Thanks, AK.

Back to the dire 11,000 'scientists' blot on the copybook of science as it once was. Here is a neat summary, and, if you have a bit more patience, a lively video highlighting this shoddy 'study' published in Bioscience: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/11/11000-scientists-just-kidding.php

'Actually, there was no study, there was just a press release. And it wasn’t 11,000 scientists, it was 11,000 random people who put their names on a web page. But today’s reporters are so biased and so incompetent that when it comes to “climate change,” they will swallow anything.'

By way of keeping the flickering candles of rationality alight, here is a quote from Richard Lindzen:
“The public discourse on global warming has little in common with the standards of scientific discourse. Rather, it is part of political discourse where comments are made to secure the political base and frighten the opposition rather than to illuminate issues. In political discourse, information is to be ‘spun’ to reinforce pre-existing beliefs, and to discourage opposition.”
For that quote, and others by this good man, see: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/quotations-of-the-day-on-climate-alarmism/

Oh when will it end?
When will the junk and the trashiness end?

Here is a new piece from Jim Steele, one of the good guys:

'Bad analyses cause bad remedies, and here is why Williams and Abatzoglou’s last paper exemplifies a bad scientific analysis. Analyzing changes in California’s burned areas from 1972 to 2018 they claimed, “The clearest link between California wildfires and anthropogenic climate change thus far, has been via warming-driven increases in atmospheric aridity, which works to dry fuels and promote summer forest fire.” But natural cycles of low rainfall due to La Niñas also cause dry fuels. The increase in burned area is also attributed to increases in human ignitions such as faulty electrical grids, to increased surface fuels from years of fire suppression, and to changes in vegetation that increased the abundance of easily ignited fine fuels like annual grasses. Furthermore, temperatures in some local regions experiencing the biggest fires have not been warming over the past 50 years (See temperature graphs in this essay’s last segment. Data from Western Regional Climate Center). All those factors promote rapid wildfire spread and greater burned areas. Although good science demands separating those contributing factors before analyzing a possible correlation between temperature and area burned, Williams and Abatzoglou oddly did not do so! That’s bad science.'

Jim ends his post, which is a complete dismantling of this new junk, with these comments:

'So, doing my best Greta Thunberg imitation, I say to climate alarmists, “How dare you misrepresent the causes of wildfires. How dare you imply less CO2 will reduce human ignitions and reduce surface fuels and the spread invasive grasses. Bad analyses lead to bad remedies! Your bad science is stealing Californian’s dreams and your false remedies distract us of from the real solutions. Young people and old alike, must demand better science and better journalism!”'

Read the whole thing here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/09/how-bad-science-horrific-journalism-misrepresent-wildfires-and-climate/

Here's a new one, to me at any rate. It shows the moral and intellectual corruption of magistrates in Cambridgeshire, and of a vandal, brought about by the climate scare propaganda:

'One of the perpetual criticisms of Western legal systems is that they apply one law to the rich and another to the poor. Magistrates in Cambridgeshire, England, recently did their best to substantiate this criticism. A woman named Angela Ditchfield, who had been a parliamentary candidate for the Green Party, was arrested for having defaced the offices of the county council by spray-painting them with symbols of “Extinction Rebellion,” the radical ecological movement whose demonstrations have brought chaos to London and elsewhere.

She was charged with criminal damage. Her defense was that, by so doing, she was defending her property (her house) from imminent damage caused by climate change. Astonishingly—and alarmingly—the magistrates accepted her defense and acquitted her. In delivering their judgment, the magistrates said:

We find that you have a very strong and honestly held belief that we are facing a climate emergency, that you acted on the spur of the moment to protect land and homes under threat from climate change, believing that immediate protection was necessary, and the action could be said to have been taken to protect property, and that you believed action chosen was reasonable in all circumstances.

The socially destructive effect of this judgment, if it were to be generalized, hardly needs emphasis. The judgment made honestly held belief, however absurd, a defense against what would otherwise be a criminal act, and it therefore made everyone a law unto himself. '

See https://www.city-journal.org/angela-ditchfield-aquitted-climate-change
and https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/01/extinction-rebellion-protester-cleared-criminal-damage-arguing/

AN OPEN LETTER TO GRETA THUNBERG: “You are not a moral leader. But I will tell you what you are.” “Yes, we have betrayed you: by capitulating the world of leadership to bored, attention-deficit children who spout bromides, platitudes and slogans that a rudderless and morally relativistic culture accepts because a significant number of its denizens have become intellectually bankrupt and morally lazy.”

Read this excellent letter in full here: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/open-letter-greta-thunberg-jason-d-hill/

(hat-tip: Instapundit)

Looks like we can add junk science about penguins to the long list of items in the scrapyards of 'climate scare science'.:

'Yet despite those obvious disruptions, and despite the growing and thickening sea ice, and despite the lack of any warming trend what so ever, the scientific literature is spammed and the public bombarded with more propaganda claiming climate change has put penguins in peril. A peril derived from how they imagined climate change had killed the DuDu penguins in the 1970s. Robert Bolton wrote, “A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses; it is an idea that possesses the mind” and catastrophic climate change is tragically possessing too many minds. To repeat LaRue’s advice, if we want to accurately conserve the species, we really need to know the basics. And basically, changing concentrations of CO2 have done absolutely nothing to hurt the Emperor Penguins.'

See: http://landscapesandcycles.net/resilient-emperor-penguin.html

and: http://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2019/10/chicken-littles-vs-adelie-penguins.html

Quite an 'amusing' summary of some of the recent moral and intellectual decadence of the climate scare industry::
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/16/treble-emergencies-all-round-go-easy-on-the-ice/

It is only amusing in a wry sense, because of course these people are a blot and a burden on society, a would-be barrier to progress for in particular the poorest of the world, and a threat to progress already hard-won elsewhere.

This too is a good post, well worthy of a mention in this haphazard archive of junk and deceit. This one is looking at a higher, more abstract level than that linked to in my previous comment, but it is just as worthy of your attention:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/16/climategate-and-post-normal-science/

Jerome Ravetz; 'The deeper problem for CAGW science is to show that there has been a sudden significant unprecedented rise in temperatures, over a long enough period to count as ‘climate change’ and not just cyclical variability. Removing the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age was essential for that programme. The very varied, uncertain and scattered field data did not really add up. And the models were exposed in 2000 as giving any prediction you liked, depending on the assumptions and conventions. The propaganda has always displayed anything warmer as evidence for climate change, and anything cooler as a temporary shift in the weather. After a while that loses plausibility.'

The trashy '11,000 scientists' may be even more shoddy and phony than you might have reasonably thought at the time when that cynical press release masquerading as a study escaped from its amoral handlers. A Japanese blogger found only five signatories giving themselves the title of 'climate scientist'. It is a badge of shame in some quarters, but it is so poorly defined that a huge range of people could claim it. More details here:
https://notrickszone.com/2019/11/17/japanese-analysis-of-11224-signatories-exposes-media-science-shamdeep-blow-to-credibility/

Future, as well as present observers of these peculiar ( I hope) times will be astonished at the depths climate scare pushers descend to.