. Not sure I agree with the extremists who want humanity wiped off the face of the planet. I was wondering if this was Obama’s objective in the Ukraine. The US could hardly bomb itself and the rest of the West, but by forcing Russia to do it he would have ‘clean hands’. All our problems solved.

    On a lighter note, but again with regards to the Ukraine. It is good that the US Government has given its blessing to the overthrow of a democratic government by anyone who disagrees with it. Perhaps Green activists should take it as a template. By replacing Western governments with an enlightened Green autocracy we could really get things done. May get some problems from deniers but I sure a ‘solution’ could be found!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  85. Pingback: “Environmentalist” says the public is morons and hopes a lot of people die to get a teachable moment but ignores actual deaths and lack of teachable moments | Site

  86. H.D. Kline

    There are those who say that to wish an exemplary death on the people of Cairns is to reaffirm the high value we place on life. But in the twenty first century we are all cultural relativists: WE DON’T DO VALUE JUDGEMENTS??? Instead of placing a value on life – an obscenely mercenary concept – should we not, therefore, celebrate difference and diversity, as a matter of principle, and start to recognise death as being a valid lifestyle choice? As some guy on TV said the other day, “herein lies the conundrum”, for a society that does recognises death as being a valid lifestyle choice will not necessarily be shocked into action by the destruction of a city such as Cairns. Paradoxically, it seems that recognition of the true nature of death might result in a reduction of the impact of death, necessitating far more deaths than previously thought, before the shock value of these deaths encourages us to make the difficult choices we need to make in order to save the human race from what we hope will be at least a disastrous 2 Celsius rise in global temperate. I know what you’re thinking – oh yes I do. You’re thinking we need to make difficult choices to SAVE THE PLANET, and this is one time when we there is no choice to throw principle to wind… That might have been the case but for one thing: THE POPULATION BOMB.

    Distinguished scientists such as Paul Erlich warn us of THE POPULATION BOMB, which throws a whole new can of worms into the mix; a can that once opened could spiral out of control and literally go off in our faces. There’s no way around it: in order to defuse THE POPULATION BOMB we cannot afford NOT to recognise death as a valid lifestyle choice, which leaves us back at square one. I don’t know what the answer is, but I suspect that government funding and promotion of the controversial “death metal” music might be part of the answer. I must confess to not being entirely sure what death metal is, but I think this might be an example:

    Like

    Reply
      1. H.D. Kline

        geek49203,

        I recall that “Population Bomb” thing. Yup, it was the Global Warming circa 1970. Time proved that one wrong too.

        I believe you are mistaken on both counts. Firstly, GLOBAL COOLING was the global warming of the 1970s, and there are hints that cooling might begin to reassert itself as a result of heat being trapped in the biosphere by runaway carbon dioxide emissions. Cooling and warming are but two sides of the same coin, AND A COIN HAS ONLY TWO SIDES???

        Secondly, time did NOT prove the POPULATION BOMB wrong. If that were true you could equally argue that time had proved the deadlines for The Tipping Point wrong, on the specious grounds that they had been passed. I suspect you would agree that if you did you would look as silly as the author of THIS FACILE, DENIALIST PROPAGANDA PIECE, for as THE SCIENCE advances and our estimate of the average equilibrium sensitivity become ever more accurate we become better able to estimate how many atom bombs worth of further excess heat we can endure before The Tipping Point is reached. Very luckily for humanity, this has enabled us progressively to extend the deadline by a few years. As for the POPULATION BOMB, it remains an unexploded bomb, rusting under the sands of some sunny southern English beach, becoming increasingly unstable with age, capable of going off at any time. Believe me, I don’t want to be there when it happens, and neither should you…

        Like

    1. Kennymac

      “in order to defuse THE POPULATION BOMB we cannot afford NOT to recognise death as a valid lifestyle choice, which leaves us back at square one. I don’t know what the answer is, but I suspect that government funding and promotion of the controversial “death metal” music might be part of the answer.”

      We could build state sponsored gas chambers. What do you think?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. H.D. Kline

        Kennymac,

        We could build state sponsored gas chambers. What do you think?

        If you are advocating mass involuntary examination of lifestyle options then I say an emphatic “No!”. What are you, SOME KIND OF MONSTER??? Lifestyle options cease to be options when they cease to be optional. THATS WHY THEY’RE CALLED “OPTIONS”, yes???

        The real issue is to do some sophisticated market research, and learn the answers to some important questions. What kind of death is fashionable? what form it should take and how it can best be provided – should it be the public sector or the private sector, a mix of both or a public private partnership? How much should it cost – can we promote it as a status symbol? At what age should death be promoted to school children, and should it be done by activist teachers or outside consultants? What colour should be associated with death to give it a more up to date vibe? These and many similar questions are what must be addressed. Gas chambers indeed! Pah!

        Like

  87. Pingback: “Environmentalist” says the public are morons and hopes a lot of people die to get a teachable moment but ignores actual deaths and lack of teachable moments | Site

  88. andrew irving (retired physicist)

    Climate ‘scientists’ – who are not real scientists who use the scientific method – are merely copying the folly of the “lake high to predict storms” by abusing the data to extort resource from the whole of humanity.

    Idiot climate warming advocates.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
      1. andrew irving

        Dear cRR Kampen,

        Thank you for your prompt response to my somewhat harsh comment…

        Although I am a retired physicist, I remain ever curious.

        Given the long term stochastic variability of the parameters involved, any analysis that only makes use of few mere decades of data without accounting for long term variability’s and relationships and responses and then uses the short term data extrapolate future behaviour is at best highly contrived in both the statistical and analysis contexts, and such selectivity of data clearly does not conform with the ethos of the scientific method. They are in fact selecting their data sample so as to achieve a desired outcome – apparently to extort resource by frightening the global community where the factual evidence is in fact rather thin. Additionally, there is a preponderance in their field to accept simple correlations as means to forecast future behaviour, but given the confounded and compounded nature of the many parameter problem such correlations can be misleading – as in the Victoria lake height being used to predict global storm numbers. Also they do not appear to understand that correlation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality, i.e. they have no handle on physically meaningful relationships between the variables. I am aware that there are alternative hypotheses that need to be tested but attempts to perform appropriate experiments have been suppressed by the climate community (such as the neutrino flux interactions with the solar wind and the magnetosphere), and also that many of their numerical simulation models contain unrealistic highly nonlinear relationships. I do, however, retain an open mind as to the true nature of the behaviour of our planet.
        Regards,

        Andy Irving.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s