Discussion > Helping beleaguered climate scientists communicate
One book? In Chinese too! Well, I'll admit that the engineers at the top of China's government are in a weak position when it comes to spreading their word. They have little money and even less influence over their published and social media. Still I had thought they might stretch to a little more than one book. Perhaps a translation into English - but that would be too costly I guess.
And Russia is in an even weaker position. Putin can hardly get a word in amongst the babble of opposing voices. He's got all that oil and gas to sell but my guess is that he is a committed warmist, looking for any possible way to cut emissions. And of course, he'd have trouble suppressing any sceptical climate science research.
BitBucket
BitBucket
There are plenty of references to Gou Hongyang’s book in the English-speaking media, including this useful (possibly badly translated) quote at Jo Nova’s
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt-part-7-other-climate-establishments-disagree/
“Will the increase in Carbon Dioxide definitely lead to the planet warming? Although there have been many many reports published by research institutes that verify this, but from the viewpoint of the history of man, and scientific method, the theories have not yet achieved scientific proof.
But, after many years of repeated indoctrination from every kind of propaganda machine, and the mixing together of environmental pollution and the exhaustion of natural resources, people have already formed a conditioned reflex, when the wind blows, the grass bends with it, and quickly hang these things on the hook of “carbon”, and attempted to get rid of carbon at a faster rate.”
Jo continues with this:
Russian climate scientists have long spoken out against the theory of man-made global warming, saying the climate is heavily influenced by solar cycles. Many “reject the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming.”It’s interesting that CAGW proponents will fly Inuits, South American peasants and inhabitants of atolls with populations in the low thousands to international conferences to express their fears, but can’t be bothered to translate into English the views of the most populous, and second richest, nation on earth.
India issued a National Action Plan on Climate Change in 2008 that says “No firm link between the documented [climate] changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established.” In February 2010, the Indian government established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the IPCC, which is headed by its own leading scientist Dr R.K Pachauri.
geoffchambers
But it is just one book. Doesn't it strike you as strange that a nation of over a billion with vast resources, and a central state that can pressurise scientists into doing anything it wants can't manage more than one book denying global warming? It beggars belief!
I'm not interested in Jo Nova's opinions and I haven't read much about Russian views. But isn't it odd that India would go to the trouble of producing a "National Action Plan on Climate Change" if it didn't believe the issue should be taken seriously?
BitBucket
BB
China certainly took Climate Change seriously in at least one respect; they wanted in on the technology and they accepted billions from (what I consider to be really stupid) governments who thought they were helping a big polluter to clean up its act.
China used the financial and technological support it received to flood the market with cheap solar and wind power equipment. The solar and wind industries in Germany, the USA and many other places were decimated or wiped out.
However now the chickens are coming home to roost and China's two biggest solar companies are on their knees. China's two biggest wind turbine companies are also now losing money and should not be far behind. A bit like the dotcom bubble really ^.^
Dung
Bitbucket
But it is just one book. Doesn't it strike you as strange that a nation of over a billion with vast resources, and a central state that can pressurise scientists into doing anything it wants can't manage more than one book denying global warming? It beggars belief!No it doesn’t. If that book says it all, why write another one?
geoffchambers
Do you know how silly that sounds? I mean you lot have been obsessing about hockey sticks for over a decade, churning out countless opinions on the subject. And here on BH you've all been wittering on about some dumb symposium that nobody else gives a frack about for longer than seems possible. It even took the Accountant two bites of the cherry (HSI and whatever the latest one is). But the chinaman, clever chap, can get the whole of climate science down to one book. No more need be said. Every detail is investigated, every angle considered, not a stone or ice core left unturned. That's got to be the best example of wordsmanship since the holy scriptures and Mao's little red book. The whole truth in one volume! What really beggars belief is what you will persuade yourself can be true in order to justify your obsessions.
BitBucket
BB
The Bish is actually your best chance of an ally here and you attempt to rubbish his books. AM allows the possibility that CAGW might be happening but he sees no proof yet.
His books are not about Climate Change they are each about specific and important events in the history of Climate Change. The Bish has never claimed his books are the whole truth about Climate Change, more straw men?
Dung
Nov 24, 2012 at 9:28 AM | Chris M
Your thread and mine nicely complement each other, Hilary. Mine is about finding ways for skeptics to have their concerns at least heard (and preferably listened to) in the corridors of power, whereas warmist scientists, having had unfettered input into public policy for many years, seem concerned that that level of access is under threat due to a loss of IPCC authority, a "failure to communicate". So do they know more than we know? Are research funds showing signs of drying up? And is it a case of scrambling for the lifeboats as the IPCC ship goes under, very very slowly?
Sorry to take so long to get back to you, Chris. I evidently missed your comment in the diversionary deluge of straw-men emanating from the ... uh ... leaky bucket. I'm not sure if your thread has been similarly afflicted - and I confess to not having followed either thread that closely for the last few days, because I've been busy reading Andrew's Hiding the Decline [and keeping my cat in the style to which she's become accustomed!]
But I do agree with your assessment that (when on topic) our threads are complementary. This "failure to communicate" whine - and earlier variants thereof - is something that I view as a "stealth proxy" for the now-so-rarely-mentioned "consensus" (that was never all it was cracked up to be, but the MSM swallowed it wholesale and dutifully recycled it on cue).
The annual tsunami of scary stories hasn't worked out so well for them as a "communication" tool either - except to fuel the fire of the acolytes and lesser lights. They probably worked fairly well until 2006-2007, when they may well have hit the "tipping point" of diminishing returns.
But by the time they got around to the "trust us we're climate scientists ... and we must have a carbon tax now" routine, unfortunately they had already succeeded in swelling the ranks of those who prefer to think for themselves.
And over the last three years, it seems to me, that the most vocal prima donnas (i.e. the IPCC in-crowd and its circle of sycophants) have done more to discredit themselves - and their work - than anything that we of the "think for ourselves" persuasion - as geographically, generationally and politically scattered as we are - could possibly have imagined accomplishing.
So now they are reduced to leaning on the likes of Ludicrous Lew's papers of the lost Ark;-)
Obviously, these aren't the only factors. And I very much doubt that this could have been accomplished without the "food for thought", so to speak, provided by the "pioneers" ... Lindzen, McIntyre, Curry, Montford to name but a few.
Hilary Ostrov
...One book? In Chinese too! Well, I'll admit that the engineers at the top of China's government are in a weak position when it comes to spreading their word. They have little money and even less influence over their published and social media. Still I had thought they might stretch to a little more than one book. Perhaps a translation into English - but that would be too costly I guess.~~~~
It even took the Accountant two bites of the cherry (HSI and whatever the latest one is). But the chinaman, clever chap, can get the whole of climate science down to one book. No more need be said. Every detail is investigated, every angle considered, not a stone or ice core left unturned.
That's got to be the best example of wordsmanship since the holy scriptures and Mao's little red book. The whole truth in one volume!
BB - you come across as sarcastic, bitter, twisted and peevish. What good does that do you - or anyone else?
Martin A
Martin, it is true that I have not been a happy bunny of late, nothing to do with climate change or BH. But as it goes I was in quite a light hearted mood when I wrote those posts. You mistake my teasing for bitterness, which I find odd. I suspect you are lacking a sense of humour ... I'll add some smileys next time, just to give you a head start.
BitBucket
BB - sorry to hear you have things bugging you.
It's an open question whether I lack a sense of humour completely or whether I do in fact have one, but so diminutive that it does not respond detectably to any known joke.
However, whatever else you do please don't add smileys. If you have to say "that was a joke, BTW!" your joke has already fallen flat and it's not worth trying to resurrect it. Some people may politely force a laugh to cover their embarrassment - but you can bet they will not repeating the "joke" later that night in the pub.
My advice still stands - very few people find what comes across as nastiness in the slightest bit funny. If it comes from someone who has already antagonised some members of his audience it's even worse.
Martin A
Thinking about it for a minute or two more, I think that smileys are best used (though I deprecate their use) to say "that comment was meant in a friendly way" - rather than "that was something you'd have found funny if only you had a sense of humour".
Martin A
Martin
Now you have done it! Smilies do indeed give the ability to make sure that an intended joke is not interpreted in the wrong way, something that is easy to do with a wink or a smile in dace to face conversation. However all smilies are able to "add" something in particular situations and I seriously dont believe anyone ever uses them just to help a bad joke look better (there are dozens of smilies, all with a different nuance).
Dung
I find that humour helps make life a little less sad. If you truly lack a sense of humour, I can only commiserate.
In deference to you, I wont sprinkle smiley around, but I will sign off with a smile when I'm teasing or joking; with a frown when I'm hacked off. Or mostly not at all.
☺BitBucket
BitBucket
How have things improved, I wonder ?
I have resolved to come off the fence and spend some time and resources attempting to shine a light at this sort of issue.
Now I am retired I cannot be sacked. That provides me with the freedom to seek the truth.
Iantanyrallt
BB:
By no means. Most of them have every interest in supporting the consensus so they can claim tens of billions of Western guilt dollars in climate 'mitigation' funds.
China, as a major developing industrial power, is an exception.
The Chinese government position is described in a book called Low Carbon Plot, by Gou Hongyang and, as it's freely available in China’s government-controlled bookstores, carries Beijing’s nihil obstat (seal of approval). The book notes:
It's not basic scientific research, but an examination of the economic and social impacts of the Western obsession with CO2 emissions.