Saturday
Feb042012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Telling lies for "the cause"
Feb 4, 2012 Climate: other Media This quote is taken from the Imperial discussion forum I linked to yesterday (audio here).
An abuse we saw from about 2005 or 2008/9 was a tactical lie by some in the science policy and research communities and associated institutions to suggest that somehow "the science is finished", "the debate is over"...
Joe Smith (at about 24 mins)
Reader Comments (15)
Good point but wrong year. Al Gore was saying this kind of thing to those who questioned either the science or policy in 1988 - an fact that, when he was told about it, triggered Richard Lindzen's immense fight back against the global warming, carbon control movement.
Bless Dr Lindzen for that - and may those that spout about such things with such apparent authority one day have the grace to go back, to learn from him and to say thank you.
"tactical lie by some in the science"
In my book, that tactical lie is a 'Conspiracy to Defraud' which is an offence under the common law in England
Doesn't apply to Mann Made Global Warming unfortunately.
Mailman
Based on pages around here, this event was the second in a new initiative:
Any advice on how to make such a debate more balanced, Imperial alumni like Bratby and others?
Richard Drake. Piers Corbyn also. I can't see alumni having any influence.
Note also that a succession of environment ministers and Blair and Brown also told us the science is settled and that if we said otherwise we were flat-earthers.
I seem to recall an article in the Sunday Time in 2008 by Naomi Orestes and the BBC's Jonathon Renouf
"Today the scientific argument about the broad principles of what we are doing to the Earth's climate is over. "
This was just after the broadcasting of the highly biased "Climate Wars" which Renouf was the chief producer - also released in 2008
Certainly in 2008 there was a concentration of institutions telling us the debate was over e.g. Royal Society
The green brick road to collectivism is paved with a myriad of tactical lies.
This IPPR paper from 2006 states precisely the tactic of the science is settled.
http://www.ippr.org/ecomm/files/warm_words.pdf
A clip, page 25
"This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that
individual actions are effective."
Give it a read, it is very informative of the way people resist or ignire climate change, and what the advocates proposed to do about it. 'The science is settled' was evidently a deliberate tactic at this time, even though the falsity of it is admitted in the paper.
CO2 does not lead to the end of ice ages. Much recent warming did not involve CO2. Since 1997 when it was shown that CO2 lagged T at the end of ice ages, CO2 climate sensitivity has had to have been calibrated against post industrial warming, hence the fraudulent hockey stick to get rid of the MWP and the iddling of temperature databases. That sensitivity has been vastly overestimated,
The new Lysenkoism is dying because they haven't found a way to jail or execute the few dissidents who kept the flame alive until CG1 alerted people like me how near we were to the destruction of energy systems in Western societies.
This was being aided by 'progressive' aka Marxist politicians deluded into thinking you can replace lost industrial jobs by green jobs, mainly unskilled, a new lumpenproletariat. The landowners were bought off by rent. Behind this was the Mafia who own politicians and the wind and solar companies. Our scientific establishment has been populated by fellow travellers. We see the same battle between honest and corrupt science in Germany and the US.
All you have to do is to see the propaganda tools, 'back radiation', 'settled science' etc.
Rhoda:
Great link. A really interesting, if alarming, read. I found their first “recommendation” really telling – and an exemplar of all that is wrong with their approach (from p. 25):
“Treating Climate Change as Beyond Argument
Much of the noise in the climate change discourse comes from argument and counter-argument, and it is our recommendation that, at least for popular communications, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. This must be done by stepping away from the ‘advocates debate’ described earlier, rather than by stating and re-stating these things as fact.
The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken. The certainty of the Government’s new climate-change slogan – ‘Together this generation will tackle climate change’ (Defra 2006) – gives an example of this approach. It constructs, rather than claims, its own factuality.
Where science is invoked, it now needs to be as ‘lay science’ – offering lay explanations for what is being treated as a simple established scientific fact, just as the earth’s rotation or the water cycle are considered.”
Clearly, Orwell was an optimist…
the IPPR have had a role in all this. From the IPPR - Positive Energy - report
The SECOND line of the Executive summary
"Behind the stories, real people are allready being hit, with climate change now killing 150,000 people a year (1)"
The IPPR is a major ’progressive’, UK think tank that has adviced the UK Government over the last decade.Here it is reported as a proven fact – now killing – designed to give an explicit urgent message to governments and policy makers
I had to buy the report to find the reference, which was not included in the Executive Summary, (no politician usually gets beyond even the first couple of pages of an executive summary)
(1)World Health Organisation: Climate and Health – 2005 factsheet
I tracked this IPPR referenced factsheet down and this is presumably where the definite 150,000 ‘climate change’ deaths ‘facts’ for that report came from.
WHO: "Measurement of health effects from climate change can only be very approximate. Nevertheless, a WHO quantitative assessment, taking into account only a subset of the possible health impacts, concluded that the effects of the climate change that has occurred since the mid-1970s may have caused over 150,000 deaths in 2000. It also concluded that these impacts are likely to increase in the future."
The WHO factsheet also says 600,000 deaths annually due to natural extreme weather related events – of which 95% in poor countries
http://www.realclimategate.org/2010/12/lost-in-alarmism-150000-climate-change-deaths-a-year/----------------------------
IPPR has form -
On the board of trustees of the great and the good, include Lord Rees, Lord Kinnock, Baroness Williams.
On the Advisory Panel of the report - (now Baroness) Bryony Worthington, Solitair Townsed (Futerra) and Beth Tegg (Stop Climate Chaos)
Rhoda:
Great link. A really interesting, if alarming, read. I found their first “recommendation” really telling – and an exemplar of all that is wrong with their approach (from p. 25):
“Treating climate change as beyond argument
Much of the noise in the climate change discourse comes from argument and counter-argument, and it is our recommendation that, at least for popular communications, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. This must be done by stepping away from the ‘advocates debate’ described earlier, rather than by stating and re-stating these things as fact.
The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken. The certainty of the Government’s new climate-change slogan – ‘Together this generation will tackle climate change’ (Defra 2006) – gives an example of this approach. It constructs, rather than claims, its own factuality.
Where science is invoked, it now needs to be as ‘lay science’ – offering lay explanations for what is being treated as a simple established scientific fact, just as the earth’s rotation or the water cycle are considered.”
Clearly, Orwell was an optimist…
Feb 4, 2012 at 11:57 AM | mydogsgotnonose
I'm in complete agreement with you on this and your opinions on 'back radiation, which you've outlined very well on another thread.
MDGNN
I noticed your post on back radiation Last week but didn't have time to think about it in detail. Can you repost a summary?
My initial thoughts were that while there can be no net transfer of heat from cold to hot- surely the meaning is not that no energy flows to the hot side. Specifically with radiating bodies a cold black bodyradiates in all directions and the quanta radiated do not know what they are aimed towards. A nearby hot mass radiates more energy at all frequencies and all directions. The net flow from hot to cold is the difference between the energy radiated from hot to cold and that radiated from cold to hot. My conclusion is that a cold upper atmosphere radiates some heat downward [back radiation] but not as much as is radiated upwards from the surface.
I can't remember the details of your post so I could be barking up the wrong tree.
E