JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Yale says “Global Warming” is a better misused-phrase for propaganda — dump “climate change”

What’s the point of language — especially in science? If you are naive, you might think it’s to communicate a fixed concept so everyone understands and can voice an opinion on the same thing. You would be wrong. The real purpose of scientific terms is to motivate the punters to behave differently (especially if that means “give us more money”). That’s why the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication has assigned 5 PhD’s and a guy called Feinberg to spend days, weeks and months analyzing surveys to find out which propaganda term is more “effective”. The simple answer is “global warming” ekes out more fear and pain among democrats than “climate change”; therefore expect to see its use rocket.

The Guardian

The survey sample of 1,657 people, compiled over a two-week period late last year, found a large swathe of Americans turned off by the words “climate change”.

“The use of the term climate change appears to actually reduce issue engagement by Democrats, Independents, liberals, and moderates, as well as a variety of subgroups within American society, including men, women, minorities, different generations, and across political and partisan lines,” the researchers said.

Americans in general were 13% more likely to say that global warming was a bad thing.

The average punter just doesn’t talk as much about climate change, and it isn’t as scary:

[Time] In a new report by the Yale Project on Climate Communications, researchers led by Anthony Leiserowitz surveyed Americans and found that “global warming” is used much more commonly than “climate change,” both in conversation and in Internet searches, and that “global warming” is significantly more engaging than “climate change.” That’s because global warming generated more alarming associations, causing survey respondents to think of disasters like melting ice, coastal flooding and extreme weather, while “climate change” generated more banal associations with generation weather patterns.

“Global warming” was also associated with:

  • Greater certainty that the phenomenon was happening
  • Greater understanding that human activities were the primary driver of warming, especially among political independents
  • A greater sense of personal threat, as well as more intense worry about the issue
  • A greater sense that people are being harmed right now by warming, and a greater sense of threat to future generations
  • Greater support for both large and small-scale actions by the U.S. (although “climate change” generates more support for medium-scale efforts, especially among Republicans.)

Among republicans the effect was curiously the opposite: some Republicans have apparently learned to hate “global warming”. But luckily they are irrelevant because they are mostly lost to the faith anyhow — they were never going to convert back. Phew:

[Time] The Yale report found that Republicans don’t really care which term is used, though “global warming” will sometimes generate stronger negative feelings among conservatives. Not that it much matters—a recent Gallup poll found that 65% of conservatives said they were skeptical of climate change, compared to just 24% of moderates and 9% of liberals.

The meaning of “global warming” was destroyed a long time ago. It used to mean the globe warmed, but has come to mean coal-oil-and-gas have caused all the global warming since 1780 (but none of it before then.) No, seriously, they define it that way:

“Global warming refers to the increase in the Earth’s average surface temperature since the Industrial Revolution, primarily due to the emission of greenhouse gases from  the burning of fossil fuels and land use change, whereas climate change refers to the long-term change the Earth’s climate including changes in temperature, precipitation, and wind patterns over a period of several decades or longer.”

The point of a conversation, after all,  is not so you can agree on terms and convince people of something, it’s so you can cajole, coerce and trick them into giving the answer you want.

The Guardian (in a different article) wins my award for the best Destruction-of-English-for-The-Cause line:

“It leads researchers to believe that much of the public does not understand that both phrases reference the same concept and information.”

Yes, global warming and climate change no longer have actual meanings in English, now they both just mean We’re saving the world, give us your money. Repeat after me: If it is climate, it is warming (there is no cooling). All change is bad. The globe is changing. Global equals warming. Climate means heat, death, fires and flood. Any questions?

Naturally since people who believe in Carbon Disaster were never interested in a real conversation, we can expect to see them go back to misusing “Global Warming” immediately, ad infinitum.

FYI:

Climate Change in the American Mind – conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. The research was funded by the Energy Foundation, the 11th Hour Project, the Grantham Foundation, and the V.K. Rasmussen Foundation.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (69 votes cast)
Yale says "Global Warming" is a better misused-phrase for propaganda -- dump "climate change", 9.2 out of 10 based on 69 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/lwc6ugt

161 comments to Yale says “Global Warming” is a better misused-phrase for propaganda — dump “climate change”

  • #
    Skiphil

    Yes, I love this kind of ‘research’ — how do we refine and improve the propaganda to scare peopke again?? Oh, the latest term of art isn’t working out so well? Let’s go back to our good old standby, “globull warming”….


    Report this

    391

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      And organisations in Australia wonder why their funding is being scrutinised more closely these days.

      It would be nice to get a gig testing the effects of latex rubber thickness on organ sensitivity response for your PHD, but sadly the rest of us have to work to fund it.


      Report this

      321

    • #

      how do we refine and improve the propaganda to scare peopke again??

      The top question of the Chicken Littles is not at all about what is true, but about what scares people the most. Note that the shameless scare mongers often think in terms of directing their “scary scenarios” at children. But juxtaposition their laughable climate models showing skyrocketing temperatures over the last 20 years against the reality of flatlining, or declining temps, and you see that they are in a pickle: “global warming” may scarier, but the people eventually are going to hear the truth… about the temperatures, and about CO2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&info=GGWarmingSwindle_CO2Lag
      “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States.” -John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar
      “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.” -leftist Senator Tim Wirth, 1993
      “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Greenpeace
      “We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.” -Stephen Schneider, lead ipcc author, 1989
      “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, first ipcc chair
      “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” -Daniel Botkin, ex Chair of Envinronmental Studies, UCSB
      “Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of eco-refugees, threatening political chaos.” -Noel Brown, ex UNEP Director, 1989
      “Winter with strong frosts and lots of snow.. will [in a few years] cease to exist at our latitudes.” -Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute, 2000
      “[Inaction will cause]… by the turn of the century [2000], an ecological catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.” -Mustafa Tolba, 1982, former Exectuive Director of the UNEP


      Report this

      101

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    If this year’s El Nino proves to be strong, and causes ‘record’ temperatures to be measured for 2014, expect Green/Left wailing, gnashing of teeth, and tearing of clothes to also reach record levels, along with calls for your money and your complete subservience.


    Report this

    341

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      That is the whole point. Rick.

      An El Nino is the next cab off the rank, and is going to be coming along real soon now, so the wharmists have to change the meme so they can capitalise on it.

      Our job is to point out that they can’t make up their minds which compartment to step into in the revolving door. “New Ice Age (’70′s), Global Warming (’80′s and ’90′s), Climate Change (’00′s and ’10′s), now back to Global Warming. We need to point out that they missed giving us a rerun of the New Ice Age scare, during the last few European winters. People feel cheated about that.

      (No extra charge for the mixed metaphors).


      Report this

      322

    • #
      Tim

      I recently read that John Kerry is using the phrase: “Climate Chaos”. Perhaps this was a road-test for those marketing boffins looking to hype-up the (diminishing)fear.

      The next strong El Nino event could well be a good excuse for them to trot this one out.


      Report this

      120

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        From a PR perspective, that would be a very bad move.

        I can just picture Jo’s response to that …

        “Chaos means that you have no idea what is going to happen next. So why has billions of dollars been spent on Climate Change ‘experts’, and dozens of Super Computers, if they still have no clue about what has been happening in the past, and what could happen in the future.”

        It would elevate Climate ComedyTM to climate farce.


        Report this

        201

      • #
        Kevin Lohse

        Climate IS chaotic. This is probably the nearest Obama’s White House has come to real science.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      iainnahearadh

      Rick,

      The only two problems I see here, is that the current La’Nina cycle isn’t dying down as predicted.
      For some odd reason, the Two cycles are normally predicated to be Three to Seven years in duration. However, the last El’ Nino was nearly sixteen years in length.

      A quick check of the historical record also shows a very bumpy and quite inconsistent pattern in the La’ Nina and El’ Nino weather events, their length, strength and duration.
      Give that these two cycles weren’t even known to exist until the mid fifties, I would think that it is a bit of a presumption to consider that the Planet will automatically snap back to the previous state at some pre-determined time.

      I can see a few big drivers that would affect the extent and behaviour of these weather patterns.
      One would be the Activity from the Antarctic.
      Over the last century, this has been predominantly cooler as the general weather patterns have shown a tendency to greater precipitation.
      The only exception to this is the Volcanic Activity and odd warming in the Western Antarctic peninsula.

      However, given the warm summer flows from the bottom of the South American continent and the localised Volcanic Activity, that’s not surprising.
      What is surprising is how little effort it takes to freeze and build pack ice again during the cooler months. The last expedition of fools found out that lesson the hard way.

      For some odd reason, the affects of the Warm Indian Ocean blowing over the Western Australian Coastline and then easterly over the entire continent, as well as it’s general suppressive effect in keeping the colder Antarctic weather from reaching Australia in any great strength, seems entirely overlooked.

      Were it not for the consistent warm breezes from the Indian Ocean, Australia would be much colder.
      Snow would also be far more common. Even down to the coast line in South Australia and Tasmania.
      People forget that between 1940 and through to late 1950 light snow was quite common. As was driving rain, Freezing Winters and similar weather conditions.
      La’ Nina and El’ Nino weather events were quite muted during this period. I also remember it freezing, Snowing and blowing a hail storm at Kimba, near the Gawler ranges, in South Australia, both in the early Seventies and the Mid Eighties.
      Both times I was touring around on a Harley Sportster and had to find cover during the hail and then a Motel Room for the next few days. It gets very cold, very quick, out in that country.
      Then it stays that way until Ten in the Morning and then returns to very cool from Four in the Afternoon. Overnight gets very cold.

      This weather activity from the Antarctic, or the reduction of Warm Winds from The Indian Ocean would also clearly effect the La’ Nina and El’ Nino weather events at it’s Southern edge.

      Now to a definition and duration and measurement of the activity being referred to;

      Climate is usually defined as the “average weather” over a period of time, usually a 30 year span.
      This record is comprised of the average daily and seasonal weather for a region.
      This includes assessing the actual temperature, precipitation, wind, and sunshine.
      Weather averages for 30 years, which are often called “normals”, are much more reliable guides than the weather for the last year or few years.
      Since forecasts aren’t possible for more than a week or so ahead, you need to rely on weather averages to find a pattern.

      Oddly enough, a clear “pattern” is missing here.

      What is also generally missing from these calculations and observations is the effect of the Sunspot activity and Oceanic Evaporation on the local Southern Hemisphere Climate.
      Given that these contributory events are in in flux at this time, with a tendency to the cooler side of the scale, I wouldn’t be betting the farm that the next El’ Nino event is going to be a “classic” or strong event.

      Also bear this in mind.
      During some of the Worst cold events that have occurred in the Australian Climate, or as the average thirty years weather events have shown, over the last one and a half centuries, the El’ Nino event can also be presented as cold, dry and wet.
      This is also entirely normal, and is also known as “Non Classic”.
      The old adage of be careful of what you wish for comes to mind.
      Crop Failure is also common, just not from drought, but dry cold and then cold wet, weather events.
      As is the cost of living, and the forced reduction in general activity, which is a direct result of having to negate the daily effects of the “Non Classic” weather events.
      What the Warmest Alarmists would make of that boggles the mind.


      Report this

      161

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        “What the Warmest Alarmists would make of that boggles the mind.”

        They will run round in ever decreasing circles, screaming hysterically. Just like they’re doing now.


        Report this

        101

      • #
        Steve

        There indeed may be a pattern or lack there of, however the average mug punter has little or no scientific understanding ( or chooses not to think for themselves …) so conveying the truth of the science has to be in simple terms.

        Unless its in a short understandable sound bite, it will be ignored.


        Report this

        50

    • #
      tom0mason

      “If this year’s El Nino proves to be strong, …”
      …it is still just a weather event during one year, therfore not climate


      Report this

      121

  • #
    Stonyground

    Wasn’t the term ‘Climate Change’ brought in due to the inconvenient fact that the ‘Global Warming’ stopped about seventeen years ago? It was a bit of a problem when the global warming deniers were actually proved right so they had to re-define what it was that they claimed that the deniers were denying. I mean, some of us even deny that there is a climate.


    Report this

    141

    • #

      The precise term matters as well as how poignant and illustrative it is because of the way K-12 education is being reformed. Concepts plus associations plus visual images in the real world plus emotion is what constitutes ‘learning’ now when it’s not entirely just changing values, attitudes, and beliefs. Plus with the renewed Whole Language emphasis this will be a recognizable phrase even for someone largely uninformed. It’s Common Core in the US, but in Australia it goes back to about 2002 and is now being pushed in earnest as Core Skills and 21st century skills. All are geared towards providing the desired conceptual understanding to guide perception in politically useful and finacially remunerative ways (if you are a crony).

      This vision of the usefulness of concepts to guide future behavior reliably is explained here. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/imposing-cybernetics-control-theory-on-students-while-pretending-the-impetus-is-equity-for-all/

      Be very careful. This really is where language about equity for all students or a mandate to close all learning gaps quickly leads.

      It’s about gutting knowledge in favor of mindsets and the mindsets need to be grounded in concepts that emotionally prompt future action.


      Report this

      120

    • #
      scaper...

      Unfortunately, CC has been around since the formation of the IPCC.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Glen Michel

    To eek or to eke? More mindless crap for the compliant dolts that occupy this continuum.Might go and have a lie down for a while…….


    Report this

    80

    • #

      Glen, well spotted, though eeking out more fear fits rather well…


      Report this

      70

      • #
        ROM

        We all think using language, we use real actual words in our thinking processes to give shape and understanding to our thinking and our thoughts.

        Never taken into account when the hand wringing begins on what is being taught to the next generation is the manner in which the use and meanings of individual words and phrases change, sometimes quite dramatically between generations.

        Many of the words that meant quite specific ideas and concepts when I went to school some 70 years ago now have quite different meanings today and encapsulate quite different concepts for the current and younger generation.

        But the underlying emotive and thought processes of individuals remain very similar.
        It is just that different, perhaps very different use of words and phrases, often seemingly of a much harsher sounding to us older generations form of terminology will be used by the younger generations to describe the same concepts in thinking and thoughts

        So if those of us from the much older generations who are darn skeptical of a lot of what is being forcibly fed to the current generation of school kids, they in their turn will just rationlise it and give it the same treatment as we do but using words and phraseology that are de rigueur for them but to us of the older generations, seem to imply another form of quite strong and inflexible imprinting by authoritarian and ideologically promoting entities.

        But to the kids will just be another lot of balderdash of no more consequence than it is to us.
        They will just use different terms to describe it.

        As for “authoritarian”, well you should have been around when I went to school and college!
        The world has shifted on it’s axis in the flexibility and freedom the kids of today have compared to the kids of my generation who had it good compared to those of pre WW2.

        So again being the optimist at 76 years old, something us old timers are never supposed to be, I say, relax!

        The kids of today as they grow up will for nearly all of them rationalise away, ignore and unconsciously put out of the minds and memories possibly for ever, most of the alarmism they are having forced down their throats today particularly if that alarmism is seen to be nothing but words without substance if the alarmist predictions fail to materialise and materialise within a relatively short teen ager. young adult’s concept of time.

        And thats short, real short!

        “Alarmism” and all the companion beliefs, dogma and ideology associated with it, which is a very vulnerable point for the future of anything associated at all with a failed alarmism, will be deliberately downgraded to the point of contempt and it’s disappearance from the lexicon of future generations.

        Just like a lot of us did or at least I did with my Latin lessons which fortunately and gratefully I can’t remember a damn thing.


        Report this

        50

  • #
    handjive

    Guess the old ‘Climate is Now Weather is now Climate‘ switch-a-roo wasn’t working:

    “A few years ago, talking about weather and climate change in the same breath was a cardinal sin for scientists.
    Now it has become impossible to have a conversation about the weather without discussing wider climate trends, according to researchers who prepared the Australian Climate Commission’s latest report.
    ‘We are talking about a massive amount of additional energy, most of which is being held around the surface layers of the ocean, which is driving the increased evaporation and rainfall,” said Will Steffen, the report’s lead author and director of the Australian National University’s Climate Change Institute.”
    . . .
    Pretty sure Trenberth said that heat was going into the deep oceans
    But, I digress.


    Report this

    131

  • #
    Glen Michel

    … Not Jo’s site of course;a place of respite and common-sense.not to mention some fair dinkum enquiry.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Stephen Richards

    They have a problem. It’s called ‘REALITY’. Global warming might instill fear in the idiots but it give the more intellectuals among us the opportunity to point to the satelite temps and them the necessity to torture the surface station record. After a while even the thickest members of the worlds population will see through the cé”p.


    Report this

    151

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      When you meet some of the thickest members of the population, you’ll change your mind about that.


      Report this

      61

    • #

      I second Greg’s comment. Pertinent to what I wrote above about the use of concepts to tie language, an image, feelings, and not really any facts together as knowledge, the US keeps talking about the purpose of science now being “the acquisition of discipline-specific language and skills.”

      That web will be designed to foil any real analysis or go beyond the supplied point of view to be accepted. In fact, you have to cite explanations from your reading so supply propaganda, maybe from Yale, as the nonfiction passage that integrates English Language Arts and science and students will be practicing spitting back the false information.

      Can’t argue with what’s in the reading. That would be illicit “going beyond the text.” Heard from a grandparent whose grandchild at 15 was sent to the school principal for pointing out what was erroneous in something provided. It will only get worse and then year by year these manipulated and drained minds will become voting adults.

      You can bet every politician will know what the appropriate phrases are to create a reflex future reaction are too. Voetrs will be responding at a mostly unconscious level, not too different from those old subliminal messages spliced into film reels to drive popcorn sales at the movies.


      Report this

      31

  • #
    Eddie

    They must be getting desperate. The intangible, meaningless, dissembling phrase is no longer evoking sufficient alarm. Has none of them ever thought of ‘Global Heating’ as way of upping the ante on Warming ? Of course the UN would never agree to such calling a spade a spade, or anything so tangible as to be in danger of being proven otherwise, but their troops are getting desperate.


    Report this

    111

  • #
    Eddie

    What is the ever adaptable Lord Beefburger (Debden) up to ?
    Patronising sceptics with a new label: ‘Dismissers’ , saying there’s enough on-shore windb& supporting franking.
    Has he made all the money he can now from wind developments and is he seeing the potential for coal seem gas under his Lordly pile ?

    http://www.thegwpf.org/after-election-drubbing-uk-government-climate-adviser-backs-down-tones-down-rhetoric/


    Report this

    60

  • #

    I suggest that they stop using words at all.
    Just use a logo of Jack Nicholson peering through a hole in the door. Now that might be a bit scary.
    What’s that got to do with global warming you ask? Nothing, the same as their alarmism has nothing to do with science.


    Report this

    221

  • #

    It is from the Humpty Dumpty School of Semantics. Even he knew the purpose behind using ephemeral meaning: to be the master!

    Through the Looking Glass

    ‘…. There’s glory for you!’

    ‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory”,’ Alice said.

    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘

    ‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.

    ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

    ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

    ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’


    Report this

    140

  • #
    AndrewWA

    HiJoanne

    Today I heard back from Curtin University about Richard Warrick and the inference that he had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

    The feedback as follows:

    I refer to your original email…………to the Curtin University VC Secretariat, regarding two items on the University’s webpages and the building mural that discuss the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize in relation to Professor Richard Warrick.

    You indicate that in your view, the material asserts that Professor Warwick is a recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize. Professor Warrick was a lead author of the IPCC reports, and received a personalised certificate from the IPCC for “contributing to the Award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC”.

    The University is proud of the achievements of Professor Warrick but has considered your views and has amended the wording in the website articles and the mural has been removed.

    Thank you for taking the time to write about your concerns.


    Report this

    190

  • #
    Eliza

    This is good news for skeptics. AS I recall warmists were very eager to change from Global warming to Climate change so it covers everything and avoid the “decline” issue. Well now if they decide to go to GW and temperatures continue to flatline or decrease, they are (AGW believers) basically finito….. LOL


    Report this

    120

  • #
    Jack Maloney

    It would be interesting – and revealing – if the good professors at Yale would now undertake a study of the speed with which the alarmist media switch from “climate change” back to “global warming.” My bet is that “climate change” will virtually disappear within the year. After all, it’s all about whose headlines are the most frightening…


    Report this

    110

    • #

      And my bet is that soon after that the term “global warming” will elicit similar scorn….


      Report this

      121

      • #
        bobl

        Sorry Jo, Global Warming already elicits scorn and laughter, that’s why they dropped it. It raised too many questions when the direction on the temperature wasn’t up. It seems the socialist riding this meme don’t do history well (which seems reasonable since climate before 1970 and 1850 seems to be strangely invisible to them).

        Those who do not heed history are doomed to repeat it.

        Still, it seems to me that it’ll be much harder to claim the Frigid Winters being experienced in the north are due to Global Warming – than Climate Change (The great lakes in the USA still have significant Ice cover and it’s approaching SUMMER!) So that constraint on their stupidity would be welcome – We won’t get the ol’ global warming causes global cooling oxymoron again.


        Report this

        21

    • #

      Actually, they should use “climate change” in the winter (different for each hemisphere, of course, so reporter/scientist must at least know which hemisphere they are in) and “global warming” in the summer. It was really tough to sell “warming” to people buried in snow, so let’s just use the appropriate term for the season. Extreme weather works for while, but you scream about tornados and floods too much and people get desensitised. It’s hard to sell fear when nothing bad is happening at the moment.


      Report this

      170

  • #
    Raven

    Great post.
    The desperation of the Climateers seems slightly reminiscent of the Kaplop bird story.

    This whole project has transmogrified from Science to Climate Science™ to Psychology and I suspect we’re now heading towards high farce. I just hope Rowan Atkinson will be available for the movie.

    The survey sample of 1,657 people, compiled over a two-week period late last year, found a large swathe of Americans turned off by the words “climate change”.

    Jeebus, “climate change” didn’t turn me off but ‘ClimateGate’ certainly did.
    Perhaps those 5 PhD’s weren’t asking the right questions


    Report this

    180

  • #
    kcom

    This is such a common modus operandi, especially the more leftward you go. People think changing a name will change the reality behind the name. Why would it?

    There was a street in my city known for prostitution. So what did they do? They changed the name of the street to get rid of the stigma that attached to the old name. Problem solved. I just wonder how long before they’ll have to change it again because the name wasn’t the problem.

    Similar things happen with labeling groups – mentally challenged, undocumented workers, etc. etc. You can create any kind of Newspeak you want but that doesn’t change the reality and everyone with a brain can see that.

    It’s a sign of weakness, nothing more. Your “reality” can’t compete with real reality so you have to try to misdirect again and again to stay ahead of real reality.


    Report this

    161

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      There was a street in Shanghai, called, “The Street of Prostitutes”.

      Since the time of Mao tse-Tung, there have been no prostitutes there. But there are a large number of accounting and law firms, so the name is still eerily descriptive. :-)


      Report this

      190

  • #
    jorgekafkazar

    An equally weighty question would be, “Which is more frightening, dragons or kraken?” Surely Yale’s Bugaboo Communications Project is up to that challenge? Since neither dragons nor kraken exist, the question could be bated, rebated and debated endlessly in a narcissistic academic circle jerk of mammoth cost and minuscule importance, the master objective of all academia. Onward Yale Postmodern Ineffectuals! As your school motto states, “Bugaboola, Bugaboola!”


    Report this

    70

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    My favorite phrase, and that of may skeptics, is:
    irritable climate syndrome

    It has a nice sound to it and there seems to be an echo or other feedback that is hard to explain. I think it has to do with the rumblings in one’s intestines after a bad meal and the sound of a far off but approaching thunder storm.


    Report this

    140

  • #
    Richard

    I think they are going to be really dissapointed with the response when they change back, the world has moved on, they haven’t .

    Still I welcome a return to goreball warming.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Martin

    Good news! I will be delighted to see this happening since the data don’t show any warming almost since the Kyoto protocol… Just have to point out the data and the propaganda fall flat for a honest observer.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    papertiger

    Flint Sky: Those people in the forest, what did you see on them?

    Jaguar Paw: I do not understand.

    Flint Sky: Fear. Deep rotting fear. They were infected by it. Did you see? Fear is a sickness. It will crawl into the soul of anyone who engages it. It has tainted your peace already. I did not raise you to see you live with fear. Strike it from your heart. Do not bring it into our village.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    papertiger

    Re: el Nino / la Nina effect

    The sloshing of warm water from one side of the Pacific to the other doesn’t add any heat to the global average.

    If the government employed weather culls report el Nino/la Nina making a difference, it means they are reading the thermometer wrong, or they are lying.


    Report this

    63

    • #

      I’m not sure the “sloshing” of warm water from one side of the Pacific to the other doesn’t add heat. If there is movement and air exchange between the ocean and the atmosphere, seems there would indeed be a release of warmth or cold, depending on the event. Unless you’re saying there is no interaction between the air and the sea?


      Report this

      41

      • #
        the Griss

        If that amount of water has built up say, 1m, over time, when that is released I wonder how much potential energy is changed to kinetic energy. ?


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          how much potential energy is changed to kinetic energy?

          In a Post Normal world, the correct answer is: How much do you want?


          Report this

          40

        • #
          the Griss

          Seriously, that 1m extra water gets released to slosh to the other side of the ocean, when it gets there it starts to build up a bit, so must gain potential energy from somewhere
          .
          This then rolls back and stabilises.

          Now look at the atmospheric heat signature of ElNinos. Initial release, then a dip, then ease back up to a new level

          (which in the case of the 1998 ElNino was about 0.25C higher, but in the case of the smaller 2010 ElNino, added basically nothing.)


          Report this

          10

          • #
            bobl

            Repeat after me. “Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can just change form”

            So the energy in the ocean can release back into the atmosphere BUT as Thermodynamics tells us, Not Against a Thermocline energy will only be released to the atmosphere where the atmosphere is colder than the ocean. Let me ask you, anywhere people live when does that occur. A. When it’s cold outside, Oceans Absorb heat when it’s hot, and release it when its cold. Oceans Moderate temperature nothing else. Also the storm activity associated with that sloshing water is what? It’s natures way of COOLING the earth, negative feedback in action. Not to mention the significant fraction that gets dissipated into the coldness of the depths (Since water is a pretty good thermal conductor)

            Also Potential energy has nothing to do with it, the water doesn’t literally pile up, the surface water gets blown there, the pressure difference between Tahiti and Perth (the SOI) which track El Nino and his naughty sister La Nina is a measure of the average trade wind direction and strength.

            For the uninitiated la Nina is the naughty one because she makes things cool down, and of course we all know it’s warmin, warmin, warmin, and the sky’s gonna fall any time now.


            Report this

            31

          • #
            the Griss

            “the water doesn’t literally pile up”

            Maybe you should look at tide gauge records before during and after an ElNino event.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      But the rearrangement of a pool of warmer water, to move from deeper underwater to contact with the air, should raise the nearby air temperature and some lead to alarmism about global warming as the heated air gets well mixed.
      The 1998 hot global event seems to defy easy analysis in terms of where it started and why, but if it did start from a smalllish part of the globe via an El’ Nino mechanism, it took only a month or two to show in global satellite temperatures.
      This is the scenario that alarmists are pleading to happen to signal a “We told you there was no 15 year global temperature hiatus”.
      But yes, you are correct to note it is not extra energy added by an El’ Nino, just a redistribution of existing energy, a release that can look like the dread Global WARMING.


      Report this

      41

      • #
        PeterK

        “just a redistribution of existing energy”

        So Geoff, are you saying that all that warm / hot air that went into the deep, deep oceans is now coming back to bite us?


        Report this

        00

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      As I understand it, it’s not the sloshing, it’s the La Nina wind patterns that create relatively cloudless skies above the tropics, thus causing more sunlight to warm the western Pacific.

      This cloud pattern does not pertain during El Nino, so an El Nino is not the opposite or inverse of La Nina, nor are they equal in any respect. El Nino is a heat-shedding process from sea to air to space, global cooling, net.

      ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ insert your own tildes, above.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        papertiger

        I like that. Prevailing winds causing clear skies over the tropical Pacific, sounds alot different than missing co2 heat regurgitates from the abyss.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    rabbit

    Successful products are not rebranded, as it confuses the consumer. Coke is not about to rename its softdrink to “ZeSTY FReSH!”.

    Rebranding IS a good idea if confusion is desired, as in, for example, when you are trying to restart a product with a bad reputation.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    bob young

    at least it being recognized as the “propaganda” phrase that it is.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    • #
      tom0mason

      The Ross Sea’s sea ice is increasing along with smaller waves.

      “It’s a correlation,” Dr Dean said.

      “We can’t say for sure that the waves are entirely responsible… but this is an entirely new suggestion that it’s these changing waves that are at least partly responsible for changing sea ice.”

      And her are a few more handy correlations –

      http://www.tylervigen.com/


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Back to “global warming”?
    Are there any more fashions from the 90s making a comeback?
    T-shirts instead of collars, “man” instead of “dude”, and Metallica instead of Bloc Party.
    Yeah, I could give it a try, but bringing back all my hair might be a problem.

    You can see the real reason for warmists reliving the 90s though. It was a golden era for global warming.
    The temperature was just going up, up, up. The uncool scientists suddenly had money, Margaret Thatcher, and the UN on their side. And nobody was auditing their work or reading their emails. Oh what glory days!
    Now if only they could get the public to forget the last 20 years of data the illusion would be complete.


    Report this

    130

  • #
    Manfred

    Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

    What an abject and colossal waste of money and research time. This is truly Nero-esque fiddle fiddling when there is so much more valuable and important work to undertake for the betterment of humanity and technology (and the institution). Frankly, it borders on the immoral, that Yale would embrace this claptrap, and its a poor standard being hoisted. I forecast they’ll be lampooned by their own petar[d].


    Report this

    100

    • #
      vic g gallus

      You fail to see how big an industry propaganda is. Nero didn’t fiddle. Its hard to tell what he was like because of the propaganda of his enemies but he did rush back to Rome to help with relief effort after the fire.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    tom0mason

    I’m all for Global Warming! with the exclaimation.
    .
    .
    It so scary, it makes me smile.
    Because some warming would be nice right now.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    john robertson

    I know what they are, just by their self description, they should be referred to that master of Climate Change Communication, Mr Brad Keyes over at Climate Nuremberg.
    Then these poor inadequate Yale drop outs might see how its done.
    Way too funny from CAGW to CC to ICS, to GW… We do need to rub it in.. They mean Catastrophic Global Warming caused by mankind, their anthropogenic…
    Except the failure to warm as emissions skyrocket mocks their poor wee religion, Its the Howard Camping moment of CC, these clowns must be advised by the Obama Team, grab onto an issue just as it dies.


    Report this

    61

  • #
    Betapug

    The program to “leverage the power of trusted messengers” by having TV forecasters link all weather to “climate change” was too confusing.

    It may be that “global warming” is easier for the Hollywood envirodisaster movies that Leiserowitz researches for effectiveness:
    “Finding the Teachable Moment: An Analysis of Information-Seeking Behavior on Global Warming Related Websites during the Release of The Day After Tomorrow” http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17524030903265823?src=recsys#.U4Y7kiioqmg

    The youth segment are only equipped to handle simple messages anyway.
    “Family communication on global warming was positively associated with adolescents’ information seeking. Implications for interventions are discussed.” Information Seeking About Global Climate Change Among Adolescents: The Role of Risk Perceptions, Efficacy Beliefs, and Parental Influenceshttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15456870.2012.637027?src=recsys#.U4Y-iyioqmg

    Notice that right (left?) thinking is classed as a “health issue”.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    James Bradley

    Give the world something tangible to fear…

    Bring back the BOMB

    Bring back THE BOMB

    Bring BACK THE BOMB

    BRING BACK THE BOMB

    I really loved my ’63 Beetle.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Joe V.

    Global Warming… Seriously ?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    the Griss

    A bit OT, but here’s a nice little conference for y’all to attend.

    Don’t forget your barf bags.


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Did you notice that it costs $1,000 to attend?

      Clearly they want everyone to hear their message.

      Oh GOD, reading their itinerary hurts my intellect,*ouch*. Needs to come with warning stickers all over the web site “You must be over 18 and under 30 to enter this web site”.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        the Griss

        $1000 .. of tax-payer funded trough swill.

        Still this is a pretty standard fee for a conference. Food, venues etc are NOT cheap.

        I wouldn’t mind if they dropped the “change” out of the title and stop the using the climate models as any sort of guidance on what “might’ happen.

        We should be prepared for large weather events, because they occur quite often.

        Its this moronic pretence that something unusual is actually happening when basically all pointers are saying the weather is becoming more benign that annoys me.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          Monkton and Plimer did tours around Australia not so long ago. They were (if memory serves) about $40 per head.

          I don’t see a comparison, honestly.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            the Griss

            There is huge difference between a short booking for a hall and booking and feeding and organising a multi-day conference in a large venue.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Nonsense, anybody under 80 would….hang on, were you talking age, not IQ?


        Report this

        01

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      the Griss #31
      Or bring a NCCARF bag?


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    For word play, what is wrong with

    GOEBBEL WARMING ???


    Report this

    32

  • #
    Bob

    “Climate change” always was a marketing term, and as such meant very little, or as much as the marketing team desired. It came into heavier use when the world admitted that the climate was not getting warmer, and the term global warming didn’t mean anything anymore.

    I say if the climate goofies want to use global warming as their clarion call, that’s good. We can fight that, too. As skeptics, we have never stopped using the term global warming, and those idiots will be playing into our hands by doing so.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    pat

    they can call it what they like. not even millions of $$$ & “big-time celebrities” can save this crock.

    “Years of Living Dangerously” fails to make the Top 100….again:

    TvByTheNumbers: Cable Ratings Monday 26 May 2014
    http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/05/28/monday-cable-ratings-nba-playoffs-win-night-love-hip-hop-atlanta-wwe-raw-hit-the-floor-real-housewives-of-orange-county-more/267997/

    sme of the “Years” cast members off to the Caribbean next!

    27 May: HuffPo: Climate Change: A Challenge For Our Times
    by Ian Somerhalder, Actor
    We are but two short weeks away from the UN’s global World Environment Day
    celebrations on the 5th of June. This year, the theme focuses on the impacts
    of climate change on Small Island Developing States, our “canary in the coal
    mine” for what all low-lying and vulnerable areas will face in the not too
    distant future.
    I am really looking forward to heading to Barbados, this year’s WED host
    country, to witness first hand the problems the island is facing and the
    creative solutions it is coming up with to adapt to these challenge…
    However, this small nation has taken big steps to reduce its climate
    footprint and to provide clean, renewable energy, and opportunities for
    green economic growth, to its people. Among other things, it has pledged to
    increase the share of renewable energy across the island to 29 percent of
    all electricity consumption by 2029. This would cut total electricity costs
    by an estimated $283.5 million USD and reduce CO2 emissions by 4.5 million
    tons, according to the government.
    This year, I have been submerged, no pun intended, in climate change issues.
    I care deeply about this because as a Louisiana native I spent my childhood
    enjoying the beauty, wonder and delicate nature of the Gulf Coast…
    ***I was so fortunate to have also participated in the ground-breaking climate
    change documentary series, Years of Living Dangerously, produced by James
    Cameron…
    When I found out about this series, my heart jumped out of my chest, because
    I realized — finally — this needs to happen now. It is hands-down the most
    important project I’ve ever been a part of.
    What scares me the most about climate change is that by some predictions
    half of all species on earth will be extinct within 50 years. We will be
    experiencing floods and droughts that will prohibit agriculture and
    fisheries. It’s going to be increasingly difficult for us to get food and
    water. And within that lies the balance of our very existence…
    It’s hard in these times to avoid eco fatigue, but fellow Goodwill
    Ambassadors Gisele Bündchen, Don Cheadle, ***Yaya Toure and I have joined
    forces to try to make taking action more fun. We are sending out an SOS to
    the world on behalf of Small Island Developing States. Our “message in the
    bottle?” We are all connected. The challenges faced by islands will face us
    all…
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-somerhalder/climate-change-a-challeng_b_5375276.html?utm_hp_ref=green


    Report this

    10

  • #
    davey street

    Has anyone any idea how much aggregated money has been handed to these so-called scientists around the world and what exactly they have spent it on ? If they are so convinced that the climate is warming or the globe is changing or whatever, and the science on the subject is settled, why are they continuing to be paid more and more taxpayers money ? Once you finish any job, you don’t go on getting paid for it after you finish it unless there’s royalties and the like.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      James Bradley

      Davey,

      “Has anyone any idea how much aggregated money has been handed to these so-called scientists… ?”

      No, but I bet it’s peanuts compared to the amount of money shelled out to shut down the debate world wide.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    pat

    more “unintended consequences”?

    28 May: Bloomberg: Alex Morales: London’s Dirty Secret: Pollution Worse Than Beijing’s
    It’s the law of unintended consequences at work. European Union efforts to fight climate change favored diesel fuel over gasoline because it emits less carbon dioxide, or CO2. However, diesel’s contaminants have swamped benefits from measures that include a toll drivers pay to enter central London, a thriving bike-hire program and growing public-transport network.
    “Successive governments knew more than 10 years ago that diesel was producing all these harmful pollutants, but they myopically plowed on with their CO2 agenda,” said Simon Birkett, founder of Clean Air in London, a nonprofit group. “It’s been a catastrophe for air pollution, and that’s not too strong a word. It’s a public-health catastrophe.” …
    For Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett, the solution is simple: Get people out of their cars…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-27/london-s-dirty-secret-pollutes-like-beijing-airpocalyse.html


    Report this

    10

  • #
    NoFixedAddress

    I don’t know why they don’t go straight to “Karbon Kills” or “Killer Karbon”.

    Surely 97% can agree?


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    you know it makes sense!

    28 May: Reuters: James Regan: UPDATE 1-Australia’s opposition leader concedes carbon, mining taxes to go
    Australia’s opposition Labor Party on Wednesday said two contentious taxes on mining and carbon emissions introduced during its years in power would likely be repealed this year…
    Greenpeace environment director Ben Pearson said he was disappointed that Shorten had “put out the white flag” so soon.
    “There was an opportunity to tell the world that an industrialised country like Australia was not headed backwards on the environment,” Pearson said. “That’s now been lost.”…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/28/australia-tax-opposition-idUSL3N0OE11620140528


    Report this

    10

  • #
    john

    Retired officers poised to profit after Pentagon’s alarmist climate change report

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/26/sponsors-of-pentagons-alarm-raising-climate-study-/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

    Retired military officers deeply involved in the climate change movement — and some in companies positioned to profit from it — spearheaded an alarmist global warming report this month that calls on the Defense Department to ramp up spending on what it calls a man-made problem.
    The report, which the Obama administration immediately hailed as a call to action, was issued not by a private advocacy group but by a Pentagon-financed think tank that trumpets “absolute objectivity.” The research was funded by a climate change group that is also one of the think tank’s main customers.
    PHOTOS: Hand cannons: The world’s most powerful handguns
    The May 13 report came from the military advisory board within CNA Corp., a nonprofit based in Alexandria, Virginia, that includes the Center for Naval Analyses, a Navy-financed group that also gets contracts from other Pentagon units. CNA also operates the Institute for Public Research.
    CNA’s webpage states that it is not an advocacy group. It says it maintains “absolute objectivity. In our investigations, analyses and findings we test hypotheses, carefully guard against personal biases and preconceptions, challenge our own findings and are uninfluenced by what a client would like to hear.”
    The Center for Naval Analyses’ motto is “high quality, impartial information.”
    One of the CNA panel’s vice chairmen, retired Navy Vice Adm. Lee Gunn, is president of a private think tank, the American Security Project, whose prime issue is warning about climate change.
    The other vice chairman, retired Army Brig. Gen. Gerald E. Galloway Jr., is a prominent adviser to the Center for Climate and Security, a climate change group.
    In all, four CNA board members sit on the panel of advisers to the Center for Climate and Security, whose statements on climate change are similar to those found in the CNA report.

    Other board members work in the climate change world of consulting and technology.
    The CNA advisory panel is headed by retired four-star Army Gen. Paul Kern, who sits on the board of directors of a company that sells climate-detection products to the Pentagon and other government agencies. At least two other board members are employed in businesses that sell climate change expertise and products.
    The greatest influence on CNA reports seems to come from the Center for Climate and Security, whose position is that the debate on climate change, or man-made global warming, is over.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    why leave Japan out of the headline, Matthew Carr (he’s credited in the B’berg version)?

    29 May: SMH: Bloomberg: CO2 market hurt by Australian, Russian policy, World Bank says
    Efforts to put a value on greenhouse- gas emissions to contain global warming are being hurt as countries from Australia to Russia and Japan pull back from carbon-reduction commitments, according to the World Bank.
    “While some nations are taking concrete steps forward on carbon pricing, recent developments in others are a setback,” the World Bank said in its State & Trends of Carbon Pricing 2014 report published on Wednesday. Policy changes amount to “two steps forward, one step back,” it said…
    Russia said last month that the UN-endorsed goal of capping rising global temperatures shouldn’t dictate countries’ emission limits in a new climate treaty for 2020…
    Emissions trading programs worldwide were worth about $US30 billion ($32.5 billion) at the end of 2013, according to the bank, which excluded United Nations emissions credits created under the Kyoto Protocol. The value of global carbon markets, based on transaction volumes and including UN credits, fell 36 per cent last year to about $US56 billion, Bloomberg New Energy Finance data show.Costs between pricing programs “occupy a significant range,” the bank said.
    ***An emissions tax in Mexico is less than $US1 a metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent, while Sweden’s carbon tax is $US168 a ton, according to the report.
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/co2-market-hurt-by-australian-russian-policy-world-bank-says-20140529-zrrcg.html


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    anthony has just put up a new thread – more “unintended consequences”?

    WUWT: Newest target of copper theives: wind turbines
    …The officer said a metal raid of a single wind turbine engine could amount to as much as one tonne of loot. One tonne of copper is estimated to be worth around 4,500 euros on the market.
    According to Le Figaro, at least 20 such incidents have been recorded recently. Two successful raids and one foiled attempt were reported in March alone.
    http://www.france24.com/en/20140528-france-metal-organised-thefts-wind-turbines-copper/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/28/newest-target-of-copper-theives-wind-turbines/#more-110379


    Report this

    10

  • #
    handjive

    Oh Dear.
    He didn’t get the memo.

    Thu, May 29, 2014: IPCC co-chairman says scientists being intimidated by climate change deniers

    Prof Thomas Stocker, Swiss-born co-chairman of the panel’s working group on the scientific basis for climate change (IPCC), said the campaign to undermine its fifth assessment report was led by “people and organisations with vested interests”.

    Speaking to The Irish Times prior to giving a public lecture in Dublin, he said claims that there had been no global warming for 15 years were “quite a clever way to divert the attention of policymakers from the broader perspective of climate change”.
    . . .
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming and Conspiracy Theories (IPGWCT)
    Much better.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Allen ford

      Dear Prof Thomas Stocker,

      Enough with the boohooing, already. Just counter the evil deniers with the evidence (undoctored) and reasoned argument. It should not be too much to ask, seeing as how you are a perfesser, and all.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    pat

    this links to the whole horror of a 140-page report!

    World Bank: State & Trends Report Charts Global Growth of Carbon Pricing
    The State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2014 report launched today at the 11th Carbon Expo in Cologne, Germany, shows that while international negotiations may be slow, countries and cities are moving on climate pricing…
    http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/05/28/state-trends-report-tracks-global-growth-carbon-pricing


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    ***Reuters cunningly finds “a former Republican legislative AIDE who is now an energy analyst at the American Security Project” to be their only critic of the industry position!

    28 May: Reuters: Roberta Rampton: U.S. industry gears up to fight Obama’s climate rules
    This summer is likely to see a series of attacks by industry opponents of a U.S. plan to curb carbon emissions from power plants in a bid to stir voter anger ahead of elections in November, when voters in states such as Kentucky and West Virginia may determine whether Democrats keep control of the Senate…
    Coal industry lobbyists say the new rules will probably raise household electricity costs, prompt power brown-outs during heat waves and cold snaps, and destroy jobs at coal mines and manufacturing plants…
    In March, Sheehan’s group, which represents coal mining companies as well as owners of coal-fired plants like American Electric Power and Southern Co, released a report warning that the EPA plan might cause retail electricity prices to rise in 29 states and kill more than 2.85 million jobs.
    The National Mining Association, which represents large coal mining companies including Peabody Coal Co, Arch Coal Inc, Alpha Natural Resources and Cloud Peak Energy Inc has spent $1 million (595 thousand pounds) on a radio and digital campaign in five states depicting shocked consumers opening expensive electricity bills…
    “Potential EPA regulations on existing power plants could have far-reaching implications on the American economy,” said Matt Letourneau, a spokesman for the Chamber of Commerce. “The Chamber is heavily engaged in the rule-making process and is preparing an aggressive response.”
    ***To be sure, because the new U.S. rules will take years to be implemented, the industry’s arguments have “the virtue of not being testable” before the midterm elections, said Andrew Holland, a former Republican legislative aide who is now an energy analyst at the American Security Project, a nonpartisan think tank…
    For example, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association sent three of its experts to a White House meeting to show how not-for-profit co-ops that rely on coal for fuel could be pinched by the new EPA proposal.
    “They obviously are concerned about cost,” said Jo Ann Emerson, chief executive of NRECA, who explained the co-ops provide power to some of the nation’s poorest regions…
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/28/uk-usa-climatechange-industry-analysis-idUKKBN0E809Z20140528


    Report this

    10

  • #
    ROM

    Its become a fairly regular feature of a number of skeptic sites to list another out of no doubt near countless numbers of the truly imbecilic research studies and their papers that continue to appear in a steady stream from the climate alarmist academic circles.
    The Yale paper above is just another of those types of so called studies.

    Certainly most such imbecilic papers are chosen by the site’s hosts for their utter c**p content and almost invariably those papers get thoroughly trashed by the “peer reviewers” of those skeptic sites.

    My question is;

    What then happens to those papers and their authors?

    How much weight and influence does the opinions of the skeptics have on the acceptance, rejection or just plain ignoring of those papers by rest of the relevant science community?

    How much effect does the opinions of those skeptic reviewers have on the future prospects of the authors of those papers?

    How much do such skeptic judgments on seriously bad science papers affect the authors future funding?

    In short, just what is the impact amongst the rest of climate science on the authors and papers of a condemning judgement by the denizens of the major skeptic sites on climate science papers?

    Inquiring minds would like to know!


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    have a read:

    28 May: WaPo: Ed Rogers: The Insiders: The left is to blame for the distorted global warming debate
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/05/28/the-insiders-the-left-is-to-blame-for-the-distorted-global-warming-debate/

    i posted the WSJ/Joseph Bast/Roy Spencer link on a previous thread; Dana has something to say about it!

    28 May: Guardian: Dana Nuccitelli: The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming
    The Rupert Murdoch media continues to deny the reality of human-caused global warming
    This week, they published an editorial denying the 97% expert scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming. The editorial may have been published as a damage control effort in the wake of John Oliver’s brilliant and hilarious global warming debate viral video, which has now surpassed 3 million views…
    The Wall Street Journal editorial was written by Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institutepolitical advocacy group of Unabomber billboard infamy, and Roy Spencer of “global warming Nazis” infamy…
    For example, in order to reject the findings of the paper my colleagues and I published last year finding a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature, Bast and Spencer referenced a critical comment subsequently published by David Legates et al. in an obscure off-topic journal called Science and Education. That paper was based on a blog postwritten by Christopher Monckton, who’s infamous for calling environmental activists “Hitler Youth.”…
    If Murdoch’s The Wall Street Journal keeps publishing editorials that flat-out deny reality, especially from people who compare those they disagree with to terrorists and Nazis, it will lose credibility and fall by the wayside as the rest of the world moves on to debate how to best solve the problem.
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/28/wall-street-journal-denies-global-warming-consensus


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    Lindsey has something to say:

    28 May: Salon.com: Lindsey Abrams: WSJ’s shameful climate denial: The scientific consensus is not a myth
    97% of scientists agree that man-made climate change is happening, and a transparent Op-Ed fails to argue otherwise
    PHOTO CAPTION: Rupert Murdoch
    First things first, we should be extremely skeptical of any argument this article is trying to make, even despite its appearance in the hallowed pages of the Journal. It’s bylined, after all, by two prominent climate deniers…
    They’re right, of course: The “97 percent” statistic was never meant to establish a consensus on the dangers of climate change. (They’re right, too, that in it’s decontextualized state, it’s sometimes used to mean more than it should. When President Obama tweeted “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous,” that last clause wasn’t technically accurate.)…
    Writing in the Washington Post, Jason Samenow said as much last year:

    – What the consensus study does not address is the level of concern about the human role of climate change expressed in the studies surveyed or by the studies’ authors. Nor does it provide a sense of what the studies say about how severe climate change will be, and the consequences. -

    What they’re really trying to do is keep us from moving on to the actual debate, which is no longer about whether scientists agree that climate change is happening: it’s about whether the world should continue to barrel down the highway at breakneck speeds without the benefit of seat belts. Bast and Spencer believe we should. No wonder they don’t want to make that argument — it’s hard to imagine how they could even begin to defend it.
    http://www.salon.com/2014/05/28/wsjs_shameful_climate_denial_the_scientific_consensus_is_not_a_myth/
    (Lindsay Abrams is an assistant editor at Salon, focusing on all things sustainable.)


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    VIDEO: 28 May: Newsmax: John Fund: Media Plays Up Global Warming Despite Hits to Ratings
    Coverage of so-called global warming by CNN and other news outlets is driven purely by agenda without regard for ratings, according to John Fund, a Newsmax contributor and national-affairs columnist for National Review Online.
    And that includes playing down a Wall Street Journal report that debunks Secretary of State John Kerry’s warning about 97 percent of the world’s scientists believe climate change must urgently be addressed.
    “I don’t think you’re going to see CNN and all these other networks that love to talk about global warming talk about the hoax of the 97 percent,” Fund told Dennis Kneale, guest host of “The Steve Malzberg Show” on Newsmax TV.
    “They’re going to keep talking about this until frankly, no one is watching. Now Jeff Zucker, the president of CNN, is an honest man.
    ***”He said last week at a major journalist dinner in New York … look I know these things don’t get any ratings. I know no one is watching. We’re going to have to find new ways to get these stories on the air so people will finally watch it.”
    But that approach is not about reporting the news, according to Fund.
    “That is driving an agenda. And I credit Jeff Zucker for being an honest liberal because he’s admitted he’s not about reporting, he’s about shoving things down people’s throats,” he said…
    http://www.newsmax.com/NewsmaxTv/media-bias-global-warming-cnn/2014/05/27/id/573602/


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    John Fund didn’t make it up!

    21 May: Huffington Post: Jack Mirkinson: CNN’s Jeff Zucker: Climate Change Coverage Bores Our Audience
    Capital New York watched New York Times reporter Bill Carter quiz Zucker on Monday at an event for the Deadline Club. Carter pointed out that the network has received quite a bit of criticism for its climate coverage, which has often been found to be either paltry or problematic.
    Zucker candidly said that climate change “deserves more attention,” but that he was merely following the ratings.
    “We haven’t figured out how to engage the audience in that story in a meaningful way,” he said. “When we do do those stories, there does tend to be a tremendous amount of lack of interest on the audience’s part.”…
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/21/cnn-climate-change-coverage-jeff-zucker_n_5364275.html

    20 May: CapitalNewYork: Jeff Zucker talks CNN’s post-plane plans
    Carter asked if the network, which has been criticized for its oversight of climate change, might devote more live airtime to the subject.
    “Climate change is one of those stories that deserves more attention, that we all talk about,” Zucker said, “but we haven’t figured out how to engage the audience in that story in a meaningful way. When we do do those stories, there does tend to be a tremendous amount of lack of interest on the audience’s part.”… http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2014/05/8545669/jeff-zucker-talks-cnns-post-plane-plans


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Sunray

    Perhaps they could send the Professors for counselling in the Ethics Department, but then again, I have seen what passes for ethics in most tertiary education providers, so no solution there either.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Schoolsie

    Yale is impressive. Lots of Yalies have been presidents, Supreme Court Justices, and governors. In sciences, great and not so great. Raise your hand if you ever studied Josiah Willard Gibbs’ equations involving entropy and free energy. He was classified as a physicist, in his time, lionized by chemists (see Am Chem Society Gibbs Award). Should he have won a Nobel Prize? I think he was substantially more deserving than vant Hoff Fischer, and Arrhenius.

    But here’s the things that are kind of not-quite-right about Michael Mann:

    1. He should had a perfect entre to attend Harvard or MIT, or Princeton or Caltech, as an undergrad, if he had been a brilliant high school student: He grew up in Andover, MA, which had the nation’s top small liberal arts college, which offered classes to brilliant high school students. His father was a prof at UMass. There were Advanced Placement courses in calculus, and calculus-based physics in the early 1980s.

    My read: Mr. Mann should have been able to take AP Calculus in 11th grade and then done linear algebra in 12th, and calc-based AP Physics mechanics, AND electricity and magnetism in 12th grade.

    And if he were brilliant, he would have gotten into Harvard and MIT and Princeton and Caltech, and had to choose between them.

    2. Berkeley was a much-easier-entrance school.

    Its physics and math departments were first rate, except you had to run a longer gauntlet of huge impersonal freshman and sophomore lecture classes, and make appointments every week with your profs for office-hour time. If you were brilliant AND a top-studier, these were fun. The profs were looking for talent, and they enjoyed discussions with brilliant, subject-interested students.

    Berkeley had many Nobel Laureates in Physics, and a goodly number of Fields Medal winners in Mr. Mann’s time. Plus a slew of NAS members and members-to-be.

    But Mr. Mann only earned “Honors”, which then was a little-bit-above B+ GPA, one step above no-distinction, a step below “High Honors” (in the British system 2nd Honors), well below “Highest Honors” (UK First), far below University Medalist nominee, even farther below University Medal Finalist and University Medal winner.

    Then Mr. Mann’s course demonstrated that he wasn’t top-notch. Top-notch physics students students of his era went to Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Cambridge, Princeton, Caltech, Berkeley. No one in his class who graduated with Highest Honors went to Yale for physics. Yale had a long history of zero physics winners, and had only 4 NAS-Physics members (currently 2).

    Then he landed at UVA, and then Penn State.

    3. But there is more: Mr. Mann took 5 years to get a Berkeley degree, when his high school opportunities should have given him advanced placement in physics and math to graduate in 3 years with a physics/math double major. Then, with some research under his belt enabling him to get a PhD in 4 years, he instead took 9 years.

    Let’s see: 3 yrs bachelors + 4 yrs PhD = 7, for brilliant students with excellent high school preparation before college. For pretty good students with good, but not great hs prep, 4 yrs bach 5-6 yrs PhD = 9-10 years.

    Mr. Mann took 14 years. He was not someone who spent some years in the workaday world after college, then went back to school for a PhD, he was straight-in-school every year, for 14 years straight after high school.

    I don’t know what happened. Every PhD student I ever knew published their thesis work with their PhD advisor, who gave him or her first authorship. I never heard of a PhD student who went “totally extramural” (e.g. Yale grad student, co-publishing with U Mass and U Az profs, with no Yale prof coauthorship), before.

    Did the newly minted Dr. Mann (who switched to geology/geophysics) then do his geosciences postdoc at first-tier Caltech, Stanford, MIT, or Harvard? No he did it at UMass, a second-rate institution.

    If you think his being named a lead IPCC author when he was a grad student, or at most postdoc had no political genesis in 1998, raise your hand.

    Publishing a long proxy record (that wasn’t actually a temp record, it could be a rainfall record), then switching to a temp record, when the proxy didn’t show global warming post-1960, I’m not sure if it is fraud, but it is not science. It’s what might happen if a middling Berkeley physics student got downtracked to Yale Physics, then Yale Geosciences, then UVA then Penn State.

    Here’s how American academia works: If you go to a crappy hs, but you are brilliant and are willing to work hard, you figure out how to take notes, make margin notes, rewrite your notes after class, talk to profs to get clarifications, and challenge them and make them admit their mistakes, and you get moved up, or if you are in a world-renowned university, you get placed there or in other world-renowned programs. If you are brilliant but lazy, or not that bright, you get downtracked. Michael Mann got downtracked, except the IPCC uptracked him. The UN IPCC is a political, not a scientific organization.

    The UN was created to make the world a better place by stopping war. They failed. Now they want to make the world a better place by stopping climate change. Their likelihood of failing at their primary mission, which turned out to be zero, but achieving a new secondary mission is much better.

    Here’s the thing: People like living in warmer climates: see the migrations from New York to Florida, Az and SoCal. Can people NOT move BACK to the northern states, or to Canada? The reality is, humans like warmer climates. As do a lot of other species.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Schoolsie

    I have a serious problem. I like warm, but not oppresively hot (humid) climate. I need water. I’m looking at a lot of places. Olympic Peninsula WA has water. British Columbia has water. South Island NZ has water. A nice place westside Hawaii has water, but it could be destroyed if Kilauea erupts. Arkansas Ozarks have had water, so far. My best friend from high school wants me to co-buy property in Auburn, CA. I think Cali could undergo long-cycle drought, so I’m not buying it. So, where to live?


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Langton Island, Spenser’s Gulf, South Australia.

      Just watch out for the local fish – (Great Whites)


      Report this

      10

    • #

      My husband worked with a guy who moved to Wyoming from the west coast. Everyone had told him summers were mild and winters not so much. He liked that idea. The first June the guy was here, it was over 90 degrees the entire month of June and one of the hottest summers on record. Point being, you’re looking at averages in areas. In thirty years, I’ve seen lots of rain, lots of snow, severe drought, flooding, etc. No matter where you move, weather can and does change. I suppose the best way to decide is to look at the wather over the past 60 or so years wherever you want to go and see what that looks like. Then you just go with what that and if you can’t stand where you pick, you can always move again.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    say what? keeping in mind i have never voted for the Libs or Nats in my life, i still find this shocking, given the abc’s relentless attacks on the govt! something odd is going on.

    29 May: SMH: Matthew Knott: Malcolm Turnbull launches Parliamentary Friends group to defend ABC
    Politicians from all major parties have joined a new parliamentary lobby group to advocate for a well-resourced and independent ABC.
    The group, Parliamentary Friends of the ABC, was launched on Wednesday afternoon following ABC Managing Director Mark Scott’s appearance at Senate estimates.
    Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull gave a passionate defence of the public broadcaster in a speech to the 50-plus attendees, who included Senate powerbroker Clive Palmer. Mr Scott and ABC Chairman James Spigelman also attended the event…
    Western Australian Labor MP Melissa Parke and NSW Liberal MP Craig Laundy are the co-chairs of the group. Nationals MP Bruce Scott, Greens Senator Scott Ludlam and independent Senator Nick Xenophon are the deputy co-chairs…
    “I had been very disturbed by a series of veiled and not so veiled threats against the public broadcaster in terms of funding and control,” Ms Parke said.
    “Following attacks against the ABC – particularly in News Limited papers – I decided there needed to be a show of force for the ABC. We wanted as much cross-party support as possible.”…
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/malcolm-turnbull-launches-parliamentary-friends-group-to-defend-abc-20140529-3963d.html#ixzz334Z8TC84


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Schoolsie

    For those of you not sure, California Institute of Technology is correctly written Caltech, not CalTech or Cal Tech.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Schoolsie

    Langton Island might be good.

    Here’s the thing. I swam off South Island, NZ, with southern fur seals. It was a blast. Then I went to a museum in Dunedin with a “white pointer shark” skeleton, which I later learned was “great white shark”, naming the beach at which I swam. Oh well, the seals were cavorting, II loved swimming with them. Then I found a chocolate brown-water beach in Hawaii, awesome bodysurfing. The surfers were a mile away. That should have tipped me off, but great waves are for riding. Then I learned it was tiger shark ground. I dived off Ft. Ross, A for abalone. Great White hunting ground. Delish A lot of people don’t know that abs are the best tasting seafood, I mean THE BEST.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Cart before the horse. Did they look at the timing of the change from AGW to CC? The timing is interesting as it occurred about the same time that all major catastrophic weather indices declined. So people heard “CLIMATE CHANGE” and they saw mild weather. before that, they heard “GLOBAL WARMING” and they saw Wilma, Katrina and Rita.

    An excellent time to introduce a doctoral student, Tyler Vigen. Who proves, beyond a statistical doubt, that consumption of cheese is directly caused by the number of lawyers in Iowa (for you in Oz and the UK, Iowa is a middling state in the middle of the US).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Schoolsie

    Chris Glass and I used to free-dive off San Diego for spiny lobsters at night. My other partner Mike Lish preferred tanks (bottles). One of the cool things was, was when the phosphorescent plankton were in. You watched your partner’s fins give you a light show. I took another onr of my friends squid diving during mating.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bite Back

    It was propaganda after all. So now what?

    These money wasters make the post war Communist propaganda machine look like a group of amateurs. But we already knew that, or should have.

    Surely I don’t need to read about how they’re trying to pull the wool over my eyes one more time. I want to read about effective strategies for countering them. I want tactics for neutralizing their propaganda statements and ways to expose the man on the street to what’s happening to him. Recent election results look like hopeful steps but most of the job remains to be done.

    BB


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eliza

    Cant wait for them to go back to “global Warming” especially when it aint happening LOL. It seesms we are going into another cooling phase (see antarctica extent etc) so this will suit the skeptics 100% LOL


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    PhD class research eh ? In Journalism, Psychology, Advocacy, Indoctrination or what ?
    How did Alarmism rise to such academic heights, or did standards have to stoop meet it ?

    I guess it doesn’t matter what Science is saying, as long as there is the 97% of Scientists Agree meme / comic for the asdorted politicians, bureaucratsts, rent seekers & other scientifically naive to point at.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    30 May: Bloomberg: Matthew Carr: CO2 Price to Spur Carbon Capture Will Fall From $125, Shell Says
    Technology costs for CCS are expected to fall as more pilot projects are built, pushing down the carbon price threshold, Angus Gillespie, vice president of CO2 at Shell, said today in an interview at the Carbon Expo conference in Cologne, Germany.
    Shell, Europe’s biggest oil company, already bases plans for future fossil-fuel capital investments worldwide on the assumption it will have to pay $40 a ton for carbon emissions, Gillespie said. The price needed to spur CCS projects will probably be somewhere between the two figures, he said without being specific because the information is confidential…
    “If we applied a shadow price just now of $125, we’d probably do CCS,” Gillespie told delegates at the conference.
    The $125 a ton estimate is from Zero Emissions Platform, a lobby group for the CCS industry, Gillespie said…
    Climate policies may prompt Shell to raise its shadow carbon price while technology costs may drop, making carbon-capture projects viable, he said.
    “That’s where we want to get to,” he said.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-29/co2-price-to-spur-carbon-capture-will-fall-from-125-shell-says.html

    29 May: Risk.net: Stella Farrington: Carbon reform may be shaken by European Parliament vote
    The prospects for long-term reform of the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) are likely to be hindered by the outcome of recent elections to the European Parliament, which took place from May 22–25, say analysts…
    Such groups tend to be opposed to EU regulation and less concerned about environmental issues, analysts note.
    Marcus Ferdinand, Oslo-based head of EU carbon analysis at Thomson Reuters Point Carbon (TRPC) says votes on carbon and climate change, which have tended to be fairly close in the past, are likely to be tighter in the new parliament. “We expect the votes related to changes in the regulatory set-up of the European carbon market to be tighter with the new parliament, which could lead to greater [carbon] price volatility in the future,” he says…
    After more than a year of negotiations, back-loading came into force on February 26, but it is only viewed as a temporary fix. A more permanent measure is the proposed establishment of a market stability reserve in 2021 – a mechanism that would allow EUAs to be automatically added to or withdrawn from the market, depending on the cumulative surplus.
    The EC put forward a legislative proposal for such a reserve on January 22. However, discussions on the proposal in the European Parliament are not expected until later this year, so it is likely to be months before market participants get an idea of how its passage might be affected by the recent election…
    ***The increase in non-attached or obstructive members could make the passage of emissions-related legislation more difficult in the coming months and years, notes Trevor Sikorski, London-based head of natural gas, coal and carbon at research consultancy Energy Aspects. “No-one knows quite how people are going to behave yet, but the centrist parties are going to have to work with more peripheral parties and that is likely to make things slightly harder to do,” he says…
    More generally, sentiment about the future of emissions markets appears to be positive, according to a recent survey of members of the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA). In a survey of IETA members conducted by PwC, more than 80% of respondents said they expected to see carbon markets play a role in an international deal to curb emissions, which is set to be agreed in Paris next year.
    http://www.risk.net/energy-risk/news/2347037/carbon-reform-may-be-shaken-by-european-parliament-vote


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    29 May: HuffPo: The Power of Poop: Using Humor to Inspire Kids About Climate Change
    by Denis Thomopoulos, Cartoonist, Hippo Works
    Approximately a million and one drawings later, when I was a junior at Georgetown University, I drew a red hippo, named him Simon and put him on a college t-shirt. I sold a lot of shirts. As he evolved, Simon developed a sunny, wide-eyed expression that made people laugh. I’m still selling shirts…
    Here’s a comic I drew about Suzanne, a bird and fortune teller, talking about global warming on a hot day…
    When cartoon characters talk about their problems, kids hear them – and discover that they can do something to help. I like to think of this as eco-tainment, part of the eco-lution process…
    It’s my big hope that kids will love my new half-hour cartoon musical, The Power of Poop (and other ways to save the world!). For all its poop jokes, the cartoon gives a science-based lesson on the powerful effect on climate change of methane and carbon dioxide. The music, the humor, and the jungle animals keep the fun going. Along the adventure, kids learn what they can do to make a difference…
    Henry, pictured below, is a kid who really loves The Power of Poop. After seeing the premiere, he was inspired to throw a climate change bake sale to save carbon-absorbing jungle (which is still disappearing at an alarming rate despite Henry’s efforts). Henry and his family have raised $280 so far — and they’re just getting started! …
    ***NASA, as concerned about climate change as any federal agency, has hosted several screenings of the cartoon at their Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, CA…
    Here’s an eco-taining clip that explains how the power of poop effects climate change. Enjoy with your friends and family and let’s preserve our incredible world for today’s kids – and tomorrow’s too!
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/denis-thomopoulos/kids-climate-change-and-t_b_5406666.html

    comments & Readfearn’s article itself provide the most laughs:

    29 May: Guardian: Graham Readfearn: Great climate change comedy moments in video clips
    From Will Ferrell to Ali G, here’s a pick of some of the funniest moments in climate change comedy.
    This is the 50th post on Planet Oz, so let’s take a brief celebratory turn down Productivity Dive Way before heading along that popular commuter route Distracting Things On The Internet Road.
    Once there, nestle down for this selection of great comedy moments in climate change with a nice brew of organic fairly traded coffee made using a carbon neutral machine (served in a reusable cup from low energy intensity materials)…
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/may/29/great-climate-change-comedy-moments-in-video-clips


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    Fairfax running with this on SMH & Brisbane Times at least!

    29 May: Fairfax Brisbane Times: Tony Abbott is a liar: It’s a mathematical truth
    by Burkard Polster and Marty Ross
    (Associate Professor Burkard Polster teaches mathematics at Monash University, Clayton. Marty Ross is a mathematician. As the Maths Masters they write a weekly column for The Age’s Education pages.)
    Do politicians lie? Of course they do, including, of course, Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Whether it’s the manufacturing of a budget “crisis”, or the systematic trashing of election promises, or pretending that taxes are anything-but-taxes, or lying about spying, or lying about lying, Abbott has demonstrated his disdain for the truth.
    There is no need to go into detail here since Mike Carlton has already documented much of the fibbing, ably assisted by Annabel Crabb and Laurie Oakes and Bernard Keane and … well, pretty much every political commentator who isn’t a Liberal Party shill.
    And Tony Abbott is not alone. The Prime Minister leads a fine cabinet of companion liars, including the Minister for the Destruction of Education, Christopher Pyne. A “unity ticket” on the Gonski education reforms? Nope, just some airbrushing of history and yet another lie.
    The overarching lie is that Prime Minister Abbott is leading a conservative government. In fact, Australia is being pummelled by American-style, dog-eat-dog radicals. Far from being conservative, current Liberal Party philosophy is little more than adolescent-level libertarianism…
    Which brings us to global warming. Or climate change, if you prefer. Whatever. A withered rose by any other name is just as dead.
    To be clear, we have no intention of debating global warming. Why not? Because there is no debate. It is a scientific fact that global warming is happening. It is a scientific fact that humans are responsible, through the production of greenhouse gases. And the evidence very strongly suggests that the consequences are already occurring, and in the future will be extensive and bad. Or, if the world continues to do bugger-all about reducing carbon dioxide emissions, very very bad.
    We believe a zero-respect policy on global warming denialism is long overdue. However for the moment our concern is not with the madness of crowds but the madness of politicians.
    Are the politicians mad? Abbott infamously declared climate change to be “absolute crap” but that was years ago. Abbott now claims to believe in climate change. Is he now lying? Who could possibly tell? But it also doesn’t matter…
    Can Abbott possibly get away with this environmental and scientific (and economic) vandalism? We don’t know but the Liberal Party obviously believes it’s on a winner. And it may be that enough Australians listen to enough nonsense, or just have insufficient concern, that the Liberal Party is correct.
    It is clear that many Australians do not have any great respect for the scientific method or scientific practice…
    But what of Tony? Will he be remembered as a liar? Probably, but probably he’ll be remembered for much more. Eventually, and more likely sooner rather than later, global warming will be undeniable. Truly undeniable.
    Which means Abbott should go down in history as the Australian Prime Minister, the last Australian Prime Minister, to deny physical reality.
    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/tony-abbott-is-a-liar-its-a-mathematical-truth-20140529-zrs5h.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    AUDIO 5 MINS: 29 May: Radio Australia: Call for regional science bodies to work together on climate change
    The Queensland University of Technology and the Brisbane branch of Friends of the Earth have held a day-long seminar on Climate Change and what it may mean for pre-emptive migration from some of the island nations in the Pacific.
    Australia Network’s Pacific Correspondent Sean Dorney went along for a few of the sessions.
    Presenter: Richard Ewart
    http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/pacific-beat/call-for-regional-science-bodies-to-work-together-on-climate-change/1318532
    (3.30 Ewart ask about migration. Dorney: according to the people who attended, (slight giggle) everyone is going to have to migrate very shortly)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    we know nothing, but we know it all, so there!

    29 May: NYT: Paul Krugman: Cutting Back on Carbon
    Although we don’t know the details yet, anti-environmental groups are already predicting vast costs and economic doom. Don’t believe them. Everything we know suggests that we can achieve large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at little cost to the economy…
    The Pentagon has warned that global warming and its consequences pose a significant threat to national security. (Republicans in the House responded with a legislative amendment that would forbid the military from even thinking about the issue.) Currently, we’re spending $600 billion a year on defense. Is it really extravagant to spend another 8 percent of that budget to reduce a serious threat?…
    Third, the U.S. economy is still depressed — and in a depressed economy many of the supposed costs of compliance with energy regulations aren’t costs at all…
    Saving the planet would be remarkably cheap.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/opinion/krugman-cutting-back-on-carbon.html?_r=0


    Report this

    10

  • #
    the Griss

    “large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at little cost to the economy…”

    But they don’t consider the cost to the environment of starving nature of its primary building block.

    Stupid, stupid people.

    We really need to get the message out that ATMOSPHERIC CO2 LEVELS NEED TO BE HIGHER !!!


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    the Griss -

    Krugman is full of it! NYT’s Boston paper is a laugh too.

    ***note what a Christian Markey is – final excerpt!

    29 May: Boston Globe: John L. Allen Jr: Markey meets pope to make common
    cause on environment
    Massachusetts (Democratic) Senator Edward Markey met Pope Francis Wednesday as part of a
    delegation of politicians from around the world hoping to enlist the pope’s
    help in framing the fight against climate change as a “moral imperative.”
    “The pope has the potential to elevate this issue to a whole new level of
    importance,” Markey said. “I think we’re just at the beginning of his
    influence.”
    Markey spoke to the Globe in Rome on Thursday before his return to
    Washington.
    “Francis has the moral authority to galvanize a political will to act,”
    Markey said, “which will help legislators in countries around the world to
    pass the necessary legislation.”…
    Markey said he used his minute of face time with Francis to tell him that
    “the planet is running a fever, and there are no emergency rooms. We have to
    engage in preventive care to avoid the worst and most catastrophic impacts
    of global warming.”
    Markey said the pope nodded and thanked him, but did not otherwise
    comment…
    The Vatican confirmed in January that Pope Francis is preparing an
    encyclical letter on the environment, considered the most developed form of
    papal teaching. Markey said the legislators were asked by Turkson to
    contribute recommendations for that encyclical, and he focused on what he
    described as the disproportionately negative impact of global warming on the
    poor and on the working class.
    Assuming it appears, this will be the first encyclical issued by a pope
    entirely devoted to the environment…
    ***Markey has long been an outspoken advocate of environmental protection,
    even suggesting in 2010 that those who deny climate change should be exiled
    to a massive iceberg to “start their own country.”…
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2014/05/29/markey-meets-pope-make-common-cause-environment/aka61pB1Tgm1jTHrVxX4vN/story.html


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] and pain among democrats than “climate change”; therefore expect to see its use rocket.” click here for full post at JoNova. Share [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Wakademia: “Global Warming” Scares More People Yale says “Global Warming” is better for propaganda — dump “climate change” [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Geoffrey Cousens

    The loathsome left are having a love affair with”those of whom we may not speak”.Weekend unthreaded is a no show as is the,at least,cursory,media attention to a crime[dealing high volume ice] syndicate,operating with carte-blanche by the W.A. branch of “those of of whom we may not speak” for the last 6 months.To try to find this in any media is a challenge.We are “occupied”.


    Report this

    01

  • #
    observa

    Q:How do we cure the problem of global warming/climate change/extreme weather?
    A: Give Big Climate their fat heads and wait!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] The title of a post by JoNova sums it up: Yale says “Global Warming” is a better misused-phrase for propaganda – dump &#8220… [...]


    Report this

    00