Desperate, Disgusting, Delusional Alarmists Backtrack on Bombshell Climate Study

Enviros
Annette Bernhardt/Flickr

There’s a scene in the movie Straight Outta Compton – (it’s OK: you don’t need to like rap to get this analogy) – where Eazy-E goes to confront his manager Jerry Heller.

Given that their band N.W.A have made so much money, Eazy-E wants to know, how come he is still living in penury?

Heller explains that “business is business.”

Eazy-E protests, as well he might, that this just isn’t good enough. Heller is his manager. It’s supposed to be his job to represent Eazy-E’s financial interests. N.W.A are one of the biggest rap bands ever. So where has all the ****ing money gone?

Heller repeats the only defense he has. “Business is business,” he explains.

In this scenario, for Eazy-E read: you and me. (Unfortunate because it means, shortly afterwards, we all tragically die of AIDs)

And for Jerry Heller, the incompetent, embezzling, total fail of a manager, read: the science community responsible for the great global warming scare.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Weather Channel Hot for Fake News; Attacks Breitbart with Bad Science, Logic

The pretty girl in question is Kait Parker of the Weather Channel, who has rashly stepped into the lists on behalf of her employer with a video and article titled Note to Breitbart: Earth Is Not Cooling, Climate Change Is Real and Please Stop Using Our Video to Mislead Americans.

Well, it certainly makes a nice change from the usual tired old tricks deployed by the alarmist establishment — the ad hominem, the Appeal to Authority, etc. And it seems to have been quite effective, too: for a while yesterday, Weather Girl Kait’s attack was the number one item on Reddit, and I’ve received several tweets from impressionable SJW types brimming with righteous indignation at my climate-denying ignorance. Also, I know that several other organisations — including AOL — are keen to join Parker in sticking the boot in. This I find very flattering, because when the liberal media joins forces to try to humiliate you, it means they consider you a very powerful threat.

But I do wish Kait hadn’t got involved, for I fear I’m going to have to be very ungallant by revealing her entire argument to be fatally flawed.

First, a basic point of information. Parker expresses outrage that an irrelevant video about La Niña “with my face in it” was taken from the Weather Channel and used by Breitbart to illustrate an article I wrote called Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence From the Climate Alarmists.

Here’s our Editor-in-chief Alexander Marlow, putting that detail right: “This is not a Breitbart video. It’s provided by and placed by a third party video vendor. The Weather Channel should chill out.” More precisely, none of Breitbart’s editors made the choice or performed the action of sticking the Weather Channel’s video on the article.

And yes, indeed, the Weather Channel should chill. And, better still, stick to its day job and actually report on the weather rather than engaging in agenda-driven politics. This is an argument the Weather Channel is not going to win, and whoever put poor Kait Parker up to this ridiculous, embarrassing stunt should be ashamed of themselves. It is going to backfire horribly, as I’m about to demonstrate.

Before we move onto the threadbare science in Parker’s arguments, let’s just first marvel at the way she has tried to blame Breitbart for something it did not do.

Parker claims:

Global warming is not expected to end anytime soon, despite what Breitbart.com wrote in an article published last week.

Though we would prefer to focus on our usual coverage of weather and climate science, in this case we felt it important to add our two cents — especially because a video clip from weather.com (La Niña in Pacific Affects Weather in New England) was prominently featured at the top of the Breitbart article. Breitbart had the legal right to use this clip as part of a content-sharing agreement with another company, but there should be no assumption that The Weather Company endorses the article associated with it.

And her point is what, exactly? As she herself admits here, “Breitbart had the legal right to use this clip as part of a content-sharing agreement with another company.” So she understands the deal: it wasn’t Breitbart’s conscious decision to use that particular video. Rather, the video was put up there by a third party with a view to promoting the work of the Weather Channel by bringing it in front of a wider audience.

If the Weather Channel doesn’t want access to Breitbart’s 45 million global readership, then that is the Weather Channel’s loss, not Breitbart’s. Perhaps it fancies being the meteorological equivalent of Kellogg’s. Well, good luck with that.

Even more bizarre is Parker’s accusation that her clip is being used by Breitbart to “mislead Americans.” How exactly? The clip, as it happens, shows Parker talking about how the cyclical Pacific Ocean event known as La Niña is going to result in a colder-than-usual weather in the US  — “in the North East you might get more of that cold air all the way through spring.”

So she’s actually agreeing with what Breitbart said in the article: that La Niña effect has been causing temperatures to drop dramatically. Apparently, in Parker’s view, it’s OK when meteorologists who believe in “global warming” say this stuff. But it’s not OK when a sceptical website like Breitbart says it.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Global Warming ‘Pause’ Deniers: We Name the Guilty Scumbags

You may say that I’m using a sledgehammer to crack a nest of cockroaches; that rather than crow in victory one should be magnanimous in order to prove oneself a better man than they are, Gunga Din.

I disagree. I want blood. Entrails too, please. Those of us who have spent years of our lives being mocked and traduced and demeaned by these verminous charlatans deserve our pound of flesh, not only for the sake of sweet vengeance, but also for the greater cause of scientific honesty and journalistic integrity.

This is no more than I would expect were the positions ever reversed.

Suppose, for example, that I had written in the Spectator an article on global warming and it subsequently emerged that it was scientifically illiterate, that I’d dragged the name of a good journalist (who had got his facts right) through the mud, and that I’d brought the title into disrepute by adopting a tone of lofty, scornful, apparent expertise entirely unjustified by reality: well here’s what I’d expect to have to do….

Apologise. First to the journalist I’d unfairly, perhaps libellously, maligned; next to the magazine’s editor for having been such a dogmatically wrongheaded prick; finally to the readers for having abused their faith in my due diligence and my supposedly superior knowledge. Indeed, I think if I’d ever got an article as comprehensively wrong as the one I’m about to mention, I’d feel so shit I think I might seriously consider never broaching the topic again.

So now, without further ado, let me introduce MARK LYNAS – activist, prominent environmental campaigner, and author of a very angry, high-handed 2008 article in the New Statesman (the left’s answer to the Spectator) called Has Global Warming Really Stopped?. This was in response to a piece by David Whitehouse which – quite controversially for the time – tentatively noted that the temperature record showed that there had been no “global warming” for several years and that this fact might, at some stage, become a significant issue.

Lynas was having none of it. His response brimmed with righteous indignation.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Now Even Michael Mann Admits the ‘Pause’ in Global Warming Is Real; Throws Allies to Wolves

“It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims,” the paper in Nature Climate Change says.

Though the paper’s findings are not controversial – few serious scientists dispute the evidence of the temperature datasets showing that there has been little if any global warming for nearly 19 years – they represent a tremendous blow to the climate alarmist “consensus”, which has long sought to deny the “Pause’s” existence.

First, the study was published in Nature Climate Change a fervently alarmist journal which rarely if ever runs papers that cast doubt on the man-made-global-warming scare narrative.

Secondly, it directly contradicts a widely-reported study produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) last year which attempted to deny the existence of the “Pause” (also known as the “hiatus”). This NOAA study was widely mocked, quickly debunked and is now the subject of a Congressional investigation by Rep Lamar Smith. What’s novel about this new study in Nature Climate Change, though, is that it’s not skeptics and Republicans doing the mocking and the debunking: it’s the kind of people who in the past were very much in the alarmist camp, including – bizarrely – none other than Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann, who co-authored the paper.

What we have here, in other words, is signs of a major rift within the climate alarmist camp with different factions adopting different tactics to cope with the failure of their collapsing narrative.

On one side are people like Thomas Karl and Thomas Petersen, the hapless NOAA scientists given the unenviable task of producing that risible paper last year which did its best to deny that the Pause was a thing.

On the other are what might be called the “rats deserting the sinking ship” faction who have produced this new paper for Nature Climate Change, in which finally they concede what skeptics have been saying for many years: that there has been no “global warming” since 1998.

This divergence in the alarmist camp is now going to create a dilemma for all those liberal media outlets – from the BBC to the Guardian to the LA Times – which reported on NOAA’s “death of the pause” study as if it were a reliable and credible thing.

Are they now going to report on the counter-narrative? Or are they going to ignore it and hope no one notices?

The man who would like more than anyone to know the answer to this question is David Whitehouse, Science Editor of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and a former science editor at the BBC (till the point when his skepticism became too much for his employer).

That’s because in 2007, he was one of the first scientists to draw attention to the mysterious slowdown in global warming.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Global Warming: Red-Faced Climatologist Issues Grovelling Apology

Even though I was wrong I’m still right…

Not.

I’ve just been listening to BBC Radio 4’s More Or Less. It was the episode announcing that the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s scientific adviser Dr David Whitehouse had won a £100 bet made on the programme four years ago with climatologist Dr James Annan. Annan predicted temperatures would rise in that period; Whitehouse predicted they wouldn’t. Annan lost.

But you’d never guess it from his high-handed tone when he was asked why he’d lost. “Just bad luck,” Annan explained, going on to insist (contradicting most available real-world data, it must be said) that the trend for global warming remained “robustly positive.” He then agreed to another four-year bet. If it went against him a second time would he change his mind, Annan was asked. At first he appeared to agree that it would but then he started backtracking, insisting that it wouldn’t change in the slightest his view that carbon dioxide causes global warming.

This “Even though I was wrong I’m still right” syndrome afflicts a lot of people in the climate alarmist community. But then, you can hardly blame them for their wilful self-delusion and glib complacency for they seem to operate in a bubble in which there are no punishments for failure.

The classic example is Paul Ehrlich who lost a famous bet on “scarce resources” with the late economist Julian Simon (aka the “Doomslayer” because he was so good at confounding environmentalists’ hysterical scaremongering using actual scientific data as opposed to computer projections).

The interesting part, as I recall in Watermelons, is what happened next:

While Ehrlich continued to be feted as an environmental seer (in 1990, the year he lost the bet, he won a MacArthur Foundation “genius award”), Simon was invariably dismissed during his lifetime as a right-wing crank.

As a profile in Wired put it: “There seemed to be a bizarre reverse-Cassandra effect operating in the universe: whereas the mythical Cassandra spoke the awful truth and was not believed, these days “experts” spoke awful falsehoods, and they were believed. Repeatedly being wrong actually seemed to be an advantage, conferring some sort of puzzling magic glow upon the speaker.”

Digging that puzzling magic glow, Dr Annan?

Related posts:

  1. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion
  2. Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!
  3. The real cost of ‘global warming’
  4. Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming

One thought on “Global warming: red-faced climatologist issues grovelling apology”

  1. Nige Cook says:16th January 2012 at 4:54 pm “Just bad luck,” Annan explained, going on to insist (contradicting most available real-world data, it must be said) that the trend for global warming remained “robustly positive.”

    James, please see Dr Lakatos’s talk “Science and Pseudoscience”, published in the Open University’s published in Philosophy in the Open and in The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers Volume 1 (Transcript here: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/about/lakatos/scienceandpseudosciencetranscript.aspx ):

    “If we look at the vast seventeenth-century literature on witchcraft, it is full of reports of careful observations and sworn evidence – even of experiments. Glanvill, the house philosopher of the early Royal Society, regarded witchcraft as the paradigm of experimental reasoning. …

    “… Knowledge can only be about Nature, but this new type of knowledge had to be judged by the standards they took over straight from theology: it had to be proven beyond doubt. Science had to achieve the very certainty which had escaped theology. A scientist, worthy of the name, was not allowed to guess: he had to prove each sentence he uttered from facts. This was the criterion of scientific honesty. Theories unproven from facts were regarded as sinful pseudoscience, heresy in the scientific community.”

    Fact: if you pump CO2 into a greenhouse, it gets warmer. Case closed. However, greenhouses don’t contain oceans and clouds inside them, where the clouds form as a response to the initial warming of the ocean, and then shadow the surface from further warming (negative feedback). This is where people like Nurse/Phil Jones go wrong. It’s also the flaw in the earth centred universe system of Ptolemy, where the planets, sun, moon and stars orbit the earth daily on closed crystalline spheres. Ptolemy was able to predict the positions of the planets etc using an ad hoc mathematical model called epicycles, where fiddles were introduced to allow for the errors in the original foundations of the theory. This way, Ptolemy could ridicule Aristarchus who suggested an alternative idea, but didn’t have the thousands of followers working out predictions that Ptolemy had. AGW is more of this.

    Where’s the glass ceiling needed for the greenhouse effect? You must have one, or global warming will cause water vapour which gets warmed by the sun (positive feedback) and thus expands and rises, forming increased cloud cover until the additional warming from the CO2 has been cancelled out. This is anathema to Nurse/Phil Jones and the Guardian writers like Monbiot, who just scoff and ask where the peer-reviewed papers are that prove that hot air rises? What matters to them is not fact, but political correctness. And it matters to you too, since you’re got to be understandable and compelling to a substantial proportion of your readers. It’s not so easy to overcome witchcraft which has billions of funding and is disguised as left-wing ethical morality. :-)

Comments are closed.